Death and punishment (Christian)

[lyons24000]

Hey Guys, I'm back! Did you miss me? Do you even remember me?

At death, you neither go to Heaven or Hell. You are just dead, just like many say. Yes, it's true!

For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.-Ecclesiastes 9:5

Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.-Ezekiel 18:4

What?!?! The soul dies along with the body? Who knew?

So then what does this mean? Why preach the gospel if people don't go to heaven or hell? There is still a reward for humans. Jesus Christ said,

Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.

This is a partial quote of Psalm 37:29 which ends with "and they will reside forever upon it." The people who die will be resurrected back to the earth from sheol. Paul said,

And I have hope toward God, which hope these men themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.-Acts 24:15

Jesus himself even said that there was going to be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous at John 5:28, 29.

Plus, reason on this: If at death you went to heaven (the saved ones, of course) how could death be an "enemy" as Paul calls it at 1 Corinthians 15:26?

So, if people don't go to hell and are actually rewarded with a resurrection, are we even punished for our sins. Yes. And in two ways.

The first one is punishment from God and men. Proverbs 28:13 says:

"He that is covering over his transgressions will not succeed, but he that is confessing and leaving them will be shown mercy.

That last part, will be shown mercy shows us that God punishes us for our sins. The second punishment, that from men, is shown from Matthew 18:17, 1 Corinthians 5:11-13, and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 shows how a sinner should be punished by men.

So, then, if we are punished in this life for our sins, are we still punished later? Again, the answer is yes.

"For the wages sin pays is death."-Romans 6:23

That is our last punishment. If death is our punishment, then why would God even think about punishing us again? We've paid the price for our sins upon our death! That is why the Bible says,

"For he who has died has been acquitted from his sin."-Romans 6:7

So, our punishment is death with a prospect of resurrection. So, you may ask, why do we have to preach?

That is for another day. I have to go to work!

Okay-discuss!

[Rei]

Context, context, context...

[Azarel]

Context, context, context...

I was just about to respond with, "What a wonderfully neat exercise in misinterpretation!" but yeah, the word context just about covers it. Over the course of the next day or two, I will be re-reading the verses quoted and, given the surrounding verses of each quotation, I have little doubt that they will in fact, strengthen my faith.

Bravo.

[lyons24000]

Context, context, context...

Yes, that is a good point. Unfortunately, when people are trying to prove their faith, verses have to be taken out of context because too much information can make the meaning be lost to the reader.

For example: If I said, "God sent His son to die for our sins so that we won't have to die but actually live eternally" and then tell them to read all of John 3 but not put any emphasis on John 3:16, the point from the Bible that I am trying to make is completely lost. Therefore, whenever we are trying to make a point, we all have to take verses out of context.

Now, when the prospective proselyte has time on his or her own, then they can read all the verses in complete context.

But then the question arises, what exactly is the complete context? Is it the entire chapter? The preceding and following verse? If your Bible has verses separated by different paragraphs, is the context those paragraphs only. In this regard, context is decided by a number of things. 1) The studiousness or lazyness of the prospective proselyte and 2) their true earnest desire to be taught Truth.

Lastly, when the entire context is read, you'll find that the entire chapter supports my view and doesn't end up refuting my points. (The only arguable Scripture is Ezekiel 18:4, where you can take the entire chapter to be telling you something else then what I told you it was saying. If this is the case, I have other Scriptures that support my understanding of Ezekiel 18:4 and back it up. ie: Judges 16:30*, Psalm 78:50^, Isaiah 53:12*, Acts 3:23^, Revelation 16:3*) Now, your interpretation might make it seem that my view is not supported but then all matters are up for interpretation. In the end, we have to make our own assertions as to the validity of any statement and Scriptures used.

NOTE: I find it funny that people always say "you took verses out of context, heathen!". They are, by extension, badmouthing the NT Bible writers, for they always took verses out of context. Matthew and Paul were notorious for it. Read Matthew 4 if you want to see what I mean. That Matthew, Jesus, and Satan all quoted verses out of context. Read Hebrew 1. There are many verses taken out of context. Read the entire NT. There are hundreds of verses from the OT taken out of context. The Bible writers had no problem with it.


FOOTNOTES
*Judges 16:30-"And Samson proceeded to say: 'Let my soul die with the Philistines.'"

^Psalm 78:50-"He did not hold back their soul from death itself"

*Isaiah 53:12-"due to the fact that he poured out his soul to the very death."

