i need help with this math problem
- Thread starter iamsoandso
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
That was my thought, exactly. But the only K is vs. 16-18 is in the word kai. I cannot find the string "ento" in those verses either.
I see gamma, omicron, pi or chi, omicron, pi. Neither occurs in our text of vs. 16-18
This makes it look like the scrap is misplaced. Why don't you write to the university that put this up and ask them if they know?
I see gamma, omicron, pi or chi, omicron, pi. Neither occurs in our text of vs. 16-18
This makes it look like the scrap is misplaced. Why don't you write to the university that put this up and ask them if they know?
old attic..the diphthong was pronounced verses "silent" in the koiene common,,,john was from galalle,so he probably spoke Aramaic,hebrew,and greek,,,,,his first books were predominantly common Greek,,,ad34-35? Christ was crucified. the other apostles "preached the Gospel",,,,john was sent to patmos "but when?",,,now if we go with the early dates rev.before ad 70,,,,or the other later,, there was a big contraversey weather the apostle john was the same john who wrote the because he wrote some words different in john,1 john ect. that he did in rev.,,,,,now we know he could write he was told not to write rev. 10;4,,,,,,so why the language difference?,,patmos was isolated,it according to genealogy was inhabited by descendents from,,Sparta,Athens,Danni-ens ect.,,same as u.s. up north they speak English,,the Cajuns speak English,,,and the Texans speak English,,,,,,,,,,"but they all beg to differ",,,so the people of patmos spoke the older greek(attic),,,he picked up their slang,,,,,and wrote revelations.,,,,,,,seems like im saying john wrote books in ad 34-35,,but no from ad 34 to ad 70 = 36 years,,,how long was he on patmos?,,,how much of their slang did he pick up?,,,,,,,,and it would be the older greek,,,
Last edited:
,,,,,it is oxford,,they have no interest in the theology. the archeoligy they do. i have searched for the interpretation of these fragments,,,,but found nothing,,which is why i thought to do this. this fragment was put on the www in 2005,,,,this is 2012,,,,seven years and no one has given its interpretation nor gave its origin.,,,most of the christian body have seen this fragment(616),,,,,,most do not know if it is valid or not,,,,,,,,,kenisyes,,you are preaching the sermon,,,preach it well,,,,,,i say from time to time "i am in the midst of loving you",,,some receive it,some are shocked in it,,,you teach them well,their very lives depend understanding where 616 came from or if the correct number is "sixhundred,sixty,six",,,,but this fragment is swept the earth over in 7 years without being "interpreted",,,you,you are in the midst of loving them,you see?
K
The problem is that Liddel-Scott does not acknowledge the variation. It goes straight from teir to teich. It could be a mistake, I suppose. It suggests that teitan was not known. It's in Iraneaus, though, so the compilers of Liddel-Scott knew that he had quoted it. That suggests they believe he or someone he is quoting made it up, as a way to get 666 to work out.
I'm aware of the long standing controversy over if it is the same John. The 616 suggests it was not, since anything by the real John would be less likely to be altered. But, like all other additions to the controversy, doesn't prove it.
I'm aware of the long standing controversy over if it is the same John. The 616 suggests it was not, since anything by the real John would be less likely to be altered. But, like all other additions to the controversy, doesn't prove it.
K
That is most distressing. Then we can't ever know if the fragments are even what they claim to be. For all we know, this is a commentary on something, that just happens to quote a line or two of the Book of Revelation. My Greek is certainly not up to Oxford's, I just know what I have looked up. We certainly need someone to give this the attention they have given the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi finds.
i think your right also,i double checked i was looking to figure the difference between alexandrian style greek(wich is what this papyrus in written in) and trying to compare it to the common greek. If this was a copy of the book of Revelations we we should be able to match it fairly close. this manuscript does not follow the sentence structure of chapter 13;16-18,,,14-1 except it seems as though it is quoting these scriptures. it may very well be a commentary on the subject,seems to me we could use a greek text i.e. wescot/hort and go across and find the words. makes me afraid me and you are the only ones who see it,think how many preachers are preparing sermons based on this one fragment.did you find all of the fragments that go with these? if you go to the wiki site,,,,,,go all the way to the bottom,there are two links,they go to oxford and give you photos of the rest of the fragments 12 or more. from their follow the links on that page and you will find the entire inventory of all the books found at oxy. their were different spots were they found the different books (different dumps around the city over the years),,,they found Plato,comedies, many other books from the new test.,contracts,list of churches ect. i was curious what some one else would find looking at this fragment. ive looked at it since 2005,,im no Greek professor,but it makes me wonder why the leaders of the different churches haven't sat down and translated these fragments to set this myth to rest.
oh i think i see something,,,,,this if it were a scroll,it would be rolled up,,,,but its not. just like our bible it's bound together of individual sheets of papyrus. so imagine the fragment to the right (either laying above it or below it),,,,just like our bible,page 324,325,326 ect. the second fragment degraded at almost the same rate as the one we began to work with,just a little different because it was "over it or under it",,,so it's "that many words before it or after it",,it the page before or the page after...
