The soul, after death [Archive]

Edial

18th June 2008, 12:06 AM

Just one more poll, really! Thanks again.
I agree with DaRev.

"With God" and Heaven appear to be the same place.

Here we will be in Father's "house".
When Thomas asked what that way is (v.5), Jesus said that way is to the Father (v.6). This is a "with God" example.

JN 14:1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God n; trust also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going."
JN 14:5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
JN 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would knowmy Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

And here we see that the bodyless souls under the altar are in Heaven.

REV 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.

I cannot answer that poll.

Thanks,
Ed

Radiata

18th June 2008, 09:22 AM

DaRev

18th June 2008, 10:41 AM

But that's the question isn't it? Jesus says today you will be with me in paradise, but Jesus did not go to paradise that day. According to the apostle's creed, it says that after the crucifixion, Jesus descended into hell. So what can that possibly mean?

You're making an assumption. Did Jesus go directly into hell upon His death or could He have gone into Paradise before that? If He did go directly into hell at His death, how long was He there? Was He there for the entire three days? These are questions that are difficult to answer. If we go by what we do know, that being that Jesus descended into hell and that the penitent thief was with Him in Paradise 'today', we can conclude that Jesus was in both places that day. I would suppose that His omnipresence may have played a part in that.

We need to believe what the Scriptures reveal and not waste a lot of time trying to figure out the mechanics of it.

LutheranChick

18th June 2008, 10:45 AM

RadMan

18th June 2008, 10:57 AM

But that's the question isn't it? Jesus says today you will be with me in paradise, but Jesus did not go to paradise that day. According to the apostle's creed, it says that after the crucifixion, Jesus descended into hell. So what can that possibly mean?People put limits on God, but to God I would think that time is relative. Eternity is timeless. Think of eternity as a space in the middle of a helix. Helix is time and winds around the "space" for a limited duration and eternity is the space between. No matter where you are at on the helix as soon as you die you fall into the "space". Anytime in history an event will happen and someone dies they transfers from the helix to the space. Then eternity in the middle treats as if it just happened no matter when it happened.

LutheranMafia

18th June 2008, 04:29 PM

But Jesus is also God, who is present everywhere at the same time. I also could not answer the poll, as I feel #1 and #2 are the same.I think that whatsit has us confused with Seventh Day Adventists who believe in 'soul sleep'.

Radiata

18th June 2008, 06:41 PM

Well I do fully know that Jesus is outside time. He had to suffer an eternity's worth of punishment in only three days. But it really wasn't three days either. He died Friday night and rose Sunday morning which amounts to about 2½ days.

But according to the apostle's creed, (I know about omnipresence) He descended into hell and the third day He rose from the dead. Jesus took on the sin of the world, so He most definitely went to hell instead of making a pit stop at heaven. Also, we must therefore take into consideration that the sins of the world were not paid until the third day, so how could it have been that the day of Jesus' death would be the day that the thief went to paradise?

LilLamb219

18th June 2008, 06:50 PM

Well I do fully know that Jesus is outside time. He had to suffer an eternity's worth of punishment in only three days. But it really wasn't three days either. He died Friday night and rose Sunday morning which amounts to about 2½ days.

But according to the apostle's creed, (I know about omnipresence) He descended into hell and the third day He rose from the dead. Jesus took on the sin of the world, so He most definitely went to hell instead of making a pit stop at heaven. Also, we must therefore take into consideration that the sins of the world were not paid until the third day, so how could it have been that the day of Jesus' death would be the day that the thief went to paradise?

Because Jesus is God.

DaRev

18th June 2008, 08:08 PM

Well I do fully know that Jesus is outside time. He had to suffer an eternity's worth of punishment in only three days. But it really wasn't three days either. He died Friday night and rose Sunday morning which amounts to about 2½ days.

Friday was day 1, Saturday was day 2, and Sunday was day 3. So the three days is an accurate description.