^Acts 3:23-"Indeed, any soul that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people."

*Revelation 16:3-"And the second one poured out his bowl into the sea. And it became blood as of a dead man, and every living soul died, the things in the sea."[/b]

[Jayelle]

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life."

I'd say you missed out on a pretty important part of the sentence when just saying "For the wages of sin is death".

[Luet]

Actually, Jayelle, I think he did address the gift of eternal life, in a different part of his post:

There is still a reward for humans. Jesus Christ said,

Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.

This is a partial quote of Psalm 37:29 which ends with "and they will reside forever upon it."

And Lyons...trying to count some time without going out in service?

[neo-dragon]

This is only semi related to the topic so please forgive me, but does the thought of living FOREVER (even in heaven) ever seem somewhat scary to any of you guys? I can't quite explain why, but if I really think about it, the thought of existing without an end is a little unsettling to my tiny mortal mind.

[Eaquae Legit]

Honestly, yeah. It's an intimidating thought. Simply ceasing to exist sounds a lot more restful. I just hope my tiny human brain is pleasantly surprised.

[lyons24000]

The entire idea of living without ever dying is somewhat intimidating, I would have to agree. I think, though, that once we're perfect it won't seem that out-of-the-way, you know?

However, what gets me even more (and what I was thinking about today) is the thought that God was never created or born-just always was! That completely skewers my idea of time. Tell me if you understand what I am saying: If God was eternally alive, where does that leave us in His time? What I mean is, when I imagine time from that perspective, I don't imagine it as a straight line on a timeline. I imagine it as a repetive loop or a ball where all events in any time all over the universe are connected just because, technically, time never started since God was always there.


Now I have a headache!

[Eaquae Legit]

"kairos" and "chronos" are classic theological concepts, and key to Catholic thought. It is a fun mystery to contemplate, yep.

[Rei]

I've had my head buried in neo-Platonism and Hermeticism the past few nights so these concepts don't bother me in the least. Actually, they didn't bother me before, either, but now they're on the brain. Ever since I realised that God exists equally and fully in all points of place and time, eternity in all directions has never bothered me. Better theology through math.

[Slim]

On context: It can be as big or small as you want it to be, depending on what your point is. If we are just looking for instances where _____ was mentioned, we may just need individual verses, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. If we want to know why someone said something, we may wish to read up to the whole chapter (or even surrounding chapters) to see who is speaking, who they are speaking to, etc.

On your quote from Ecclesiastes: I'll use the whole book to put it into context. He is speaking about what is believed "under the sun" or in other words, from a worldly point of view. It is only according to the world that there is no knowledge in the grave. (see Bible Dictionary: Ecclesiastes )

On "Wages of Sin is Death" and "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" : yes, this is a spiritual death, which means separation from God, not non-existence. And what about death giving acquittal for sin? Joseph Smith (whom I believe to be a Prophet) said that scripture means being dead to sin is to be acquitted from sins.

Okay, I think I can say we agree on the resurrection: I also believe in a literal resurrection of the body, and we receive our eternal reward after the resurrection. But that doesn't mean nothing happens between death and the resurrection.

I believe that when we die, our spirits separate from our bodies and go to the spirit world. There is only a temporary judgment at that time, and we continue to teach and learn prior to the resurrection and final judgment. (see Alma 40:11-12, Doctorine and Covenants 138:6-17)

[lyons24000]

On your quote from Ecclesiastes: I'll use the whole book to put it into context. He is speaking about what is believed "under the sun" or in other words, from a worldly point of view. It is only according to the world that there is no knowledge in the grave.

Slim, that is the LDS opinion on what "under the sun" means. Everyone is going to have their own opinion as to how this phrases affects the whole of Ecclesiastes. Therefore, this really proves nothing to me or really disproves my point.

On "Wages of Sin is Death" and "the soul that sinneth, it shall die" : yes, this is a spiritual death, which means separation from God, not non-existence. And what about death giving acquittal for sin? Joseph Smith (whom I believe to be a Prophet) said that scripture means being dead to sin is to be acquitted from sins.

If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you find that the context works against your theory. This is speaking of more then spiritual death. It is speaking of physical death. Same with the Romans Scripture. Matthew 8:21, 22 is speaking of spiritual death and physical death, respectively.

Okay, I think I can say we agree on the resurrection: I also believe in a literal resurrection of the body, and we receive our eternal reward after the resurrection. But that doesn't mean nothing happens between death and the resurrection.

