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
To Geoff,
How do you expect to be considered competent enough to translate Hebrew and Greek into English, when you’ve proven that you don’t even understand basic English grammar?
“Shall” and “will” are not archaic. They are simply often misused, just as people often substitute the adjective “good” when they should use the adverb “well.” Have you ever heard someone say “You did good?” This does not mean that adverbs are archaic, just ignorance has become en vogue.
Stop pretending that you understand Hebrew and Greek well enough to school the Wycliffe, Tyndale, and the King James scholars. Those people not only understood the original languages, but unlike you, they also understood English grammar.
Regardless, the scriptural examples I gave were self-sustaining, and I think it’s quite telling that you refuse to address them. Adam did not die that day. David was not the king’s son-in-law that day. The thief was not with Jesus in paradise that day. You don’t need a Ph.D. in theology to figure that out.
In practice, I’ve found it takes about 3 minutes to explain this to a normal person, and they can understand it. It’s not difficult. Ignorance can be easily fixed by education. Nothing can fix willful stupidity that chooses not to understand.
For the moment, to quell your last unsubstantiated claim that the language is “archaic” (I think what you mean to imply was “irrelevant”) I will demonstrate from a web page designed for teaching English:
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-modals_shall-will.htm
The full spectrum of the English language is needed to correctly translate the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. Did you think they were written in gutter-slang, or that the Hebrews and Greeks were totally lacking such concepts included in “shall” and “will?”
In the meantime, you have not convinced me that you are honest or sincere, you refuse to discuss the proofs I’ve offered, you offer no proofs of your own, your sole argument seems to be that English grammar is archaic. If you have nothing constructive to add, just be quiet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
all I can say is “lol”, really.
But also..
“The full spectrum of the English language is needed to correctly translate the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. Did you think they were written in gutter-slang, or that the Hebrews and Greeks were totally lacking such concepts included in “shall” and “will?””
Incorrect. The “best” way to translate the original languages is into the idiom of the day in which it is translated, so it makes the most sense to those who might read it.
I don’t pretend to know Hebrew and Greek at all. I’ll let Glenn argue those points with you.
I refuse to discuss your “points” because they are irrelevant and just you trying to sell your particular slant on translations. When in fact what Glenn has raised here is a fundamental grammatical (punctuation) error, which affects the whole understanding of the passage. Try addressing that instead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
At your request, Geoff, to the point:
There is no error in punctuation in this verse in Luke 23:43. “To day” does not modify the previous phrase of “Verily I say unto you.” Why? Because:
1) it would be redundant and nonsensical and
2) As bible critics and scholars will point out in their critique of the New World Translation, there’s not a single other example of this form of phrasing in Christ’s speech in the entire New Testament (out of 76 other instances containing that “Verily I say unto you…”
Glenn is presenting a specific “grammar argument” but that argument is flawed. His problem is compounded because he is quoting a recent translation that has specifically edited that verse to make it compatible with “You fly to heaven when you die” doctrine.
Any English translation prior to 1881 has this verse translated correctly, both in comma phrasing and the use of shalt vs. will. I could add the American Standard Version of 1901 to this group also. None of these create any biblical contradiction through mistranslation in this verse. These represent 600 years of correct translations into English.
Your solution seems to be to spiral English literacy down to the level of Ebonics, and to try to “adapt” to this perceived illiteracy level by creating new scriptures with reduced vocabulary. This is a fundamentally flawed solution. We need all our English words, or there will be concepts that we will no longer be able to express that will disappear.
If you haven’t read this already, I suggest reading a book titled “1984.” It dealt the concept of thought control by removing words from the language, so that it became impossible to express or communicate certain ideas.
I’ll use an analogy, that you might understand easier. If you were to attempt to tinker with DNA, a decision that a particular series was “too difficult” and to remove it all together and replace it with something similar would cause problems, and deformities. A “look alike” does not have the same function.
Such is the case with “shall” and “will” in Luke 23:43. They may “look alike” to you, but they are entirely different words with different meanings. Change that one little word, as the Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and New American Standard Version have done, and suddenly the thief is in heaven that day.
I think that your attitude is “good” demonstration of a different problem: people don’t want to ever be told that they need to learn something.
And I’ll briefly address a second problem: people are bigots, and it is instilled into them from various avenues, and they don’t know how to recognize it, because they haven’t been called on it. Glenn noticed that I said the KJV was superior to the NIV, and he immediately shut down conversation.
He refused to analyze my statements and the issue on its merits that I presented. He judged my Bible as Black, and turned away. He may not admit this to himself, but that’s prejudice and bigotry. Apparently, it’s not safe to quote the King James, even though its language is the most readable out of the valid translations I was presenting, so I’ve availed myself of some other excellent translations for quotation purposes here.
So, to summarize:
1) You refuse to discuss the points because you don’t understand them and prefer to remain ignorant of basic English grammar. Ironically, you seem to have acted as if the Geneva and Bishops Bibles were too hard to read, presumably because of the non-standardized spelling…
… yet you seem to argue for the legitimacy of non-standardized everything (grammar, punctuation, spelling) and call it “understandable contemporary English.” That seems like a double standard, to me.
2) Glenn refuses to discuss the points because I have said that the King James (being one of a set of correct translations of this verse) is superior to the NIV (being one of a set of incorrect translations of this verse)
It looks like this conversation isn’t going anywhere. Both of you refuse to discuss the issue or analyze presented points.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So in other words, Andrew, you can’t actually rebut specific the grammatical argument that I put forward, but you’re sure it’s false?
You didn’t say a thing about the specifics of my grammatical argument. As such, I have nothing to worry about. You know, it’s fine to just say “I don’t know, because I haven’t investigated the issues Glenn raised.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t see how the first argument can stand without the second. Inwagon’s thesis isn’t compelling simply because Jesus has no need to use the word ‘today’. Omit ‘today’ and there’s no time frame in question – end of problem. If ‘today’ belongs with the antecedent then Inwagon makes no sense because Jesus could merely omit the word ‘today’ and end any need to expand on the particulars of the afterlife/soul sleep/resurrection, whichever, and His words would still be of comfort to the dying thief. Only if ‘today’ describes the preceding verb does Inwagon’s thesis make sense although it becomes rather moot.
The grammatical argument is significantly more compelling presuming the grammar being proposed is in fact correct. I have no expertise in that matter and withhold opinion until I’ve seen the counter-argument presented by a proponent (not that I think Glenn was unfair in his presentation but a proponent is more likely to present a stronger case – which is a general rule of thumb, I realize).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I think the first argument is fine – if Jesus is talking about what the criminal should expect to experience.
In fact, not only can the first argument stand without the second, but they appear to exclude each other. The first argument explains what the verse might mean if “today” belongs to the preceding verb (“say”). The second argument is that “today” doesn’t belong to the preceding verb at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
If you had bothered to read the above exchange, you might have noticed that I already gave a nutshell critique (a simplified layman’s version for Geoff) of why your so-called “grammatical argument” doesn’t work (post 53.)
Your style of response tells me several things:
1) That you are perfectly willing to misrepresent someone as a means of argument.
2) That you yourself have not researched your own argument, or else you would have recognized what I was talking about when referring to the 76 instances containing the “verily I say unto you” structure, every one with an absence of your proposed “grammatical argument.”
Glenn wrote:
It wasn’t my original intention to “rebut” your argument, and I was trying to handle this delicately because I didn’t want to make you look stupid. However, I will point out that you have inadvertently rebutted yourself.
As Archena noticed, of the two “solutions” you offer, if one is true, it contradicts the other. It’s not intellectually honest to claim that you have “the answer” when all you’re really doing is listing a set of what you consider “possible answers.”
It shows that you don’t believe your own answers. They’re not even your arguments: they’ve been made by others before (such as the Jehovah Witness Watchtower Society.) So why do you take criticism of a borrowed argument so personally?
Glenn wrote:
How hypocritical! Isn’t it funny that you haven’t said “I don’t know because I haven’t investigated the issues you’ve raised?” Instead you’ve rushed to answer. You weren’t even familiar with the differences between “shall” and “will.” I was the one kindly suggesting that you take your time.
I have researched this enough to have personally checked each similar instance of the phrase style in question, in the Greek, and verified that your specific so-called “grammatical argument” hasn’t a leg to stand on. You didn’t even recognize the reference, showing me that it’s you that hasn’t investigated the issues.
To remind you:
1) There is no grammatical reason to place a “to day” on the preceding phrase. Such would accomplish nothing and be meaningless.
2) There is not a single supporting instance in the gospels of Christ using a similar fashion of speech as proposed by your argument.
I think it’s rather hypocritical to hear you talk about “responsible blog authorship” and get upset about being “misrepresented” on another blog, when you exhibit that exact type of behavior when you have the reins of blog authorship.
In the meantime, it would be a pleasant surprise if you’d stop misrepresenting what I’ve said and casting unsupported aspersions upon my character. You have no idea what level of research I’ve done, but apparently I’ve covered areas that you’ve missed. If you put your ego aside for a moment we might get something accomplished.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, you did not even touch my grammatical argument. You told Geoff that you believe it is wrong, but you didn’t interact with it. I’m not misrepresenting you as far as I can tell. I didn’t see you delving into the claim about how semeron is used. I have just checked again, and I was correct – you didn’t address it at all. Just saying “that argument is flawed” (as you did) does not prove it.
It’s no good telling people what you personally would find pointless. That is purely subjective, and it is not a grammatical argument. I don’t find the verse pointless, whichever way the puntuation is written. So it’s your personal subjective impression vs mine. But surely that’s no way to resolve the issue. Therefore we should stick to the facts. The gramnmatical argument requires you, like me, to comment on how semeron is used, and give reasons for your comments. That’s the grammatical argument I used.
