Would a just and merciful God send most of His creation to an eternal hell?

[Soul Searcher]

Lets see if i can explain to you simply enough, i did not seperate with a comma to confuse the issue.
It has been argued that Judgment Day WITH consequences of eternal death do not exist.

So what does eternal death mean to you? Does it mean that one simply dies and stays dead, no pain, no awareness, no nothing. Or does it mean something different, like eternal torment for example?

 

[rstrats]

EchoPneuma,

re: "Mark 15:25 ‘And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.’ (Already crucified at the 3rd hour) vs. John 19:14-15 ‘And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him. (Still being tried at the 6th hour)"


How have you been able to rule out that John wasn’t referring to the sixth hour (noon) of the day before the day of the crucifixion?

 

[Pneuma3]

NO!

I do not believe it was a parable that Jesus made.

I don't know how much clearer I can make my position in this matter.

But as to how or why it became attached to, or embedded in Luke's record is anyone's guess.

Ok so you don't beleive it should even be in the scriptures so I have to ask why?

Can you give me your thoughts as to why you don't beleive it should be in the bible.

Now my only question would be as to where Josephus and the rest of his fellows got this belief. Did they have Spirit breathed scripture to support it? If they did, then surely they had access to scripture and writings to which we do not have.

There were other books written that seem to be lost now that the scriptures mention, so they may have indeed had other scripture.

I am not saying our bible is the whole of scripture but I do beleive it to be scripture.

 

[Pneuma3]

P3, just remember that ANYTIME the NT mentions the "scriptures" it is only talking about the OT scriptures....not the NT writings.

Yes I realize that Echo, but I see in the new testament the same things spoken of in the old.
I believe the new explains the old and the old explains the new.

Jesus opened the scriptures concerning Himself to the apostles and the apostles expounded on what Jesus opened to them.

But even among the OT writings there is discrepancy. In the Dead Sea Scrolls they found two different versions of the book of Jeremiah. One is shorter than the other. Which one is right? Scholars have compared both versions with the Septuagint and have found that the shorter one is the same.....but we have the LONGER one in our bibles today. Meaning we have the INCORRECT one in our bibles.

That does not mean we have the incorrect ones in our bibles, all that says to me is that the dead sea scrolls did not have the whole book of Jeremiah.

The bible IS NOT an inerrant infallible book from God. It was penned by men and put together by men....and has mistakes made by men in it.

Yes it was penned by man under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The only mistakes I see is in the translation.

I'm not saying throw it out because of this.....but be wise enough to look at it with open eyes and a discerning heart.....allowing God in your HEART to be the artiber of what is true.

I always try to do that brother, but I have yet to see the errors in it that you guys see.
Again I am not talking about the translations of the scriptures into English as I do see many errors in the translations. My favorite bible is the KJV, mostly because I have read it from my youth, but I do not rely just the KJV but search out other translations and concordances and lexicons to find a better understanding of what is written.

I believed in eternal punishment for the very reason that I DID NOT study it deeply because I listened to what MEN taught me. Once I examined it CLOSELY myself I saw what it really said.

But Echo the SCRIPTURES did not change did they? just your understanding of those scriptures changed. Thus God was able to reconcile the scriptures you once believed to be unreconcilable.

I believed the bible was inerrant and infallible for the very reason that I believed what MEN taught me. I did not examine it closely myself....once I did I saw what it really said. I understand you saying that our knowledge is partial and just wait because God can reveal things in time.......but there are some things that just can't be reconciled no matter how long we wait.

Why are there things that cannot be reconciled no matter how long we wait?
Echo this is just your opinion which cannot be proven just as it is my opinion which I cannot prove that they will be reconciled. For me I take it on faith that God will open my eyes to see what needs to be seen and if it comes to the time that He would tell me not to believe everything written in His word then so be it, but He has never lead me to that place as of yet and I to have studied the scriptures for a long time.

The only thing that could reconcile some things is for God Himself to come into my living room and say to me "Now look Echo.....I said some things that totally contradict each other. It makes no sense. Just believe that I contradict myself sometimes and have a reason to let errors into the bible."

I don’t think He would say that either Echo, but He may come into your room and say look here and look here, see no contradiction you just were not understanding it correctly.

