Mistranslations!! (meaning)

[herefornow]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Two compartments? Well maybe not, but there are very likely two states of existence within the realm where we all await the resurrection. Christ told the repentent thief who hung next to Him on the cross that He'd see him "today" in Paradise. You've pretty much got to believe He was speaking truthfully and that He did see him that day in Paradise. Three days later, when Mary met Him near the Garden Tomb, He told her not to touch Him since He hadn't yet been to His Father in Heaven. So if Christ hadn't been to Heaven, but He had been to Paradise and seen the thief there, the two places are obviously not one and the same. We also know that during the three days when His body lay in the tomb, He visited "the spirits in Prison." He clearly spent those three days in the Spirit World which, for the righteous, is a state of peace and rest, but for the wicked is a state of torment.

Justin Martyr taught that "the souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment." Irenaeus and Tertuillian did, too. This was a common beliefs for quite some time during the early years of Christianity. It only ceased to be taught in later centuries. The early Christians also believed that those in
the Spirit Prison could find release from their torment as they accepted Christ.

Thanks for your thoughts on these matters, Katzpur. It helps when everybody chimes in as long as nobody is hurling insults.

I still think that Paganism had a pretty tight hold on ALL people around the world and influenced much of their interpretations of what Jesus was trying to say. I still stand by my opinion that the Old Testament Hebrews didn't think much was going on after death, either for the wicked or righteous. I can't see how ONE passage in the ENTIRE Bible (which happens to be in a long line of parables) should change how we think about the afterlife.

And I don't know if you saw my opinion on the paradise deal. There was no punctuation in the original texts so Jesus could have just meant to say, I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise (and, paradise could just be Eden, as that is what the Garden of Eden was called, right?)

I guess we will all find out soon enough! We don't last that long down here, do we, in the scheme of things?

I'm STILL studying!

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by herefornow

I do not think there are 2 compartments with people's souls in them. NOWHERE in the Bible does it suggest such a thing, and Lazarus and the Rich Man is in a long line of parables.

What do you think?

No, there aren't 2 compartment, there are 3 compartments. The 3rd one is reserved for the fallen angels, and it is known as "The Abyss".

Why would you say NOWHERE in the Bible does it suggest there are different compartments, when the proof of multiple compartments is straight from the Bible itself.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Two compartments? Well maybe not, but there are very likely two states of existence within the realm where we all await the resurrection. Christ told the repentent thief who hung next to Him on the cross that He'd see him "today" in Paradise. You've pretty much got to believe He was speaking truthfully and that He did see him that day in Paradise. Three days later, when Mary met Him near the Garden Tomb, He told her not to touch Him since He hadn't yet been to His Father in Heaven. So if Christ hadn't been to Heaven, but He had been to Paradise and seen the thief there, the two places are obviously not one and the same. We also know that during the three days when His body lay in the tomb, He visited "the spirits in Prison." He clearly spent those three days in the Spirit World which, for the righteous, is a state of peace and rest, but for the wicked is a state of torment.

Justin Martyr taught that "the souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment." Irenaeus and Tertuillian did, too. This was a common beliefs for quite some time during the early years of Christianity. It only ceased to be taught in later centuries. The early Christians also believed that those in the Spirit Prison could find release from their torment as they accepted Christ.

Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.


Kat what if the comma was placed in the wrong place?

Verily I say unto thee To day, thou shalt be with me in paradise


Gives it a whole new meaning does it not?

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by pneuma;14[FONT=Verdana

388780][/font]Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Kat what if the comma was placed in the wrong place?

Verily I say unto thee To day, thou shalt be with me in paradise

Gives it a whole new meaning does it not?

The Greek wouldn't make sense to me that way.

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ' ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ

I don't think I've ever seen σήμερον used adverbially in the very frequent construction σοι λέγω. It would make more sense if the Greek said ἤδη, but you'd still have to explain why the word belongs with a construction that doesn't seem to use adverbs elsewhere.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

The Greek wouldn't make sense to me that way.

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ' ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ

I don't think I've ever seen σήμερον used adverbially in the very frequent construction σοι λέγω. It would make more sense if the Greek said ἤδη, but you'd still have to explain why the word belongs with a construction that doesn't seem to use adverbs elsewhere.

Hi Dan, not saying what I put out there is correct, it was just something I read years ago and thought I would add it to the discussion.

[Cyber Munchkin]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.


Kat what if the comma was placed in the wrong place?

Verily I say unto thee To day, thou shalt be with me in paradise


Gives it a whole new meaning does it not?

No, lol !!

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by Latte'Chic

No, lol !!

Actually if the comma did go there it would give it a different meaning.

But like I said it was just something I read years ago.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Actually if the comma did go there it would give it a different meaning.

If the comma did go there, then yes, it would give it a different meaning. But, as Daniel pointed out, if a comma would not have logically gone there, it doesn't really matter what it would have meant, does it?

[antredd]

Originally Posted by legoman

Here is a very, very, simple, "benign" mistranslation, or perhaps you can just call it an error. Look:

NIV Matt 23:34 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
KJV Matt 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

So what is it that was said here? Straining out a gnat brings a completely different meaning than straining at a gnat. Straining at a gnat doesn't even make sense. The idea behind this verse is that the pharisees were being very picky on small things, while ignoring larger matters. (ie. like straining a bug out of their wine, while ignoring the camel they were swallowing).

Now this is a very subtle error that has been in the KJV for hundreds of years, and still has not been corrected (although the NKJV has corrected it). This should put to rest the idea that any English translation we have is completely innerant, or that mistranslations cannot have happened. 99% of the time the English translations we have are OK, but we need to be aware that sometimes we need to investigate the original Greek or Hebrew.

I agree with you legoman, and since the bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, we won't ever have an exact translation anyway.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by antredd

I agree with you legoman, and since the bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, we won't ever have an exact translation anyway.

Why would those languages preclude an exact translation? The Greek is pretty clear. It refers to a midge that grows in fermenting wine that is often strained out so it's not consumed with the wine. The text contrasts prioritizing specific minutia of the law while ignoring larger issues. Paul's contrasting of the letter and the spirit is not far removed from this rhetoric.