tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post8082680817781372971..comments2023-12-11T06:02:28.864-05:00Comments on The Wise Fool: Luke in HellTWFhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-21321337535999350422014-04-12T21:58:27.181-04:002014-04-12T21:58:27.181-04:00Hi Felix,
I apologize if I wasn't clear in my...Hi Felix,<br /><br />I apologize if I wasn't clear in my post, but, yes, absolutely, there was a Jewish concept of Hell which parallels the Christian one. As I was trying to imply, Jesus didn't have to explain "Abraham's bosom" because it was already within a sector of belief.<br /><br />From what I've gathered, it should be noted that the Jewish belief was far from being monolithic at that time. Some (much smaller) factions believed death was the end, and nothing else would come thereafter. Some factions believed that death lead to an immediate reward/curse situation, along the lines of what is portrayed in the parable here. Some factions believed in a bodily resurrection with a final reward (which you well know was a division between Sadducees and Pharisees). I can pick verses to support all of these views! :-)<br /><br />When it comes to "everlasting" shaming, keep in mind that there are possible other interpretations. For example, you may be aware of the Jewish custom of using noise makers (I forget what they're called) while reading parts of the Torah where names were "blotted out". That is a method of "shaming" them eternally. Granted, it doesn't have much of a sting to it, huh? :-) But I just wanted to throw that out there that the "eternal" thing doesn't necessarily translate into what you think it would, based on traditional Christian interpretations.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />-TWFTWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-80355831567621814902014-04-09T00:20:34.804-04:002014-04-09T00:20:34.804-04:00TWF:
I think it should be recalled in considering...TWF:<br /><br />I think it should be recalled in considering the New Testament doctrine of hell that Daniel 12 contains the idea of final rewards and punishments ("everlasting shame and contempt"). Wherever you place it, Daniel's Book would have been accepted as part of the wider "Pharisaic" canon and so the idea of a "hell" would not be totally foreign.<br /><br />Also, I believe the New Testament works off of a divide. At least according to interpretations I have read there are two stages of the eternal life for both the righteous and the wicked. Before the final judgment, the spirits of the righteous go to "hell" while those of the righteous to "Abraham's Bosom". After the final judgment, when there is a bodily resurrection, the wicked are cast into "Gehenna" (the 'Lake of Fire' or 'the Outer Darkness') while the righteous receive their reward. Spirits are regarded as conscious in the first stage in accordance with at least some Old Testament imagery of 'Sheol'.<br /><br />May all be well with you,<br />Felix ZamoraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-46343439281962639772012-08-24T11:02:27.072-04:002012-08-24T11:02:27.072-04:00Gallows humor,huh,it becomes you.But you are right...Gallows humor,huh,it becomes you.But you are right in your implications.This discussion is going nowhere best to bring it to a merciful end.aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-78807713070968899802012-08-24T09:49:31.037-04:002012-08-24T09:49:31.037-04:00OK, aservantofJehovah. Clearly you have beaten me...OK, <b>aservantofJehovah</b>. Clearly you have beaten me, and I am caught in a bind. I just do not know what to do, so I panicked, you know. I guess I just have to give up at this point in time.<br /><br />But, hey, let me recommend this: direct some of your friends here to this debate. Show them how badly you have pummeled me, and just how much of a bind I managed to get myself into. It should be entertaining.<br />TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-37507491016047788882012-08-24T09:38:36.206-04:002012-08-24T09:38:36.206-04:00you don't have to specify that you are an Athe...you don't have to specify that you are an Atheist,that is obvious all Iam trying to illustrate is that your method opf interpreting the text is invalid because it ignores the qualifications the bible makes as to the text,1Chronicles10:13,14 specifically states that He did not enquire of Jehovah,so who ever he enquired of through the medium was NOT a representative of Jehovah,At 1Samuel28:6 we are told that Jehovah had blockaded Saul this is meant to qualify all that follows.your lack of faith is not to be taken into account,only the bible's innner logic.From the writings of Moses onward the bible makes it clear that the dead are actually dead,Job14:10-14,Ecclesiastes9:5-10.Your electing to interpret the text through the dark of your phlosophic preapprehensions does not invalidate the facts.<br />It merely exposes the invalidity of your method and hence your conclusions.<br /> Re:your refusal to clearly state your position on Hades and Paradise;Convenient since you have gotten yourself into a bind from which no honorable extrication is possible.aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-21804387338346306692012-08-23T22:18:27.083-04:002012-08-23T22:18:27.083-04:00aservantofJehovah
