Ask Me Help Desk - In The Beginning There Was Genesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Fair enough. Now give support for it. Show where the Bible says that unbelievers are not condemned to hell. Should be simple to do.

It is your contention that Jesus sends unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. It is up to you to show where the Bible says that. If the Bible never said that, how could the Bible be quoted as not saying what it never said? Think about that. I'm only trying to help.

Quote:

Your opinion is not held everywhere.

DW's opinion is that of a scholar who has studied the issue. Your position shown below is far weaker than DW's.

Quote:

we have several manuscripts from within a century of the completion of the NT. To be sure, these manuscripts (all but one of which are papyri) are all fragmentary,.....These manuscripts include P52 (100-150), P90, 104 (2nd century), P66 (c. AD 175-225), P46, 64+67 (c. AD 200), P77, P103, 0189 (2nd or 3rd century), P98 (2nd century?). These ten manuscripts are the extent of those that the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung has identified as possibly or definitely from the second century.

In addition to these, there are a few other candidates. Comfort and Barrett argue for at least half a dozen other manuscripts as possibly from the 2nd century.2 ....... the date they suggest for P4 (second century) is probably correct in light of some recent work done by T. C. Skeat of the British Library,3 and the date they offer for P32 (late second century) is quite possible. In addition, renowned papyrologist Herbert Hunger considered P66 to be from no later than the middle of the second century.4 The original editors of P75 also thought this manuscript should be dated late second to early third century.5This means that there are at least ten and as many as thirteen NT MSS6 that are possibly or definitely from the second century."

Note that Jl's citations include "probably", possibly" and are misleading by referring to fragments as manuscripts as though the fragments are complete mss. See next.

Quote:

I'm also pretty sure you realize that manuscript fragments are frequently simply referred to as "manuscripts"

Fragments are NOT complete manuscripts. That should be prominently noted - it was NOT.

Quote:

The vast majority of early manuscripts are incomplete.

Now you're agreeing with me - almost. Change "vast" to "all", and you have the truth.

Quote:

I have no idea why you want to make an issue out of that.

Because that is the major and only point of contention - that the verse in question was not in any of the fragments/manuscripts cited.

Quote:

At any rate, the point was that Matthew greatly predates Jerome and hence could not have arisen from him.

Wrong. No one claimed the author of Matthew used Jerome as a source. It was was the other way around.

Quote:

Exegesis has to do with interpretation rather than translation

Ok by me. You use Eisegesis - look it up.

Quote:

No one should translate the Bible by changing the clear meaning of a text to suit someone else's opinions.

It was done more than once before being accepted as the canon in the 4th century. Matthew 25:46 is a good example since it appears nowhere in the fragments you cited (using your own argument).

Quote:

But if you want to see this for sure, here you go. This is Mt. 25 in interlinear. You can read it for yourself.

Sorry, Jl, you're missing the point - again! Bigly. Your interlinear is the version/verse under contention. Not germane to the issue.

Quote:

Your position shown below is far weaker than DW's.

And you know this how?

Quote:

It is your contention that Jesus sends unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment

I have made no contentions at all. So the fact that you have understood that from the passages I posted speaks volumes. Glad you finally understand it

Quote:

Fragments are NOT complete manuscripts. That should be prominently noted - it was NOT.

Now you're agreeing with me - almost. Change "vast" to "all", and you have the truth.

No one has said fragments are complete manuscripts. And I if changed it to "all", I would be making a false statement. Codex Sinaiticus is a complete NT manuscript dated fourth century.

Quote:

that the verse in question was not in any of the fragments/manuscripts cited.

Who said it was?

Quote:

Exegesis has to do with interpretation rather than translation

Ok by me. You use Eisegesis - look it up.

Thankfully you are finally learning something. It's good to see you see the error in your statement. ""Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you"

However, I'm sad you still don't see, despite having it explained to you a dozen times, that I have offered no interpretations, and thus cannot be guilty of eisegesis. Do you understand now?

I tell you what. I have attached the now 46 passages below. I have given you and WG the same task. Find those passages that say there is no hell and no judgment. Until you do, there really is nothing left to discuss. Either find them or man up and admit you can't. (Note. I already know you can't since they don't exist.)

