God's feeling of failure.

[Huggy Bear]

Here is the definition of some

[emphasis is mine]

Really, that's all you could find? Or, were those the only ones you could shoehorn into your argument. Color me unimpressed.

some
səm/
determiner
determiner: some

1. an unspecified amount or number of.
"I made some money running errands"
2. used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
"she married some newspaper magnate twice her age"

Tell me again how fluent you are in English.

Apparently more fluent than you. Yet again you miss the context. Your buy-bull verse doesn't say "someone." If it did, you might have a case. "There are some among" is clearly not the same as "there is someone" (note the singular), "he made some money" (abstract) or "they suckered some fool into believing their bullshit" (note the singular context). Within the context of the buy-bull verse, some is a plural, despite your apologetics, bullshit and desperate need to wish it otherwise.

I found a few more definitions than you.

some
1. being an undetermined or unspecified one: Some person may object.
2. (used with plural nouns) certain: Some days I stay home.
3. of a certain unspecified number, amount, degree, etc.: to some extent.
4. unspecified but considerable in number, amount, degree, etc.: We talked for some time. He was here some weeks.
5. Informal. of impressive or remarkable quality, consequence, extent, etc.: That was some storm.
pronoun
6. certain persons, individuals, instances, etc., not specified: Some think he is dead.
7. an unspecified number, amount, etc., as distinguished from the rest or in addition: He paid a thousand dollars and then some.
adverb
8. (used with numerals and with words expressing degree, extent, etc.) approximately; about: Some 300 were present.
9. Informal. to some degree or extent; somewhat: I like baseball some. She is feeling some better today.
10. Informal. to a great degree or extent; considerably: That's going some.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/some
I also cited my source so you can go check that I'm not cherry picking or quote mining.

Number 6 above (bolded for you) is the best match for the context of the buy-bull verse. Notice it's plural, as is the case in your buy-bull verse or any "quote" where there isn't an implication of an individual.

Once again, the word "some" means an unspecified amount, and last time I looked 1 is an amount. "someone" would specify an individual, and "some people" would be plural, "some" by itself is unspecified.

Now if you want to be technical, you could safely assume that there were people there that read what John wrote therefore effectively seeing the same thing.

Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Further, you failed to address the point that John didn't see jack shit, let alone the son-of-god coming in his kingdom or a new heaven and earth because he was describing a vision, not a reality. Full marks for spin and bullshit. Very poor marks indeed for making your case.

Visions have always been a tool that God used to show his prophets future events.

Numbers 12
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

The only difference between a vision and a dream is, a vision occurs while you're awake.

Numbers 24
4 He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open:


So yes, the end times were "revealed" to John by Jesus Christ through a vision.

Nice choice of version.

New International Version:

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Are is plural, therefore some is plural. How many John's were there?

Oh - and I thought none of the gospels were written by eye witnesses - isn't it the same John that wrote the gospel that wrote Revelations?

The gospels of John weren't even written by the apostle.

Many modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works,[4]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi...nine_works

As far as Revelation:

More recent methods of scholarship, such as textual criticism, have been influential in suggesting that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals. Differences in style, theological content, and familiarity with Greek between the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Revelation are seen by some scholars as indicating three separate authors.[16]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

The bible is full of authors pretending to be other authors while disguised as another author, 30-100+ years later, while gospels we can prove originated in the same area around 2 CE are voted out as "non canonical," including the Gospel of Mary, which actually would make Mark's commentary on women make sense.

Wow, you found someone with a different opinion. In case you haven't noticed, the huge number of different church denominations shows that will always be the case.

And furthermore John did not author Revelation he was just the scribe, he was told what to write by Jesus, which is why the full title is actually "The Revelation of Jesus Christ".

[Brakeman]

In case you haven't figured it out, he was speaking of John.

No, thats silly. The name is a title, Not an indefinite article.

