|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Antichrist - 6/5/2010 10:51:19 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 346
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Retrobyter
Shalom, NotreDame.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
quote:
ORIGINAL: Retrobyter
Shalom, NotreDame.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
Those rules do not preclude Daniel from referring to someone other than Messiah the Prince with the word "he" in verse 27, and I am not talking about or referring to the phrase "people of the prince" but I am stating the word "he" in verse 27 may not be referring to any subject in the preceding verses. Rather, I am stating the word "he" in verse 27 may be referring to some other individual, a person other than the Messiah and any subject matter discussed in the preceding verses.
Do you get this?
Sure! Those rules do not preclude Dani'el from referring to someone other than Messiah the Prince with the word "he" in verse 27 ... IF DANI'EL WAS A MORON!!! (I don't think so.) ONE DOES NOT NORMALLY USE A PRONOUN WITHOUT FIRST IDENTIFYING THE ANTECEDENT!!!
You remind me of a Dilbert comic! "My name is Ron but everyone calls me Moe. I don't know why."
In the MESSIAH'S love, 'cause I give up!
Roy
P.S. I've put people on "ignore" for less.
Daniel does not have to be an idiot to use the word "he" and there is no rule there MUST BE an antecedent for the word "he" to refer before the word "he" may be used. This is the problem of your argument. You attempted to find such a rule but did not. You identified what is to "normally" be done but this is probelmatic because the norm is not always followed and not adhering to the norm is not the equivalent of being an idiot or a moron.
While it is perhaps not the norm to use a pronoun in isolation without an antecedent subject to refer to, it is not a proverbial "do not ever do" in grammar, a concept you fail to graps but certainly do not hesitate to characterize the grammar rule this way.
I really could not care less if you ignored people for less. The problem here is you, not me. You are blabbing on about what you characterize as absolute rules of grammar when the rule you cite is anything but absolute and it is not taboo or wrong for people to not follow the rule of grammar you cite. There is does not exist any rule of grammar making my idea impermissible. Now, if you want to arrogantly baptize this grammar rule with the shroud of absoluteness as you do here, and then blame the other person for not believing in your baloney, then so be it.
In all honesty, the problem is not about you or me. The challenge (not a "problem") is to understand why the Hebrew verbs in verse 27 would not have a subject. The antecedent challenge is strictly in English after translation. The challenge in Hebrew is that you would have verbs without subject(s). Why would one expect that? It makes no sense! The solution is simple: The subject is the Messiah!
But, you know what? You believe what you will, because you will believe what you want to believe anyway. At least you've been introduced to the theory. Do with it what you will. Someday, maybe the theory will make sense to you.
In the Messiah's love,
Roy
Do me a favor, do not greet me with peace and then personally insult and flame me. It is disingenious and makes the greeting of peace nothing more than a facade, a joke.
quote:
Brother! You sure have a way with being ridiculous. You're right; there's no such rule that one HAS to have an antecedent for a pronoun, but GOOD LUCK being understood! I'm not citing these rules as absolutes; I know that when it comes to grammar, many people take GREAT liberties! With today's texting and impatience in communication, we're lucky to have ANY semblance of grammar left! See, having an antecedent for a pronoun really doesn't fall under grammar rules; it falls under common sense in communication! (Oh, and by the way, I didn't even LOOK for such a rule. Who would?)
This is fantastic. So your all caps remark of giving me rules was nothing more than a facade, a false post, in which no rule existed, as I previously noted. Thanks. You could have saved youself some time, and myself, by just confessing no such rule existed and saved the charade.
quote:
The challenge (not a "problem") is to understand why the Hebrew verbs in verse 27 would not have a subject.
Verse 27 from the book of Daniel does have a subject, even when read in isolation from the preceding verses.
quote:
The antecedent challenge is strictly in English after translation. The challenge in Hebrew is that you would have verbs without subject(s). Why would one expect that? It makes no sense! The solution is simple: The subject is the Messiah!
Does verse 27 have verbs without subjects? I do not think this is the case, which is to say your characterization of verse 27 is not accurate.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Antichrist - 6/9/2010 11:21:48 PM
|
|
|
Retrobyter
Posts: 812
Joined: 8/23/2007
From: Florida
Status: offline
|
Shalom, NotreDame.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
quote:
ORIGINAL: Retrobyter
Shalom, NotreDame.
In all honesty, the problem is not about you or me. The challenge (not a "problem") is to understand why the Hebrew verbs in verse 27 would not have a subject. The antecedent challenge is strictly in English after translation. The challenge in Hebrew is that you would have verbs without subject(s). Why would one expect that? It makes no sense! The solution is simple: The subject is the Messiah!
But, you know what? You believe what you will, because you will believe what you want to believe anyway. At least you've been introduced to the theory. Do with it what you will. Someday, maybe the theory will make sense to you.
In the Messiah's love,
Roy
Do me a favor, do not greet me with peace and then personally insult and flame me. It is disingenious and makes the greeting of peace nothing more than a facade, a joke.
