Bible translations

[christian73]

I just joined this site a few days ago. First, let me say thast I've been a Christian for many years now (20 to be exact), and I believe the Bible to be THE word of God. Second, I'm not one that thinks that the King James is the only real translation.

With those two things said, let me ask this question. How come there are verses missing from the NIV, NLT, and other more contemporary translations? I realize that the verses are in footnotes, but if they're in footnootes, why not just put the verse where it belongs?

If you want an example, I think one such verse is Acts 8:38 (someone correct me if I have th wrong Scripture reference).

[japhy]

How come there are verses missing from the NIV, NLT, and other more contemporary translations? I realize that the verses are in footnotes, but if they're in footnootes, why not just put the verse where it belongs?

If you want an example, I think one such verse is Acts 8:38 (someone correct me if I have th wrong Scripture reference).
It's Acts 8:37. From the footnotes in the NAB: The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' "
Other commentaries suggest that the line, while missing from the oldest extant manuscripts, is probably found in an even older manuscript. As an interpolation, it serves to show that when the eunuch said "Behold, here is water. What is keeping me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36b) that there is something required to be baptized. You don't just get baptized without a profession of faith.

[aReformedPatriot]

I just joined this site a few days ago. First, let me say thast I've been a Christian for many years now (20 to be exact), and I believe the Bible to be THE word of God. Second, I'm not one that thinks that the King James is the only real translation.

With those two things said, let me ask this question. How come there are verses missing from the NIV, NLT, and other more contemporary translations? I realize that the verses are in footnotes, but if they're in footnootes, why not just put the verse where it belongs?

If you want an example, I think one such verse is Acts 8:38 (someone correct me if I have th wrong Scripture reference).

You should read The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/1556615752/sr=8-1/qid=1157071348/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7776361-0524744?ie=UTF8&s=books)

It will save lots of time. But for arguments sake can you support your view from Scripture that the KJV is the end all in all source of all divine revelation? Secondly, do you know that the very translators of the KJV did not consider it the end all in all source of Divine revelation and that their could be better texts? What are your thoughts of the textual variants in the book of Revelation (KJV) that stem from Erasmus' mistake of back translation from the Latin Vulgate rather than from the Greek like the rest of his manuscript?

EDIT: ooopppss. My mistake buddy, I thought you were about to argue for KJV onlyism. :-P

I will respond to what your post actually says a bit later. *walks off grumbling about how he needs to read more carefully*

[HypoTypoSis]

Erasmus' mistake of back translation from the Latin Vulgate rather than from the Greek like the rest of his manuscript?
Erasmus, in his day, was widely known as, "the prince of humanists" and Augustine was, himself, an avowed universalist, a fundamental core belief of Catholicism.

[aReformedPatriot]

and Augustine was, himself, an avowed universalist, a fundamental core belief of Catholicism.

No sir, Augustin was not a universalist nor is universalism (all men will be saved) a tenet of Catholicism. Could you elaborate on that?

[arunma]

I just joined this site a few days ago. First, let me say thast I've been a Christian for many years now (20 to be exact), and I believe the Bible to be THE word of God. Second, I'm not one that thinks that the King James is the only real translation.

With those two things said, let me ask this question. How come there are verses missing from the NIV, NLT, and other more contemporary translations? I realize that the verses are in footnotes, but if they're in footnootes, why not just put the verse where it belongs?

If you want an example, I think one such verse is Acts 8:38 (someone correct me if I have th wrong Scripture reference).

The reason that verses are omitted from modern Bible translations is because modern scholars have determined that they weren't in the original text as penned by the Apostles and Prophets. This is done using the science of textual criticism (I say "science" because this is not a religious matter; even atheist scholars accept the findings of textual critics). As you probably know, the Scriptures were not organized into chapter and verse in the original languages, at least not under the organizational system currently in use. Certain books of the Old Testament were divided into paragraphs, but that system didn't carry over into English and other translations. Rather, chapters and verse numbers as we know them were first introduced with the publication of the Geneva Bible in 1560. The King James Version, which inherited these chapters and verses, later became the most popular Bible of the English speaking world until it was replaced by superior translations several hundred years later. By this time, English-speaking Christians had become so accustomed to this system that the verse numbers were retained in all later translations.



Since the Geneva and King James Bibles were translated with a limited number of manuscripts, some of the verses which appear in these Bibles did not really exist in the original Scriptures. But the verse-numbering system has been ubiquitous, and it would be foolish of us to discard it. Therefore, modern Bibles retain the verse numbers, even though they contain fewer verses than the older translations. So as to not alter the system, when a piece of text is missing, the translators simply skip the verse number altogether. That's why certain verses in your Bible appear as footnotes. Here's an example:13But woe  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=26364925#_ftn1)to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=26364925#_ftn2)shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you pneither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.4 15Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=26364925#_ftn5)proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=26364925#_ftn6)child of  (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=26364925#_ftn7)hell1 as yourselves. (St. Matthew 23:13-15)4 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=26364925#_ftnref4)Some manuscripts add here (or after verse 12) verse 14: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive the greater condemnation


1 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=26364925#_ftnref8)Greek Gehenna; also verse 33

Here is a piece of Scripture from the Gospel of Matthew, as it is rendered in the ESV translation (with the footnotes). You can see here that verse 14 doesn't exist in the critical text, but it was added in the footnotes to explain to the reader why a verse appears to be missing. This text was probably copied by a scribe from the Gospel of Luke, so as to make Matthew's rendition of Christ's curses against the Pharisees more consistent with Luke's account. The text appears here:Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation. (St. Luke 20:46-47)Anyway, I hope that helps.

