Hello, Joe, and welcome to SDMB. I hope you find us worthy of a subscription.
Friar Ted has already addressed the somewhat ambiguous nature of the words translated as “eternal punishment” (aionian kolasis). Aionian means “for ages,” “age-lasting,” or (as Friar rendered it) “ages and ages.” It’s long time, an indefinite time, but a finite time.
Moreover, kolasis means “correction” or “penalty” in the sense of a legal judgement. It does not necessarily mean physical torment.
There are several ways one could interpret this. “Age-lasting correction” would be a fairly literal translation and that could either be read as the expected temporary punishment (for some) in Sheol before judgement day, or it could be read as eternal death afterwards. Either of those would fit into 1st century Palestinian Jewish eschatological and afterlife beliefs. Christian “hell” would not. The concept of hell as a place of eternal physical torture did not exist in that culture.
It’s the FIRE that is never quenched, not the punishment.
Yes it does. Fires burned more or less continuously in the Valley called Gehenna and were spoken of figuratively as flames that “never died,” etc. Eventually Gehenna came to be thought of either figuratively or literally as the place where sinners would be cast for annihilation after the resurrection and judgement of the dead.
You’re misconstruing that verse a little bit. Here it is in context.
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(Mt. 8:11-12)
In this passage, Jesus is simply stating that Heaven is not just for Israel (“the children of the kingdom”) but that many gentiles will make it and some Jews will not. Some will be cast (figuratively) into “outer darkness” (away from God), and there will be regret when it happens (“weeping and gnashing of teeth”). It does not say anything about eternal torment.
I didn’t say the Christian conception of hell comes from Jewish eschatology. I’m saying the verses in the *Bible refer to Jewish eschatology. Christian “hell” is not in the Bible.
It is also not “dogmatic” to simply translate the words literally and inform those readings with some knowledge of historical and cultural context.
Yes it is. Read the Greek.
No, it simply makes reference to common 1st century Jewish eschatological beliefs. It makes perfect sense that way and would NOT make sense in your way when you consider that Jesus’ audience would not know anything about a Christian “hell,” and would understand Jesus’ words in the way they made plain sense to their own culture.
My user name refers to a member of a Greek philosophical school called “Cynicism” which has a different meaning than it has in modern English.
Having said that, your comment is essentially ad hominem (and presumptuous, considering that you don’t know anything about my background with this material) and without debatable content.
Your assumption that the King James Bible is particularly - or even adequately- accurate as an English translation is completely erroneous. The KJV is regarded by most contemporary New testament scholars as an exceedingly poor tool for Biblical study, not only is the translation less than accurate, but the Greek source material it used for translation - a compilation called the Textus Receptus or “received text”- is based on manuscripts which are quite late, corrupted and incomplete. Some of the incomplete parts were actually filled in by translating back from the latin Vulgate. We now have much earlier and more reliable manuscript sources and it is translations from those sources which scholars now use. The Oxford Annotated Bible is pretty much the standard version used in much of academia.
Of course, you would be even better off by learning Koine Greek. Then you wouldn’t have to rely on translations at all.
I am not 100% sure about that. Paul said in Romans 2: 14- 15:
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
I am not saying that never hearing about Jesus is the same thing as hearing about Jesus and not believeing. I just wanted to point out that it seems, under certain circumstances, virtuous non-believers can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Heh. Good one.
I have always understood the same thing. The KJV is a reletively poor translation.
To whom it may concern: I am going to be putting in a lot of overtime at my job in the next couple of weeks, and will be quite busy, but will try to answer some posts, if there are any. Only a short time until vacation. My vacation is most of August. I am not sure if I will be on the board then, but I would like to be in September.
I have spent a fair amount of time in the last couple of days trying to answer all posts. I am afraid putting up so many responses may make me look bad, as if I am in love with own opinions, but I have responded to comments addressed to me.
Concerning your post (#91) if there is no God, or if there is a God but he does not speak through the bible accurately and substantively, then this discussion is a complete waste of time. If however God does exist, and speak through the bible, as I believe he does, then we can see that there will be a day of judgement. Those who have received forgiveness of sins and been born into the kingdom of God will be accepted into an eternity of paradise. I have never heard anyone argue that people would exist in heaven for a short time and then be annihilated anyway!
