Let's Talk About Hell (3)

[Timothew]

surely you can reference some site, or authority that agrees with you? Or are you the only one in the world to believe this exaggeration.

This is getting silly. Here is a page from the Codex Sinaiticus. It is not the original manuscript, because those were lost, but it is an early manuscript, 4th Century. Look at it for yourself, see that it has no punctuation, There are no commas, no periods, no question marks, and no exclamation points. There aren't even spaces betweeen the words.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

 

[Timothew]

What?
It's big, because details are lost on blunt instruments.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What?
It's big, because details are lost on blunt instruments.

Ahhh...that makes sense

 

[Timothew]

Ahhh...that makes sense

Actually I didn't intend it to be quite that big, but I left it. It's obvious that there are no punctuation marks in manucripts until around the first millenium.

Obvious wasn't doing it for Gradyll, so I went to the big hammer.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Actually I didn't intend it to be quite that big, but I left it. It's obvious that there are no punctuation marks in manucripts until around the first millenium.

Obvious wasn't doing it for Gradyll, so I went to the big hammer.

I am glad I wasn't the one that had to parse the greek

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Revelation 1:1 An un-covering/veiling of Jesus Christ, which gives to him, the God, to show to His bond-servants which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness.
And He signifies, commissioning thru the messenger of Him, to the bondservants of Him, John

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

Revelation 1:1

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
apokaluyiVihsoucristouhnedwkenautwoqeoVdeixaitoiVdouloiVautouadeigenesqaien taceikaieshmanenaposteilaVdiatouaggelouautoutwdoulwautouiwannh

 

[Timothew]

I am glad I wasn't the one that had to parse the greek

Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

Revelation 1:1 An un-covering/veiling of Jesus Christ, which gives to him, the God, to show to His bond-servants which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness.
And He signifies, commissioning thru the messenger of Him, to the bondservants of Him, John

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

Revelation 1:1

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
apokaluyiVihsoucristouhnedwkenautwoqeoVdeixaitoiVdouloiVautouadeigenesqaien taceikaieshmanenaposteilaVdiatouaggelouautoutwdoulwautouiwannh

apokalupsisiesouchristouenedokenautootheosdeixaitoisdouloisautoadeigenesthaien
tacheikaiesemanenaposteilasdiatouaggelouautoutodouloautouioanne

apokalupsis iesou christou en edoken auto o theos deixai tois doulois auto a dei genesthai en
tachei kai esemanen aposteilas dia tou aggelou auto to doulo autou ioanne

Revelation Jesus Christ in given-to him The God to-show the servant (or slave) his that-which must occur
soon (I put en tachei into one word-soon) and signify sent by the messenger (or angel) his the servant of-him John.

 

[Timothew]

Here it is with the punctuation and diacritics added.
The punctuation just makes it easier to read, it wasn't part of the original letter,
the original also didn't have the diacritic marks.
And it was in all capital greek letters, Majescule, like that photo I posted earlier.

Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ
γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ,

 

[LutheranMafia]

It would make you a bible believing christian.
The wages of sin is death, not eternal torment in hell.

Mormans believe in hell, what does it make you if you believe the same?
quack quack.

Hitler believed in hell, what does it make you if you believe the same?
quack quack

The spanish inquisition believed in hell, what does it make you if you believe the same?
quack quack

The terrorists who flew the planes on 9-11-01 believed in hell, what does it make you if you believe the same?
quack quack

But virtually everyone who has any faith in anything spiritual believes in hell, so that is nothing unique.
On the other hand belief in annihilationism and improper placement of a comma in Luke 23:43 is very unique and defining.
Only a tiny fraction of extremely unorthodox "Christians" (JW's are not really Christian) believe in these things.

quack quack

 

[Timothew]

Np

 

[Timothew]

But virtually everyone who has any faith in anything spiritual believes in hell, so that is nothing unique.
On the other hand belief in annihilationism and improper placement of a comma in Luke 23:43 is very unique and defining.
Only a tiny fraction of extremely unorthodox "Christians" (JW's are not really Christian) believe in these things.

quack quack

"Almost everyone agrees with me, so I must be right"

If you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is correct simply because it’s what most everyone believes, then you’ve committed the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is mistaken simply because it’s not what most everyone believes, then you’ve also committed the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you’re guilty of committing this fallacy. It is essentially the same as the fallacies of ad numerum, appeal to the gallery, appeal to the masses, argument from popularity, argumentum ad populum, common practice, mob appeal, past practice, peer pressure, traditional wisdom.
(source: internet encylopedia of philosophyhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Appeal%20to%20the%20People)

​

See also: begging the question, Annihilationism is unorthodox because only unorthodox christians believe in annihilationism.

​

 

[createdtoworship]

The original manuscripts did not have commas, I don't care if you believe me or not.

