What the Bible realy teaches

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so the way it has been translated is evidence of a consensus, hardly FMF, as you point, out the scholar I cited states quite the opposite , so that it is clearly not evidence of a consensus, so I will ask you again, the way that it has been translated is evidence of what?

The way that it has been translated is evidence that there exists a consensus among most translators.

Originally posted by FMF
there is no deflection. If the way "German Bible translator L. Reinhardt" translates it is "evidence", then the way "most translators translate it is "evidence" to the contrary.

No you seem to be failing to grasp the import of his text, what he cites is not the way it is translated, and I quote,

[Christ] certainly did not understand paradise to be a subdivision of the realm of the dead, but rather the restoration of a paradise on earth.”

Thus his statement has as its basis not a method of translation, but an evaluation of Biblical teaching.

Originally posted by FMF
The way that it has been translated is evidence that there exists a consensus among most translators.

Again your propensity for stating the obvious is awe inspiring, but this is not evidence of the integrity of their method, is it, its simply an appeal to popular opinion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thus his statement has as its basis not a method of translation, but an evaluation of Biblical teaching.

I have no doubt that the statement of "German Bible translator L. Reinhardt" about the translation has, as its basis, his own ideology/theology. My question all along has been, in view of how there is clearly a consensus among most translators, why should anyone accept the view of this one translator you have chosen to cite, over the consensus view of "most translators"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again your propensity for stating the obvious is awe inspiring, but this is not evidence of the integrity of their method, is it, its simply an appeal to popular opinion.

The fact that "German Bible translator L. Reinhardt" disagrees with the consensus is not evidence that there has been no integrity in the method of most translators. I have no doubt that L. Reinhardt's is popular with, and appeals to, people who share your opinion.

Originally posted by FMF
I have no doubt that the statement of "German Bible translator L. Reinhardt" about the translation has, as its basis, his own ideology/theology. My question all along has been, in view of how there is clearly a consensus among most translators, why should anyone accept the view of this one translator you have chosen to cite, over the consensus view of "most translators"?

Naturally bias exists in translation, to what extent and why should be of real concern and my answer all along has been to state that one must examine the evidence (not an appeal to popular opinion, not that most translators translate it that way, which is essentially meaningless as it does not afford the sincere enquirer any way to evaluate the two position), but why they have chosen to translate the text in a particular way.

Originally posted by FMF
The fact that "German Bible translator L. Reinhardt" disagrees with the consensus is not evidence that there has been no integrity in the method of most translators. I have no doubt that L. Reinhardt's is popular with, and appeals to, people who share your opinion.

Then what is a good and proper method to evaluate whether or not a translation has integrity, surely it should be to ask ourselves why they have translated a verse in a particular way and on what basis have they translated it in a particular way.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Naturally bias exists in translation, to what extent and why should be of real concern and my answer all along has been to state that one must examine the evidence (not an appeal to popular opinion, not that most translators translate it that way, which is essentially meaningless as it does not afford the sincere enquirer any way to evaluate the two position), but why they have chosen to translate the text in a particular way.

I shall paraphrase the idea I am responding to: "...one must examine the evidence [of] why they have chosen to translate the text in a particular way." [I haven't changed your basic thrust here, I think].

By all means do. Beware of circular logic, though, when doing this. If you claim that "German Bible translator L. Reinhardt" has translated it correctly because his reasons for translating it that way are correct, then this will not stand up well as "evidence".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Then what is a good and proper method to evaluate whether or not a translation has integrity, surely it should be to ask ourselves why they have translated a verse in a particular way and on what basis have they translated it in a particular way.

See my previous post. Beware of of the clear circular logic hazard. i.e. claiming something along the lines of ... L. Reinhardt has translated it correctly because his reasons for translating it in the way that he did are correct and his translation reflects this... on the other hand most translators have translated it incorrectly because their reasons for translating it in the way that they did are incorrect and the errors in their translation reflect this... etc. etc. This kind of thing is a pitfall best avoided. I trust that you will.

1. That the Earth is temporary place for man’s abode and not the permanent location of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The closing scenes prophecy do not show this. John saw "a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away ..." (Rev. 21:1)

He did not just see Heaven. He saw a new earth as well.

The term "the kingdom of the heavens" used in Matthew should be understood as - the kingdom whose SOURCE and ORIGIN is in heaven.

