Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for translations. You have this mistrust in all English translations based on the conspiracy theories of your 19th century denomination.
Can you now - mind read - the minds of anonymous internet posters.
That comment demonstrates your ignorance on the subject of universalism.
I suggest you read the early church fathers, who were certainly not a "19th century denomination".
"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."
"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.
I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.
It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.
Certainly, “there was a diversity of views in the early church on the scope of final salvation.” Tertullian, for instance, did not embrace apokatastasis. But my monograph is not on patristic eschatology or soteriology in general, but specifically on the doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, I treated the theologians who supported it, and not others."
You're Catholic, aren't you? Eternal is not endless in the Vulgate, the Vulgate is a much better translation than current English ones in this matter. I'll provide the verses tomorrow.
The Douay Rheims Bible is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate.
Dan.12:2,
Quote:
And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always.
Well that might not be worded the best but to see it always does mean forever.
The Young's Literal Translation is also a fine translation which is a useful study tool.
Quote:
And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during.
Those who try to make either of these two translations mean temporary are beating themselves over the heads trying to make the verse mean something it doesn't mean. Age during means forever.
Here is a short list of English translations you can trust to be accurate. This order is arranged in order from the best down to the lesser of the best. I did add the YLT to the top 10 but some may argue bitterly that it should be #8 instead of the RSV. However, the RSV doesn't really differ from the YLT much and generally does follow the KJV while reading similar to the ESV. I gave a technical tie between the Bishop's Bible and KJV because both can score vital points on each other. I think the main reason why I gave the tie between those two translations was how the KJV does tend to improve on many of the texts while also falling short at the "round world" verses preserved in the Bishop's Bible. That was a very important thing the KJV scholars left out. I think a tie is fair for its hard to place one above the other. The Bishop's Bible was meant to improve on the Great Bible but ended up blundering when they followed some of the Geneva errs. Seriously, The Anglican Church should have just stuck with the Great Bible! They still do when it comes to the Psalter (the Psalms). But nothing I have encountered beats the majesty of the Matthew's Bible. Pray we get the full modified version soon The New Testament is already been modified. It's called The October Testament.
10 Best and Most Dependable English Translations of All Time
#1 - 1537 Matthew's Bible.
#2 - 1539 Great Bible
#3 - 1568 Bishop's Bible/1611 King James Version.
#4 - New King James Version
#5 - Modern English Version
#6 - 1535 Coverdale Bible
#7 - English Standard Version
#8 - Revised Standard Version/RSV-2CE
#9 - Young's Literal Translation (Yahweh Edition)
#10-1560 Geneva Bible/1599 Geneva Bible
I always wanted to solve this little puzzle ever since I was 14 and I think I did a pretty good job. This list is very technical to say the least.
The next list is placed in the order from the worst to the least worst.
5 Worst and Most Corrupt Modern Translations
#1 - New World Translation of the Holy Sciptures
#2 - The Message
#3 - New International Version 2011 Edition
#4 - New Revised Standard Version
#5 - New American Bible (aka, NABRE).
There is also a list of translations which fit in between these two lists as average translations such as the HCSB, NLT, NIV 1984 Edition and NASB etc.
Actually, I should have said the 1769 King James Bible for the #3 tie. The 1769 was an improvement to the KJV and the standard today. The 1611 did contain some mistakes that the scholars forgot to correct which the later edition did.
Correction: the editors messed up on the 1611...not the scholars.
svenM. I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm a Protestant Catholic. Yes, we exist and are the oldest English speaking church in existence -- the Anglican Catholic Church. This is the same church that translated the King James Bible which is still used during Sunday services to this day. However, the Psalter in the Book of Common Prayer is still from the 1539 Great Bible. The Psalter of the Great Bible, to the best of my knowledge, reads 100% like the 1537 Matthew's Bible.