[arunma]

Erasmus, in his day, was widely known as, "the prince of humanists" and Augustine was, himself, an avowed universalist, a fundamental core belief of Catholicism.

Catholics are off in their soteriology, but they do not believe in universalism. Roman Catholics believe that good people who either do not hear the Gospel, or who misunderstand it can be saved. Most of them also believe that Jews can be saved by faithfully practicing Judaism. Admittedly, this takes care of a good number of non-Christians, and it doesn't entirely line up with salvation by grace through faith (the two doctrines can be somewhat reconciled, but not in a way that I've found satisfactory). But it's not universalism. Catholics believe that condemnation is possible.

As for Saint Augustine, this blessed man was by no means a universalist. The great church father believed in the doctrines of grace, and he understood that salvation comes by faith in Christ. Why this man is a doctor of the faith in Catholicism, I do not know. But hey, if it gets more people to read Augustine, I won't complain.

Now, Augustine did suggest that the earth was flat, and he in fact criticized round earth beliefs on the basis of his flawed understanding of gravity. But since I tolerate flat-earth beliefs from anyone who lived before 1000 AD, I'll forgive him for that.

[MadFingerPainter]

I just prefer my KJV. I don't care what anyone else thinks. The wording in the verses seems fishy to me.

[HypoTypoSis]

Catholics...[]...do not believe in universalism.
Universalism, among other things, holds that some, if not all, of the dead can be saved even though they did not know of or believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Praying for the salvation of the dead is a Catholic tradition. So is the belief that serving an indeterminate time in Purgatory will cleanse one that they may eventually be able to enter heaven. Both are Universalist at their core.

And, to carry this a step further, there is little, if any, real difference between humanism and universalism; particularly since at their respective centers they elevate self above God in celebrating humanity and, ultimately, providing for its own salvation.

There are Christian humanists just as there are Christian universalists and Christian evolutionists as well as Popes that would stand between Jesus and it matters not to what degree they maintain a facade of Christ for instead of it being Jesus Christ only and solely it is the blend of humanity that pollutes the gospel's purity.

In the end, they all have one ultimate source of commonality, their mother, the mother of all harlots; for from Babylon sprang all religions, faiths and beliefs that elevate men to that of gods.

[HypoTypoSis]

Bottom line, Augustine's line of reasoning was founded in Aristotelianism thus both were founded upon the immortality of the soul.

1 Timothy 6:15, 16, "...the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality..."

Augustinianism and Platonism share the difficulty of explaining how physical reality relates in God's mind.
Augustinianism believes that apart from God's grace man cannot understand anything being devoid of spiritual understanding.
Augustinianism believes separate from the will the intellect can have no understanding.
In the first place we see the inherent problem of separating the creator and the creation.
In the second place we see the contradiction for obviously the unsaved (and the unsaved seeking and eventually finding salvation) must use reasoning devoid of spiritual understanding being without the new birth and indwellment of the Holy Spirit.
In the third place, we see an obvious problem that the will must be active in any intellectual pursuit.Ecclesiastes 9:5, "...the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

Universalism, like humanism and Catholicism, is predicated upon man not being a soul but having a soul (an Aristotelian concept derived from Pagan beliefs) and that it is immortal for without such there can be no hope for them (without Christ) after death, nor purpose for Purgatory, hell or their ancient Pagan belief of eternal torment.

Genesis 2:7, "...and man became a living soul."

There can be no "double truths". Better to go with Aquinas' view.

[aReformedPatriot]

Universalism, among other things, holds that some, if not all, of the dead can be saved even though they did not know of or believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Praying for the salvation of the dead is a Catholic tradition. So is the belief that serving an indeterminate time in Purgatory will cleanse one that they may eventually be able to enter heaven. Both are Universalist at their core.

One need only read my sig to know that I am not Catholicism's most hardcore fan. I think it is a dangerous group to be associated with. But their doctrine is a big enough curiosity to me that their writings comprise a decent chunk of my library.

But nonetheless, this is a mis-representation (though understandly so) of what Catholicism actually teaches. They believe (falsely) that the soul who enters purgatory is basically saved at this juncture and will enter heaven at some point. Otherwise they would land in hell for all eternity. Prayers for the dead in this manner, therefore, are to hasten their progress through the purification they undergo in purgatory. This is not universalism.

You should pick up Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology if you enjoy reading polemical arguments against Romanism from a solid theological perspective. He's a reformer of old and his works have been republished in a wonderful 3 Volume set. A must have, Indeed!

[Radagast]

With those two things said, let me ask this question. How come there are verses missing from the NIV, NLT, and other more contemporary translations? I realize that the verses are in footnotes, but if they're in footnootes, why not just put the verse where it belongs?

If you want an example, I think one such verse is Acts 8:38
8:37, I think.