Please stop the personal insults about ego. I do not think that’s appropriate or helpful, and you have been doing it for a while now. I don’t care what you personally feel about me. If you want to address the grammatical argument, feel free. I will not mind if you don’t. It’s your call, and you are not obliged to do this (or to comment at all).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, Glenn, the focus of this issue is not on semeron but rather the phrase “Verily, I say unto you…” or since you love Greek so much, amen lego. Since you will not do your homework, observe the 76 examples of “Verily I say …” :
Mat_5:18; Mat_5:26; Mat_6:2; Mat_6:5; Mat_6:16; Mat_8:10; Mat_10:15; Mat_10:23; Mat_10:42; Mat_11:11; Mat_13:17; Mat_16:28; Mat_17:20; Mat_18:3; Mat_18:13; Mat_18:18; Mat_19:23; Mat_19:28; Mat_21:21; Mat_21:31; Mat_23:36; Mat_24:2; Mat_24:34; Mat_24:47; Mat_25:12; Mat_25:40; Mat_25:45; Mat_26:13; Mat_26:21; Mat_26:34; Mar_3:28; Mar_6:11; Mar_8:12; Mar_9:1; Mar_9:41; Mar_10:15; Mar_10:29; Mar_11:23; Mar_12:43; Mar_13:30; Mar_14:9; Mar_14:18; Mar_14:25; Mar_14:30; Luk_4:24; Luk_12:37; Luk_13:35; Luk_18:17; Luk_18:29; Luk_21:32; Luk_23:43; Joh_1:51; Joh_3:3; Joh_3:5; Joh_3:11; Joh_5:19; Joh_5:24; Joh_5:25; Joh_6:26; Joh_6:32; Joh_6:47; Joh_6:53; Joh_8:34; Joh_8:51; Joh_8:58; Joh_10:1; Joh_10:7; Joh_12:24; Joh_13:16; Joh_13:20; Joh_13:21; Joh_13:38; Joh_14:12; Joh_16:20; Joh_16:23; Joh_21:18;
Your argument must insist that Jesus made one single exception to his normal mode of speaking in Luke 23:43, for some unfathomable reason to change his speech phrasing to amen lego humin semeron.
Then there’s the little problem that such a statement would be nonsensical. Of course Jesus is speaking “that day.” Everyone speaks “that day” on every day of their lives! There’s no reason for anyone to speak and say that they are speaking on that day. “Verily” already gives every bit of emphasis necessary. Semeron belongs with the second phrase, not the first.
That’s pretty simple. In the nutshell, your argument makes no sense and lacks supporting examples. It’s an artificial argument that’s only circulated for doctrinal reasons, not because of legitimate translational integrity. The only reason it’s had any popularity with a select group is because Luke 23:43 has typically been a “make or break” verse for proponents of “Soul Sleep.”
For the “soul sleep” advocate, the only reason one would have to propagate it is an ignorance of the meaning of the word esoumai, or in English, the concepts of “shall” and “will.” You demonstrated this earlier when you protested that “will” was the correct translation, and that it made no difference whether it was translated as “shall” or “will.”
I believe that we’ve already sufficiently demonstrated that the majority of all instances of esoumai (as in Luke 23:43 KJV, “shalt thou be”) is correctly translated with “shall” and I even gave a couple sample cases to demonstrate that there are situations where it would be impossible to render as “will” under any reasoning. I cannot believe that you are competent to argue about Greek grammar when you lack the foundational English grammar necessary for translation.
If you had honestly researched this topic before, you would have been familiar with the traditional opposing arguments, and you should have addressed it either yesterday, or the days before, when it was first alluded to. Only a few days ago you accused the author of “Fallen and Flawed” of being “lazy” – but it seems that you are quite lazy yourself.
I really have no interest in spending more time on your blog. You have my email address. If I have misjudged you and you are really looking for honest criticism, talk with me privately please, so I can be assured this isn’t about public posturing.
To summarize: “Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in paradise” has already been the grammatically correct legitimate translation of this passage for the last 650 years, since the scriptures first found their way into English (I’m including Wycliffe’s translation.)
“To day” correctly modifies “shalt” which has an entirely different meaning than “will” and unlike your “grammatical argument” there are numerous scriptural examples that reinforce that this is the intended usage. There’s a reason why Bible translators and most commentators reject your “argument” and refuse to change the phrasing, and it’s not entirely because of an alleged bias against “soul sleep.”
Specifically altering punctuation does alter meaning. You wouldn’t be arguing for this unless it did alter meaning, and it’s a very dishonest method of exegesis. It’s poison. It will cost you the debate and the potential of winning your target audience when you’re seen grasping at such flimsy straws. You have not sufficiently researched your own argument, or addressed the points presented by its critics.
Like I said earlier, you have my email address if you want to talk.
Goodbye,
-Andrew
P.S. When you insisted that I critique your “move the comma” argument does that mean that you’ve abandoned your “dying thief perspective” argument? As has been pointed out, by arguing two contradictory arguments at the same time you have already rebutted yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, I understand that you might want to only look at Amen lego soi and follow the way other verses with that phrase are punctuated. But you haven’t given a reason for preferring the way that this phrase is typically punctuated over the way semeron works in a sentence every other time it is used. You say that “the focus” is not on that word. Well maybe yours is not, but if you look back at my original blog post, you’ll see that the focus was indeed on that word. I could mimic what you have done and paste all the occurences of that word, but it would serve no purpose. The point is: There’s no obvious reason to think that the pattern you refer to should obviously or automatically trump the pattern that I am referring to. Can you think of one?
You find it rhetorically powerful to accuse me of saying that this verse counts as “one single exception” to the way that the phrase Amen lego soi is normally related to its surrounding punctuation. But this only seems important to you because you’re privileging the way that this phrase is normally used over and above the way semeron is normally used. After all, I could also use bold text and point out that you are claiming that Luke 23:43 is the one single exceptional use of semeron. That sure sounds rhetorically powerful as well. Why believe that? It’s just not as simple as you think.
So as far as the actual words and phrases are concerned, we’re not compelled to adopt the traditional punctuation. Now you might point out that we’re not compelled to adopt my suggestion either. You’re right, we’re not. But I don’t need to show that. All I need to show is that there’s nothing obviously wrong with it. That is enough.
That fully addresses your first line of argument. Now for the second.
The second issue you raise is that you will not allow any translation that doesn’t gel with the way in which you would express yourself, translations that it would strike you as absurd or odd. But why assume that biblical writers adhere to Andrew Patrick’s manner of expression? For example, you say: “Then there’s the little problem that such a statement would be nonsensical. Of course Jesus is speaking “that day.” Everyone speaks “that day” on every day of their lives! There’s no reason for anyone to speak and say that they are speaking on that day.”
But this is your standard and yours alone. It’s subjective, personal, created by you and subject to your own personal tastes and tendencies. Clearly we can’t do exegesis this way. What’s even worse is that it makes you the judge of Scripture. It forces you to condemn Deuteronomy 30:18 as nonsensical, for example. It reads, ” I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed.” Now, do you object to this? Is God, or the writer, nonsensically pointing out that God was speaking on that day? Surely not. Therefore this is not an objectively fair objection to my suggestion.
So your two replies are wrong: You say it makes no sense, I just showed that it was fine and you were being subjective. You said that it has no examples, but it does: Every single solitary example of semeron fits what I said.
You are being entirely unfair to accuse me of not being “honest.” As sinful creatures it is natural to try to dismiss those who don’t make us feel better by agreeing with us as evil in some way. But it’s just not so. I am not dogmatically saying that this is the only possible translation. But based on all the evidence I have seen – including the evidence you refer to (which is not at all new) – I can see, and have shown, that it is perfectly possible.
Now a comment about your PS: You say that I am rebutting myself by offering two arguments that invovkle different translations. I think you’ve skimmed through my blog and not really appreciated why I have described two arguments and not just one. My point has been that however one translated this passage, the text doesn’t create any fatal problems for soul sleep. I explained (drawing on Peter Van Inwagen) how the common translation isn’t a problem for the soul sleep, because it correctly describes what a dying thief can expect to experience. My second argument is entirely independent of this, and explaines why a person might not even need to use the first argument. By suggesting that I am making two opposite claims you’re mischaratcerising what I have said.
Hopefully this is clearer now.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Glenn,
It seems that I’m required to not only dismantle your arguments and misinformation, but to atomize every remaining shred. I don’t think you’ve ever critically analyzed your own argument at all, and you certainly haven’t done any homework for your last response.
Glenn wrote:
Let’s start with an easy one, and I will be blunt. Your so-called “pattern” if a fabrication. It’s false, no good, invalid, and contradicted by the Greek text. There’s a reason why sensible Greek scholars don’t take it seriously.
First, let’s establish a concept called “the burden of proof.” You are challenging the accepted established position, and as such, you are required to present an absolute case. This you have not done. Rather, it seems that you have attempted to shift the burden of proof against the entire history of biblical translation and scholarship.
Second, there’s the little problem of the Greek text. There’s a very small sample set of forty-one New Testament verses that contain the Greek semeron. Out of these, there’s only a few that would test your theory, but these are sufficient to contradict your claim concerning Bullinger’s so-called “grammatical rule.”
Sample contradiction 1: Luke 19:5
(Luk 19:5 KJV) And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house.
Bullinger’s proposed correction of the text would read: “…make haste, and come down to day; for I must abide at thy house.”
Yet, it seems clear that Jesus was speaking as to when he would abide at the house of Zacchaeus, that time being “to day.” The preposition gar follows semeron, and no preceding hoti steps in to rescue Bullinger as would be required by your theory.
Sample contradiction 2: Luke 19:9
(Luk 19:9 KJV) And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
Would you also propose that we consistently follow your rule, and translate this as: “And Jesus said unto him that day, Salvation is come to this house… ?”
Sample contradictions 3, 4, and 5:
(Act 13:33 KJV) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
(Heb 1:5 KJV) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(Heb 5:5 KJV) So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
Fortunately, this is a case where we can turn to the second Psalm, translated in Hebrew, to verify the correct phrasing, from Psalm 2:7, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”
According to your esteemed Bullinger, because there is no preceding instance of hoti the Greek semeron “to day” should modify the former verb “art” rather than the latter verb “begotten.”
Will you be consistent, and insist that these scriptures are also mistranslated?
Sample contradiction 6: Hebrews 3:7
(Heb 3:7 KJV) Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
There’s no intervening hoti there, Glenn. Would you attempt to “correct” this translation too?
(Hebrews 3:7, Glenn Peoples Version) “Wherefore, (as the Holy Ghost saith to day, If ye will hear his voice?”
Sample contradiction 7: James 4:13
(Jas 4:13 KJV) Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
Again, it seems that you failed to subject your pet theory to any sort of reasonable test. Under your “grammatical argument” this verse would now become:
(James 4:13, Glenn Peoples Version) “Go to now, ye that say today or tomorrow, We will go unto such a city, and continue there a year….”
The Greek text of James has no words between the lego and semeron. There’s no wiggle room here.
You’ve neglected your duty to shoulder the burden of proof, and expected us to believe you simply on your say-so. I think it’s been demonstrated that your “grammatical rule” is ill-researched, and seems to only be used for pre-existing doctrinal reasons, and was created for this one verse out of the entire Bible.
