 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 846
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TBax wrote: | Merriam Websters
latter-1 a: belonging to a subsequent time or period
You ignoring this indicates volumes as well.
Your closed mind has destroyed intellectual honesty for you. |
| Wikipedia wrote: | | Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.[1] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. |
TBax, in this thread, you have changed your position, and now recognize that my position is not false. Insted now you accuse me of limiting the definition of 'latter', which of course I have not done. You state that I am ignoring the Merriam Webster definition. Of course I am not.
I have no problem with the definition at all. let's examine the entire Merriam Webster definition.....
1 a: belonging to a subsequent time or period : more recent <the latter stages of growth> b: of or relating to the end <in their latter days> c: recent, present <affected by latter calamities>
Merriam Webster's definition here clarifies a subsequent time or period as being the MORE RECENT, using the example <the latter stages of growth>. The latter stages of growth are of course the end stages. Merriam Webster further clairifies a subsequent time or period as being of or relating to the end, as it pertains to the word 'latter', using the example <in their latter days>. And in the manner of completely and irrefutably explaining what time period the Holy Spirit had in mind in 1 Timothy 4, the Merriam Webster definition explains that the subsequent time or period, as it pertains to 'latter', is recent/present.......which of course is exactly to the point.
Obviously at this stage in history (as in the latter stage and/or the present time) we know we are in the latter times, and that 1700 years ago on a 2000 year scale is NOT the latter times or time or period, nor the MORE RECENT times or time or period, nor does 1700 years ago relate to the end nor is it recent/present.
To frame the Merriam Webster definition in the limiting fashion you did in your last post is a blatant attempt to present something misleading, yet obviously 'latter' still does not mean 'subsequent', and the two words are not even related as synonyms of one another!
By simple common sense one can clearly determine the difference between 'latter times' and 'subsequent times'.....They mean two DIFFERENT things.
Will you, can you, maintain your position in the face of such overwhelming contrary evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1771
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
| Quote: | | Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.[1] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. |
You are aware that "latter" can mean different things yet you insist it only means one thing without considering context, structure, or perspective in 1 Tim. Intellectual dishonesty!!!  Thank you for providing that reference. 
| Dust wrote: | | TBax, in this thread, you have changed your position, and now recognize that my position is not false. |
Appearently it is impossible for you to pay attention.  Your position is false as you are not considering context, sentence structure, or perspective. Each can alter what latter means
EXAMPLE: If I say "In a latter season I will plant peas" that means something quite different then "In the latter season of my life I will plant peas". The former means in a subsequent season, whereas the latter means near the end of my life. In the (blue) previous sentence "latter" was used as opposed to former. Depending on how it is used it means something different. Do you get it?
1 a: belonging to a subsequent time or period : more recent <the latter stages of growth>
In 1 Tim it isn't "the latter time of" anything. Therefore it leaves it open as belonging to a subsequent time or period beyond the time of writting. You not getting this is the whole problem.
Again, you have done this before as well. You claim I am changing my position when in reality you are not understanding what I have already said. Nothing changed.
Do try and pay attention. You'll save alot of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 846
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | You are aware that "latter" can mean different things yet you insist it only means one thing without considering context, structure, or perspective in 1 Tim. |
The context, structure, or perspective of 1 Timothy 4 does not change the meaning of 'latter' to mean 'subsequent'.
'Latter' does not mean 'subsequent' no matter how you slice it. These two words are not even synonyms of one another....that's been conclusively demonstrated.....overwhelmingly so!
| Quote: | 1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy...... |
This does not say at a 'later time' or times. It does not say at some 'subsequent time' or times. It clearly says IN THE LATTER TIMES. In latter times is recent and now, as overwhelmingly demonstrated....using the Merriam Webster resource you yourself provided.
