Revelations 8: 13- angel or eagle???

[SwordFish]

well i disagree with you , but you could be right I dought it though. One thing you are difinately wrong about is the book Revelation Its not plural. It is the Revelation of Yeshua the Messiah , NOT REVELATIONS ..........

abbersay

I see you are nit picky. The book of Revelation is just as you say the revelation of yeshua the messiah. But the book as a whole contains many revelations (insights or truths that are revealed to us within the book itself) For the book contains the unveiling of many different end-time events such as 7 year-tribulation period, the time of the anti-christ, the 1000 year reign of Christ, the battle of Armageddon and the everlasting kingdom of Christ the New Jerusalem and so forth to give an example. I hope you will overlook my typo's in the future.

blessing to you

Swordfish

[apothanein kerdos]

It could be a mistranslation on the NIV's part. The word used is aggelos, which is somewhat similar to aetos (eagle) when written in Greek. However, I believe that the NIV is using the Wescott-Horton manuscripts which does use the word aetos whereas the Textus Receptus uses the word aggelos. Both still ultimately convey the same idea; a winged creature is announcing the message. I tend to believe that the Wescott-Horton manuscripts would be more accurate on this point simply because of the context.

[Leonard]

Apothanein Kerdos:

The last I studied the matter (I must admit!) was probably a good 20 years ago, but at least at that time, Textus Receptus was the only Greek text supported by 90% of ALL available manuscript data.

Hort and Wescott it seems to me were rather badly affected by the psuedo-scholarly humbuggery of their age (and it still infects our age too), and put far too much weight on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

By the way, just FYI, you can download Sinaiticus off the internet somewhere...... I found it probably 5 years ago, but I don't have the web address.

[apothanein kerdos]

If we include "all," then yes, the Textus Receptus has the majority. However, people have looked at the Wescott-Hort manuscripts we see they are more accurate to the original way of writing, there is more personality in it (differences in writing style), etc. Likewise, the TR's majority texts come from 500-800AD whereas the WH comes from about 200-400 AD.

Either way though, as I stated, the message really isn't changed that much.

As a side note, do you think that an unlearned or novice scribe made the mistake of confusing aggelos with aetos and from there the snowball grew? What we do know is we have two collection of manuscripts that are both reliable and have good arguments in support that disagree on this subject, so it could be that.

It could be we need to find someone more qualified in Greek than us...maybe "eagle" was once an idiom for "angel," and thus the confusion. Or we need to look at this through a Hebrew paradigm (I still believe it was originally written in Hebrew and not Greek)....in which case it changes the whole aspect of it. Should be an interesting discussion.

[MK202002]

so there is a possibility of them being the same thing? Like a text thing? I can see that, because the bible is reading very literally in the few verses around it, and to use symbolism all of a sudden would not make sense. I don't know.

ouch, my head.