As I’ve indicated numerous times, I’m a physicalist. I don’t think that I’m an immortal ghost/soul living inside a body. I think that I’m a physical creature. Long before I encountered philosophy of mind or neuroscience, I became convinced that this is what the Bible teaches, making its teaching on human nature stand out like a sore thumb against the pagan Hellenistic theology of the first century.
I also become convinced that since I am not an immortal immortal ghost living inside a body, when my body dies I will not escape death and live on in heaven, or the underworld, or the astral plane or anything of that sort. I think the Bible teaches that death is very real and it puts an end to our life. There is no conscious state of any sort immediately following death. There is noting at all. Of course, I am a Christian and I do believe in the resurrection of the dead, but that obviously doesn’t happen when a person dies, or I think somebody would have noticed by now. The view I hold has sometimes been called “soul sleep” because it views death as a state of “sleep” or unconsciousness. It’s not an ideal term because it can be taken to imply dualism and maybe “person sleep” would be a better alternative, but it’s too late for that. The term has been coined.
Holding and expressing these views rubs some of my fellow conservative evangelicals the wrong way, but for the most part there’s really no disputing that the Bible presents human nature and death this way literally dozens of times in fairly clear language. Affirming dualism and the view that we live on as immaterial spirits after death and go somewhere is a point of view held in the teeth of the biblical evidence. This fact too, I suspect, rubs some of my fellow conservative evangelicals the wrong way.
In spite of the fairly clear overall teaching of the Bible, there is a very small handful of biblical passages (no more than four, in my view) that might be used (and have been used) to suggest that actually the general impression given by most of what the Bible teaches is false, and that really we do survive our bodily deaths and travel to heaven, or hell, or some other place and live consciously there. This should not be surprising. Whether you’re doing surveying, earth science or biblical interpretation, when formulating a theory you’re always going to be confronted with recalcitrant evidence, that is, evidence that at first glance seems to go against the flow of the well-established facts and is in need of an explanation. The existence of such evidence in science or in Scripture does not falsify a theory.
One of those texts is Luke 23:43. Here, Jesus has been crucified, and on that same Friday some criminals had been crucified with him (it was normal for multiple people to be crucified together). Here’s what we read in Luke 23:39-43
One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
It’s clear enough how this passage would be used by those who do not share my view: Since Jesus told someone that even though they were going to die that day, they would experience Jesus’ presence later that day as well, it must be the case that (according to Jesus), people survive their bodily death, with or without the bodily resurrection.
Given the essential uniformity that I think we find in the teaching of the bible generally on this subject (namely, that we do not survive our bodily death), I have two choices. I can either say that we have an important conflict between what Jesus said as recorded in Luke 23:43 and the bulk of what the biblical writers said on the subject, or I can attempt to interpret this text in Luke in a way to fit with what the rest of the bible teaches. I think that I can quite successfully do the latter. I make no promises that I will convince those who disagree with me, but I have long held the view that nobody can be convinced against her will. (The other possible course of action – to adopt less plausible interpretations of dozens of other texts for the sake of this one – does not strike me as particularly sensible.)
The argument from experience
The first approach is the less controversial, and it is to point out that even if there is no conscious intermediate state between death and resurrection, Jesus’ words would still be quite true from the dying criminal’s perspective. Peter Van Inwagen explains:
The words of Jesus are, obviously, supposed to be what The Book of Common Prayer calls “comfortable words.” Let me ask a question in somewhat the same spirit as the question I asked a moment ago. Imagine that the Good Thief dies in agony; “the next thing he knows,” as the idiom has it, he is in Paradise. He presently discovers that over three thousand years have passed since he died. Was he deceived? Was it somehow wrong of Jesus to say to him, “Today you shall be with me in Paradise”? If so, what should Jesus have said? Should he have said, “After the general resurrection, which will occur after an indefinite period that only the Father knows, you shall be with me in Paradise – but it will seem to you as if no time has passed”? Are there not circumstances in which taking extreme care to frame one’s statements in words that express only the strict and literal truth is unsatisfactory from a pastoral point of view? And are there not, in fact, circumstances in which taking extreme care to frame one’s statements in words that express only the strict and literal truth can impede communication? (I know that a certain large structure in Manhattan is a terminal and not a station; nevertheless, I don’t generally call it Grand Central Terminal, because that’s not what most people call it. And from my calling it Grand Central Station you cannot infer that I believe that it’s a station rather than a terminal.) In any case, to suppose that Jesus and the Good Thief would have attached much importance to the distinction between the strict and the lax interpretations of Jesus’ words – the strict being the one insisted on by those who are treating these words as proof text, and the lax being the one I’m pushing – seems to me to attribute an analytical cast of mind to two first-century Jews (in their extreme agony, let us remember) that is probably unwarranted.
Peter Van Inwagen, “Dualism and Materialism: Athens and Jerusalem?” Faith and Philosophy 12:4 (1995), 484.
Sure, if “soul sleep” involved believing in a period of relaxed but still conscious rest, sort of a shadowy but comfortable existence in bliss between death and resurrection, then this verse would present a problem. This is another reason why the term “soul sleep” isn’t ideal. However, it doesn’t involve this sort of thing at all. It refers to an absolute loss of all consciousness. From the perspective of personal experience, if your consciousness completely ceased at t1 and then you regain consciousness at t5 (where the gap between t1 and t2, the gap between t2 and t3 etc is one year), even though four years had actually passed you would experience t5 immediately after t1, as though no time at all had passed in the interim. If, just as t1 was approaching, I had said to you “I tell you, in just a few seconds you will be at t5,” then it could hardly be said that I was lying to you. And if this is so (and let’s imagine that at t5 the resurrection of the dead will occur and all things will be made new), there would likewise be nothing wrong with my saying that “in just a few seconds you will be with me in Paradise.”
This approach, although already sufficiently plausible to be taken seriously, is further bolstered by the way that the biblical writers used the Greek word paradeisos (paradise). This term is used in Genesis 2:8 and elsewhere in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) to refer to the garden of Eden. It is used in this connection to refer to the eschatological restoration that God will bring about (Isaiah 51:3). It is used again in Revelation 2:7 in connection with the tree of life, something said (in chapters 21 and 22) to be present on the “new earth.” So there is no suggestion in Scripture that the term should mean “heaven” or some sort of spiritual intermediate state. On the contrary, it suggests a very physical state of existence and is connected with a restored physical world.
If all you were looking for is a plausible and sufficient explanation, you have just found it, and you can stop reading now.
The Grammatical Argument
The second argument is both more technical and more contentious. In Luke 23:43, the words in question are amen soi lego semeron, “Assuredly I tell you today” – and the question is “where does the comma go – before or after the word “today” (semeron)? According to New Testament Greek scholar E. W. Bullinger, the comma really belongs after the word “today.” The reason for this concerns the use of the Greek word for “today,” semeron. Bullinger explains in his lexicon,
When it comes after a verb, it belongs to that verb, unless it is separated from it and thrown into the next clause by the presence of hoti (that).