Those who have not received forgiveness and been born into the kingdom of God will be punished and cast out, sent to a place of punishment. Now, does “ages and ages” mean eternity, or does it mean an incredibly long time? I don’t want to be punished for either - I want to live for God and go to heaven.
Also, it is more than a matter of grammar and vocabulary. Those who have received the Spirit of God through faith in Christ and have the mind of Christ should be able to interpret these things according to a wisdom hidden from the natural mind.
There will inevitably be differences of interpretation, which will be cleared up when Christ returns and all truth is revealed.
Thanks for the welcome, Happy Scrappy Hero Pup (and others). This is a serious board. Maybe requiring people to pay weeds out a lot of idle posters, I don’t know.
This is a complex topic, the more so with different people approaching it from different directions.
I agree there is a difference between justice and punishment. They aren’t synonymous, I meant that the concept of punishment for evil itself is just, apart from the extent to which it applies in each situation. For God to punish evildoers in some way is not unjust.
As to the lake enduring while the sufferers do not, that is speculation. Christ did say that the worm dies not and the fire is not quenched, which would be odd if the objects of punishment themselves had ceased to exist. The worm is not central to Jesus’ teachings, but it is a part of them, since he mentions it three times. As to it being a literary conceit, it may be a metaphor for the conscience of the punished sinner, meaning the eternity of punishment (if the conscience does not die that is). You say there is no reason to connect unending fire and unending torment - is there a reason to disconnect them?
About the “it’s going to rain” metaphor, Jesus did not say only “They will be punished.” Then we could speculate endlessly as per your metaphor.
About Revelation, I don’t claim to know who the great whore is, and mentioned that only to show that the concept of eternity of punishment is in the bible somwehere (not, in this case, with regard to people). When you say “the idea behind its forever burning is simply to communicate the eternity of Christ’s Church and the finite (and prone to a violent end) reality of corporeal life,” I have to ask, “Really?” How can you be so sure? I think it conveys eternity of punishment, which is the plain meaning.
Maybe you would read a long study if I wrote it. I wrote a long study about Christianity and the Holocaust, maybe someday I can find a publisher for it, though I doubt it. It is far removed from the mainstream of current evangelical thought. About trashing my beliefs, I don’t sense that. Jesus forgave the people who tortured him to death - I would be a poor Christian if I couldn’t handle a message board.
In response to my assertion that Jesus’ teaching on eternal punishment was clear, you said:
At this point, I would like to stop discussing words and find out more where you are coming from. Not that I expect you to bare your soul on a message board, but at this point a deeper discussion of presuppositions would be helpful. What are our doctrines? Our salvation experience and knowledge of Christ? Our manner of life, since many will talk about theology all day but be far removed from the holiness of God? These are things that have to be taken into consideration. It is not only words and grammar, there is also the Spirit and illumination from God in matters of scripture.
To me, a fire that is not quenched, and a worm that dies not (possibly a metaphor for conscience, definitely requiring eternity of punishment) are significant. There are a number of references indicating eternity, but nothing indicating that “You will be punished for a time and then annihilated.” How people would rejoice in that as a license to sin freely, and then take their lumps and be annihilated or go to heaven after suffering. Then Hitler could go to heaven, after a few trillion years, which is a drop in the bucket compared to eternity.
Then I asserted that “These are eternal truths that transcend culture and history and apply to all men everywhere” and you answered:
About obeying the authorities, did you mean Romans? There are basic spiritual truths, such as the death and resurrection of Christ, heaven, hell, God’s creation of the world, and other things that are true at all times and in all places. Then there are matters of individual conduct in specific situations, which are a lot more difficult to determine. There are the ABC’s of Christianity but also the XYZ’s. The fact that there are different responses required of Christians in different specific situations does not cancel out the main truths. Parenthetically, slavery in the ancient world was much different from modern chattel and racial slavery.
That would delight many sinners, to think that they could sin freely and do as much evil as they wanted, and then escape with annihilation. If their flame is never quenched, and their worm (maybe a metaphor for conscience) never dies, they might find that their hopes for anniliation were cruelly deceptive.
As to correctness of translation, I don’t know how the new versions deal with these passages. As far as I know they say the same thing on all basic points of doctrine, but not as concisely or as well as the KJV. I believe in the King James bible and the Greek manuscripts behind it (known as the Textus Receptus or TR) we have an accurate, authoritative and reliable version of the message of Christ. These basic ideas do transcend many centuries and two languages (Greek to English), even if some nuances or flavors are lost in the translation.