The short answer is that people disagree on what was in the Greek original. Should we use the Greek Bible that the Greek Orthodox church has copied out over the centuries (as the KJV does), or should we use old papyrus manuscripts discovered in the Egyptian desert? Or this bible (http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-aleph.html) from about the year 340?

Acts 8:37 isn't in the older manuscripts, and so the NIV translators figured it wasn't in the original, and put it in a footnote. Not everyone agrees with them.

[RajunCajun86]

and so the NIV translators figured it wasn't in the original, and put it in a footnote. Not everyone agrees with them.
disagreeing with the NIV (or any paraphrse) translators isn't an uncommon thing;)

[Razorbuck]

disagreeing with the NIV (or any paraphrse) translators isn't an uncommon thing;)


You bet. God does it all the time.:amen:

[HypoTypoSis]

They believe (falsely) that the soul who enters purgatory is basically saved at this juncture and will enter heaven at some point. Otherwise they would land in hell for all eternity. Prayers for the dead in this manner, therefore, are to hasten their progress through the purification they undergo in purgatory. This is not universalism.



The common root issue of Catholicism, Universalism, humanism, et al is the belief in the immortality of the soul. Without that all of the Pagan derived beliefs (and sub-beliefs) fall.

[arunma]

The common root issue of Catholicism, Universalism, humanism, et al is the belief in the immortality of the soul. Without that all of the Pagan derived beliefs (and sub-beliefs) fall.

All Christians believe in the immortality of the soul. That doctrine is assumed knowledge throughout the Scriptures.

[christian73]

There is no scripture to support the idea that the KJV is the translation to use. When it comes to the Word of God, though, it does tell us not to add nor take away from God's Word. I think that applies to translating.

I think the reason why it's hard to translate into English is because Greek has words English don't Am I wrong?

[aReformedPatriot]

The common root issue of Catholicism, Universalism, humanism, et al is the belief in the immortality of the soul. Without that all of the Pagan derived beliefs (and sub-beliefs) fall.

Your confusing me man. Are you saying that you do not believe in the immortality of the soul? The soul cannot be destroyed: it either finds itself in hell or in heaven for eternity. Catholics would agree with that.

[arunma]

There is no scripture to support the idea that the KJV is the translation to use. When it comes to the Word of God, though, it does tell us not to add nor take away from God's Word. I think that applies to translating.

I think the reason why it's hard to translate into English is because Greek has words English don't Am I wrong?

Yes, but this is true of most languages. When translating from one language to another, there is rarely a one-to-one correspondance of words. So a sentence in the Greek Bible may have greater or fewer words than the corresponding words in English. This is not considered "adding to Scripture." It is merely a translating issue.

[HypoTypoSis]

Your confusing me man. Are you saying that you do not believe in the immortality of the soul? The soul cannot be destroyed: it either finds itself in hell or in heaven for eternity. Catholics would agree with that.

Scripture is very plainly adamant in that God alone is immortal.

God created Adam a living soul; his entire being is a soul. He does not possess a soul for he is a soul. Remove even one part of him (dust or God's breath of life) and there is nothing left; there is no 'man' for a dead man is not a man but a corpse returning to dust.

Further, God is very adamanat, also, that at death the only life force within the body, His breath of life, returns to God and this leaves only dust for, as the scriptures declare, the (sentient) memories are lost.

For the saved, in this life they have, also, their own spirit as well as the Holy Spirit. And death, for them, is nothing more than their spirit sleeping and will awaken when the Lord returns.

Of course Catholicism teaches man 'has' a soul and that it is immortal! Without such their church revenues will suddenly cease for if salvation is not for the dead (as scripture teaches) but only for the living then their entire concept of eternal torment and rule by fear and coercion will crumble.

When Constantine converted and made Christianity the state church and law of the land it was mandated that all pagans must convert or die. The early state church, which later became the Catholic church, had to adopt an assortment of pagan beliefs, customs, traditions, accoutrements and holidays so that they would more readily join.

[arunma]

Scripture is very plainly adamant in that God alone is immortal.

God created Adam a living soul; his entire being is a soul. He does not possess a soul for he is a soul. Remove even one part of him (dust or God's breath of life) and there is nothing left; there is no 'man' for a dead man is not a man but a corpse returning to dust.

Further, God is very adamanat, also, that at death the only life force within the body, His breath of life, returns to God and this leaves only dust for, as the scriptures declare, the (sentient) memories are lost.

For the saved, in this life they have, also, their own spirit as well as the Holy Spirit. And death, for them, is nothing more than their spirit sleeping and will awaken when the Lord returns.

Of course Catholicism teaches man 'has' a soul and that it is immortal! Without such their church revenues will suddenly cease for if salvation is not for the dead (as scripture teaches) but only for the living then their entire concept of eternal torment and rule by fear and coercion will crumble.

When Constantine converted and made Christianity the state church and law of the land it was mandated that all pagans must convert or die. The early state church, which later became the Catholic church, had to adopt an assortment of pagan beliefs, customs, traditions, accoutrements and holidays so that they would more readily join.