But according to the apostle's creed, (I know about omnipresence) He descended into hell and the third day He rose from the dead. Jesus took on the sin of the world, so He most definitely went to hell instead of making a pit stop at heaven. Also, we must therefore take into consideration that the sins of the world were not paid until the third day, so how could it have been that the day of Jesus' death would be the day that the thief went to paradise?

Again, you are making an assumption about something that the Scriptures don't explain. Where do you get the idea that Jesus descended into hell immediately at His death and remained there until the Resurrection? Neither the Scriptures nor the Creed make such an assumption at all.

What we do know for fact, from the Scriptures, is that Jesus descended into hell at some point after His death, AND that He was in Paradise with the penitent thief on that very day. Trying to explain the mechanics of it is a lesson in futility.

LutheranMafia

18th June 2008, 08:48 PM

Trying to explain the mechanics of it is a lesson in futility.Especially if there are no mechanics at all and Jesus was actually bodily in both places at the same time. Some people are just taller than others!

Radiata

18th June 2008, 10:05 PM

Especially if there are no mechanics at all and Jesus was actually bodily in both places at the same time. Some people are just taller than others!:D

Friday was day 1, Saturday was day 2, and Sunday was day 3. So the three days is an accurate description.

I only say that to those who say that Jesus was in the earth for 3 whole days

Again, you are making an assumption about something that the Scriptures don't explain. Where do you get the idea that Jesus descended into hell immediately at His death and remained there until the Resurrection? Neither the Scriptures nor the Creed make such an assumption at all.

What we do know for fact, from the Scriptures, is that Jesus descended into hell at some point after His death, AND that He was in Paradise with the penitent thief on that very day. Trying to explain the mechanics of it is a lesson in futility.
Well, Lutheranism does say that everything has to be scripturally based. Although I do find somethings about predestination to have been formulated along the same lines that I bring this point to light. Nothing sinful can enter heaven right? How could Jesus make a quick stop in heaven if Jesus was full of sin at the time of His death? We all want to avoid things that are not explained in the bible, but this is an outright contradiction to what our theology states about the sanctification process. Man sins, Jesus takes away our sins, Man is forgiven. Now when are the sins forgiven? Is it when Jesus dies, or at the resurrection? If it's at the resurrection, then the gospel is lying. If it's at the death, then Jesus stayed in hell for three days for no other reason at all other than to prove that He was dead. (As it is Jewish custom to wait 3 days before being convinced that someone is truely dead.)But by reason, one can conclude that the sins were forgiven on the resurrection as I'm pretty sure that somewhere in scripture it says that "He suffered three days" which equates to the man's sin not being forgiven until Christ rose. Therefore, the gates of heaven were not open until the resurrection. I'm not sure that you can call the sleeplike state a paradise.

LutheranMafia

18th June 2008, 10:45 PM

If nothing sinful can enter Heaven then Heaven would be devoid of all human beings.

dinkime

18th June 2008, 11:17 PM

yes we are sinners, but we are also perfect because of Jesus' death & resurrection.

DaRev

19th June 2008, 12:35 AM

Well, Lutheranism does say that everything has to be scripturally based. Although I do find somethings about predestination to have been formulated along the same lines that I bring this point to light. Nothing sinful can enter heaven right? How could Jesus make a quick stop in heaven if Jesus was full of sin at the time of His death? We all want to avoid things that are not explained in the bible, but this is an outright contradiction to what our theology states about the sanctification process. Man sins, Jesus takes away our sins, Man is forgiven. Now when are the sins forgiven? Is it when Jesus dies, or at the resurrection? If it's at the resurrection, then the gospel is lying. If it's at the death, then Jesus stayed in hell for three days for no other reason at all other than to prove that He was dead. (As it is Jewish custom to wait 3 days before being convinced that someone is truely dead.)But by reason, one can conclude that the sins were forgiven on the resurrection as I'm pretty sure that somewhere in scripture it says that "He suffered three days" which equates to the man's sin not being forgiven until Christ rose. Therefore, the gates of heaven were not open until the resurrection.