But I don't believe God would ever say a thing like that. He DOES NOT contradict Himself or make even SMALL errors.

I agree God does not make any errors but our understanding of Him is full of them.

YOu want a small error P3? One that can't be reconciled. One that is black and white?

Here's one.....

II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." (22 years old)
vs.
II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." (42 years old)

As I have been saying the TRANSLATIONS can and do have errors in them.

or this.....

Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him." (Already crucified at the 3rd hour)
vs.
John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him." (Still being tried at the 6th hour)

Rstrats gave you an answer to this already so I will wait to see your reply before looking into it myself.

Now one of those is a relatively simple mistake in numbers. But it is a MISTAKE nonetheless. Ahaziah couldn't have been BOTH 22 and 42 when he began to reign. They CONTRADICT.

Yes they contradict because of a translation error not because the scripture in it original form was in error.

The other on is a little more important because it's the time of day that Jesus was crucified. Either He was ALREADY crucified by the 3rd hour of the day or He was still being TRIED at the 6th hour of the day. It can't be both. That is quite a discrepancy in time.

Refer you to rstrats question.

YOu may say "well what's the big deal? So there's a little discrepancy in the time or a little discrepancy in numbers?" But didn't we agree that if it was GOd's book that there could not be even a SMALL mistake of any kind? That God wouldn't make even a SMALL error?

But there are two right there

......

I still only see a translation error brother not an error in the scriptures themselves.

The translations we have in our English language I agree with you are in error but from the language of the original I don’t believe to be in error.

That why I read more then just the KJV.

I don’t believe the KJV is the inspired word of God Echo, but I do believe the scriptures to be.

It may be we are arguing the same thing from different aspects although I am not sure.

Do you believe the original language is in error? Not the translations but the original language.

 

[Pneuma3]

What do you think about the verses in Jerimiah where it talks of the false pen of the scribes, impling that the law was recorded falsely? Or the part where he says that God did not talk to thier fathers concerning burnt offerings?

give me the scriptures you are refering to.

 

[EchoPneuma]

EchoPneuma,

re: "Mark 15:25 ‘And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.’ (Already crucified at the 3rd hour) vs. John 19:14-15 ‘And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him. (Still being tried at the 6th hour)"


How have you been able to rule out that John wasn’t referring to the sixth hour (noon) of the day before the day of the crucifixion?

All you have to do is read the text to rule out that it was the day before. Lay the texts side by side and the events side by side. In Mark it says "early in the morning" when all these events started.....in John it says "it was early" when all these events started. Then you can see the day progress. But in Mark He is crucified by the 3rd hour (9am) and in John He is released to the people for crucifixion at about the 6th hour (noon). Nowhere is there ANY indication that another day had passed in John.

You would have to invent something to use that excuse.

No, there is a blatant contradiction.

Also, you didn't address the OTHER error of when Azariah began to rule. Was he 22 or 42??

Would a book that is "breathed" by God Himself have an error in it? Would God make a mistake?

 

[Pneuma3]

in the restitution of all things.

Your trying to say because Echo,SS and Hava do not beleive every scripture that the restitution of all things is in error.

That is not so, the restitution of all things will surley come to pass just as the scriptures proclaim.

 

[Soul Searcher]

give me the scriptures you are refering to.

KJV
Jer 7:22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

YLT
Jer 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, And the law of Jehovah is with us? Surely, lo, falsely it hath wrought, The false pen of scribes.

The KJV uses the word vain here instead of false. i post this version for clearity as many people fail to understand that vain means false.

 

[Havahope]

There IS SOMETHING in my reply, its called scripture, didn't you notice ? It's called God's Word, God's Will, God's Way its much expressed in the Bible that's why i much quote it, isn't it obvious ? Of course many despise sound doctrine.

No, its called, "I am more righteous than you. Therefore, I knocked, you didn't. Therefore God gave me wisdom and discernment and You none."

Proverbs 9:8-9 (King James Version)

8Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
9Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

Yes, I believe that. I surely do! But it comes to my mind that the instructor of the wise and the just would first have to be, at the least, wiser than the ones they instruct.