True, punishment in and of itself does not imply eternity, but the many references in the bible to eternity of punishment (as per posts 89 and 90) do imply eternity. If Jesus had only said “Sinners will be punished after death” you would have a point.
I argued that “That the Christian conception of hell refers to an ancient Jewish eschatological belief is a dogmatic assertion not warranted by an objective consideration of the verses I have posted” and you responded:
No argument about the Jewishness of Christ. I was objecting - imprecisely I admit - to the idea that Jesus was referring merely to an ancient Jewish eschatological belief, as if that belief were not true. The ancient Hebrews did have a concept of punishment in the afterlife, not merely a concept but truth revealed from God to the prophets. Jesus, bringing a fuller revelation, gave more insight and depth to the concept.
I stated that “I doubt that a cynic can do more than raise objections. He cannot, in my view, enter into the spirit of the book he is examining” and you responded:
I agree that faith is strengthened by questioning, and I have no objections to questions and debate. The person that I referred to as a cynic declared himself to be one. I took him at his word. If someone denies the possibility of real knowledge and says we can only go by what seems right to us, or holds other ideas denying the existence or the comprehensibility of enduring and eternal truth, I think that falls within the common academic definition of a cynic (someone may want to correct my definition).
If I say the bible teaches eternal punishment and someone says it does not, can’t I call that an objection? The objector may not be a cynic, he may be a Christian with a different understanding, but I was speaking of a self-proclaimed agnostic, not a Christian who reads the bible differently than I do.
I do claim the authority of the bible as being from God. If anyone’s interpretations differ from mine, I am free to say that the matter is not clear to me, or that I think their understanding is incorrect. Religious liberty includes my liberty to say I believe an interpretation is wrong. But, there is freedom of conscience and individual interpretation, which is an integral part of traditional Protestantism, which has never had an inquisition or a church court.
True, my faith does have a more fundamentalist bent, but I am also different from a lot of fundamentalists and do not feel comfortable with many of them.
I have tried to be brief and confine myself to answering your points.
In one post I asserted that “Hell is not a mistranslation of Gehenna, but an apt transference of an earthly type or example to an eternal truth (as is often done in the New Testament)” and was told “I am afraid that that is an assertion that would need to be supported.”
Diogenes said (post #79):
He was not required to give proof of this mere assertion. The New Testament does use events from the Old Testament as types of deeper spiritual realities. The blood on the door posts in Exodus is related to the blood of Christ. The ark and the ceremonies are related to a heavenly tabernacle. Noah’s ark is related to salvation and baptism.
Whether or not Hell is an apt transference from Gehenna or not cannot be proven in a court of law. It is a matter of belief, interpretation, individual understanding. Jesus used the word Gehenna to refer to a place of burning and punishment, of fire that is not quenched and of a worm that dieth not. The implications of eternity are plain. If this is eternal or not can never be proven to the satisfaction of someone who believes the opposite. To say that this punishment is annihilation is a mere assertion, without evidence or logic to support it, only personal preference and concepts of justice.
Then it is said:
I gave two examples (post 90) of where the concept of eternal punishment is not related to the word Gehenna (Matthew 25:46, which does not refer to Gehenna or to hell but to everlasting punishment, and Mark 9:43, which says “into the fire that never shall be quenched” - this does not depend on the meaning of Gehenna, which precedes it - “fire that never shall be quenched” stands whatever Gehenna might or might not mean). I added that the bible also describes God as light, in contrast to “the outer darkness” (Matth. 8:12) where there will be not annihilation but weeping and gnashing of teeth.
There are numerous references to eternal punishment entirely independent of the word Gehenna. Jesus linked Gehenna to an eternal fire. He said that there was eternal fire in Gehenna (whether or not individuals are punished there forever). It was Jesus who first linked Gehenna with eternal fire, not just the bible translators.
I don’t agree that one’s interpretation is “probably” going to be colored by one’s belief. It will almost certainly, 99.99% of the time, be colored by one’s belief.