I believe that when we die, our spirits separate from our bodies and go to the spirit world. There is only a temporary judgment at that time, and we continue to teach and learn prior to the resurrection and final judgment. (see Alma 40:11-12, Doctorine and Covenants 138:6-17)

The Bible teaches a physical resurrection. Fortunately, upon physical death we are forgiven for our sins in life (excluding the unforgivable sin if we committed it) and then judged later upon an entirely different basis for things we do after the resurrection. This is proved by Revelation 20:11-15.

[Slim]

Well, sure, I wasn't trying to disprove your point. As you said, the scriptures can (and are) used to "prove" just about anything, so I prefer to leave that job to God. I just wanted to share what I believe concerning the eternal nature of the soul, and explain how I see the scriptures you cited.

I don't know but I would imagine that other Christians that believe in the continuance of the spirit after death would have to have the same (or similar) view of Ecclesiastes. But, maybe you're right that it is just an LDS thing, and that others just say that The Preacher was just kidding. I wouldn't know.

I did as you suggested and read all of Ezekiel 18 & Romans 6. I don't see how they work against what I believe. I see that Ezekiel mentions physical death, and Romans more so, so I can see why you might believe it your way. But I still read the "death of the soul" as "spiritual death" or "separated from God." And They both say that the soul that repents will not die, but live. When it says that, do you believe that they are referring to the resurrection? I believe that's a part of it but I believe salvation from spiritual death is more than just living forever, but living forever with God.

But, hold on, I thought when you quoted Ezekiel in the first post, you were trying to say was that the "death of the soul" was a literal death of the soul, and when you die you are "just dead." So why are you saying now Ezekiel is talking about physical death? I'm just confused by what you are trying to say. All I'm arguing against is the idea that there is that our own death is the final punishment for our sins, and the idea that we do not exist between death and the resurrection. If it turns out I'm arguing against something you don't even believe in, I'll feel like an idiot.

Again, I'm not trying to disprove/prove anything, but I think it will be great if we can at least understand where the other is coming from.

On that note, can you explain what you believe Revelation 20:11-15? To me it says the opposite... To me it says all will rise from the dead (resurrection) and be judged by all their works. Where does the forgiveness of sins and/or judgment of only works after resurrection come in?

[lyons24000]

Well, sure, I wasn't trying to disprove your point. As you said, the scriptures can (and are) used to "prove" just about anything, so I prefer to leave that job to God. I just wanted to share what I believe concerning the eternal nature of the soul, and explain how I see the scriptures you cited.

I apologize, too. The way you worded things (without a disclaimer ) seemed to be saying that you were trying to disprove what I was trying to say, not give your input on the matter. I apologize for retaliating in the manner I did.

I don't know but I would imagine that other Christians that believe in the continuance of the spirit after death would have to have the same (or similar) view of Ecclesiastes. But, maybe you're right that it is just an LDS thing, and that others just say that The Preacher was just kidding. I wouldn't know.

Other Christians have other ideas in how Ecclesiastes applies in the grand scheme of things. I had one guy say that Solomon was just writing things down because their idea of death and the hereafter was extremely limited due to their living at a time when "the idea of heaven was completely unknown due to lack of knowledge". When I made the rebuttal that "all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching..." (2 Tim. 3:16) he got mad and said that I was attacking him.

I did as you suggested and read all of Ezekiel 18 & Romans 6. I don't see how they work against what I believe. I see that Ezekiel mentions physical death, and Romans more so, so I can see why you might believe it your way. But I still read the "death of the soul" as "spiritual death" or "separated from God." And They both say that the soul that repents will not die, but live. When it says that, do you believe that they are referring to the resurrection? I believe that's a part of it but I believe salvation from spiritual death is more than just living forever, but living forever with God.

That entire chapter (Ezek. 18) is speaking of people dying for their own sins. 'The soul that is sinning-it itself will die'. It goes on the say that a son won't die for the sins of the father but that the father will die for his own sins. Now when someone repents of their sins, they will not die because they repented. If you want, re-read it with that in mind and tell me if you see it. You don't have to, of course.

But, hold on, I thought when you quoted Ezekiel in the first post, you were trying to say was that the "death of the soul" was a literal death of the soul, and when you die you are "just dead." So why are you saying now Ezekiel is talking about physical death? I'm just confused by what you are trying to say. All I'm arguing against is the idea that there is that our own death is the final punishment for our sins, and the idea that we do not exist between death and the resurrection. If it turns out I'm arguing against something you don't even believe in, I'll feel like an idiot.