Thirdly, when there is an established pattern of seventy-six instances of a form of grammatical speech, used consistently throughout the New Testament, under what presumption do you discard this evidence so readily? Jesus consistently used the phrase construction of “Verily I say unto thee” an additional seventy-five times and you have been unable to provide a single instance where he felt compelled to tack a redundant “to day” at its end.
Glenn Peoples wrote:
Up until now, I hadn’t chosen to focus on that word. Your blog format is hardly ideal for presenting arguments from the Greek text to the layman. I traditionally use large amounts of space and an array of colored text to help clear up the “Greek smoke screen” that arguments like yours typically hide behind.
Glenn Peoples wrote:
I think I have already sufficiently illustrated that your so-called rule is balderdash, and is not the way it is “normally used over and over … the way semeron is normally used.”
Glenn Peoples wrote:
When all other seventy-five instances of Christ’s speaking match this pattern without contradiction, you would require a very strong case to argue for the exception. You have proven no such case. To the contrary, I have shouldered the burden of proof and disproved your so-called “rule.” This was something you should have been willing to do on your own.
Glenn continued…
Then, by that token, since I’ve now done your homework for you, and demonstrated that your argument was patently false, that should be “enough” for you to abandon it, eh?
Now, on to the “next issue…”
Glenn Peoples wrote:
Of all the absurd accusations! Are you implying that I chose the Wycliffe text because it matched my normal mode of speaking? Or that I hunted for a Bible to match my style of expression, and it just happened to coincide with what was used in the language of the Geneva Bible? I force myself to adopt the biblical style of expression, rather than the other way around.
Glenn Peoples wrote:
I think it’s rather ironic that one who claims the right to re-translate scripture for the express purpose of changing the meaning is the one accusing me of setting myself as the “judge of Scripture.” I’m the one pointing out that the text was perfectly valid just as it is written. Rather, you have demonstrated little regard for retranslating the text to match your beliefs.
Glenn continues:
Nor is it objectively fair for you to take my quote so far from its original context. The Hebrew text of these chapters habitually uses a certain style of phrasing, and if we follow this through, this reinforces my point all the more clearly:
(Deu 30:15 KJV) See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
(Deu 30:16 KJV) In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Deu 30:17-18 KJV
(17) But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
(18) I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
(Deu 30:19 KJV) I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Have you learned nothing from this? In the words that God gave Moses in Deuteronomy (which, by the way, is the issuing of declaration and a covenant) we can point to numerous examples to show this is a consistent method of Hebrew speech.
When we look at the speech patterns used by Jesus recorded in the Greek scriptures, likewise we can see a similar pattern, that is, the consistent “Verily I say unto thee” which lacks any superfluous “to day” tacked on the end.
I can point to Deuteronomy and show that a particular manner of Hebrew speaking was used consistently. I can also point to the Greek and show that a particular manner of Greek speech was used consistently. You argue against all examples, and must protest for a sole exception in Luke 23:43.
Glenn Peoples wrote:
You demonstrated that you hadn’t bothered to look carefully at your “example” and out of the very limited sample set of the New Testament semeron I’ve shown at least seven that violate what you’ve said. You’re wrong on both counts.
Glenn Peoples continued:
Was it honest when you said that you’d observed that “eimi” was usually translated as “will?” You picked a fight over this, insisting that an approximate 8% minority constituted “usually.” That doesn’t seem very honest to me.
Glenn wrote, in post 42
You don’t seem very honest to me, Glenn.
I specifically spoke concerning an established line of 650 years of English biblical text, and contrasted this with the recent line of translations over the past 130 years, and you tried to pick a fight over the King James text. When that didn’t work, you pretended it had, and said there was no use discussing anything further.
Glenn wrote, post 44,
Again, this hardly seems like a sincere or honest response. You refused to discuss the issue on its merits, and were trying to create a diversion. I think this particular speculation was proved to hit the mark: I think you’re fighting so hard because the implication would demonstrate that the King James text does not contradict “soul sleep.” Some people irrationally hate that Bible, and it seems you were trying to tap into that bigotry.
Next, when you deemed to talk to me again, you accused me of attempting criticizing something that I had never attempted to research. Did you have any backing for this claim? No, you didn’t. You created it as an accusation, which was hardly honest.
Is it “honest” to accuse others of being “lazy or a liar” when they post blog articles without proper research when you yourself are guilty of the same thing? You will be judged by your own measure.
Finally, I asked that you send me email if you wished to continue to discuss this matter, or if you were seeking an honest criticism, but it seems that this wasn’t your intention. Instead, it seems that you’re just trying to edge in a “last word” to “win the argument.”
Glenn wrote:
If indeed, that the evidence I refer to is not at all new to you, then I indeed judge you to be dishonest for not giving a hint of the substantial contrary evidence in your article, and for pretending that you didn’t recognize it earlier when I alluded to it.
Glenn wrote:
I don’t think you understand this. Think about this for a moment please: you have proposed two solutions, which we shall call “A” and “B.” Perhaps “A” might be true, and perhaps “B” might be true, or perhaps neither might be true. But it is impossible that both are true. One contradicts the other. For both of your theories to be true, the verse must read:
“Verily I say unto thee today, today you will thou be with me in Paradise.”
Show some backbone! One doesn’t worship both the LORD and Baal, one doesn’t step out to walk on water with a lifejacket on, and one doesn’t decide to be Christian “just in case it’s all true.”
It would be different if you were presenting options prefaced by a “I am not sure, but these are possible explanations that I have heard” but that’s not how you have presented yourself in this blog.
Glenn Peoples wrote:
How can both be true, Glenn? It “to day” belongs to the preceding phrase, than that contradicts your “experience of the dying thief” argument. But, if you translate the second phrase with “today will” then obviously it contradicts your “grammatical” argument. You cannot have both at the same time! There is only one “to day” in that passage!
You talk of someone “needing to use the first argument” as if what simply matters is “having an argument” rather than determining the absolute truth of the passage. That’s not Christian integrity (something you claimed to be concerned about when you posted on Fallen and Flawed.)
Glenn wrote:
Concerning your “experience of the thief” argument, I am less critical of it because at least it doesn’t attempt to re-write scripture and formulate nonsense rules. But consider this:
1) The thief knew he was going to die that day.
2) The common Jewish experience was that the resurrection was at a future time.
3) This has been commonly called the “Resurrection” or the “Day of Judgment”
4) When one falls on sleep, you awake on a different day.
5) This has the problem that Christ’s statement is not a literal truth, when it was prefaced with the phrase “Verily I say unto thee” which would tend to contradict an interpretation that could only be viewed as “correct” through such gymnastics.
Your “experience” theory actually contradicts “soul sleep” when examined more critically, implying that such was far from the Jewish expectation, or at least not understood by the Jewish thief.
Concerning his “experience theory” Glenn wrote:
If this was really your attitude, why did you so fiercely resist when I demonstrated that “to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise” was not only correctly translated, but perfectly compatible as “soul sleep” in the literal sense of the English grammar?
So why insist that I dismantle all other possible arguments to their bare atoms? Reading the traditional scriptures in their most literal sense exactly as written is the strongest argument imaginable! This should always be our preferred method of interpretation.
This is correct exactly as written, and has been correct since the 1300’s. The promise is being issued that day, and it has nothing to do with the day of fulfillment. That’s the intended meaning of “to day shalt” means and this can be confirmed by any decent English dictionary, Fowler’s “The King’s English”, or by scriptural example including Genesis 2:17, 1 Samuel 18:21, and 1 Kings 2:31.
If you still want to talk about this, send me a private email, please.
Goodbye,
-Andrew
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I mistyped that last verse reference. Instead of 1 Kings 2:31 that should have been 1 Kings 2:37 (also 1 Kings 2:42, if one reads further.)
1Ki 2:37 KJV
(37) For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.
1Ki 2:42 KJV
(42) And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the LORD, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good.
This verse reference is helpful when combined with Genesis 2:17 and 1 Samuel 18:21, because Shimei did not die the day he passed the brook Kidron, but the “shalt surely die” went into effect on that date. The “shalting” (the promise) happened that day, not the dying, which was the fulfillment of the promise.
I think the other examples from Genesis 2:17 and 1 Samuel 18:21 are stronger proofs, because there’s no room to argue that perhaps “knowing” happened that day in 1 Kings 2:37 (though that objection doesn’t won’t help them on verse 42.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, you have asked me a couple of times not to post public responses to your public criticisms of my position. I think this request is unreasonable. If you have been prepared to publicly criticise my arguments, then you need to be prepared for me to assess your criticisms in public. However, as you know, it takes a while to respond to a large number of comments, so this may be my last such response to you on this comment thread. I do think it (including this post) has been worthwhile, however, if only to show readers with any doubts about what I have said that my position withstands the criticisms that have been made of it.
I gave two replies to your previously: Firstly I explained that it’s no good ignoring the pattern regarding semeron and granting automatic privilege to the pattern regarding the Amen lego sayings. They both exist and we need to acknowledge them both, which opens up two possible translations.
Your first response was very surprising. You said: “Your so-called “pattern” if a fabrication. It’s false, no good, invalid, and contradicted by the Greek text.” This took me by surprise because the pattern is so clearly real and so easy to verify. Any person can look up any instance of semeron and see the pattern. As Bullinger noted, when semeron follows a verb it belongs to that verb unless it is forced into the next clause. I was hardly prepared for the counterexamples you tried to use. They were:
Luke 19:5, And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house.
I will admit that there are cases when it’s not clear where clause breaks belong. The observation that I’ve posted is one about which verb semeron belongs to within a clause. You know this, because I quoted Bullinger when he noted that the word can be moved into the following clause by the word hoti. Now look at the example you chose. Ask yourself where each sentence begins. The word order created by inserting “for” before the word “today” could trip you up, because this makes it look like one sentence – two clauses separated by a comma. But since you checked this verse in the Greek you already know that this isn’t what we’re looking at.
If this were one long sentence, then gar (“for”) would be placed before semeron (“today”). Why then does gar appear after semeron? This is the giveaway that we are looking at two sentences. You may not realise this, but gar is rarely used as the first word in a sentence, even when it is natural in English to think of “for” as the first word. Gar is placed after the first word, but understood as the first idea.
