"Sheol"

Originally posted by checkbaiter
There are many who claim just that. The sun revolves around the earth that is....
I know the opposite is true, but the bible does not explicitly say the sun revolves around the earth.
from Wiki....

1. This argument opens the accuracy of the Bible up to question just as much as it questions modern astronomy and physics. To those who hold reason ...[text shortened]... t why is making a day longer any harder for God than parting the Red Sea, or creating the earth?

I have no problem with figures of speech in the Bible—or metaphor or myth, for that matter. As you note (and I think I mentioned somewhere) we use similar figures of speech today.

The question is really twofold: Biblical literalism, per se (stopping the sun in the sky); and the nature of Biblical inspiration. If the Biblical texts represent the “words” of God, rather than humans interpreting the logos of God—the former a position that I reject—then God is clearly not concerned with presenting truth about the physical universe. And that means that, either way, we are inescapably left with pretty large scale questions of interpretation.

I don’t have a problem with that. Take the following line from one of my favorite poets, Dylan Thomas:

“The force that through the green fuse drives the flower, drives my green age . . .”.

Now, think of the various hermeneutical approaches represented here on RHP. The following, I think, are apt analogies:

1. “Dylan Literalists”: The stem of flowers is in fact a kind of fuse, through which there is a force that drives the opening of flowers; and Dylan’s age is somehow really “green”.

2. “Dylan Literalists/Rejectionists”: That is precisely what Dylan meant, and his knowledge of botany is laughably delusional. Therefore his writing can be reasonably dismissed. (Though some might grant it “entertainment value”. )

3. “Poetic Interpreters”: Dylan is obviously speaking metaphorically or symbolically, and is subject to literary-critical methods of analysis that may yield numerous possibilities of meaning. Further, the “elicitive speech” of such lyrical poetry is meant to arouse multiple possibilities of personal existential meaning.

I am in the third camp. I am in that camp, not only with regard to poetry, but to myth and parable, and story generally. I am quite willing to argue for the cogency of my particular interpretations (including contextuality distributed across the entire Biblical corpus). But—hopefully—that approach keeps me from being dogmatic. It keeps me from the temptation to relinquishing my own moral sensibilities—and, as a matter of fact, from any need to “defend” God in the face of Biblical texts that, to me, clearly attribute to God immoral and ugly dispositions.

One of the things that I learned in my years of Judaic studies was how radical (and, I think, correct) is the Jewish position on idolatry—which includes “graven images of the mind” (my words—that is, dogmatic belief requirements) even more than any physically “graven images”. In a Christic context, what stands against such idolatry is—quite frankly, if a bit simplistically as I put it here—grace (charis). And that—with all due respect and acknowledgement of Rajk’s critique of OSAS Christianity—is where I stand.

Originally posted by vistesd
I have no problem with figures of speech in the Bible—or metaphor or myth, for that matter. As you note (and I think I mentioned somewhere) we use similar figures of speech today.

The question is really twofold: Biblical literalism, per se (stopping the sun in the sky); and the nature of Biblical inspiration. If the Biblical texts represent the “word ...[text shortened]... th all due respect and acknowledgement of Rajk’s critique of OSAS Christianity—is where I stand.

Good for you Vistesd, I generally agree with all your post here.

The question is really twofold: Biblical literalism, per se (stopping the sun in the sky); and the nature of Biblical inspiration. If the Biblical texts represent the “words” of God, rather than humans interpreting the logos of God—the former a position that I reject—then God is clearly not concerned with presenting truth about the physical universe. And that means that, either way, we are inescapably left with pretty large scale questions of interpretation.

I am not sure what camp my position would be, but unless a person has a good command of Hebrew and Greek, it would be difficult to interpret anything. For the most part we would have to rely on someone else to interpret for us.
I just looked up the phrase from Joshua 10:13 and here is the definition for "stopped", that is referring to the sun....
OT:1826
<START HEBREW><m^D*
<END HEBREW> damam (daw-man) a prim root [compare OT:1724, OT:1820]; to be dumb; by implication, to be astonished, to stop; also to perish:


KJV - cease, be cut down (off), forbear, hold peace, quietself, rest, be silent, keep (put to) silence, be (stand) still, tarry, wait.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

The phrase is used twice in the same verse but two different words are used, here is the second one....
OT:5975
<START HEBREW>dm^u*
<END HEBREW> `amad (aw-mad) a primitive root; to stand, in various relations (literal and figurative, intransitive and transitive):


KJV - abide (behind), appoint, arise, cease, confirm, continue, dwell, be employed, endure, establish, leave, make, ordain, be [over], place, (be) present (self), raise up, remain, repair, serve, set (forth, over, -tle, up), (make to, make to be at a, with-) stand (by, fast, firm, still, up), (be at a) stay (up), tarry.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

So, yes the interpretation can be exhaustive. But having said that, any interpretation we use cannot be contrary to another section of scripture.
So, it is a dilemna of sorts, if one is a Literalist.