My friend, there is a lot of misinformation here. I think you've been led to believe in falsehoods and revisionist church history by some virulent anti-Catholics. All Christians believe that man has an immortal soul. As for Emperor Constantine, he's given a bit worse of a rep than he deserves. Did you know that he is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church (which is not affiliated with Roman Catholicism)? One might think that this ought not to be so, seeing as how he murdered much of his own family. But far be it from Christians to glorify a man who abuses his authority to kill loyal soldiers and steal their wives for themselves. :sorry:

[HypoTypoSis]

All Christians believe that man has an immortal soul.
Not so. Scripture plainly states that only God is immortal.

1 Timothy 6:13-16, "I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."

[HypoTypoSis]

My friend, there is a lot of misinformation here.

I strongly do not believe that to be so and, as such, must ask of your understanding regarding the effects of Universalism and Replacement Theology on the apostolic fathers, the early church fathers, the early church, the early state church, the church and the state's treatment of the Jews, the state church's eventual formation into the subsequent Catholic church and its continued belief in Replacement Theology denigrating the Jews for almost 2,000 years until, under worldwide pressure due to the culminating after effects of the WW II Holocaust, the Pope finally repudiated the doctrine in the mid-1960's. Can you say "Mel Gibson"?

[christian73]

Not so. Scripture plainly states that only God is immortal.

1 Timothy 6:13-16, "I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."
You are right in the sense that the soul can die. This is only true for those who reject Jesus as their Savior. Revelation 20 talks about the second death.

However, if you trust Jesus as your Savior and Lord, then He makes your soul immortal. The Bible says that you will spend eternity with Him.

Take the thief on the cross as an example, the one who asked Jesus to remember him. What was Jesus' response? "And He said to Him, 'Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.'" (Luke 24:43 NASB)

Did his soul die? No. Jesus saved him before he died. Therfore, because of his trust in Jesus, his soul became immortal.

You did back your argument up with Scripture. However, if you're suggesting that all souls die, then you are terribly mistaken.

[christian73]

You are right in the sense that the soul can die. This is only true for those who reject Jesus as their Savior. Revelation 20 talks about the second death.

However, if you trust Jesus as your Savior and Lord, then He makes your soul immortal. The Bible says that you will spend eternity with Him.

Take the thief on the cross as an example, the one who asked Jesus to remember him. What was Jesus' response? "And He said to Him, 'Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.'" (Luke 24:43 NASB)

Did his soul die? No. Jesus saved him before he died. Therfore, because of his trust in Jesus, his soul became immortal.

You did back your argument up with Scripture. However, if you're suggesting that all souls die, then you are terribly mistaken.
That reference was incorrect. It was Luke 23:43. Sorry.

[HypoTypoSis]

You are right in the sense that the soul can die. This is only true for those who reject Jesus as their Savior. Revelation 20 talks about the second death.

However, if you trust Jesus as your Savior and Lord, then He makes your soul immortal.

Take the thief on the cross as an example, the one who asked Jesus to remember him. What was Jesus' response? "And He said to Him, 'Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.'" (Luke 24:43 NASB)

Did his soul die? No. Jesus saved him before he died. Therfore, because of his trust in Jesus, his soul became immortal.

You did back your argument up with Scripture. However, if you're suggesting that all souls die, then you are terribly mistaken.

What does God need with a starship?-Captain James T Kirk

ALL souls (men, saved and unsaved) die, scripture assures us of this.

"It is appointed to men once to die".

What does a spirit being need with the remains of a corpse?

Do you think for one minute that sinful rotting flesh (alive or dead) can in anyway come into the presence of God?

Revelation 21:27, "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."

Scripture says that man IS A soul. It does not say man HAS a soul.

Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became A living soul."

Further, scripture says that a soul (a living man) is made of two things: dust and the breath of life.

Additionally: scripture says that when God calls His breath of life home all that is left is the corpse (that returns to dust) and that the memories are lost.

Ecclesiastes 9:5, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

Nowhere do the scriptures say that salvation makes a soul (a man) immortal...it says we ae given a "spirit". And spirit has no need for flesh and blood.

Ecclesiastes 9:3, "This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead."

From the passages on the Cross it would appear the thief believed, was saved, and received both his own spirit and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. When he died on the cross the breath of life that kept the body alive returned to God, his corpse returned to dust, his memories became (at his salvation) a part of his spirit, and his spirit now sleeps awaiting the day the Lord returns calling Him waking him up to come to Him.

Scripture says all souls (men) die, therefore, it is not in error.

Hebrews 9:27, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"

Fortunately, for those in Christ, judgment is not for them for they were chosen before the foundation of the world was laid.

Ephesians 1:4, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"

[christian73]

What does God need with a starship?-Captain James T Kirk

ALL souls (men, saved and unsaved) die, scripture assures us of this.

"It is appointed to men once to die".

What does a spirit being need with the remains of a corpse?

Do you think for one minute that sinful rotting flesh (alive or dead) can in anyway come into the presence of God?

Revelation 21:27, "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."

Scripture says that man IS A soul. It does not say man HAS a soul.

Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became A living soul."

Further, scripture says that a soul (a living man) is made of two things: dust and the breath of life.

Additionally: scripture says that when God calls His breath of life home all that is left is the corpse (that returns to dust) and that the memories are lost.

