Pre-trib rapture

[dwmoeller1]

Not particularly intending to support any "side", per se, just showing the fairly obvious divisions in the chapter we are discussing.

No disagreements that there are 'divisions'. Its the particular divisions the EE gives that I am curious about.

That is not a quote, nevertheless you are kidding, right? Read the verse without any pre-conceived agenda, and the next verse, where Jesus says - Just as you know that summer is approaching when the fig tree sprouts, you will know that Jesus is Coming © "when you see all these things". What things? Obviously the things he has just been taklking about. And when this occurs, it is very near, "even at the doors!"

Just wanting to be clear on where you stood - some say that the passage clearly talks about AD70 and others the pretrib rapture. Again, no disagreements.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Webster defines polysyndeton as "using many conjunctions". As there are over 40 used in Matt. 24:1-35, I'd say that fits that bill, wouldn't you?

Ed

The Webster's I have says "repetition of conjunctions in close succession" (emphasis added).

Every grammar resource I can find that mentions it clarifies that the use of conjunctions is in 'close proximity'.

Regardless, in no case do any of them mention polysyndeton being used to seperate sections within long passage. Can you point me to a source which indicates this as a use of polysyndeton?

 

[EdSutton]

No disagreements that there are 'divisions'. Its the particular divisions the EE gives that I am curious about.

Just wanting to be clear on where you stood - some say that the passage clearly talks about AD70 and others the pretrib rapture. Again, no disagreements.

I've not studied all EdEdward's 'arguments' so I don't know exactly how he derives what he believes, and all his positions, or "divisions', any more than I know how you derive what you (dwmoeller1) believe, and all your positions, or "divisions'; I only know at how I get to where I am.

I am a firm believer in the pre-trib rapture. I merely do not rely on Matt. 24, alone or even particularly significantly for this position. Is Matt. 24 talking about either "AD70 or the pre-trib rapture"? Neither one, per se, for all this 'time period' spoken of, save possibly the "travail", is yet future when Jesus spoke. As we now look back historically (as opposed to hysterically ) we must ask "Does the history of what happened around AD70 fit all the criteria in the passage?" Not IMO, so I conclude this is not yet fulfilled completely. Hence, at least some of it remains to be yet fulfilled, assuming it is not all merely figurative language, which it does not seem to be, upon reading the passage.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

The Webster's I have says "repetition of conjunctions in close succession" (emphasis added).

Every grammar resource I can find that mentions it clarifies that the use of conjunctions is in 'close proximity'.

Regardless, in no case do any of them mention polysyndeton being used to seperate sections within long passage. Can you point me to a source which indicates this as a use of polysyndeton?

EdEdwards was right in one aspect, at least. And that is his usage of "polysyndeton", IMO. The NT is written entirely in Greek, hence the inherent meaning of "polysyndetos" would apply, here, as in the Greek language and grammar, and not the "English flavor" of the word, polysyndeton, which you have rightly noted contains the "in close succession" bit. The derivation is OK, but that is not the inherent Greek meaning, as I have given that previously. And as the NT was, once again, written in Greek, then Greek grammar 'rules' apply, not English.

Ed

 

[dwmoeller1]

polysyndton


dwmoeller1: //Like I keep saying: What does Scripture *SAY*.
In this pasage it says that the transformation is a mystery,
it does not say that the rapture (or its timing) is a mystery.//

I appologize that God didn't choose to put in
a verse built to your specifications.

You know, thats basically what the JWs who visit me say

Its not my specifications. I am relying heavily on established rules of interpretation. I you deny those as invalid, thats fine...although there would be little point in continuing out conversation. If you accept them as valid, then see my annoying demands as steering you back to using these established rules.

dwmoeller1: //So I ask again: What passage speaks
of the rapture as being a mystery?//

You didn't answer the question.

