 |
Where? How about this statement? "I accept the correct translation and interpretation of scripture." You said you accept the scriptures. I asked you to look at about fifteen of them and comment on them. You declined which is fine. I was just interested in what your response would be.
give it up , jl, it has become boring
That request was as clear as mud.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I told you I accept the correct translation and interpretation of scriptures. You can't just fling a list of verses at me without any mention of which version they're from. Plus, I had no idea that was what you wanted of ME. That was always your poke at Athos. And in #177 those verses were listed as your response/challenge to his comment to you.
I would have thought that was pretty clear, but perhaps not. It's fine with me if you don't want to address it. I was just asking. Good night, all.Quote:
WG, take a look at the scriptures you say you believe on post 177 and let me know what you think.
That was long after post #177!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If only. jl, these endless enforcements of your opinion become tiresome, and I know you won't answer me, nevertheless it is soQuote:
=jlisenbe;3852462 Good night, all.
Another GOTCHA for the Girl of Wonder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Good luck getting the got to admit he got got. While he ignore the lumps upside his head the many rocks and boulders are but sands in the wind. The conversations would be dull without him, so let's give the old coot his props for consistent opposition to reality that lends entertainment to the lives of us here that enjoy having a target that refuses to duck. (Nothing personal, just an observation...HEHEHE!)
This against the backdrop of a health crisis the dufus puts on the back burner to the economic crisis it has caused, who drops the ball on the health part, and wants us to ignore the growing sick and dying and get back to work. Can we blame JL for seeking the comforts zone of the bible amid this chaos and confusion? I certainly do not. The dufus has shaken everybody's faith in our country, and society to deal with this current crisis.
No doubt we should prepare for more chaos and confusion as the repubs go for the profits over the people like they always do, and ignore the sick and the dying whose numbers will no doubt rise faster.
Tal, no one is asking the obvious, why so many deaths in what is supposed to be the most advanced economy, with magnificent hospitals and doctors? Meanwhile, across the world, in another advanced economy, it didn't happen. Was it the Trump factor as you seem to think? or is it that the B/S finally came home to roost?
The per capita deaths from confirmed cases is among the lowest in the industrialized world. As testing increases identifying more cases, the rate of deaths should stay the same. This indicates strong hospitals and medical staff.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The Trump factor plays a role due to the relatively fewer number of tests performed and the late delay in federal government intervention.
Could not have said it better or more accurately, and can only add the dufus adherence to repub small government trickle down economics is at the heart of economic suffering felt by the least and most essential of us during this crisis. Case in point the slow provision of PPE for those essential workers as well as lack of support, and enforcement of his own released government guidelines as a requirement for reopening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The lack of distributing funds for those suffering because of the shutdown is a documented and shameless example of failed incompetent fiscal policy, and claims of an excellent job amid that failure is the biggest dufus factor on display...HE LIES!
OK. Real slowly this time. WG--- take---a---look---at---the---scriptures---you---say---you---believe---on---post---177---and---let---me---know---what---you---think. Perhaps this would have been clearer. "WG, why don't you take a look at the scriptures (which you say you believe) I posted on post 177 and let me know what you think."Quote:
That was long after post #177!!!
I would have thought that it was plain that there was no suggestion that post 177 was directed at you. You were merely being asked to look at something posted earlier as a point of reference, but next time, and just for you, I will repost the entire text AGAIN so that it will not be confusing.
What is it about you guys and the Bible? I would think, being interested in the truth as you say you are, that you would be happy to do so. For me, I love it, but you seem to be absolutely terrified if anyone suggests that you do. All of sudden the emotional, "Terrain! Terrain!" warning goes off in your heads. And the next thing we know, we are in a grammar school discussion kind of like, "I wasn't in post 177! That was someone else! Oh please, please don't ask me to comment on a verse of scripture! It was like mud!"
Now had that been typed in correct English, I might have understood what you were asking. Your misplaced prepositional phrase makes all the difference in how that sentence is understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes, I am, but knowing how it goes when I respond to your questions or requests, I really don't care to be put down, shamed, made fun of.Quote:
...being interested in the truth as you claim to be...
Is this a Mississippi thing?Quote:
...the emotional, "Terrain! Terrain!" warning....
No. It's an aircraft pilot's thing.Quote:
Is this a Mississippi thing?
You mean like you just did with me. Like that? "Now had that been typed in correct English, I might have understood what you were asking. Your misplaced prepositional phrase makes all the difference in how that sentence is understood."Quote:
Yes, I am, but knowing how it goes when I respond to your questions or requests, I really don't care to be put down, shamed, made fun of.
What you call being put down, shamed, or made fun of is just the give and take of discussion. When you try to appeal to a hugely minority position such as the meaning of the Greek for "homosexual", or positively state that Paul himself was a homosexual, or try to change the meaning of the word "eternal" when no responsible Bible translator agrees with you as Athos did, then you have to be able to respond to that. It's just discussion. I would expect you to do the same thing to me.
Hmmm. Still no comment on those texts. Oh well.