| TBax wrote: | | In 1 Tim it isn't "the latter time of" anything. Therefore it leaves it open as belonging to a subsequent time or period beyond the time of writting. You not getting this is the whole problem. |
The author of 1 Timothy 4 makes reference to the future, but not just any future time....specifically the latter portion of the future . Now any one living during any century of the last 2000 years might indeed have had the personal perspective that their current time or times were the latter times referenced by the author of 1 Timothy 4. However, we, here in the 21st century, have a more accurate perspective. We can clearly see, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that at least the first 10 centuries of the last 2000 years are NOT the latter times. One must consider that the author of 1 Timothy 4 (Paul) was inspired by the HOLY SPIRIT. The Holy Spirit's perspective of time/times is not distorted nor incomplete. When He says the latter times He means just that....the latter times. He knows precisely what era the latter times would be. And it just so happens that in this particular passage, not only do we know the author was inspired, but the added emphasis of the Spirit speaking expressly is included.
The fact of the matter is by the definition of the word 'latter', and by the simple use of common sense we can narrow down what is considered the 'latter times'. We are most likely currently living in the latter times. For the current time, in-which we are now living, not to fall with-in the relm of latter times, another 2000 years or more would need to pass......When the 'latter times' actually take place and/or occur is directly related to the number of years/centuries God has alloted to mankind. The 'latter times' will occur towards the end of that alloted time.
| TBax wrote: | | Again, you have done this before as well. You claim I am changing my position when in reality you are not understanding what I have already said. Nothing changed. |
TBax, though it was subtle, you did acknowledge that the meaning of the term 'latter' as I have putforth, has merit. That's a move in the right direction. Now, you accuse me of not recognizing some alternate meaning of the term 'latter'. Do you care to provide references and resources showing this alternate meaning? Such as you attempted to do with your Merriam Webster resource.
| TBax wrote: | | EXAMPLE: If I say "In a latter season I will plant peas" that means something quite different then "In the latter season of my life I will plant peas". The former means in a subsequent season, whereas the latter means near the end of my life. |
Good, in your last sentence you used the terms 'former' and 'latter' properly.
The "something quite different " between your two statements is simply the time scale. That's it. Your first statement seems to me to be improper. I doubt that a farmer would say he will plant peas in a latter season. It is more likely and proper that he would say I will plant winter-rye (or some such thing) in the latter season. Meaning of course the last season of the year. 'a latter season' could mean any time during the second half of the year, but definitly not the first half of the year.
Also you should note that 1 Timothy 4 does not say....
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in a latter time some shall depart from the faith....
Such would be improper. In order to impart the meaning you want the verse to impart, it would have to read....
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in a later time some shall depart from the faith....
Even if it said something like 'in these last times'....
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS!
It's not necessary that you follow me, I get the feeling you don't like me, but I would advise that you humbly follow the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1771
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
| Dust wrote: | The context, structure, or perspective of 1 Timothy 4 does not change the meaning of 'latter' to mean 'subsequent'.
'Latter' does not mean 'subsequent' no matter how you slice it. |
Hence the intellectual dishonesty!!! 
1. The greek word translated "latter" means subsequent.
2. Following and later are synonymous with a meaning of latter.
3. Subsequent is synonymous with both following and later.
| Dust wrote: | | This does not say at a 'later time' or times. It does not say at some 'subsequent time' or times. It clearly says IN THE LATTER TIMES. |
What it does say is. THE YET spirit explicitly IS-sayING that IN subsequent SEASONS (eras) shall-be-withdrawing some OF-THE faith siving-heed to-spirits deceiving AND to-TEACHings of-demons
I have already shown the definite article is not in the greek manuscripts, thus proving your "the latter times" isn't proper. "In latter times" is proper, along with "in subsequent seasons", or "in later periods of time". You limiting the meaning of latter proves you are intellectually dishonest.
----------------------------------------
| Dust wrote: | | TBax wrote: | | Again, you have done this before as well. You claim I am changing my position when in reality you are not understanding what I have already said. Nothing changed. |
TBax, though it was subtle, you did acknowledge that the meaning of the term 'latter' as I have putforth, has merit. |
I never doubted it. It is your refusal to understand the proper usage in this context that I disagree with.