1. I wasn't trying to show 'incorrect' grammar.

2. Tee hee. Look, look, look - The Latin follows the Greek Grammar:
latin 'et' = English 'and'

Yeah. So what? What significance is that? What greek authority would say that an 'kai' at the beginning of a sentence is a disjunctive rather than conjunctive? What your English teacher says about grammar is irrelevant.

 

[dwmoeller1]

EdEdwards was right in one aspect, at least. And that is his usage of "polysyndeton", IMO. The NT is written entirely in Greek, hence the inherent meaning of "polysyndetos" would apply, here, as in the Greek language and grammar, and not the "English flavor" of the word, polysyndeton, which you have rightly noted contains the "in close succession" bit. The derivation is OK, but that is not the inherent Greek meaning, as I have given that previously. And as the NT was, once again, written in Greek, then Greek grammar 'rules' apply, not English.

The fact that it is greek wouldn't change the definition of what a polysyndeton is. It is a term used for a rhetorical device which used conjunctions in close succession (generally where they are not needed). This definition applies equally to greek and English.

But maybe you can refer me to a source in which an authority on greek argues otherwise. Unless you can point me to a source which says otherwise, just as a noun is a noun in both English and greek, the same is true of a polysyndeton. Grammar of the languages may not be the same, but a grammar term has the same basic meaning in both languages (or else they use something different - such as the aorist term in greek).

 

[dwmoeller1]

I am a firm believer in the pre-trib rapture. I merely do not rely on Matt. 24, alone or even particularly significantly for this position. Is Matt. 24 talking about either "AD70 or the pre-trib rapture"? Neither one, per se, for all this 'time period' spoken of, save possibly the "travail", is yet future when Jesus spoke. As we now look back historically (as opposed to hysterically ) we must ask "Does the history of what happened around AD70 fit all the criteria in the passage?" Not IMO, so I conclude this is not yet fulfilled completely. Hence, at least some of it remains to be yet fulfilled, assuming it is not all merely figurative language, which it does not seem to be, upon reading the passage.

I have no disagreement with you over Matt 24 then.

Are you interested in taking up my challenge?

 

[EdSutton]

..........

 

[EdSutton]

The fact that it is greek wouldn't change the definition of what a polysyndeton is. It is a term used for a rhetorical device which used conjunctions in close succession (generally where they are not needed). This definition applies equally to greek and English.

But maybe you can refer me to a source in which an authority on greek argues otherwise. Unless you can point me to a source which says otherwise, just as a noun is a noun in both English and greek, the same is true of a polysyndeton. Grammar of the languages may not be the same, but a grammar term has the same basic meaning in both languages (or else they use something different - such as the aorist term in greek).

"Polysyndeton" is English, and "applies" to English; "polysyndetos" (πολυςυνδητος) is Greek and "applies" to Greek. The Greek term does not carry the force of "in close succession", inherently in the word, itself, hence it is improper to 'demand' this be the case. (The Greek word is not found in Scripture, BTW, but that alone does not negate its inherent meaning of "using or having multiple connectives".)

And who are you, or I, or anyone else to decide these conjunctions are "generally where they are not needed" when the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to pen them in Scripture. It seems He and the writers decided they were 'needed', else they would not be there.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I have no disagreement with you over Matt 24 then.

Are you interested in taking up my challenge?

I'm not sure what the "challenge" is supposed to be.

Ed

 

[skypair]

Hey dw!

Now, starting from there, show your reasons, WITHOUT resorting to fallacy and using Scripture, for seeing the pretrib rapture in Scripture. Remember, I will not accept claims simply because you repeat them. Show where Scriptures *says* what you claim for it. Can you do that?

d-dub -- I feel as if you don't even realize that you are saying, "There is no evidence of the pretrib rapture in the NT that I will accept as pretrib." Do you not see yourself saying that?

Nevertheless, 1Thes 4 was written with the idea that the dead Thessalonians were going to miss the rapture -- not the tribulation. Don't you think that the Thessalonians would have been happy for the dead if they were going to miss the tribulation? But they are GRIEVING that the dead might miss the rapture -- to which Paul tells them that we will by no means precede them, Paul even saying, "Then WE which are alive and remain shall be caught up..."

