The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus Explained

[Hoghead1]

The trouble I have with your response, Cgaviria, is that it is way off topic from your previous claim. You claimed there were not any contradictions in Scripture, especially in the Genesis account and regarding Goliath. You presented what you considered as solutions. I rebutted them. Hence, the burden of responsibility falls on you now to address my rebuttals, and not try and escape by jumping off topic.

 

[cgaviria]

The trouble I have with your response, Cgaviria, is that it is way off topic from your previous claim. You claimed there were not any contradictions in Scripture, especially in the Genesis account and regarding Goliath. You presented what you considered as solutions. I rebutted them. Hence, the burden of responsibility falls on you now to address my rebuttals, and not try and escape by jumping off topic.

I have no further rebuttal concerning this as it is not a topic I have studied well enough to keep arguing against. Do I know for certain that the the original words spoken or original writings by men having the holy spirit never contradict, yes I do. As the Spirit of God is a real thing that speaks inside the minds of those who have it. Could there have been a discrepancy in the passing down of the manuscripts passing down these two verses? Possibly. Just because the original words are inspired doesn't mean that those who transcribed and translated those original words and texts were, and errors could've happened. Could it have been referring to two Goliaths? Possibly. It's just not something I've undertaken to study deeply as of yet as I am not one looking at scriptures trying to find contradictions. But I will look into it further and when I have an answer, I'll get back to you.

 

[Hoghead1]

Thanks for sharing, Cigviria, that you need to study these matters further. I appreciate your honesty in responding. The traditional view was that inerrancy applied only t the original manuscripts and not the copies and certainly not the translations. That is n important point many forget when the speak of the inerrancy of Scripture. I also think you should bear in mind that the Holy Spirit does cause a miracle so that we are no longer human and subject to error. Inspired or not, the scribes did tamper wit the texts and no doubt inserted their own vies into it at times. When the Septuagint was being translated, St. Jerome his scribes often did just that. However, since we don't have the original, just late copies, it is hard to say how different these copies were from the"originals."

 

[cgaviria]

Thanks for sharing, Cigviria, that you need to study these matters further. I appreciate your honesty in responding. The traditional view was that inerrancy applied only t the original manuscripts and not the copies and certainly not the translations. That is n important point many forget when the speak of the inerrancy of Scripture. I also think you should bear in mind that the Holy Spirit does cause a miracle so that we are no longer human and subject to error. Inspired or not, the scribes did tamper wit the texts and no doubt inserted their own vies into it at times. When the Septuagint was being translated, St. Jerome his scribes often did just that. However, since we don't have the original, just late copies, it is hard to say how different these copies were from the"originals."

I do agree with you on the matter of text becoming corrupted as it is passed down and translated, even though the original words were without error. In fact most of my studies in scripture deal with having to study the original meanings of words and their usages in other passages because most of our English translations are not so great, especially the King James being one of the worst in my opinion. Many of the false doctrines of today are based on mistranslation. Any serious person of scripture understands this and also studies the words as they were used in the original languages.

 

[Justme]

Oh really? So are animal also immortal having the same breath of life we do?

I don't know but 1 COR 15:44 says if there is a natural body there is ALSO a spiritual body. My horses have natural or physical bodies!!! ???????

No they are not immortal because of the breath of life. Even Paul say,

I couldn't tell you biut there is 1 COR 15:44.



So why would we need to put on immortality if we were already immortal? But then you might say, well animals do not have a soul like we do, but even then the soul we do have is still not immortal, because we have this scripture,

WE, at the moment are NOT immortal. You and I are both going to physically die. However, the WE of us, the core of US the inner being of US which makes US .... US! That inner being is what lives on after physical death of the earthly body. I call that internal living part of us the immortal soul, you can call it anything you want. The eternal control system of each of us lives on. For those who died BEFORE the last trump, they had to have that immortal part of us sleep until it was woken at the resurrections of the dead. You and I are AFTER that so we are taken to heavn immediately at the time of our physical death.


How can the soul being immortal as you say it is, then be said to be destroyed? So in fact the soul is mortal, and does end, because it is said to be destroyed in Gehenna.