That happens all the time. Taalcon and I used to have private correspondance when he was still here and we were continually having to correct ourselves because we were trying to prove to each other our point when it turned out that we agreed on that particular point. So believe me, I understand.

On that note, can you explain what you believe Revelation 20:11-15? To me it says the opposite... To me it says all will rise from the dead (resurrection) and be judged by all their works. Where does the forgiveness of sins and/or judgment of only works after resurrection come in?

11 And I saw a great white throne and the one seated on it. From before him the earth and the heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. And the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Hades gave up those dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and Hades were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. 15 Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.

Verse 11 is refering to God.

Verse 12, does not say that those resurrected are either good or bad but says: “I saw the dead, the great and the small." In other words, people of all ranks of life. But whether great or small, they all come in for a judgment before the throne of God. It says that new scrolls are opened at this point and we are judged according to our deads after learning what those new scrolls say.

"And the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds." It doesn't say that they were judged because of their deeds written in the scrolls but judged on the "things written in the scrolls according to their deeds".

Verse 13 is going back and explaining all those who are resurrected and from where they are resurrected. It may also show that the resurrection is continuous-happening over a period of time. Many believe that the righteous will be raised first and then the wicked.

Verse 14 talks of the symbolic Lake of Fire. Death and Hades (Hades being the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol, which is just the grave) were hurled into the Lake of Fire-eternal death/nonexistance. Death and Hades will simply be no more.

Verse 15 goes back to speak of those whose deeds went against God's desire for everyone to work good depending what is in those future scrolls. Some people will not act properly depending on what those new scrolls contain, of that we can be sure.

[Slim]

Yeah, I always forget that my real intention is lost without a disclaimer.

I think I've said everything I want to for now, but I do want to say thanks for the clarification.

[London]

I understand that you can post what you may, but honestly, why are you trying to take God's words and twist and misinterpret them in such an "I-told-you-so" manner as possible. How many passages did you skip over that blatently tell you that you DO go there after you die. Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind to heaven, for example.[/quote]

[lyons24000]

How many passages did you skip over that blatently tell you that you DO go there after you die.

You have to give me an idea what Scriptures you're refering to.

Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind to heaven, for example.

Actually, Elijah wasn't taken up to the spiritual heavens where God resides because:

1. Jesus Christ said, "Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man." Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself Elijah could not have gone to Heaven because no man ever has ascended there. And if Elijah had gone up there then Jesus would have known because he was up there at the time.

2. Elijah ascended to heaven during the reigns of King Jehoshaphat of Judah and King Ahaziah of Israel but five years later wrote a letter to King Jehoram of Israel, who had succeeded Ahaziah.-2 Chronicles 21:12-15

[Eaquae Legit]

"Ascended" is different than "assumed" or "taken up." People/things ascend under their own power, but those assumed are acted upon by another - in this context, God. There's no contradiction in those scripture passages.

[lyons24000]

You know, E_L, I never thought I'd say this to you but: That is a weak argument.

A Koine Greek dictionary for ἀναβέβηκεν (ajnabevbhken) (used at John 3:13)-ascend; to go up; to rise, mount, be borne up, spring up

The English dictionary says for Ascend-To move, climb, or go upward; to slant upward, to rise to a higher point, degree, rank, or the like; to go toward the source, beginning; to go or move upward or along

Whether I go up of my own power or someone pushes me up something, I am ascending up that something. If someone is pushing me up a mountain, I am still ascending that mountain.

That Scripture could read: "And no man hath been borne up (risen) to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

[Slim]

Just out of curiosity, you said the Greek translation from John 3:13, but how does that compare with the Hebrew translation from 2 Kings 2:11?

And then what evidence do you have it was a different heaven other than "The Bible doesn't contradict itself" What was that about weak arguments?
Just kidding, I'm just giving you a hard time. But I am interested if you do have anything.

Actually, I could go either way on this one. I can even see you both could be right. (ascended on own power and to a different heavenly location) It doesn't really matter to me.

However, I would like to point out that Elijah being taken up to heaven in a whirlwind fails as an example of going to heaven after you die. That was the whole point. Elijah didn't die, he was translated. He was taken to heaven without dying.

A better Biblical example might be Jesus' parable Lazarus and the Rich Man, found in Luke 16:19-31.