From JAN 17:
| Dust wrote: | | Latter - near or comparatively near to the end |
| TBax wrote: | | First of all, latter doesn't only mean that. It can simply indicate later periods of time. |
You simply don't pay attention.
------------------------------------------
| Dust wrote: | | TBax wrote: | | EXAMPLE: If I say "In a latter season I will plant peas" that means something quite different then "In the latter season of my life I will plant peas". The former means in a subsequent season, whereas the latter means near the end of my life. |
Good, in your last sentence you used the terms 'former' and 'latter' properly. |
Perhaps you are not intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you are intellectually incompetent.
EXAMPLE: If I say "In a latter season I will plant peas" that means something quite different then "In the latter season of my life I will plant peas". The former means in a subsequent season, whereas the latter means near the end of my life. In the (blue) previous sentence "latter" was used as opposed to former. Depending on how it is used it means something different. Do you get it?
Appearently you don't get it.
| Dust wrote: | | Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in a latter time some shall depart from the faith.... |
You are correct. The Spirit expressly said "in subsequent seasons".
| Dust wrote: | | It's not necessary that you follow me, I get the feeling you don't like me, but I would advise that you humbly follow the truth. |
Just because you are consistantly wrong, and refuse to be reasonable doesn't mean I don't like you. I would love for you to be reasonable and accept the truth, but that just doesn't seem to be possible at this point.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 846
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | The greek word translated "latter" means subsequent. |
From http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5306&version=kjv#Legend......
| Quote: | The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 5306 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
u&steroß comparative from (5259) (in the sense of behind)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Husteros 8:592,1240
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
hoos'-ter-os Adjective
Definition
latter, later, coming after, the second afterward, after this, later, lastly
King James Word Usage - Total: 1
latter 1 |
At dictionary.com 'subsequent' is shown in Greek as thus....επόμενος, μεταγενέστερος
whereas 'the latter' is shown in Greek as thus....ο δεύτερος (από δύο)
I don't read Greek, but I can see that the words 'subsequent' and 'latter'' are NOT derived from the same Greek word as you indicate, but rather these words translate into two separate and individual Greek words.
As previously demonstrated 'subsequent' does not mean 'latter', they are not even synonyms of one another.
Most importantly.....'subsequent' is not the word used in 1 Timothy 4:1!
| TBax wrote: | | In the (blue) previous sentence "latter" was used as opposed to former. Depending on how it is used it means something different. Do you get it? |
The term 'latter', as it pertains to your 'former vs. latter' example, means the last mentioned. The term 'latter times' as used in 1 Timothy 4:1 means the last part or towards the end of time.
To further demonstrate that the two terms 'latter & subsequent' are not interchangable........Pertaining to 'former vs. latter' it could be proper to say that latter is subsequent to former, but of course it would not make sense at all to say subsequent is subsequent to former (with the latter statement we end up with gobbly-goop).
And to demonstrate even further the difference between 'latter' and 'subsequent'......
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21.
Using this scale from 1 to 21 (as in centuries) latter times (as written in 1 Timothy during the 1st century)could begin at century 11 (the second half of the scale), but given the definition of latter and the context in which it is biblically used, it is most likely that the 'latter times', as expressly referred to by the Holy Spirit, actually begin and occur closer to the end of the scale rather than beginning at the 2nd half of the scale.
Now then....
Using the same scale, every century after the 1st can be considered to be subsequent to the 1st century.
1 Timothy 4:1 does not say 'subsequent' in English, nor does it say 'subsequent' in Greek as varifiable, and as demonstrated above. To indicate other wise is a manipulation of, a twisting of, and a move away from, God's word....the very thing the Holy Spirit is expressly identifing would happen here in the latter times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1771
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
I appreciate your research. There are some points you overlook that prove my point. 
