- Feb 11, 2019
- 7
- 0
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Single
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
A radical re-interpretation of Zechariah 4 1-3
- Thread starter Josh66
- Start date
- Feb 11, 2019
- 7
- 0
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Single
Let me try that again.
Earlier I was examining the notion that the "two" witnesses referred to in Revelation might in fact be referring to several witnesses, and I actually found some support in a greek lexicon. Well I went from there to Zecheriah because I wanted to find a parallel analogy to several witnesses in what I thought was a parallel structure there. Well I didn't find that, but Christ God Almighty did the Spirit ever reveal a mighty tool for apologetics for us there. Let's begin by examining a traditional rendering of Zecheriah 4 1-3.
The Gold Lampstand and the Two Olive Trees
4 Then the angel who talked with me returned and woke me up, like someone awakened from sleep. 2 He asked me, “What do you see?”
I answered, “I see a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top and seven lamps on it, with seven channels to the lamps. 3 Also there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left.”
Now, it is quite well attested that the solid Gold lampstand can be alluded as a reference to Messiah but the arum translaters have not followed through on this tert. The word translated here in this passage as seven can easily read seven-fold or an even greater number and CERTAINLY in context implies a number of completeness. I take them as a reference to the churches throughout the world which have remained faithful to Christ Messiah and his gospel, an interperative hermenuetic well with the pale of accepted apocalyptic analogy. But now brace your ass for some shocking [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. The word here translated as "two" as referring to the olive trees can also be translated as twelve and is even weakly thus implied by context. When translated thus I am virtually sure that this is a reference to the twelve apostles. Wowsers. The word here translated as "one" can be better translated as "together", implying a group on the right AS THE OBSERVER faces the bowl and the word here translated as right implies stronger and more dexteritous. The word translated here as "other" also implies a together group BUT the word here rendered as left implies dark, a reference to the fact that as the observer faces the lamp bowl Judas is on the left.
Now then, here is a standard declintion of Zecheriah 4;4-6.
4 I asked the angel who talked with me, “What are these, my lord?”
5 He answered, “Do you not know what these are?”
“No, my lord,” I replied.
6 So he said to me, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty.
7 “What are you, mighty mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become level ground. Then he will bring out the capstone to shouts of ‘God bless it! God bless it!’”
The word of Zecheriah here declined as asked is ridiculously understated for what the hebrew clearly indicates. It should be rendered as shoutfully rejoiced. The next bit is actually left out of this [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ty translation but in Strong's is given as "and spake" should be rendered as charged impertinently, not so much because of the language the prophet uses himself as because to charge an Angel is inappropriate enough but he has the chutspa to do so casually as indicated by the second partip. The Messenger is indicated to have previously addressed the Prophet hear with a phrase here rendered as "spoke" but what is here rendered as answered should be given as something like "Shoutsang out with long unanticipated JOY". The next phrase is rendered as "What are these my Lord" in the King James but only "my Lord" or some distinct thereof is clearly implied by the Hebrew. The translator my have back placed the subphrase "what are these" in light of the more clearly indicated declition as purportedly indicated by the Angel later in the passage, but I suspect it is to be more clearly indicated as an attempt at apology by the Prophet to the Messenger, perhaps.
The next part of the translation that is given apaphum is so incomplete that I feel compelled render here the aliteration found in Strong's
4:5 Then the angel 4397 that talked 1696 8802 with me answered 6030 8799 and said 559 8799 unto me, Knowest 3045 8804 thou not what these be? And I said 559 8799, No, my lord 113.
"Then the angel" is fine, but again, "that talked" must really be given as "with heavy authority spoke" and again "answered" should be given as "Shoutsong with long unanticipated Joy". Finally, "said" is woefully underindicative of what the angel is communicating and the best rendering I might give would be "grimfacely screwed out between clenched jowls in a voice whose from the gut grunting tone definitively indicated 'This will happen'". The next subscript here rendered as "Knowest though not what these things be?" Is really, among other things to follow, an incredible act of condensation among the messenger and the Prophet for here the Angel say's quaintly familiarly as among a friendly subordinate something like "here is something I and my pals have long known was coming without quite knowing what it was except that it excited us to spiritually errotic responses, so pay attention."