If the Biblical texts represent the “words” of God, rather than humans interpreting the logos of God—the former a position that I reject—then God is clearly not concerned with presenting truth about the physical universe.

I agree, we are humans interpreting the "logos of God". However, the goal is to get to the "words of God", as depicted in the New Testament. Gal:1:12,Eph 3:3, 2Tim:3:16, 2Peter 1:21.
I believe we are to study the logos 2 Tim 2:15.

One of the things that I learned in my years of Judaic studies was how radical (and, I think, correct) is the Jewish position on idolatry—which includes “graven images of the mind” (my words—that is, dogmatic belief requirements) even more than any physically “graven images”.

I strongly agree with this....

Originally posted by vistesd
I have no problem with figures of speech in the Bible—or metaphor or myth, for that matter. As you note (and I think I mentioned somewhere) we use similar figures of speech today.

The question is really twofold: Biblical literalism, per se (stopping the sun in the sky); and the nature of Biblical inspiration. If the Biblical texts represent the “word ...[text shortened]... th all due respect and acknowledgement of Rajk’s critique of OSAS Christianity—is where I stand.

Those Christians who take the entire Bible literally should read this post.

Originally posted by vistesd
[bI am in the third camp. I am in that camp, not only with regard to poetry, but to myth and parable, and story generally. I am quite willing to argue for the cogency of my particular interpretations (including contextuality distributed across the entire Biblical corpus). But—hopefully—that approach keeps me from being dogmatic. It keeps me from the temptat ...[text shortened]... th all due respect and acknowledgement of Rajk’s critique of OSAS Christianity—is where I stand.[/b]

Really wonderful post, vistesd. I wish I could express myself as clearly.

Thumbs up.

Originally posted by CalJust
Seriously, do you recognize any parallels at all between the Flat Earth debate between the church and science in the sixteenth century and the evolution debate between the same parties today?

Nope. How could it be the same parties today?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Nope. How could it be the same parties today?

Well, how about the same parties being the church and biblical literalists on the one side, and scientists with emergent discoveries on the other?

Originally posted by vistesd
I have no problem with figures of speech in the Bible—or metaphor or myth, for that matter. As you note (and I think I mentioned somewhere) we use similar figures of speech today.

The question is really twofold: Biblical literalism, per se (stopping the sun in the sky); and the nature of Biblical inspiration. If the Biblical texts represent the “word ...[text shortened]... th all due respect and acknowledgement of Rajk’s critique of OSAS Christianity—is where I stand.

Interesting post Vistesd. Can you give a brief answer to this if you have the time?
What in your opinion is the Bible teaching on the fate of Judas Iscariot?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Interesting post Vistesd. Can you give a brief answer to this if you have the time?
What in your opinion is the Bible teaching on the fate of Judas Iscariot?

Well, there are conflicting accounts. First, in Mark and Matthew, Jesus seems to have predicted some kind of dire, though not specific, consequence:

—YLT Mark 14:21 the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up; good were it to him if that man had not been born.'

—YLT Matthew 26:24 the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him if that man had not been born.'

However, there appears to be a long history of differences among translators as to whom, exactly, the “him” and "that man" (in the phrase “it would good—or better—for him if that man had not been born” ). For example—

• Matthew 26:24 in the King James Bible reads, "It had been better for that man, if he had not been born." In the KJV and its sisters "that man" refers to Judas. But other translations disagree or present another possibility. The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 put in the margin "Gr. for him if that man." In other words it would have been good for Jesus if Judas had not been born. Martin Luther's translation, Rotherham's, Douay, Wiclif's, Tyndale's, Concordant, and many others read the same way. Rotherham has it, "well would it have been for him, if that man had not been born." Well would it have been for Jesus if that man (Judas) had not been born.

From: http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew3/D3-JudasIscariot.html (This article is a more extended analysis than I have done, and I have not given it a thorough analysis. The site is openly universalist.)

____________________________________________________

Both Luke and John say that the Adversary (satan) entered into him, one assumes as some kind of causal agent (otherwise why mention it?) I didn’t find any such mention in Mark or Matthew.

—YLT Luke 22:3 And the Adversary entered into Judas, who is surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve, 4 and he, having gone away, spake with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might deliver him up to them, 5 and they rejoiced, and covenanted to give him money, 6 and he agreed, and was seeking a favourable season to deliver him up to them without tumult.

—NRS John 13:2 The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray him.