WE, at the moment are NOT immortal. You and I are both going to physically die. However, the WE of us, the core of US the inner being of US which makes US .... US! That inner being is what lives on after physical death of the earthly body. I call that internal living part of us the immortal soul, you can call it anything you want. The eternal control system of each of us lives on. For those who died BEFORE the last trump, they had to have that immortal part of us sleep until it was woken at the resurrections of the dead. You and I are AFTER that so we are taken to heavn immediately at the time of our physical death.


Only God can destroy what I call the immortal soul. Hopefully He does just that for those who miss the cut at the judgment seat of 2 COR 5:10.
Other than that the soul or spirit within you is forever. That is the breath of life breathed in to Adam as I see it. The breath of eternal life is the ultimate promise of eternal life for the righteous.
Justme

 

[Hoghead1]

I think you missed my point, Der Alter. Yes, many have explained this contradiction on the basis of a scribal error. Still, there is, then, an error in Scripture. And still the plain meaning of the two texts is a contradictory message. And that shoots down the inerrancy theory. It is also the case that more than one online apologist has resorted to the two-Goliath theory, as mentioned above. The notion that there really two Goliaths. Of course, that is nonsense, but it has been used to try and dismiss the contradiction.

 

[Hoghead1]

Can't say as I agree, Justme. You say there are no contradictions in the Genesis account, but if you read through any of my former emails, you may get a whole different perspective on the matter.

 

[Justme]

Can't say as I agree, Justme. You say there are no contradictions in the Genesis account, but if you read through any of my former emails, you may get a whole different perspective on the matter.

I feel the account of Genesis agrees with the scientific evidence of evolution. I also see Adam as being the first 'Homo' with that immortal soul. I see Adam as the first man with all the finished characteristics which God intended to be instilled in His ultimate creation...MAN. The MAN God chose to begin the pattern of eternal life in heaven after physically living on earth.
I don't know if I have read all of your posts or not but will gladly go thru whatever you wish concerning any of this.
Justme

 

[DamianWarS]

Taking this parable literally breaks countless other scriptures. The teaching of a "hell" where you are alive burning endlessly is a pagan teaching. I challenge you to study the origins of that teaching, stemming from the catholic church and even before that as well. It is pagan, it is false, and corrupts the understanding of the work of God.

I agree this is a parable and the things described in the parable may not be actual representation of what is. Parables are Contextualized stories and the details in them are that way because they speak to the audience in a meaningful way but typically represent much greater things. For example the kingdom of heaven is not about finding lost coins and sheep it actually is about something much much greater.

Perhaps "hell" or more accurately put Hades is actually much greater than what is presented in the text. The imagery of fire is used to represent suffering because it is a concrete that the audience can identify with on a level. Hades may not have fire at all and what it has may be something too abstract for the audience to understand. However if fire is the contextualized product of what actually is there I don't think many if any at all is ready to learn what actually is there.

I'm not sure what's there but what one thing I get from the text is that I don't want to go there.

 

[Der Alte]

I think you missed my point, Der Alter. Yes, many have explained this contradiction on the basis of a scribal error. Still, there is, then, an error in Scripture. And still the plain meaning of the two texts is a contradictory message. And that shoots down the inerrancy theory. It is also the case that more than one online apologist has resorted to the two-Goliath theory, as mentioned above. The notion that there really two Goliaths. Of course, that is nonsense, but it has been used to try and dismiss the contradiction.

For someone intent on finding errors in the Bible, no explanation will suffice. However those who accept that the Bible was inspired by God, seeming errors can be reconciled. Although this is not my view, two Goliaths are possible. The root word for Goliath means "exile."

 

[cgaviria]

I agree this is a parable and the things described in the parable may not be actual representation of what is. Parables are Contextualized stories and the details in them are that way because they speak to the audience in a meaningful way but typically represent much greater things. For example the kingdom of heaven is not about finding lost coins and sheep it actually is about something much much greater.

Perhaps "hell" or more accurately put Hades is actually much greater than what is presented in the text. The imagery of fire is used to represent suffering because it is a concrete that the audience can identify with on a level. Hades may not have fire at all and what it has may be something too abstract for the audience to understand. However if fire is the contextualized product of what actually is there I don't think many if any at all is ready to learn what actually is there.