You don’t seem to trust me, so I had a quick look online to see if there were any credible academic resources I could show you without you having to look too far, and it wasn’t hard. Check this college’s website and note the following:
The placement of gar following semeron, which would otherwise be a bit strange, is understandable since semeron is actually the first word of a new sentence. In fact we have here two short sentences from Jesus. But if semeron is the first word of the sentence, then there’s no preceding verb. If there’s no preceding verb, then you can’t even ask whether or not Bullinger’s rule applies, because Bullinger’s claim was that where semeron follows a verb in a clause, it belongs to that verb unless it is thrown into the next clause by hoti.
So this is not a counter-example, and I hope you can now clearly see why. The first example has now been addressed. Let’s move on to the next.
Luke 19:9, And Jesus said unto him, “This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.”
Andrew, this is a quote. “And Jesus said unto him” are Luke’s words, and then the rest are from Jesus. Never mind the clause, the sentence itself begins with “Today.” Of course the word can’t belong to a preceding verb here, but that’s only because there isn’t a preceding verb in the sentence. Why would you use this?
Example 2 has now been addressed. Let’s move on to the next.
Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”
Actually this is pretty simple. There are two sentences here. There’s no conjunction between the two, connecting them. You are my Son. This day I have begotten thee. “You are my son this day I have begotten thee” is certainly not natural. There are two statements. Therefore the second sentence begins with Semeron, and there simply isn’t a preceding verb to look for. The same is true of Heb 1:5 and Heb 5:5. These are all the same. They are instances of two sentences. Now don’t get me wrong, I have no serious objection to them being run together as they are still easily understandable as two separate statements. But to use them as clear cut examples of how semeron does or does not relate to the preceding clause in a sentence will not work.
These examples are now addressed. On to the next.
Hebrews 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, “To day if ye will hear his voice,”
This is another quote of an entire sentence. Andrew, why use this? Semeron is the first word of a sentence here, not merely the beginning of a new clause. There just isn’t a preceding verb to check. How can you think that examples like this are good?
James 4:13 Go to now, ye that say, “To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:”
Another quote, Andrew. Semeron is the first word in the sentence, so again, there is no preceding verb to even look at.
Remember Bullinger’s claim – When semeron is preceded by a verb, it belongs to that verb. That’s his claim. Yet you have used cases where semeron is the first word in the sentence, and is not preceded by a verb. Maybe you forgot what Bullinger’s claim was. Have another look at the blog entry.
So in reality none of the examples you have given turned out to be what you thought they were. I appreciate that you took the issue seriously enough to look up how the word is used at all, but I am sure you will now see how the above examples fail.
The fact is, the word semeron relates to the preceding verb in a clause (where there IS such a preceding verb of course), unless it is overtly pushed into the next clause (which is what hoti does).
Secondly, I turn to your personal impression that it would be absurd for someone to affix the word “today” to a clause describing their actions. I provided an example where the Old Testament portrays God himself as speaking in the way that you called absurd. God said, according to Deuteronomy, “I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed.”
You don’t like me using this example, however, because you say it takes you out of context: “Nor is it objectively fair for you to take my quote so far from its original context. The Hebrew text of these chapters habitually uses a certain style of phrasing, and if we follow this through, this reinforces my point all the more clearly:”
I note your examples, but it seems to me that it reinforces my objection to your subjective impression. If it’s absurd for a person to note that he is saying or doing something “today,” then there’s a pattern of repeated absurd language in the Old Testament. God, according to your standards, repeatedly notes that he is saying or doing something “today” when it is patently obvious that he is doing so. Why add “today”? And this is the same challenge that you are making to my suggested reading of Luke 23:43. I say, then, that what’s good for the Old Testament is good for Luke 23:43.
You say that this is a repeated method of Hebrew speech. But Jesus spoke Hebrew/Aramaic, so this isn’t a reason for rejecting my suggestion. What you mightn’t be aware of is the fact that Luke’s Gospel is widely acknowledged by many New Testament scholars to use a style of Greek that is similar to the Septuagint – the Greek Old Testament. If this is so then your observation about this common way of using “today” in the Old Testament is a point in favour of my suggestion about how this verse should be translated, because it establishes a clear precedent for speaking in exactly the way that Luke 23:43 is written.
Here are some examples of how semeron is used when hoti is not used:
Matt 6:11 “Give us this day our daily bread and forgive our… [etc]”
Matt 21:28 “A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard… [etc]”
Luke 2:11 “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.”
Acts 26:6 “I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:”
I won’t even try to be exhaustive. This usage without hoti is normal, and this is just a random sample. This fact can be checked by anyone at all with access to a Greek New Testament, including you.
Here are some examples of how semeron is used with hoti in the way that Bullinger describes, just for illustrative purposes:
Mark 14:30 “And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.”
This is a very helpful example because it is so similar to Luke 23:43, except hoti is used. See the difference it makes? It clearly pushes semeron into the next clause.
Luke 4:21 “And he began to say unto them, [hoti] This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”
Hoti is not actually translated into English in this verse, but I have pointed out where it appears, and you can clearly see the effect it has, pushing semeron into the next clause.
These observations are not special or unusual. They are normal, and again, you can check. Anyone can.
Unfortunately, you then repeat a rhetorical device that I have addressed already:
But this isn’t correct. As I have noted, you are also arguing for a sole exception, namely an exception in how semeron is used. I don’t condemn this, however, because I acknowledge that either way we translate this, we are going against a common pattern.
Finally, you really do misunderstand why I use two different arguments that cover two different possibilities.
I know this. Why are you supposing that I don’t see it? What I have said is that A is possible and reasonable, and that if a person is not persuaded by this, then they should also consider B which is also possible. Either one will do, and each one is clearly plausible. I explained in my last comment that this is what I am doing, so I don’t know why it’s still an issue for you. The impression that you are giving is that my whole post was about option B. The fact is that I think that option A is fine. But option B is also consistent with the evidence. Is it true? It’s hard to say because either translation is possible.
With that, Andrew, I choose to stop offering lengthy replies to your public criticisms. You can reply or not, at your leisure. At very least you now know that what I have said is not contrary to the evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
It seems the only reason you have for refusing to talk privately, is because you are doing this for public display. There were other things we needed to discuss that would not be appropriate for a public forum, and besides, it would have not been discourteous to have let me know you had responded. Your blog has no “notification” mechanism.
You have issued a lengthy “defense” for the examples I showed. However, what you are employing is a type of “circular reasoning.” That is, you have already determined where you think the “sentences” are, and then said that nothing counts because these phrases are now sentences?
That’s absolutely backwards. According to this style of logic, it would be impossible to come up with any example that could not be explained away with such circular reasoning.
Glenn wrote:
What was that? Did you just say that we needed to look and use a judgment to determine the phrasing, rather than “Bullinger’s Rule?” That means it’s not a rule, Glenn. You’ve admitted that your claim does not apply in this case. Semeron belongs in the latter phrase, not the former, and there is no hoti to perform this. Calling the phrases “sentences” makes no difference.
I have to wonder when you ask “Why would I use this [second] example.” Were you not aware that the Greek text contains no quotation marks? Determining where sentences begin or end requires translation, context, knowledge of accepted and existing patterns, etc.
It seems that you would have me believe that your theory is supported by all of the Greek New Testament, except, of course, for all of the places where it would be contradicted.
The Greek word semeron “to day” only occurs in 41 places, and out of those, with a quick eyeball count only about 18 (more or less) of these might be considered cases where we might possibly test this theory, where our English translations insert punctuation.
Out of this set of 18, you’ve quickly discarded the first 7 where I demonstrated that this conflicts “Bullinger’s Rule.” You are now backpedaling and compromised with applying your “Rule” except when it doesn’t work, and then you resort to context to solve the phrasing problem.
So now your possible test set is reduced to 11, and I’m sure that any additional counter-examples would be tossed aside for similar reasons. However, we cannot include Luke 23:43 in this set, since this is the object of our debate, so you’re down to 10 now.
In other words, you’ve applied a subjective standard of “How you feel the Phrasing should be” to rescue “Bullinger’s Rule.” However, you presented this as a solid “rule” without exception, and not a guideline. A Rule cannot be enforced only after you’ve made your decisions about phrasing! That’s circular logic!
So, you’ve started with a small set, reduce that set to a couple instances that you think “prove” your theory, and toss out a greater amount that disprove your theory. That’s hardly objective.
Nor does it deal with the fact that there is a far greater number of sample instances establishing “Verily I say unto thee” as the established complete packaged pattern. You keep trying to ignore this. Even if we stop reducing the numbers where we were above, your remaining 10 non-contradicting examples are hardly enough form a more convincing pattern than the 75 examples of “Verily I say unto thee.”
Ten versus seventy-five. Actually, that’s ten (10) ignoring another seven (7) contradictions, opposing seventy-five (75) complete “Verily I say unto you” style phrases without contradictions.
Glenn, you needed a complete case without contradictions to form a rule. There’s far more evidence for forming a rule out of “Verily I say unto thee” always being a complete self-contained introductory phrase.
It’s not honest to take every contradictory example and declare that “it doesn’t count because I’m going to redefine them from phrases to sentences” for the artificial reason of trying to defend your proposed rule, which apparently is also rejected by the overwhelming majority of Greek scholarship and bible translations…
You’ve tried to play the “weigh in the scholarly authority” card here, and I can’t comprehend why. Your chosen scholar stands against everyone else. That’s not a winning route for you. You needed to be able to make your case from scratch.
Yes, what you say is contrary to the evidence. These worse part is you don’t seem to care. You’ve latched onto this particular ride, and you’ll defend it right or wrong. Why? My guess is pride.
The practical effect of this is you are re-writing scripture to fit your doctrinal beliefs, and unfortunately it is actions like this that discredit the “Conditional Immortality” community in the eyes of other Christians.
Additionally, your memory is seems very short. You complain about “public criticism” but it was not very long ago you were complaining because I had refrained from criticizing your arguments, taunting that perhaps I had “never looked into this before,” goading that I must be unable to answer your specific theory, and so forth. You have no right to complain about “public criticism” when that’s exactly what you asked for.
But there are other parts of this conversation that would have been more appropriate to discuss in private, but you have insisted on publicity (See Matthew 18:15.) Since you will not talk to me in private, I’ll say openly, that I do have something against the way you tried to use my early quotation of the King James to cast aspersions on my motives.
Mat 18:15-16 KJV
(15) Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
(16) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
You displayed a type of bigotry, one that’s popular in much of the modern academic community, but it’s unacceptable. It’s neither logical nor rational, nor chivalrous, nor a proper Christian attitude, and it was employed to cause division and to avoid addressing the actual subject matter on its merits. Were you really interested in discussing the full merits of English translations? I don’t think you were. As you yourself said, you were just using it as a reason to exit the conversation, but not without first impugning my motives.