Did you get that? WE! Paul, too! Were they in the tribulation already? No. Did Paul expect they were in "The Tribulation?" No -- look at 2Thes 1-2. Paul knows what to look for and he ain't seein' it! Yet he had said "'WE' ... shall be caught up..." from these people who "trouble you."

I mean, dw, this is the whole description of Paul on the subject. The problem appears to be that people today isolate the verses, dissect them, and throw the parts away that they don't like.

Where in Scripture is the rapture referred to as a mystery?

And where is the rapture called a mystery? 1Cor 15:51, d-dub. Your quibbling about "not all sleep" lacks sincerity, friend. We all know what the verse is talking about.

skypair

 

[dwmoeller1]

"Polysyndeton" is English, and "applies" to English; "polysyndetos" (πολυςυνδητος) is Greek and "applies" to Greek. The Greek term does not carry the force of "in close succession", inherently in the word, itself, hence it is improper to 'demand' this be the case. (The Greek word is not found in Scripture, BTW, but that alone does not negate its inherent meaning of "using or having multiple connectives".)

Sounds reasonable: two different, but related terms - polysyndeton vs. polysyndetos. Can you direct me to a source for this so I can verify?

Also, lets note that this is NOT what EE was arguing.

And who are you, or I, or anyone else to decide these conjunctions are "generally where they are not needed" when the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to pen them in Scripture. It seems He and the writers decided they were 'needed', else they would not be there.

Grammatically not needed. This, of course, does not mean that in terms of conveying meaning they are not needed.

 

[EdSutton]

Sounds reasonable: two different, but related terms - polysyndeton vs. polysyndetos. Can you direct me to a source for this so I can verify?

Webster's Dictionary should show the origin, and inherent meaning, at least ours does.

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

dwmoeller1: //What greek authority would say that
an 'kai' at the beginning of a sentence is
a disjunctive rather than conjunctive?//

No greek authority said that.
You said that -- need I say: wrongly?

You have misunderstood this nit* from the beginning.
And even if I'm wrong with this nit, I've present
thousands of points which you have overlooked.

*note: a 'nit' is the egg of a head lice

No matter what you call the use of 'kai' as the Greek
form of an outline (I'm happy calling it 'polysyndeton'),
one can make an outline of Chapter 24 of Matthew.
What are the answers to the questions the
disciples asked in Matthew 24:3? Jesus answered
directly in Matthew 24:4-44 (and in Matthew 24:45
through Matthew 25, by parable).

dwmoeller1: //So I ask again: What passage speaks
of the rapture as being a mystery?//

dwmoeller1: //You didn't answer the question.//

Actually I did answer the question. You did not receive the answer.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Webster's Dictionary should show the origin, and inherent meaning, at least ours does.

Ed

?? But Webster's doesn't deal with greek grammar. What source indicates that this term applied to the greek has the more limited meaning that you give?

You aren't simply putting root words together to create a greek definition are you?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Webster's Dictionary should show the origin, and inherent meaning, at least ours does.

Ed

Ok, lets make this simple. You are making claims about greek grammar and grammar terms. Do you have any sources which are authorities in the greek language which will back up your claims?

 

[dwmoeller1]

And where is the rapture called a mystery? 1Cor 15:51, d-dub. Your quibbling about "not all sleep" lacks sincerity, friend. We all know what the verse is talking about.

When the passage says "we will not all sleep, but we shall all be changed", would you agree with me that it is speaking specifically of the transformation of our bodies?

 

[dwmoeller1]

dwmoeller1: //What greek authority would say that
an 'kai' at the beginning of a sentence is
a disjunctive rather than conjunctive?//

No greek authority said that.
You said that -- need I say: wrongly?