E.W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, 810-811.
Now let’s turn to the verse. The verb after which semeron occurs is “I say,” lego. There are thus two possible translations of this sentence in Luke, depending on whether or not hoti is used. They are as follows.
With hoti, the sentence would read:
“Assuredly I say to you that (hoti) today, you will be with me in Paradise.
Or without hoti:
“Assuredly I say [preceding verb] to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.
Bullinger makes reference to other examples where this is demonstrated in the NT (e.g. Matt 21:28, “Go today, and work in the vineyard”), and perhaps more importantly for Luke, in the Septuagint such as Dt 8:1, “All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do.”
It is a widely recognised and prominent feature of Luke’s Gospel that the Greek used is clearly influenced by the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. And as you look through the Septuagint, you will see that semeron, translated “this day,” routinely belongs to the preceding verb (in cases where there is a preceding verb. This is not an overly subtle twist or unwarranted claim on my part. It is universally accepted in Lukan scholarship that his Greek reflects the Septuagint.
Commenting on this passage, Joseph Hong, although he opposes what I am suggesting, admits the facts of the case. At a confident moment he asserts that it “undeniably makes more sense to associate the word with the following clause, rather than the preceding clause.” [Hong, “Understanding and Translating ‘Today’ in Luke 23:43,” The Bible Translator 46:4 (1995), 416.]
But while this is his conclusion, he is forced, when actually dealing with the evidence in the text itself, to back away and acknowledge that this is not really where the weight of evidence lies. Attempting to describe the evidence as uninstructive, he was prepared to say (in contrast to the above quote), “from a strictly textual point of view it is impossible to determine which of the clauses before and after it the word ‘today’ should be associated with” (p. 416). What a contrast. It is even more intriguing to note that when he is surveying the same biblical evidence Bullinger referred to, he is forced to admit even more: “As a preliminary observation we can say that as a rule, ‘today’ is placed after the related verb.” (p. 412)
So the translation that he claims is “undeniably” more sensible is also the view that the evidence shows is not normally correct. He’s right about the evidence, but wrong about what is undeniable. Hong does not say that this observation is necessarily or universally true, only that it is a true preliminary observation. This is wise, because insisting on hard, fast and inevitable rules in the way Greek sentences must be constructed generally paves the way for counterexamples that somebody might be able to hunt down and use to trip you. General observations are good enough. Following these observations in this case means that the related verb would be lego, “I say,” rather than ese, “you will be.”
While numerous commentators make very brief comments of disagreement towards the suggestion of Bullinger, these dismissive comments tend not to incorporate evidence based in New Testament Greek. Evans, in his commentary on Luke, says that in fact there are some early manuscripts that do punctuate the verse in this way (of course the very earliest mss had no punctuation at all), (C.F. Evans, Saint Luke, TPI New Testament Commentaries (London: SCM Press Press, 1990), 874.). That manuscript is Codex Vaticanus.
Codex Vaticanus showing Luke 23:43. Note the dot after "semeron."
Just as in the case of other contentious issues (intelligent design, global warming, the case for America’s invasion of Iraq), what one makes of even tangible, visible evidence like this is always going to be controlled to some extent by one’s prior commitments. Online apologists for the traditional view have argued at length that the mark here must be an either accidental “blot” or an incorrect punctuation mark added by an unknown editor at an unknown time, while some Jehovah’s Witnesses (whose New World Translation places the comma after “today”) claim this manuscript as solid proof of their position. Such blots do occur in New Testament manuscripts, and it is at least possible that this dot that resembles a comma in precisely the place where some people argue that a comma belongs is just a lucky (or unlucky) coincidence. I accept that. Much more importantly, however, I heed the advice of New Testament textual scholar Bruce Metzger, who warns: “The presence of marks of punctuation in early manuscripts of the New Testament is so sporadic and haphazard that one cannot infer with confidence the construction given by the punctuator to the passage.” [Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 3rd Edition, 1975). This evidence is tenuous, but it should be considered evidence nonetheless. The grammatical argument, however, must be considered with or without the manuscript evidence.
Although the evidence that I have seen in the New Testament supports Bullinger’s claim, I would take seriously the charge that his claim is too strong. Maybe the rule is not hard and fast. Maybe someone might at some point dig up an unambiguous case where hoti is not used and where semeron belongs to the following verb. At very least, Bullinger has drawn our attention to the burden of proof. There are undeniably plenty of cases where semeron belongs to the preceding verb, and there are cases where hoti is used, clearly forcing semeron into the following clause. What we now know as a result of this is that anyone who insists that semeron must attach to the following verb where hoti is not used must shoulder the burden of proof and provide clear evidence for why this choice must be made, since there does exist a tendency for this practice to not be followed in the New Testament.
Theologically, the translation that I am tentatively proposing says nothing contentious. Unlike the traditional reading, it does not force the time frame for the fulfilment of Jesus’ words to that very day, but neither does it deny that time frame. It says nothing about when the criminal should expect to be in paradise, only that he should expect it.
My worry is that since the second explanation of Luke 23:43 that I have offered (the grammatical argument) takes so much longer to unpack, readers might think that I am attaching significantly more weight to it than to the first argument. I am not. I think that the first argument is more than enough and actually renders the second argument moot. But the second argument is sufficiently interesting that it should be considered as well.
On the whole, then, I do not think that Luke 23:43 should be used as part of a larger attempt to reverse the wider biblical picture of human nature and death. At most it should give us pause, but at very least we can say that there is at least one very plasuible way to resolve this pause, perhaps even two.
Glenn Peoples
Similar Posts:
- Episode 042: The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection
- Eat, Drink, and be Merry: 1 Corinthians 15 and Physicalism
- Ehrman: I’m not destroying Christianity, I’m only destroying the Bible!
- Biblical scholarship and the push for novelty
- The Bible, abortion, and extra-biblical knowledge
- I’m not picking on Robert Peterson, I swear!
Tags: eschatology, Gospel of Luke, intermediate state, interpretation, New Testament Studies, physicalism, Theology / Biblical Studies
These are good solid points. Would you say the same “argument from experience” could aptly be applied to Phillipians 1:23?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Absolutely Joey. When I die I expect to experience departing this life and immediately being with Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think both of these points together make it fairly certain that this verse does not support the “traditonal view”. But thats just me I guess.
The question that I have is why do we have to have a “soul sleep”? I mean, Paul suggests that “in a twinkling of an eye we will be changed”. I have always understood this in the context of “the new spiritual body”. So, what happens in this temporal sphere is really irrelevant, since to the dead the next thing they know is either destruction or life eternal.