Fortunately, this is a small blog, so maybe this counts as the “two or three witnesses” category. If you want to talk about this, email me privately, and I’ll even post after the fact when we have this resolved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew P, I have scanned through your reply and I am very comfortable with the facts as they stand.
* We have to use judgement to determine what is a quote and what is not. This is obvious.
* Your “that means it’s not a rule” argument here is just wrong. The “judgement” was about where the sentence begins and ends, drawing on solid grammatical evidence. Since the rule was about how words function within a sentence, I’m not violating the rule in doing this.
You’re free to think that I have merely “discarded” your examples, but the fact is that I used good reasons to show that they were not counter examples at all. You may, if you feel compelled, attribute to me unwillingness to consider possible counter examples, but the fact is that I have done just that, and I believe I was fair in doing so. Therefore I need not add anything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shall is rarely used in spoken form here in America (I can’t speak for the rest of the English speaking world). When it is used, it is usually understood to be equivalent to will. Shall as a word distinct from will still has some traction in written English, but where spoken language goes, written language usually follows (eventually). Whether or not the word is “obsolete” or “archaic” depends, of course, on the meaning of those words. Whatever the case, shall is certainly “on its way out”. Anyone who disagrees is probably ignorant, or just lying. My hunch is that even Andrew, the great defender of shall rarely uses the word in spoken form.
Some of Andrews comments regarding shall are just linguistically naïve. Most people use shall and will interchangeably. In language, meaning is determined by use; therefore linguistic “correctness” is determined by use. Therefore (in America, at least) shall and will are properly interchangeable (Andrew’s contrary evidence from some random website notwithstanding).
Now it may well be the case that distinguishing between shall and will is useful or helpful (I tend to agree). Feel free to try and revive a dying word– unless you persuade millions of people to join your crusade, you’ll fail. Many of the words, expressions, and grammatical conventions that you use and consider to be correct can be traced back to mistakes and other corruptions. This is the natural evolution of language.
I find it amusing that Andrew portrayed Glenn’s apparent dislike of the AV as “bigotry”, but in the same breath dismissed “Ebonics” as something implicitly inferior. Don’t judge my vernacular as Black, and turn away, Andrew. You may not admit this to yourself, but that’s prejudice and bigotry.
Oh NO I di’int!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s just amazing, Ron. Let’s consider your points for a moment:
Claim: “Shall is rarely used in spoken form in America.”
The written form of a language requires precision, including adherence to its own rules of grammar. In any language, people often break, violate, or ignore grammatical rules through due to ignorance, carelessness, convenience, or emergency. The written form of a language always defines the pure form, and it is a pure form that is required when dealing with math, sciences, law, philosophy, and religion.
For example, if you were to protest that “In America, most married couples have not been faithful to their mates” would this be any excuse to shift our definitions and mock those that insist that the traditional marriage of man and woman is the defining pure form?
Claim: “Whatever the case, shall is certainly “on its way out”. Anyone who disagrees is probably ignorant, or just lying.”
If you are concerned about this, I will remind you that as long as we retain our literature, books, and legal documents, we have cultural and literary anchors regardless of modern trends or fads in colloquial speech.
By the way, even the “modern” translations like “The Message” “The New Living Translation” and “The Amplified Bible” still recognize both “shall” and “will.” They may not always use them correctly (with Luke 23:43 as our case in point) but they do recognize them.
Claim: “My hunch is that even Andrew, the great defender of shall rarely uses the word in spoken form.”
Not only do I utilize both “shall” and “will” in verbal speech, but I also recognize subject/object distinctions of “who” and “whom”, adjective/adverb differences such as “quick” vs. “quickly” and “good” vs. “well.” Would you like to know something else? It also sounds correct and other people recognize my meaning with ease. What was your point again?
But I think we can aptly sum our difference in perspective here:
Ron wrote:
This reminds me of someone’s argument that claimed that “the law” was not our Constitution, lawfully passed legislation, and recognized common law, but whatever the police officers with guns chose to enact or enforce. It’s the same underlying principle here.
Even if we accept Ron’s premise of “determined by use” I remind him that we live in a literary culture, where a book outlives its author, and literature outlives whole generations. Spoken words are here today and gone tomorrow and quickly forgotten, but the written word lasts forever, and serves as a literary and cultural anchor. Thus, by his own argument, the written language determines the language, for both today and tomorrow.
A point of agreement
Ron wrote:
I’ll take this to mean that you are also willing to admit that these words do not have identical meaning, since you implied that they may be properly “distinguished.”
Even if you are talking with someone who does not recognize their meaning, it still remains helpful to utilize proper grammar. People learn language by hearing it used correctly, and they may be able to understand the difference even if they cannot explain it in words.
I used the example of “You shall not kill” vs. “you will not kill” because most people subconsciously recognize this difference. The former is a command, but the latter would be a false prediction.
In the biblical context, this goes beyond useful or helpful, and into the realm of necessary and required. We must presume that our reader is willing to read the words with precision, and sincere in determining their literal meaning, rather than assigning their own meaning and interpretation regardless of the actual text.
Ron wrote:
This has nothing to do with dislike or apparent dislike of any particular translation. When someone attempts to “classify” someone else on a standard that has not been joined to the argument at hand and uses this as an excuse why the subject may be dismissed without addressing any of the material points on their merits, this is bigotry (see Glenn’s post 42 and 44.)
For example, if I had said, “Ron, you sound like a liberal Democrat. Did you vote for Clinton?” and then in my next post said “I see that you’re a liberal, and there’s no point in discussing this verse with you any further…” that would demonstrate bigotry.
Ron continued his statement…
It is possible that our Kiwi friends might not be familiar with the term “Ebonics” or its recognized meaning. In its original sense, it refers to the spoken dialect of peoples descended from the Negro slaves which were brought to America during the 18th and 19th centuries.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebonics
However, if one were to read this article, you would notice that this is not talking about a written dialect, but a spoken vernacular. Since the context of our discussion is concerning the defined rules of written language of biblical text for worldwide consumption, so-called “Ebonics” is inferior.
And there is a reason that I term this “Ebonics” as “so-called.” As it has been used politically it has been implied that children in urban schools are simply incapable of learning proper English… because they are black. The solution presented was to teach a new curriculum called “Ebonics.”
Thus, the modern concept of recognizing “Ebonics” is as racist as “affirmative action” and other political measures that have been suggested that present the black race as intellectually inferior.
Since Ron admits that common recognition of a term defines its use, let’s continue to prove this point as to the meaning of this term when used in modern conversation. You could find this yourself quickly by Googling “ebonics.”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ebonics
Help yourself to any of the dozens or hundreds of user-provided definitions for “Ebonics” at this site. That’s what the word means to the American culture.
Have you ever heard Bill Cosby speak? Does he use proper English, or does he use “Ebonics?” Does President Barrack Obama speak to the Israeli state and say “What up fools, whyze yu bustin’ caps?” Did Clarence Thomas write his dissenting opinion on the recent Keno decision using Ebonics?
In our sense of implementing recognized grammatical forms, Ebonics is inferior, and its implementation marks one as being unlearned, ignorant, and proud of it. This has nothing to do with being black. This has to do with what is appropriate for our written biblical text.
There is a popular comic strip (also animated) called “The Boondocks” that has two brothers named Huey and Riley. Huey is the educated one, and talks with normal English, and describes himself as a Black Power Socialist. Riley is fascinated by “gansta” culture and may talk in “Ebonics” but he is not presented as being wise, smart, or educated.
So let’s fully confront this irresponsible charge of racism:
Ron wrote:
Your statement is crass and probably requires gestures to fully express itself, but this should not be confused with “Black.” If we judge your statement on its merits, it still remains irrelevant to any topic at hand, and thus is judged on its face value, rather than any “prejudice” or “bigotry” or presumption of skin color.
Now, refusing to consider the merits of an argument because one notices that your opponent is quoting from a big black bible (another term for the King James), that is bigotry.
I think that elaboration has helped to prove my point. Even if spoken English were to entirely abandon proper grammar all together, it would still be both required and expected of any of our important writings, and specifically our English Bible. History and tradition has a far firmer hold on our rules of language that passing fads of spoken speech.
In our case in point above in Luke 23:43, we are presented with one little Greek word esoumai. The English language has greater precision in this area, and translates this concept with the words “shall” or “will.” Shall is the promising, and will is the fulfillment.
Therefore “today shalt” means the promise was made today, whereas “today wilt” means the promise must be fulfilled that day. Semeron esoumai doesn’t need any phrasing argument to rescue it here. It’s already been correctly translated as “To day shalt” by translators that agreed with the assertion that “souls sleep in the grave until doomsday.”
I’ve already provided scriptural examples that this is how our English translators used this phrase, and that their translation is the most consistent with all rules of Greek translation and recognizing the established phrasing of Christ’s speech. The literal reading of the scripture is the strongest argument one could desire – one needn’t move a jot, comma, or tittle.
I’m not insisting that anyone to have to learn Greek here, but it would behoove anyone who claims to be a “Greek scholar” and presumes to translate the scriptures to make sure that they also understand proper English. It’s not that hard and doesn’t take long, and in this case it certainly does make a difference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I find it curious that your response was over six times the length of mine, Andrew. Unfortunately, you offered no substantial challenge to any of my points. I’d say that that’s about five hours of wasted time on your part.
The written form of a language always defines the pure form.
Hogwash. You just made this up. Codifying and formalizing a spoken language doesn’t “purify” it. Completely absurd statement, Andrew.
For example, if you were to protest that “In America, most married couples have not been faithful to their mates” would this be any excuse to shift our definitions and mock those that insist that the traditional marriage of man and woman is the defining pure form?
You are confusing the concept of marriage with the word “marriage”. Not that I needed more evidence, but I can tell from your first few sentences that you are utterly clueless when it comes to linguistics. Wise up, Andrew.
By the way, even the “modern” translations like “The Message” “The New Living Translation” and “The Amplified Bible” still recognize both “shall” and “will.”
Irrelevant, I already said “shall” still has traction in written English.
Not only do I utilize both “shall” and “will” in verbal speech . . . What was your point again?
My point was that most people don’t use “shall” in spoken form. If you honestly do, you’re an exception, and everyone is laughing at you.