There's actually many Anglicans in the United States. Some Anglican Churches in America are called Episcopal Churches. However, not all Anglican Churches hold to the same beliefs. Many if not most Episcopal Churches are fully apostate. Even those churches who call themselves Anglican are apostate. So its the Continuing Anglicans who still hold to the orthodox beliefs which I believe are becoming more popular with Christians again who are sick of churches deviating so far from our traditional roots.
The Anglican Church joined the Protestant reformation, but did not consistently remain Protestant until the reign of Queen Elizabeth !. But all Bible translations ever approved or authorized by the Anglican Church were Protestant works. The following list are translations approved or Authorized by King Henry VIII
1st Approved - 1535 Coverdale Bible
2nd Approved - 1537 Matthew's Bible (King Henry VIII didn't know that was Tyndale's work)
1st Authorized - 1539 Great Bible
Bible Authorized by Queen Elizabeth I
2nd Authorized - 1568 Bishop's Bible
Bible Authorized by King James
3rd Authorized - 1611 King James Version
So as Anglicans we go by the most recent authorized version which is the KJV. Though its been said that Queen Elizabeth II has approved the 2014 Modern English Version, but it was not an Authorized Bible.
So Anglicans don't go by the Douay-Rheims Bible. And, unfortunately, neither do Roman Catholics. They used to use the Douay-Rheims in their Missals but have swiped them out for that awful New American Bible (aka, NABRE) which is not a better translation than the Douay Rheims Bible. The Episcopal Churches now go by the NRSV which is just as bad as the NAB. But my Anglican Church is very traditional and sticks to the KJV for readings at mass for the exception of the Psalter which is from the Great Bible. And I would not rate the Douay-Rheims higher than the KJV overall. But it is a very important English translation as it does translate the Latin Vulgate well. I have like 4 of them. One of my Douay Rheims Bibles contains both English and Latin. But sadly the quality of those Bibles is something I think the RCC should improve on.
A much better choice of Bible for the RCC for use of Missals would have been the RSV (RSV-2CE) over the bad choice of the NAB. I can't believe the RCC invested so much money in reworking all those Missals with the NAB. That's one of the reasons I didn't become a Roman Catholic.
When it comes to Anglican Bible study groups you can use any translation you want. The good thing I personally love about the Anglican Church is how they hold the balance between the best of Catholic and Protestant thought. They don't go too far to the right or to the left. They are a straight shooting church which sticks soundly to the Gospel message and the traditions of the early Christians.
And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches -- to abhorrence age-during.
Those who try to make either of these two translations mean temporary are beating themselves over the heads trying to make the verse mean something it doesn't mean. Age during means forever.
If you say so. It must be true.
Actually, on second thought, does "Age during mean forever"? Let's see:
"Consider the N. T. use of aion. Does “eternity” make any sense in the following passages? To make my point unmistakable, I have translated the Greek word aion with the English word “eternity.”
¨ What will be the sign…of the end of the eternity (Mt. 24:3)?
¨ I am with you…to the end of the eternity (Mt. 28:20).
¨ The sons of this eternity are more shrewd (Lu. 16:8).
¨ The sons of this eternity marry (Lu. 20:34).
¨ Worthy to attain that eternity (Lu. 20:35).
¨ Since the eternity began (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21).
¨ Conformed to this eternity (Ro. 12:2).
¨ Mystery kept secret since the eternity began but now made manifest (Ro. 16:25-26).
¨ Where is the disputer of this eternity (1Co. 1:20)?
¨ Wisdom of this eternity, nor of the rulers of this eternity…ordained before the eternities…which none of the rulers of this eternity…(1Co. 2:6-8)
¨ Wise in this eternity (1Co. 3:18).
¨ Upon whom the ends of the eternities have come.
(1Co. 10:11)
¨ God of this eternity has blinded (2Co. 4:4).
¨ Deliver us from this present evil eternity (Ga. 1:4).
¨ Not only in this eternity but also in that which is to come (Ep. 1:21).
¨ Walked according to the eternity of this world (Ep. 2:2).
