27 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieeverlasting punishment is not a good translation, ever lasting cutting off is better.
everlasting punishment is not a good translation, ever lasting cutting off is better. yet its hardly an incitement to guilt or fear is it. its the equivalent of saying, oh by the way, if your not righteous you shall live seventy or eighty years and then simply die, well shake shake, tremble tremble.
The Greek word translated "punishment" here is kolasis, and it is indeed correctly translated "punishment".
(1) Translating the Greek kolasis as "cutting off" is an etymological fallacy, since by doing so you would be replacing the meaning of kolasis (i.e., punishment) with its derivation, kolazo (i.e, cutting off). Presuming that a word's meaning is bound up with its root or roots is "linguistic nonsense" (D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p. 28).
(2) What's even more damning, so to speak, for Robbie's position is that by the time the NT was written, even the root of kolasis, i.e., kolazo, itself no longer retained the meaning, "to cut off," but was used to mean "punishment" almost exclusively.
BTW, the only support Robbie has for his particular reading of Matthew 25:46 is the The Emphatic Diaglott, which is a Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publication used by Jehovah's Witnesses, and supports their eminently biased New World Translation. The author, Benjamin Wilson, was an autodidact (self-taught) biblical scholar who lacked credentials in Greek.
27 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehaswe have been through this before, the word in its original usage means to cut off, as in lopping off branches of a tree, a fact of which you are perfectly aware, it only laterally came to mean punishment.
[b]everlasting punishment is not a good translation, ever lasting cutting off is better.
The Greek word translated "punishment" here is kolasis, and it is indeed correctly translated "punishment".
(1) Translating the Greek kolasis as "cutting off" is an etymological fallacy, since by doing so you would be replacing the meaning of as an autodidact (self-taught) biblical scholar who lacked credentials in Greek.[/b]
Secondly we have kept the balance of the verse in tact, the righteous go to life, the wicked to the antithesis of life, non life, or death, not punishment.
Thirdly the emphatic diaglott was not written by Jehovahs witnesses, it was written by a christidelphian, we merely bought the publication rights, therefore your statement also in this regard is false and reflective of the type of unsubstantiated and baseless lies fomented by opponents of Jehovahs witnesses (please see Fabians assertion of bias also)
Fourthly that the God of love, should systematically punish those in a sordid manner for all eternity when knowing full well they were in a position of imperfection and therefore prone to aberration is nonsense and a gross misrepresentation of the character of God, of which we read is merciful and beneficent and a god of justice.
fifthly, the wages of sin is not punishment , but death as Paul clearly explains.
Now gentle reader , you must ask yourself, where did the idea of eternal punishment originate from? do not the Hellenistic Greeks also have concept of eternal punishment for crimes? coincidence, i dont think so. what about the very term Hell, is it a proper rendering of the Hebrew 'sheol', and the Greek 'hades', nope for both refer to the common grave of mankind, Hell itself is a pagan term, inaccurately applied to scripture, shall we dig a little further and get our 'Christian', friends to admit it? Lets see if they have the honesty to do so.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...the word in its original usage means to cut off, as in lopping off branches of a tree...
, a fact of which you are perfectly aware, it only laterally came to mean punishment.
Secondly we have kept the balance of the verse in tact, the righteous go to life, the wicked to the antithesis of life, non life, or death, not punishment.
Thirdly the emphatic diaglott was not written by Jehovahs witnesses, it was written by a christidelph ...[text shortened]... and get our 'Christian', friends to admit it? Lets see if they have the honesty to do so.
Absolutely untrue. Kolasis in its original usage means punishment. What you are referring to is the ROOT of kolasis, not its original usage.
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobietossing off to girls your never likely to meet
why would you trade a mere seventy or eighty years of tossing off to girls your never likely to meet, to music thats rhythmically basic with the prospect of a drug induced psychosis, for an eternity of relative perfection.
Who says i do that, i might be thinking of my girlfriend? Would that be okay then?
the prospect of a drug induced psychosis
For having a few beers, smoking a few joints and the occasional psychedelic experience?
music thats rhythmically basic
Mitch Mitchell and John Bonham were rhythmically basic?