 

[Havahope]

Ok so you don't beleive it should even be in the scriptures so I have to ask why?

Can you give me your thoughts as to why you don't beleive it should be in the bible.

I have never believed that this was something that Jesus said. It just plain does not fit. It reeks of both Jewish and Greek myth.

I do not believe that Jesus ever, ever compromised the truth, nor was He ever inconsistent in what He taught, not by parable or otherwise. I believe that an integral part of Christ's mission here on this earth was to destroy the myths and misconceptions of man concerning the true and the living God, and to teach the truth in their stead. Luke 16:19-31 reeks with such myths and misconceptions about the true and the living God. i.e. Being carried to Abraham's bosom by angels when one dies as the Jews believed is not truth but it is a lie that came from the imagination of man. That one goes to a place called Hades when they die, is not truth, but again it is a lie concocted by the vain imagination of man. I don't believe Jesus ever told a half truth. Do you?

 

[rstrats]

EchoPneuma,

re: "You would have to invent something to use that excuse."

Hey.......It was just a thought.

 

[ONEGod]

#509
Today, 01:38 AM




Havahope
Regular Member

Quote
Originally Posted by: ONEGod
There IS SOMETHING in my reply, its called scripture, didn't you notice ? It's called God's Word, God's Will, God's Way its much expressed in the Bible that's why i much quote it, isn't it obvious ? Of course many despise sound doctrine.



No, its called, "I am more righteous than you. Therefore, I knocked, you didn't. Therefore God gave me wisdom and discernment and You none."

Quote
Originally Posted by: OneGod




Proverbs 9:8-9 (King James Version)
8Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
9Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.



Yes, I believe that. I surely do! But it comes to my mind that the instructor of the wise and the just would first have to be, at the least, wiser than the ones they instruct.

.......................................................................................
#510
Today, 01:54 AM




Havahope
Regular Member

Quote
Originally Posted by: Pneuma3
Ok so you don't beleive it should even be in the scriptures so I have to ask why?
Can you give me your thoughts as to why you don't beleive it should be in the bible.



I have never believed that this was something that Jesus said. It just plain does not fit. It reeks of both Jewish and Greek myth.
I do not believe that Jesus ever, ever compromised the truth, nor was He ever inconsistent in what He taught, not by parable or otherwise. I believe that an integral part of Christ's mission here on this earth was to destroy the myths and misconceptions of man concerning the true and the living God, and to teach the truth in their stead. Luke 16:19-31 reeks with such myths and misconceptions about the true and the living God. i.e. Being carried to Abraham's bosom by angels when one dies as the Jews believed is not truth but it is a lie that came from the imagination of man. That one goes to a place called Hades when they die, is not truth, but again it is a lie concocted by the vain imagination of man. I don't believe Jesus ever told a half truth. Do you?
.................................................................................
ONEGod:
Lets see if the obvious is obvious enough.
You find my quoting scripture false, you find scripture false, and you find one of the Apostles false. So have you decided on God yet ? Whose vain imagination did you say ?

 

[Havahope]

Lets see if the obvious is obvious enough.
You find my quoting scripture false, you find scripture false, and you find one of the Apostles false.

ONEGod, for your info: I never said any scripture was false. I said, in effect, I didn't believe that this particular passage of scriptures were originally in Luke's writing. And I gave my reasoning as to why I believed that. Apparently you missed that, or ignored it.

As far as my "finding [your] quoting scripture false", and "find [ing] one of the apostles false", -
I'll tell you how to put quotes in a bubble if you will tell me any comment that I made saying I found your "quoting scripture false", and that I "find one of the apostles false". Deal?

So have you decided on God yet ?

God is! And whatever you, I, or anyone else decides about God, won't change a thing about Him.

Whose vain imagination did you say ?

I said man's vain imagination.
Why do you ask?
Whose do you think it was?

 

[Soul Searcher]

Being carried to Abraham's bosom by angels when one dies as the Jews believed is not truth but it is a lie that came from the imagination of man.

I tried to respond to this earlier but lost power before I could save the post, will try again now.

I think it is pretty clear that the bosom of Abraham is a metaphor. There may very well be something to this being carried by angels though. I won't go into detail right now but someone I know may have actually witnessed such a thing a few years ago.