First, ο δεύτερος isn't used at 1 Tim 4:1 as the definite article isn't present there. uèsterov is used there without the definite article. 
Second, you see the definition and ignor most of the definitions that fit the context.
latter, later, coming after, after this, later, ALL CAN MEAN subsequent.
Let's place those words in and see if they make sense.
LATER
(1 Timothy 4:1) However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith,
COMING AFTER
However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in times coming after (this) some will fall away from the faith,
AFTER THIS
However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in times after this some will fall away from the faith,
Regarding "the second afterward", since there is no indication of a previous time, that isn't warrented. However, even if you were correct, and it was in the latter vs former context, Paul could have been speaking of the "former times" as the apostolic era. When the apostles died would begin the latter times, and that would at least be in harmony with other scriptures. You arguing "the latter part of the latter times" is not at all indicated, nor is it a reasonable assumption.
| Dust wrote: | | 1 Timothy 4:1 does not say 'subsequent' in English, nor does it say 'subsequent' in Greek as varifiable |
It does in the manuscript I see online. Would you like the link?
Still that is besides the point. Latter can mean later or subsequent, and it does here in 1 Tim 4:1.
P.S. I must say that was a much better post then you resorting to your rants and judgements. Research and be objective. Otherwise you fall into the trap of dishonesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 846
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello TBax,
I'm glad you appreciate the research (even if you do mean it in a back-way sort of fashion). The thing is I've done research on your definite article position as well. It's the same position taken by the JW's in an effort to justify their re-write of John1:1. Of course the most highly respected Greek to English scholars from universities around the world highly disagree with the methodology used by the JW's in their application, apprehension, and comprehension the of definite article as it is translated from Greek to English. As I understand it the JW methodology is incomplete at best.
Hmm, how do I say this without driving you further into a defense position....I don't think there is a way, so I might as well be blunt. You are grasping at straws.
First you took the position that though the Bible actually says 'latter times' it really means 'subsequent times', which I pointed out is not rational, as the two terms mean something different, and are not even synonyms of one another.
Then in a change up from trying to prove that the two terms are interchangable and mean the same thing, you attempt to show the KJV translators were wrong in using the term 'latter times', apparently because they did not employ the scholarly-denounced JW translation methodology, insisting that the direct/literal translation is 'in subsequent times'.
| TBax wrote: | Second, you see the definition and ignor most of the definitions that fit the context.
latter, later, coming after, after this, later, ALL CAN MEAN subsequent. |
And then here you come back, with yet another angle, trying to show that the two terms mean the same thing and that they are interchangable.
The lexicon definition given for the greek term Husteros does not include subsequent. The translative words given for Husteros can not be divided and applied at will, they are rather a grouping of words that together provide the translative meaning. The 'latter times' of course would be latter, and would come later and would be coming after, and would be after this..............but do not throw out that underlined primary word, just so you can place the time frame of latter times at some period 1700 years ago.
You cant hold both positions.....Either the KJV translators got it wrong, or the terms are interchangable. This is the kind of thing that comes out while grasping at straws.
Now then, while grasping at straws you have hit on a potentially rational aurgement. An aurgement I had hoped the disscussion would have focused on sometime ago when it intially came up, but in your zeal to denounce everything I say, you disagreed with me, and let it go. But now, you seem to be considering this very argurement. Here's the aurgument.....
| TBax wrote: | | However, even if you were correct, and it was in the latter vs former context, Paul could have been speaking of the "former times" as the apostolic era. When the apostles died would begin the latter times, and that would at least be in harmony with other scriptures. You arguing "the latter part of the latter times" is not at all indicated, nor is it a reasonable assumption. |
Of course before we can go this route we would both have to agree that 'latter times' does not mean 'subsequent times'....ie...the Bible means what it says, and says what it means....as in....it's yes is yes, it's no is no!
| TBax wrote: | It does in the manuscript I see online. Would you like the link?