Greek manuscripts do actually have punctuation, and they happen to be the ones you quote all the time. But thy just aren't the early ones


here is a westcott and hort

If you don't like the punctuation you really should stop quoting it. And do yourself a favor.

 

[LutheranMafia]

"Almost everyone agrees with me, so I must be right"

If you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is correct simply because it’s what most everyone believes, then you’ve committed the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is mistaken simply because it’s not what most everyone believes, then you’ve also committed the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you’re guilty of committing this fallacy. It is essentially the same as the fallacies of ad numerum, appeal to the gallery, appeal to the masses, argument from popularity, argumentum ad populum, common practice, mob appeal, past practice, peer pressure, traditional wisdom.
(source: internet encylopedia of philosophyhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Appeal%20to%20the%20People)

​

See also: begging the question, Annihilationism is unorthodox because only unorthodox christians believe in annihilationism.

That says nothing about how similar your views are to JW views. This is entirely the opposite of what you have just argued, you are not appealing to popular ideals, you are appealing to very unique ideals that virtually no one else but JW's share with you.

quack quack

 

[Timothew]

That says nothing about how similar your views are to JW views. This is entirely the opposite of what you have just argued, you are not appealing to popular ideals, you are appealing to very unique ideals that virtually no one else but JW's share with you.

quack quack

I was saying that you are one committing the falacy of appealing to the people. I wasn't claiming that I appeal to popular ideals. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true. The majority can be wrong.

Also just because I believe something, and JWs happen to also believe that, It doesn't mean that I am part of that group. JWs deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, so I can never be a part of that group. You quacking and calling me a JW would be the same as me calling you a Mormon.

 

[Timothew]

Greek manuscripts do actually have punctuation, and they happen to be the ones you quote all the time. But thy just aren't the early ones


here is a westcott and hort

If you don't like the punctuation you really should stop quoting it. And do yourself a favor.

I don't know what to say. I proven that the originals don't have punctuation. I've quoted experts, I've shown you the early manuscripts, yet you persist in your ignorance, and you are nasty about it.

Learn about greek manuscripts. Find out the truth. The more you persist, the more ignorant you look.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't know what to say. I proven that the originals don't have punctuation. I've quoted experts, I've shown you the early manuscripts, yet you persist in your ignorance, and you are nasty about it.

Learn about greek manuscripts. Find out the truth. The more you persist, the more ignorant you look.

well you apparently don't like the handy work of scholars through the ages, so stop quoting from translations that use grammar. That's fair enough! right!

 

[Timothew]

well you apparently don't like the handy work of scholars through the ages, so stop quoting from translations that use grammar. That's fair enough! right!

once again, the argument from punctuation was made on the other side of the aisle. I merely pointed out that the original manuscripts did not contain punctuation, which is common knowledge among everyone who has seen early manuscripts. Then we devolved into a discussion with you insisting that the original manuscripts had commas, and you were quite nasty about it too.

If your argument for spirits in heaven on the day of death requires a comma to be in a certain place, even though the original manuscripts didn't contain any commas, then your argument is weak.

So find out about the manuscripts before you snidely contradict me.
You only make yourself look bad.

 

[LutheranMafia]

I was saying that you are one committing the falacy of appealing to the people. I wasn't claiming that I appeal to popular ideals. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true. The majority can be wrong.

You should have said the vast majority. As far as I know only the JW's agree with you on both points in question here.

Also just because I believe something, and JWs happen to also believe that, It doesn't mean that I am part of that group. JWs deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, so I can never be a part of that group. You quacking and calling me a JW would be the same as me calling you a Mormon.

What points do our beliefs have in common with Mormons? While you clearly have some differences with the JW's, never the less your views bear a striking similarity to JW views.

quack quack!!!

 

[LutheranMafia]

If your argument for spirits in heaven on the day of death requires a comma to be in a certain place, even though the original manuscripts didn't contain any commas, then your argument is weak.

It doesn't need a comma, the grammar in the statement is crystal clear. It is only by inserting a comma in the wrong place that any controversy can be fabricated. That is why virtually no Christian in the world believes as you do. Only the JW's agree with you.


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]QUACK QUACK!!![/FONT]

 

[createdtoworship]

once again, the argument from punctuation was made on the other side of the aisle. I merely pointed out that the original manuscripts did not contain punctuation, which is common knowledge among everyone who has seen early manuscripts. Then we devolved into a discussion with you insisting that the original manuscripts had commas, and you were quite nasty about it too.

If your argument for spirits in heaven on the day of death requires a comma to be in a certain place, even though the original manuscripts didn't contain any commas, then your argument is weak.

So find out about the manuscripts before you snidely contradict me.
You only make yourself look bad.

Why are you so hurt about this?
it all depends on your misunderstanding of "original," I provided an original of westcott and hort. So you were not meaning original you meant "early" manuscripts, you should have stated that earlier. I wasn't rude by the way just concerned.