[lyons24000]

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Psalm Therefore, there has to be a logical reason for the seeming contradiction to 2 Kings 2:11 and John 3:13.

First, there are different types of heaven that the Bible refers to.

1. Genesis 27:28; Job 38:29; Psalm 78:26, etc. all talk about heaven. Not the literal spiritual heaven but the sky.

2. Deuteronomy 4:19; Isaiah 13:10, etc. all talk about heaven, too. Not the literal spiritual heaven, but outer space.

3. Deuteronomy 33:26; Proverbs 3:20; Isaiah 45:8 are words all translated from the Hebrew "sha′chaq" which is translated interchangeablly from heaven, to cloud, to sky or even cloudy skies.

4. Deuteronomy 10:14; Nehemiah 9:6; 1 Kings 8:26 talk about the "heaven of the heavens". However, scholars generally agree that this is talking about the physical universe and not the spiritual heavens like people believe. One clue for this viewpoint is the construction of the Hebrews words but also their contrast with other "earth". For example,

Neh. 9:6 says,

"Heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas..."

This mentions a) Heaven (spiritual heaven) b) heaven of heavens c) the earth d) the seas.

5. 2 Chronicles 30:27; 2 Chronicles 32:20; Psalm 14:2 all talk about the spiritual heaven where God resides.

We have seen just 5 different uses for the word heaven. Elijah could have been taken to any of these. It is personal opinion as to which one of the five (although most likely not Numero Tres). I personally believe it is Numero Uno.

Second, five years after Elijah's ascension to heaven he wrote a letter to another king in the land of Judah (he had originally been prophesying in the land of Israel). Therefore, it is likely that he was transfered from Israel to Judah to become a prophet to Judah while Elisha remained to be a prophet to Israel.

However, I would like to point out that Elijah being taken up to heaven in a whirlwind fails as an example of going to heaven after you die. That was the whole point. Elijah didn't die, he was translated. He was taken to heaven without dying.

I believe that to be an excellent point.

[Eaquae Legit]

I don't read Koine Greek. Never claimed I have. Wasn't arguing about Greek.

Anyone can open a dictionary and see the many ways a word has been used in everyday common English. I was referring to an important theological differentiation that's been in use for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and the distinction is maintained in Latin (the root language of the words and the language used to discuss them for about 1700 years). They are still in use today in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, and possibly in some Protestant denominations but I wouldn't bet on it.

You want to use Koine Greek to illustrate your point, go right ahead. But if you are using "ascend" and "assume" to make an argument, you're going to have to accept the theological baggage they carry.

[lyons24000]

I don't understand. If Christ made those statements in, most likely, Aramaic (but possibly Hebrew) and then everything was translated faithfully into Greek through God's spirit, and the word for "ascended" is translated from Greek, then what would be the point in arguing about the Latin or even English meaning of the word?

The Latin or English meaning has no bearing on the meaning of a passage written in Greek and so we'd be arguing for nothing. Perhaps you were right about the English or Latin word "ascend" not meaning "borne up" or "taken up" but that doesn't mean a thing.

Oh, well, it's a closed argument.

[Eaquae Legit]

So you're arguing for spirit-guided translation, but only from Aramaic to Greek? Why not from Greek to Latin? Or Latin to English? Or even Greek to English?

Regardless, let's go over Translation 101. When you translate, you pick a single meaning among many. If "ἀναβέβηκεν" can translate as "ascend; to go up; to rise, mount, be borne up, spring up," that does not mean it translates to all of those meanings. The little semi-colons denote slight differences in conceptual categories. And you have to pick one. "To be borne up" is near the end of the list, meaning it's one of the less common usages of the word. While it can mean "to be borne up," it's far more likely to mean one of the earlier two categories.

You think ἀναβέβηκεν means "borne up," and that's cool, I guess. But that's just your opinion. It's NOT self-evident, as you seem to think, it's not the only translation, and to use that particular translation goes against nearly two millenia of theological tradition. Chronologically and numerically, you're in a teeny tiny minority school of thought.

Doesn't mean you're wrong and they're right, necessarily. But you really need to stop saying "Actually, that's not how it is, everyone else is wrong because Scripture says this" as if it's the only possible interpretation.

And yes, I get a little cranky (arrogant, some might say) when it comes to translation. It's a tricky specialism, and it bugs the crap out of me when people treat it as something anyone can dabble in and Have An Equally Valid Opinion in.

[lyons24000]

So you're arguing for spirit-guided translation, but only from Aramaic to Greek? Why not from Greek to Latin? Or Latin to English? Or even Greek to English?

