Another named angel besides Michael and Gabriel?

ianao

Could someone turn to Revelation 9:11. I am always hearing of only two angels being named in the Bible, but now I am seeing this one. The text reads from mine:

rev 9:11 - They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is A-bad'don, but in the Greek he has the name A-pol'lyon.

Does anyone know what Abaddon/Apollyan symbolizes? In the NWT, the reference is made to first to Luke 4:34 in reference to a demon calling Jesus the Holy One of God before being rebuked admist the synogouge, then the next reference is to Rev 19:15 which potrays what appears to be Jesus coming from the clouds. What gives? Anyone have any ideas on this one? Any brainstorms would be appreciated, as I have only recently come upon this, and it intruigues me.

-ianao

Edited by - ianao on 21 December 2000 11:52:27

RR

"angel" does not always mean angelic being, epsecially when we're considering a book of symbols. Angels oftem means messenger, the name in Hebrew was Abaddon, and in the Greek was Apollyon. All
lexicographers agree that the meaning of this name is that of destroyer or exterminator.

The book of revelation from my studies, is a history of the Church,from penetcost to the present, unlike the Society's interpretation that the book of revelation is to be fulfilled in them, or about them.

So who or what is the angel mentioned? That depends on the interpretation. I believe that the Lord has had certain messengers through these past two thousands years of the Church's history, so this messenger could very well be a servant of God.

"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"

ianao

Well, from what I can tell by looking, it seems to be that Abaddon/Apollyan is the fifth angel to blow the trumpet in Rev. Being given 'the key to the abyss' and opening it and serving as the torturers' King to those who do NOT have God's approval. I see the correlation with the angel's name (i.e. Destoryer) that parallels to Sheol as shown in Psalm 88. The angel's name Seems to be symbolic as one of God's woes to the Earth. I understand RR what you say regarding an angel meaning messenger, but this message went pretty far in grabbing a key, unlocking an abyss, and later throwing the dragon and chaining/locking him in the abyss for 1000 years. (This message did a couple of things!) I also understand the symbolic meaning probably being God's punishment of non-believers/idolaters then binding satan in preparation for Jesus' 1000 yr reign.

What I find interesting is the society's lack of mentioning this to anyone. Seems to me, even if the name is a symbol, shouldn't the name be known to the rank and file JW? My JW friend had no idea it existed, nor did I. I thought JWs derived a great deal of their teachings from Revelation. I'm suprised one of them (a ministerial servent) did not know about it already. Does anyone have a WT CD? I've seen other scholar's comments on this one (now), but I am interested to see what kind of writeup the society has on this.

-ianao

RR

This is what the Watchtower says:

<Revelation, Its Grand Climax at Hand p.148.>
Rather than announce the incoming Kingdom of God, Christendom's clergy have chosen to remain with Satan's world. They want no part with the locust band and their King, concerning whom John now observes: "They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is Abaddon [meaning "Destruction"], but in Greek he has the name Apollyon [meaning "Destroyer"]." (Revelation 9:11) As "angel of the abyss" and "Destroyer," Jesus had truly released a plaguing woe on Christendom. But more is to follow!

"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"

larc

Ianao and RR,

Since the two of you are heavily involved in Biblical research, I thought you could shed light on a question I have. Are there Bible translations that are considered better than others as judged by unbiased Bible scholars, or at least as judged by those with limited bias?

ianao

larc:

From my experiences, there is no definate "unbiased" translation of the Bible around today. Even the Latin Vulgate seems to have it's biases (or so I have heard).

If you want my personal opinion (which is all I can really give) I would say the least biased translation out today would be the New World Translation (The JW bible). Seems to be the least biased in it's translations, although it does have it's own quirks (inspired utterences, etc.)

I have read in other circles that the NIV, YLT, NASB (and other translations derived from the KJV) have alterior motives to translating scripture: They wish to SELL BIBLES, and you cannot sell a bible to mainstream 'Christians' if nobody likes your translation. This is another point scored for the NWT, because I got my copy by requesting it from a JW friend (for a small donation, if I so desired).

(speculation follows:)

larc, I'm afraid you'll find that most people who care enough about the scriptures to attempt an accurate and unbiased Bible translation will inevitably have their own biases, as everone does. The problem in translating is that nobody who COULD make an unbiased translation wants to.

My suggestion for anyone looking for unbiased scripture is to learn to read Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc. and read the 'original' texts yourself. You will run into a stop-gap here as well because several of the MS texts/scrolls have dubious sources, and authenticity is a matter of personal opinion.

(Obviously, this suggestion is not the most practical.)

Hope that helps...

-ianao

Edited by - ianao on 27 December 2000 7:1:51

larc

Well, that would be the ideal solution, but I'm 60 years old and don't have the time to make this my life's work. I have to trust that there are Bible scholars out there who know Greek and Hebrew through a lifetime of study and can provide a good "product." Since I posted here yesterday, I also posted under the elder committee topic and responded to someone who said a scripture I quoted was bogus. So I checked seven new translations and was impressed with the effort they made to make them accurate. On my other post I list these seven translations. By the way, this is not a set up. I did not ask you two this question with information to try to trap you. I found information after I asked the question.

ianao

Hello larc.

I'm glad this wasn't a setup.

It's hard to 'set one up' to one's opinions.

As I said before, every scholar has his own bias, and that's why, no matter how hard you look, you'll never find an 'accurate' translation, only one that goes along with what you think.

-ianao

RR

I think the NWT is very biased and reflects their theology.

But I would agree, every translation has a tint of biased, which is why there are many translations, everyone thinks they can translate better, however in doing so they add their own biased thoughts.

I personally used several translations in my studies, and favor the New King James Bible although I have personal notes in mind telling me about biased verses and spurious passages.

"People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"

waiting

Hey larc,

but I'm 60 years old and don't have the time to make this my life's work.

wow.......

I've always used, sparingly, other translations. Not that I'd know the proper rendition of a particular passage - but because of the feel of the words used. By comparing words, sets a mood or flavor.

Myself, I like the NIV (don't even know what it stands for right now - at work). I like the wording - more understandable and flows better than NWT.

But I know the NWT pretty well, other than that scripture you quoted yesterday. I knew it - but couldn't find it. Thanks for all seven inputs.

waiting

Another named angel besides Michael and Gabriel?

Share this