Finally the last part is here given as "No, my Lord" but Strong's more clearly suggest's something like "I demand an explanation my Lord".
Now for the climax. Once again "So he said to me" should be declined "He SongShouted Joyfully" but the doubling "and spake" should be given a slightly different declintion here and should read "solomnly and irrevokably charged his own self". Additionally "This is the word of the Lord" should really be rendered "This is the cause of the Lord" and "to Zerubbabel" as it's widely recognized alternative "to Israel". The rest of a traditional declining, "Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty." is pretty good, but might perhaps be augmented with a bit of punch to reflect it's divine assum.
Now we preach Zecheriah 4:7 7 “What are you, mighty mountain? Again, a terrible and contextually ignorant translation. It should read something like "What are you proud, boastful to the point of insolence of ancient dignity" and for mountain it should read "obstacle" and for "before" it should read "against in battle" and once again "Zerubabbel" should decline as "Israel". I might be going out on a limb here, but in the context I am proposing "made a plain" might be better rendered as "get justice as you demand."
Now we reach the climax. What is here commonly rendered as "He will bring out the capstone." should be really be rendered as "He will yank out the headstone and be crowned King of Kings by the act." to capture all the nuance of the Hebrew. And now for the rest. For "to shouts of ‘God bless it! God bless it!’” I propose "and a riotous clamor shall riotously proclaim Grace to all, Grace to all."
Now we have
"8 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 9 “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this temple; his hands will also complete it. Then you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you."
Zech 8 should probably decline "Then the cause of the Lord was made known to me, and he charged me with this." Zech 8 should decline "The labor and painful service of Israel have laid the foundation for this house and the labor and painful service of Israel shall finish it. I would alter the last declintion a bit to "then you will acknowledge that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you."
And here we have
10 “Who dares despise the day of small things, since the seven eyes of the Lord that range throughout the earth will rejoice when they see the chosen capstone[a] in the hand of Zerubbabel?”
11 Then I asked the angel, “What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?”
12 Again I asked him, “What are these two olive branches beside the two gold pipes that pour out golden oil?”
13 He replied, “Do you not know what these are?”
“No, my lord,” I said.
14 So he said, “These are the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth.”
I am going to take a radical stab at Zech 10 and translate it "Who dares discount the possibility of the Ancient of days manifesting as a newborn baby?" Oh God. And next I decline the rest of Zech 10 as "for throughout the entirety of my sacred assemblies who push my purpose throughout the earth they shall party hard and outrageously when they joyfully behold the sacred object held in the arms of Isreal." I suspect that this pitiful first attempt at declintion does not really address a great deal of the allusions in the Hebrew. For one thing I am not sure but the Hebrew declined as "held in the arms" might also insinuate "tenderly nursed" in this context and Wow, the layers of meaning packed into what I hear render as "sacred object", every thing from the "God's stones of fire" enhanced by Ezekiel 14 28 to Moses' tablets of stone inscribed by God with the Law.
Continuing
Zech 11 I decline "At this I joyfully cried out and charged the angel to tell me, who are these two tacs of olive trees on either side of the lampstand, one strongly illuminated on the right and the other somewhat darkened on the left?"
As for Zech 4 12 I can't decline anything more than the relatively straight rendering found in Strong's, perhaps with a bit of updating of the English. "And again I cried out twice as Joyfully and again charged the angel 'Who are these two groups of olive trees who channel their shimmering as gold spirits through shimmering channels out of themselves.'"
Zech 4 13 I leave largely as Strong's renders it but augmented with a bit of the otherwise absent authority "And he answered with an unabashedly prideful grin and declared 'kinsman, do you not know who these are?'" And I answered "No my Lord."
And finally I decline Zech 4 14 "These are the twelve who are anointed first stewards and stand by the Lord od all the Earth."