Scriptures Concerning the Biblical Teaching of a Day of Judgement and Hell

Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Matthew 5:22. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Matthew 5:29,30. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Matthew 8:11,12. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 10:28. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Matthew 13:30. (This is the conclusion of the parable of the wheat and tares.) “Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.”
Matthew 13:49,50. ^“This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous ⁵⁰and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 18:8. “It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.”
Matthew 23:33. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
Matt. 25:31-48. This lengthy passage clearly sets forth the existence of a fiery hell. The people sent to hell were judged, not for what they did, but for what they neglected to do. The inference is that Christ was not Lord.
Mark 8:38. “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”
Luke 3:17. “His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Luke 13:2. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
Luke 16:19ff. “In Hades, where he (the rich man) was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. ²⁴So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. ²⁶And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’”
John 3:16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have life everlasting.
John 8:24. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
Acts 24:15. “and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” Again, not a reference to hell, but the teaching of a resurrection “of both the righteous and the wicked,” would certainly agree with such a reference.
Colossians 3:5,6. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.
1 Thessalonians 1:10. “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”
1 Thessalonians 5:9. “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
James 3:6. And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.
2 Thessalonians 1:8-10. “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our LORD Jesus. ⁹They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the LORD and from the glory of his might…”
2 Peter 2:4ff. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
Jude 7. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Rev. 20:11ff. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
Psalm 21:8-9. You will capture all your enemies. Your strong right hand will seize all who hate you. You will throw them in a flaming furnace when you appear. The LORD will consume them in his anger; fire will devour them.

Well, there are so many that the site cannot accept them all. I'll try waiting a bit and posting the final twenty.

In the meantime, maybe you can come up with three or four? Until you do, I'll just let you work on it. If you want to see the final twenty, then just let me know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And you know this how?

From what DW and you posted.

Quote:

I have made no contentions at all.

You have supported the contention that Jesus condemned unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. No use denying it at this late stage.

Quote:

No one has said fragments are complete manuscripts. And I if changed it to "all", I would be making a false statement. Codex Sinaiticus is a complete NT manuscript dated fourth century.

I said, "...BEFORE the 4th century". We're back to reading comp.

Quote:

It's good to see you see the error in your statement. ""Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you"

Not only is there no error in my statement, you don't even point out the error that you claim is there.

Quote:

However, I'm sad you still don't see, despite having it explained to you a dozen times, that I have offered no interpretations, and thus cannot be guilty of eisegesis. Do you understand now?

That's NOT what EISEGESIS is. It's not about interpretation - that's EXEGESIS. Eisegesis is examining the Bible from a preconceived point of view. It's frowned upon by scholars. It is the main problem with evangelical/fundamentalist Biblical examination. Do you understand now?

Quote:

I have attached the now 46 passages below. Find those passages that say there is no hell and no judgment.

Moving the goalposts again? Here's the argument - you claim Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. I deny Jesus said that. As far as your passages go, they have been debunked by me in post #97. Every single one. You previously gave them a blanket dismissal without challenging a single one. Why you are posting them again is a mystery.

Quote:

Scriptures Concerning the Biblical Teaching of a Day of Judgement and Hell

Followed by 46 passages from the Bible.

This is called a strawman argument. Jl pretends to attack my contention, while in reality he is actually attacking a distorted version of my contention by omitting "unbelievers". It's commonly done by Jl.

Quote:

Here's the argument - you claim Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. I deny Jesus said that. As far as your passages go, they have been debunked by me in post #97. Every single one. You previously gave them a blanket dismissal without challenging a single one. Why you are posting them again is a mystery.

I have said no such thing. I have quoted the NT. You have debunked nothing, and you can point to nothing to support your contentions. Your arguments are a collection of, well, nothing.

Quote:

From what DW and you posted.

You need to read it again. DW is very knowledgeable, but his contention that there are only two second century manuscript fragments is hardly widely held. This is from Daniel Wallace, an acknowledged expert in the field. "These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century...Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts."

https://voice.dts.edu/article/wallac...first-century/

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I have said no such thing. I have quoted the NT.

Good Lord! How dense can you be? Quoting the NT to support your belief is supporting your belief! Your contention, supported by constantly quoting the author of Matthew, is that unbelievers are sent to hell by Jesus for eternal punishment. Are you now denying that is your contention? If it is NOT your belief, why do you post it in support?