Ecclesiastes 9:5, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

Nowhere do the scriptures say that salvation makes a soul (a man) immortal...it says we ae given a "spirit". And spirit has no need for flesh and blood.

Ecclesiastes 9:3, "This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead."

From the passages on the Cross it would appear the thief believed, was saved, and received both his own spirit and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. When he died on the cross the breath of life that kept the body alive returned to God, his corpse returned to dust, his memories became (at his salvation) a part of his spirit, and his spirit now sleeps awaiting the day the Lord returns calling Him waking him up to come to Him.

Scripture says all souls (men) die, therefore, it is not in error.

Hebrews 9:27, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"

Fortunately, for those in Christ, judgment is not for them for they were chosen before the foundation of the world was laid.

Ephesians 1:4, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"
The once to die is a physical death. The word soul can mean different things, you know that as well as I. The soul is our spiritual beings, not our physical body.

It sounds as if you're taking the Scriptures literally. You should know that God's Word uses symbolism and figurative language. The first death is a physical death. If you're saved when you die, your soul goes to paradise. If you're not saved, it goes to Hell and waits for the Great White Throne Judgement, where ther second death, where the soul dies, takes place.

Only the Holy Spirit can tell you what the Bible says.

[HypoTypoSis]

The unsaved have no spirit.

Without God's breath of life there can be no soul, only dust.

[christian73]

The unsaved have no spirit.

Without God's breath of life there can be no soul, only dust.
Everyone has a spirit. God creaes our spirit. The choices we make determine what happens to it. Without a spirit, how could we live?

[HypoTypoSis]

1..Everyone has a spirit.

2..Without a spirit, how could we live?

1..That is not a scriptural statement, i.e. it is nowhere to be found in scripture.

2..God took dust and breathed His breath of life into it and it became a living soul, i.e. a living man.

-------------
The Catholics, the Universalists, the Humanists and other assorted Pagans, coupled with the demonic images created by the authors and painters of the Middle Ages, have taught all too many to unquestioningly accept their twisted views of God's word when, in fact, the only way it can be found in scripture is by intentional mistranslation (by the translators) and by seeing metaphors, allusions and making assumptions (by the believers themselves) in scripture where there are none so written.

[HypoTypoSis]

The problem with far too many today is they prefer to believe a lie than to seek out the truth wherever it leads even it goes against everything they've ever learned was so.

The public and secular school system is an excellent example of this.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

[christian73]

The problem with far too many today is they prefer to believe a lie than to seek out the truth wherever it leads even it goes against everything they've ever learned was so.

The public and secular school system is an excellent example of this.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
Are you saying the Bible is a lie? If so, why are you using Scripture? Sounds to me like you're contradicting yourself. It would also explain your arguments in our other debate. Please clarify this. Do you believe the Bible to be true?

[JPPT1974]

God made the earth from scratch
Don't forget that!

[HypoTypoSis]

Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26391051#post26391051)
The problem with far too many today is they prefer to believe a lie than to seek out the truth wherever it leads even it goes against everything they've ever learned was so.

The public and secular school system is an excellent example of this.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."


Are you saying the Bible is a lie? If so, why are you using Scripture? Sounds to me like you're contradicting yourself. It would also explain your arguments in our other debate. Please clarify this. Do you believe the Bible to be true?

A most surprisingly demonstrated case in point :sigh:

[PETE_]

All Bibles are translations, and should be viewed as such. Christ is the Word.IMO the placing of footnotes by the NIV shows the desire to render an honest translation.

[christian73]

A most surprisingly demonstrated case in point :sigh:
Friend, based on your answer, I can see that you are angry at God. The Bible is THE truth. There's nothing you can do about it except ignore it, which is the unforgivable sin. Your anger is very apparent.

"This is how you can recognize the Spirt of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." (1 John 4:2-3)

[arunma]

Friend, based on your answer, I can see that you are angry at God. The Bible is THE truth. There's nothing you can do about it except ignore it, which is the unforgivable sin. Your anger is very apparent.

Well technically, the unforgivable sin is denial of the Holy Spirit.

[christian73]

Well technically, the unforgivable sin is denial of the Holy Spirit.
Very true. I wholeheartedly agree. If you take it one step further, though, would you agree that if you deny the Holy Spirit, then you believe the Bible not to be true?

I do agree with you though.

[HypoTypoSis]

Well technically, the unforgivable sin is denial of the Holy Spirit.
And a Good morning to you, Arunma,
Actually, I don't believe the word 'technically' is needed.

It's been a while since I studied that one but I seem to recall the Matthew 12 passage had a much deeper meaning than just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Do you offhand recall what that was?

HypoTypoSis

[christian73]

And a Good morning to you, Arunma,
Actually, I don't believe the word 'technically' is needed.

It's been a while since I studied that one but I seem to recall the Matthew 12 passage had a much deeper meaning than just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Do you offhand recall what that was?

HypoTypoSis
If you don't believe the Bible is true, then you're denying the Holy Spirit. You need to stop contradicting yourself.

[Sword-In-Hand]

And a Good morning to you, Arunma,
Actually, I don't believe the word 'technically' is needed.

It's been a while since I studied that one but I seem to recall the Matthew 12 passage had a much deeper meaning than just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Do you offhand recall what that was?

