Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh boy, is THIS ironic.
Yes its of some concern for the Bible reader because many of the translators have also not only the things that you mention to contend with but they come with a religious bias and attempt to impose that religious bias onto scripture where none exists in the text.
Originally posted by SuzianneThat is not true. In fact, the largest denominations would not even claim it is true. (The Roman Catholics for example).
Whereas most denominations derive their dogma directly from the Bible, .....
In addition, the Bible you use is itself a product of selection to fit dogma.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
If the translation makes sense in context, I may check a couple other literal English translations and see if they convey the same idea. If so I usually let it go.
If for some reason, I believe it could be in error, I check as many English translations as I can including the paraphrased translations. If I still have doubts I check an Interlinear version ...[text shortened]... the problem with all the translations is that they put the comma before today instead of after.
And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise."
So the problem with all the translations is that they put the comma before today instead of after.
So you mean Jesus' emphasis is that He is saying this TODAY and not some OTHER day ? So you think it means rather than YESTERDAY, He was saying this TODAY. Or rather than two months ago, He is saying it today.
Or you imagine He means "Rather than telling you next week, TODAY, I say to you you will be with me in Paradise." ?
I don't think He is talking about the day on which He is telling the believing thief. He is talking about the thief will be much more than a MEMORY. Rather the thief will be WITH Jesus (not in the kingdom yet) but in Paradise because he is a believer in Christ the King.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonship
[b] And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise."
So the problem with all the translations is that they put the comma before today instead of after.
So you mean Jesus' emphasis is that He is saying this TODAY and not some OTHER day ? So you think it means rather than YESTER ...[text shortened]... WITH Jesus (not in the kingdom yet) but in Paradise because he is a believer in Christ the King.[/b]Yes. Jesus did not say it to the man yesterday nor is He going to say it to the man tomorrow, but Jesus is saying it to the man that very same day that they were both being crucified on the cross where it appears He can not even save Himself, much less, the man beside Him. Even though they may have died that same day and the man's soul ascended to the paradise in heaven, he could not be with Jesus because Jesus remained in the grave for three days. Jesus did not ascend to the paradise in Heaven until sometime after His resurrection.
Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"
(John 20:17 NASB)
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
This is crazy. One of the many reasons why I've found abrahamistic religions distasteful and silly, is this idea of a jealous god. It's a ridiculous thing to worship someone so insecure as to be jealous. It turns out that the hebrew word doesn't necessarily mean jealous, but could also mean protective.
Now, who in his right mind, translating from hebrew, trying to rally worshippers for the god he believes in, would choose to go with the word jealous, instead of protective? That's gotta be the worst sales pitch ever. 😵
It's part of a series, so you may wish to skip ahead to 7:20 something.
2 edits
Originally posted by C HessYes but you must understand that Hebrew is not English and a word that is written in Hebrew may have no English equivalent and this is not the fault of translation but of the cumbersome vehicle of language. To the English speaker jealousy has negative connotations, but this is simply not the case from a Biblical perspective.
This is crazy. One of the many reasons why I've found abrahamistic religions distasteful and silly, is this idea of a jealous god. It's a ridiculous thing to worship someone so insecure as to be jealous. It turns out that the hebrew word doesn't necessarily mean jealous, but could also mean protective.
Now, who in his right mind, translating from hebrew, t ...[text shortened]... EZ8E[/youtube]
It's part of a series, so you may wish to skip ahead to 7:20 something.
According to Biblical usage, “jealousy” may be a positive or a negative quality or emotion. (Pr 14:30; Zec 1:14) The Hebrew noun qin·Ê¼ahʹ variously means “insistence on exclusive devotion; toleration of no rivalry; zeal; ardor; jealousy [righteous or sinful]; envying.” The Greek zeʹlos has a similar meaning.—2Co 11:2; 12:20.
Your insistence that this call for exclusive devotion is based on insecurity has not foundation in scripture. Here is an example of why that is not the case.
Jealous for his name.
When one considers what God’s name stands for, the reason for his “insistence on exclusive devotion” becomes clear. (Eze 5:13) His name represents all that is right and righteous. He is holy, clean, upright, loyal in the superlative degree. (Isa 6:3; Re 4:8; 16:5) His sovereignty is necessary to the existence of the universe, and allegiance to his sovereignty and laws is essential to the order and peace of all creation. (Pr 29:2; 1Co 14:33)His jealousy is therefore a pure, clean jealousy and is altogether for the benefit of his creatures, as their devotion brings him—the Creator, Provider, and Giver of all good things—no profit. (Job 41:11; Ps 145:16; Ro 11:35; Jas 1:17; Re 4:11) But in his devotion to righteousness his heart is made glad with loving appreciation when his servants stand firm for righteousness and give exclusive devotion to him.—Pr 23:15, 16; 27:11.
So as you can readily discern in this insistence with regard to being 'jealous for his name', there are many issues tied up with Gods insistence on exclusive devotion none of which have their basis in insecurity.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002348
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessMaybe the translators thought the idea of a jealous God fit the context better than a protective hen over her chicks.
This is crazy. One of the many reasons why I've found abrahamistic religions distasteful and silly, is this idea of a jealous god. It's a ridiculous thing to worship someone so insecure as to be jealous. It turns out that the hebrew word doesn't necessarily mean jealous, but could also mean protective.
Now, who in his right mind, translating from hebrew, t ...[text shortened]... EZ8E[/youtube]
It's part of a series, so you may wish to skip ahead to 7:20 something.
However, Jesus used this idea himself when he said,
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
(Matthew 23:37 NASB)