Can you imagine this

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I was wondering when someone was going to point out the obvious.

The fact is, Jesus talked more about hell than almost any other single subject.

Jesus is indeed trying to instill fear of everlasting punishment. Not, though, in order to manipulate people, as some have proffered here, but in order to warn others of the impending reality of he ...[text shortened]... and his book references many relevant books along the way. Plus, it's just a good read.

Lee Strobel? Give me a break. The man is an incompetent hack. One would do themselves much greater good by reading something by Bart Ehrman.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Right, Jeus wasn't christian, he was a jew.

nu-uhn! he was a himselfian

Originally posted by rwingett
Matthew 25:45-46

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. [b]And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Sounds to me like he's trying to instill fear of everlasting punishment here.[/b]

everlasting punishment is not a good translation, ever lasting cutting off is better. yet its hardly an incitement to guilt or fear is it. its the equivalent of saying, oh by the way, if your not righteous you shall live seventy or eighty years and then simply die, well shake shake, tremble tremble.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
everlasting punishment is not a good translation, ever lasting cutting off is better. yet its hardly an incitement to guilt or fear is it. its the equivalent of saying, oh by the way, if your not righteous you shall live seventy or eighty years and then simply die, well shake shake, tremble tremble.

Do you interprete the bible differently than others?
So, you think the bible is interpretable. Galveston doesn't think so.

You wrote once: "Galvo my Texan friend i think has covered most and we are of the same mind" Perhaps that's not the case.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do you interprete the bible differently than others?
So, you think the bible is interpretable. Galveston doesn't think so.

You wrote once: "Galvo my Texan friend i think has covered most and we are of the same mind" Perhaps that's not the case.

yes the thing you must remember, is that the scriptures are used to interpret the scriptures, thus what is found in one part must harmonise with that of another in order that one can not only see the constituent parts, but the whole as well 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I was wondering when someone was going to point out the obvious.

The fact is, Jesus talked more about hell than almost any other single subject.

Jesus is indeed trying to instill fear of everlasting punishment. Not, though, in order to manipulate people, as some have proffered here, but in order to warn others of the impending reality of he ...[text shortened]... and his book references many relevant books along the way. Plus, it's just a good read.

but in order to warn others of the impending reality of hell

The thought of spending eterntity with Mr Carrobie, Galveston and some of the other nutters who post on this forum is my idea of hell!!!

The mere thought of eternity without drink, drugs, masturbation, oral sex, fornication, rock 'n' roll (as it is the devils music) sends shivers down my spine.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]but in order to warn others of the impending reality of hell

The thought of spending eterntity with Mr Carrobie, Galveston and some of the other nutters who post on this forum is my idea of hell!!!

The mere thought of eternity without drink, drugs, masturbation, oral sex, fornication, rock 'n' roll (as it is the devils music) sends shivers down my spine.[/b]

why would you trade a mere seventy or eighty years of tossing off to girls your never likely to meet, to music thats rhythmically basic with the prospect of a drug induced psychosis, for an eternity of relative perfection.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes the thing you must remember, is that the scriptures are used to interpret the scriptures, thus what is found in one part must harmonise with that of another in order that one can not only see the constituent parts, but the whole as well 🙂

Still, you are the same spirit as galvestone, yet you disagree with him.

Everytime we read the bible, we must trust that the translator interprete it correctly. He doesn't, because different translators translate the original text differently, and even some translators translate what other translaters has already translated.

If you think the scripture interprete itself, then you have a circular interpretation. What does that mean?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Still, you are the same spirit as galvestone, yet you disagree with him.

Everytime we read the bible, we must trust that the translator interprete it correctly. He doesn't, because different translators translate the original text differently, and even some translators translate what other translaters has already translated.

If you think the scripture interprete itself, then you have a circular interpretation. What does that mean?

the problem that you are facing in making such an assertion is that there are hundreds of different translations, therefore rather than giving a jaded view of the original text, all these different translations can be consulted and a very broad picture of the text can be established, thus the difference in translation is not a hindrance, but quite the opposite. it is only when the translator introduces interpolations or seeks to establish doctrine through the process of translation that one must be wary, never the less, there are many thousands of extant manuscripts that can be referenced which also aids in establishing the original text, therefore, its not so easy for them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the problem that you are facing in making such an assertion is that there are hundreds of different translations, therefore rather than giving a jaded view of the original text, all these different translations can be consulted and a very broad picture of the text can be established, thus the difference in translation is not a hindrance, but quite th ...[text shortened]... ferenced which also aids in establishing the original text, therefore, its not so easy for them.

How many do that, do you think? Quite few.

What do you think of the Swedish translation form A.D. 2000? I think it's rather good, don't you think?

When you quote from bible, I compare it with the Swedish text, and find that your bible is quite inferiour from place to place. How do you react to this?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
How many do that, do you think? Quite few.

What do you think of the Swedish translation form A.D. 2000? I think it's rather good, don't you think?