"Like Saul you desperately ...<b>aservantofJehovah</b><br />"<i>Like Saul you desperately need this to be Samuel,and this desperation is clouding your judgment.</i>"<br />Let me get this straight... I, an atheist, by definition a person who it ultimately matters not whether Saul was talking to Samuel, a demon, or a fruit bat, desperately need this to be Samuel? I, who could not care less if some verses favor one particular sect of Christianity over another? I, who have truly nothing to lose, with the exception of this minor argument, am the desperate one?<br /><br />Meanwhile, if this <i>is</i> Samuel, like it explicitly claims it to be, you suffer a major contradiction with one of the fundamental beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and you are the one who is not desperate and is seeing this clearly?<br /><br />You may need some help in your discernment skills.<br /><br />By the way, it is not that I cannot see the point you are trying to make. You are bending 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 to a permissible extent. However, those verses say nothing one way or another explicitly regarding Samuel. The only way that Saul could contact Samuel was through a medium. 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 only mentions the medium because it is against the Law for Saul to do that (Leviticus 19:31). But you could say that it is implicitly suggesting that Saul never spoke to the dead Samuel, yet you still have to verify that against the context provided to ensure that the perceived implication is correct.<br /><br />Now, if all we had to go by was the perceptions of the medium and Saul, you may have a reasonable case. Verses 11, 12, 14, 17, and 20 could all be swept aside as mistaken identity of a demon playing the part. (Even though this would be exceedingly odd behavior for a demon, given that there was no further evil which the demon sought to enact through the charade.)<br /><br />However, verses 14 and 15 explicitly say that it is Samuel speaking. It is not that "the spirit said..." or "the figure said..." or "the apparition said..." or even "the thing which they thought was Samuel said..." No. The verse says that Samuel spoke those words, independent of anyone's perception.<br /><br />So, if you do not believe verses 14 and 15, then you say that the Bible lies. It is as plain as that.<br /><br /><i>RE: Paradise</i><br />"<i>suppose you tell me your position re:paradise and hades.especially with regard to the death and resurrection of Jesus.</i>"<br />No. You have proven to me multiple times that you do not understand what I have written. Me writing it out again is not going to make me any more sure that you really have understood anything I have said. The only way to prove that you know what I have already said repeatedly is for you to summarize what you think I have already said. Man up, or go home.<br />TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-63395935828420847942012-08-23T20:16:26.974-04:002012-08-23T20:16:26.974-04:00@TWF:28:6,Jehovah God blockades Saul that is all t...@TWF:28:6,Jehovah God blockades Saul that is all that matters,At 28:12 a spirit creature appears to the woman and Claims to be samuel we know that this is a false claim because of what is earlier stated at verse six and confirmed at 1Chronicles10:13,14(Saul did not enquire of Jehovah's representative),Saul depends on the woman's description to make his determination,Saul of course desperately needs this to be Samuel so his Judgment is as unreliable as the Medium's and your own.The demon continues its misrepresentations Deceiving Saul,the Medium,yourself and Modern theologians,but not those who allow the bible to interpret itself.this is not Samuel if we take into account the Context of the entire bible.<br /> Re:paradise,suppose you tell me your position re:paradise and hades.especially with regard to the death and resurrection of Jesus.<br /> Like Saul you desperately need this to be Samuel,and this desperation is clouding your judgment. aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-40297696964395810692012-08-22T23:27:02.493-04:002012-08-22T23:27:02.493-04:00aservantofJehovah