Jesus did not descend into hell for suffering or punishment. Forgiveness was not won by Christ's going to hell. His descent was to declare His victory over sin, which would mean that forgiveness was won at the cross. The Scripture says that sin is not forgiven without the shedding of blood. Christ's blood was shed on the cross, thus forgiveness was won there. The Resurrection assures us that His sacrifice was acceptable to God and that we have eternal life because of His suffering and death.

I'm not sure that you can call the sleeplike state a paradise.So, do you think Jesus was lying when He said "Today you will be with Me in Paradise"?

Edial

19th June 2008, 01:31 AM

If nothing sinful can enter Heaven then Heaven would be devoid of all human beings.
How do you explain then that people do enter Heaven although none of them obtained sinless perfection?

Thanks,
Ed

RadMan

19th June 2008, 08:10 AM

Well I do fully know that Jesus is outside time. He had to suffer an eternity's worth of punishment in only three days. But it really wasn't three days either. He died Friday night and rose Sunday morning which amounts to about 2½ days.

But according to the apostle's creed, (I know about omnipresence) He descended into hell and the third day He rose from the dead. Jesus took on the sin of the world, so He most definitely went to hell instead of making a pit stop at heaven. Also, we must therefore take into consideration that the sins of the world were not paid until the third day, so how could it have been that the day of Jesus' death would be the day that the thief went to paradise?We don't know what happened. We can't assume anything.

whatsit

19th June 2008, 10:15 AM

I think that whatsit has us confused with Seventh Day Adventists who believe in 'soul sleep'.

:) Not at all. I seem to have failed at an attempt to put the poll options in terms that everyone would understand, which I needed to try to do, to get at least semi-valid results. Poll #2 bombed!

Incidentally, I don't mean the same thing by "Heaven" and "With God, at rest." By the second, I do not mean "soul sleep." (The second option is the one that has so many people confused.)

Thanks for your answers, though. I think I'll try another method to gather the data.

Dianne

LutheranMafia

19th June 2008, 05:34 PM

yes we are sinners, but we are also perfect because of Jesus' death & resurrection.If that were so then continued confession and repentance would not be necessary. Perfection is impossible for finite beings. I finally found the filthy rags verse in the Bible that I was looking for:

All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
-Isaiah 64:6

LutheranMafia

19th June 2008, 05:58 PM

But by reason, one can conclude that the sins were forgiven on the resurrection as I'm pretty sure that somewhere in scripture it says that "He suffered three days" which equates to the man's sin not being forgiven until Christ rose.I dislike references to sin and forgiveness in this context because I think they confuse the issue here. Without God the world could not have survived, there is no life without God, and so God came and made this universe begin to change from a phantasmal nightmare shadow world with no real existence, and inserting Himself, i.e. reality, into this universe and especially the people of this planet, such that this planet and this universe are not doomed to self-destruction anymore.

Think of what would have happened to the world if Christianity had not take over the Roman empire? If the demonic Roman state religion had survived into the industrial age there probably would have been a lot more violence in the world, considering how brutal the Romans were, and thus the likelihood of nuclear annihilation would have been much greater. Even if that didn't happen, imagine an Aztec world where there is no good religion anywhere, only demonic religions. There would be no hope for anyone left by this day and age.

Edial

19th June 2008, 11:30 PM

...Eternity is timeless. Think of eternity as a space in the middle of a helix. Helix is time and winds around the "space" for a limited duration and eternity is the space between. No matter where you are at on the helix as soon as you die you fall into the "space". Anytime in history an event will happen and someone dies they transfers from the helix to the space. Then eternity in the middle treats as if it just happened no matter when it happened.
Interesting.

I also have an understanding that eternity is a state in which one is in, with time playing no role in it.
Whatever happened in the past, is called "today" in eternity. Like a compilation of articles we see in newspapers regardless of the date of these papers.
Is this what you mean?

One could get a whole new appreciation of Christ paying for all of our sins. :)
It is awful to imagine all of our sins and its' consequences just sitting there and staring at us in hell ... in that ummovable state of eternity.