When you quote from bible, I compare it with the Swedish text, and find that your bible is quite inferiour from place to place. How do you react to this?

inferior? in what sense is our text inferior to the Swenska? The New world translation of the Holy scriptures is available in Swenska also. i myself am learning a little german at the moment, and know very little Swenska, therfore it would be impossible for me to compare, but if i had New world translation in Swenska, it could be done by simply comparing the English text.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
inferior? in what sense is our text inferior to the Swenska?

Oh, do a comparison yourself. Is this not what you do?

Didn't you write that "there are hundreds of different translations, therefore rather than giving a jaded view of the original text, all these different translations can be consulted and a very broad picture of the text can be established, thus the difference in translation is not a hindrance, but quite the opposite." How do you compare hundreds of translations in order to get a broader picture if you don't read other bibles in various languages?

I read the Swedish ("Swenska"? 🙂 ) bible, and the English one, and occationally the French one too when needed. I haven't bought the Italian version yet, but it's on my wish list. So when I do a comparison, the English 1611, often relied upon, is trash. You rely on the JW bible. Quite biased by the JW cult, if I may say so.

[edit] You did some editing before I was ready with my posting, therefore some of my words are obsolete... [/edit]

Originally posted by rwingett
Lee Strobel? Give me a break. The man is an incompetent hack. One would do themselves much greater good by reading something by Bart Ehrman.

I admit, he's not the best. But a good place to start, IMO.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, do a comparison yourself. Is this not what you do?

Didn't you write that "there are hundreds of different translations, therefore rather than giving a jaded view of the original text, all these different translations can be consulted and a very broad picture of the text can be established, thus the difference in translation is not a hindrance, but upon, is trash. You rely on the JW bible. Quite biased by the JW cult, if I may say so.

yes opponents do really like the fact that we have consulted thousands of manuscripts, codex , interlinear, papyrus and lexicons etc, i provide a list for your disapproval, which ones dont you think are reputable?


Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
Aleppo Codex, Heb., c. 930 C.E., Israel, H.S.
Aquila’s Gr. translation of H.S., second cent. C.E., Cambridge, England.
Armenian Version, fourth to thirteenth cent. C.E.; H.S., G.S.
Vatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican City, Rome, H.S., G.S.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by W. Bauer, second English ed., by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, Chicago and London (1979).
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver and Briggs, Oxford, 1978 reprint.
Biblia Hebraica, by Kittel, Kahle, Alt and Eissfeldt, Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, seventh to ninth ed., 1951-55, H.S.
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, by Elliger and Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart, 1977, H.S.
Codex Ephraemi rescriptus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., Paris, H.S., G.S.
Cairo Codex, Heb., 895 C.E., Cairo, Egypt, H.S.
Bezae Codices, Gr. and Lat., fifth and sixth cent. C.E., Cambridge, England, G.S.
Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible, by C. D. Ginsburg, London, 1926.
The Massorah, by C. D. Ginsburg, Ktav Publishing House, New York, 1975 reprint.
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, by E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, Oxford, England (1910).
The Interlinear Hebrew/English Bible, Vol. I-III, by J. Green, Wilmington, U.S., 1976.
Old Latin Versions, Itala, second to fourth cent. C.E.; H.S., G.S.
Matthew, Heb., edited by J. du Tillet, with a Lat. translation by J. Mercier, Paris, 1555.
Matthew, Heb., incorporated as a separate chapter in Even bochan [“Tried Stone”], by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385. Mss of 16th and 17th cent., Jewish Theological Seminary, New York.
Matthew and Hebrews, Heb. and Lat., by Sebastian Münster, Basel, 1537 and 1557 respectively.
Matthew, Heb., by J. Quinquarboreus, Paris, 1551.
Liturgical Gospels, Heb., by F. Petri, Wittemberg, 1573.
Liturgical Gospels, German, Lat., Gr. and Heb., by Johann Clajus, Leipzig, 1576.
Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Heb., by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599.
Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Robertson, London, 1661.
Gospels, Heb. and Lat., by Giovanni Battista Jona, Rome, 1668.
The New Testament . . . in Hebrew and English, by Richard Caddick, Vol. I-III, containing Matthew—1 Corinthians, London, 1798-1805.
Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Thomas Fry and others, London, 1817.
Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by William Greenfield, London, 1831.
Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by A. McCaul, M. S. Alexander, J. C. Reichardt and S. Hoga, London, 1838.
Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. C. Reichardt, London, 1846.
Luke, Acts, Romans and Hebrews, Heb., by J. H. R. Biesenthal, Berlin, 1855, 1867, 1853 and 1858 respectively.
Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. C. Reichardt and J. H. R. Biesenthal, London, 1866.
Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Franz Delitzsch, London, 1981 ed.
Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London.
ohn, Heb., by Moshe I. Ben Maeir, Denver, Colorado, 1957.
A Concordance to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, fourth ed., Edinburgh, 1963.
The Emphatic Diaglott (Greek-English interlinear), by Benjamin Wilson, New York, 1864, reprint by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1942.
Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by United Bible Societies, Jerusalem, 1979.
Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by J. Bauchet, Rome, 1975.
A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter, London, 1863.
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford, London, 1900.
Psalms and Matthew 1:1-3:6, Heb., by Anton Margaritha, Leipzig, 1533.
Die heilige Schrift des neuen Testaments, by Dominik von Brentano, third ed., Vienna and Prague, 1796.
ournal of Theological Studies, Clarendon, Oxford.
Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Leiden, Netherlands, 1953.
Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, by W. Baumgartner, third ed., Leiden, Netherlands, 1967 and later ed.
Leningrad Codex Leningrad B 19A, Heb., 1008 C.E., H.S., Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library, Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
Greek-English Lexicon, by H. Liddell and R. Scott, Oxford, 1968.
Septuagint, Gr., third and second cent. B.C.E., H.S. (A. Rahlfs, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1935).
Septuagint (with an English translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton, S. Bagster & Sons, London, 1851).
Septuagint (P. de Lagarde, Göttingen, Germany, 1883).
Septuagint, translated by C. Thomson, Pells ed., London, 1904.
Masoretic Hebrew text found in Codex Leningrad B 19A as presented in BHK and BHS.
Papyrus Chester Beatty 1, Gr., third cent. C.E., Dublin, G.S.
Papyrus Chester Beatty 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Dublin, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A., G.S.
Papyrus Chester Beatty 3, Gr., third cent. C.E., Dublin, G.S.
Papyrus Bodmer 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.
Papyrus Bodmer 17, Gr., seventh cent. C.E., Geneva, G.S.
Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.
The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, Jerusalem, found in 1947 in Qumran Cave No. 1.
Pentateuch in Samaritan, fourth cent. B.C.E., Israel.
Hebrew Old Testament, by N. H. Snaith, Israel, 1970.
Syriac, Christian Aram., fifth cent. C.E., S. Lee, London, 1826, reprint by United Bible Societies, 1979.
Curetonian Syriac, Old Syriac, fifth cent. C.E., Gospels, Cambridge, England.
Philoxenian-Harclean Syriac Version, sixth and seventh cent. C.E.; G.S.
Jerusalem (Hierosolymitanum) Version, Old Syriac, sixth cent. C.E.; G.S.
Sinaitic Syriac codex, fourth and fifth cent. C.E., Gospels.
Greek translation of H.S., by Symmachus, c. 200 C.E.
Targums, Aram. paraphrases of parts of H.S.
Jerusalem Targum I (Pseudo-Jonathan) and Jerusalem Targum II (Fragmentary Targum).
Targum of Onkelos (Babylonian Targum), Pentateuch.
Palestinian Targum, Vatican City, Rome, Pentateuch.
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (English ed.), Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., 1974 and later ed.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (English ed.), Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., 1964 and later ed.
Greek translation of H.S., by Theodotion, second cent. C.E.
Textus Receptus (Received Text) of G.S., by R. Stephanus, 1550.
Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 C.E. (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart, 1975).
Latin Vulgate, Clementine recension (S. Bagster & Sons, London, 1977).
Latin Vulgate, Sixtine recension, 1590.
Novum Testamentum Latine secundum editionem Sancti Hieronymi ad Codicum Manuscriptorum Fidem, by J. Wordsworth and H. J. White, Oxford, 1911.
Vetus Testamentum, E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands.
Freer Gospels, fifth cent. C.E., Washington, D.C.
The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, 1948 ed. (reprinted in Int).
Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, third ed., by F. Zorell, Paris, 1961.
Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti, by F. Zorell, Rome, 1968.

now you shall be pleased to inform the forum what documents form the basis of your superior Swedish translation, if you please

secondly i want you to state, that by consulting these texts and including them in the translation process it has contributed to a biased translation, if you cannot, you will publicly acknowledge that you assertions of bias are unfounded and issue an apology.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes opponents do really like the fact that we have consulted thousands of manuscripts, codex , interlinear, papyrus and lexicons etc, i provide a list for your disapproval, which ones dont you think are reputable?


Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S. ...[text shortened]... t, you will publicly acknowledge that you assertions of bias are unfounded and issue an apology.

(I see that you're very good in cutting and pasting.)

Compare the Swedish translation 2000 with the King James 1600 the Domareboken kapitel 19 and the Judges chapter 19.
How many verses starts with an 'and' in the English translation? How many verses starts with 'och' in the Swedish translation? What do you think is the best translation?
If I was a teacher in languages and one of my pupils wrote a story like that in the Judges, I'd flunk him on the spot. Good translation? In King James 1611, no. In Bibeln 2000, yes.

Now it's your turn: Why do you think I'm wrong when I say that a bible from 2000 is better translated than one from 1611? Why do you think I'm wrong when I say that we know very much more about the languages in the original biblical documents? Give me examples, as I did, and comment it, as I did.

You have to understand that you are not right everytime you and I discuss a matter. You have to be honest and not to take every discussion as a war to win. Because when you win and didn't learn anything, then you are the loser. Whenever you learn something new, then you are the winner, irrespective if you get the last word or not.

You see that I answer your questions, honour me with answers of my questions to you.