You have misunderstood this nit* from the beginning.
And even if I'm wrong with this nit, I've present
thousands of points which you have overlooked.

A nit? This 'nit' was the whole basis for your contextual argument. Your contexutal argument was based on the 'And' at the beginning of vs 31 being a 'polysyndeton'.

But you say I claim wrongly. So we will start over:
You assert that the contextual reason you are confident of the split in vs. 31 is because of the 'kai' at the beginning of the verse. You say that it is a polysyndeton. You argue that a polysyndeton functions in the way a new heading of an outline would.

Any inaccuracies in my restatement of your position so far?

No matter what you call the use of 'kai' as the Greek
form of an outline (I'm happy calling it 'polysyndeton'),
one can make an outline of Chapter 24 of Matthew.
What are the answers to the questions the
disciples asked in Matthew 24:3? Jesus answered
directly in Matthew 24:4-44 (and in Matthew 24:45
through Matthew 25, by parable).

Ok, are there any sources (ie. authorities in the greek language) you can point me to which would support your claims for 'kai'?

dwmoeller1: //So I ask again: What passage speaks
of the rapture as being a mystery?//

dwmoeller1: //You didn't answer the question.//

Actually I did answer the question. You did not receive the answer.

How did I 'not receive the answer'? Are you referring to my analysis of the verse? If so, please show where I was in error.

 

[skypair]

When the passage says "we will not all sleep, but we shall all be changed", would you agree with me that it is speaking specifically of the transformation of our bodies?

Sure! to the final glorified state, right? Not just taken out of the ground to the earth. That's resurrection whereas the rapture is a specific resurrection -- changed to "celestial glory." Able to live in heaven, not just on earth.

Versus look at Ezek 37:12-14, Isa 26:19-21, Job 10:25-28, Dan 12:2, Psa 50:3-5. These are all the resurrection to earth seen in the OT and, therefore, NOT mysteries. This is the distinction I believe Paul is making in that he calls the "change" a "mystery."

What were your comments about 1Thes 4-5 and 2Thes 1-2? I hope you will study them and answer.

skypair

 

[EdSutton]

?? But Webster's doesn't deal with greek grammar. What source indicates that this term applied to the greek has the more limited meaning that you give?

You aren't simply putting root words together to create a greek definition are you?

Language Cop, here! (alter-ego of EdSutton)

FTR, you have offered no source of "Greek authority" to indicate your take is superior to that of Ed or t'other Ed, other than cite some unknown, unsupported, and 'unnamed' 'collective' of

"Every grammar resource I can find that mentions it..." and "Its not my specifications. I am relying heavily on established rules of interpretation."

without citing any (I, personally, refuse to knuckle under to some ethereal "weight of scholarship", absent evidence.), but that is beside the point, I guess.

Webster's doesn't even deal with English grammar, per se, only incidentally, and tangentially, as it gives a definition or definitions of a word, let alone Greek grammar.

But that in no way negates the definition of the Greek word. And as the Greek language is not spoken by me, and is not of any particular importance to me, save the koine Greek of the NT, I only have a couple of lexicons, namely Thayer's and Wigram's. And I have a couple of grammars from Bible College that are somewhere, I think, but I could not find them very easily, having since moved, even if it were necessary. So I am at the 'mercy' of others, here.

I will give the complete text found in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977 Edition, as well as I can reproduce it on the computer (I'm no computer 'whiz', in being able to do about anything with it, unlike my bride). Note the English definition starts after the colon.

poly.syn.de.ton \-'sin-d&- itan\ n. [NL, fr. LGk, neut. of polysyndetos using many conjunctions, fr. Gk poly- + syndetos bound together, conjunctive -- more atASYNDETON] : repetition of conjunctions in close succession (as in we have ships and men and money and stores)

The fact that this compound word comes from Later Greek means that Scriptures predates the word, and the attempt to antedate Scripture by retroactively applying this more limited (English) definition is faulty methodology, at best.

Signed, Language Cop