Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ A Future Millennium

[titus213]

Let me ask this question, based on your knowledge of Greek and to the best of your understanding if you were writing this passage and wanted to insure there would never be any misunderstandings and you were expressing an exact 1000 year period would you use the same words in the same sentence structure?

Or would you have used a different wording forming a different sentence structure more in tune with existing laws of the Greek language as you know them today?

If I were writing the passage for Greek-speaking people of the apostle John's time, and wanted to express an exact 1000 year period of literal years, I would use the same phrase John used. The battle is literal; the taking of the Beast and the False Prophet is literal; the slaying of the kings and their armies is literal; Satan is literal; and his binding is literal. In such a context, if I wanted to express a literal 1000 years, I would write "a thousand years". If I wanted to express long duration, I would choose another word (as John does when he uses the word 'aion' later in Rev. 20.10).

I don't know how I would change the wording if I were writing in modern Greek because I don't know modern Greek. My hunch is that if a modern Greek person were writing to a friend and wanted to express a literal thousand years, he would still do it the same way. But as you have pointed out, modern Greek is not the same as Koine Greek (or even Classical Greek), so I don't know. My father-in law once told me it would be something like "chilia chronia" in modern Greek. You will notice that if he was right, it isn't the word "thousand" which changes, but the word for "years".

[Justaned]

Let me ask this question, based on your knowledge of Greek and to the best of your understanding if you were writing this passage and wanted to insure there would never be any misunderstandings and you were expressing an exact 1000 year period would you use the same words in the same sentence structure?

Or would you have used a different wording forming a different sentence structure more in tune with existing laws of the Greek language as you know them today?

If I were writing the passage for Greek-speaking people of the apostle John's time, and wanted to express an exact 1000 year period of literal years, I would use the same phrase John used. The battle is literal; the taking of the Beast and the False Prophet is literal; the slaying of the kings and their armies is literal; Satan is literal; and his binding is literal. In such a context, if I wanted to express a literal 1000 years, I would write "a thousand years". If I wanted to express long duration, I would choose another word (as John does when he uses the word 'aion' later in Rev. 20.10).

I don't know how I would change the wording if I were writing in modern Greek because I don't know modern Greek. My hunch is that if a modern Greek person were writing to a friend and wanted to express a literal thousand years, he would still do it the same way. But as you have pointed out, modern Greek is not the same as Koine Greek (or even Classical Greek), so I don't know. My father-in law once told me it would be something like "chilia chronia" in modern Greek. You will notice that if he was right, it isn't the word "thousand" which changes, but the word for "years".

Interesting you are the only one that has ever answered that question that way. I'm sure you know many "experts" in the Greek do disagree with your position. While I'm certainly not any expert I have been told had this passage been stated another way there would be no question today either way.

[scottae316]

Yes, I believe I mentioned the other day that having studied Greek for 7 years, I also taught it for 3 years at college level. That certainly doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I have at least enough familiarity with the language to know that there's more to interpreting it than looking up individual words in a lexicon.

Sorry, I missed the information about your knowledge and experience of Greek in your other post. I am glad that someone else here understands that looking up something with a Strong's number is not understanding and knowing Greek.

[titus213]

Interesting you are the only one that has ever answered that question that way. I'm sure you know many "experts" in the Greek do disagree with your position. While I'm certainly not any expert I have been told had this passage been stated another way there would be no question today either way.

I know there are many who disagree with my position as to premil, but I have never had anyone who knows Greek try to argue that the words themselves, especially the word "thousand", cannot be taken literally in Rev. 20 (and some of my Greek profs were amil).

The same word occurs in Rev. 11 and 14 and I don't hear anyone trying to fudge on what "thousand" means there.
It seems odd to me that if Stephen could refer to four hundred years in Acts 7 and no one flinches, it suddenly becomes a problem as soon as you add 600 more years.
I understand and respect those who say they take ALL the numeric references in the Book of Revelation symbolically, including the reference to the thousand years in chapter 20; but to try to make a case for the Greek term requiring a non-literal meaning by definition just doesn't fly.

[Justaned]

FatherFisher
1.Let us step back a little and discuss Koine Greek. Is there any existing manuscripts that give us the language laws of Koine Greek as learned by the people of the day?

2.Is there any existing ancient dictionaries, if you will, written at this time that we now have that give the understood definition of Koine Greek?