¨ In the eternities to come (Ep. 2:7).
¨ From the beginnings of the eternities (Ep. 3:9).
¨ Hidden from eternities…but now…revealed (Col. 1:26).
¨ Loved this present eternity (2Ti. 4:10).
¨ Powers of the eternity to come (He. 6:5).
¨ At the end of the eternities (He. 9:26).
¨ We understand the eternities have been prepared by a saying of God (He. 11:3).
How can we say…
¨ “Before eternity” or “eternity began”? Eternity has no beginning (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21; 1Co. 2:7; Ep. 3:9).
¨ “Present eternity,” “eternity to come,” and “end of eternity?” Eternity transcends time. Only God is eternal (Mt. 24:3; 28:20; 1Co. 10:11; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 6:5; 9:26).
¨ “This eternity,” “that eternity,” or “eternities”? There is only one eternity (Lu. 16:8; 20:34-35; Ro. 12:2; 1Co. 1:20; 2:6-8; 3:18; 10:11; 2Co. 4:4; Ga. 1:4; Ep. 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9; Col. 1:26; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 11:3).
¨ “Eternal secret” if the secret is revealed? (Ro. 16:25-26; Col. 1:26). It is no longer a “secret” at that point."
svenM. I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm a Protestant Catholic. Yes, we exist and are the oldest English speaking church in existence -- the Anglican Catholic Church. This is the same church that translated the King James Bible which is still used during Sunday services to this day. However, the Psalter in the Book of Common Prayer is still from the 1539 Great Bible. The Psalter of the Great Bible, to the best of my knowledge, reads 100% like the 1537 Matthew's Bible.
...
The Anglican Church in UK officially adopted annihalitionism, is this the same church or a branch of it?
Now the verses in the Vulgate as promised, I'll cite the Vulgate and a Jewish translation.
We find the phrase "in aeternum et ultra" twice, which is "in eternity and beyond", whatever aeternum meant back then it could not mean infinity since nothing is beyond infinity.
It's Exodus 15:18 and Micah 4:5, I'll only cite Exodus 15:18 to keep it short:
Dominus regnabit in æternum et ultra. - The Lord reigns in eternity and beyond.
Also interesting is Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 15:17, both verses relate to the same:
Exodus 21:6
his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.
the Vulgate has:
offeret eum dominus diis, et applicabitur ad ostium et postes, perforabitque aurem ejus subula : et erit ei servus in sæculum.
The Jewish commentary says:
and he shall serve him forever: Heb. לְעֹלָם, until the Jubilee year [the fiftieth year of the cycle]. Or perhaps it means literally forever, as its apparent meaning? Therefore, the Torah states [in reference to the Jubilee year]: “and each man to his family you shall return” (Lev. 25:10). [This] informs [us] that fifty years are called עֹלָם. But [this does] not [mean] that he must serve him [his master] the entire fifty years, but he must serve him until the Jubilee year, regardless of whether it is near or far off. — [From Mechilta, Kid. 15a]
Then you shall take an awl and put it through his ear and into the door, and he shall be a servant to you forever; and also to your maidservant you shall do likewise.
assumes subulam, et perforabis aurem ejus in janua domus tuæ, et serviet tibi usque in æternum. Ancillæ quoque similiter facies.
Obviously the Vulgate uses "in saeculum" and "in aeternum" synonymous, neither does mean endless in this context and neither do the Hebrew and Greek terms in question, what evidence do you need more? For greater detail read this:
The Douay Rheims Bible is the English translation of the Latin Vulgate.
Dan.12:2,
Well that might not be worded the best but to see it always does mean forever.
The Young's Literal Translation is also a fine translation which is a useful study tool.
Those who try to make either of these two translations mean temporary are beating themselves over the heads trying to make the verse mean something it doesn't mean. Age during means forever.