Still that is besides the point. Latter can mean later or subsequent, and it does here in 1 Tim 4:1. |
Yeah, give me the link. I thought this would be a good place to end the disscussion, but I'll take a look at the link. If I see anything compelling one way or the other, I'll comment further, but I feel we are at the latter stages of the disscussion. No pun intended in that last sentence, however a demonstration of the meaning of the word 'latter' was intended. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1771
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
| Dust wrote: | | It's the same position taken by the JW's in an effort to justify their re-write of John1:1. |
Similar principle, but different subject. Without the definite article it is possible to add an indefinite article.
Understanding how the definite article changes things is important to understadning the language. With the definite article you are speaking of something specific. Since it is not there in the original greek in 1 Tim 4:1 it is improper to put it there in the translation in english. Simply put the original language disagrees with the definite article being there.
| Dust wrote: | | You are grasping at straws. |
Irony, once again!
Who is the one rejecting the majority of the definitions of the greek word, and limiting it to only one???
Who is the one limiting the meaning of "latter" to only one meaning regardless of context??????
| Dust wrote: | | First you took the position that though the Bible actually says 'latter times' it really means 'subsequent times', |
You don't pay attention. You are the one insisting it must say "latter times". By your own admission that greek word can mean latter, later, coming after, after this, later,
Is your research meaningless to you?
| Dust wrote: | | which I pointed out is not rational, as the two terms mean something different, and are not even synonyms of one another. |
What you pointed out is you close your eyes to the truth. You believe what you choose to and limit meanings to what you choose to. Instead of being objective, you are very close minded.
| Dust wrote: | | you attempt to show the KJV translators were wrong in using the term 'latter times', |
Either your comprehention is horrible, or you are an outright liar. I never disagreed with the term "latter times". I disagree with your limiting the meaning. Grasping at straws? 
| Dust wrote: | | TBax wrote: | Second, you see the definition and ignor most of the definitions that fit the context.
latter, later, coming after, after this, later, ALL CAN MEAN subsequent. |
And then here you come back, with yet another angle, trying to show that the two terms mean the same thing and that they are interchangable. |
Another angle????
Another angle???????
Another angle????????????????
Who is grasping at straws?
| Dust wrote: | | but in your zeal to denounce everything I say, you disagreed with me, and let it go. |
It was not zeal but reason that denounces everything you say. I will not let that go. 
| Dust wrote: | | Of course before we can go this route we would both have to agree that 'latter times' does not mean 'subsequent times' |
Well, I cannot agree with you because the context shows it does mean subsequent.
| Dust wrote: | | Yeah, give me the link. |
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti4.pdf
THE YET spirit explicitly IS-sayING that IN subsequent SEASONS (eras) shall-be-withdrawing some OF-THE faith siving-heed to-spirits deceiving AND to-TEACHings of-demons
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 846
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Howdy TBax,
There are some significant problems with the link you provided.
First, the site is the development of one man... A.E. Knoch. Here is a quote from him....
| A.E. Knoch wrote: | So it gradually dawned on me that it was foolish to fill my mind with a discordant version if I hoped to advance in the knowledge of God. It would be just as save to tangle up a ball of twine before trying to use it.
Thus it was that the idea of a concordant version suggested itself to my mind. Instead of correcting current translations occasionally by a concordance, why not make a version which is already concordant, |
So this one man here in the latter times is going to correct current translations?
This shows absolutely no faith in the power and providence of God in delivering His word to the world just as He intends it to be delivered. Oh there are plenty of sperious variations out there, but God, by His power and providence has given His English speaking children an obvious hallmark....the KJV which is the English translation that went out almost exclusively around the world for hundreds of years. Creating a modern version of the KJV is great, as today Olde-English is difficult to understand. Also, to help with certain clarifications other Biblical tools can possibly be helpful, but should never be used as a replacement for the KJV which God sent out to all nations exclusively for hundreds of years.
Additionally, for someone (such as you and the JW's)who purport to adhearing to the 1st century Church, listening to and adopting such latter-day testimony, as that which is on your referenced website, (especially from a single individual) is highly hypocritical....as in speaking lies in hypocrisy.