RE: Paradise and Hades
I am stil...<b>aservantofJehovah</b><br /><i>RE: Paradise and Hades</i><br />I am still not convinced that you understand what my position is on this matter. If you would, please, sum up what you think my position regarding Luke's view of Hades and Paradise. I am going to try not to nit-pick what you think my view is, but I have got to be sure that you at least somewhat understand what I am suggesting. Once we square that away, then we can worry about when and where Jesus was.<br /><br /><i>RE: 1 Samuel 28:3-25 / 1 Chronicles 10:13-14</i><br />Regarding your take on 1 Chronicles 10:13-14, you are conflating asking Samuel with asking God. That is not accurate to the text. In fact, if you read 1 Samuel 28:15, Saul explicitly says that he is trying to get guidance from Samuel instead of from God, because God no longer speaks to him. Furthermore, what you are saying goes against all of these verses which explicitly label Samuel and show ownership of action belonging to Samuel:<br />1 Samuel 28:11 Saul asks for Samuel<br />1 Samuel 28:12 The woman sees Samuel<br />1 Samuel 28:14 Saul knew it was Samuel<br />1 Samuel 28:15 Samuel said to Saul...<br />1 Samuel 28:16 Samuel said...<br />1 Samuel 28:17 God has done what was predicted through "me," with that "me" being Samuel<br />1 Samuel 28:20 Saul was frieghtened because of Samuel's words<br /><br />There are definitely ambiguous passages in the Bible, but this is not one of them. This is Samuel according to the Bible. You can choose not to believe the Bible if you want to. In fact, I would persuade you to, but not just so that you can keep an inaccurate belief structure.<br /><br />However, if you can find any single verse which says that this was not Samuel, but was instead a demonic spirit, well then, I will gladly be called an idiot in this case. So prove me an idiot, not from theological conjecture, but from the Bible itself.TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-59411830537038196842012-08-22T16:38:16.374-04:002012-08-22T16:38:16.374-04:00Re:Never claiming that paradise was in hades;Well ...Re:Never claiming that paradise was in hades;Well that is the traditional view.which I assumed you were defending,If not why did you not object previously.You surely could not be claiming that luke believed that Jesus was in heaven that day,Acts(which let me remind you was written by Luke) makes it quite clear that Christ was in hades for three days,and only ascended to heaven after 40 days.<br /> Re:Samuel;I don't need to re:read anything,1Chronicles10:13,14 clarifies what occurred at 1Samuel28,at verse six you will note that Jehovah God had imposed a strict blockade on Saul,it is passing senseless to believe that satan could circumvent the will of Jehovah God.The spirit that the medium put Saul in contact with was a demonic spirit that misrepresented itself as the prophet Samuel.Take it or leave it. aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-91870373604927115392012-08-21T21:05:37.687-04:002012-08-21T21:05:37.687-04:00aservantofJehovah, based on your latest reply, the...<b>aservantofJehovah</b>, based on your latest reply, there are some profound misunderstandings in play to clarify before we continue. I am going to pick two to attempt to resolve in this reply. When we get these cleared up, I will go back to your other points.<br /><br /><i>RE: 1 Samuel 28:3-25 / 1 Chronicles 10:13-14</i><br />You said "<i>1Chronicles10:13,14the verse says he did not enquire of Jehovah,so who ever the medium put him in touch with was not Jehovah's representative.</i>" Did you go back and read the 1 Samuel 28:3-25 account? If you did, and you still have that perspective, may I recommend reading the passage in another version? To say that it was not Samuel is equivalent to saying that the Bible text lies. To propose that some demon was only acting like Samuel is not feasible when you consider what Samuel said.<br /><br />"<i>...you were claiming that there is a paradise in hades...</i>"<br />Where? I never made that claim, nor ever came close to suggesting that. It is so far from my understanding and perspective of the verses that I am astounded that you think such a thing. If that is what you think I said, than I implore you to re-read this post and the subsequent discussion without the filter of your preconceived notions about the afterlife. Seek first to understand, then to be understood.TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-44891310759174549752012-08-21T10:29:28.051-04:002012-08-21T10:29:28.051-04:00Re:1Chronicles10:13,14.the verse says he did not e...Re:1Chronicles10:13,14.the verse says he did not enquire of Jehovah,so who ever the medium put him in touch with was not Jehovah's representative.