Earlier I was examining the notion that the "two" witnesses referred to in Revelation might in fact be referring to several witnesses, and I actually found some support in a greek lexicon. Well I went from there to Zecheriah because I wanted to find a parallel analogy to several witnesses in what I thought was a parallel structure there. Well I didn't find that, but Christ God Almighty did the Spirit ever reveal a mighty tool for apologetics for us there. Let's begin by examining a traditional rendering of Zecheriah 4 1-3.
The Gold Lampstand and the Two Olive Trees
4 Then the angel who talked with me returned and woke me up, like someone awakened from sleep. 2 He asked me, “What do you see?”
I answered, “I see a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top and seven lamps on it, with seven channels to the lamps. 3 Also there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left.”
Now, it is quite well attested that the solid Gold lampstand can be alluded as a reference to Messiah but the arum translaters have not followed through on this tert. The word translated here in this passage as seven can easily read seven-fold or an even greater number and CERTAINLY in context implies a number of completeness. I take them as a reference to the churches throughout the world which have remained faithful to Christ Messiah and his gospel, an interperative hermenuetic well with the pale of accepted apocalyptic analogy. But now brace your ass for some shocking [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. The word here translated as "two" as referring to the olive trees can also be translated as twelve and is even weakly thus implied by context. When translated thus I am virtually sure that this is a reference to the twelve apostles. Wowsers. The word here translated as "one" can be better translated as "together", implying a group on the right AS THE OBSERVER faces the bowl and the word here translated as right implies stronger and more dexteritous. The word translated here as "other" also implies a together group BUT the word here rendered as left implies dark, a reference to the fact that as the observer faces the lamp bowl Judas is on the left.
Now then, here is a standard declintion of Zecheriah 4;4-6.
4 I asked the angel who talked with me, “What are these, my lord?”
5 He answered, “Do you not know what these are?”
“No, my lord,” I replied.
6 So he said to me, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty.
7 “What are you, mighty mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become level ground. Then he will bring out the capstone to shouts of ‘God bless it! God bless it!’”
The word of Zecheriah here declined as asked is ridiculously understated for what the hebrew clearly indicates. It should be rendered as shoutfully rejoiced. The next bit is actually left out of this [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ty translation but in Strong's is given as "and spake" should be rendered as charged impertinently, not so much because of the language the prophet uses himself as because to charge an Angel is inappropriate enough but he has the chutspa to do so casually as indicated by the second partip. The Messenger is indicated to have previously addressed the Prophet hear with a phrase here rendered as "spoke" but what is here rendered as answered should be given as something like "Shoutsang out with long unanticipated JOY". The next phrase is rendered as "What are these my Lord" in the King James but only "my Lord" or some distinct thereof is clearly implied by the Hebrew. The translator my have back placed the subphrase "what are these" in light of the more clearly indicated declition as purportedly indicated by the Angel later in the passage, but I suspect it is to be more clearly indicated as an attempt at apology by the Prophet to the Messenger, perhaps.
The next part of the translation that is given apaphum is so incomplete that I feel compelled render here the aliteration found in Strong's
4:5 Then the angel 4397 that talked 1696 8802 with me answered 6030 8799 and said 559 8799 unto me, Knowest 3045 8804 thou not what these be? And I said 559 8799, No, my lord 113.
"Then the angel" is fine, but again, "that talked" must really be given as "with heavy authority spoke" and again "answered" should be given as "Shoutsong with long unanticipated Joy". Finally, "said" is woefully underindicative of what the angel is communicating and the best rendering I might give would be "grimfacely screwed out between clenched jowls in a voice whose from the gut grunting tone definitively indicated 'This will happen'". The next subscript here rendered as "Knowest though not what these things be?" Is really, among other things to follow, an incredible act of condensation among the messenger and the Prophet for here the Angel say's quaintly familiarly as among a friendly subordinate something like "here is something I and my pals have long known was coming without quite knowing what it was except that it excited us to spiritually errotic responses, so pay attention."
Finally the last part is here given as "No, my Lord" but Strong's more clearly suggest's something like "I demand an explanation my Lord".