I also made a statement: “I doubt that a cynic can do more than raise objections. He cannot, in my view, enter into the spirit of the book he is examining” and was given the following response:
Diogenes described himself in this thread as an agnostic. That fits in nicely with the description of Antisthenes, the founder of Cynicism, who believed that there are no universal objects of knowledge. I was not referring to the modern concept of “cynic,” but to the traditional philosophical concept (“Diogenes” is pretty obviously a reference to classical philosophy if I am not mistaken). Anyway, I do not believe that an agnostic, cynic or otherwise, can enter into the spirit of the New Testament. As it says in Corinthians, the New Testament contains divine truths that are concealed from the natural mind and cannot be understood without revelation and illumination.
As to sceptics not being blinded, that is all a matter of presuppositions. A sceptic may be blinded by his mistaken belief in individual intellectual self-sufficiency. It all depends on faith, belief, individual conviction.
I have been studying Koine Greek for years and am deeply impressed by the accuracy and spiritual depth of the translators who made the King James version.
This merits serious consideration:
Jesus plainly says some who claim to believe in him will be turned away. How do I know I am not one of them? Do I show the works of the Spirit in my life and in my heart - love, joy, peace, goodness, faith - or do I show the works of the flesh, the old unregenerate man: hatred, murders, drunkenness, adultery, fornication? Nominal Christians can avoid even the more flagrant sins and still be without Christ.
This is why Paul says we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
Cosmosdan said in another post
I am well aware that my views and beliefs are binding on no one. I am not a pope and am a firm believer in liberty of conscience. Also, many times on this thread I have said “I believe” - I have not been saying “Thus saith the Lord!”
That is a good point, if you assume the bible is a merely human book, written by men according to human wisdom. If however you believe that it is a book from God the equation is radically altered.
Liberal’s point also merits repetition:
By the way, were the Roman philosophers really so befuddled? Some of them knew Greek quite well. What if it is the moderns who are befuddled? Are we as advanced as we like to think we are?
Diogenes -
Thanks for your interesting and challenging posts and also for the welcome. I do like this board and have found it worthwhile so far. I haven’t even looked to see how much it costs to join yet but I suspect it will be worth it.
There are many ambiguities. As Paul said, “We see through a glass darkly,” and, “If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.” I await the return of Christ when all truth will be revealed and all ambiguities cleared up. In the meantime, we have to do what we can, with God’s help.
Biblical interpretation is more than a matter of grammar, translation, vocabulary, and human intelligence - if, that is, the bible is the word of God revealing heavenly mysteries as I believe it to be. For an understanding of the bible the illumination of the Spirit is necessary. This is given through faith in Christ as the gift of God (not to all those who claim to be Christians by the way). The biblical truths are as it says in I Corinthians folly to the natural mind, and cannot be received or understood without divine illumination.
As to aionian kolasis, you assert without proof that “ages and ages” is indefinite but finite. What if ages of ages (not merely ages added to ages but ages of ages) does mean infinity? Jesus said “where the worm dies not,” and Revelation uses the phrase “for ever and ever.” What if a finite understanding of the term is merely your personal choice? You may say the same of me - we will find out someday. Anyway, I do not want to be sent to a place of punishment for ages and ages.
As to the meaning of the word kolasis, you say it means “correction” or “penalty” in the sense of a legal judgement. It does not necessarily mean physical torment. Jesus refers to “wailing and gnashing of teeth” as well as burning. True, “There are several ways one could interpret this,” as you say. Do we interpret it according to the Spirit of Christ that lives within us, or do we interpret it according to our own limited human wisdom and personal preference?
Referring to ancient Jewish beliefs, you say “The concept of hell as a place of eternal physical torture did not exist in that culture.” This is an undocumented assertion that does not qualify as an argument. David says in Psalm 9:17 “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” I don’t think a localized valley could contain “all of the nations that forget God.”
He also says in Psalm 11:6 “Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest.” Since this does not happen in this life, it either occurs in the next, or the bible is false and not to be trusted. Daniel also refers to shame and everlasting contempt on the wicked (12:2).
About Mark 9:43, I assert that the concept of “fire that shall never be quenched” stands in and of itself and is not tied to Gehenna as a place. You assert that it does, but I think your agnosticism means you are profoundly alienated from the spirit and the purpose of the book you are trying to interpret.
Then you say “Eventually Gehenna came to be thought of either figuratively or literally as the place where sinners would be cast for annihilation after the resurrection and judgement of the dead.” “Annihilation” is your interpretation. Am I forced to accept it? I see no real proof whatever for your assertions of annihilation and temporary punishment.
