I believe

[Albion]

One problem is that what we call "God's word" is a translation of the Bible into our own language. Yet we find that not even all the translations agree.

Do they disagree with all the verses that speak of hell?

Compounding the problem is that those who provided us with a translation of the Bible in our own language had an agenda and imprinted the whole project with a Damnationist view. It was translated with a predetermined doctrinal slant and even the vocabulary was messed with.

Meaning that the Bible IS NOT to be believed?

Therefore, it is no surprise that the translated text which we like to refer to as "God's word" does a poor job of supporting Universalism, an alternative view of the final judgment.

Okay. No one is insisting that everybody believe in the Bible, let alone that it is divinely inspired. Certainly I am not. However, it is the basis of the Christian faith and I consider it to be inspired myself. If another person thinks otherwise, that is his choice, but I took your question to have been asked in the context of the Christian religion.

... two translations that take opposite views of the final judgment.
Which one is "God's word"?

Matthew 25:46 New International Version (NIV)
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Matthew 25:46 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

Now really. What churches use "Young's Literal Translation?" This translation is the work, over 150 years ago, of one man who was self-taught. It makes no allowance for the many, many figurative statements that are contained in the Bible and is grammatically incorrect.

There are dozens and dozens of translations that have been put out by more people than you can shake a stick at. "Modern language" editions are all over the place. One that caught my eye in a bookstore was the Hippie Bible (or a title similar to that).

This comparison here isn't persuasive, but present the KJV, the NIV, the ASV, the RSV, or a few of the well-regarded translations to us, and we'll see what the comparison looks like.

 

[renniks]

So, stitching together random passages is somehow more noble than random verses?
What is Jesus' explanation of hell?

If you can't see the difference between cherry picking verses and taking the whole chapter in context, no wonder you fall for falsehoods.

 

[renniks]

Everyone but God?

That makes no sense.

 

[Saint Steven]

If you can't see the difference between cherry picking verses and taking the whole chapter in context, no wonder you fall for falsehoods.

Fall for falsehoods? That was uncalled for.

 

[Saint Steven]

Do they disagree with all the verses that speak of hell?

The word "hell" is not even in every Bible. Fewer and fewer as new translations appear actually. Hell is being erased. It is actually a pagan Norse term anyway. Why keep it?

 

[Saint Steven]

Meaning that the Bible IS NOT to be believed?

That would be an over-reaction.

 

[Saint Steven]

Okay. No one is insisting that everybody believe in the Bible, let alone that it is divinely inspired. Certainly I am not. However, it is the basis of the Christian faith and I consider it to be inspired myself. If another person thinks otherwise, that is his choice, but I took your question to have been asked in the context of the Christian religion.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say you don't insist that the Bible is divinely inspired. Then you say, "I consider it to be inspired myself."

Just to be clear. I am not questioning the inspiration of the Bible.

 

[Albion]

The word "hell" is not even in every Bible.

No, but the description of the place that you are averse to IS in every Bible. So call it whatever you will, the issue remains the same.

 

[Albion]

That would be an over-reaction.

Then you explain, please, how else your words can be understood.

"...those who provided us with a translation of the Bible in our own language had an agenda and imprinted the whole project with a Damnationist view. It was translated with a predetermined doctrinal slant and even the vocabulary was messed with."

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say you don't insist that the Bible is divinely inspired. Then you say, "I consider it to be inspired myself."

No, there's no contradiction. What I said was that I don't insist that everybody believe it is divinely inspired. I, however, do believe it to be divinely inspired.

 

[Saint Steven]

Then you explain, please, how else your words can be understood.

"...those who provided us with a translation of the Bible in our own language had an agenda and imprinted the whole project with a Damnationist view. It was translated with a predetermined doctrinal slant and even the vocabulary was messed with."

Nothing in my statement declares that "the Bible IS NOT to be believed." Thus an over-reaction on your part.

The topic is Universalism. The concern is that there isn't enough biblical support. I am not surprised, since there is obvious bias applied by the Damnationists that gave us our canon of scripture. Are you following me now?

 

[Saint Steven]

No, but the description of the place that you are averse to IS in every Bible. So call it whatever you will, the issue remains the same.

Really? What is "the place" called when the word "hell" is not used?

Are you not "averse" to hell? What do you like best about it?

 

[Albion]

Nothing in my statement declares that "the Bible IS NOT to be believed." Thus an over-reaction on your part.

That's not an explanation of how your words, as quoted, can be understood if not in the way I understood them.

 

[Saint Steven]

If you can't see the difference between cherry picking verses and taking the whole chapter in context, no wonder you fall for falsehoods.

I'm always happy to review the context of any verse I present. But that should start with the WHOLE verse in question rather than jumping to another section. Fair enough?

With that in mind, let's return to the verse in question. What does this WHOLE verse say about "all people"?

Romans 5:18 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

 

[Saint Steven]

That's not an explanation of how your words, as quoted, can be understood if not in the way I understood them.

As I said, in the half of my post that you omitted...
"The topic is Universalism. The concern is that there isn't enough biblical support. I am not surprised, since there is obvious bias applied by the Damnationists that gave us our canon of scripture. Are you following me now?"

 

[Saint Steven]

This comparison here isn't persuasive, but present the KJV, the NIV, the ASV, the RSV, or a few of the well-regarded translations to us, and we'll see what the comparison looks like.

You have limited my sources for comparison to Damnationist translations. But let's review these scriptures from the NIV. These are a few scriptures that slipped past the Damnationist editors. Notice what the first five say about "all" ("everyone") and the last one says about "the whole world".

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Colossians 1:20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

1 Timothy 2:4
who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[renniks]

Fall for falsehoods? That was uncalled for.

How so? Universalism is a falsehood.

 

[renniks]

I'm always happy to review the context of any verse I present. But that should start with the WHOLE verse in question rather than jumping to another section. Fair enough?

With that in mind, let's return to the verse in question. What does this WHOLE verse say about "all people"?

Romans 5:18 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

In the context of the whole chapter it says salvation is available to whoever believes. Just because we are all offered the gift, don't mean all accept it. The rest of Romans confirms that salvation is by faith, and that many miss it by pursuing it through other means.

 

[Saint Steven]

How so? Universalism is a falsehood.

Your opinion does not make it so.

 

[Saint Steven]

In the context of the whole chapter it says salvation is available to whoever believes. Just because we are all offered the gift, don't mean all accept it. The rest of Romans confirms that salvation is by faith, and that many miss it by pursuing it through other means.

Once again you fail to let the verse speak for itself before you look elsewhere.
Note the word "resulted" this time.

Romans 5:18 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

 

[renniks]

No, but I know it is so because I believe what scripture says.

Your opinion does not make it so.