No wonder one of the biggest problems people will have in hell is shame for what they had done.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

19th June 2008, 11:42 PM

I dislike references to sin and forgiveness in this context because I think they confuse the issue here. Without God the world could not have survived, there is no life without God, and so God came and made this universe begin to change from a phantasmal nightmare shadow world with no real existence, and inserting Himself, i.e. reality, into this universe and especially the people of this planet, such that this planet and this universe are not doomed to self-destruction anymore.

Think of what would have happened to the world if Christianity had not take over the Roman empire? If the demonic Roman state religion had survived into the industrial age there probably would have been a lot more violence in the world, considering how brutal the Romans were, and thus the likelihood of nuclear annihilation would have been much greater. Even if that didn't happen, imagine an Aztec world where there is no good religion anywhere, only demonic religions. There would be no hope for anyone left by this day and age.[/font][/color]
I like your attitude, however the Aztec type of an approach will overtake this world. Epistles are full of references that people will be really bad in this world and Christians will be too few to resist this.

I would suggest that purpose of Christianity is to save people unto the Heaven and leave the world to a consequent destruction;
while the sins of this world probably rushing to destroy this planet way before it will be destroyed as a judgement for these very sins.

REV 11:18 "And the nations were enraged, and Thy wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to give their reward to Thy bond-servants the prophets and to the saints and to those who fear Thy name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth." (NASB)

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

19th June 2008, 11:58 PM

If that were so then continued confession and repentance would not be necessary. Perfection is impossible for finite beings. I finally found the filthy rags verse in the Bible that I was looking for:

All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

-Isaiah 64:6

Good for you. :thumbsup::):)
Searching the Bible is the way.
Internet makes it so accessible, I would even ignore the bad things Internet naturally offers. :)

I still cannot fathom how the old-timers who did not even a have concordance knew the Bible. :doh::).

Perfection while on this earth is impossible for a man, since a man lives in a sinful flesh ... things like addictions, bad temper and such.
Our nervous system is so intertwined with the real us it is really scary.
(I think we're all crazy, by the way. :):)) Not in a way that we cannot see the truth, but in a way that we always doubt it. :)

Thanks be to God for the Bible that is given us in ink and on paper. :)

Our perfection is substitutionary with a perfection of Christ.

I will use seajoy's signature verse ...

GAL 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. ... (NASB)

Thanks, :)
Ed

Radiata

20th June 2008, 08:59 AM

The purpose of Christianity? In a nutshell is salt and light. We are called to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. There was a track devoted to understanding this at the compelling conference. So what does salt do? Are we to make the earth flavorful? Hmm... What is the the other use of salt? It slows things from rotting. I think that this is the meaning that Jesus wanted us to get out of it. We as Christians are meant to slow the world down from rotting. But it has already been fortold that this world will crumble into destruction, so there is no to keep it from roting alltoghether. As for light of the world? Well, I think that obvious.

DaRev

20th June 2008, 11:05 AM

I would suggest that purpose of Christianity is to save people unto the Heaven and leave the world to a consequent destruction;
while the sins of this world probably rushing to destroy this planet way before it will be destroyed as a judgement for these very sins.

Keep in mind, though, that heaven is not our final destination. The Earth was created for us to inhabit, and the regenerated Earth will be our home following the final judgement.

IowaLutheran

20th June 2008, 11:58 AM

Keep in mind, though, that heaven is not our final destination. The Earth was created for us to inhabit, and the regenerated Earth will be our home following the final judgement.

N.T. Wright calls it "life after life after death."

For a scholarly interview, see here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7466134477016097214&q=n.t.+wright&ei=gtJbSK_hApm05AKBoYXpDg&hl=en

For a funny interview with Stephen Colbert, see here:

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/112156/detail/

IowaLutheran

20th June 2008, 12:08 PM

If the first link doesn't work, try this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z50Jv-PXYb4

If you only watch one of the links I gave, watch the Colbert one, anyway.

LutheranMafia

20th June 2008, 02:30 PM

Keep in mind, though, that heaven is not our final destination. The Earth was created for us to inhabit, and the regenerated Earth will be our home following the final judgement.That is an extremely unique point of view (which I agree with of course).