The reason I argue for a "spirit-guided translation" from Aramaic to Greek is because although most of the original conversations took place in either Aramaic or Hebrew, the spirit had Mark, Luke, and John write their gospels in Greek. Therefore, it isn't really a translation of text but a translation of spoken words.

John, having heard the conversations in Hebrew or Aramaic, was not guided to write his Gospel in those languages. Since I believe "all Scripture is god-breathed" (NIV) then what John wrote in Greek was as accurate as what Christ said in Hebrew or Aramaic. After that, the translations were not guided by spirit. Heck, I can admit that I may be wrong and the translation of the Greek into the Vulgate and other Latin manuscripts and even the Syriac could have been spirit-guided.

The reason I doubt this, however, is because when looking at the English translations, they would most likely all say the same thing. We can see human guidance, though, because often, if you read footnotes, they mention that this was the preferred translation among their scholars. When you look at these "preferred translations" they vary to a wide degree and you can even see human bias written into the text (Philippians 2:5-7 in the New Living Translation).

In the Latin Vulgate and others, I can't agree that they were inspired or those known interpolations wouldn't be there. God had the Bible writers write exactly what he wanted and I can guarantee they did not add their own thoughts. If the translations were inspired, God wouldn't have let those translators add those interpolations.

When you translate, you pick a single meaning among many. If "ἀναβέβηκεν" can translate as "ascend; to go up; to rise, mount, be borne up, spring up," that does not mean it translates to all of those meanings. The little semi-colons denote slight differences in conceptual categories. And you have to pick one. "To be borne up" is near the end of the list, meaning it's one of the less common usages of the word. While it can mean "to be borne up," it's far more likely to mean one of the earlier two categories.

I don't have a preference to what meaning Jesus was going after. I will say however, that by simply saying "ἀναβέβηκεν" we don't really know how broad those meanings could actually be. "ἀναβέβηκεν" could mean "ascend by being borne up" in this context just like it could mean "ascend by his own power". It could even mean both. I can't tell you and I don't really feel like arguing it out.

[Eaquae Legit]

Lyons, please don't try to lecture me about bias and interpretation in textual translation. In fact, please don't try to lecture me about translation methodology at all. I know how to translate ancient texts and all the pitfalls thereof. I do it every single day. It's the core of my research.

We don't have a Saint Jerome Original of the Vulgate, lyons. Textual variation is a natural thing, and it affects Greek MSS just as much as it does Latin.

We can see human guidance, though, because often, if you read footnotes, they mention that this was the preferred translation among their scholars.

More common is the footnote reading "Other ancient manuscripts say X." Which means MS variation - among Greek and Hebrew texts. People don't generally translate from the Vulgate today, except as a scholarly exercise. We have too many older MSS. I'm curious how you account for textual variation in Greek MSS.

In the Latin Vulgate and others, I can't agree that they were inspired or those known interpolations wouldn't be there. God had the Bible writers write exactly what he wanted and I can guarantee they did not add their own thoughts. If the translations were inspired, God wouldn't have let those translators add those interpolations.

The interpolations come from ambiguities in the Greek MSS. Since the patristic period, theologians agreed on how to translate the ambiguities. They didn't just have a pocket dictionary and a non-fluent dabbler's opinion on the question, either. They had a living tradition and an organic understanding of the language. They also had other texts that didn't make the cut when they formed the Bible, but which helped them understand what the author of what they were reading was trying to get at. In short, you really have no idea how a person goes about doing translation.

Oh, nevermind, you're just going to change your referents again or mumble something about interpolations. I'm not sure why I bother, if you can't just go pick up a history book.

[surditate_vero]

Lyons, a few points about your argument regarding 'spirit-guided translation', if I may.

First of all, if Christ's statements were translated into Greek 'faithfully...through God's spirit' from whatever language(s) He spoke, you're assuming two things:
1. that 'ascend' means precisely the same thing in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, French, and so on when we translate from one language to another today, and
2. that 'ascend' has the same meaning today as it did in Christ's time - in other words, that an ancient Roman, say, would understand 'ascend' in the same fashion as someone from the twenty-first century would.

