Interpreting the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: It's Really Good News!
- Thread starter Phoneman-777
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You reject my argument and then go about saying something just as subjective, imagining different lengths of burning time.
I see holding times while being punished, tormented in flame, before the Lake of Fire based on scriptures like the "uninterpreted parable of the rich man and Lazarus" as you put it and I see places of blessing for the righteous based on the same parable, and the promise to the thief on the cross and even Paul's expectation to be with Christ upon death, and you see different burning times in the Lake based on sins, based on what? From what "parable, or text?" Who is inventing things? At least I have a reason. You are just imagining what you think seems fair and we know how reliable our own reasoning can be right?
I mean if you are going to imagine things like that at least use a verse. Maybe something like this one in Luke 12
45But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows
Maybe in your scenario they are in the Lake of Fire and being beaten with flaming whips, only some get beaten for millions of stripes and some less. (my run away imagination again)
I see holding times while being punished, tormented in flame, before the Lake of Fire based on scriptures like the "uninterpreted parable of the rich man and Lazarus" as you put it and I see places of blessing for the righteous based on the same parable, and the promise to the thief on the cross and even Paul's expectation to be with Christ upon death, and you see different burning times in the Lake based on sins, based on what? From what "parable, or text?" Who is inventing things? At least I have a reason. You are just imagining what you think seems fair and we know how reliable our own reasoning can be right?
I mean if you are going to imagine things like that at least use a verse. Maybe something like this one in Luke 12
45But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows
Maybe in your scenario they are in the Lake of Fire and being beaten with flaming whips, only some get beaten for millions of stripes and some less. (my run away imagination again)
Bro, I would STRONGLY suggest you get yourself a KJV.
Every NT version (other than Roman Catholic church "bibles" like the Jesuit Douey, the Vulgate, Good News, etc.) are based on the corrupted "Critical Text" Greek MSS. The KJV is based on the "Textus Receptus" Greek of the Protestant Reformation.
Even the NKJV is based on that garbage Critical Text, and deviates from the Textus Receptus over 1,200 times!!!
"Only those with Roman Catholic sympathies could be pleased with the notion that God preserved in secret His Word for over 15 centuries before handing it over to the RCC for safe keeping."
No, we've had the truth all along, as proven by the Bibles of the Reformation, the crown jewel of which is the KJV.
Every NT version (other than Roman Catholic church "bibles" like the Jesuit Douey, the Vulgate, Good News, etc.) are based on the corrupted "Critical Text" Greek MSS. The KJV is based on the "Textus Receptus" Greek of the Protestant Reformation.
Even the NKJV is based on that garbage Critical Text, and deviates from the Textus Receptus over 1,200 times!!!
"Only those with Roman Catholic sympathies could be pleased with the notion that God preserved in secret His Word for over 15 centuries before handing it over to the RCC for safe keeping."
No, we've had the truth all along, as proven by the Bibles of the Reformation, the crown jewel of which is the KJV.
-
1
- Show all
No one dying on the cross almost about to take his last breath, (he dies right after this) would feel the need to explain what day he was speaking or waste his breath on such unnecessary words.
Your attempt to change the meaning like this is the same as when you try to say the flame is not quenched means it doesn't get put out instead it burns out for lack of fuel. It is the reason why your hermeneutic has been rejected and you wonder why we can't see it the way you do? Because it is outrageously offensive.
Your attempt to change the meaning like this is the same as when you try to say the flame is not quenched means it doesn't get put out instead it burns out for lack of fuel. It is the reason why your hermeneutic has been rejected and you wonder why we can't see it the way you do? Because it is outrageously offensive.
I think you are really out of your lane when you try to make a case for KJV over NIV. However. I will placate you with the KJV. It doesn't change anything that I have previously written.
45But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.
45But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.
No, I'm attempting to RESTORE the original meaning before the Immortal Soul crowd got hold of it and twisted it.
Didn't Tyndale tell Sir Thomas Moore that his twisting of "God of the living" to support Immortal Soul doctrine was "stealing away Christ's argument wherewith He proved the resurrection"?
Yes, Christ's use of "God of the living" was intended to prove the saints would rise in the resurrection, not to prove they were already in heaven, but Moore "stole" the argument to prove Immortal Soul doctrine "which doctrine was not yet in the world" of Christianity.
Didn't Tyndale tell Sir Thomas Moore that his twisting of "God of the living" to support Immortal Soul doctrine was "stealing away Christ's argument wherewith He proved the resurrection"?
Yes, Christ's use of "God of the living" was intended to prove the saints would rise in the resurrection, not to prove they were already in heaven, but Moore "stole" the argument to prove Immortal Soul doctrine "which doctrine was not yet in the world" of Christianity.
Then Use the Greek of the Textus Receptus. Learn it. Be able to read it and write and speak it. Only then could you honestly say that you you are using what you believe to be the uncorrupted text.