“Indeed, in America, ‘I will’ and ‘we will’ are the usual forms, and anyone using ‘shall’ in all but a few situations runs the risk of being thought haughty or pretentious” -Pocket Fowler’s Modern English Usage, Oxford University Press, 2002
This reminds me of someone’s argument that claimed that “the law” was not our Constitution, lawfully passed legislation, and recognized common law, but whatever the police officers with guns chose to enact or enforce. It’s the same underlying principle here.
No, it’s actually not the same principle at all. The forces that govern the evolution and use of language are nothing like the forces that govern civil laws. Absolutely ridiculous statement, Andrew.
Even if we accept Ron’s premise of “determined by use”
Anyone who doesn’t accept this view is just wrong. I don’t know what else to tell you Andrew.
Spoken words are here today and gone tomorrow and quickly forgotten, but the written word lasts forever, and serves as a literary and cultural anchor. Thus, by his own argument, the written language determines the language, for both today and tomorrow.
“Thus”? Andrew, please don’t place “thus” before a conclusion that doesn’t properly follow from the premises. Written language certainly influences the use and evolution of spoken language. Nobody disputes this. To claim that it determines the language is just silly.
I refuse to believe that you are ignorant of the fact that written language changes all the time. Your beloved AV is full of words, expressions, and grammatical constructs that are now considered archaic, obsolete, or even improper even in written English Your “anchors” apparently aren’t very heavy.
I used the example of “You shall not kill” vs. “you will not kill” because most people subconsciously recognize this difference. The former is a command, but the latter would be a false prediction.
No. “Will” can also be used for commands, check any dictionary.
In the biblical context, this goes beyond useful or helpful, and into the realm of necessary and required.
No particular English word is “necessary” or “required”. When “shall” eventually dies altogether, translators will replace it with an analogous word or expression.
..Did you really just write an entire page in response to my three sentence zinger about Ebonics? Just wow.
Since Ron admits that common recognition of a term defines its use, let’s continue to prove this point as to the meaning of this term when used in modern conversation.
The fact that you cite internet subculture (urbandictionary.com) as an example of “common recognition” strikes me as a little desperate, Andrew. I sincerely hope that you know better than that. Kindly look up the definitions of “nigger” and “black people” on urbandictionary.com to get a feel of the sort of people that take time to contribute to sites like that.
In any event, the fact is that “Ebonics” has a colloquial meaning as well as a more formal/technical meaning (e.g. the one used on the Wikipedia entry you cited), where it is used more or less synonymously with AAVE. If I were having a philosophical discussion with some friends about epistemology, I would use the technical definition of “knowledge”. Normally, however, I use the colloquial definition of “knowledge” with most people. Since this is a discussion about linguistics, I was using the formal definition, and will be using it from here on out. So it looks as though your little internet research project was another waste of time.
Sorry, I know you know thought you “had” me and all.
Since the context of our discussion is concerning the defined rules of written language of biblical text for worldwide consumption, so-called “Ebonics” is inferior.
You haven’t demonstrated this. There is nothing objectively “inferior” about Ebonics. It’s simply one of many widely used variations of the English language. People view it as inferior precisely because they associate it with poor Black people. “Inferior” here is a judgment about class and race (i.e. “bigotry”), and has literally nothing to do with the merits of the particular English variety.
Thus, the modern concept of recognizing “Ebonics” is as racist as “affirmative action” and other political measures that have been suggested that present the black race as intellectually inferior.
Again, please stop using “thus” incorrectly. Wise up and actually read up on the history of AAVE and the Ebonics controversy, and stop relying on what you glean from pop culture, the local evening news, and urbandictionary.com.
Your statement is crass
What exactly is crass about it?
and probably requires gestures to fully express itself
Why would you think that? Hmmm..
This has nothing to do with being black.
Ebonics has everything to do with being black. What are you talking about?
Even if spoken English were to entirely abandon proper grammar all together, it would still be both required and expected of any of our important writings, and specifically our English Bible.
No it wouldn’t. If what we consider “proper” today changed, the written language would eventually reflect that. This is why modern translations no longer use archaisms such as “quoth” and “thou”. You’re wrong, Andrew.
History and tradition has a far firmer hold on our rules of language that passing fads of spoken speech.
Written language is indeed usually more static than “passing fads” of spoken language. Nobody disputes this. Unfortunately for you, nobody who matters says that the fading use of “shall” is a “passing fad”.
“In modern English the interchangeable use of shall and will is an acceptable part of standard British and US English.” -New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1999 Oxford University Press
“From the reams of pronouncements written about the distinction between shall and will—dating back as far as the 17th century—it is clear that the rules laid down have never very accurately reflected actual usage. The nationalistic statements of 18th and 19th century British grammarians, who commonly cited the misuses of the Irish, the Scots, and occasionally the Americans, suggest that the traditional rules may have come closest to the usage of southern England. Some modern commentators believe that English usage is still the closest to the traditionally prescribed norms. Most modern commentators allow that will is more common in nearly all uses. The entries for shall and will in this dictionary show current usage.” -http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shall
Booya!* Stuff that in your prescriptivist pipe and smoke it.
I actually agree with your views on the intermediate state and final punishment– too bad you’re out to lunch when it comes to linguistics, and have a psychological fixation or emotional attachment to a particular translation. You’ll come along (hopefully).
I look forward to your 20 page response. Oh, but please send it privately. If you don’t, that just means that you’re arguing for public display.
Just kidding, Andrew. Don’t go and write a two page response to that comment.
*for meaning, check urbandictionary.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just so that we’re crystal clear about this – that is a patently false analogy.
The reason I don’t like to argue with translation issues with a KJV-onlyist (and Google confirmed my suspicions on Andrew) is that their devotion to the KJV is materially relevant. After time it becomes clear that their goal all along was to argue for whatever translation of a particular verse happens to line up with the KJV. Every single time. I find this to be the case quite apart from the exegetical merits of their agreement or disagreement with the facts as I see them, so I have learned that it is best not to invest the most precious asset I have – time – in such debates.
The Democrat comparison is nonsense for this reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s amazing, Glenn. You have categorized me, labeled me with a theological slur of “KJV-Onlyist”, and think you have me figured out, none of it with any care for accuracy, and without concern for the merits of what was actually said.
That’s called bigotry, Glenn. You’re a bigot, and proud of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, as every reader can clearly see with no room for doubt, I have carefully assessed the merits of “what was said” and answered in meticulous detail. Now, you didn’t like or want to agree with the answers I gave, but it is clearly a lie to tell anyone that I showed no concern for the merits of what was said in this discussion. You know that.
As for you being upset at me having you “all figured out” (something I never said), I merely described a pattern of behaviour that I have seen many times before, and which I was not wrong about in this case, I believe. I am sorry that you find this offensive, but I am not responsible for those feelings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
Since now you are accusing me of lying, and because the relevant posts have dropped off onto a different page, it seems that I need to post your own words back at you, and address this shell game you’re playing.
Glenn wrote in post 42:
What were you trying to do with that Glenn? Anyone who cares to review the actual posts will notice that I ignored your attempt to change the subject, and stuck to the issue at hand.
Glenn wrote, post 44:
Right here you’re not being brave enough to actually say what you’re implying (that comes later) but you have stated that your speculation about what I might believe on another issue is sufficient to “see where it comes from” and to ignore addressing the material points on their merits.
And just to day, Glenn, you revealed what you were implying, and have displayed bigotry in spades:
Glenn wrote, post 69:
Why were you using a theological slur like “KJV-Onlyist” then, unless you were playing upon the underlying prejudice associated with that label?
You said that you researched me on Google. If you actually have researched me, you will notice that I often use up to five English translations, depending upon the particular point I am addressing. Similarly, I have cited the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops, Geneva, King James, and 1901 American Standard Version as being favorable examples in this specific point. So, you cannot be using “King James Only” in a literal sense, but rather you have employed it as a religious slur.
Yes, you are a bigot, and your method of argument is dishonest as well. You originally attempted to introduce an new topic, namely, the evaluating the general integrity of all English translations in existence, and when I ignored you and stayed on topic, you have pretended that I was insincere in my “motives” as a convenient reason to slander me.
Additionally, your prejudice has interfered to where you have changed your stated stance from your article for the purposes of arguing against a third possible solution. Yes, my explanation happens to be friendly to the King James Version… (among others) … but so what? Is this a problem for you?
Here’s your closing statement from your article, showing your original stated goal:
Closing statement, by Glenn:
To put this in context, your two proposed solutions were mutually exclusive. That is, if A was true, B must be false, but if B was the intended meaning, then A could not be true. Your initial conclusion was that it was important to recognize options for explaining the passage.
Now, however, you are now arguing because the new explanation of “just read the classic English translations in the literal sense just as they’ve been for the last 650 years” contradicts your “move the comma” trick. But that shouldn’t be anything new for you, since the “experience of the Thief” explanation already contradicted “move the comma” … and you presented that one yourself.
Instead of staying with your stated goal of gathering plausible explanations, you’ve acted very hypocritical and insincere. Slinging around “KJV-Only” accusations doesn’t lend to your credibility.
You certainly do seem to have another motive. Where you previously reserved that maybe someone would “find a contradiction” to Bullinger’s proposed grammatical rule (which he seems to have invented for this exact argument) you rejected seven counter-examples that I laid before you, and started re-inventing his proposed rule in an attempt to make it fit. That’s also called a “shell game” – changing the rules of a challenge after it’s been met.
Regardless of the original topic, the issue I’m addressing is bigotry.
From your own statements, we see that you formed your preconceived opinion apart from anything that I’ve brought forth or defended in these posts. That’s called “prejudice.” Furthermore, you are tossing around an undefined hostile religious slur of “KJV-Only” which marks you as a bigot.
I could honestly say that it’s a waste of time discussing anything of importance with a bigot. You’ve obviously got a chip on your shoulder against the King James, or anyone who quotes the King James, or against anyone who might have a reason to prefer the King James, or anyone who has investigated translation claims concerning the King James, and it interferes with your judgment, and prevents you from judging people or their arguments on their merits.
I’m hoping you might begin to recognize this, and maybe change, and if not you, maybe others might learn from this. I am well aware that there are a few King James-quoting loons out there, but that’s no excuse for the prejudiced labeling behavior you displayed. Judge people on their merits. Yes, it may seem “inconvenient” but that’s the nature of fairness.
And, if you don’t want to discuss translations as a whole… then don’t introduce the topic. It’s that simple. Stay on topic.