Do we really _need_ to call it anything?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
oh, i just read your post, I was typing this and didnt refresh the page lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m going to have to check out your podcast series on this subject; I’ve long had physicalist leanings but not from a position of scholarly knowledge.
One question, though, about the fate of the unsaved after death. Will they too experience a resurrection, followed by a judgment and final destruction? Or will death in this life simply be the end?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Geoff – the transformation int he twinkling of an eye in 1 Corinthians 15 refers to the time when Christ returns and the dead are raised.
CPE, yeah the New Testament is pretty clear that the saved and the lost all rise in the resurrection (e.g. John 5:28, Acts 24:15).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where is the evidence?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, nail, head, bullseye.
When you say at the beginning regarding how these views rub conservative evangelicals up the wrong way, my experience is they cry ‘heretic’ and overtly or covertly, cut all ties. Such a shame. Good post, cheers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think this is one of the hardest things conservative evangelicals have wrapping their heads around. I am not really an evangelical anymore, but I still have a deep issues dealing with the mind/body problem.
However, at my funeral (and I hope it is far away) I don’t want anyone telling people “Joel is looking down on us from heaven” or something like that. I want people to emphasize that I will rise again in a PHYSICALLY RESURRECTED body.
Good call. Thanks for the nice post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Will the person impersonating Richard Dawkins please stop? I don’t know if you are an atheist feeling the need to lend a little weight to your arguments (or, questions as they more often seem to be) or a Christian playing a weakened devil’s advocate. But it’s pretty lame.
Be proud of your own name and don’t rely on the weight of others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, putting the physicalist view forward, and the generally Biblically-held expression of no eternal component of humanity surviving after death, what actually happens at the point of salvation and the point of death.
Scripture would seem to point to the Holy Spirit residing in an individual at the moment of faithful confession of Jesus as Lord and saviour, including an OT equivalent of saving faith. As Ecclesiastes states, the spirit returns from whence it came on death. I would suggest that the Holy Spirit, the seal of our hope in the resurrection, returns to God and confirms our name remaining in the book of eternal life. If, before we die, we have rejected the gospel, the HS has departed our body and so on death we can only expect a resurrection before condemnation to the second death.
Seem reasonable to you? It robs God of His merciful gift of eternal life if we already have that element built in somehow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting. You put in words (the argument from experience) what I have thought for a long time. It just always seemed common sense that to the dead person, arriving at judgement was instantaneous, but to the living, judgement was yet to come.
To hijack the phrase: “already, not yet”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
James, I think that the idea of the spirit returning to God when we die, as I explained in my latest podcast episode “In Search of the Soul, Part 5,” only refers to us giving up the breath of life, the sustaining power of God, like animals do when they die.
I don’t think the Holy Spirit physically dwells inside our frame. I don’t even think that idea makes sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The idea that the Holy Spirit in-dwells the believer is scattered throughout the NT; it makes no sense that this concept makes no sense. What about 1 Cor 6:19 – Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? Or Eph 1:13. The NT is replete with believers receiving or being filled with the Holy Spirit. He is the seal to show we are saved, our teacher and the perfect representation of Jesus IN each person.
In the above post, I concur that spirit means the breath of life, but I see compelling evidence for the Holy Spirit acting as the confirmatory agent that, at the moment of death, we qualify for eternal life at the resurrection. The believer dies and is no more aware of time, yet that connection with the Holy Spirit, the seal being returned to God as it were, inks our names into the Lamb’s book of life.
It makes perfect sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I don’t see this stuff about the Holy Spirit being a confirmatory agent at the moment of death or anything like that.
As for the idea making so sense, we are spatial. The Holy Spirit is immaterial and not located in space. That’s why I think it makes no sense.
Have a look at a recent blog post of mine on the popular idea that the Holy Spirit actually lives inside human bodies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The gramatical argument may hold some water. It would be interesting to see if there are exceptions. The harder the rule, the more solid the argument, but frequent exceptions point to which translation fits the sentence and context best.
I think the first argument is not that effective unless one is arguing for time dilation, that is, it is not an apparent instance because one is unconscious, but a real instance because the time taken is really such. I especially think this with Phillipians because the contrast is staying for fruitful ministry, or being with Jesus. If Paul knew it was soul sleep his argument makes no sense, why not stay alive?
But even if we concede the Lukan passage offers no argument for or against soul sleep, there are other arguments against it. That is not the point of this post but have you dealt with other passages elsewhere?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t really see why the argument from experience needs any sort of time dilation. I can easily imagine why a battle wearied Paul might wish to experience the immediate presence of Christ, but also sense the duty of serving the church.
And as for other texts, I think there are about four in total, including this one. And no, I haven’t covered them here yet. I think there’s a ready answer for each of these texts on what is probably the shortest list in the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
battle wearied Paul
If that were the case, I guess possible (but I think unlikely given the argument offered); but the context doesn’t read battle wearied, either immediately or the letter. The Phillipians bring Paul great joy, but nothing can offer the joy of being in the presence of Christ. I am not unfamiliar with this thought, my pastor suggests what you are here as applied to Phillipians. If soul sleep were known to be true, then I guess one could squeeze these ideas from Phillipians. But if one is establishing the intermediate state I think Phillipians speaks against your thesis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
bethyada, I think you’re a bit to keen to see a thesis discredited. There is no reason at all why an argument from experience is inferior to some “time dilation” theory.
You can say, if you insist on saying it, that the experience of immediately being with the Lord is not a positive thing and that Paul would not have desired it in and of itself. I have no motivation to accept that, nor do I see a strong reason, apart from a doctrinal one
to accept it. My reading of that passage leaves the door open to either view on the intermediate state.
PS – I’m curious as to who your pastor is now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, you said, ‘The Holy Spirit is immaterial’. I would disagree. What little we can glean from the bible about the nature of spirit matter is that it too occupies space but just not of a form we can comprehend, nor does it adhere to the rules governing our universe.
Thanks for pointing out a blog entry more relevant to some of my points above. I read it and submitted some thoughts. Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
James, I’m intrigued. Where exactly does the Bible state (or at a minimum suggest) what you are asking us to accept?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it’s great that so much of Christian scholarship is highlighting and moving away from the idea that we’ll float off as disembodied spirits of some gasseous nebulous state to live in heaven in a state of being for the more biblical idea that whole person is a physically embodied person and that ultimately, life after death will entail a body, but it seems to me that the pendulum is swinging to far the other way.
What doesn’t make sense to me is in virtue of what a resurrected body has in common with the former earthly body if not consiousness that survived somehow after death. Our bodies decay, scatter and become part of other bodies.