HypoTypoSis

Yeah, I'm not Arunma, but here goes.;)

If you're speaking of Matthew 12:31-32 which says, "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." (ESV)

It does have a deeper meaning than just blapshemy. Jesus is showing how much grace and forgivness abound and how forgiveness is greater than actions or words. In essence, people can curse God, live their whole life against Him and other atrocities, but be forgiven if they believe. Unbelief, which prohibits salvation, is blaspheming the Holy Spirit which draws us to God. I.E. the only unforgivable sin.

Also, isn't their a few references where John and Paul say words like, "our spirit testifies with His Spirit?" There are two spirit's mentioned here, ours and His. Spirit=soul here, so wouldn't it be logical to say for unbelievers that "our spirit testifies with no spirit that we aren't His?" Still two spirits, but one in denial of the other.

Having a soul while in the flesh doesn't equate immortality. It's after death where that comes into play. If our souls aren't immortal, then how is it we can spend eternity with Christ? Surely you know that our spirit will one day reunite with our flesh just as Christ's did to make a glorified body, don't you?

And if I may, you're saying adamant to too many things that aren't adamant at all. But since by your posts I think I can deduce that you're a believer that a literal hell doesn't exist, I understand your posts, I just don't agree with them.

Wasn't this a post about Bible translations?:P

[HypoTypoSis]

1...If you're speaking of Matthew 12:31-32

It does have a deeper meaning than just blapshemy.

Unbelief, which prohibits salvation, is blaspheming the Holy Spirit which draws us to God. I.E. the only unforgivable sin.
----------------------
2...Also, isn't their a few references where John and Paul say words like, "our spirit testifies with His Spirit?" There are two spirit's mentioned here, ours and His.
----------------------
3...Having a soul while in the flesh doesn't equate immortality. It's after death where that comes into play.

4...If our souls aren't immortal, then how is it we can spend eternity with Christ?

5...Surely you know that our spirit will one day reunite with our flesh just as Christ's did to make a glorified body, don't you?



1...Yes, that's along the lines I was thinking of. I need to look into that one again for a refresher, there was, as I recall, more still. Thanks for the reminder.

2...Yes, there are a number of places, also (from memory now), I think Jesus has some mentions of this in John, chapters 14, 15 & His prayer in 17.

Also, a bit to the side, the Holy Spirit recognizes Itself in other believers even in those times when we ourselves do not. Thus, when we see instances of contradiction, interruption or confusion we have cause to question the situation for we know the Holy Spirit will never contradict Itself.

When we are saved we are given a spirit (referred to as a new birth, reborn, etc).

3...Man does not have a soul, man is a soul. Scripture tells us this in a number of places just as it tells us, also, in numerous places that at death God's breath of life returns to Him Who gave it, that the body (also referred to as corpse) returns to dust and that (sentient) memories (ie awareness and resultant memories) are forgotten (ie lost). This is for everyone, saved and unsaved alike; scripture affirms this in various places as well, that to each it is appointed once to die. Without God's breath of life there can be no life, no sentience, no memories, and no body.

It is from the humanistic side of the world and all of its relative adherents, Pagan religions, Universalism, Catholicism, evolutionists, New Agers, secular psychologists, secular and public schools and institutions, etc that have taught us to equate the mind, the emotions, the will, the awareness and sentience with "a soul" as though it were a separate and distinct part of man. But a closer reading of scripture shows this not to be the case.

There are many (432) instances of the word 'soul' in the bible; 396 in the Old Testament and 36 in the New Testament. There are several different meanings applied so it is highly usage dependant. The Hebrews, as did their surrounding Pagan neighbors and, also, those Pagans whose beliefs rubbed off on the Hebrews in those times of captivity, where many of the same meanings were applied as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This is one example why the Hebrews were continually told to remain separate from the Pagan neighbors. They new that man was not immortal and that God, alone, was immortal.

If man is immortal then life is everlasting, saved or not, regardless of the state or place. And this is the belief basis of all non-Judeo-Christian religions, beliefs and faiths as all have their common ground in the first Pagan religion which was humanist at its core and was started by the "mighty hunter of men", Nimrod, with the early Babylonian religion which from their spread throughout the entire world across the millennia even today and is why she is referred to as "the Mother of Harlots".

Upon salvation the spirit that is born anew within us is, as scripture explains, a babe and as with any new baby it must grow and mature and, as with all babies, it acquires learning, instruction, growth, maturity, experience, wisdom and, of course, memories. Those are the same memories that our physical body's mind has now.

Scripture further uses a 'saved only' term for when God calls His breath of life back to Him and our (those in Christ) earthly bodies cease to exist; we are told that we (our spirits) sleep and that when He returns, His sheep will hear and know His voice, that we (our spirits) will awaken and come when He calls.

I know that we are told that this entire creation will burn up and its very elements will melt to nothingness and after that God will create a new heaven and a new earth.

It seems a contradiction to God's character for Him to destroy the whole of creation and save all life including all the sinful, unbelieving life just to demonstrate to all, saved and unsaved alike, everlasting throughout the next creation that His wrath, vengeance, anger and retributional punishment lasts forever and unending when His Holy Spirit spent lifetimes in each of those of us in Christ teaching us to not let the sun go down on our own anger ever teaching us repentance and forgiveness.