Here is a short list of English translations you can trust to be accurate. This order is arranged in order from the best down to the lesser of the best. I did add the YLT to the top 10 but some may argue bitterly that it should be #8 instead of the RSV. However, the RSV doesn't really differ from the YLT much and generally does follow the KJV while reading similar to the ESV. I gave a technical tie between the Bishop's Bible and KJV because both can score vital points on each other. I think the main reason why I gave the tie between those two translations was how the KJV does tend to improve on many of the texts while also falling short at the "round world" verses preserved in the Bishop's Bible. That was a very important thing the KJV scholars left out. I think a tie is fair for its hard to place one above the other. The Bishop's Bible was meant to improve on the Great Bible but ended up blundering when they followed some of the Geneva errs. Seriously, The Anglican Church should have just stuck with the Great Bible! They still do when it comes to the Psalter (the Psalms). But nothing I have encountered beats the majesty of the Matthew's Bible. Pray we get the full modified version soon The New Testament is already been modified. It's called The October Testament.
10 Best and Most Dependable English Translations of All Time
#1 - 1537 Matthew's Bible.
#2 - 1539 Great Bible
#3 - 1568 Bishop's Bible/1611 King James Version.
#4 - New King James Version
#5 - Modern English Version
#6 - 1535 Coverdale Bible
#7 - English Standard Version
#8 - Revised Standard Version/RSV-2CE
#9 - Young's Literal Translation (Yahweh Edition)
#10-1560 Geneva Bible/1599 Geneva Bible
I always wanted to solve this little puzzle ever since I was 14 and I think I did a pretty good job. This list is very technical to say the least.
The next list is placed in the order from the worst to the least worst.
5 Worst and Most Corrupt Modern Translations
#1 - New World Translation of the Holy Sciptures
#2 - The Message
#3 - New International Version 2011 Edition
#4 - New Revised Standard Version
#5 - New American Bible (aka, NABRE).
There is also a list of translations which fit in between these two lists as average translations such as the HCSB, NLT, NIV 1984 Edition and NASB etc.
At one time, maybe 4-5 years ago, there was an actual doctoral theologian on here. His primary studies were Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. He even gave a link to a thesis he had written at University of Oxford (or some English university). He stated there is not a translation in existence that doesn't have linguistic problems or reflects the prejudices of the translators . But he gave the RSV as having fewer problems than any of the others.
Addendum: I went back and looked for the theologian I mentioned above. He indeed was at University of Oxford and was posting as late as 2015. His CD handle was Daniel O. McClellan, and boy did he burn some butts.
He pointed out that Hebrew, for instance, was written without vowels and from left to right so there was a good deal of guesswork for translators. By way of comparison, imagine someone a thousand years from now finding a book written in English in reverse of what we read now and without vowels. So they come across "rd." in a fragment of paper. What would the letters "rd" mean to a translator? Read, red, reed, rude, radii, rod, road, etc.? I don't think many of us in the faith have any appreciation for the massive difficulty in attempting biblical translations.
I might add my personal experience of seeing the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Denver Natural History Museum just a few weeks ago. To add to the literary complications those writers penned everything in the equivalent of eight-point type. And Hebrew appears kind of hieroglyphic on them. The jot or tittle that Jesus spoke of were extremely small marks and some of them are quite similar to one another.
When it comes to translations, when we think we know, we're really not thinking at all!!
Last edited by Wardendresden; 08-01-2018 at 03:31 AM..
If hell is biblical, so is nonsense, since the bible is full of it.
Read my post #75. Hell is NOT Biblical.
The doctrine of hell is derived from Greek philosophy. Plato, actually.
Early in church history it was adopted as a plausible doctrine in spite of Biblical teaching to the contrary. If there is a hell, then its corollary is to establish the human spirit as immortal. It is not immortal. This cannot be proven by Biblical reference.