Quote:

You have debunked nothing, and you can point to nothing to support your contentions. Your arguments are a collection of, well, nothing.

I have debunked every-single-one of your Bible "proofs" that you listed by number. Using the same numbering system, I debunked every single one on your list. Every-single-one. For each one, I gave a reason(s) for why I debunked it. These can all be found at post #97 in this thread.

You, on the other hand, have not responded or challenged a single one of my numbered replies. Not ONE! You simply say they are a collection of nothing. That is NOT an argument. You previously gave them a blanket dismissal without engaging with a single one on the list.

I am trying VERY HARD not to call you a liar, unlike you who is quick to use that term when you are confronted with the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

DW is very knowledgeable, but his contention that there are only two second century manuscript fragments is hardly widely held.

I'm standing with DW.

The authenticity of the content of the books of the NT should not be a question. The same is true with the OT writings, albeit, to a lesser degree.

It is widely accepted that the dates of authorship of all the NT books was prior to the close of the first century. This places them very close to the proximity of Christ himself, within the memory of that generation.

There are no known rebuttals to any of the contents of the NT with early dating. You would think that such popular texts would have rebuttals if their accuracy was in question then. The people of the time would have held these events as consistent with the histories they were taught at the time.

As far as miscopied, or mistranslated goes, there is no such evidence. We have portions of John, manuscript fragments, that date to 125 AD (John Rylands Fragment). Portions of 8 other manuscripts dated to 200 AD (Chester Beatty Papyrus), plus John (Bodmer Papyrus), and Matthew (Papyrus 67). They all agree with later manuscripts in content with over 99% accuracy, including errors in punctuation, differences of footnotes, etc.

These are enough to verify later documents' authenticity. To state that the unfounded portions of those documents don't necessarily compare to those founded at later dates is pure conjecture. With further study, you will find that you can construct the most ancient of manuscripts, by using the copies' traditions through the ages. A difference in text can be traced back to where it split from the original, then you have clues as to what the original says. (See textual criticism or eclectic method)

You cannot reject these things, without also rejecting the many great names and their acts attributed to them wholesale. There is far more evidence and textual lines for all the NT documents than any other text in all of history.

You claiming, that we cannot know the original is tantamount to saying, "we can't look at it, so it musn't exitst."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel B Wallace

How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!

Note: This guy has quite the credentials, including dwashbur's Society of Biblical Literature.

dwashbur, have you considered P67 (P4, P64, P67) as a valid candidate for early 3rd century Matthew?

It seems to me there are several early 3rd century fragments that can be reliably dated.

Furthermore, what are your justifications for dating Matthew so late? I would think in context, an early date fits. The mention of a temple tax in Matthew 17 would allow for it to be prior to the temple destruction (70 AD), along with other mentions of "swearing by the alter" and all the temple references being in the present tense. I would add further conjecture by noting that Irenaeus of Lyons places the writing of the gospel of Matthew "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome."(Ag. Her. 3.1) Also, it is fairly widely accepted that Matthew was martyred at the age of 60 (70 AD +/-10 years).

This leads me to believe you doubt the authorship of Matthew, being by the apostle Matthew...again why?

Welcome back, infojunkie. I will try to answer the points you made in this post. I hope you will do me the courtesy of doing the same to my last reply to you from several days ago before you left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life

It is widely accepted that the dates of authorship of all the NT books was prior to the close of the first century. This places them very close to the proximity of Christ himself, within the memory of that generation.

It is also accepted (without a doubt) that those original books are no longer available.

Quote:

There are no known rebuttals to any of the contents of the NT with early dating. You would think that such popular texts would have rebuttals if their accuracy was in question then.

Just as there are no known originals there are no known rebuttals. 2nd sentence: On the contrary, any rebuttals would have been destroyed or incorporated into the later editions of the originals. In any case, the question is moot.

Quote:

The people of the time would have held these events as consistent with the histories they were taught at the time.

You have no way of knowing that. Pure conjecture.

Quote:

As far as miscopied, or mistranslated goes, there is no such evidence.

There cannot be "evidence" of comparison since the original is lost. It is important to remind you that this discussion pertains to the Matthew verse where the author has Jesus saying unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. The interpretation of that verse can be challenged as I have done repeatedly.