There are also problems associated with the use of subliner vs. interliner text which is what your link is a blend of. It appears to me that the English translation of the Greek word Husteros as it appears on your referenced website is of a subliner form. The normative Greek to English translation of course is 'latter'. The subliner form would be any word which is not normative (not normal) such as, in this case, subsequent.
Things can be tricky out there TBax, but with a little foot-work , and good ole fashion common sense the confusion can be cleared up. God is not the author of confusion, when He says latter times, He means latter times! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1771
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
| Dust wrote: | | This shows absolutely no faith in the power and providence of God in delivering His word to the world just as He intends it to be delivered. |
Appearently you have misunderstood what you have read.
You speak in nonsense. All manuscripts are written by men. All translations are written by men.
Regardless, your research means nothing. If someone writes a Concordant sublinear they are attempting to discern the truth beyond personal interpretation.
| Quote: | | The Concordant sublinears (CGTS and CGES_idiom) are an endeavor to present God's Word in a more useful form. It attempts to exhibit actual facts from the original language, rather than an interpretation of them. The concordant method seeks to establish the truth of the Word, not to adorn it for appeal. |
The purpose of Concordant sublinears is to avoid exactly what you are currently doing. Using your interpretation of a word rather then the facts.
| Dust wrote: | | It appears to me that the English translation of the Greek word Husteros as it appears on your referenced website is of a subliner form. |
That's OK. You can use its literal forms, like later, coming after, after this
So basically, the unbiased version say "subsequent".
The literal version can say "latter, later, coming after, after this, later, ".
Your translation says "latter".
There is no difference.
They are all saying the same thing.
It is your interpretation that is different. Your idea of "the latter part of the latter times" isn't at all indicated in 1 Tim 4:1.
Although you attempted to discredit this interlinear version, it didn't work.
| Dust wrote: | | God is not the author of confusion |
No, He is not! But you are.
(1 Timothy 4:1) However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 846
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | So basically, the unbiased version say "subsequent".
The literal version can say "latter, later, coming after, after this, later, ".
Your translation says "latter".
There is no difference.
They are all saying the same thing.
|
There is most certainly a difference, and it's been demonstrated in the discussion as a whole (not just my side of it).
Once again, here is the complete Merriam Webster definition that you yourself made reference to in an attempt to defend your 'no difference' position...
| Quote: | Main Entry: lat·ter
Pronunciation: \ˈla-tər\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lætra, comparative of læt late
Date: before 12th century
1 a: belonging to a subsequent time or period : more recent <the latter stages of growth> b: of or relating to the end <in their latter days> c: recent, present <affected by latter calamities>
2: of, relating to, or being the second of two groups or things or the last of several groups or things referred to <of ham and beef the latter meat is cheaper today> <of ham and beef the latter is cheaper today> |
Let's take a close up look at the PORTION of the definition you quoted....
'belonging to a subsequent time or period'
A colon is positioned immediately after this phrase (I've enlarged it above for emphasis). This is significant.....
From Wikipedia....
| Quote: | | As with many other punctuation marks, the usage of colon varies among languages and, for a given language, among historical periods. As a rule, however, a colon informs the reader that what follows proves, clarifies, explains, or simply enumerates elements of what is referred to before. |
So once again LATTER MEANS.....
1 a: belonging to a subsequent time or period : more recent <the latter stages of growth> b: of or relating to the end <in their latter days> c: recent, present <affected by latter calamities>
Now obviously the term latter times relates to the end, as the definition clarifies. There is nothing in the clarification of the definition that indicates any other period of time than that of the end/more recent/recent/present.
TBax, can you not see the error in reading the....'belonging to a subsequent time or period'.....portion of the Merriam Webster definition, and not applying any other part of the definition to it, as you are doing?
Latter times speaks of a time towards the end/more recent/recent/present.