The church began as a godly Bible inspired religion, but rapidly absorbed so much pagan tradition that today its nearly impossible to separate its bovine excrement from the light of truth. Was a Christmas tree erected next to Jesus' crib, the foot of which was hung with gaily colored stockings? Did a six foot white rabbit hop through Jerusalem on the day of Jesus' resurrection - distributing hollow chocolate crosses and colored hard boiled eggs to all the Jewish children? Did a fat man in a red suit sit upon a plywood throne and ask 1st century kiddies what they wanted his flying caribou to bring them at the end of December? And did God really intend the supervision of His religion to be managed by eunuchs with an unnatural fondness for pre-adolescent boys? Are the interpretations of God's honest truth really to be entrusted to a religion like this?
When confronted with the challenge to disprove the mortality of the human spirit, many adherents of hellish doctrine go back to attempts to prove hell - trying to put the horse after the cart so to speak.
It is not the Bible that's full of nonsense, but those who hold myth and false conjecture as truth. It's even worse than that, actually. Many who believe in hell also hold diametrically opposed ideas of Final Judgment to be true also. Those who are dead, devoid of the mechanisms to sense anything, cannot also live forever in a fire pit. Which is it, dead or alive? You cannot have it logically both ways. Such sad folk are confused and incoherent about their own doctrine. This sort of theological schizophrenia is actually applauded in our churches. Go figure.
The Bible says that at the Final Judgment, God will judge the wicked and evict them from the presence of God. (Matt 7:23) Churches then refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusion that since God is the source of life, being ejected from His source results in no life - that which sane people call death.
The Bible says death is permanent. (Heb 9:27) There are no second chances & no appeals court. There are no remedial classes in a cemetery.
The doctrine of hell is false and the religion that promotes it is a joke.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
Last edited by Choir Loft; 08-01-2018 at 06:34 AM..
The doctrine of hell is derived from Greek philosophy. Plato, actually.
Early in church history it was adopted as a plausible doctrine in spite of Biblical teaching to the contrary. If there is a hell, then its corollary is to establish the human spirit as immortal. It is not immortal. This cannot be proven by Biblical reference.
The church began as a godly Bible inspired religion, but rapidly absorbed so much pagan tradition that today its nearly impossible to separate its bovine excrement from the light of truth. Was a Christmas tree erected next to Jesus' crib, the foot of which was hung with gaily colored stockings? Did a six foot white rabbit hop through Jerusalem on the day of Jesus' resurrection - distributing hollow chocolate crosses and colored hard boiled eggs to all the Jewish children? Did a fat man in a red suit sit upon a plywood throne and ask 1st century kiddies what they wanted his flying caribou to bring them at the end of December? And did God really intend the supervision of His religion to be managed by eunuchs with an unnatural fondness for pre-adolescent boys? Are the interpretations of God's honest truth really to be entrusted to a religion like this?
When confronted with the challenge to disprove the mortality of the human spirit, many adherents of hellish doctrine go back to attempts to prove hell - trying to put the horse after the cart so to speak.
It is not the Bible that's full of nonsense, but those who hold myth and false conjecture as truth. It's even worse than that, actually. Many who believe in hell also hold diametrically opposed ideas of Final Judgment to be true also. Those who are dead, devoid of the mechanisms to sense anything, cannot also live forever in a fire pit. Which is it, dead or alive? You cannot have it logically both ways. Such sad folk are confused and incoherent about their own doctrine. This sort of theological schizophrenia is actually applauded in our churches. Go figure.
The Bible says that at the Final Judgment, God will judge the wicked and evict them from the presence of God. (Matt 7:23) Churches then refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusion that since God is the source of life, being ejected from His source results in no life - that which sane people call death.
The Bible says death is permanent. (Heb 9:27) There are no second chances & no appeals court. There are no remedial classes in a cemetery.
The doctrine of hell is false and the religion that promotes it is a joke.
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
This is just plain rubbish. Jesus mentioned hell more than He did heaven. Jesus borrowed nothing from the Greeks since Jesus is Eternal. Daniel mentioned hell before Plato. You're not helping anyone understand hell by denying it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The New Testament is already been modified. It's called The October Testament.