I certainly don’t think it can be wrapped up in our organization. It seems to me for example that the transportation thought experiments where one could in theory have the information of the structure of his body transmitted to another location, have matter their assembled and then the original destroyed serves only to create a clone that thinks it lived your life and results in your death.
here’s a biblical counter example. Revelations 6 it seems presents the souls of the saints presumably prior to the ressurection asking God how long it will be before he acts and judges. It presents the number of souls accumulating as the saints are slain.
As for the matter of the allegedly Christian Physicalism competing with Hellenistic thought, I’d be more wary of citing common ground with paganism as a reason to doubt. It may be a reason for scrutiny, but clearly we should not be surprised that Christianity should agree with other religions on some grounds given that religions say lots of things and are bound to agree. Surely there is disagreement here, we emphasize the importance of embodiment, but this to me doesn’t indicate an absolute statement against disembodiment as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rob, of course the mere fact of agreement with paganism doesn’t prove an idea false, and I wouldn’t suggest this. What I said is that the Biblical teaching here does in fact mark a point of difference from its pagan surroundings.
Regarding your comments about the connection between us now and us at the resurrection, that was the subject of a recent podcast: In Search of the Soul, part four.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And in Genesis 4:10, God says that Abel’s blood is crying out from the ground…
I’m not convinced that the Revelation 6 account is, at all, something we should be deriving our theory or the nature of persons from… It’s just not, at all, what that passage is trying to convey, and in texts of the apocalyptic genre, reading in such “extra” meanings is generally suspect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nathan, is it my statement on the nature of spirit that intrigued you? I’m sorry that I’m often big on ideas but light on scripture. It does look a bit kooky on inspection, but inferences from scripture, and direct verses, have led me to question the misty vapour nature of spirit that we are conditioned to understand it as, from Greek thinking to Hollywood.
The inferences come from the verses (and I can dig them out if you wish but am mindful not to hijack Glenn’s thread further) that clearly separate heaven as the domain of spiritual beings from earth as the home of created beings (us) eg John 3:13. We can’t intrude on heaven, except by visions (Paul’s for instance), but spiritual beings can mix with humanity (Nephilim in Gen 6, angelic visitations, Abraham’s conversation before Sodom’s destruction). I also like the passages in the gospels that describe Jesus’s post-resurrection nature; he appeared among them; he was touchable, he ate with them, he had (note) flesh and bones, but not flesh and blood. In the OT the life was regarded as being in the blood (Levitcus), but in the incorruptable body (1 Cor 15) the life is direct from God through a physical resurrected body that is still classed as SPIRIT.
Therefore, I see the gnostic/Platonic version of the nature of spirit in direct contradiction to the biblical expression. Does that make sense?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
thanks Glenn, that was great, and I agree. I admit I only read the first section
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
James,
“Spiritual beings” in whatever shape/form/substance they take are not the same shape/form/substance as the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit was not created.
In the OT life is given by God who “breathed” it into Adam and it is this life-sustaining breath that keeps the saved alive post-resurrection. Those that are not saved have this life-sustaining ‘breath’ removed from them at judgement and their remains destroyed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nathan, I don’t know why the Holy Spirit has to be different to other spiritual beings just because he was not created. After all Jesus was not created either and he has the form of a man.
As far as Adam’s pre-fall existence goes, I believe he was endowed with the Holy Spirit and so could commune with God on a minute-by-minute basis as we can (albeit God chose material form to fellowship with him which would have negated a faith walk!) In other words God’s breath gave him natural life, cognitive thought etc (dualists would call this element a soul/spirit); the Holy Spirit gave him spiritual life.
He disobeyed and ate the fruit despite God having declared to him that if he ate of it he shall surely die (Gen 2:17). Adam lived many hundreds of years beyond that day and eventually died a natural death (I don’t think they were created eternal otherwise why would God have barred them from the tree of eternal life?), but he died spiritually when the Holy Spirit was lifted from him and he was no longer able to commune with God on the same intimate level.
That’s my take anyhow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I understood ge 2:7 to mean that the Creator put a spirit into the man. This is what makes us different from animals. When the man dies, the spirit is released and goes to death, whether Abraham’s Bosom or Hades, to await either resurrection without condemnation or face judgement (respectively) and a last chance to argue one’s case before Judge Jesus and one final hope to avoid the second death, being thrown into the Lake of Fire.
How do you explain demonic possession, if not for our bodies being controllable vessels (although with a will of its own).
However, maybe you are partially correct. What is a spirit, and what is the religious mumbo jumbo that relegates spirituallity to mysticism and mythology? I think a spirit is a much more physical and real object than we take it for. I think these bodies we control are limited in what they can see, hear, touch and feel in the world around us. There are other beings and technologies all around us of which we are completely ignorant (2 Kings 6:17). I think Abraham’s Bosom/Paradise/Hades/Tartarus/Death are actual physical locations in the bowels of this planet (1 Sam 28:13)
There are tons of references all through the Bible about the spiritual nature of who we are, because we are also sons of God, just like Jesus who is our kinsman redeemer. Why else would we be instructed to walk in the spirit and overcome the lusts of the flesh? – a simple instruction without any hint of symbolism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
jiranz2, “I understood ge 2:7 to mean that the Creator put a spirit into the man. This is what makes us different from animals.”
The trouble is, that same Old Testament also says that the animals have that very same thing mentioned in Genesis 2:7 in them – the neshamah that comes from God. So that’s not something that makes humans and cows different.
Walking “in the Spirit,” I think is a reference to the Holy Spirit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for your reply – more questions though
.
Where? I looked for strong’s 05397 but couldn’t find a reference to normal animals. In some cases, like Daniel, it does appear to refer to the physical breathing of the body.
Isaiah 42:5 is interesting – combines breath of God with spirit in same sentence.
I think to walk in the spirit means to demonstrate love, joy peace, … what Paul calls the fruits of the spirit because God approves and values those things. It’s up to us to overcome the lusts of the flesh; and Paul tells at length how difficult it is to do so. At the end of the day, the body is worthless; the spirit is the life-giver.
Another thing, as for us each being temples or collectively a temple, I think both answers may be right. Rev 3:20 indicates a personal coming of Jesus into a man, and the other argument above is also interesting – also God is too big for a single dwelling.
Now though experience isn’t Biblical, you should go interview ambulance officers. I met one, not a Christian, who has got used to near-death patients looking at invisible people, often past-dead relatives. There may well be some souls that walk the earth before the angels take them away. What do you think of Jesus raising the dead from the sea, death and hell, keeping in mind that Jesus allowed Legion to run into the sea? Have you considered the book of Enosh on the topic of spirits?
Bill Deagle’s [I don't know his reputation, ups and downs or life's mistakes] story (via camelot studios) is fascinating.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
jiranz, regarding the way the Bible uses the words for spirit and breath, you might enjoy a podcast episode of mine here where I cover that.