Melethiel

20th June 2008, 02:34 PM

That is an extremely unique point of view (which I agree with of course).
Not unique at all...it is the historic Christian doctrine, clearly stated in Scripture.

LutheranMafia

20th June 2008, 02:46 PM

I like your attitude, however the Aztec type of an approach will overtake this world. Epistles are full of references that people will be really bad in this world and Christians will be too few to resist this.

I would suggest that purpose of Christianity is to save people unto the Heaven and leave the world to a consequent destruction;
while the sins of this world probably rushing to destroy this planet way before it will be destroyed as a judgement for these very sins.

REV 11:18 "And the nations were enraged, and Thy wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to give their reward to Thy bond-servants the prophets and to the saints and to those who fear Thy name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth." (NASB)
In other words, the Earth and it's inhabitants are preserved.

LutheranMafia

20th June 2008, 02:47 PM

Not unique at all...it is the historic Christian doctrine, clearly stated in Scripture.Every other Lutheran here who has stated an opinion on the matter has disagreed, even the liberals.

DaRev

20th June 2008, 05:05 PM

Every other Lutheran here who has stated an opinion on the matter has disagreed, even the liberals.

Who, exactly?

LutheranMafia

20th June 2008, 06:00 PM

Edial and every LCMS member that has expressed an opinion on the matter stated that they believe the physical universe will be destroyed.

DaRev

20th June 2008, 06:13 PM

every LCMS member

Who, exactly?

LutheranMafia

20th June 2008, 06:41 PM

Here is a quote from WildStrawberry in the thread, “To all, but particularly ELCA and ELCIC members; What are your thoughts?”
You're not waiting for the end of the world with bated breath? I sure as heck am!!! I can not WAIT for Jesus to come back and put paid to all the nonsense that is going on these days. I'm so SICK of the corruption of the entire human race. (and yes, that even includes myself. Chief of sinners though I be!)

What did you think the end of time as we know it would be other than the "genocide of the human race"? Some will go into eternal life and others into eternal separation from God.

Beyond that I was apparently confuse by RadMan’s statement in the thread, “New Heaven and New Earth? (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43959932#post43959932)” And I wasn't as aware at the time as I am now that BreadAlone is WELS and not LCMS.

So that raises the question of when do we take the Bible literally or figuratively?I thought that it was directed at you as a doubt about your figurative interpretation of the verses that WildStrawberry takes literally.

DaRev

20th June 2008, 06:51 PM

LutheranMafia

20th June 2008, 08:01 PM

I didn't just say all LCMS members, I said every LCMS member I had seen express an opinion on it here. I haven't seen anyone besides me and RevCowboy overtly agree with you, so I have no way of knowing how many of them tacitly agree with you. I'm well aware that it is not Lutheran at all, but given how far south my opinion of the LCMS was starting to sink that wasn't such a shock to me.

Edial

20th June 2008, 11:33 PM

Where do you get from either of those quotes that "every LCMS member" believes that the universe will be destroyed? :scratch: That's not at all what the Bible teaches nor what the Lutheran Church teaches.
I am not certain about the Universe being destroyed, yet concerning the Earth and heavens (not THE Heaven, of course), the Bible appears to be straight concerning their destruction.

Here we see that due to intense heat the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements on the Earth will be melted.

2PE 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
(NASB)

And then we see that the First Earth and First Heaven will pass away and God will make all things new.

REV 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them, 4 and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." 5 And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." (NASB)

Thanks,
Ed

DaRev

20th June 2008, 11:36 PM

It's not a destruction but rather a regeneration.

Edial

20th June 2008, 11:43 PM

It's not a destruction but rather a regeneration.
From this perspective I do agree, if you mean by destruction an annihilation.

What God said "I am making everything new", the word "make" is not "create" (ktizo).

One makes things out of something.

One creates things out of nothing.

Thanks, :)
Ed

DaRev

21st June 2008, 12:03 AM

Just a little Greek clarification. :)

What God said "I am making everything new", the word "make" is not "create" (ktizo).

