2nd aorist indicative.
No. He is saying that he was exiled to Patmos (in the past) for his testimony. It is a causative statement.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question on source - Paul's testimony of heavenly visit
- Thread starter Genevanpreacher
- Start date
Perhaps I misread a few times where a post states that the Geneva Bible doesn't have John on Patmos when He was given the vision.
Here is a copy from the Geneva Bible 1599. GENEVA BIBLE 1599
"9 I John, even your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom
and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the
isle called Patmos, for the word of God,
and for the witnessing of Jesus Christ.
Again, if I misread, please just ignore this old man.
Here is a copy from the Geneva Bible 1599. GENEVA BIBLE 1599
"9 I John, even your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom
and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the
isle called Patmos, for the word of God,
and for the witnessing of Jesus Christ.
Again, if I misread, please just ignore this old man.
Not sure what you are try to point out here.
But verse 2 points out the vision as the past, because he obviously had the vision BEFORE he wrote it out.
"Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw."
All things that he 'saw'. That is past tense.
He had the vision, then later wrote the complete vision down.
Yep, John had the vision on Patmos, so that puts the writing at even a later date, because John wasn’t released from Patmos until the emperor died in 97-98AD.
John was on Patmos during the mid 90’s, most likely from about 95-6 to 97-8.
This was at least 30 years after both Paul and Peter deaths, and even much longer from the time of Paul’s statement concerning the man and vision.
To me, no, because, of whoever it was verse 4 says "...that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." Yet John not only uttered what he saw and heard, but was commanded to write it down.
Also the date of John’s stay on Patmos cannot be placed any earlier then the mid 90’s.
Patmos was not and is not even to this day some highly populated island.
It was, in the Roman Empire, a penal colony with a Roman garrison and populated primarily by the banished and held weakened by impoverishment, and the garrison families, slaves, concubines, ...
You might read the 1560 Geneva where it says this -
"...and heard words which can not be spoken, which are not possible for man to utter."
Not unlawful.
See my explanation a few posts back.
Thanks.
Maybe historical "timing" is not as accurate as plain ol' scripture.
Paul said he knew a man.
Paul knew a man. A whole separate man, which was not himself. A man who shared an experience with Paul. A wild sounding story. One which Paul thought should be impossible to come from the imagination of a man.
Why should the "simple" be so hard for men of God to accept?
Beats me.
Paul said he knew a man.
Paul knew a man. A whole separate man, which was not himself. A man who shared an experience with Paul. A wild sounding story. One which Paul thought should be impossible to come from the imagination of a man.
Why should the "simple" be so hard for men of God to accept?
Beats me.
To me it seems whether you take Geneva 1560:
Or Geneva 1599:
Or any number of translations:
it all comes out the same in the wash, whether it is not permitted, not lawful, or not possible to tell, how would John have been writing it down for everybody?
Interestingly, the note on II Cor. 12:4 in the 1560 Geneva at Archive.org says "Mans infirmitie was not able to declare them, neither were they shewed unto him for that end." "Or, lawful." [that is, or could be "not lawful" in place of "not possible".]
If you don't mind, could you give me the post number at which to look? I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Last edited:
Posts 75 and 76.
I'm late to the game but just saw this and I believe the context is clear and it has been for thousands of years. Do you ever wonder why you disagree with theologians? Maybe it is because your interpretation of Scripture is wrong.
Thanks.
I don't see anything there that explains how John uttered things that were not possible for man to utter.
I go with the plain sense of what the words actually say in the scriptures.
No interpreting.
It says what it says.
And what does it matter if all men believe it opposite of what the word of God says?
Does that make them right and those who believe God wrong?
Priorities folks.
You do realize there are more theologians that believe baptism is essential to salvation, right?
And they are wrong.
I go with the plain sense of what the words actually say in the scriptures.
No interpreting.
It says what it says.
And what does it matter if all men believe it opposite of what the word of God says?
Does that make them right and those who believe God wrong?
Priorities folks.
Yep - and it is very clear in the clear reading of Scripture that Paul is speaking of himself. I don't know why you don't see that.
Because some here have eyes to see it, and just choose to not, because 'some' scholars say it, that must make it 'so'.
Sad. So sad.