The expression "the Son of man" appears 81 times in the Koine Greek of the four Gospels: thirty times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, twenty five times in Luke and 12 times in John.[8][3] However, the use of the definite article in "the Son of man" is novel, and before its use in the Canonical gospels, there are no records of its use in any of the surviving Greek documents of antiquity.[3]

Geza Vermes has stated that "the son of man" in the New Testament is unrelated to Hebrew Bible usages. Vermes begins with the observation that there is no example of "the" son of man in Hebrew sources and suggests that the term originates in Aramaic — ברנש - bar nash/bar nasha.[5] He concludes that in these sources "Son of man" is a regular expression for man in general and often serves as an indefinite pronoun and in none of the extant texts does "son of man" figure as a title.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_...tianity%29

[Ravenshire]

---

[emphasis is mine]

Really, that's all you could find? Or, were those the only ones you could shoehorn into your argument. Color me unimpressed.


Apparently more fluent than you. Yet again you miss the context. Your buy-bull verse doesn't say "someone." If it did, you might have a case. "There are some among" is clearly not the same as "there is someone" (note the singular), "he made some money" (abstract) or "they suckered some fool into believing their bullshit" (note the singular context). Within the context of the buy-bull verse, some is a plural, despite your apologetics, bullshit and desperate need to wish it otherwise.

I found a few more definitions than you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/some
I also cited my source so you can go check that I'm not cherry picking or quote mining.

Number 6 above (bolded for you) is the best match for the context of the buy-bull verse. Notice it's plural, as is the case in your buy-bull verse or any "quote" where there isn't an implication of an individual.

Once again, the word "some" means an unspecified amount, and last time I looked 1 is an amount. "someone" would specify an individual, and "some people" would be plural, "some" by itself is unspecified.

Now if you want to be technical, you could safely assume that there were people there that read what John wrote therefore effectively seeing the same thing.

Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Further, you failed to address the point that John didn't see jack shit, let alone the son-of-god coming in his kingdom or a new heaven and earth because he was describing a vision, not a reality. Full marks for spin and bullshit. Very poor marks indeed for making your case.

Visions have always been a tool that God used to show his prophets future events.

Numbers 12
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

The only difference between a vision and a dream is, a vision occurs while you're awake.

Numbers 24
4 He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open:


So yes, the end times were "revealed" to John by Jesus Christ through a vision.

The gospels of John weren't even written by the apostle.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi...nine_works

As far as Revelation:


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

The bible is full of authors pretending to be other authors while disguised as another author, 30-100+ years later, while gospels we can prove originated in the same area around 2 CE are voted out as "non canonical," including the Gospel of Mary, which actually would make Mark's commentary on women make sense.

Wow, you found someone with a different opinion. In case you haven't noticed, the huge number of different church denominations shows that will always be the case.

And furthermore John did not author Revelation he was just the scribe, he was told what to write by Jesus, which is why the full title is actually "The Revelation of Jesus Christ".

---

I give up. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This is especially true of christers and I have far more important things to do (like dressing out that fresh baby for tomorrows dinner) to deal with this shit.

It must be frustrating Huggy, that an atheist understands your scripture better than you do.

[Rampant.A.I.]

[Wyrd of Gawd]

In case you haven't figured it out, he was speaking of John.

No, thats silly. The name is a title, Not an indefinite article.

The expression "the Son of man" appears 81 times in the Koine Greek of the four Gospels: thirty times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, twenty five times in Luke and 12 times in John.[8][3] However, the use of the definite article in "the Son of man" is novel, and before its use in the Canonical gospels, there are no records of its use in any of the surviving Greek documents of antiquity.[3]

Geza Vermes has stated that "the son of man" in the New Testament is unrelated to Hebrew Bible usages. Vermes begins with the observation that there is no example of "the" son of man in Hebrew sources and suggests that the term originates in Aramaic — ברנש - bar nash/bar nasha.[5] He concludes that in these sources "Son of man" is a regular expression for man in general and often serves as an indefinite pronoun and in none of the extant texts does "son of man" figure as a title.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_man_...tianity%29

In the Old Testament only Israelites/Hebrews/Jews were considered "men." Gentiles were considered beasts or dogs.