Dake Bible Discussion BoardA Future Millennium

General Discussion Forum devoted to the study of God's Word in Honor of Finis J. Dake.
Post Reply
User avatar
macca
Tarry Until Ye Be Endued With Power From On High
Posts: 738
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:37 am
Location: australia

Re: A Future Millennium

Post by macca »

I love this discussion.

Macca



User avatar
Justaned
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 1938
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:19 pm

Re: A Future Millennium

Post by Justaned »

fatherfisher wrote:Just a quick follow-up.

To see what I'm trying to say about the misunderstanding of Strong's comment about "plural of uncertain affinity" (it is NOT his definition, but his explanation of use and/or origin of words) see Strong's number 2537, the Greek word 'kainos'. It is also "of uncertain affinity", meaning he could not trace it's origin (etymology).

There are many words in Strong's concordance labeled "of uncertain affinity". This statement has nothing to do with "duration of time", or the definition of any Greek words whether in Revelation 20 or anywhere else. It has to do with words having an unknown pedigree, so to speak.
Let me ask if there is not problem with this word's definition, origin (etmology), pedigree then why the declaration of "of uncertain affinity"? Aren't these are the reasons you are saying that Stong's place this connotation after the word?

Is it not true that if I was doing a reverse translation of this would use the term Chilia Ete as is done by reverse interlinears?

Incidentally I believe I was saying since 2008 you can not use Strong's concordance to select a definition for a word. I hope now that Fatherfisher has said it the practice will halt.



User avatar
macca
Tarry Until Ye Be Endued With Power From On High
Posts: 738
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:37 am
Location: australia

Re: A Future Millennium

Post by macca »

Can i use Young's? :mrgreen:

Macca



Ray

Re: A Future Millennium

Post by Ray »

fatherfisher wrote:Ray,

In your attempt to understand Greek without knowing Greek, and relying on dictionary definitions you seem to be only selecting the one that you want to agree with your preconceived viewpoint. Because in fact, NO GREEK LEXICON LIMITS THE WORD 'hemera' TO A 24-HR. DAY!!!

You are mistaken about both of those verses I gave you; they don't refer to a 24-hour day.

But rather than argue with you about that, let me try ones that may be easier for you to see:

John 8.56 - "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad"
Acts 2.20 - the "day of the Lord" (which the Bible repeatedly shows is not just a single 24 hour day);
Eph 6.13 - "Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day";
James 5.5 "You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter".

I could continue, but you see my point (hopefully). It is perfectly evident that the Greek word is not restricted to a single, 24-hr. day. No Greek dictionary suggests that the word can only refer to a 24-hr. day. The only people I have ever known who have tried to insist that is the case are people who are amillennial. And their claim simply falls to the ground when the facts are checked.
Brother Fisher,

above you wrote:
"In your attempt to understand Greek without knowing Greek, and relying on dictionary definitions you seem to be only selecting the one that you want to agree with your preconceived viewpoint. Because in fact, NO GREEK LEXICON LIMITS THE WORD 'hemera' TO A 24-HR. DAY!!!"

also:
"the Greek word is not restricted to a single, 24-hr. day. No Greek dictionary suggests that the word can only refer to a 24-hr. day."

As one of the definitions given by greek scholar James Strong for the "last day"
escatos hemera found in Jn 6:39,40,44,54, Jn 11:24 & 12:48

* of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom



Ray

Re: A Future Millennium

Post by Ray »

A.T. Robertson was a world-renowned authority on the Greek New Testament who made his mark as a scholar, preacher, teacher and prolific writer. He wrote forty-five volumes of scholastic and popular publications including a Harmony of the Gospels and Grammer of the Greek new Testament in the Light of Historical Research.
A. T. Robertson at the last day mentioned in the Gospel of John states here this means the day of judgement CHRIST is the agent of the general resurrection. He refers to John 5:28 Jesus claims the power to bring the dead to life at the last day, then there will be a general judgement and a general bodily resurrection of both the good and bad. I Cor. 15:22 shall be made alive. This is the greek verv zoopoieo here to restore to life, meaning general ressurection. Some to eternal life or salvation, others to judgement.