<br /> Yes you could say that Isaiah26:14 is also speaking of the natural order.But how would that advance your case.<br /> Proverbs 11:7 shows that when any who are judged by Jehovah as wicked die,they do not share in the expectation of the righteous i.e a resurrection.<br /> you were claiming that there is a paradise in hades,Revelation6:9,10 does not occur in Hades but in heaven.So you are confusing the issue.there are no dead souls in heaven.The souls of the resurrected are in heaven that is what the white robe is meant to picture,see Revelation20:1-3,2Corinthians5:6-10.Both Jesus and the evildoer were in hades that day NOT heaven Luke23:43,Acts13:36,37.<br /> When I say that Psalms78:39 speaks from a human standpoint I mean from the standpoint of what humans are able to accomplish.If for instance I Got sick there would be steps I could take to assist in my recovery.If I died it would be entirely up to the whims and fancies of Jehovah God as to whether I would live again.There is no after life that is guaranteed as a matter of course.The resurrection is entirely Jehovah God's prerogative.<br /> I also believe that upon being raised from the dead those priveleged with a heavenly resurrection receive a spiritual body.The dead of course are not in heaven but Hades or Gehenna.So please lets not confuse the two topics.<br /> Re:the septuagint,The verses that Bullinger refers to from the septuagint are parallels to Luke 23:43,therefore it is noteworthy how they are rendered translators of the king James version and other english renderings.<br /> Bullinger and Rotherham are therefore being consistent in their rendering of Luke23:43.Whereas the others are not.aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-66311442675365295472012-08-20T14:12:46.319-04:002012-08-20T14:12:46.319-04:00aservantofJehovah
I do not understand how 1 Chroni...<b>aservantofJehovah</b><br />I do not understand how 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 proves that Saul did not talk to Samuel. Would you please elaborate on that point? Also, I must have missed where it says that it was a demon pretending to be Samuel. Would you please point that out?<br /><br />I do not think that you understand what I said, because I did not avoid your point, but rather hit it dead on. The souls in Revelation are in paradise, are they not? This is similar to what happened in the parable in Luke 16:19-31 and is 100% consistent with Luke 23:43 rendered properly:<br /><br />Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, <b>today</b> you will be with Me in paradise."<br /><br />Because in Revelation, there are souls hanging out with Jesus, right?<br /><br />"<i>how the septuagint renders Hebrew was not the point how the septuagint verses are endered in english is,</i>"<br />Really? Please, enlighten me.<br /><br />Just for clarification, when I said "disembodied," I was only referring to a physical body. I do not know what you believe, but most theologians today believe that Heaven is in the spiritual realm where beings use a spiritual body. This is, of course, different than the original belief which held that Heaven was a physical place located directly above the earth; a belief encapsulated by oddities such as Jesus ascending up into the sky. Where did He go then? ;-)<br /><br />"<i>Psalm78:39 speaks from a purely human standpoint</i>"<br />Just when I was starting to give up hope for you... maybe you are starting to really understand what the Scriptures are! ;-)<br /><br />Seriously though, it appears that yours is a special case argument, because I could just as easily and accurately label Isaiah 26:14 the same way when you look at its context. It is not God speaking, but rather a man. (By the way, your Proverbs reference is seemingly irrelevant, but please feel free to explain that in more detail if you think I have missed something.)TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-83427777531596860772012-08-20T12:54:02.139-04:002012-08-20T12:54:02.139-04:00PS.Citation Leviticus17:10 should read Leviticus17...PS.Citation Leviticus17:10 should read Leviticus17:11 and not as written.aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-39606279612157056822012-08-20T12:44:36.629-04:002012-08-20T12:44:36.629-04:00Re:13:36 No I certainly cannot See the validity of... Re:13:36 No I certainly cannot See the validity of the point.If he is a spirit he cannot be buried and see corruption.