About the weeping and gnashing of teeth, I agree that Jesus is stating that Heaven is not just for Israel (“the children of the kingdom”) but that many gentiles will make it and some Jews will not. Still, the point stands - a place of physical punishment, though it does not specify eternity, true. I think maybe I was more concerned at that point with the fact of hell as a real place.
You say "Some will be cast (figuratively) into “outer darkness” (away from God)? Why figuratively? "There will be regret when it happens? “Weeping and gnashing of teeth” sounds like more than “regret” to me.
You add “I didn’t say the Christian conception of hell comes from Jewish eschatology. I’m saying the verses in the *Bible refer to Jewish eschatology.” If they refer to Jewish eschatology, and were made by Jews in a Jewish context, then where did they come from? If they were made by Jews in a Jewish context and refer to Jewish eschatology, then it is reasonable to assume that they came from there.
The bible refers to a place of punishment, of burning and weeping, a place for murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters, liars - that would still be hell even if the punishment was not eternal. If you don’t want to use the word “hell” for this, what word would you like to use?
Also, I think you are informing the words not only with knowledge, but also with your personal preference. Knowledge and reason are usually subordinate to will. Knowledge and reason usually bring us to the conclusions that we want. You do not want to accept eternal punishment, so you use “historical context” etc. etc. to arrive at the desired result. Of course, one could say the same about me - this leads us to a key point. To understand these issues requires more than just ordinary human knowledge and logic. It also requires faith, intellectual humility in the face of mysteries no one has seen, purity of heart, and willingness to place God ahead of ourselves. I don’t claim to do very well in those areas but I think I have made more progress than someone who isn’t even sure if God exists or not. What if there is too much self-will in your interpretations? There are higher truths that far transcend our intellects and can never be found by mere reason and logic alone.
You are obviously a very smart guy, but sometimes our intelligence can be an obstacle to the attainment of truths far beyond the reach of our finite minds unaided.
Getting back to the subject, you say of Gehenna that
You believe Jesus was “simply” referring to Jewish eschatological beliefs. He was saying that that there will be a place of punishment, of fire and anguish and torment (never mind about eternity for the time being). Now, I would like to ask you, is that a statement of truth, a revelation of another world that follows this one, an objective statement of fact, or is it “simply” referring to Jewish eschatological beliefs? And, were those beliefs you think he was referring to true, or not? If they were not true, then Jesus was telling stories, folk tales, untruths. If, however, those “eschatological beliefs” were rooted in the bible (as per the verses I quoted from the Jewish scriptures earlier) and if they were truths from God, then Jesus was not simply referring to Jewish folktales but giving us dire warnings of a coming reality that will be most unpleasant for wicked evildoers. By the way, even if the punishment is not eternal, do you want to be tormented in fire and suffer anguish and weeping not for eternity but merely for ages and ages? I don’t - but, what if Jesus was simply repeating Jewish eschatological beliefs? Then we can eat, drink, and be merry.
Finally, I said “I doubt that a cynic can do more than raise objections. He cannot, in my view, enter into the spirit of the book he is examining.” You responded
I was thinking of the Greek philosophical school - the name Diogenes does point one in that direction. Also, you described yourself as an agnostic, which is what I was mainly referring to. This is in keeping with the principle advocated by the cynics, that we cannot know certain enduring truth (according to an internet encyclopedia - that was what I thought, but I wanted to refresh my memory, not having read Greek philosophy for years). An agnostic is of course free to study the bible and should study the bible, but I believe someone who does not know if God exists or not cannot enter into the spirit of the New Testament. This relates to the teaching in I Corinthians (chapt. 2) that the natural man does not receive the spiritual mysteries of God - in fact, these mysteries are foolishness to him.
By the way, I am sure your behaviour is better than Diogenes’ was. That incident with Alexander was impressive, but going to the bathroom in public?
This view was echoed by Rainwalker and is quite common in the church today.
My own view is that most contemporary New Testament scholars are out to lunch. This may seem absurd, but here is a link to one group that does a creditable job of arguing against the mistaken presuppositions and false methods of much modern scholarship. I am not endorsing this organization completely, and in fact disagree with some of their points, but in the main they make the argument effectively. www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/
One of the biggest mistakes of these so-called scholars is that they assume “older is more reliable.” They have been deceived by Codex Sinaiticus, and do not understand that a carefully and accurately copied manuscript from the 7th, 8th, or 9th century has more weight and authority than a carelessly, sloppily, and poorly copied manuscript from the 3rd or 4th century. “Older is more reliable” is the flaw that contaminates all modern scholarship (nearly) and leads to so many erroneous conclusions - especially when we consider the poor quality of the older manuscript.