Subsequent times speaks of any time following the present or subject time period.
| Quote: | Main Entry: sub·se·quent
Pronunciation: \ˈsəb-si-kwənt, -sə-ˌkwent\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin subsequent-, subsequens, present participle of subsequi to follow close, from sub- near + sequi to follow — more at sub-, sue
Date: 15th century
: following in time, order, or place <subsequent events> <a subsequent clause in the treaty> |
Though the latter times would obviously be subsequent to the time at which Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, latter times is more specific than just any subsequent period of time.
Now then, also obvious is that the Holy Spirit intended his message in the book of Timothy to be pertinent to all people of all subsequent time periods. The generation of each time period beyond or susequent to the time Paul wrote the Book of 1 Timothy, could, by the pure definition of the word 'latter', rightfully claim his own PRESENT time to be of the latter times. However, we here in the 21st century know for an absolute certainty that our PRESENT time is the latter time and/or of the latter times. It matters not what happened 1700 years ago in the essence of the 1 timothy 4 phrase 'latter times', as the latter times are NOW (of the end/more recent/recent/present) and, as I have pointed out, 1 timothy 4:1, describes precisely what is happening today.
| TBax wrote: | | Your idea of "the latter part of the latter times" isn't at all indicated in 1 Tim 4:1. |
Is there no end to your insolence towards truth? I have never written such non-sense. You wrote it, and then you ascribed it to me, as is obvious, you have come to believe your own lie.......This most certainly is not my idea!
| TBax wrote: | | Although you attempted to discredit this interlinear version, it didn't work. |
I did not discredit it. I merely quoted from the website itself (if you feel this discredits it, then it's discredited on its own merit), and pointed to what I see as sheer folly in giving this site or it's author authority over the power and providence of God in delivering His word to His English speaking children just as He intends them to have it. Not to mention that A.E. Knoch came up with all this here in the latter times, departing, as it were, from the established word of God. Hmm speaking of latter times, what do you think the Latter Day Saints intend by their own title? It seems even they understand the meaning of latter.
TBax you are in a time subsequent to the time Paul wrote his letter to Timothy. More pointedly you are in the latter times as expressly referred to by the Holy Spirit in 1 Timothy 4:1. Does Watch Tower doctrine represent a change from the established faith here in these present times? Does Mormon doctrine represent a change from the established faith here in these latter times? The Holy Spirits warning in 1 Timothy 4:1 is specifically about groups such as these, and here in these latter times it may also be a warning about some Catholics, Baptists, and others who would leave the established faith as well. I have the faith spoken of in the Bible, the very faith ascribed to Abraham! That's not a boasting of myself, that is a boasting of the faith.
My faith in God and His word will stand above your insistance in departing from the established word of God. It will stand against the unknown adgendas/teachings and unknown gods, and against those who teach some other Jesus than that which has been established. My faith stands in contrast to those who have left the faith here in these latter-times/present-times. In no wise will I give biblical authority over to that of mere men. I will rather stand firm in my faith in God and His almighty power and providence in delivering His word to me and my past & present English speaking brothers, not to mention all my brothers of all nations of all times who have come to know God.
You make the word of God, for yourself, of no effect. You look at 1700 years ago as the time 1 Timothy 4:1 speaks of, effectively searing your conscience, so that you cannot (or will not) see the wrong taking place right here, right now.
I truly feel sorry for you, and my sincere hope is that, regardless of all the various false doctrines that are flying about here in the latter times, you find the truth.
See ya! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1771
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
| Dust wrote: | | TBax wrote: | Your idea of "the latter part of the latter times" isn't at all indicated in 1 Tim 4:1.
|
Is there no end to your insolence towards truth? I have never written such non-sense. You wrote it, and then you ascribed it to me, as is obvious, you have come to believe your own lie.......This most certainly is not my idea! |
Bold mind
That is what you are saying. You lying about this now is ridiculous. You have never written such non-sense????????????????????