<br />The bible NEVER says that spiritists can channel the dead,.And your resorting to first samuel28 cannot help you here.This is manifestly not the prophet samuel,but a demon pretending to be the prophet samuel.Samuel(even if he was alive in some spirit world) being a servant Of Jehovah would never co-operate with a spirit medium,it is also ridiculous to believe that a spirit medium could circumvent Jehovah God's boycott of Saul 1Samuel28:6 Note that 1Chronicles10:13,14 Makes it Clear that the spirit medium did not bring him into contact with Jehovah's prophet.And it is you who are not paying attention re:the septuagint how the septuagint renders Hebrew was not the point how the septuagint verses are endered in english is,Re :Luke 20:38 you have TOTALLY avoided my point with this red herring,There is no paradise apart from the worship of Jehovah.Revelation6:9-11 speaks not of Hades but of Heaven,way to confuse the issue,And the souls spoken of there are not disembodied,there is no such thing in scripture.Note that they are given a white robe,which pictures their heavenly Revelation3:4,5.The souls being on the altar pictures the blood of the witnesses of Jehovah unjustly spilled See Leviticus17:10,Just as the blood of Jehovah's first martyr cried out for Justice Genesis4:10 so to the blood of these Christian Martyrs Cries even more loudly for such.<br />Mathew23:35,Luke11:25,<br />Re:the psalms there is no contradiction in scripture as long as one does not insist on abandoning proper interpretive logic.Psalm78:39 speaks from a purely human standpoint Jehovah does not Owe anyone a resurrection,the resurrection is a kindness not a right,Those who are killed as a result of Jehovah's judgment may not receive a resurrection See proverbs11:7,Isaiah26:14.<br /> And no there is no difference whatsoever among the bible writers where doctrine is concerned.<br />As Luke 20:38 demonstrates that Luke's Jesus did not believe in any paradise in hades.<br />And as I pointed out Bullinger,Rotherham others who render Luke23:43 the way they do are the ones who are being consistent,Those who place the comma before today are not. aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-74109406586857794572012-08-19T01:03:46.142-04:002012-08-19T01:03:46.142-04:00aservantofJehovah
RE: Acts 13:36
Yes, I see that t...<b>aservantofJehovah</b><br /><i>RE: Acts 13:36</i><br />Yes, I see that the pesky NIV has caused a misunderstanding on my part here. And I see that they took more liberty than should be granted for Luke 12:4-5 as well. That happens from time to time. NIV is not always the best translation, but it is the one I have most handy. I do hope you will forgive me there. <br /><br />Despite the translation issue, the point actually is still somewhat valid, but only by a step of extra interpretation, which we will get to in a moment...<br /><br /><i>RE: Matthew 10:28</i><br />Yes, obviously. But I think that you would have to agree that is not necessarily the case with Luke. If you study the Gospels in detail, it becomes equally obvious that these authors believed different things at times, which is why I have urged you to apply your talents to the Synoptic Problem. Then you would realize why you even suggesting this counterpoint is counterproductive to supporting your position.<br /><br /><i>RE: Soul and Body</i><br />I am afraid that your assertion is without grounds. The body is not inextricably tied to the soul. That is obvious from the fact that the Bible says that spiritists can actually channel the dead, just like Saul consulted a medium to contact Samuel in 1 Samuel 28. This dead Samuel did not have to crawl out of the grave in order to talk. This should indicate to you, beyond a shadow of doubt, that "you" can operate independently of your body, and this idea supports the notion that body and soul were more than just abstractions. Furthermore, taking a cue from what may align with your own beliefs, if a body is buried and completely returns to "dust", would that person then be beyond resurrection? If the body is effectively gone, what is left?<br /><br /><i>RE: how the septuagint renders Hebrew is irrelevant to this discussion</i><br />Wrong, because you have not paid attention to what I have said. Rotherham and Bullinger both cited passages from the Septuagint OT with a "verily I say to you today" structure in trying to bolster support for their mistaken belief. Read it more closely, and you will find this is so.<br /><br /><i>RE: Whence the extra comma TWF?</i><br />Which version are you looking at? I am referring to the 1878 version. In his later revision, he changed it, having satisfied himself and leaving it less open for readers to interpret on their own.<br /><br /><i>RE: Luke 20:38</i><br />You may be making the same mistake I had earlier with the NIV. The word interpreted as "for to" is actually "gar" used for assigning a reason. So "to" may be better interpreted as "because of." As in:<br />"[God] is not the God of the dead, but of the living, because of Him all are alive."