The word used in Revelation 21:5 is "poieo" which does mean "create". It also means "construct, form, make". This word is used in Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint.

Edial

21st June 2008, 02:12 AM

Just a little Greek clarification. :)

The word used in Revelation 21:5 is "poieo" which does mean "create". It also means "construct, form, make". This word is used in Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint.
poieo is to make.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?search=4160&version=kjv&type=str

I do not know what Septuagint says, but poieo is not create, but make.

If Septuagint says Rev. 21:5 says create, then the old earth will be annihilated and a new earth will be made out of nothing, ex nihilio.

But it says poieo, make.
I cannot argue with dictionaries.

DaRev

21st June 2008, 09:33 AM

Edial

22nd June 2008, 04:45 PM

I don't argue with dictionaries either. Neither do I argue with my Greek professor.

From the Friberg Lexicon:

"poieo" verb indicative present active 1st person singular

[Fri] poie,w (1) of human activity involving external things make, construct, form (MT 17.4); (2) of God's creative activity create (MT 19.4); (3) of undertaking actions, bringing about states or conditions accomplish, do (a work) (JN 8.41), perform (miracles) (MT 7.22), bring about or make (peace) (EP 2.15), prepare or give (a feast) (LU 14.12), keep (a festival) (MT 26.18), appoint (followers) (MK 3.14); establish (a covenant) (HE 8.9); wage (war) (RV 11.7), do (good or evil) (RO 13.3), acquire or make (a gain) (LU 19.18), et al.; (4) of the natural processes of growth produce, yield, bear, send out, bring forth (MT 3.10); (5) w. acc. and inf. to indicate the result of an action cause someone to, make or force someone to, bring it about that someone (MT 5.32; MK 1.17); (6) w. double acc. as obj. and pred. make someone or someth. (to be) something (MT 4.19; 21.13); (7) used w. a noun to form a periphrasis for a simple verb of doing; (8) w. the manner of the action indicated by an adv. do (well) (MT 12.12), act (wisely) (LU 16.8), proceed (in the same way) (MT 20.5).

The word "create" does not automatically denote "ex nihilo". Don't make that mistake.
Well, then perhabs you might want to ask your Greek professon the following:

Since Mt:19:4 is saying "made" concerning Adam and Eve and Genesis text says "made" and then "create" in God's image.

GE 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, n and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
GE 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

... wouldn't he need to adjust his entry in the Lexicon, since it is inconclusive?

According to Genesis God shaped, "made", a man out of earth and created that shape in His image "not out of earth, but out of nothing".

But regardless, I presented the Crosswalk entry where poeio is "to make".

Personally speaking, I do not know why you appear to claim such an authority on Greek or the Bible or whatever, so you feel you need to correct people so unconditionally - no elbow room to even discuss :)
Just curious.

I mean, your knowledge of Greek is not advanced. You know that. And you depend on Lexicons, like any person who does not know a language.
We are just comparing Lexicons.

Thanks,
Ed

DaRev

22nd June 2008, 06:33 PM

Well, then perhabs you might want to ask your Greek professon the following:

Since Mt:19:4 is saying "made" concerning Adam and Eve and Genesis text says "made" and then "create" in God's image.

GE 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, n and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
GE 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

... wouldn't he need to adjust his entry in the Lexicon, since it is inconclusive?

According to Genesis God shaped, "made", a man out of earth and created that shape in His image "not out of earth, but out of nothing".

But regardless, I presented the Crosswalk entry where poeio is "to make".

Personally speaking, I do not know why you appear to claim such an authority on Greek or the Bible or whatever, so you feel you need to correct people so unconditionally - no elbow room to even discuss :)
Just curious.

I mean, your knowledge of Greek is not advanced. You know that. And you depend on Lexicons, like any person who does not know a language.
We are just comparing Lexicons.

Thanks,
Ed

Like I said, the Septuagint uses the word "poieo" in Genesis 1:1, which speaks directly to creation ex nihilo. If you want to argue Greek, then do it with the Greek scholars that actually spoke the language and translated the the Hebrew text into Greek. I would think that they knew LOADS more about Koine Greek than either one of us. I used the lexicon entry to show you that your assertion that "poieo" does not translate "create" is wrong.