stand
John
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: A Future Millennium

Post by stand »

Ray wrote:
Reuben wrote:
The view I have come to, after much Study and Prayer is that the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 is a symbolic number, not a literal description; that the millennium has already begun and is identical with the current church age. I Believe that while Our LORD JESUS' reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature being governed by HIS HOLY SPIRT.
Revelation 20:1-3 (KJV)
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

According to what you have stated above: you believe that the devil is currently bound in this church age?
Brother Reuben,
YES.
Now, could you Please answer this question:

If there is sin of mankind during a future "millennium" what is satan bound from doing??? What is the result of satan being bound??
My guess is at the final judgement before the hits throne. Sinful men will argue with God that the sinned because God let satan around to tempt them. So God remove satan for a period to prove human sins even without satan.



titus213
Do Good to Them that Hate You
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:45 pm

Re: A Future Millennium

Post by titus213 »

Ray quotes me as saying:

"In your attempt to understand Greek without knowing Greek, and relying on dictionary definitions you seem to be only selecting the one that you want to agree with your preconceived viewpoint. Because in fact, NO GREEK LEXICON LIMITS THE WORD 'hemera' TO A 24-HR. DAY!!!"

also:

"the Greek word is not restricted to a single, 24-hr. day. No Greek dictionary suggests that the word can only refer to a 24-hr. day."


And then Ray comments:

As one of the definitions given by Greek scholar James Strong for the "last day"
escatos hemera found in Jn 6:39,40,44,54, Jn 11:24 & 12:48

* of the last day of this present age, the day Christ will return from heaven, raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and perfect his kingdom


Ray,

The original statement you made was that the Greek word for “day” – the word “hemera” – always refers to a 24-hr. day. I said you were wrong. You are wrong, as anyone using any Greek lexicon can readily see.

Now you come along and quote James Strong’s interpretation of the phrase “last day” in John 5. That has nothing to do with your original claim, that the word “day” in Greek can only mean a 24-hr. day. But that is not the point you were making. And in fact, in his concordance Strong does not say the Greek word “hemera” means a 24-hr. day. He gives several possible meanings for the Greek word “hemera”, not limiting it to a 24-hr. day, just as I said.

You then go on to cite A.T. Robertson, who was indeed a great Greek scholar as you say. It is true that he believed in a so-called “general” resurrection. It is not true that he suggested the Greek verb “zoopoieo” means general resurrection. He knew better. The verb doesn’t mean that, as (once again) anyone can discover by checking any Greek lexicon or even Robertson's own book of word studies.

His opinion about a so-called “general” resurrection is contradicted by other highly regarded Greek experts, so it is interesting merely as one scholar’s personal opinion. My guess is that he was post-millennial, given the times in which he lived. One can find language experts holding to all the current millennial viewpoints, including postmil, amil, and premil. Which goes to show that the language itself apparently isn’t the sole determining factor in arriving at a viewpoint regarding the millennium.
Last edited by titus213 on Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.



titus213
Do Good to Them that Hate You
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:45 pm

Re: A Future Millennium

Post by titus213 »

Justaned asked,

Let me ask if there is not problem with this word's definition, origin (etymology), pedigree then why the declaration of "of uncertain affinity"? Aren't these are the reasons you are saying that Strong’s place this connotation after the word?



It isn’t a connotation; it’s a comment about the origin or derivation of the word. He uses the phrase "plural of uncertain affinity" to describe the word's origin, not its connotation. The connotation Strong gives is "a thousand". There is no problem with the word. Many Greek words are "of uncertain affinity" because we don’t know what the original root words may have been.

Think of it this way: when we look up a word in an English dictionary, before the definitions are given, we are often told the derivation of the word. For instance, if you look up the English word "Bible" in a dictionary you may be told that it's origin is from the Middle English word "bibel" and the Medieval Latin word "biblia". These are not connotations or definitions; they are giving you information about the roots of the word, its origin.

