AK4 said:
Oh boy, Did i translate it? NO i looked up the definitions of them. Good grief.
And then you presented what you believed to be the meaning. That's translating.
But this begs the question; why do you trust the out-of-context translations of the dictionary over the teams of translators who worked on the NIV or the NRSV?
AK4 said:
Imagist said:
The "I could prove you wrong" argument doesn't work. I could equally say "I could prove that my translation is correct, but I'm not going to do the work for you. Do it yourself."
And no you couldnt if you go to the original hebrew and greek.
Please stop making statements without any evidence.
AK4 said:
Imagist said:
So unless you have some basis for your argument that the translation is wrong, your argument is invalid.
I already gave them to you. Look at the posts.
If you will highlight what piece of "evidence" I haven't refuted thoroughly enough, I will happily repeat or explain my refutation.
AK4 said:
Imagist said:
Neither one of us is qualified to say whether or not the translation is accurate. Nor can I become qualified without abandoning my career to become a translator. But this is why specialization exists in our society; I can only trust the translations most trusted by translators, just as a translator can only trust the computer programs most trusted by people of my profession (I'm a computer scientist).
Trust that the catholic church added and omitted things in the bible. Trust those politicians to do right in government with your money because afterall they are "the specialists" on the law and constitution. For a cpu scientist, you are being real naive.
No, I simply can tell the difference between things that require specialization and things that don't. It doesn't take years of research to discover that the Catholic church added and omitted things. It doesn't take years of study to understand most political issues. It DOES take years of study to understand the subtle differences between two meanings of a word in different contexts.
AK4 said:
In verse 23 we have the word "torments" In verses 24 and 25 we have the word "tormented." These three words are not translated from the same Greek word, however. And there is a great reason why. This one point alone will demolish any such theory that this Rich man is actually and literally having his flesh burned by real fire.
Let us now see if Jesus gives us any indication whether or not this Rich man will ever come out of this place of torments and what these torments really are:
The Greek word translated "torments" in verse 23 is basanos.
From Fribergs Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, we are told that basanois which is a form of the noun basanos, means, "strictly, a touchstone for testing the genuineness of metals by rubbing against it..."
In secular Greek literature this word (basanois) was used figuratively to extract information from a person by torture or punishment.
From the Greek-English Keyword Concordance we read this, torment, literally a touchstone, used to test metals for alloys, [and] then the examination of persons by torture (Page 307).
Though the Rich man may, indeed, be suffering discomfort or pain, it is not from fire burning his flesh, but rather from being tested and proved through chastisement. .
It is an interesting fact of Scripture that except for Paul "punishing" the church, there is only ONE SCRIPTURE in the whole new testament that uses the word "punishment." All others use the word "chastisement" which always carries the connotation of correction and bringing things back to what is right again. Chastisement by its very definition CANNOT be eternal. There is always a purpose and goal in mind with the use of the word chastise.
Did you read my post about context or did you just choose to ignore it? Or, are you claiming that you have enough expertise to tell from the context the subtle difference between the meanings?
AK4 said:
Yeah but im smart enough to know not to just trust what one person says, I DO MY HOMEWORK TOO.
You look up a few words and think that you're more qualified to translate than teams of translators who have devoted their lives to understanding a language. That's not homework; it's tantamount to a first grader learning addition and subtraction, then disagreeing with a professor on the Rhiemann hypothesis.
ChristianBrother said:
If God came and slapped you on the face, then would you believe?
Yes. But he hasn't. If the truth came and slapped you in the face, would you stop believing in God?
AK4 said:
I guess the atheists back in the days before microscropes thought that atoms and bacteria was nonentities too.
What's your point? Without evidence it is illogical to believe in things.
The difference is that atheists investigate further and (in the case of atoms and bacteria) produce evidence, while theists often just assume it is god and stop investigating. If presented with evidence, they often ignore it in favor of their previously held, unbased beliefs about god.
Heneni said:
God is energy.. cannot be created and cannot be destroyed, and has absolutely no matter(though he could)...but still...the evidence that energy exists is overwhelming.
So you know that god exists. And no i'm not joking.
Obviously, god is not energy. I believe in energy; I do not believe in god.
AK4 said:
Can you read? (in all due respect) IN THOSE DAYS BEFORE MICROSCOPES atheists probably believed that atoms and bacteria didnt exist because they couldnt see them, If they could have time travelled to our current era and then see atoms and bacteria, how foolish would they look?
Not foolish at all. They did the best they could given the evidence they had. On the other hand, religion, given an immense body of evidence, have chosen to ignore it in favor of their unbased beliefs (see evolution).
AK4 said:
Exactly---so it will be with you atheists.
I can deal with that. "He did the best he could given the evidence he had" is fine with me. "He actively ignored an immense body of evidence that was contrary to his beliefs" is not okay with me.
What your argument is, essentially, is "I have seen the future and you will be wrong", which you haven't. Therefore your argument again lacks basis.
AK4 said:
Evidence is every you look. Even your finger tips touching on that keyboard is evidence.
Ah, great argument. "Your fingers are touching a keyboard. Therefore, God exists."
AK4 said:
You know it takes a bigger leap of faith to believe everything in this universe just came from nothing than to believe that it has a Creator.
No, it takes two leaps of faith to believe that the universe has a creator: 1) Everything in this universe came from a creator, and 2) The creator just came out of nothing.
Heneni said:
You have to believe that god exists before he will take the time to prove you right.
That's pointless. Why would you try to prove something to someone who already believes it? Is this god that you believe in mentally challenged?
AK4 said:
So you dont believe in miracles and that stuff either? Man i just cant grasp the feeling of absolutely no hope because without a God, this life is all you got and thats it. You might as well eat and drink for tomorrow you die. Gee where did i get that saying from.....
Ah, so you're saying "It's sad if god doesn't exist. Therefore, god exists."
What exactly gives you less hope just because god doesn't exist? Furthermore, what's so good about false hopes?
I would rather enjoy my life and make a difference in the world than waste large chunks of it doing the work of a figment of somebody's imagination.