3.Is it not true the Koine Greek has many dialects where words were handled differently?

4.In its purest form does not the word Chilioi means undefined but long length of time?

5.Is it not true that the translators of the Koine Greek manuscripts or should I say those that gave us an understanding of the Greek. Works done by Nestle and Aland Novum Testamentum Graece to be specific worked with a bias already in place on the translation of some Koine Greek Words since there was not existing ancient dictionary that gave the actual definition?

My understanding to these question is this.

1. No there is nothing that exists as such. What we do have was pieced together using our understanding of Koine Greek which was established by piecing together manuscripts and using the accumulated knowledge to build our existing law of Koine Language.

2.There are no existing ancient dictionaries or grammar manuscripts. what we have is believed to be very accurate but discrepancies do exist.

3. Koine is thought to have many dialects and any time there has been a confusion or discrepancies found in tranlation it was explained away as a dialect or regional use of the word not considered the norm.

4.Chilioi standing alone and in its purest forum does mean an undefined long period of time. But admittely context does and must be considered along with the constructed from research rules of Koine Greek that were established to "properly" handle the greek.

5.Yes religious and social bias was known to play a factor in works like Nestle and Aland's translation. This fact becomes very evident when viewed in dispute between the proponents of the Received Text and all other works now used in translation.

I am told that had this passage been written differently using a different sentence construction which included different words this discussion would not be taking place. That the period of time would be without question 1000 years. I'm no language expert so I can not tell you how it would be more clearly stated but I believe the way it was written still brings the translation of exactly 1000 years into question.

[titus213]

1. Let us step back a little and discuss Koine Greek. Is there any existing manuscripts that give us the language laws of Koine Greek as learned by the people of the day?

Answer: If you mean are there books on Greek grammar still in existence from the first century? The answer is no, I am not aware of any. As with any dead language, our understanding grammar is figured out by studying the use of the language.

2.Is there any existing ancient dictionaries, if you will, written at this time that we now have that give the understood definition of Koine Greek?

Answer: Yes. I believe the oldest known Greek lexicon still in existence was written around 150 BC. But the language was well known and widely used for several centuries BC. The translators of the Septuagint must have had language tools and an understanding of Koine grammar to be able to translate from Hebrew into the Greek.

3.Is it not true the Koine Greek has many dialects where words were handled differently?

Answer: No. Koine was the international "common" (koine) dialect throughout the world. Differences had to do with pronunciation, but not meanings of words.

4.In its purest form does not the word Chilioi means undefined but long length of time?

Answer: No. The word is an adjective. There is no "purest form". It means “a thousand”.

5.Is it not true that the translators of the Koine Greek manuscripts or should I say those that gave us an understanding of the Greek. Works done by Nestle and Aland Novum Testamentum Graece to be specific worked with a bias already in place on the translation of some Koine Greek Words since there was not existing ancient dictionary that gave the actual definition?

Answer: No, it isn’t true. There were plenty of Greek dictionaries at the time of Nestle and Aland. And their bias would certainly not have been toward millennialism to begin with.

[Justaned]

1. Let us step back a little and discuss Koine Greek. Is there any existing manuscripts that give us the language laws of Koine Greek as learned by the people of the day?

Answer: If you mean are there books on Greek grammar still in existence from the first century? The answer is no, I am not aware of any. As with any dead language, our understanding grammar is figured out by studying the use of the language.

I think that is a fair answer.

2.Is there any existing ancient dictionaries, if you will, written at this time that we now have that give the understood definition of Koine Greek?

Answer: Yes. I believe the oldest known Greek lexicon still in existence was written around 150 BC. But the language was well known and widely used for several centuries BC. The translators of the Septuagint must have had language tools and an understanding of Koine grammar to be able to translate from Hebrew into the Greek.

If that was as clear cut as you make it sound why do we use the method we both agree with in question 1 to acquire our understanding of the Koine Greek.

3.Is it not true the Koine Greek has many dialects where words were handled differently?

Answer: No. Koine was the international "common" (koine) dialect throughout the world. Differences had to do with pronunciation, but not meanings of words.

I disagree some words are in debate and have been in debate and basically the differences of opinion are said to exist because of dialect and regional usage

4.In its purest form does not the word Chilioi means undefined but long length of time?

Answer: No. The word is an adjective. There is no "purest form". It means “a thousand”.

Then where did the definition plural of uncertain affinity come from?