That one goes to a place called Hades when they die, is not truth, but again it is a lie concocted by the vain imagination of man. I don't believe Jesus ever told a half truth. Do you?

I have a real problem believeing that Jesus ever used the word hades as part of his ministry, after all it was the name of the Greek god of the underworld. I think Jesus would have used the word sheol instead.

Whether or not Jesus actually used this parable I do not know but it does smell strongly of Greek mythology.

 

[EchoPneuma]

EchoPneuma,

re: "You would have to invent something to use that excuse."

Hey.......It was just a thought.

I understand it was just a thought.....but it's not a valid argument for saying that those scriptures don't contradict.

 

[EchoPneuma]

P3, it is absurd to say that the contradiction about the age that Azariah began to reign is because of a bad translation. That's ludicrous. You can look at it in the original Hebrew and it STILL contradicts. It's not a bad translation it is a MISTAKE. Plain and simple.

And I wish you would understand that you keep saying the original writings were error free, and all the problems are with the translations......but do you not understand that we do NOT have any of those original writings anymore? We can't know if what we have today is even similar to those original writings. There is NO WAY to prove it since the originals DON'T EXIST. You just have to believe it because you believe it....without ANY evidence whatsoever.

If you want to believe it, that is your perogative, but please don't keep saying that the original writings were inerrant and so that somehow excuses the corrupt writings that we call the "bible" today.

And the KJV is the MOST corrupted version that exists. That's the reason the scholars decided to do the REVISED standard version back in the 1800's. It needed to be REVISED because the errors were so many and so serious that it had to be corrected as best they could.

The proof of this is in the preface to the Revised Standard Version of the bible. Just read it and see for yourself. Look carefully at what is said in the 7th and 18th paragraph. But I would HIGHLY recommend you read the whole thing. It's very enlightening as to just how much the bible has been changed over the years.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsvpreface.html

 

[Havahope]

I. ETYMOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL MEANINGS
The modern English word gloss is derived directly from the Latin glossa, itself a transcript of the Greek glossa. In classical Greek glossa (Attic glotta) means the tongue or organ of speech and figuratively a tongue or language. In the course of time Greek grammarians, commenting on the works of Greek authors, used the word glossa to designate first a word of the text which needed some explanation, and next the explanation itself. And it is in this last sense that Christian writers have principally employed the word glossa, gloss, in connexion with Holy Writ. Among them, as among Greek grammarians, a gloss meant an explanation of a purely verbal difficulty of the text, to the exclusion of explanations required by doctrinal, ritual, historical, and other obscurities; and the words which were commonly the subject of their glosses may be reduced to the following five classes:
1. foreign words;
2. provincial dialectical terms;
3. obsolete words;
4. technical terms; or
5. words actually employed in some unusual sense or in some peculiar grammatical form.
As these glosses consisted of a single explanatory word, they were easily written between the lines of the text or in the margin of manuscripts opposite the words of which they supplied the explanation. In the process of time the glosses naturally grew in number, and in consequence they were gathered in separate books where they appeared, first in the same order of succession as they would have had if written in the margin of the codices, and ultimately in a regular alphabetical order. These collections of glosses thus formed kinds of lexicons which gave the concrete meaning of the difficult words of the text and even historical, geographical, biographical, and other notices, which the collectors deemed necessary or useful to illustrate the text of the Sacred writings. A lexicon of the kind is usually called a glossary (from Lat. glossarium), but bears at times in English the simple name of a gloss. From a single explanatory word, interlined or placed in the margin, the word gloss has also been extended to denote an entire expository sentence, and in many instances even a sort of running commentary on an entire book of Sacred Scripture. Finally the term gloss designates a word or a remark, perhaps intended at first as an explanation of the text of Holy Writ, and inserted for some time either between the lines or in the margin of the Sacred Books, but now embodied in the text itself, into which it was inserted by owners or by transcribers of manuscripts, and in which it appears as if an integral part of the Word of God, whereas it is but a late interpolation.
II. GLOSSES AS MARGINAL NOTES
As is quite natural, the margin has always been the favourite place for recording explanatory words or remarks of various kinds concerning the text of the Bible. And in point of fact, marginal notes of varying nature and importance are found in nearly all manuscripts and printed editions of the Sacred Scriptures. With regard to the Hebrew text, these glosses or marginal notes are mostly extracts from the Masorah or collection of traditional remarks concerning Holy Writ. They usually bear on what was regarded as a questionable reading or spelling in the text, but yet was allowed to remain unmodified in the text itself through respect for its actual form. Thus, at times the margin bids the reader to transpose, interchange, restore, or remove a consonant, while at other times it directs him to omit or insert even an entire word. Some of these glosses are of considerable importance for the correct reading or understanding of the original Hebrew, while nearly all have effectually contributed to its uniform transmission since the eleventh century of our era. The marginal notes of Greek and Latin manuscripts and editions of the Scriptures are usually of a wider import. Annotations of all kinds, chiefly the results of exegetical and critical study, crowd the margins of these copies and printed texts far more than those of the manuscripts and editions of the original Hebrew. In regard to the Latin Vulgate, in particular, these glosses gradually exhibited to readers so large and so perplexing a number of various textual readings that to remedy the evil, SixtusV, when publishing his official edition of the Vulgate in 1588, decreed that henceforth copies of it should not be supplied with such variations recorded in the margin. This was plainly a wise rule, and its faithful observance by Catholic editors of the Vulgate and by its translators, notably by the authors of the Douay version, has secured the object intended by Sixtus V. Despite the explicit resolve of James I that the Protestant Version of Holy Writ to be published during his reign should not have any marginal notes, that version -- the so-called Authorized Version appeared in 1611 with such notes, usually recording various readings. The glosses or marginal notes of the British Revised Version published 1881-85, are greatly in excess over those of the Version of 1611. They give various readings, alternate renderings, critical remarks, etc., and by their number and character have startled the Protestant public. The marginal notes of the American Standard Revised Version (1900-1901) are of the same general description as those found in the British Revised Version of Holy Writ.
III. GLOSSES AS TEXTUAL ADDITIONS
As stated above, the word gloss designates not only marginal notes, but also words or remarks inserted for various reasons in the very text of the Scriptures. The existence of such textual additions in Holy Writ is universally admitted by Biblical scholars with regard to the Hebrew text, although there is at times considerable disagreement among them as to the actual expressions that should be treated as glosses in the Sacred Writings. Besides the eighteen corrections of the Scribes which ancient Rabbis regard as made in the sacred text of the Old Testament before their time, and which were probably due to the fact that marginal explanations had of old heen embodied in the text itself, recent scholars have treated as textual additions many words and expressions scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible. Thus the defenders of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch naturally maintain that the more or less extensive notices found in the Mosaic writings and relative to matters geographical, historical, etc., decidedly later than Moses' time, should be regarded as post-Mosaic textual additions. Others, struck with the lack of smoothness of style noticeable in several passages of the original Hebrew, or with the apparent inconsistencies in its