-Andrew
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Didn’t your post say “catrefully” instead of “carefully” until just a few minutes ago? If you’re able to change your posts after the fact, maybe you could fix the typo in your last sentence of your article as well…
I think you meant “plausible.” I noticed that because I blockquoted that portion in my past post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, I didn’t correct anything in the comment (unless my memory is failing). I think I’ll leave the typo that’s there. You know what it means.
As for the accusation of lying, it stands. You claimed that I made an unfair attack on you and that I never addressed the issues raised on the merits of what was said. This is false, as you know well. You spent many (many… many many) words responding to my details comments about the merits of what was said. Therefore this claim is a lie. What’s more, I never discussed a third possibility and argued about it. You may have had such thoughts, but I never did. From start to finish, I have always maintained two possibilities regarding Luke 23:43. I commented briefly on your mistaken but confident claim that the Greek word (emou) is not a predictive one, and showed that this belief on your part was mistaken. But that certainly never rose to the level of a serious hypothesis about Luke 23:43 – not as far as I’m concerned.
As for the rest, I think I have adequately addressed anything of substance between us. I think that now that your attempted arguments from evidence have been simply refuted, you’re trying to complain about me being unpleasant as a diversion.
[Note: I did edit this comment, expanding it a little.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn says:
Post #1 on this page
I believe I qualify as one of the “every reader” category. And I’m sorry Glenn, you cannot speak for me. There is clearly room for doubt here.
It seems you went to a lot of trouble to discredit something that would have been a very easy answer to that particular scriptural “problem” relating to the subject of “soul sleep”, (or more properly why people get the wrong impression from it.) Sometimes we just overlook something that might be very simple, yet very important. But just because you never thought of it first shouldn’t be an excuse for throwing it out as something of no value.
Is it really so hard to consider this scenario?:
The thief (that day) asked to be remembered when Jesus came into his kingdom. His repentant attitude happened that day, (so it would not be confused as his having been predestinated from before the foundation of the world to have had this happen.) The other thief was ridiculing Jesus. If Jesus made a promise to him [the repentant thief] that day, he obviously would not have expected to have been with Jesus that day. (He may have even heard about Jesus saying he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,) but would realize the fulfillment would happen “when he came into his kingdom”, as a result of the special notice Jesus took of him as he was dying. At any rate the thief showed faith in a resurrection, as he did not say, like the other thief did, that Jesus should get himself and them off the crosses that very day. I’ve heard people refer to one of the thieves as “the good thief”. But he was not a good thief, he was just repentant and believed that Jesus would come into his kingdom, and wanted to be remembered at that time. The promise was made that day, like writing out a check, but the fulfillment would happen at the resurrection and the coming kingdom.
Just because some people want to “go to heaven when they die” and don’t know the difference between a promise and the fulfillment of a promise doesn’t mean the scripture is wrong or has to be changed. This is what is very clear to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Joanne, whether you happen to agree with me wasn’t really the point. The point is, I carefully addressed the issues that were put to me. I said that because somebody falsely claimed that I didn’t address what was said.
There’s certainly no doubt that I carefully addressed what was said to me, even if there is some doubt, in your view, over whether or not my proposals are correct.
Besides, nobody is saying that the Scripture needs to be changed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn, I can say that I can’t remember meeting anyone who resorted to such dishonest methods of argument. You continually misrepresent what I have said and lie about my position.
For example, I never said that the word emou could not be predictive. I said it was not limited to being predictive. There’s a clear mathematical difference, which you seem very eager to remain ignorant of. I gave an obvious example, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten:
Mat 5:48 KJV
(48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
That word esomai “be” is not predictive, and certainly no one of us has became perfect as God in heaven. Even for the hardest of heads, that’s obviously a command, not a prediction.
Here’s a second example:
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.
Again, that’s a command, not a prediction. If that was a prediction, then when one person prayed like a hypocrite, Jesus becomes false.
I was even specific to clarify that I was using these terms within the textbook scope as defined by the English dictionary, that is, comparing a mere forecast of future time (predictive) against determination (command).
Both usages are futuristic: esoumai covers the textbook usages of both shall and will. If I remember correctly, you tried to evade this by playing games by making up your own personal definition for “predictive” and redefining it as “the future sense.”
It seems that you’re determined to “win” no matter how much revisionism it requires. I’m sick of your shell games. How can you fool yourself into thinking that you’ve honestly answered anything when you have to resort to misrepresenting such a basic premise?
Yes, you did refuse to address the issue on its merits, for reason of the already addressed bigotry. It so happens you jumped in later at a different time, although whether you actually addressed it on its merits is still debatable. You resumed the prejudice tack at the end by introducing the “KJV-Only” slur…
Glenn wrote:
Perhaps you are so bigoted that you really cannot see this: but introducing a religious slur to dismiss someone as “not worth discussing translation issues” is an unfair attack. It’s certainly nothing that can be defended against, because you’ve refused to define your term, so it can neither be admitted no denied, let alone addressed on its merits.
* * *
By the way: I commented on the spelling change because I had access to a copy of the original text that survived the web page refresh. I don’t believe that it changed itself, so as a rhetorical question, I ask, who else has access to alter the site content and would do such a thing? Do you have a habit of having memory failures?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, there is no point in this. I believe that I clearly, fully and honestly addressed the issues raised by you. I am not interested in revisitng the same issues again because I am confident that they were properly addressed, and I am even less interested in your personal attacks on me. I have nothing to add, and I am confident that the reader will see that nothing further is needed from me in response to you on the issues you raised (whether they happen to agree with me or not), so I will not “take the bait,” so to speak, to carry on.
If you feel that it is wise or necessary to post more of the same about what a wicked person I am, I extend that freedom to you, but I don’t think I have any further duty to explain what I think I have already explained (and explained, if I do say so, with some patience toward you). I think, however, that if you’re going to do no more than repeat the above attacks against me, you should simply send them in private.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
When I asked to talk with you privately because I needed to talk to you outside the boards, you mocked me and refused. Thus I was left with little option except by “two or three witnesses” (See Matthew 18:16)
You always had my email address, because it’s required with each post. I never did have your email address, but even if I did hunt it down through other means, you had already refused to talk in private.
I have said that regardless of any translation of Luke 23:43, the issue of bigotry needed to be addressed. This was more important. You played a shell game with this as well, and then tried to claim that I was “ignoring issues” and pretended that you “had answered everything.” You keep hopping back and forth. My patience has worn thin with this foolishness.
You’re the one with the ability to open a private conversation, and you’ve refused to do so, so you have no right to complain about addressing this in public. You are not a victim.
You could still talk with me privately. You have the address.
That is all,
-Andrew
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cry-baby
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, what I chose not to do was to answer your exegetical arguments in private, since they had been offered here. I did not “mock” you as you now allege. I answered them here instead, and I explained why. I am not asking you to answer my public arguments in private, so there’s no compariason here between the two scenarios. I was confident enough in my arguments that I was not afraid for others to see your answers. What I have now said is that I have already given all the answers that I believe are required, and that if you intend to go over and over the old ground of repeating your attacks on me (which have nothing to do with exegesis), there’s no point reproducing them here again, so it’s best to send them in private. These claims about me being dishonest (“shell game”) and even of me changing my stance on issues (“hopping back and forth”) are untrue, and they are just unhelpful attacks on the person. It should not be happening here, as it 1) lowers your standing and degrades you in the eyes of anyone who sees it, and 2) is not the purpose of my extending to you freedom and privilege of using my blog.
To be clear, I am not requesting that you contact me in private. I’d prefer to see you simply stop this altogether. I am only saying that should you feel the need to do nothing more than complain about my personal traits, private is the way to do it. As I said, I am confident that your exegetical comments have been fully addressed in sufficient detail, and I think you are trying to focus on me personally to distract from the way that turned out. I wouldn’t go as far as to join Ron with the “crybaby” reference, but it’s certainly not productive in the least to do what I think you’re doing, which is why I have said that should you wish to continue doing that, do it in private. There is a “contact us” button that you can use for that purpose. The reason I am not contacting you in private is that I believe I have said all that I need to. I have nothing to contact you about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Setting aside one person’s attempt to hijack the blog…
Getting back onto the actual subject of the blog entry – as I made pretty clear in the blog entry itself, even as written, “assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (setting aside concerns over emou, since I have shown that it is normall used in the same was as “will” – which can be predictive or imperative), the taxt isn’t a problem for soul sleep as it refers tot he experience of the dying criminal, and even if soul sleep is true (as I think it is), the experience of Paradise would have been immediate.
Regarding the second possibility (that the comma belongs after “today”), biblical commentators that I have read have never actually challenged Bullinger’s observation (either because they haven’t read Bullinger, or because they’ve checked the way semeron is used and they did not rebut Bullinger because they saw that his observation was correct). Now having seen someone actually try to come up with counterexamples (and clearly fail, in my view, for reasons already explained), the discussion has reinforced the confidence I have that Bullinger was demonstrably right and that his observation stands up to attempted counterexamples.
Saying that his observation was right (which it is), however, doesn’t mean that his proposed translation has got to be correct. It only means that it cannot be dismissed and is a live possibility. After all, it’s also true that there’s a pattern of how Amen lego soi (“Assuredly I say to you”) and similar phrases are used. We have no right to automatically privilege one over the other. There’s no opportunity to be dogmatic about it.
In light of this (unintended) confidence boost, I may put something fairly brief together, no more than a simple demonstration of this “rule” in practice and also of why some possible counterexamples end up not being counterexamples at all, and submit it for publication. Maybe. The immediate future is fairly busy, but it would be worth doing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well call me impressed. I had heard of the “the comma’s in the wrong place” line of argument before, but I had only heard of it from reactionary types who just dismissed it as a way of “changing the word of God.” It’s no such thing. It’s a real question about how to best translated and express the word of God, surely. Actually seeing it well explained and (very successfully, I think) defended from some attempts at rebuttal is an eye opener. Like you, Glenn I wouldn’t say that you’ve shown that this is definitely the correct translation (with the comma after “today), but I hand it to you. I can’t just ignore it or assume it’s not plausible anymore.
Andrew, sorry, but I think your counterexamples were simply not counterexamples as Glenn showed. Quoting someone else’s sentence means that even though the first word of the quote appears within your sentence, you still have to regard it as the first word of a sentence (namely, someone else’s sentence).