Now for the climax. Once again "So he said to me" should be declined "He SongShouted Joyfully" but the doubling "and spake" should be given a slightly different declintion here and should read "solomnly and irrevokably charged his own self". Additionally "This is the word of the Lord" should really be rendered "This is the cause of the Lord" and "to Zerubbabel" as it's widely recognized alternative "to Israel". The rest of a traditional declining, "Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty." is pretty good, but might perhaps be augmented with a bit of punch to reflect it's divine assum.
Now we preach Zecheriah 4:7 7 “What are you, mighty mountain? Again, a terrible and contextually ignorant translation. It should read something like "What are you proud, boastful to the point of insolence of ancient dignity" and for mountain it should read "obstacle" and for "before" it should read "against in battle" and once again "Zerubabbel" should decline as "Israel". I might be going out on a limb here, but in the context I am proposing "made a plain" might be better rendered as "get justice as you demand."
Now we reach the climax. What is here commonly rendered as "He will bring out the capstone." should be really be rendered as "He will yank out the headstone and be crowned King of Kings by the act." to capture all the nuance of the Hebrew. And now for the rest. For "to shouts of ‘God bless it! God bless it!’” I propose "and a riotous clamor shall riotously proclaim Grace to all, Grace to all."
Now we have
"8 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 9 “The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this temple; his hands will also complete it. Then you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you."
Zech 8 should probably decline "Then the cause of the Lord was made known to me, and he charged me with this." Zech 8 should decline "The labor and painful service of Israel have laid the foundation for this house and the labor and painful service of Israel shall finish it. I would alter the last declintion a bit to "then you will acknowledge that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you."
And here we have
10 “Who dares despise the day of small things, since the seven eyes of the Lord that range throughout the earth will rejoice when they see the chosen capstone[a] in the hand of Zerubbabel?”
11 Then I asked the angel, “What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?”
12 Again I asked him, “What are these two olive branches beside the two gold pipes that pour out golden oil?”
13 He replied, “Do you not know what these are?”
“No, my lord,” I said.
14 So he said, “These are the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth.”
I am going to take a radical stab at Zech 10 and translate it "Who dares discount the possibility of the Ancient of days manifesting as a newborn baby?" Oh God. And next I decline the rest of Zech 10 as "for throughout the entirety of my sacred assemblies who push my purpose throughout the earth they shall party hard and outrageously when they joyfully behold the sacred object held in the arms of Isreal." I suspect that this pitiful first attempt at declintion does not really address a great deal of the allusions in the Hebrew. For one thing I am not sure but the Hebrew declined as "held in the arms" might also insinuate "tenderly nursed" in this context and Wow, the layers of meaning packed into what I hear render as "sacred object", every thing from the "God's stones of fire" enhanced by Ezekiel 14 28 to Moses' tablets of stone inscribed by God with the Law.
Continuing
Zech 11 I decline "At this I joyfully cried out and charged the angel to tell me, who are these two tacs of olive trees on either side of the lampstand, one strongly illuminated on the right and the other somewhat darkened on the left?"
As for Zech 4 12 I can't decline anything more than the relatively straight rendering found in Strong's, perhaps with a bit of updating of the English. "And again I cried out twice as Joyfully and again charged the angel 'Who are these two groups of olive trees who channel their shimmering as gold spirits through shimmering channels out of themselves.'"
Zech 4 13 I leave largely as Strong's renders it but augmented with a bit of the otherwise absent authority "And he answered with an unabashedly prideful grin and declared 'kinsman, do you not know who these are?'" And I answered "No my Lord."
And finally I decline Zech 4 14 "These are the twelve who are anointed first stewards and stand by the Lord od all the Earth."
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2018
- 10,856
- 8,910
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Or...
- John 5:32: "I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me."
Upvote
0
- Feb 11, 2019
- 7
- 0
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Single
Yes, yes, but John also says "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." We should not be supprised that ANY portion of the word bears witness of Christ's ministry, including the apocalyptic portions of the old testiment. And for that matter, we his church are commanded at the great commissioning to "take this gospel into all the world."
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2018
- 10,856
- 8,910
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Except you are speaking of the Two witnesses who have a very specific timeline , specific powers and specific goals only attainable by the Divine. I have come to the conclusion that the two witnesses are Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His Holy Spirit.
Blessings.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