The advice from Christ and the Apostles therefore, has always been to focus on heavenly things and ignore earthly or temporal things. There are many Christians who cannot help but to seek after worldly things despite warnings from Christ and the Apostles.

Yes, the believers are to set their minds on the things which are above, where Christ is. This really is more of seeking the source, the orgin, the kingdom of God.

Christ directed His disciples to pray "Your kingdom COME" and not "Your kingdom go."

You saw eternity future in John's vision of "a new heaven and a new earth" . The apostle Peter echoes this:

"But according to His promise we are expecting new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells." ( 2 Peter 3:13)

Today Christ sits in the third heavens. To seek the things above is really to seek Christ who ascended to this heavenly realm. However, as the life giving Spirit Whom He became in resurrection Christ is also within the believes on earth:

Christ located in TWO places in Romans 8.

1.) At the right hand of God in the heavens - " ... It is Chist Jesus who died and, rather, who was raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who intercedes for us." (Rom. 8:34)

2.) Living within the believers on earth - " ... Yet is anyone does not havethe Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you ... " (See verses 9-11)

So to set the mind on the things above is simultaneously to set the mind on the regenerated human spirit where there is spiritual life and peace -

"For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the spirit is life and peace." (v.6)

They have even interpreted the Bible’s description of God’s Kingdom so that it includes a lot of material earthly prosperity. It is their idea that the Kingdom will have lots to eat and drink, lots of nice things to enjoy, nice cars etc and lots of man-made luxury in general.

The idea is not without some merit.

It is ironic that you seem to be going to the opposite extreme here.
One extreme is a concept of a Christless kingdom with no indwelling of the Triune God as divine life in man. And the other extreme is a kingdom in which all practical earthy things no longer exist.

I think Robbie is going to one error and you are leaning to the other opposite extreme.

The glimpse of eternity shows both the "drinking" in of the Triune God as life and the practical presence of a new heaven and new earth.

1.) Symbols showing the dispensing of God into man:

"And he showed a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb in the middle of its street." (Rev. 22:1)

There is no dispute that this "river of water of life" must be the Third "Person" of the Triune God - the Holy Spirit mentioned as flowing out of the innermost being of the believers in Jesus.

Compare: " ... Jesus stood and cried out, saying, If anyone thirsts, let Him come to Me and drink. He who believes into Me, as the Scripture said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.

But this He said concerning the Spirit whom those who believed into Him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." (John 7:37b-39)

Christ transfigured Himself into the life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) to dispense Himself into those who believe into Him. And this dispensing continues on into eternity as seen as a river of water of life flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb in Revelation 22:1.

But the environment without is also awaiting the manifestation of the mature sons of God. That is the earth too.

2.) "For the anxious watching of the creation [ie. heavens and earth] eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God ... the creation itself will also be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (Rem. 8:19-21)

Understandably then John saw "a new heaven AND A NEW EARTH" (Rev. 22:1). And Peter teaches us to expect "new heavens AND A NEW EARTH" (2 Pet. 3:13) in which rihteousness dwells.

The inner being is ruled by the flowing Triune God as divine life.
And the outer environment is made to match this glorious manifestation as well.

In speaking of the comencement of the millennial kingdom, the book of Hebrews says God brings again His Firstborn Son into the inhabited earth -

" And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited earth, He says, And let all the angels of God worship Him." (Hebrews 1:6)

The battle is definetly over the earth, the inhabited earth.
And the phrase "Firstborn Son" rather than "only begotten Son" means by this time He has gained many brothers comformed to the image of Christ as sons of God.

" ... whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:30a)

And this they do because material things and worldly things bring happiness to them. But the teachings of the Apostles is clear .. that is to forget about this world. The life of the saint in the Kingdom is not meat and drink ..”but righteousness, and peace, and joy..”.

It is quite true that Paul says the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit in Romans 14:17.

But He is not saying this kingdom is only in Heaven. Obviously the letter of Romans was written to the Christians practicing the church life on earth in Rome.

To push this to the extreme that there will be no earth in the millennial kingdom or no earth in the eternal age is wrong.

And the sons of God do not have to worry about the predictions of dying stars or bloating or exploding suns. The utter coordination and cooperation of God and His sons will provide whatever environment is needed for the kingdom of God to exist and expand.

Originally posted by FMF
See my previous post. Beware of of the clear circular logic hazard. i.e. claiming something along the lines of ... L. Reinhardt has translated it correctly because his reasons for translating it in the way that he did are correct and his translation reflects this... on the other hand most translators have translated it incorrectly because their reasons for tr ...[text shortened]... flect this... etc. etc. This kind of thing is a pitfall best avoided. I trust that you will.