I hope you do publish on this, Glenn. Other people need to at least be exposed to this. It’s not earth shattering stuff, but it’s still interesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In its original printing, behold Glenn’s Golden Grail:
http://www.archive.org/stream/criticallexiconc00bull#page/810/mode/2up
It actually seemed pretty funny to see Glenn’s source. One tiny entry, in one lexicon, on page 810-811, inventing a rule that no other lexicon or translation team has recognized, but he cites his own rule as if it were an authority when he writes his “Lazarus and the Rich Man” article. Yet he doesn’t claim that any other verse suffered in translation because of lacking his proposed “rule.”
Apparently this “rule” was created for the sole purpose of supporting his explanation of a single verse. Not only have critics pointed out that his supposed LXX references do not match the patterns that he says they do, but even looking at his lexicon entry you can see where he gives a non-conclusive example as positive support that could be interpreted either way.
I hope you do publish something, Glenn. You’ll need to do better. Continued postings protesting that you’ve “answered everything” won’t hold up in an actual article.
I want to see how you justify circular logic that you are allowed to determine phrasing before applying your rule of how to determine phrasing. Your “rule” doesn’t work if treated as a rule, and even if you had no contradictions, you lack a sufficient sample set to establish a rule, let alone enough to outnumber the already well-recognized established rule concerning Christ’s introductory form of speech.
I’d like to see you publish that. So publish something, and try to be more convincing this time, because you’ll also be arguing against the whole world of Greek scholarship and the entire history of Bible translation. It won’t be your personal blog anymore, and you can’t discredit all of them with religious slurs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, I’m not sure if you knew this, but acting scornfully towards a claim about an observable pattern is not the same as a rebuttal. Just a minor correction though: I won’t be arguing against any greek scholarship, because no serious Greek scholarship (that I am aware of) has ever been published showing (or even trying to show) that Bullinger’s observation is incorrect. It’s amazing, even though so many people might have a theological reaon to want to do so, they don’t do it. I actually take heart from that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here’s an interesting tidbit: Someone recently implied that it was false to call him KJV onlyist.
Someone has also said “For the record, I am a Conditional Immortality Soul-sleep King James Version inerrantist.”
One guess as to whether or not they were the same person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
I didn’t see the speaker identify himself as a “KJV Onlyist.” When you discover the guts or the honesty to define what you mean that slur “KJV Onlyist” then we might be able to evaluate whether there is any truth or merit in your accusation.
One of my areas of study includes scripture integrity concerning the Masoretic Hebrew, koine Greek, and common English translations. I often compare the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops, Geneva, and King James texts, but I’ve compared quite a few more. From these translations, I’ve only found one that continues to pass tests against “error.”
Those were my words you quoted above. I don’t even like the term “Conditional Immortality” but I used it there because that specific audience would understand. I have never, under any circumstances, called myself “King James Only” and in my experience folks that seek to apply that label others are insincere, dishonest, bigots that only seek to prejudice others, without intention of addressing the base issue on its merits.
“…every time”
Make no mistake about my motives: I stand against your position because it is weak, foolish, and sets people up to fall. It twists the scripture. You’re defending a failed position that ultimately loses the battle, and it remains one of the chief reasons why those that identify themselves with “Conditional Immortality” are not taken seriously.
The people who actually fight these battles in the real world need working ammunition.
As an ironic example based on your most recent post, your entire argument depends on mocking and scorning an observed pattern that is more oft-repeated and far more easily observed than that proposed by your theory.
I’ve lost count of the times you’ve said that you need no further explanation, that you do not need to defend your points any further. Yet you persist in demonstrating the behavior of a religious bigot without apology. Nothing will come of this. So you go and publish what you need to publish.
And let the “readers” decide.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Andrew, I understand that you do not yourself believe that you are biased. I accept that. I believe you are. I think the KJV only position introduces bias into a person’s stance.
I cannot apologise for any offence caused by this, as much as it might bother you. I am simply being honest about what I think is true. I also note in your recent comments a strong passion and tendency to unfairly impute incorrect states of mind when you now say that I was “mocking” and “scorning” a well established pattern [i.e. the pattern of the amen lego sayings], when in actual fact I did the opposite: I acknowledged and accepted that pattern as real and demonstrable. Your bias is controlling the way you read other people to the point where you are unwilling to even see what I am really saying, instead projecting what you’d prefer me to be saying. This is what I was concerned about all along given what I take to be your closed minded stance on modern translations (or suggestions for altertive translations of verses) as per your KJV only position, and I believe this concern is vindicated.
EDIT: On the other hand, I’m pleased to see that you’re reading through other blog entries here such as the one on Kingdom Theology. Feel free to do more of that, and I hope you find them helpful!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
1) You persist in applying an undefined slur of “KJV Only.” In this blog alone, I have addressed the Greek text, quoted from Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops, Geneva, and King James Bibles, and also alluded to the American Standard Version of 1901 because it supported the case in point. Clearly, the word “only” is not being used in its literal sense. Thus, it seems that you have only used this term to invoke prejudice.
2) You have tacked on accusations unsupported by evidence, namely accusing of a “closed minded stance on modern translations…” Perhaps you are offended by the implication that I judge translations by their merits, instead of applying “affirmative action” or assuming that “newer is always better?”
I suppose you would accuse a basketball coach of being “close minded” for not recruiting midgets on his team, never mind that the said midgets couldn’t run, pass, dribble, or shoot. Darn those close-minded coaches with standards! They are so biased.
3) Concerning your complaint that I am “closed minded” concerning “suggestions for altertive(sp) translations of verses…” I ask, why should I consider you an authority on how to translate the Greek text? It seems that is what this is really about. If I do not validate your personal attempt at translation, you judge me as “closed minded.”
More on “close minded” shall follow when we take a look at your own quote, in a moment… at the “black hole” reference.
4) You are pleased that I am reading your blog entries? Did you fail to realize that your own quoted words called a hypocrite? Maybe you should read your own words again (post 17) or from their source:
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/luke-2343-and-soul-sleep/comment-page-2/#comment-4015
Now you invested energy to create an “Anti King James Only” page with a picture of a red dragon on a black background. Do you actually define what you mean by “King James Only” here? Let’s see…
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/nuts-and-bolts-007-the-king-james-only-movement/
Taking advocates at their own word? How hypocritical. I have protested your label, and yet you persist using it as a slur. Maybe the next sentence will better illuminate your meaning…
Are you intentionally trying to obfuscate? What does that mean? You’re the one that wrote the article, and presumably no one was rushing you. What do you mean by “a certain status?” Obviously, there are many English bibles that one could assign “a certain status.”
The Wycliffe translation has “a certain status.”
The Tyndale translation has “a certain status.”
The Authorized translation has “a certain status.”
The Revised Standard Version has “a certain status.”
The Message has a “certain status.”
Now, not every status is guaranteed to be complementary. That’s what happens when you judge a thing on its merits rather than what you think will get you pats on the back from your so-called “intellectual” peers.
It is always folly to accept an undefined label, and no honest person will insist on trying to force an undefined label on anyone.
I think that you’ve demonstrated that “King James Onlyism” is a slur to be applied to any opponents that have found merit in (or even simply prefer) the King James translation, regardless of whether the label is technically accurate. The brush has been made intentionally broad, and the meaning undefined, to make it useful as a weapon.
Indeed, if you want to see “closed-minded bias” staring you in the face, you need only to look in the mirror, or read your own words:
Glenn wrote:
Not only do you fail to define what you mean by “KJV-only” but by refusing to grant it “serious discussion” you are refusing to allow … whatever this position is, we are not sure … to be judged by its merits.
That’s called prejudice, Glenn. Those were the words of a bigot. And if we consider your article defending “Kingdom Theology” where you specifically lamented being mislabeled or slurred, then you are also a hypocrite (see post 17 above.)
You say you are a Calvinist. I can see in the margin that you subscribe to multiple Preterist blogs, so I believe you might be a Calvinist. Earlier, I admitted (see post 40 of Older Comments) that the traditional punctuation of “to day shalt thou me with me in Paradise” was opposed to Calvinist doctrine.
But did I say that your statements should not be considered, because you were obviously “biased?” I could have said used a blanket judgment against you because of other observations I have made of self-admitted Calvinists. Yet I allowed your claims and statements to be judged individually, by their merits, without trying to label you with “-ists” or “-isms” and protesting that it would be useless to talk any further.
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/nuts-and-bolts-007-the-king-james-only-movement/
You’ve had your chance to write a long article, and given that you have persisted in trying to label me with “KJV-Only” it seems like a pretty cowardly method of indirect attack.
Glenn wrote:
This isn’t too hard to figure out, with a little math:
1) You label me with “KJV-only” without otherwise defining the term
2) You persist on applying this label when it is not claimed
3) You claim it is not a religious slur, and deny that invokes prejudice
4) You now say that your personal definition for this term means “intellectual black hole”
Speaking of intellectual black holes, your research for that article was sadly lacking. The least you could have done was to have done was to have checked your facts before posting absolutely false statements. I think you should have been a little more careful in your research, seeing that you are accusing others of being an “intellectual black hole.”
Luk 19:22 KJV
(22) And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee…
Let’s deal with the merits of some of your statements on your “Label People Who Use the King James” blog now… on the blog itself. I’ll see you there.
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/nuts-and-bolts-007-the-king-james-only-movement/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh boy… So now Andrew quotes just a tiny part of my definition of what it means to be KJV-only and claims that it, all by itself, is inadequate (wow what a surprise), he then denies that I define the term, and then claims that I “define” the term as intellectual black hole. I couldn’t make up the silliness that I’m seeing here.
Andrew, aside from vastly increasing your web visibility, why are you even posting here if you’re just going to descend to this nonsense?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s tragic is that I suspect there may be a person behind the name “andrew patrick” who really sincerely believes that he’s serving as some sort of prophetic voice, taking wicked people like you to task Glenn. It’s tragic, it’s crazy, but it may just be why he’s here.
I have to agree with your assessment though – there’s some outrageously dishonest quoting in his last comment. Why even reply to him? Surely you’re only encouraging him. I think he’s probably more visible at your blog than anywhere else on the internet. Does his ego really need stroking by answering him? I wouldn’t. There are serious people who would actually benefit from your comments. Don’t cast your pearls in that direction anymore – that’s my advice anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi guy – I did appreciate your comments about Luke 23:43 – a French friend and I were discussing about this text and your comment is exactly what we think about it – no matter how the “traditional” translations show it, the most important is the context – I did appreciate the text in old Greek…that man could never be with Jesus at that same day in Paradise! for sure comma thanks comma Bosco (A comma can really makes a lot of difference!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0