parallel statements, have appealed to textual additions as offering a natural and adequate explanation of the facts observed. Some have even admitted the view that Midrashim, or kinds of Jewish commentaries, were at an early date utilized in the framing or in the transcription of our present Hebrew text, and thus would account for what they consider as actual and extensive additions to its primitive form. And it can hardly be doubted that by means of the literary feature known as "parallelism" in Hebrew poetry, many textual additions can be detected in the Hebrew text of the poetical books, notably in that of Job. All scholars distinctly maintain, however, and indeed justly, that all such glosses, whether actually proved, or simply conjectured, do not interfere materially with the substantial integrity of the Hebrew text. The presence of similar textual additions in the text of the Septuagint, or oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament, is an established fact which was well known to the Roman editors of that version under Sixtus V. One has only to compare attentively the words of that ancient version with those of the original Hebrew to remain convinced that the Septuagint translators have time and again deliberately deviated from the text which they rendered into Greek, and thus made a number of more or less important additions thereunto. These translators frequently manifest a desire to supply what the original had omitted or to clear up what appeared ambiguous. Frequently, too, they adopt paraphrastic renderings to avoid the most marked anthropomorphisms of the text before them: while at times the seem to be guided in their additions by Jewish Halacha and Haggadab. Glosses as textual additions exist also in manuscripts of the New Testament, owing to a variety of causes, the principal among which may be given as follows: copyists have embodied marginal notes in the text itself; at times they have supplemented the words of an Evangelist by means of the parallel passages in the other Gospels; sometimes they have completed the quotations from the Old Testament in the New. Finally, textual additions appear in the manuscripts and printed editions of the Latin Vulgate. Its author, St. Jerome, has freely enough inserted in his rendering of the original Hebrew historical, geographical, doctrinal remarks which he thought more or less necessary for the understanding of Scriptural passages by ordinary readers. He complains at times that during his own life copyists, instead of faithfully transcribing his translation, embodied in the text notes found in the margin. And after his death manuscripts of the Vulgate, especially those of the Spanish type, were supposedly enriched with all kinds of additional readings, which, together with other textual variations embodied in early printed copies of the Vulgate, led ultimately to the official editions of St. Jerome's work by Popes Sixtus V and Clement VIII. But however numerous and important all such glosses may actually be, they have never materially impaired the substantial integrity either of the Greek New Testament or of the Latin Vulgate.
IV. GLOSSES AS SCRIPTURAL LEXICONS
With regard to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, most rabbinical commentaries are little more than collections of glosses, or "glossaries", as they are usually called, inasmuch as their chief object is to supply explanations of Hebrew words. A part of the Masorah may also be considered as a kind of glossary to the Hebrew Bible; and the same thing may be said in reference to the collections of Oriental and Western readings given in the sixth volume of the London Polyglot. As regards the Greek Bible texts, there are no separate collections of glosses; yet these texts are taken into account, together with the rest of the Greek literature, in a certain number of glossaries which afford explanations of difficult words in the Greek language. The following are the principal glossaries of that description:
the lexicon of Hesychius, a Greek grammarian of the fourth century of our era;
the "Lexeon synagoge" (collection of glosses) of the celebrated patriarch Photius (died 891);
the lexicon of Suidas, apparently an author of the tenth century;
the "Etymologium Magnum" by an unknown writer of the twelfth or the thirteenth century;
the "Synagoge lexeon" of the Byzantine monk Zonaras;
the "Dictionarium" of the Benedictine Varius Phavorinus, published early in the sixteenth century.
Most of the glosses illustrating the language of Scripture which are found in the works of Hesychius, Suidas, Phavorinus, and in the "Etymologium Magnum", were collected and published by J.C. Ernesti (Leipzig, 1785-86). The best separate gloss on the Latin Vulgate, as a collection of explanations chiefly of its words, is that of St. Isidore of Seville, which he completed in 632, and which bears the title of "Originum sive Etymologiarum libri XX". It is found in Migne, P. L., LXXXII.
V. GLOSSES AS COMMENTARIES
Scriptural Glosses
As Scriptural commentaries there are two celebrated glosses on the Vulgate. The former is the "Glossa Ordinaria", thus called from its common use during the Middle Ages. Its author, the German Walafrid Strabo (died 849), had some knowledge of Greek and made extracts chiefly from the Latin Fathers and from the writings of his master, Rabanus Maurus, for the purpose of illustrating the various senses -- principally the literal sense -- of all the books of Holy Writ. This gloss is quoted as a high authority by St. Thomas Aquinas, and it was known as "the tongue of Scripture". Until the seventeenth century it remained the favourite commentary on the Bible; and it was only gradually superseded by more independent works of exegesis. The "Glossa Ordinaria" is found in vols. CXIII and CXIV of Migne, P. L. The second gloss, the "Glossa Interlinearis", derived its name from the fact that it was written over the words in the text of the Vulgate. It was the work of Anselm of Laon (died 1117), who had some acquaintance with Hebrew and Greek. After the twelfth century copies of the Vulgate were usually supplied with both these glasses, the "Glossa Ordinaria" being inserted in the margin, at the top and at the sides, and the "Glossa Interlinearis" being placed between the lines of the Vulgate text; while later, from the fourteenth century onward, the "Postilla" of Nicholas of Lyra and the "Additions" of Paulus Brugensis were added at the foot of each page. Some early printed editions of the Vulgate exhibit all this exegetical apparatus; and the latest and best among them is the one by Leander a S. Martino, O.S.B. (six vols. fol., Antwerp, 1634).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06586a.htm