27 Jan 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobThats right,my friend. i'm sure if you spent a couple of days with me it would seem like an eternity in hell...not all spirituality is sunshine and lollipops.
[b]but in order to warn others of the impending reality of hell
The thought of spending eterntity with Mr Carrobie, Galveston and some of the other nutters who post on this forum is my idea of hell!!!
The mere thought of eternity without drink, drugs, masturbation, oral sex, fornication, rock 'n' roll (as it is the devils music) sends shivers down my spine.[/b]
Having said that I say there is no hell, only purgatory
28 Jan 10
Originally posted by Proper Knoboh Noobster why must it always be reduced to sex, drugs and rock n roll?
[b]tossing off to girls your never likely to meet
Who says i do that, i might be thinking of my girlfriend? Would that be okay then?
the prospect of a drug induced psychosis
For having a few beers, smoking a few joints and the occasional psychedelic experience?
music thats rhythmically basic
Mitch Mitchell and John Bonham were rhythmically basic?[/b]
28 Jan 10
Originally posted by epiphinehaspathetic! (in the original sense of the word)
[b]...the word in its original usage means to cut off, as in lopping off branches of a tree...
Absolutely untrue. Kolasis in its original usage means punishment. What you are referring to is the ROOT of kolasis, not its original usage.[/b]
28 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasmy goodness you need to lighten up, perhaps when you are in your throne of self righteousness you may condescend to look upon me as i burn eternally in agony for having been born imperfect and thus prone to aberration, sweet dreams of torturing the wicked!
Actually, I am about to catch some z's. And one thing that won't be burdening my conscience is a failure to point out the error of your ways. G'nite!
28 Jan 10
1 edit
for those who are interested, there are of course various others who disagree with the illustrious Epi and his insistence that the verse be rendered as everlasting punishment, therefore fear not gentle reader, there is no hell, here are some of them,
http://www.quotedstatements.com/Bible-Files/kolasin.htm
"For evil-doers shall be cut off; But those that wait for Jehovah, they shall inherit the land." Ps 37:9
28 Jan 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasJust an aside—
[b]everlasting punishment is not a good translation, ever lasting cutting off is better.
The Greek word translated "punishment" here is kolasis, and it is indeed correctly translated "punishment".
(1) Translating the Greek kolasis as "cutting off" is an etymological fallacy, since by doing so you would be replacing the meaning of ...[text shortened]... as an autodidact (self-taught) biblical scholar who lacked credentials in Greek.[/b]
Presuming that a word's meaning is bound up with its root or roots is "linguistic nonsense" (D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p. 28).
This might be true for the Greek (I’ll just accept that it is). But it is not true for the Biblical Hebrew.
That is because the Hebrew is based on a consonantal root system. Variations in pronunciation lead to nuances and variations in meaning,* but the root determines a commonality of underlying meaning behind the variations.
An example: Shalom and Shelem have the same three-consonant root: Sh-L-M. Shalom is spelled with an additional vav (V), indicating an “o” vowel. (Sometimes the same word, with the same pronunciation, has such an additional letter, and other times not. When a word occurs without such an additional “vowel” stand-in, it said to be a “deficient” spelling. That is just one of the vagaries of the ancient Hebrew.)
Shalom is often translated as “peace”, but carries more the meaning of “well-being”, which is often a better translation.** Shelem is generally translated as “wholeness”, but still carries the implication of wellness or well-being. That’s just the way the Hebrew works.
__________________________________________________
* In unpointed text, this is sometimes determined by the addition of one of the consonants that can double as a vowel: yod, vav or hey; often it is not, and the word is spelled exactly the same, in which case the reader has to decide the pronunciation. This might be decided by context (or just convention), but sometimes not. This is just one of the reasons why a given Hebrew text can have multiple “meaningful meanings”.
** For example, when Jacob sends Joseph to see how his brothers’ shalom is. Or when YHVH, in the prophet Isaiah, says: “I make shalom, and I create ra (bad, evil, woe, distress—or, here, “ill-being” ). In the NRS, these words are translated as “weal” and “woe”.