This is one of the secrets of the New Bible-ists. They almost always (99% of the time) cover up the fact that Codex Sinaiticus is an exceedingly poor manuscript, full of mistakes, errors, and blunders, including entire lines repeated twice, and other entire lines skipped entirely. One reason why this manuscript survived I suspect is because no one wanted to use it. Obviously a book that has been put on the shelf and forgotten is going to last longer than manuscripts that are used. There is a great deal of knowing, wilful, and deliberate dishonesty on the part of “scholars” here. Some of them are actually enemies of Christ in my view.
I especially dislike the way they call themselves “scientific” and boast “These are the latest results of scientific criticism.” This verse is “most probably” the original and we are “nearly certain” that this verse may have been original, because there was a tendency to shorten verses, except in this case where we believe some verses were added and the original was shorter. Anyone who knows what science is knows that this is not science at all. Einstein didn’t say “E *most probably * = mc squared.”
Also they borrow methods from worldly scholars (pioneered by scholars of secular classical texts) and then apply them to the bible as if it were any other book. Their presuppositions are wrong, their methods are wrong, their conclusions are wrong, and it is no coincidence that this “scholarship” has exactly coincided with the drastic decline of Christianity in the 20th century. It is nothing but conformity to the world.
Furthermore, I have been studying Koine Greek for years and am deeply impressed with the accuracy and spiritual insight with which the KJV translators scrupulously follow the original. This is one reason for the superior quality of the KJV’s language, which even its opponents recognize. It is a superior translation, but its outdated language is a hindrance and a good translation in modern English, uncontaminated by the delusions and fantasies of modern “scholarship”, would be a real blessing in my view.
Also, the Textus Receptus is contrary to the views of some the most accurate and authoritative text we have. Tischendorf has done incalculable harm to the church with his discovery of Sinaiticus, which should have been left in the garbage where it belonged. As to incomplete parts filled in from the Vulgate, many people point to Erasmus’ first edition of the Greek text, as if all of the TR rests on that, without being aware that much work was done subsequently both by Erasmus and by others.
More could be said about this, but that gives some idea of why I think the New translations are worthless and best avoided. This practice of removing verses or phrases and casting doubt on entire passages (like the ending of Mark) has done a great deal of damage to the cause of Christianity and is one of the many reasons (not the only one) for the pitiful weakness that now grips the allegedly evangelical church.
Earlier in this thread cosmosdan said:
There have been some updates of the KJV. The one people use now is an 18th century modernization of the original 1611 version. This causes trouble for the most extreme KJV people who try to argue against modern changes not on intellectual or scholarly grounds but by asserting that the KJV must never be changed under any circumstances. To justify this they have to practically or literally argue for the divine inspiration of the KJV, but they are going about this in the wrong way I think.
By the way, I have lost count of the times some “scholar” has said “The KJV is wrong, what the Greek really means is…” and then I look in my Lidell-Scott Greek Lexicon (Oxford University Press) and find the KJV’s rendering included among the list of possible definitions.
That is all well for your beliefs, but my point was not that skeptics were better able to apprehend the truth. My point was that your assertion, (repeated here) is little more than a fancy ad hominem. You attempt to discount the position of your opponent based on a belief that he cannot “enter into the spirit” while assuming that the “spirit” into which you have entered has not been corrupted by its own theological history.
I do not suggest that you retreat from your beliefs or your arguments, but I do suggest that you refrain from trying to undermine his arguments by that sort of ad hominem. Otherwise, we are liable to have this thread derailed by any number of attempts to undercut other posters by dismissing their views as “errors” attributable to Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, or (shudder) Darby. Ultimately, one’s perspective will, indeed, be determined by one’s theology, but attempting to dismiss that perspective will produce no worthwhile discussion.
yet this is disingenuous. We have an “abundance” of Byzantine texts, which are local texts for the historical reason that the Antiochan, Alexandrine, and Syrian texts were suppressed when Islam overwhelmed the Christian centers where they flourished. The Byzantine tradition, itself, is merely one local version of the Antiochan that survived after the great Muslim expansion. And, in terms of “honesty,” while the Trinitarians do not make this claim, I have seen other proponents of the Textus Receptus claim that the sheer number of Byzantine translations “prove” that it is more accurate. (For that matter, pretending that there is a dichotomy between the Byzantine and Alexandrine, dismissing the Alexandrine tradition as “local” while completely ignoring the Antiochan and Syrian traditions is, itself, dishonest.)