 

[Pneuma3]

On the 6th hour.

The hour: It was about the sixth hour. Some ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts read it about the third hour, which agrees with Mark xv. 25. And it appears by Matt. xxvii. 45 that he was upon the cross before the sixth hour.

If this is the case we see here a mistranslation.

And

The time when he was crucified; it was the third hour, v. 25. He was brought before Pilate about the sixth hour (John xix. 14), according to the Roman way of reckoning, which John uses, with which ours at this day agrees, that is at six o'clock in the morning; and then, at the third hour, according to the Jews' way of reckoning, that is, about nine of the clock in the morning, or soon after, they nailed him to the cross.

However this one also makes sense and may prove to be accurate. Can it be explained away so simply as this? At first I wanted something more but as I thought more on it I said to myself why? Does everything have to be so hard to explain.

 

[Pneuma3]

Scriptures and have a different understanding of them.

I can only summarize that because you brought these scriptures up in this discussion that you believe them or other scriptures that state otherwise are in error.

I don’t believe that they are. Let’s look at the first one.

KJV
Jer 7:22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

If I am not wrong the contradiction you see here is God saying He did not give command concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices, which we know He did according to Moses.

First thing I would point out is God gave the Law written in stone BEFORE He gave the commands concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

In the day God brought the people out of Egypt He gave commands for us to OBEY HIS VOICE but the people would not listen to OBEY HIS VOICE so God commanded burnt offerings and sacrifices for the people.

If the people had OBEYED HIS VOICE then there would have been not need of burnt offerings and sacrifices. But because of the peoples disobedience God instituted a way for man to come before Him in repentance by burnt offerings and sacrifices.

We see this very principal brought out in

1 Samuel 15:22
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

God has far more delight in our obedience then He has in us having to offer up burnt offerings and sacrifices for our sins. If we OBEY Him we have no need of sacrifices.

If you read the whole chapter of Jer.7 you will see that the people seemed to think that they could continue in sin because all’s they then had to do is offer up burnt offerings and sacrifices and God would forgive them their disobedience. They seem to be using the burnt offerings and sacrifices in order to continue living in a sinful way. They were using the burnt offerings and sacrifices WRONGLY for the burnt offerings and sacrifices were put in place by God for the purpose of when we disobeyed God we had a place of recovery from our disobedience. They were NOT put in place for us so we could disobey God and get away with it by means of burnt offerings and sacrifices.

To OBEY God is better then the need of SACRIFICE.

Brother do we not see this same thing today, people because of the sacrifices of Jesus Christ for every man use His sacrifice for our sin to continues to live in sin.

Is this not what Paul was pointing out here?

Romans 6:1-2
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

YLT
Jer 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, And the law of Jehovah is with us? Surely, lo, falsely it hath wrought, The false pen of scribes.

The KJV uses the word vain here instead of false. i post this version for clearity as many people fail to understand that vain means false.

Let’s look at this one to.

Jeremiah 8:7-9
7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD. 8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. 9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

SS I don’t know how to state what I see in these scriptures without causing offence to you, Echo and Hava. So please remember you asked what I see here and I am not trying to offend anyone.

SS this portion of scripture goes very much against what you and Echo have been stating.

Is it not you guys who have been saying certainly in vain made God it?
And the pen of the scribe is in vain/false?

Is this not what you guys have been asserting?

And what does it continue to say? lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

 

[Pneuma3]

P3, it is absurd to say that the contradiction about the age that Azariah began to reign is because of a bad translation. That's ludicrous. You can look at it in the original Hebrew and it STILL contradicts. It's not a bad translation it is a MISTAKE. Plain and simple.

Havahopes last post.


I realize the KJV has a lot of error Echo that why I don't just read it. I said it was my favorite mostly because I have read it from my youth up but I am not a KJV only person.

Brother most people find what they are looking for and if you look for error you will find it, if you look for reconciliation you will find it, it just takes a lot more seeking.