Oh, and let me ask you this... how many years have you formally studied Biblical Koine Greek, Ed, since you seem to know more than I do? Arguing about something that you obviously don't know all that much about is very unbecoming.

LutherNut

22nd June 2008, 07:49 PM

One would think that a pastor would have to have a working knowledge of Biblical Greek and Hebrew. Perhaps that's not a requirement in the ELCA?

Edial

22nd June 2008, 10:11 PM

Like I said, the Septuagint uses the word "poieo" in Genesis 1:1, which speaks directly to creation ex nihilo. If you want to argue Greek, then do it with the Greek scholars that actually spoke the language and translated the the Hebrew text into Greek. I would think that they knew LOADS more about Koine Greek than either one of us. I used the lexicon entry to show you that your assertion that "poieo" does not translate "create" is wrong.
Septuagint is a translation of Hebrew text into Greek.
NASB is a translation of Greek and Hebrew into English. So are many other tharnslations.
Translations are not inspired. All of them have subtle or more obvious translation errors.

To say that translation of Hebrew into Greek is more reliable than translation of either language into English, as today's translations go, makes no sense.

Oh, and let me ask you this... how many years have you formally studied Biblical Koine Greek, Ed, since you seem to know more than I do? Arguing about something that you obviously don't know all that much about is very unbecoming.

The biggest problem seminary students complain concerning Koine Greek are the endings of words. Just today I had a conversation with a seminary student in church and we chatted.

Other languages however, have similar patterns of that in Greek.
I happen to know languages.
I never learned them by going to school. Can't take credit for that. I just happened to be "stratigecally" born.

One professor told me that learning two semesters of Koine Greek is not enough to really talk about it.
Concerning us arguing Koine Greek is like two children arguing philosophy.

That is why I am presenting simple tools that are available to us all (concordances, dictionaries, lexicons).
These tools make Biblical languages available to all.

We could discuss these.

Thanks,
Ed

DaRev

22nd June 2008, 11:02 PM

Septuagint is a translation of Hebrew text into Greek.
NASB is a translation of Greek and Hebrew into English. So are many other tharnslations.
Translations are not inspired. All of them have subtle or more obvious translation errors.

To say that translation of Hebrew into Greek is more reliable than translation of either language into English, as today's translations go, makes no sense.

The Septuagint is a scholarly work that has been relied upon by Biblical scholars for centuries. It was translated by those who spoke and understood the language firsthand. I doubt very highly that they would have used the wrong word when translating the Scriptures. I put way more faith in the Septuagint for Biblical word study than I do in any modern commentary.

The biggest problem seminary students complain concerning Koine Greek are the endings of words. Just today I had a conversation with a seminary student in church and we chatted.Word endings are only part of the mechanics of Greek and Hebrew. There's also the grammatical uses and syntax. Neither is an easy language to work with.

Other languages however, have similar patterns of that in Greek.
I happen to know languages.
I never learned them by going to school. Can't take credit for that. I just happened to be "stratigecally" born.

One professor told me that learning two semesters of Koine Greek is not enough to really talk about it.
Concerning us arguing Koine Greek is like two children arguing philosophy.I agree that two semesters are not enough, but that's two semesters more than you have had. I had four years of direct study in the Biblical languages and have been using them ever since.

That is why I am presenting simple tools that are available to us all (concordances, dictionaries, lexicons).
These tools make Biblical languages available to all.But they don't equate at all to actual study of the languages and the Biblical texts. If they were, then study of the languages would not be as essential to seminary formation as they are. There is absolutely no comparison.

RadMan

22nd June 2008, 11:42 PM

All I remember from taking 4 years of languages was that there are always going to be problems translating form one language to another. For instance idioms, syntax, context, etc. But.............since all scriptures is given by inspiration then I would more rely on what God's plan is in relaying the original content with the Holy Sprit's counseling. I would put confidence in the original authors, and then later translators, on transcribing.