To use the KJV you have departed from that source material and are using an English translation. You would still need to be able to examine the Greek Manuscripts (NT) to see if the KJV has faithfully communicated in English the same ideas that the Greek words communicate to a Greek reader.
Until you can do that you have no way of knowing. You are simply hoping it is so or relying on experts that can tell you. And many experts will show you where the KJV can use some improvement in accomplishing that goal (faithfully communicating the Greek meaning in English words) even if the verse in question is coming from your beloved Textus Receptus.
Take for example Candlesticks being the English word KJV chose for the word lychnia in Rev 1:12. The Greek word is intended to communicate a lampstand or oil fed lampstands. Not a wax candlestick. But the KJV scholars used a word that communicated the wax candlesticks of their day. However these were not used in the first century. Oil lamps were. Wax candlesticks became popular in the middle ages. So here is just one example of how the KJV needs a correction to be faithful to the original Textus Receptus.
One MUST concede that this is true or they are not being intellectually honest about their devotion to the Textus Receptus and the KJV at the same time. One must choose the Greek over the English and agree that the word should be lampstands and communicate the oil fed lamps that John actually saw, because we know he did not see wax candlesticks since these were not used at that time and that is not the meaning of the word lychnia.
If the NIV faithfully translates lychnia to lampstands then it has done a better job of faithfully communicating the Greek in the Textus Receptus manuscript of Revelation than the KJV has.
The only way that you can know if a verse has been translated into English while retaining the meaning of the Greek as it would have been understood by a Greek reader is to know Koine Greek.
They say it takes about 3 years to begin to be proficient. You can sign up for online classes here:
https://www.billmounce.com/
To use the KJV you have departed from that source material and are using an English translation. You would still need to be able to examine the Greek Manuscripts (NT) to see if the KJV has faithfully communicated in English the same ideas that the Greek words communicate to a Greek reader.
Until you can do that you have no way of knowing. You are simply hoping it is so or relying on experts that can tell you. And many experts will show you where the KJV can use some improvement in accomplishing that goal (faithfully communicating the Greek meaning in English words) even if the verse in question is coming from your beloved Textus Receptus.
Take for example Candlesticks being the English word KJV chose for the word lychnia in Rev 1:12. The Greek word is intended to communicate a lampstand or oil fed lampstands. Not a wax candlestick. But the KJV scholars used a word that communicated the wax candlesticks of their day. However these were not used in the first century. Oil lamps were. Wax candlesticks became popular in the middle ages. So here is just one example of how the KJV needs a correction to be faithful to the original Textus Receptus.
One MUST concede that this is true or they are not being intellectually honest about their devotion to the Textus Receptus and the KJV at the same time. One must choose the Greek over the English and agree that the word should be lampstands and communicate the oil fed lamps that John actually saw, because we know he did not see wax candlesticks since these were not used at that time and that is not the meaning of the word lychnia.
If the NIV faithfully translates lychnia to lampstands then it has done a better job of faithfully communicating the Greek in the Textus Receptus manuscript of Revelation than the KJV has.
The only way that you can know if a verse has been translated into English while retaining the meaning of the Greek as it would have been understood by a Greek reader is to know Koine Greek.
They say it takes about 3 years to begin to be proficient. You can sign up for online classes here:
https://www.billmounce.com/
-
1
- Show all
There is a reason it is used by most of the evangelical bible believing scholars and commentary writers. So you seem to be misinformed. Many of the best commentary authors that believe in the inspiration of the scriptures and are conservative evangelicals use their own translations since they are expert in the original languages and also in all the known manuscripts in extant. However many of them that don't provide their own translation, use the NIV for reasons you can learn about in the book "How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth" If you read other authors besides SDA that is.
Don't get me wrong, the NIV is not a perfect translation. There are instances where it is in dispute. But that is the case for every single English translation. Somewhere there will be a verse where there is a better translation in another English translation according to a group of scholars who discuss it. Each case has to be analyzed regarding the challenges involved. Sometimes it is a matter of not being sure how a word was used at the time. When it is discovered that the word appears in an ancient Greek text recently discovered that will add knowledge to a possible way it was intended by the author. There are cases where a word only appears once in the bible. And there are few ancient text examples to go by.
-
1
- Show all
You mean pagan occultic Greek texts that preach homosexuality, beastiality, erotica, etc can help define how God in His word would use a Greek word?
There are several examples in modern English which if used as an example of how an English word in the Bible ought to be defined, God is in trouble for speaking perverse things.
Thank God, He already defined His words in scripture (Isaiah 28:10,13,&c) so we don't have to go outside of the text (even Psalms 119 is an aleph-bet primer).
There are several examples in modern English which if used as an example of how an English word in the Bible ought to be defined, God is in trouble for speaking perverse things.
Thank God, He already defined His words in scripture (Isaiah 28:10,13,&c) so we don't have to go outside of the text (even Psalms 119 is an aleph-bet primer).