If all evil is destroyed along with the whole of creation then how can it exist in the new creation He is going to create later?

...4 How, you ask will we spend eternity with Jesus? More apropos is 'where' will we spend eternity with Jesus? The answer to that is in Jesus' prayer in the 26 verses in the 17th chapter of John. After finding your answers there skip ahead and read Rev 21:1, 2 and, specifically, verse 22. No flesh and blood can come into the presence of God.

5...It is easy to find assumptions based on what we've always heard and been told in that regard by reading into passages and calling them metaphors and allegories when, in fact, there are no such figures of speech employed. Thus, as to strict readings and translations of scriptures's originals I have not found anything to solidly affirm that assertion. Additionally, it must also be observed that the aforementioned allusions to such invariably lead to many contradictions with other scriptures that then, in order for those allusions to fly demand those contradictory scriptures must also be allusionized resulting in one big illusion.

If, for one moment, we can allow ourselves the ability to disregard all Pagan influences and illusions Satan has cast over various of our understandings very much of the hard to understand and contradictory portions of scripture, eschatology included, become much easier to comprehend.

But then, casting that cloud over the believers is Satan's big trick in these end times, a large part and parcel of his last big lie; on big happy master race world community--after, of course, all the dissenting Jews and Christians are finally exterminated in the final tribulation.

Or so he would like to think.

[christian73]

When we are saved we are given a spirit (referred to as a new birth, reborn, etc).

Man does not have a soul, man is a soul.

Respectfully, aren't spirit and soul synonyms? Soul does have more than one meaning. You can't see a spirit, and you can't see a soul. Plus, if you have a spirit, then you have a soul. HypoToposis, could you give me the verse again that says "Man is a Soul"? I would like to read that passage. Thanks.

[christian73]

Respectfully, aren't spirit and soul synonyms? Soul does have more than one meaning. You can't see a spirit, and you can't see a soul. Plus, if you have a spirit, then you have a soul. HypoToposis, could you give me the verse again that says "Man is a Soul"? I would like to read that passage. Thanks.
HypoTyposis, sorry for mispelling your name.

[HypoTypoSis]

Originally Posted by HypoTypoSis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=26424531#post26424531)
When we are saved we are given a spirit (referred to as a new birth, reborn, etc).

Man does not have a soul, man is a soul.


Respectfully, aren't spirit and soul synonyms? Soul does have more than one meaning. You can't see a spirit, and you can't see a soul. Plus, if you have a spirit, then you have a soul. HypoToposis, could you give me the verse again that says "Man is a Soul"? I would like to read that passage. Thanks.

Hello Christian73,

For lack of a better term before morning coffee :yawn: I would say the 'uninformed' have been 'conditioned' to view the two as synonymous. Angels are spirit and have no need of physical bodies. Bear in mind that a spirit is not a body but a spirit. This is another distinction that is often confused. God also is spirit and has no need of a body.

Mankind, on the other hand, is a soul and that is a body. Without God's breath of life there is no living soul. man and soul are synonymous. For example, 3,000 souls died at the WTC in 2001 just as thousands of souls died when the Titanic sank. The term itself, soul, is used grammatically for the awareness, the sentience, the memories and the emotions but they are an inseparable part of man for without God's breath of life they are lost, as scripture tells us, forgotten as the corpse returns to dust.

The problematic understanding began, first, with Satan's Original Lie, "ye shall not die" and "ye shall be as gods" later expounded on by Nimrod when, in founding the first humanistic religion at Babylon as he, in believing the "ye shall not die" lie that the awareness, sentience, reasoning, etc was a separate "entity" as he became a "mighty hunter of men" converting them from God to his own religion. From there his religion spread to every corner of the globe and exists in today in the form of every non-Judeo-Christian religion, faith and belief in the world, thus, Nimrod's religion is the "Mother of all harlots".

Angels don't "have" spirits just as bodies don't "have" souls. At various times men have seen angels. And, of course, both men and angels can see souls ie men.

"...and man became a living soul."

We are conditioned to "see" in a sentence, a phrase, a verse what we have been taught it "should" be. In the phrase above "man" and "soul" are inextricably linked as one as the definite article "a" insists; were it not so, the grammar would would contain a cognate of "have" or "has" instead of a definite "a". Thus, 'man became "a" soul' and not 'man was "given" a soul'.

In the following three verses we see this demonstrated; in the thrid we see the synonymous relationship between man (body) and soul as meaning the same:

Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

1 Corinthians 15:45, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

Revelation 16:3, "And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea."

If man 'had' a soul and it was immortal then it could not (will not have) "died in the sea"; rather, only a physical body, ie a soul, can (shall have) "died in the sea".

Babylonian based pagan religions and beliefs NEED to believe that they as mortal men (ie souls) are immortal; in so doing, then, in any way they twist their individualized rationalized belief, to them, proves the unnecessary sacrifice and need for Jesus as their (imagined) immortality makes them, as the Original Lie promised, "ye shall not die" for "ye shall be as gods" and, being gods in their own right, they have no need for God or His Son. As a result, God has allowed them to be deluded believing a Lie:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

HypoTypoSis

[christian73]

Hello Christian73,

For lack of a better term before morning coffee :yawn: I would say the 'uninformed' have been 'conditioned' to view the two as synonymous. Angels are spirit and have no need of physical bodies. Bear in mind that a spirit is not a body but a spirit. This is another distinction that is often confused. God also is spirit and has no need of a body.