Quote:

We have portions of John, manuscript fragments, that date to 125 AD (John Rylands Fragment). Portions of 8 other manuscripts dated to 200 AD (Chester Beatty Papyrus), plus John (Bodmer Papyrus), and Matthew (Papyrus 67). They all agree with later manuscripts in content with over 99% accuracy, including errors in punctuation, differences of footnotes, etc.

The papyrus fragments of Matthew contain 15-17 lines and none refer to the verse being discussed.

Quote:

These are enough to verify later documents' authenticity.

Certainly not in the case of Matthew.

Quote:

To state that the unfounded portions of those documents don't necessarily compare to those founded at later dates is pure conjecture.

Conjecture (pure or partial) is unavoidable when examining ancient documents. You yourself do it in this post.

Quote:

With further study, you will find that you can construct the most ancient of manuscripts, by using the copies' traditions through the ages.

Not if the copies are in error. You will learn that with further study.

Quote:

You cannot reject these things, without also rejecting the many great names and their acts attributed to them wholesale. There is far more evidence and textual lines for all the NT documents than any other text in all of history.

"These things" have nothing to do with the discussion re the Matthew verse.

Quote:

You claiming, that we cannot know the original is tantamount to saying, "we can't look at it, so it musn't exitst."

Infojunkie, I'm sorry you wrote this sentence about me. It shows you to be either very stupid or very ignorant. I'm sorry, but you walked right into it.

Quote:

Note: This guy has quite the credentials, including dwashbur's Society of Biblical Literature.

I will stick with DW.

The rest is addressed to DW.

Quote:

Good Lord! How dense can you be? Quoting the NT to support your belief is supporting your belief! Your contention, supported by constantly quoting the author of Matthew, is that unbelievers are sent to hell by Jesus for eternal punishment.

I have posted the statements of Jesus and the NT authors on hell and judgment. You can make up your own conclusion. It would be nice if you would support YOUR contention that unbelievers do NOT go to hell. You won't because you can't, but it would be nice at least to try.

You have refuted none of the scriptures I posted. You attempted to but failed.

Quote:

As far as miscopied, or mistranslated goes, there is no such evidence.

The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal beliefs. That and some business about exegesis which does not really enter into the area of translation but rather interpretation, a fact which he later agreed with.

Quote:

I am trying VERY HARD not to call you a liar,

It is actually very easy to not call a person a liar when that person is not lying. Can't imagine how that would be hard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It would be nice if you would support YOUR contention that unbelievers do NOT go to hell. You won't because you can't,

I have posted it several times.

Quote:

You have refuted none of the scriptures I posted. You attempted to but failed.

*sigh*

I have refuted every single one! For the 5th time, the refutation is in post #97. Every time you bring this up, you never defend your examples - never. All you do is make a general comment like you've done here. "You attempted but failed".

Quote:

The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal beliefs.

Careful, you're treading on that liar thing again.

Quote:

That and some business about exegesis

"That business" was explaining to you the difference between EXegesis and EIsegesis. You need to know that.

Quote:

It is actually very easy to not call a person a liar when that person is not lying. Can't imagine how that would be hard.

I'm still confused about you, Jl. Are you a liar or just have difficulty reading with understanding. If the latter, it's not your fault.

Quote:

I have posted it several times.

You posted two texts that had nothing to do with hell or judgment. That has already been pointed out repeatedly.

You have refuted nothing.

If you want to suggest where I'm supposedly lying, then go for it. Otherwise it's just so much smoke and garbage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It would be nice if you would support YOUR contention that unbelievers do NOT go to hell.

Please define your use of unbeliever -- one who has never heard the Gospel message, one who has said "no thanks" to the Gospel message, or something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You posted two texts that had nothing to do with hell or judgment. That has already been pointed out repeatedly.

Please read Post #97.

Not my job. That's the statement of Athos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Not my job. That's the statement of Athos.

Unbeliever??? You've been ranting and raving about them since you arrived here.

I have? Where?

Read post 97. Meaningless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I have? Where?

Do a site search using that word.

You do a site search. I'm not your research assistant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You do a site search. I'm not your research assistant.

You asked where. I told you how I found your "unbeliever" comments.

You claimed I said it. Show me where. Otherwise, it's just more smoke and garbage. You're following the lead of your hero.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You claimed I said it. Show me where. Otherwise, it's just more smoke and garbage. You're following the lead of your hero.

My hero??? If you only knew....