I think that this focuses on the true meaning of "Sola Scripture" that we hold in the LCMS and that is what the Word says through the Holy Spirit and what our VERY learned theologians, translators and transcribers have passed down to us. Not in the same ratio that the RCC and EO put on it since they rely more on the "fathers" to mold their beliefs.

Edial

22nd June 2008, 11:43 PM

The Septuagint is a scholarly work that has been relied upon by Biblical scholars for centuries. It was translated by those who spoke and understood the language firsthand. I doubt very highly that they would have used the wrong word when translating the Scriptures. I put way more faith in the Septuagint for Biblical word study than I do in any modern commentary.
Are you saying Septuagint is errorless?
Don't you think putting so much faith in anything except the Bible takes a certain leap of faith?

Word endings are only part of the mechanics of Greek and Hebrew. There's also the grammatical uses and syntax. Neither is an easy language to work with.
OK.

I agree that two semesters are not enough, but that's two semesters more than you have had. I had four years of direct study in the Biblical languages and have been using them ever since.
Can you read Greek and/or Hebrew without any aid?

But they don't equate at all to actual study of the languages and the Biblical texts. If they were, then study of the languages would not be as essential to seminary formation as they are. There is absolutely no comparison.
Considering what you are saying in totality one might think you are exagerating.

One does not need seminary studies to know enough Greek and Hebrew through concordances, dictionaries and lexicons in order to reliably navigate through the Bible.
These are tools that work very well.
Otherwise, these books would become useless with time and everyone would simply "ask a Pastor" concerning anything in the Bible.
You are using lexicons.

We are not writing new texts, we are just reading them.

The Bible is available to all.

And I would say that extremely few seminary graduates (I do not know one) who know everything or more than is available through such tools.
Bible tools, especially in English language are robust and reliable.

Concerning the immediate quote, the study of languages in seminary are one of the areas that are essential for becoming a pastor.
One simply needs to go through it. A part of balanced training.
In time most pastors simply forget most of what they learned in seminary, since they retain and excel in only that what they regularly practice in their daily lives of a practicing pastor.

Yet I am not saying that studying languages in seminary is useless.

I already forgot my algebra formulas, yet I am much closer to algebra than one who never studied it.

Thanks,
Ed

RadMan

22nd June 2008, 11:47 PM

Are you saying Septuagint is errorless?
Don't you think putting so much faith in anything except the Bible takes a certain leap of faith?

OK.

Can you read Greek and/or Hebrew without any aid?

Considering what you are saying in totality one might think you are exagerating.

One does not need seminary studies to know enough Greek and Hebrew through concordances, dictionaries and lexicons in order to reliably navigate through the Bible.
These are tools that work very well.
Otherwise, these books would become useless with time and everyone would simply "ask a Pastor" concerning anything in the Bible.
You are using lexicons.

We are not writing new texts, we are just reading them.

The Bible is available to all.

And I would say that extremely few seminary graduates (I do not know one) who know everything or more than is available through such tools.
Bible tools, especially in English language are robust and reliable.

Concerning the immediate quote, the study of languages in seminary are one of the areas that are essential for becoming a pastor.
One simply needs to go through it. A part of balanced training.
In time most pastors simply forget most of what they learned in seminary, since they retain and excel in only that what they regularly practice in their daily lives of a practicing pastor.

Yet I am not saying that studying languages in seminary is useless.

I already forgot my algebra formulas, yet I am much closer to algebra than one who never studied it.

Thanks,
EdI seem to remember that many of our conservative/confessional pastors actually spend a lot of time reading in the original languages. I thought DaRev mentioned that but I could be wrong.

DaRev

23rd June 2008, 12:03 AM

I've come to the conclusion that everything I say here is meaningless. Perhaps it's because I don't articulate well. It's a weakness that I still work on. In any case, I'm wasting my time here. I have more pressing things to attend to than the World Wide Waste-of-time.

God's blessings on all of those who are daily in the Word and who seek to know the truth. I pray you find it.

Edial

23rd June 2008, 12:38 AM