<br /><br /><i>RE: The dead cannot worship Jehovah God.</i><br />Speaking of "souls" and what the dead can and cannot do, where they can and cannot be, and when, check out Revelation 6:9-11. Disembodied souls, praising God, asking for vengeance... I think that you may need to change your opinion.<br /><br />You have got to be careful with Psalms. They are songs, after all, and so may have some inaccuracies. I mean, Psalm 78:39 would then stand out against resurrection of any sort. ;-)TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-7032866778978304162012-08-18T11:56:51.552-04:002012-08-18T11:56:51.552-04:00"He fell asleep" in other words he is un... "He fell asleep" in other words he is unconscious Note that "HE"(the person) was buried,if "HE" is a spirit then "HE" could not be buried,no there is no distinction between him and his body. Please get an interlinear and look at Acts13:36 and see if the greek text makes any distinction between David and his body in this verse.Note that at Matthew10:28 both soul and body meet the same end in gehenna.Soul and body are mere abstractions,they are merely diferent aspects of the one reality.And yes how the septuagint renders Hebrew is irrelevant to this discussion all that matters is how the relevant greek verses are rendered in english,you see while,The greek O.T verses that Bullinger refers to are parallels to Luke23:43,and thus the way they are rendered by English translators has a bearing on the discussion,none of the 74 examples that you cite are an exact parallel to luke 23:43,If you get an interlinear and go over all those examples and compare them to Luke23:43 you will notice that Luke23:43 is unique in not having its 'Amen saying' connected to the following clause by a conjunction such as Hoti/that.Luke23:43Rotherham's Emphasized Bible"And he said unto him-Verily,I say unto thee this day:With me,Thou shalt be in paradise." Whence the extra comma TWF?Luke20:38NIV"He is NOT THE GOD OF THE DEAD,but of the living,for TO HIM(no one else)all are alive."The dead cannot worship Jehovah God.Psalm6:5,Psalm115:17.But Jehovah has the power and the will to raise up the faithful dead so it as if they are merely asleep,See Romans4:17.So there is no Paradise in Hades according to the bible including the book of Luke.Paradise is where Jehovah God is Worshiped in complete Holiness,paradise is for he living not he dead.See Revelation2:7 aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-5486454665609885782012-08-17T13:29:44.023-04:002012-08-17T13:29:44.023-04:00aservantofJehovah
1) No, errors in the Septuagint ...<b>aservantofJehovah</b><br />1) No, errors in the Septuagint are not irrelevant. If the translator was not careful enough to be completely accurate in translation, then that would certainly cast doubts on his expertise in the use of Greek grammar because it suggests that the translator did not know how to grammatically communicate the precise meaning.<br /><br />2) Yes, it can be read both ways, indeed. However, due to the changing of the meaning, only one way is correct. Context is the key, drawing from Jesus' speech patterns and Luke's authorship.<br /><br />3) You are not paying close enough attention to Luke's theology. For example, go back to Luke 12:4-5:<br />“I tell you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, <b>after the killing <i>of the body</i>, has power to throw <i>you</i> into Hell</b>. Yes, I tell you, fear Him.” NIV<br /><br />Luke's words suggest that your "body" and "you" are two separate things. Matthew 10:28's rendering of that verse would suggest that "you" are your "soul."<br /><br />So when you come to Acts 13:36-37, you see:<br /><br />"Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, <b>he fell asleep</b>; he was buried with his ancestors and <b>his body decayed</b>. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay." NIV<br /><br />Did you notice the distinction between David and his body? So when Jesus told the thief "you will be with me in paradise," He was not referring to the thief's meat puppet body, but the actual being of him; his soul.