That is not proper exegesis. You can do better than this. What exactly do you want to know? What is your REAL question?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I did not shame you!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I never suggested the simple listing of scriptures was in any way exegetical. That would be foolishness. It is a simple sampling (alliteration!!) of NT texts concerning hell.Quote:
That is not proper exegesis. You can do better than this. What exactly do you want to know? What is your REAL question?
Perhaps I can frame the question this way. Considering such an avalanches of scriptures which clearly reference hell, would you hold that there is no such place as hell, or do you agree that hell does exist as a place of eternal torment?
During my long life and after many, MANY hours of study and discussion, I am leaning strongly towards "hell" either as a dysphemism for a place we wish all the people who are evil and whom we hate will be sent when they die OR as a place for retraining (cf. Purgatory). God loves ALL His children. I cannot accept that He would send any of them, no matter how mentally ill or unbelieving or even evil they are (think hereditary vs. environment -- is anyone evil "just because"?), just so they can be eternally tormented.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You make no appeal to scripture. That is my biggest problem with your belief. It's also interesting that you want to send people you hate to hell, but your hating them does not seem to make you evil. Where are we told to hate people?
I didn't say I want to send people I hate to hell!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Your response totally floors me! Did you actually read what I wrote?
I read this. Seems pretty clear. You are trying to hide behind the pronoun "we", but don't include me in that. That is your philosophy you are describing. This is all on you.
And there is still no appeal to scripture.Quote:
we wish all the people who are evil and whom we hate will be sent when they die
The "we" is generic, not you and me and Fred. You've never told anyone (or whispered under your breath), "Go to hell!"?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm supposed to duel proof-passages with you?
What a weak defense. You make a statement about sending people "we" hate to hell, and state that "we wish" it to happen, and then somehow try to suggest that it's not really YOUR wish, but it's that wicked Mr. Generic's fault! Oh please.
And besides, do you have any scripture whatsoever about hell being this "training ground" (which actually made me laugh), or a place just for wicked people that "we hate"? Anything at all? You say you studied this. Well, surely some passages of scripture stood out to you. I gave you fifteen or so. Do you have anything at all?
You argue, but it makes no difference, this is purgatory, or perhaps hell on Earth
Why would anyone respond to your queries since we all know you're ready to pounce on them. 'Cept me who don't give a crap.
That's what I like about you. You've got some fight in you.Quote:
'Cept me who don't give a crap.
I'm not trying to be ugly, but remember what I told you last week about pouring water out of a boot?
A little light-hearted start for the day.
https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.n...29&oe=5ED65003
You are a challenge I look forward to. I love it when you bring it! Haven't had enough coffee yet so refresh me about pouring water from a boot.
The old saying I mentioned last week was this: Don't pour water (or some other liquid) out of your boot on my head and then try to tell me it's raining.
We say don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining. I should point out though I'm not the one peeing on your head. I'm the guy willing to share his umbrella. Doesn't matter if it's pee, or rain. We can still keep our head dry.
I like your version better!! We still need to share that cup of coffee.
Your amazement is equalled by your ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
In the 4th century, St. Jerome was asked to make a copy of the entire Bible. What became known as the Old Testament (the Jewish "Bible"), he translated from the Hebrew. The existing sources of the New Testament, however, were a mess. Jerome complained that there were almost as many versions as copies. The Gospels were in Old Latin and Greek. There were also copies in Syriac and in Coptic. Jerome translated from the Old Latin and Greek into then New Latin which became the Vulgate, the definitive version for the Catholic Church.Quote:
Oh? Tell us about those "competing versions" that had textual differences of any great concern.
The word "Hell" never appears in either the Old or New Testaments. "Sheol" in the Old T meant the abode of the dead. It had nothing to do with eternal punishment. Jerome translated it as "inferno" meaning "the lower world". Later, inferno took on the connotation of "fiery place", from "Gehenna"(below), never eternal punishment. For the Gospels Jerome translated "Hades" (from Sheol) meaning "the hidden place" or "underworld", never eternal punishment. Hades did not have any connection to fire or eternity. "Tartarus" was translated once by Jerome as hell. No connection to anything. Finally, "Gehenna" was translated as Hell. Gehenna is the most common and was an actual garbage pit outside the walls of Jerusalem which was more or less constantly on fire or smoldering. Its use in the Gospels is figurative since it is hardly the place for eternal punishment of the body/soul.
When Catholic Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, hell as a place of punishment became current as a means of coercing converts and encouraging people to be good and not sin. Even so, it was never a major theological position.
It all changed with Dante's poem "The Divine Comedy" (Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso) when it exploded into the European consciousness with the "Inferno" showing the fantastic tortures of the damned. Dante intended the work to be an allegory - popes and bishops are in hell - but it became the definitive picture of a hell where the wicked suffer.
The word "hell" is an Old English word first appearing in English in the Bible translations. It was the English translation for Jerome's "inferno".
Every use of the English word hell as a place of eternal punishment is a mistranslaton of the Hebrew or the Greek.
No, I reject it because it is a mistranslation.Quote:
So when I appeal to nearly twenty passages of scripture that support clearly the concept of hell, well that strikes you as not being "reasonable", so you reject it.