K
I've spent a couple hours on this fragment and the one across from it so far, trying to match words. I was able to match less than 50% of the words I selected at random, based on their positioning. And I was able to rule out 30% as not possibly being right vs. the current version. To look at the wiki site, they seem so positive, the way they position the fragments. I think we must consider the possibility that this is a commentary or even an alternate version of revelation somehow. The gnostics certainly had alternate gospels. Iranaeus may be reflecting a trend of which is a major part. i do know Eusebius says that not all churches agreed Rev. was inspired even by 300AD. Alternate version are quite possible in such a mileu. consider the modern translation of the Bible called "The Message". Don't forget Origen's hexapla. He designed this parallel OT for himself because there were so many "translations" in his day.
With the couple hours invested so far, I think matching even just the two-three verses reflected on these fragments is going to be impossible. Even if they get provable matches on the whole rest of the book, they might have rewritten just this section. I really think we need more data.
I found lots of other people curious, but none seem to have gotten as far as we were even last week.
With the couple hours invested so far, I think matching even just the two-three verses reflected on these fragments is going to be impossible. Even if they get provable matches on the whole rest of the book, they might have rewritten just this section. I really think we need more data.
I found lots of other people curious, but none seem to have gotten as far as we were even last week.
K
I think that's probably the answer. All the scraps of "pages" are mixed up. This scroll was eaten by bugs or whatever, and the leftover pieces simply fell downwards and intermixed. But they seem so positive, in the way they have them sorted out. Here's an idea, maybe worth trying. I just hate cutting up a Bible to do it. Take an English Bible, cut out a few pages of the Book of Revelation, and duplicate the procedure. Leave yourself a few fragments, let them mix at random, and see if you can put it back together. Then, we'll at least know whether or not it's likely that their Greek scholars got the Greek one right.
I wouldn't trust the water stains. We have no idea how many local earthquakes would have shook the pieces up at random after the scroll fell apart. They could have mixed before getting wet. This is 1700 years we're talking about.
I wouldn't trust the water stains. We have no idea how many local earthquakes would have shook the pieces up at random after the scroll fell apart. They could have mixed before getting wet. This is 1700 years we're talking about.
,,,we have no idea how large the original papyrus was,so one of their pages may have had 3 chapters or only just 1,,their book may have measured 21 inches by 18 inches same as ours today some are pocket size some are very large. at the moment i have a Pilgrims addition teachers bible rev. 13 is on page 1684,in the other kjv. it is in the n.t.portion page 284,,,so the page that would have been on top of the other is only arbitrary to papyrus 115,,how many words were on each page of his book?,,,,,but back to "kento". kappa may be another letter?,,, the next looks like theta(but the infrared left portions off) and then nu,,,then their seems to be a space between two words,,,then tou,omikron (their seems to be as much space between nu and tou),comparing it to the other words on the other fragments to think its the end of one word and the beginning of the/a word like westcot/hort 3588 "unto the ones",or a variation of it Revelation 11 - Interlinear Westcott & Hort WH Original Greek New Testament GNT Literal English Translation Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study so if kappa,theta,nu is the end of one word and tou omikron is the beggining of "unto the ones"(we cant see the ending of t.o.) but it seems something is being given to or taken away from someone. in rev.11;2 the sequence ends theta,eta,,,instead of theta,nu,,,so rev.11;2 rev.11;5 ect. im only giving as example.(just a thought),,,i sent a link to wescott and hort rev ch.11
and no (i disagree with my own self),,i thought theta did not pick up,,,but no its EI from the Coptic alphabet or epsilon in the Greek. i went back through the other books found at oxy.,p1,,p5 ect. and there all Alexandrian/Coptic language. so i looked up "Coptic alphabet" its almost like common Greek but there are differences. the same as Greek letters double as numbers the Coptic alphabet references back to the Egyptian hieroglyphics and also Greek numerals. but what i said may still be the same two words KEN-to just either need to use the coptic EI or epsalon. instead of where i thought (maybe theta)
P.Oxy.LXVI 4499 this is from oxford,,