Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 5:19 ¶ Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 5:19 ¶ So Jesus answered them by saying, "I assure you and most solemnly say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself [of His own accord], unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever things the Father does, the Son [in His turn] also does in the same way. |
Subject: First Century Second Coming? |
Bible Note: Hello Tim. I agree that the variant reading needs a little "help," but I also recognize that if there were Latin speaking Christians say, in Rome, that needed the information imparted to them, then it would be necessary to alter the text appropriately to suit those in question. As I understand it, it doesn't have to be translated to Greek, then to Hebrew, but from Latin to Hebrew. So the variant reading could easily have been transliterated into Latin for the sake of a Latin speaking person, though the number remains the same. In other words, the idea was the name, not so much the language. If you wrote the Greek pronunciation in Hebrew characters, you get 666. If you wrote the Latin pronunciation in Hebrew characters, you get 616. A great majority of Christians in the beginning were Jews, so I don't find by way of reason that it was out of the question for the riddle to be done according to Hebrew lettering. The fact is, whether weak or strong, it still adds up to both numbers without having to play with it beyond writing it in Hebrew, and Nero also fulfilled other requirements of the same passage. Also, I know of no other names that carry such a unique quality in order to add up to both names. The method of obtaining the number is "assumed" in this particular way because of multiple examples (if you insist I'll provide some of them) of "counting names" in secular writings, etc. Understand, I profess neither inclination, whether premillenialist or preterist. I am a seeker of truth, and I am well read on both ends. Personally, I see holes in both theories, and the only way either side can prove their case is to spiritualize what they can't explain or refute. Just as an example, a preterist can't explain the lack of documentation on the return if it happened, or why the 1000 year reign, if such already occured, was filled with horrors and atrocities. Premillenialists on the other hand can't make any sense out of the Olivet discourse without making it "mean" something contrary to what it "says." Because I recognize the flaws in both, I am disposed to neither, and stand on ignorance as to the truth of the matter. Only God knows, else we would all know by now. The debate has been going on for some time. The real point of my post was not to gain information so much as it was to referree. It seems to me that neither side of the debate was willing to give reasonable consideration to the opposite side, and no one will discover anything without objectivity. Even the scholars are willing to bend a little bit if their prior notions on the subject are soundly refuted. Thanks for the response. My hopes and prayers for all of you seeking the truth. Xerxes |