Does the Bible scare anyone else here sometimes?

by missy04 126 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  pseudoxristos

  afin,

  I'll give you a 'for instance'. Tonight, I am posting on this site. Does that mean there is some deep, mysterious reason I used the word tonight? I used a comma too.

  Your example is not really equivalent to the manner in which the idiom was modified in Luke 23:43.

  A better example would be something similar to the following:

  ?Dude I?m telling you tonight I am posting on this site.?

  If you did not normally use commas and you constantly used the phrase ?Dude I?m telling you?, most people would recognize ?Dude I?m telling you? as an idiom and assume that a comma would normally follow the idiom. Unless there was some significant reason, the comma would always follow the idiom. So, the above phrase would read as follows:

  ?Dude I?m telling you, tonight I am posting on this site.?

  It is not at all surprising that Jesus or the writer of Luke would have believed in a literal Hell. This is not to say that they believed exactly what many people today believe about Hell, but it is obvious that they were influenced by teachings that had become popular prior to the first century.

  pseudo
• 

  a friend in need

  '

  Jez:

  No need to swear at me.

  Eve was the female (person) that God created. She was created as a compliment and helper for Adam. The scriptures say women are to be in subjection to their husbands as men are in subjection to Christ. Christ is in subjection to God. That is the order of it and not accepting it is not accepting God's ways. Isn't it great that God gave us all the right to choose? He doesn't try to stop you or anyone else from believing anything they want.

  afin
• 

  Satanus

  The scriptures say women are to be in subjection to their husbands as men are in subjection to Christ.

  Right, paul said that. You rules type christians are really followers/in subjection to paul, not jesus or god.

  S
• 

  a friend in need

  psuedo:

  I'm telling you tonight, I'm posting on this site.

  Poor 'for instance ' on my part as I am posting and telling you tonight.

  "I'm telling you tonight, it will rain tomorrow." (for instance').

  afin
• 

  Double Edge

  The scriptures say women are to be in subjection to their husbands as men are in subjection to Christ.

  I say, when men start being in subjection to Christ (meaning following his example of Love and uplifting people, not looking down on them), then women have a starting point. In other words, men first (yeah, like that will happen).
• 

  pseudoxristos

  afin,

  "I'm telling you tonight, it will rain tomorrow." (for instance').

  A little better, but still not quite right.

  Unfortunately it assumes that we will both be alive tomorrow to see if what you are telling me "tonight" is in-fact accurate. So it still does not quite fit.

  Have you looked into what was commonly believed about the afterlife just prior to the first century?

  pseudo
• 

  Satanus

  Shouldn't men subject to jesus also do miracles like he did? It would demonstrate the truth of being his acolytes.

  S
• 

  Double Edge

  There is really no need for Jesus to stress that he was telling this to the criminal on that "day". It's not like it was a casual conversation that they could resume on some other "day".

  Exactly... why be "redundant" ..... that is, why exceed that which is necessary. Undoubtedly the thief and Jesus continued their conversation later that evening in another "world".
• 

  a friend in need

  psuedo:

  Actually it does fit as Jesus was able to say what would happen the next day. We are making reference to him and his use of the word 'today'. My words are just an example.

  afin

  I'm quite sure what you are refering to ( the thoughts of the afterlife at that time)

  but will let you elaborate.
• 

  Leolaia

  Luke 23:43 is the only instance of amén soi/humin legó sémeron in the Bible. On the contrary, we have 73 other occurrences of "truly I tell you" in the gospels (!!) -- Matthew 5:18, 26, 6:2, 5, 16, 8:10, 10:15, 23, 42, 13:17, 16:28, 17:20, 18:3, 13, 18, 19:23, 28; 21:21, 32; 21:21, 32; 23:36, 24:2, 24:24, 47, 25:12, 40, 45; 26:13, 21, 34; Mark 3:28, 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30; Luke 4:24; 9:27, 12:37, 44; 18:17, 29; 21:3, 32; John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 45, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 21, 28; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18. In none of them does sémeron occur. For good reason do most Bible scholars and translators regard sémeron "today" in Luke 23:43 as part of the saying and not the introductory formula. The burden of proof is on those who claim that "today" formed part of the formula to come up with supporting evidence (e.g. other attestations) for it. This whole ambiguity, by the way, would have been prevented had Luke used hoti "that" in this verse, which demarcates clearly where the introductory formula ends and the saying begins. Usually Luke uses this word, but sometimes (as in Luke 9:27; 18:17; 23:43) he does not. The Society pretty much lucked out in this case.