I’ve become very skeptical of personal stories about surviving death (or near death). They are contradictory and subject to many possible explanations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not to mention that the brain just does weird things sometimes under weird stimuli. Almost dying certainly qualifies for that.
The only way to tell for sure that something’s up is if they knew something they couldn’t otherwise, like an out-of-body experience where they see something on the top shelf that they couldn’t have seen before, and I’ve heard of such stories, but as I have no better than hearsay evidence I would never use that to make a point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The quote you gave above read “today you will be with me in paradise.”
Bibles didn’t use to read like that. There is an entirely different meaning between:
“today you will be with me in paradise”
“to day shalt thou be with me in paradise”
1) shalt and will (or wilt) are different words with different meanings. This can be confirmed with any decent English dictionary.
2) Consider the familiar “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” It doesn’t read “You will not commit adultery” because that would make God a liar the first time someone took his neighbor’s wife. There is a difference between the two words, and it’s quite significant.
3) a solid example of the King James usage of the word “shalt” in combination with “this day” can be found in 1 Samuel 18:21, where Saul promises that “this day thou shalt be my son in law in one of the twain.” David was not married that day: there were multiple days of time span expected to pass, a lot of traveling, killing, and presumably a bath before the wedding ceremony. David was not the king’s son-in-law until after the wedding (see verse 27).
4) Americans, Scotsmen, etc are notoriously bad about knowing how to use “shall” and “will” correctly in English grammar. Fowler’s “The King’s English” comments on this, and has a whole section devoted to “shall” and “will.” There’s an old joke of the Scotsman who falls in the river and drowns, yelling “I will drown! No one shall help me!” When that makes sense, you’ve got the meaning.
So here’s my point. I’m not sure what version you’re quoting above, but if you were using an earlier version, such as Wycliffe (1300s), Tyndale (1525), Bishops (1568), Geneva (1587), or the King James (1611, 1769) all of them read correctly:
“to day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (King James Version)
Which is absolutely correct, and not the least bit contradictory of “soul sleep” or any other biblical passage. Grammatically, this is the giving of a command, a proclamation, a promise, under the authority of the speaker, and the promise is issued that very day.
The “moving the comma” is generally not good.
1) The resulting phrase of “I say unto you today, you will be with me in Paradise” has a very weak meaning. Rather than a promise given under his own authority, this becomes simply a prediction that the thief would be with Christ in Paradise …
2) It involves an argument to re-translate accepted scripture, when proper accepted scripture already reads correctly, if we take the time to learn English grammar. The ancient and accepted English translations are entirely in favor of “soul sleep” no matter how many new translations modify the text so that their version places Jesus and the Thief in heaven that day.
Sometimes a difference in grammar can entirely change the meaning: this is one of those examples.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The trouble with that is, Andrew, in Luke 23:43 the word translated “shalt” or “will” is emou (from eimi) does actually mean “will.”
It’s a feature of langauge in Hebrew, Greek and English, that statements in the form of factual predictions can and do serve as instructions (e.g. “Young man you will go straight home right now and you will go to your room!”). This is how, for example, the word eimi works. It is literally a prediction, but sometimes it can be used as instruction. Here are some examples of it in use (I’ll follow your example and use the King James version):
Matthew 6:21 “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
Matthew 10:15 “Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
Matthew 13:49 “So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just…”
Mark 13:13 “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”
Luke 1:34 “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”
I won’t labour the point. But the fact is, eimi is the ordinary word for “will” in the mere predictive sense, so there’s no linguistic reason to take it to mean any more than this in Luke 23:43.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You gave a couple examples where the Greek emou is used in the predictive sense. However, it took me only seconds to find an example of the same Greek word used in the command (proclamation) sense:
Mat 5:48 KJV
(48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Clearly, that is not “predictive.” Not everyone he is talking to is going to be “perfect.” In fact, there is a good case that not a single person can possibly fulfill this command, so if this was “predictive” that would make Jesus a liar, or a failed “predictor.”
Linguistically (as demonstrated above) the Greek emou can be translated as “shall” or “will” – not because the two words are the same, but because the Greek word covers that a range that includes the scope of both English words!
If your translators are trying to create a case for “flying to heaven as an immortal spirit when you die” they will translate this Greek word as “you will be”, as in “today you will be with me in paradise.” This places Jesus and the thief in Paradise, together, sometime that day.
If your translators had peeked ahead in scripture even a little, noticed that Christ was dead and in the grave for three days, known that the dead “know nothing” and realized that the dead still had not risen when Paul wrote his letters, they will translate this Greek word as “thou shalt be” as in “today thou shalt be with me in paradise.” This is the date that the divine promise to the thief is sealed.
Need another Greek example? They are all over the place:
Mat 6:5 KJV
(5) And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
If that was “predictive” then Jesus would be made a liar as soon as someone prayed like the hypocrites. No, this was “declarative” … “will” would have been an improper translation in this verse, and it would be very sad if a translator was so ignorant as to think that Jesus was making a prediction, instead of issuing a commandment.
Yet, this is exactly what our modern translators have done in the RSV, NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV… while making a fake excuse that “shall” is an obsolete word with identical meaning to “will.”
Do you need more examples? It doesn’t seem that you looked very hard… those two were from the first four possible Greek instances. At this rate, you are likely to find another 90+ examples (50%) of the same Greek word used in a purely “declarative” sense.
“You will not bear false witness.” That’s a [false] prediction.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness.” That’s a command.
So, instead of arguing about “linguistic reasons” please recognize:
1) The Greek texts requires proper translation
2) Our English reformers were not hostile to “soul sleep” and valued the doctrine of the resurrection
3) This is reflected in the English text of said Bibles, including the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops, and King James translations
4) These translations read correctly in this passage, unlike modern translations which have been edited to try to provide support for the “immortal soul”
In other words, the meaning is a matter of translation, and we’ve already had the correct translation for 650 years, since the days of John Wycliffe all the way through the standardized King James Version. It’s only been modified to fit the “traditional view” in the last 130 years, since the Revised Standard Version of 1881.
Or do you really think that “today you will be with me in Paradise” was the correct choice of translation?
New Zealanders might be just as bad with their grammatical usage of “shall” and “will” than the notorious Scots, but trust me, from personal experience, it’s not that hard to learn, once you set your mind to it. You can’t separate English grammar from English language, and since our Bible is written in English, it’s time to learn the grammar, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, I never said that the word eimi is never used to issue commands. On the contrary, I actually stated that it can be used that way. Recall:
It is therefore unfair and even careless for you to now challenge me, asking “do you want more examples”? I never denied that it can be used in an instructive way, so why issue this challenge? What I showed you is that the mere presence of this word does not and cannot show that it is instructive, since it is commonly used in a predictive way. Your claim was that this word, since it is translated “shalt,” is not a prediction. What you can now (hopefully) see is that this is not the case. This word very often serves as a prediction, and the predictive word can, in some cases, have an instructional sense (as it does in english).