If one simply asks on what basis that a translator has chosen to translate a particular verse, then its usually easy enough to detect bias, after all, why should a particular piece of punctuation which does not appear in the original manuscripts and does not make an appearance until the ninth century suddenly take on the guise of making it appear that Christ contrary to other Biblical revelation and contrary to what the Jews and Christ himself understood as being a paradise, should suddenly change the entire intended meaning of a text and immediately, along with a thief, transport him to a paradise (unspecified) on that particular day?

Originally posted by sonship

1. That the Earth is temporary place for man’s abode and not the permanent location of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The closing scenes prophecy do not show this. John saw [b]"a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away ..." (Rev. 21:1)

He did not just see Heaven. He saw a new earth as well.

is needed for the kingdom of God to exist and expand.[/b]

you must ask yourself the question, what did Jesus and the Israelites understand as
constituting a paradise and if you read Isaiah chapter 65, you will get the answer.

(Isaiah 65:17-25) .“For here I am creating new heavens and a new earth; and the
former things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart. But
exult, you people, and be joyful forever in what I am creating. For here I am
creating Jerusalem a cause for joyfulness and her people a cause for exultation.
And I will be joyful in Jerusalem and exult in my people; and no more will there be
heard in her the sound of weeping or the sound of a plaintive cry.” “No more will
there come to be a suckling a few days old from that place, neither an old man that
does not fulfill his days; for one will die as a mere boy, although a hundred years of
age; and as for the sinner, although a hundred years of age he will have evil called
down upon him. And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they
will certainly plant vineyards and eat [their] fruitage. They will not build and
someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating.
For like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own
hands my chosen ones will use to the full. They will not toil for nothing, nor will they
bring to birth for disturbance; because they are the offspring made up of the blessed
ones of Jehovah, and their descendants with them. And it will actually occur that
before they call out I myself shall answer; while they are yet speaking, I myself
shall hear. “The wolf and the lamb themselves will feed as one, and the lion will eat
straw just like the bull; and as for the serpent, his food will be dust. They will do no
harm nor cause any ruin in all my holy mountain,” Jehovah has said.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If one simply asks on what basis that a translator has chosen to translate a particular verse, then its usually easy enough to detect bias, after all, why should a particular piece of punctuation which does not appear in the original manuscripts and does not make an appearance until the ninth century suddenly take on the guise of making it appear tha ...[text shortened]... ediately, along with a thief, be transported to a paradise (unspecified) on that particular day?

"Bias" according to whom?

"...making it appear that Christ contrary to other Biblical revelation and contrary to what the Jews and Christ himself understood as being a paradise, should suddenly change the entire intended meaning of a text and immediately, along with a thief, be transported to a paradise (unspecified) on that particular day..."

Surely an assertion on your part about "the entire intended meaning of a text" merely an example of your bias with regard to what you are personally convinced was "intended"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If one simply asks on what basis that a translator has chosen to translate a particular verse, then its usually easy enough to detect bias, after all, why should a particular piece of punctuation which does not appear in the original manuscripts and does not make an appearance until the ninth century suddenly take on the guise of making it appear tha ...[text shortened]... mediately, along with a thief, transport him to a paradise (unspecified) on that particular day?

The Paradise to which Jesus took the believing thief was "in the heart of the earth" where Jesus went for those three days. This is also discribed as "the lower parts of the earth".

He did not ascend with him to heaven.
He took him to somewhere under the earth.

This may seem hard to believe in this modern day of science. But on the other hand we've speculated so much about space and time curvature. I would not be surprised if God has some dimensions or places that our typical expience on the surface of this earth, would not understand now.

But since Christ was three days and three nights in the heart of earth as Jonah was in the belly of the fish then "this day you will be with Me in Paradise" should mean to be with Jesus wherever He was in His immaterial being during those days.

Originally posted by FMF
"Bias" according to whom?

"...making it appear that Christ contrary to other Biblical revelation and contrary to what the Jews and Christ himself understood as being a paradise, should suddenly change the entire intended meaning of a text and immediately, along with a thief, be transported to a paradise (unspecified) on that particular day..."

Surely an as ...[text shortened]... an example of your bias with regard to what you are personally convinced was "intended"?

no its based upon the evidence that i cited.