—NRS John 13:27 After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "Do quickly what you are going to do."

Mark, Luke and John make no further mention of Judas after the betrayal. But Matthew and the author of Acts offer absolutely conflicting accounts of Judas’ death:

—NRS Matthew 27:1 When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to bring about his death. 2 They bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor. 3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 He said, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." 5 Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged [or strangled] himself.

—NRS Acts1:18 Now this man [Judas Iscariot] acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

In Matthew’s version, Judas, having seen Jesus condemned by the chief priests and elders, and that they are going to hand him over to Pilate for death, he (1) repents—I see no reason to assume that it is not sincere—(2) testifies that Jesus is in fact innocent (trying to, at the last minute, undo the wrong?) and (3) returns the money. Then perhaps he kills himself (see below)—and, again assuming that his metanoia is sincere—likely out of unbearable remorse or grief.

In the Acts version he neither repents, nor testifies to Jesus’ innocence, nor returns the money, nor kills himself, but uses the blood money to buy property. I think that some have tried to reconcile the accounts by suggesting that Judas hanged (or strangled) himself, and then his guts burst out—but I find that unconvincing, and it does not reconcile the rest of the differences.

Re “strangled”: Although it appears that the most common meaning of the Greek word apagcho is “strangle” or “choke”, it can also be used euphemistically to mean overcome by emotion—e.g., strangled with grief. Again, that’s not the most common meaning, just a possibility.*

Jesus last words to Judas: "Friend, do what you are here to do." (Matthew 26:50) Was Jesus being sarcastic with that “friend” (or “comrade” )? Was he perhaps comforting Judas? Or encouraging a Judas who may have (given his subsequent repentance in the Matthean version) already been having second thoughts—or at least mixed feelings?

In sum: The accounts conflict, in ways that I think are not so easily reconciled as some might. Nowhere (that I can find) does it say specifically that Judas is eternally condemned. As pretty much everyone on here knows by now, my answer to the question of eternal condemnation is “No”—and that “No” draws from how I weight both the Biblical texts and Apostolic tradition (it is not what I grew up with).

_________________________________________________

* “The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.”

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.php (I don’t know anything about this site; I also perused some lexicons.)

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, there are conflicting accounts. First, in Mark and Matthew, Jesus seems to have predicted some kind of dire, though not specific, consequence:

—YLT Mark 14:21 the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up; [b]good were it to him if that man had not been born.[/ ...[text shortened]... s.org/gk/judasdeath.php (I don’t know anything about this site; I also perused some lexicons.)

Ok, thanks for that. Lets say that the Gospel records are really saying it is'good for Christ' if Judas was not born. Lets also say that Judas was repentant and was tempted of Satan. Then Christ would have had no need to speak negatively about Judas in John 17

Christ in John 17 prays a long and detailed prayer to God concerning, among other things the disciples. While praying to God, Christ called Judas the son of perdition and said that he was LOST. Christ prayed specifically for the other 11 disciples and asked God to keep them from evil and away from the world. Christ prayed for all others that would in future believe in him.

There is no remorse, no asking for Judas to be forgiven. Judas was just lost as far as Christ was concerned. In fact Christ using the expression 'son of perdition' to refer to Judas is a dire condemnation. Kind of hard to see anything but trouble and eternal condemnation for Judas and those like him.

There is one passage that can be interpreted as universal salvation for all, although I have not seen you quote it ... yet 🙂

Originally posted by Rajk999
Ok, thanks for that. Lets say that the Gospel records are really saying it is'good for Christ' if Judas was not born. Lets also say that Judas was repentant and was tempted of Satan. Then Christ would have had no need to speak negatively about Judas in John 17

Christ in John 17 prays a long and detailed prayer to God concerning, among other things the dis ...[text shortened]... be interpreted as universal salvation for all, although I have not seen you quote it ... yet 🙂

NRS John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept those you had given me true to your name. I have watched over them and not one is lost except one who was destined to be lost, and this was to fulfil the scriptures.

YLT John 17:12 when I was with them in the world, I was keeping them in Thy name; those whom Thou hast given to me I did guard, and none of them was destroyed, except the son of the destruction, that the Writing may be fulfilled.

I think you are reading far more into John 17 than is there. The Greek word apoleias means loss, destruction, ruin. And the verb form in this sentence is apoleto. None of those given to Jesus were lost/destroyed/ruined except the one destined to be lost/destroyed/ruined—hence the one referred to as the “son of ruin”. And it’s clear that, in this life, Judas was utterly ruined (especially in the Matthean version). There is no indication that Jesus thought of Judas as “lost to him” forever. Nor, as I have said before, that Judas' "ruin" is forever-lasting. You can read that into it; I don't.