Is it not true that the translators of the Koine Greek manuscripts or should I say those that gave us an understanding of the Greek. Works done by Nestle and Aland Novum Testamentum Graece to be specific worked with a bias already in place on the translation of some Koine Greek Words since there was not existing ancient dictionary that gave the actual definition?

Answer: No, it isn’t true. There were plenty of Greek dictionaries at the time of Nestle and Aland. And their bias would certainly not have been toward millennialism to begin with.

Oh come on there has been an on going debate/objection/fight between the Textus Receptus, the Nestle Aland, Westcott Hort, and Erasmus people since any work after Erasmus was produced. Charges range from typographical errors, conflicts within manuscripts to outright religious bias. The arguement over Byzantine and Alexandering texts focuses on religious bias. To deny there isn't a religious bias conflict over these translations is unfair.

The debate between Millenniumism and Amillenniumism has been on going since the early church. To suggest that religious bias hasn't effected the interpretation of the Greek in this passage is without merit.

[Justaned]

Let me add to my above comments that in all fairness to FatherFisher I don't believe religious bias ever effected the definitions of words, however word usage and sentence structure and thus understanding has been effected by religious bias.

I think the words used are Chilioi Etos however if it was instead Chilia Ete there would be no question to it's meaning.

I believe in the Received Text it was rendered Xilia Eth

The Vulgate renders it annos mille which leaves no question that it was 1000 years yet the Catholic church says it is to be understood allegorically.

Go figure.

The point is I don't think this is a cut and dried as many believe.

[titus213]

If that was as clear cut as you make it sound why do we use the method we both agree with in question 1 to acquire our understanding of the Koine Greek.

Well, I suppose because the existence of ancient Greek lexicons does not help with grammar. There is no debate that the language was already in wide use by the time of Christ, or that the Septuagint translators knew it well enough to convert the OT scriptures into Greek. However, as with any dead language, by virtue of no longer being, used modern day grammarians had to deduce the rules based on a study of the language. This isn't rocket science, and isn't at all unusual.

I disagree some words are in debate and have been in debate and basically the differences of opinion are said to exist because of dialect and regional usage

You are wrong.

Then where did the definition plural of uncertain affinity come from?

It comes from a rather odd misunderstanding of how to use Strong's famous concordance! The statement he makes about the word is NOT his definition for it; it his explanation of how the word is used: it is a plural (not singular) and is "of uncertain affinity" because even though plural, it is not translated as a plural but as a singular: in other words, we don't say "a thousands of years" but "a thousand years". So even Strong does not give the DEFINITION "plural of uncertain affinity". He simply states that it is uncertain as to why Greek uses a plural for a word which means a singular "one thousand". Those who think he is giving that as his definition don't know how to use his concordance.

Anyone can check any of the standard Greek lexicons: Liddell-Scott-Jones,Thayer, Abbott- Scott, BDAG, and Louw & Nida. None of them give any other definition for the word than "a thousand". And as I have explained, Strong did not give an different defintion, either. His simple comment about the unusual grammatical form of the word has, apparently, been widely misunderstood by people who don't know much about Greek.

Oh come on there has been an on going debate/objection/fight between the Textus Receptus, the Nestle Aland, Westcott Hort, and Erasmus people since any work after Erasmus was produced. Charges range from typographical errors, conflicts within manuscripts to outright religious bias. The arguement over Byzantine and Alexandering texts focuses on religious bias. To deny there isn't a religious bias conflict over these translations is unfair.

OK, but that isn't the question you asked about is it? You weren't asking about manuscript differences at all.

The debate between Millenniumism and Amillenniumism has been on going since the early church. To suggest that religious bias hasn't effected the interpretation of the Greek in this passage is without merit.

I agree. Which is why I would never have suggested such a thing. The INTERPRETATION of the Greek certainly is impacted by religious bias . . . but the DEFINITION of the Greek has not been part of the debate. I have many amil friends. None of them has ever suggested that "a thousand years" should be translated as "a long period of uncertain duration". They understand (fortunately) that the Greek means "a thousand years". What they will argue about is whether the thousand years should be taken as a figure of speech. But they don't deny that it says "a thousand years".

It seems like a real desperation move if the hyper- preterist/amil folks are having to take their misunderstanding of one man's comment in his concordance and make that a major point in their "proof".

[titus213]

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.