Now, I do not believe that simple age should give Vaticanus or Sinaiticus some sort of precedence, but the claim that it is merely age that has thrust them to the fore is also disingenuous. It was not just their age, but that their texts supported other later texts that had previously been dismissed as errors that led to a reconsideration of their value. I would never accept the testimony of a scholar who said Vaticanus or Sinaiticus is older and therefore more accurate, but then no serious scholar makes that claim. Serious scholarship notes the ways in which the Antiochan, Syrian, and Alexandrine fragments support each other against the Byzantine, and, in that context, notes that the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus texts support those previously discarded fragments. Genuine scholarship should consider all the pieces of the puzzle and relying solely on the Textus Receptus deliberately ignores many of the pieces.
I am sorry. At first, I thought you were one of them. My bad.
The translation of the Bible has always been a cause of argument. I think though, that the basic message does not get lost, only the nuances of translation. For instance, there are 2 different instances where Jesus fed several thousand people with a very little bit of food. In both cases there where x number of baskets of food left over. IIRC, the original word for basket in one story indicates a large sized basket (think laundry hamper), while in the other story the word indicates a smaller, lunch-box-sized basket. The nuance (size of the baskets) is lost, but the main point, Jesus fed a lot of people, with very little food, and there was more left over than was started with, is not lost.
Of course, nobody cares about basket sizes, but issues can come up in other areas(i.e “what does hell mean?”) . I don’t think the core message of the Bible is lost 1. Love God with all your being and 2. Love your neighbors yourself. But because of nuances you have some groups that believe that musical instruments should not be used in church, and others that believe poisonous snakes should.
Personally, I use a parallel Bible for my bible studies. I can look at the KJV, NIV, NASV, and I forget what the other is called, all side by side. I can then look them up in my handy concordance/Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon/Greek lexicon and get a fuller understanding of what the nuances are. (Please let me be spelling nuance correctly).
About the KJV- correct me if I am wrong, but I always understood that the 1800’s version of the KJV was translated from the 1600’s version. It seems to me that making a translation, from another translation, is a poor way of doing things. Basically, what I meant when I said that the KJV was a relatively poor translation was
Using only one translation is somewhat limiting
The KJV lost some nuances because it is a translation of a translation (correct me if I am wrong)
The KJV is harder to understand because of the language used, and the modern reader loses some understanding.
Hope this clarifies my stance a little.
P.S. I have been lurking since Feb, but just bought a subscription a few days ago. Any advice on how to be a better poster is welcome.
It’s not a “view” it’s an objective fact that the KJV is not only a poor translation but, more importantly, it is based on source compilation which is quite late, hopelessly interpolated and at times incomplete. It is a fact, not an opinion that we now have better manuscripts and better translations. The KJV is simply not reliable for academic study of the Bible.
Your link does not go to a scholarly site but to a company which is trying to sell Bibles. Tom has addressed some of the substance involved in the argument about manuscripts. I would suggest that your characterization of NT scholars as 'out to lunch" is another baseless ad hominem that seems to be founded on little or no actual knowledge of why NT scholarship all but universally has come to these conclusions.
Strawman. Scholars use no such reasoning. Once again, I refer you to Tom’s post.
You’re overstating the case. No manuscript is perfect. ALL of them contain errors. The Textus Receptus contains far more than the Alexandrian or Synaiticus texts, and far more tampering as well.
What is a “New Bible-ist,” by the way?
You’re grossly oversimplifying the process. No one says that such an approach to textual criticism is per se scientific proof. “Shorter is earlier” is just a guide…a starting point…it is not regarded as proof positive in itself.
Why shouldn’t the Bible be treated as any other book? (actually it’s a library of books)
What’s “wrong” about them? Be specific.
“Spiritual insight” means 'agrees with you?"
I’ve been studying Koine for years as well. I’ve been struck by how abominably inaccurate the KJV tends to be.