<br />TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-54382624875039416082012-08-17T12:45:46.442-04:002012-08-17T12:45:46.442-04:00Firstly we are discussing Greek grammar so whether...Firstly we are discussing Greek grammar so whether the Septuagint mistranslates the hebrew scriptures is totally irrelevent,Secondly while I am sure that your subjective criteria suffice as evidence for you and your minions,you are going to have to do a little better than that if you are hoping to reach out those farther afield.The point is that the verse can legitimately be read both ways and so cannot suffice as a prooftext in support of the doctrine of some paradise in the netherworld.My reason for choosing the particular rendering is that it is more in harmony with Jesus'and Luke's theology as shown from the rest of the scriptures.Luke also wrote the book of acts,the way hades is depicted thereis in harmony with the rest of the scriptures,A place of unscionciousness,nothingness see Acts13:36aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-2541726100641296452012-08-17T11:33:47.561-04:002012-08-17T11:33:47.561-04:00By the way, aservantofJehovah, I am not sure how f...By the way, <b>aservantofJehovah</b>, I am not sure how familiar you are with the Septuagint, but it is practically infamous for some of its mistranslations of the Hebrew texts. So when people use it, such as Rotherham and Bullinger, to support their theories, you should probably review it with deep scrutiny.TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-50422742183245347022012-08-17T11:24:02.642-04:002012-08-17T11:24:02.642-04:00I wonder, aservantofJehovah, did you read all of R...I wonder, <b>aservantofJehovah</b>, did you read <i>all</i> of Rotherham's commentary on the verse? Did you get to the part where he referenced the very parable which we have been debating about? Rotherham provides an exploration of both options, and the weight of the options appear to fall slightly heavier on the traditional interpretation, but he does say that it is "left for the reader to determine." So, as I said, Rotherham's reference is really a bit ambiguous, not really supporting or refuting your proposed theory. Pointing to the fact that other people have thought about it before does very little to support the veracity of your claim, even if they are not Jehovah's Witnesses. Instead, I recommend leaning on the weight of the evidence; reliable manuscripts and contextual consistency within that particular author's work.TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-85553158242164910632012-08-17T10:47:07.852-04:002012-08-17T10:47:07.852-04:00O.K TWF,I realize this whole research business is ...O.K TWF,I realize this whole research business is not your cup of tea,let me give you a hand,A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament By E.W.Bullinger,DD.,P.811aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-48902715190254146612012-08-17T10:20:52.955-04:002012-08-17T10:20:52.955-04:00@TWF:"is this it or do you intend to do some ...@TWF:"is this it or do you intend to do some actual research" you should read rotherham's commentary on the verse.And there are other's besides Jehovah's witnesses who take a similar stance.aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-57173395409664007372012-08-16T20:51:46.431-04:002012-08-16T20:51:46.431-04:00Ah, yes aservantofJehovah, Rotherham, who rendered...Ah, yes <b>aservantofJehovah</b>, Rotherham, who rendered Luke 23:43 as:<br /><br />"<i>Verily,to thee I say,this day,with me shalt be in the paradise.</i>"<br /><br />Yes, with <b><i>two</i></b> commas; one on each side of "this day." Of course, that really just makes the reading ambiguous, because then the "this day" can be coupled to either part of the sentence. So Rotherham really neither supports or refutes your claim, leaving the Sahidic translation, and presumably every other Jehovah's Witness, as supporters of your theory. Does that sum it up, or do you have more solid support?<br /><br />If that is about it, you are arguing a special case (given that Jesus had never before appended "today") by supporting it with a special case (just the Sahidic transcripts). Of course, that may still be the accurate representation, but statistically speaking, the odds are stacked heavily against you.TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-44570238398911186352012-08-16T11:02:34.328-04:002012-08-16T11:02:34.328-04:00@TWF:I also mentioned Rotherham and there are some...@TWF:I also mentioned Rotherham and there are some others.I brought up the Sahidic to show that it is not a modern idea.aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5509207392481380457.post-80056736680511208132012-08-15T21:28:31.252-04:002012-08-15T21:28:31.252-04:00aservantofJehovah, am I understanding you correctl...<b>aservantofJehovah</b>, am I understanding you correctly that you believe the Sahidic-language manuscripts (southern Egypt), translated from the original Greeks around the 2nd century, is the one translation you place your faith in on this particular verse?TWFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016277303703254572noreply@blogger.com