In the same way for the word "chilioi" Strong could not give a known affinity (connection) to other Greek root words. So he says "of unknown affinity". That is not the meaning of the word; it is not the definition of the word. Strong is not attempting to say "this word means of unknown affinity" (whatever that would mean!). He is saying "this word has no original root that we can trace. Its origin is unknown". The same as he says for many other words in his concordance.



User avatar
Justaned
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 1938
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:19 pm

Re: A Future Millennium

Post by Justaned »

fatherfisher wrote: Justaned asked,

Let me ask if there is not problem with this word's definition, origin (etymology), pedigree then why the declaration of "of uncertain affinity"? Aren't these are the reasons you are saying that Strong’s place this connotation after the word?



It isn’t a connotation; it’s a comment about the origin or derivation of the word. He uses the phrase "plural of uncertain affinity" to describe the word's origin, not its connotation. The connotation Strong gives is "a thousand". There is no problem with the word. Many Greek words are "of uncertain affinity" because we don’t know what the original root words may have been.

Think of it this way: when we look up a word in an English dictionary, before the definitions are given, we are often told the derivation of the word. For instance, if you look up the English word "Bible" in a dictionary you may be told that it's origin is from the Middle English word "bibel" and the Medieval Latin word "biblia". These are not connotations or definitions; they are giving you information about the roots of the word, its origin.

In the same way for the word "chilioi" Strong could not give a known affinity (connection) to other Greek root words. So he says "of unknown affinity". That is not the meaning of the word; it is not the definition of the word. Strong is not attempting to say "this word means of unknown affinity" (whatever that would mean!). He is saying "this word has no original root that we can trace. Its origin is unknown". The same as he says for many other words in his concordance.
FatherFisher
I apologize I was trying to write the post you reference very quickly and I did a terrible job. You are totally correct the Strong use of the term "of unknown affinity" is saying we don't know it's root.

I also think we both agree that Strong's definitions and comments are debated by other language experts as is nearly any author or expert.

But because we do not know the actual root we can't say definitively that the word that is the root for Chilioi was never used in Koine Greek to signify a long time nor that Chilioi itself was never used in manuscript that we have not yet found.

However we keep skipping over my question is there a better way to say and mean one thousand years (1000)?
In the received text from which the KJV is "translated" this passage is
Xilia Eth
If we do a Strongs lookup we find the words are
Chilioi Etos
Yet if we go to a reverse interlinear or interlinear they commonly use the words
Chilia Ete

I'm of the belief that Chilia Ete is a very percise way to say or mean one thousand years. Again I don't claim to be an expert but the exact meaning of this passage has been in question ever since the early church.

Xila eth is even lesser explored rendering and could in fact be talking of a long period of time rather than specific one thousand years.



titus213
Do Good to Them that Hate You
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:45 pm

Re: A Future Millennium

Post by titus213 »

All the critical Greek texts have chilia eth

Chilioi and Chilia are the same Greek word; it’s just that one is a masculine plural, the other is neuter plural, so they have corresponding endings. When used by itself, the Greek word means one thousand. When used as an adjective, it has to be the same gender as the noun it modifies (“years” in this case). But the word always means one thousand.

I have seen where some people have tried to argue that “chilioi” is the plural form of “chilia”, and should therefore be translated “thousands” and not “thousand”, but they are mistaken. Both words are plural and are different only because of the gender of the noun they modify. So chilioi (masculine plural) or chilia (neuter plural) makes no difference, they both mean a thousand.

You can see this in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible done before the birth of Christ by Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt):

2 Samuel 19:18 refers to “a thousand men” brought from Benjamin and uses chilioi

Psalm 90:4 refers to “a thousand years” and uses chilia

Xila eth is even lesser explored rendering and could in fact be talking of a long period of time rather than specific one thousand years.

Nope. As far as the Greek goes, it could not mean anything other than a thousand years.

If John had wanted to express something larger than a thousand, or some indefinite large number, there are other words in Greek which he could have used, as he did in Revelation 5 when describing the number of angels around the throne.



Post Reply