In effect, you're suggesting that language itself is a static entity. Is it not possible that the Church Fathers recognised this mutability of words, that words themselves acquired new meanings and shedded themselves of archaic ones throughout the centuries? In this case, the role of the Fathers was to ensure that the original meaning of the word - in terms of the context it was used in, especially - was retained as best as possible. This point is an especially important one, because we have to at least allow for the possibility that 'ascend', for instance, may have meant something in one book of the Bible, while having a slightly different meaning in another book: even within the Bible itself, we cannot assume that terms themselves are static, or that they were intended to be understood as being static.

Take the word 'gentleman', for instance. (I must thank C.S. Lewis for this example, taken from his Mere Christianity. He rightly points out that 'gentleman' has a different meaning today in that someone is morally upright and proper; it is a subjective assessment of a person by another person. In centuries gone by, 'gentleman' referred to someone who held landed estates. I am a medievalist, so whenever I use the term 'gentleman' in my work, I inevitably must define the term so it is understood in its historical context. The same must be said of 'ascend' and other terms in the Bible, such as 'heaven', in the Bible as well - it may very well have meant one thing in the time of the prophets and may very well have acquired different meanings in the time of Christ. For instance, is it possible that the term 'heaven', or other related terms, had acquired the metaphorical idea of referring to the Roman Empire? After all, the Mediterranean was known by the Romans as mare nostrum, 'our sea'. You had Rome and then the 'barbarians' 'outside' of Rome.

Furthermore, if we accept your argument for a 'spirit-guided translation' from Aramaic to Greek, but not for Greek to Latin or Latin to English and so on, that raises two problems.

First, that Aramaic and Hebrew were 'inferior' languages, which would suggest that Christ was speaking in an 'inferior' fashion. Now, I do not presume to get into a theological discussion of whether this means Christ is 'inferior' to the Father or the Holy Ghost. I am merely pointing out that this is an implication of your argument, if you wish to continue it. You would have to consider how to respond to this.

Second, you're implying that later translations are increasingly inferior because they get away from the 'spiritually breathed', if you will, elegance of the Greek. This is to say that our English translations are worse than the Greek translations because they get away from the original.

Before I continue, I'd like to remark that it is, of course, possible that what you meant to say was that you consider Aramaic and Hebrew to be equivalent to Greek. You have to make that point clear, though, especially in terms of the first implication above.

The second implication has been dealt with. Catholics believe that when St Jerome translated the books into Latin and thus produced the Vulgate, he was guided by the Holy Spirit. As such, his Vulgate is perfect: the reason we have variants is because later copyists introduced errors and misreadings into the Vulgate.

In the end, what you're really trying to get at, I think, is the question of who the final authority on translation is. For Catholics, it is the Church Fathers and the theologians who have come after them, and continue to do so. They have discussed issues of translation far more in-depth and thoughtfully than any of us ever will. In essence, we have to accept translations on faith to some degree.

The issue that most of us have is one of separating theology from history. There is an idea that the Bible always existed in modern society. We cannot say this in terms of history - how did the prophets know that their writings would eventually be included in a collection of works that would come to be known as 'the Bible'? They did not work collectively. The fact of the matter is that when you consider the Bible, one of the most striking things is its individuality, the fact that the Bible was composed by many different individuals. It is the desire to make sense out of the Bible that has led us, over the centuries, to conflate theology and history in an attempt to create an 'ideal' Bible.

The fact is no one ever realised that they were going to be part of a Bible, so how can we assume that there was an 'ideal' in the first place? This is precisely what the purpose of translation is, to attempt to understand exactly what was being said without necessarily attempting to establish a sense of uniformity and/or confirmity on Scripture.

Theology and translation has to be understood in terms of its historical context. Your arguments are inherently anachronistic in that they assume that we can apply the idea(l) of 'the Bible' to its writers centuries ago.[/i]

[lyons24000]

First of all, if Christ's statements were translated into Greek 'faithfully...through God's spirit' from whatever language(s) He spoke, you're assuming two things:
1. that 'ascend' means precisely the same thing in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, French, and so on when we translate from one language to another today, and
2. that 'ascend' has the same meaning today as it did in Christ's time - in other words, that an ancient Roman, say, would understand 'ascend' in the same fashion as someone from the twenty-first century would.

Forgive me if I answer your post individually instead of collectively and I may even leave some paragraphs out.

Since the translation of Christ's statements from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek were spirit-guided that the exact meaning of the word for "ascend" that Christ used in those languages has the exact meaning carried over to the Greek word for "ascend". That is one thing that God would have been very careful of when he used his spirit to guide the Gospel writers.