Mankind, on the other hand, is a soul and that is a body. Without God's breath of life there is no living soul. man and soul are synonymous. For example, 3,000 souls died at the WTC in 2001 just as thousands of souls died when the Titanic sank. The term itself, soul, is used grammatically for the awareness, the sentience, the memories and the emotions but they are an inseparable part of man for without God's breath of life they are lost, as scripture tells us, forgotten as the corpse returns to dust.

The problematic understanding began, first, with Satan's Original Lie, "ye shall not die" and "ye shall be as gods" later expounded on by Nimrod when, in founding the first humanistic religion at Babylon as he, in believing the "ye shall not die" lie that the awareness, sentience, reasoning, etc was a separate "entity" as he became a "mighty hunter of men" converting them from God to his own religion. From there his religion spread to every corner of the globe and exists in today in the form of every non-Judeo-Christian religion, faith and belief in the world, thus, Nimrod's religion is the "Mother of all harlots".

Angels don't "have" spirits just as bodies don't "have" souls. At various times men have seen angels. And, of course, both men and angels can see souls ie men.

"...and man became a living soul."

We are conditioned to "see" in a sentence, a phrase, a verse what we have been taught it "should" be. In the phrase above "man" and "soul" are inextricably linked as one as the definite article "a" insists; were it not so, the grammar would would contain a cognate of "have" or "has" instead of a definite "a". Thus, 'man became "a" soul' and not 'man was "given" a soul'.

In the following three verses we see this demonstrated; in the thrid we see the synonymous relationship between man (body) and soul as meaning the same:

Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

1 Corinthians 15:45, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

Revelation 16:3, "And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea."

If man 'had' a soul and it was immortal then it could not (will not have) "died in the sea"; rather, only a physical body, ie a soul, can (shall have) "died in the sea".

Babylonian based pagan religions and beliefs NEED to believe that they as mortal men (ie souls) are immortal; in so doing, then, in any way they twist their individualized rationalized belief, to them, proves the unnecessary sacrifice and need for Jesus as their (imagined) immortality makes them, as the Original Lie promised, "ye shall not die" for "ye shall be as gods" and, being gods in their own right, they have no need for God or His Son. As a result, God has allowed them to be deluded believing a Lie:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

HypoTypoSis
In the verses you listed, can't the word soul mean "being", which is a physical form?

[HypoTypoSis]

Body, soul, being. In the sense we are using the terms they are all synonymous and, thus, the same.

[JPPT1974]

Not just body and soul my friend but
Jesus speaking all around us and touching others lives!

[christian73]

Body, soul, being. In the sense we are using the terms they are all synonymous and, thus, the same.
2 Corinthians 5:8 says, "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

Wouldn't that verse say that the soul is a separate entity? The Bible says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, as in this verse.

[JPPT1974]

2 Corinthians 5:8 says, "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

Wouldn't that verse say that the soul is a separate entity? The Bible says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, as in this verse.


Absent in our body but present in our souls! Indeed!

[Jim1927]

The best translation, in my opinion, is the one you read and understand. Theological discrepancies can always be corrected later. The most important thing is to read the Bible in any translation.

I once bought the Reader's Digest Bible. It is actually te RSV without any verse titles or numbers, and reads like a novel. I enjoyed it so much, I read it in one sitting.

I have been around for a few years, having started my ministry in 1945, so I am quite familiar with all the arguments regarding the various translations, including a knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and even Latin. I stand by reading any translation you READ and UNDERSTAND.

Cheers,

Jim

[christian73]

The best translation, in my opinion, is the one you read and understand. Theological discrepancies can always be corrected later. The most important thing is to read the Bible in any translation.

I once bought the Reader's Digest Bible. It is actually te RSV without any verse titles or numbers, and reads like a novel. I enjoyed it so much, I read it in one sitting.

I have been around for a few years, having started my ministry in 1945, so I am quite familiar with all the arguments regarding the various translations, including a knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and even Latin. I stand by reading any translation you READ and UNDERSTAND.

Cheers,

Jim
I am curious to hear your opinion ast to why Acts 8:38 is left out of the NIV, NLT, and other modern translations. That's why I started this thread, and as you can tell from the posts, the debate kind of got heated and off track.

[Jim1927]

Christian73

The simplest answer is that all the earliest manuscripts do not have the verse (37) included in the KJV. The first addition of the extra words, which simply explain that one must be twice-born to be baptized, showed up in manuscripts around the end of the 2nd century...considered western additions.

In verse 35 Philip preached the full gospel to the eunich, and one can assume that included believing on the Lord Jesus....Now, the eunich must have believed as Philip instructed, so he says, See, here is water, Why can't I be baptized right now........it sort of makes verse 37 unnecesary. However, it did become a practice at baptism to have each candidate make a public confession, and this verse (37) was later added to some manuscripts.

Whether verse 37 is there or not, it does not alter the meaning of the text.

Cheers,

Jim