It is held by those of enormous importance. Namely the original writers of the Gospels (and the Old and New Testaments). Aionios - this Greek word means A) a period of time that never ends, forever, or eternal, OR B) a period of time that begins and ends, an age, age-lasting.Quote:
When Jesus refers to an "eternal" hell, you are forced to appeal an extreme minority position regarding the meaning of aionios, a position held by virtually no one of consequence in the world of Bible translations.
The word in the Gospel context means an age, not eternal. See the next paragraph.
The context of Matthew 25 is in the word "kolasis". The phrase is "aionios kolasis". To the Greeks of the day, kolasis meant a corrective or redemptive process. In Greek outside of the Bible, it means "to prune", i.e., as in a garden, to fix or correct the desired growth. When the phrase is translated as "eternal punishment, it is not faithful to the original Greek. Eternal correction is worse. This mistranslation was energetically supported by Augustine and the English KJV and maybe two other English Bibles. For proof of this, all one has to do is research the original Greek for the meanings of the two words and how they are used in context. Matthew's 25 is impossible. Why so many later versions copied this mistranslation is another question.
As to the 17 verses from your post claiming proof of eternal punishment in hell, every one can be debunked.
Let me get this straight. You want me to tell you of a scripture that says there is no hell - a concept that is not there in the first place? Did you ever learn that a negative cannot be proved? Another idea for you to research.Quote:
Now I would suggest you appeal to specific scriptures which tell us there is no hell, that no one will ever go there, or that they will only go for a short period.
About what I figured. You love to blow and shout, but when it's time to actually demonstrate any knowledge of the Bible, you fail miserably. 17 verses can, you say, be debunked. You have mystery translations of Greek words that no translation of the Bible agrees with. When you say, "Why so many later versions copied this mistranslation is another question," you have hit the nail on the head at last. The answer to your question is simple. You don't know what you're talking about. "Maybe two other English translations" support your position? You don't know? Watching your mental gymnastics leaving you twisted like a pretzel is a sad sight.Quote:
Let me get this straight. You want me to tell you of a scripture that says there is no hell - a concept that is not there in the first place? Did you ever learn that a negative cannot be proved? Another idea for you to research.
In Matthew 25 Jesus used the greek word "pyr" which translates "fire". It is immediately followed by "eternal", and is a place, he says, prepared for the devil and his angels. People are plainly sent there. You are greatly mistaken.
I agree with Athos. He nicely sums up what I learned in college theology classes, discussed in Bible study groups and themed workshops, and learned during private research and reading on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
First of all, you would agree with Athos if he said you are a man or a bird. You will agree with him on anything and everything. If he is summing up what you learned in theology classes, then he is evidently summing up what you learned outside of the Bible. Neither of you can ever refer to scriptures to support your positions. I posted nearly twenty scriptures on hell. You refuse to even comment on them. For him, it's always a minority position based on highly questionable translations of Greek words that no Bible translations agree with it. You are as far out in left field as you can get, and you are largely alone.Quote:
I agree with Athos. He nicely sums up what I learned in college theology classes, discussed in Bible study groups and themed workshops, and learned during private research and reading on the subject.
Do a bit of study. You have a huge advantage that I never had. Please open your mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You said you did MUCH study, and yet you have no scripture to support your position. Now you think I need to do a "bit" of study? I ask you again. Look at the scriptures I posted. Study them. Ask yourself if they seem to be referring to a place like what you described earlier. Clearly they don't.
A really good place to start is Isaiah's experience with God in Isaiah 6. It will give you a fresh look at the intense holiness of God.
My mind is wide open. I don't tend to adopt beliefs because someone else says I am supposed to. I read my Bible a great deal and do my own thinking and praying. Above all else, I avoid reading my own prejudices into it. I am convinced that is what you are doing.
Which version? Or maybe the JW Bible or the Mormon version? The Vulgate? Better yet, please point me to the original manuscripts.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If you really believe all of that, then why do you bother with it? The New World Translation (JW) is clearly skewed to reflect their beliefs. The Mormons don't have their own translation. They use the KJV. Point you to the original autographs? Come on. You know that's a foolish comment. No original manuscripts of antiquity survive for any works.Quote:
Which version? Or maybe the JW Bible or the Mormon version? The Vulgate? Better yet, please point me to the original manuscripts.
I think your problem is that you want to read your prejudices into the Bible rather than letting the Bible read it's truth into you. That's why you cannot use the Bible to support what you believe.
I'm very disappointed that you refuse to simply read and comment on a group of scriptures.
Just as a point of conversation, I have started something new. In addition to my other Bible reading, I'm taking one book a month in the mornings. This month it's Colossians. I'm reading it in Biblegateway.com, though there are other options. I like that because it let's me set up a parallel Bible. I'm using the Living Bible, NASB, NET (first time with that one), and the Expanded Bible. I read one chapter a day. It's been interesting.
I am not going to fence with you, each parrying and thrusting with our hand-picked proof passages.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:49 AM. |