It’s pretty English. That doesn’t make it an accurate translation.
No it isn’t, but the greater point is that its source manuscripts were crap.
There is no debatable content in this paragraph. It’s just more insubstantial ad hominem.
This is just flat out factually wrong and frankly shows a real lack of education on your part. To be honest, it sounds like you’ve gotten all your information from KJV apologist websites. Almost nothing you’re saying is accurate or grounded in any knowledge of the scholarship on this issue.
More basesless ad hominem.
None of it based on any better manuscripts. The TR as it was used for the KJV, still used portions that were imported back from the Vulgate.
You haven’t actually shown anything at all, you’ve just made groundless assertions and cited spurious arguments of the sort used by Jack Chick.
No such practice exists. Recognizing interpolations is not the same as “removing” text.
The “updates” are no more useful or accurate than the old school versions.
Why don’t you give some examples of the “scholars” getting the Greek wrong.
Liberty of Conscience is a good term. I’m glad you support it. I apologize if my comments seemed judgemental or I was assuming attitudes that weren’t present. After reading your recent posts I think I have a clearer understanding of your thinking. I’ll try to explain mine. When I said “the possibilities available to us” I was refering to the possible interpertations of certain Greek words. Obviously you know more about it than I do but it’s also obvious that not every knowledgeable person agrees on the meaning. That leaves possibilities open. You yourself say
In my mind worshiping God and Jesus means having a desire for and a commitment to, the truth. Part of that commitment means understanding the difference between the things we say we know, and the things we believe. I would even say there are also degrees of belief. I tend to believe something isn’t the same as I strongly believe something, which isn’t as solid as what I would call a foundational belief. A commitment to the truth means we keep the options open to new input until we have enough evidence {spiritual or otherwise} to move something from say, the tend to believe column to strongly believe. Regarding biblical study that means when a Greek word has a list of possible meanings I need more than Christian tradition or even personal preference before I get to the strongly believe column.
A lot of folks who study the Bible aren’t aware of the possible meanings of the original Greek. They assume that the english bible as we have it is the word of God and that belief really limits them IMHO. They get locked into the idea that a certain Christian tradition is actually God’s will and aren’t open to any other possibilities. I don’t think that kind of thing promotes the truth.
In one of your posts you mention
I believe what Jesus taught about the Holy Spirit guideing us to all truth. you’ll see in an earlier post I quoted Matthew 16:17"Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” This living indwelling spirit will not only reveal certain mysteries to us but also open our hearts to a deeper love, compassion, and forgivness. It’s purpose, as I see it, is to guide us to our full potential as human beings, as it did with Christ. I don’t believe this spirit is given at some point but dwells within all people. We learn through faith and experience how to listen to this spirit. It’s an act of surrender born out of our desire for the truth and to discover the limits of our potential.
you stated ;
I disagree. Certainly a recognotion and belief in the spirit can help us but it seems pretty obvious that many Christians who eagerly agree in the existance of this spirit can’t seem to agree with each other about the teaching of Christ. According to their actions {which you state are the true reflection of spirit} their belief in the Holy Spirit has not transformed them in the way Christ suggested. Too many cling to long held traditions and myths and place them before the truth. In my view this is more damageing than an honest agnostic with a commitment to the truth.
An example would be your beliefs about the nature and purpose of the Bible.
You seem to believe that this book is written under the direction of and imbued with divine purpose by God. There is no evidence that this is true. It is a long held Christian tradition. There is nothing within the very writings that Christian tradition holds in such esteem to indicate that it was ever God’s will or plan to have such a book. The source of truth is the spirit, period. Thats what Jesus taught. When questioned, Christians will say, well it’s a matter faith. Faith in what? Tradition? Where’s any kind of evidence other than tradition and a very loose interpertation of certain passages that the Bible has any divine purpose over any other book? An honest look,the kind that a commitment to the truth requires, at the history of the Bible and all it’s variations and contradictions indicates to me that we should abandon old traditions that simply don’t hold up to examination.
I feel the need to state the obvious. Most arguments are directed towards the KJV, not because it is the version studied by scholars, but because it is the version studied by many Christians throughout history. Many people want to poke holes in the bible, so they do so with the version most know. A problem begins when people try and poke holes in verses like, “Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.”, when actually it said something more like “Thou shall not suffer a poisoner to live.”