And yes, I think that “will” is the correct translation here. It certainly doesn’t mean “today I instruct you to be with me in Paradise.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Was it “unfair” and “careless” to ask you if you wanted more examples? Sorry for misunderstanding – the only other reason you could have for arguing that “shall” was an incorrect translation would be a denial denial that this little Greek word covered the scope of a set of words, inclusive of Shall and Will.
I had thought that you had merely overlooked this, and needed a positive example. I didn’t realize that you actually had the logic backwards, and reasoned that if “will” has even once been a correct application, that it is always the correct application?
If you think that “will” is the correct translation here, then your Bible contains multiple contradictions that now hinge on that verse, because:
1) Jesus was not in Paradise that day,
a. Acts 2:31, his soul was not left in hell,
b. John 20:17 three days later he had not yet ascended
2) the thief was not in Paradise that day
a. Ecc 9:5, the dead know nothing, nor have any reward
b. 2Ti 2:18 the resurrection is an event yet future, and is not past
Biblical context provides more than sufficient information for a translator to correctly apply that little Greek word to its specific meaning of “shall.”
Your refutation logic is backwards, and you misrepresent what I said entirely. My claim was not that “this word, sinceit is translated “shalt”, is not a prediction.” My claim was that this word is correctly translated “shalt” because it is not a prediction, but a promise and a decree.
The accepted English translation is evidence of the correct meaning, just like green leaves are evidence of Spring, and good works is evidence of a living faith. It is likewise backwards logic or misrepresentation to say that I was claiming that it Spring existed because of the leaves, or that faith existed because of good works.
It seems like you are purposely trying to mangle the meaning with your “today I instruct you to be with me in Paradise” … it reminds me of when someone purposely tries to make their body rigid to “prove” that they cannot reach something on a high shelf. Please try again, more sincerely, without trying to fail this time?
“To day I decree that you will be with me in Paradise.”
Did Moses deliver the “Ten Instructions” to Israel? No, he didn’t. So why did you put forth “today I instruct…” as a construction? The Ten Commandments could have been called the Ten Decrees. They were not the Ten Suggestions, or the Ten Predictions.
Did you stop and read the account in 1 Samuel where the same English word structure is used? Did you take the time to learn the differences in these two words?
I cannot figure out if you’ve realized that you’ve already admitted that both words (shall, and will) are necessary to cover the entire scope of the meaning of the Greek emou, because first you deny it, and then you admit it, while denying the resulting implications.
One thing that just now strikes me as funny: you’re the first person I’ve seen that has said that “to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise” was an incorrect translation, to be corrected by changing “shalt” to “wilt.” That’s a new experience, for me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, just have a look back over what I’ve said, because you’re misconstruing me.
1) I have observed that eimi is usually translated “will.”
2) I have observed that eimi functions exactly like the English word “will.” It’s usually predictive, but can carry an imperative or declarative connotation. This is true of our word “will.”
3) In my original blog entry, I never said that this verse should be changed by changing “shalt” to “wilt.” I said that there may be a translation error based on where the comma is placed. I never even used the word “wilt” in my blog entry, so I don’t know where you got that from.
In regard to the “contradictions” you refer to, I hope you noticed that in this blog entry I explained that I was providing translation solutions that were compatible with Jesus NOT being in paradise that day.
You’re obviously passionate about the difference between “will” and “shalt” for some reason. You know, I am sure, that if we wanted to know which greek word should be used for the word “will,” it would indeed be eimi. I have learned, however, that it is sometimes best not to get between a man and his passion, so I won’t try to argue the matter further.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Glenn,
A reminder, you said: “Here are some examples of it in use (I’ll follow your example and use the King James version):”
1) Given that you already said that you were using the King James Version for your comparison, your first observation is entirely inaccurate, and can be demonstrated false. “Usually” would imply something better than a 50% ratio. Did you count any instances at all? Did you measure anything, or just pretend to?
Translation as “shall” is the rule, not an exception as you state.
This is easily measured. I could start listing instances (out of the set of 188 New Testament instances) … but that’s not good use of blog space.
Out of 170 New Testament verses that contain said Greek esoumai only 25 even contain “will” “wilt” or “would” anywhere within the verse… these can be individually checked.
Mat 6:21,
Luke 12:34, 12:55, 21:7, 22:49,
John 12:26,
2 Corinthians 6:16, 6:18 (one instance each)
2 Timothy 4:3
Hebrews 1:5, 8:10 (one instance each)
Hebrews 2:13, 8:12,
Revelation 21:3, 21:7 (one instance each)
So, to compared, when you say that “you have observed that eimi is usually translated “will” you are really only referring to an 8% minority of the total instances, 15 in all.
I’m left to conclude either that you only wanted to make it seem that you had collected data, or that your observations are worth very little.
2) Faulty observations lead to faulty conclusions. The Greek word esoumai does not function exactly like the English word “will.”
I do not think you would say this if you were used to using “shall” and “will” in everyday speech. Did you looking up the words “shall” and “will” in a decent English dictionary yet? Their application between predictive and declarative depend on whether it’s used in the 1st person, or the 2nd/3rd persons (although it’s really less complex than it seems at first glance.)
3) You had said that you believed “today you will be with me in Paradise” to be the correct translation. Grammatically, by choosing the word “the” you excluded all others, including the “shalt” that we were already discussing.
As I was trying to point out, I don’t think you are used to hearing these words used correctly. “today you will be with me in Paradise” says:
a) That Jesus predicted he would be in Paradise that Passover
b) That Jesus predicted that the thief would be in Paradise that Passover
c) That Jesus issued this statement by his status as a “predictor” and that Jesus did not have the authority to issue this as a promise.
The argument of “moving the comma” (popular among the Jehovah’s Witnesses) has little effect on the meaning of the word “shall” in this verse. The only thing that would do is to indicate that the promise of salvation was not something that was determined that day … which would be decidedly more friendly to the Calvinists, who would argue that the Thief’s fate was sealed before he was born.
* * *
I understand perfectly if the difference between “shall” and “will” sounds confusing to someone who is not used to hearing the grammar in normal speech. But you’re advertising that you have multiple degrees in Theology: you’re not supposed to pretend to have researched something, when you haven’t.
* You did not “observe” that said Greek is translated as “will” in the majority of cases.
* It is obviously false that “will” is the G2071 esomai equivalent. Equivalent is a mathematical term meaning “equals” and “always replaces” and not the same as “is sometimes correctly translated as…”
* Given that “shall” and “will” are and not interchangeable,
* Given that “shall” and “will” are among the set of acceptable translations,
*** It is a mathematical impossibility that said Greek word is equivalent to either “shall” or “will” because it covers the range included by this set.