From Feb 9:
| Dust wrote: | we today understand that 1700 years ago WAS NOT and ARE NOT the latter times, as you have tried to assert.
As it is, both you and I believe strongly that we are in the latter part of the end times. |
Bold mind
By one of the definitions such "end times" would be "latter times"!!! Hence "the latter part of the latter times" !!!
From Feb 12:
| Dust wrote: | | At any rate, what the scale makes obvious is that the 4th century is not the latter part of the scale, which you have tried to asert. |
What was your scale, 1-21, of? Your idea of the end times?
| Dust wrote: | | 1 Timothy 4, refers to just that......the latter portion of the the last dispensation of time. |
Bold mind
Hence "the latter part of the latter times" !!! 
From Feb 20:
| Dust wrote: | | The term 'latter', as it pertains to your 'former vs. latter' example, means the last mentioned. The term 'latter times' as used in 1 Timothy 4:1 means the last part or towards the end of time. |
Bold mind
Yes. My insolence toward properly undertstanding what you have said is intollerable.
It appears you have indeed written such non-sense!!! You are showing your fruitage, Dust.  You cannot keep your lies straight.
| Dust wrote: | | TBax wrote: | Although you attempted to discredit this interlinear version, it didn't work.
|
I did not discredit it. |
Oh! Then you understand "subsequent" is proper. Good!
| Dust wrote: | | 1 a: belonging to a subsequent time or period : more recent |
Your "colon" explanation was quite helpful. So what you are saying is Paul was speaking of a "more recent time", as compared to the first century? The example actually gives the context of how to apply the clarification. First of all, Paul didn't use the english word "latter"! Also, the context shows Paul didn't say "the latter times of ...", or anything like that, that leaves the "more recent" out and makes it "in subsequent times", or "in later times", or "times after this".
(1 Timothy 4:1) However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons,
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1771
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pete on Feb 23 in trin discussion wrote: | | For instance, many Greek words have more than one meanig, and Trins will take the one that more closely fits their preconceived notions, rather than context. |
Sound familiar Dust? Although not about the trinity you are doing the same thing here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1771
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
Since you insist on continuing here, I believe you need to at least try to explain your lie. Why did you lie here?
| Dust wrote: | | TBax wrote: | Your idea of "the latter part of the latter times" isn't at all indicated in 1 Tim 4:1.
|
Is there no end to your insolence towards truth? I have never written such non-sense. You wrote it, and then you ascribed it to me, as is obvious, you have come to believe your own lie.......This most certainly is not my idea! |
Bold mind
That is what you are saying. You lying about this now is ridiculous. You have never written such non-sense????????????????????
From Feb 9:
| Dust wrote: | we today understand that 1700 years ago WAS NOT and ARE NOT the latter times, as you have tried to assert.
As it is, both you and I believe strongly that we are in the latter part of the end times. |
Bold mind
By one of the definitions such "end times" would be "latter times"!!! Hence "the latter part of the latter times" !!!
From Feb 12:
| Dust wrote: | | At any rate, what the scale makes obvious is that the 4th century is not the latter part of the scale, which you have tried to asert. |
What was your scale, 1-21, of? Your idea of the end times?
| Dust wrote: | | 1 Timothy 4, refers to just that......the latter portion of the the last dispensation of time. |
Bold mind
Hence "the latter part of the latter times" !!!
From Feb 20:
| Dust wrote: | | The term 'latter', as it pertains to your 'former vs. latter' example, means the last mentioned. The term 'latter times' as used in 1 Timothy 4:1 means the last part or towards the end of time. |
Bold mind
Yes. My insolence toward properly undertstanding what you have said is intollerable.
It appears you have indeed written such non-sense!!! You are showing your fruitage, Dust. You cannot keep your lies straight.
| Dust wrote: | | TBax wrote: | Although you attempted to discredit this interlinear version, it didn't work.
|
I did not discredit it. |
Oh! Then you understand "subsequent" is proper. Good!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