Koine Greek is not the same as today's Greek, as you most likely know. The word and definition that I used for my previous post is the definition as it would have been understood in Koine Greek and not today's Greek. If I said "ascend" to someone from Greece in the first century I am sure that the exact meaning of the word wouldn't be the same.

Furthermore, if we accept your argument for a 'spirit-guided translation' from Aramaic to Greek, but not for Greek to Latin or Latin to English and so on, that raises two problems.

First, that Aramaic and Hebrew were 'inferior' languages, which would suggest that Christ was speaking in an 'inferior' fashion. Now, I do not presume to get into a theological discussion of whether this means Christ is 'inferior' to the Father or the Holy Ghost. I am merely pointing out that this is an implication of your argument, if you wish to continue it. You would have to consider how to respond to this.

I am not suggesting that Aramaic or Hebrew are inferior to Greek. In fact, I would have no way to judge this. It is an established fact that the Gospels were written in Greek (excluding Matthew). Why did God see fit for those men to write the Gospel in Greek? That was the main language of the day and most Jews and Gentiles understood Greek no matter what their background. Greek of the first century is the English of today. The only thing that you could argue was inferior about those two languages is that they were not as well known as Greek. What would have been the point of writing the Word of God in a language that few people could understand?

Second, you're implying that later translations are increasingly inferior because they get away from the 'spiritually breathed', if you will, elegance of the Greek. This is to say that our English translations are worse than the Greek translations because they get away from the original.

The English translations (as well as the others) were most likely not inspired like the Greek originals were. You may take that statement as you please.

The second implication has been dealt with. Catholics believe that when St Jerome translated the books into Latin and thus produced the Vulgate, he was guided by the Holy Spirit. As such, his Vulgate is perfect: the reason we have variants is because later copyists introduced errors and misreadings into the Vulgate.

I am not Catholic and my opinion and theirs are obviously different. I would not say that the translation into Latin is perfect but I am not betting my life on that fact. I have made up my mind but I try to keep it a little open.

The issue that most of us have is one of separating theology from history. There is an idea that the Bible always existed in modern society. We cannot say this in terms of history - how did the prophets know that their writings would eventually be included in a collection of works that would come to be known as 'the Bible'? They did not work collectively. The fact of the matter is that when you consider the Bible, one of the most striking things is its individuality, the fact that the Bible was composed by many different individuals. It is the desire to make sense out of the Bible that has led us, over the centuries, to conflate theology and history in an attempt to create an 'ideal' Bible.

The fact is no one ever realised that they were going to be part of a Bible, so how can we assume that there was an 'ideal' in the first place? This is precisely what the purpose of translation is, to attempt to understand exactly what was being said without necessarily attempting to establish a sense of uniformity and/or confirmity on Scripture.

I do not know what your opinion is of the Bible's inspiration. For me, since God was the inspirer of the text that the prophets wrote I feel that it is all "ideal", however, individual. I am quite aware that the Bible was written over a period of 1600 years and that Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, and the rest of the prophets didn't sit down at a round table and say "this is what we're gonna write." I am aware there are different writing styles for the books composed by different authors. You speak, though, as if God wasn't the real "Author" of the Scriptures. He knew that these writings were going to be collected into one "book" and directed what would be in that one "book". The individuality of the writers does not mess up the harmony. And that is the "ideal".

P.S.-Forgive me if that last paragraph seems a little messed up. I kept adding stuff into the middle and so that might throw off the flow a little bit.

[lyons24000]

First, I did not mean for this to turn into a conversation about the rules of translating. I just showed that a certain word could mean a certain thing in defense of your assertion and this is what it turned into. I then began to state my opinion as to the inspiration of the original texts verses the translated texts and copied texts.

I'm curious how you account for textual variation in Greek MSS.

Easy. Copies are subject to human error. I don't believe those are inspired, either. Just the originals. And since the originals have been lost we can't have a definite translation of the Bible, logically.

Spiritually, however, I do believe 1 Peter 1:24-25, which says, "For, 'All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.' And this is the word that was preached to you."

I do believe that the Bible as we have it today is amazingly accurate through spiritual guidance. I do not take that to be the same thing as inspiration (although some might).

[surditate_vero]

Would I be correct in saying that you're working under the understanding/belief/whatever term you feel most suitable that the Bible was written via dictation, lyons?

In other words, the writers of the various books were inspired, but they took a dictation of sorts from God.

I say this because your reply to my post suggests this possibility, and I just want to be certain what assumptions we're both operating under here,