In a different field, if “fruit” includes apples, pears, and oranges, then “apples” can never be equivalent to “fruit” because “apples” is a subset of fruit. This isn’t rocket science, and it doesn’t require degrees in Hebrew or Greek, either.
So, I’m a bit irked that you would pretend to know what you’re talking about, then speak with authority about something to give wrong information, without attempting to take the time to even assimilate the information first.
I’m also a little passionate against those that pretend to be Hebrew and Greek scholars when they don’t know what they’re talking about, and act as if they have authority, and put others down with their bluff.
You have a banner that says “Help me get to Oxford!” It is my experience there often seems to be a direct correlation between the amount of Theological letters behind one’s name and the potential for a welded mix of arrogance and reinforced stupidity. I see this all the time. Why do you want to go to Oxford?
Back to “passionate:” I get upset when people create false statistics, and start repeating them as fact. How did you make your observation that this word was usually translated “will?”
You said you won’t try to argue the matter further. I hope you’ve figured out what I’m trying to say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For the record, Glenn, I’m not saying you’re a bad guy, but the syndrome I was describing runs pretty rampant in some places, so perhaps my fuse was a little shortened in this regard. I may be “passionate” but I also forgive easily, too.
Peace,
-Andrew
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I’m left to conclude either that you only wanted to make it seem that you had collected data, or that your observations are worth very little.”
Now just a minute, that’s just misleading. You know as well as I do – because you’ve checked – that the predictive sense of eimi is the normal one. You’re now just trying to avoid this because it doesn’t have the word “will” – but it is the predictive sense that we were debating. Will you at least tell readers that you found this out in your checking, and observed that the predictive sense is the most common for eimi? It’s not even a debatable point.
Without revisiting the arguments, if you will simply acknowledge this easily observed fact, then I will be able to see that it’s the truth that you’re interested in. If you actually won’t acknowledge this, then I don’t know what your agenda was, but it wasn’t truth. Your strange but very strong drive for the KJV language makes me wonder if it’s the KJV that’s the object of your support here.
Tell me, would you regard yourself as a believer that the KJV is the best version we have? The only reliable translation today, perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
Do you know how to determine when instances of “shall” and “will” are predictive and when they are declarative?
I’m not going to lie for your readers. The majority of the instances are declarative. I don’t even know why you’re arguing this, because it really doesn’t matter on this topic anyway: the only thing that really matters is that both are possible translations.
But, since you insist on trying to engage in one-up-man-ship and arguing the contrary:
I just finished demonstrating that only 8% of the possible instances resulted in a translation of will. The other 92% fall into the “shall” category. The only way “shall” would become “predictive” is if it was used in the 1st person.
Maybe it’s your turn to do some research. You would have to show that a significant enough percentage of the instances are either:
1) “shall” in the first person
2) “will” (or “wilt”) in the second or third persons
I’ve already demonstrated that 92% of these instances use a form of “shall” and anyone who has read the Bible much should recognize that the first person “I shall” form is very uncommon. Therefore, if you insist that there is only one “normal” sense, meaning “most common”, then that sense is the declarative, not the predictive.
You have a finite set of 188 total instances in the New Testament to search from. If you can demonstrate a set of at least 95 instances where this word is used in the first person “shall” or the second/third person “will” then you would be able to contradict me.
The only reason that I can figure that you’re arguing would be because you don’t know the difference between a prediction or a declarative promise/command.
shall, v, [pt should] … to determine futurity in the first person, and determination, obligation, etc. in the second and third persons.
In the colloquial tongue, “futurity” means “predictive.”
So, according to you, unless I recant what I’ve already proved and “agree with you” I am “not seeking truth.” And you’re the measure of truth? Bad form, Glenn. Bad form. If you want me to agree with you, then PROVE something, and stop expecting me to take your word (or “observations”) as gospel when what you say flies in the face of known evidence.
What you’re doing now is wanting to be honored as an expert in an aspect that you haven’t attempted to research. On this subject, I once had someone (authoritatively) tell me that the reason “shalt” was used in Luke 23:43 was because “there is no such thing a a 2nd person form of will.”
To his credit, however, he allowed himself a chance to be proven wrong, if I could provide “at least one instance in scripture where there is a 2nd person form of will.” He actually backed down a little when I gave him a list of 245 instances and the appropriate entry from dictionary.com identifying “wilt” as a specific 2nd person form of “will.”
So why are you arguing that Luke 23:43 must be speaking in the mere predictive sense? I can think of a few “agendas”
1) You might have an extreme bias for a particular newer translation: i.e. an “the New International Version is inerrant” position, or so forth…
2) You might have a grudge against the older accepted English translations, and want to deny them credit for being correct.
3) You might be afraid that it would “look stupid” to have not noticed the Conditionalist implications of the grammar all this time.
4) You might think it threatens your ego if your two explanations are not honored… a fear of being “shown up” so to speak.
5) Or perhaps you might be a closet “Immortalist” that operates as a “Conditional Immortality” double-agent
You will lose a debate trying to use either of your other explanations. They have fatal flaws that will leave you in trouble. They’re not sound. I know, because I’ve seen them used to bad effect. I used to have to resort to saying that the “commas were not inspired” (I wish I had known better grammar then!)
I thought you’d appreciate a better answer. Instead, you seem offended that someone’s offering an idea that’s not your own, and you’re trying to act like an authority before you’ve studied it.
Pro 18:12-13
(12) Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility.
(13) He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
If you were interested in the truth, you wouldn’t be so quick to reply without having at least cracked a dictionary first. Think about it for while, there’s no hurry. No one is rushing you. After that, if you still want to try to show me wrong, demonstrate some form of measurable proof.
-Andrew
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I just finished demonstrating that only 8% of the possible instances resulted in a translation of will.”
But you didn’t show that only 8% of all cases are prediction. Now would anyone show this.
It’s not my job to provide a concordance service, abut anyone at all can check. Eimi just indicates statements of fact, generally predictions. You know this already because you’ve checked, but for the benefity of the reader, they can look up these:
Matt 5.21
Matt 5.22
Matt 6.21
Matt 6.22
Matt 6.23
Matt 8.12
Matt 10.15
Matt 10.22
Matt 11.22
Matt 11.24
Matt 12.27
Matt 12.40
Matt 13.40
Matt 13.42
Matt 13.49
Matt 13.50
Matt 17.17
Matt 22.13
Matt 24.3
Matt 24.7
Matt 24.9
Matt 24.21
Matt 24.27
Do we really need to go on and on and on? Every one of these cases is a prediction of some sort. I have just scratched the surface. So it’s not really a contreversial claim on my part.
“The majority of the instances are declarative.”
Predictions are declarations – declarations about what is the case or will be the case. I just don’t see the point here. You’re identifying something truly obscure.