Do I detect a chip on your shoulder? You should really have that surgically removed.  Look, I've been trying to get this conversation away from the "I said; you said" stuff and put it back on track of WORKING TOGETHER to come to truth. Can you meet me there, please?
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
quote:
Brother! You sure have a way with being ridiculous. You're right; there's no such rule that one HAS to have an antecedent for a pronoun, but GOOD LUCK being understood! I'm not citing these rules as absolutes; I know that when it comes to grammar, many people take GREAT liberties! With today's texting and impatience in communication, we're lucky to have ANY semblance of grammar left! See, having an antecedent for a pronoun really doesn't fall under grammar rules; it falls under common sense in communication! (Oh, and by the way, I didn't even LOOK for such a rule. Who would?)
This is fantastic. So your all caps remark of giving me rules was nothing more than a facade, a false post, in which no rule existed, as I previously noted. Thanks. You could have saved youself some time, and myself, by just confessing no such rule existed and saved the charade.
No, no facade or charade; generality! It wasn't a false post! Get a grip! The rules I quoted were legit. They were about what could or could not be taken as the antecedent for a pronoun. They are the grammatically correct rules in both the Hebrew and the English.
HOWEVER, one should know that some people believe that "rules were meant to be broken." Consequently, no one can FORCE another to hold to the rules of Hebrew or English! Therefore, from a human perspective, a person could opt to have a pronoun without an antecedent, but in doing so, he is ASSUMING that somehow he will be understood by the rest of the context. That may or may not be true, depending on several factors, including whether the reader or the interpreter will make the same connection that the author ASSUMES one could make. Understand? It's not a good practice to leave that much to the whim of the reader or the interpreter! Thus, under NORMAL circumstances, a pronoun will have an antecedent!
Taking Dani'el 9 as a part of God's Holy Word, we must also take into consideration that both the Ruach haQodesh (the Holy Spirit) and His messenger, Gavri'el (Gabriel) will probably use BETTER sense than any human would to communicate! Therefore, it is NONSENSICAL to think that either the Ruach haQodesh or Gavri'el would use pronouns without an antecedent! If it makes good sense for a human being to include an antecedent with a pronoun, then one could expect that an All-efficient God CERTAINLY would! Can't you understand that?
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
quote:
The challenge (not a "problem") is to understand why the Hebrew verbs in verse 27 would not have a subject.
Verse 27 from the book of Daniel does have a subject, even when read in isolation from the preceding verses.
Yeah, sure. The subject is "he." (Technically, "he," "she," or "it." Singular, third person.) The true subject--the antecedent--of these phrases in verse 27, however, has been deferred elsewhere! Consequentially, reading verse 27 by itself will not tell us WHO is doing the actions! (And, this is PRECISELY why we are having this discussion!)
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
quote:
The antecedent challenge is strictly in English after translation. The challenge in Hebrew is that you would have verbs without subject(s). Why would one expect that? It makes no sense! The solution is simple: The subject is the Messiah!
Does verse 27 have verbs without subjects? I do not think this is the case, which is to say your characterization of verse 27 is not accurate.
Yes, verse 27 DOES have verbs without subjects! Here's the Hebrew transliterated:
27 Vhigbiyr briyt laarabiym shaavuwa` echaad; vachatsiy hashaavuwa` yashbiyt zebach uwminchaah v`al knaf shiquwtsiym mshomeem v`ad kaalaah vnecheraatsaah titakh `al shomeem.
27 Vhigbiyr = And-he-shall-confirm
briyt = a-covenant
laarabiym = with-many
shaavuwa` = seven
echaad = one
vachatsiy = in-middle-of
hashaavuwa` = the-seven
yashbiyt = he-shall-stop
zebach = sacrifice
uwminchaah = and-gift
v`al = and-against
knaf = spreading-out-(like-a-wing)
shiquwtsiym = of-abominations
mshomeem = he-shall-make-desolate
v`ad = and-until
kaalaah = consummation
vnecheraatsaah = and-that-determined
titakh = shall-be-poured
`al = against
shomeem. = desolate.
The highlighted words ARE the active verbs of the phrases. (Technically, there is one other verb, titakh, but it is a passive verb.) There are no singular nouns given as the subjects of these verbs in this sentence! So, WHO is doing the action?
That's the way it is! The ONLY noun that may be used correctly as the subject/antecedent for these verbs is "Mashiach" ("Messiah" or "Christ") of verses 25 and 26!
Still in the Messiah's love,
Roy
_____________________________
The avatar above is a Venn diagram of the Kingdom from the sky. Yeshua`s Kingdom is in green, both dark green and light green.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Antichrist - 7/6/2010 6:16:15 PM
|
|
|
panza70
Posts: 15
Joined: 2/3/2010
From: Great Northeast
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cposey
Is there anywhere other than the epistles of John that the word "antichrist" is in scripture. Not a reference point or hint towards or another nickname. But the actual word antichrist.
The antichrist goes by many names. Here are a few: Lucifer,little horn,a stern faced king,ruler who will come,a beast coming out of the sea.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