Kind of hard to see anything but trouble and eternal condemnation for Judas and those like him.

Well, “those like him” I guess would be anyone who committed a wrong that hurt someone else, actively repented and tried to undo the wrong, relinquished all profit from the wrong, and was filled with grief/remorse for the wrong. That would certainly include me. So, if none of that allows for healing/forgiveness (being set free), then there would be no sense me worrying about it—or trying to do any better. What’s done is done. Okay. 🙂

But I know others in a similar boat—some that I love. In all of this, you have never mentioned the first commandment: “He said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'” (Matthew 22:37-39) Now, love is not just obedience—I can obey a despot out of terror and fright, but hate that very despot. You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the second commandment—in terms of good and generous works—but ignore the first one, especially the “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind”.

Maybe you can love a God who will destroy someone that you love. I cannot. In fact, I don’t know what “love” (agape) could possibly mean in such a case. Further, I think that agape][ entails that I would take their place in a hell of eternal torment—or else I don’t know what love means.

But, whether or not those that you love might be condemned, I don’t see how you can possibly love the God that you present “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind”—and, if not, then you are in perpetual violation of the first commandment.

[NOTE: Before whodey ventures in—Yes, I realize the paradox of “commanding” love.]

___________________________________________________________

With regard to universal salvation, I think that, for example, pretty much the whole of Romans presents a dialectical argument for that. And I wouldn’t rely on just Romans, let alone a single verse. But, if I have not quoted it—

Romans 5:18 Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.

—Some seem to have made much of the different phraseology of “all” versus “the many” in these Pauline passages, but I think they make much of nothing. The parallelism here is emphatic.

Again, I wouldn’t rely on just this one verse—or all of Romans for that matter.

_____________________________________________________________

You know, Raj, we could do this all day and all night. In the end, you take God’s “righteousness” as limiting and conditioning God’s being as love (agape)—and so, you will weight various scriptures in that way (I recognize that, and that you are not alone). I understand God’s “righteousness” as the outpouring of God’s being as love (agape). So it goes beyond finding scriptural citations that will counter the other. We are forever (a euphemism!) at impasse—in my mind, until you discover, or remember, the radical nature of agape in your life. In your mind, I’m off somewhere in “luv land”, I suppose.

You see, we understand God’s being differently—and each of us can list Biblical texts in support. I don’t think of God as a being at all—but as the generative ground of being in a Trinitarian formula of “ground of being, power of being, and being-itself”. That Tri-unity is expressed in personalistic terms (metaphor) as “father, spirit, son”. And my contention is that the Christic view holds fundamentally (or at least arguably) that the nature of that “beingness” is agape. (I only mention that because I think that my non-dualistic view gets lost sometimes here.)

_________________________________________________

EDIT: I want to add, Raj, that you and I have exchanged on here a bunch over the years—and, as I recall, played chess before that. I can’t imagine that we would not enjoy one another’s company as neighbors, for example. But I am reminded of how much I fall short of my own allegiance to love (agape)—and what that means for argument on here. I’m not sure that I’m not being hypocritical in these debates, from how I am approaching them. I am not following the “commandments” to love. Not in my own mind, anyway. I either need to get back there, or I need to shut up.

Originally posted by CalJust
Well, how about the same parties being the church and biblical literalists on the one side, and scientists with emergent discoveries on the other?

Making up your own parties is not equal to the same parties. 😏

Originally posted by vistesd
NRS John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept those you had given me true to your name. I have watched over them and not one is lost [b]except one who was destined to be lost, and this was to fulfil the scriptures.

YLT John 17:12 when I was with them in the world, I was keeping them in Thy name; those whom Thou hast given to me I did guard, [ ...[text shortened]... s” to love. Not in my own mind, anyway. I either need to get back there, or I need to shut up.

This reminds me of Jesus when He said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Originally posted by RJHinds
This reminds me of Jesus when He said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Yeah, and I'm not one without sin.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Making up your own parties is not equal to the same parties. 😏

They are EXACTLY the same parties!

Names may have changed, but the positions are identical.

I'm pretty sure there was a RJHinds fighting as hard as he could for what he thought the Bible said, and against the evil scientist atheists!

Originally posted by vistesd
NRS John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept those you had given me true to your name. I have watched over them and not one is lost [b]except one who was destined to be lost, and this was to fulfil the scriptures.

YLT John 17:12 when I was with them in the world, I was keeping them in Thy name; those whom Thou hast given to me I did guard, [ ...[text shortened]... s” to love. Not in my own mind, anyway. I either need to get back there, or I need to shut up.

I was taught a long time ago that we might be seeing ole' Judas one day in the Kingdom...🙂