Ego is no issue here. I have no horse in the race, and no important belief of mine stands or falls on this belief of yours. I think you’re becoming more hostile and eprsonal than I am comfortable with, however. What’s more, as for your speculation about “extreme” bias against old translations and favour for new tranlsations, these comments have revealed exactly why this is an important issue for you. Thank you for the discussion, but now that I see where it comes from, I know better than to engage the issue further. I wasn’t sure before. Now I am.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow… you posted a list of a bunch of unsubstantiated verse references? What is that supposed to demonstrate?
Let’s pull up your first instance that you claim is a “prediction”
Mat 5:21 KJV
(21) Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
A “prediction” is a statement of probability. A “declaration” is a a promise, or a command. Do you understand the difference? The former might or might not happen, depending on circumstances. The latter is not “iffy” or dependent on something else, but a statement of fact backed by the authority of the speaker.
You had a little post where a “predictor” offered two boxes, but specified that he wasn’t God, and wasn’t precognitive, but only made predictions. You seemed to understand the difference then.
Let’s see if your last verse is really as you say, also:
Mat 24:27 KJV
(27) For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Again, a statement of authority backed by the power of God. This is not a “prediction” but a promise, and I don’t know why you’re arguing that the majority of the statements using this little Greek word are predictions. The Bible is filled with “God says” statements, which are not mere predictions.
You wrote: “Every one of these cases is a prediction of some sort.”
No, apparently they weren’t.
Let’s go over the basic gist of this one more time:
1) “There will be rain” is a mere prediction. Anyone can say this.
2) “There shall be rain” is a promise. If you say this, you are saying you have the power to make it rain, and the clouds obey your word.
But it seems you do have a horse in some sort of race. You noticed that I had a “KJV” tag on my bible quotes, and you tried to “make an issue of it” instead of paying any attention to the subject.
You wrote: “Your strange but very strong drive for the KJV language makes me wonder if it’s the KJV that’s the object of your support here.”
I suspected that you were trying to create an argument there before, as a diversion. But maybe you could answer this: What’s so “strange” about knowing the difference between “shall” and “will”, between a prediction and a promise? It didn’t sound like you meant “strange” in a nice way.
It seems to me that you are demonstrating a bias: you label the King James as “strange” and would rather theorize about migrating commas that to take a few minutes to notice that the English Bible already agreed with “soul sleep” since Wycliffe first penned them from Latin in the 1300′s.
Luk 23:43 Wycliffe
(43) And Jhesus seide to hym, Treuli Y seie to thee, this dai thou schalt be with me in paradise.
Now you can poke fun at my “strange preference” for the Wycliffe language, also. I imagine you wouldn’t be very popular at Oxford telling them that most of their new translations were wrong at Luke 23:43, anyway. It’s important to not step on their toes, right?
Good luck with your horse race.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hang on a second..
“Let’s go over the basic gist of this one more time:
1) “There will be rain” is a mere prediction. Anyone can say this.
2) “There shall be rain” is a promise. If you say this, you are saying you have the power to make it rain, and the clouds obey your word.”
What if you say:
1. “There will be rain tomorrow”
2. “There shall be rain tomorrow”
In the verse in question there is such a qualification. In both 1 and 2 it will rain tomorrow.
Glenn’s grammatical argument was the placing of the comma, making the statement what Jesus says today, or about something that will happen today. Whether its “shall” or “will” is beside the point. It appears that its a wee bugbear of yours, fine, ok.
The question is, does the verse say:
“Truly I tell you today, you (will/shall – who cares..)…”
or
“truly I tell you, today you (will/shall – who cares..)…”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, as I see it you are taking predictions – sometimes very certain predictions, and just labelling them as promises, and then adding on the claim that this means they aren’t predictions. None of that is persuasive at all. Pretty much all readers of english see that. Take the example about being in danger of punishment. That was a prediction in law. The fact is, some people got away with their crimes. Did the law break promises? No, it just made a prediction. Every statement about what people will do (except for personal vows to do something oneself) is a prediction. By calling these things promises, you are agreeing with me. What more is there to disagree over? Why stir up disagreement over a matter of label changing? It’s because of your special interest in a certain translation, I suspect. Remember, I have no problem with “shall,” so it’s not like I think those Bibles that use “shall” are wrong. I think, with all respect, that this special interst is much more important than evidence in specific cases, so the interest will always be put first, and the evidence will be viewed in any way that supports that interest. That is why I say that as soon as this interest became clear, the rest of the discussion seemed rather pointless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Geoff,
The verse in Luke 23:43 is not as you suggest in your example. There is a big difference between:
“To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise”
“Thou shalt be with me in Paradise to day”
This could be easily demonstrated by diagramming the sentence (which does not work well in a blog format) so could I please turn your attention to a scriptural example?
1Sa 18:21 Geneva
(21) Therefore Saul said, I wil giue him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistims may bee against him. Wherefore Saul sayde to Dauid, Thou shalt this day be my sonne in law in the one of the twayne.
Saul knows full well that the task he gave is impossible to complete before the end of the day, which for the Hebrews, ended at sunset. David was not married that day.
Similarly, there’s the famous example from Genesis:
Gen 2:17 Tyndale
(17) But of the tre of knowlege of good and badd se that thou eate not: for even ye same daye thou eatest of it thou shalt surely dye.
Yet we know that Adam died at age nine hundred and sixty-nine. The sentence is pronounced and made sure on that day. In other words, the “same daye” modifies the shalting (the issuing of the promise) not the dying (the event promised.)
You’ve summarized your argument with “will/shall … who cares?” These are different words with different meanings. “You will not commit adultery” does not mean “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Why would you want to remain ignorant in your own native tongue?
What is the point of having the scriptures in the common tongue if you’re illiterate anyway? We might as well put it back in Latin!
If you don’t care what your Bible actually says and just plan to make up whatever you want, then “Who cares?” is your answer. You might as well go edit the scriptures with a penknife like Marcion the heretic, and make it say what you want it to say. Want to say the thief was in heaven that day? No problem: just use the prepackaged answer of “shalt and will makes not difference” and the general ignorance of the population will work in your favor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An addendum: Adam lived 930 years, not 969.
Gen 5:5 Bishops
(5) And all the dayes that Adam lyued were nine hundreth and thirtie yeres, and he dyed.
The “grammar ignorance” ploy on shalt and will backfires because it “breaks the scriptures” and creates a contradiction. I’m a firm believer in “the scriptures cannot be broken” (see John 10:35).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“so could I please turn your attention to a scriptural example?”
No.
Irrelevant.
What matters is what the original languages say, and how they should be translated into contemporary english, so that all can understand and know the truth.
Your use of archaic and irrelevant language appears to be an attempt to obfuscate, rather than to clarify.
If you wish to continue this discussion please do so using appropriate means.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0