I'm not sure what's there but what one thing I get from the text is that I don't want to go there.

Well there is an actual fire to come, but it is not in Hades, Hades is merely the abode of the dead. The fire to come is where many of those that are taken out of Hades are then judged, then tossed into the final fire.

 

[DamianWarS]

Well there is an actual fire to come, but it is not in Hades, Hades is merely the abode of the dead. The fire to come is where many of those that are taken out of Hades are then judged, then tossed into the final fire.

I only referenced what the text says and it says Hades. Sometimes these words need to simply be taken in context rather than using their classical definition. Although the afterlife in the bible is still very mysterious hades is shown to be an undesired place of the dead reserved for the lost and as this text shows us hades is revealed as a place of suffering.

 

[cgaviria]

I only referenced what the text says and it says Hades. Sometimes these words need to simply be taken in context rather than using their classical definition. Although the afterlife in the bible is still very mysterious hades is shown to be an undesired place of the dead reserved for the lost and as this text shows us hades is revealed as a place of suffering.

The afterlife is not mysterious at all, we have many prophecies speaking concerning it. We know of a fire. We know of a resurrection. We know of a coming. We know of a new heaven and new earth. Alot has been declared and revealed.

 

[Hoghead1]

Thanks for your comment, Justme. Moe than one major scholar sees Genesis as an allegory or metaphor for evolution. My concern here is simply that Genesis provides two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then man, then woman. Also, these passages ere written by two different authors with vey different writing styles coming from different times in ancient history. Attempts to fuse these two conflicting accounts into one unified one have all failed.

 

[Der Alte]

Thanks for your comment, Justme. Moe than one major scholar sees Genesis as an allegory or metaphor for evolution. My concern here is simply that Genesis provides two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then man, then woman. Also, these passages ere written by two different authors with vey different writing styles coming from different times in ancient history. Attempts to fuse these two conflicting accounts into one unified one have all failed.

It is nonsense that all efforts to reconcile the seeming contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2 have failed. That some scholars disagree with the arguments of other scholars to reconcile the two accounts is not proof that their arguments failed.

 

[Hoghead1]

First of , Der Alter, have you explored any of these attempts? Secondly, not everyone involved here is a scholar. There are many online website managed by self-styled apologists who do claim to have reconciled these, but have only published the unqualified judgments of unqualified people. Secondly, you need to review the arguments for there being contradictions here. I have already shared two basic ones above: that the chronologies conflict and that the texts were written by two different scribes at two different times. There is no way around those facts. For example, let me review the main arguments for denying a contradiction here. There is the two-creation theory. Gen. 1 talks about creation in general, whereas Gen. 2 talks of a second creation account, that is, what went in the Garden of Eden, after all the rest was created. The main problem here is how to account for all of the personnel that are involved in the story. During the Middle Ages, the answer was to give Adam two wives. The first wife (the woman in Gen. 1), Lilith, was Adam's first wife. Trouble was, she liked to have sex riding Adam. Neither he nor God liked that. So God gave a second wife, Eve, who was more submissive. Lilith ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children. Hence, more than one cradle had "God save us from Lilith" written on it. Nothing, however, was said about the identity of the man created before Adam. If you go for this is story, fine. But I sure don't. Among other things, it fails to honor the fact these two texts represent a major difference in literary style, which puts Gen. 2 having written long before Gen.1. Next is the pluperfect theory. Everything in Gen. 2 has been mistranslated, put in the wrong tense. It should all be in the pluperfect. So the line should read "...so God had created the animals." Everything, then, could be easily referred to Gen. 1. Only problem is, there is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew. Next is the hidden-chronology theory. The author of Gen. 2 (the same author as that f Gen. 2) had in mind the Gen. 1 chronology as the real one; but somehow, for the purposes of explicating Gen. 1, he started jumping around in the chronology. Problem is, we have no way of looking into the mind of the imaginary scribe here, to see if that is true. And how do you know which chronology this scriber had in mind? What's to say but that he didn't have Gen. 2 in mind as his real chronology? And exactly why would an author do that anyway? A similar theory is the flash theory. The author here was simply presenting sudden flash forwards or flash backwards. But the texts how none of this, and it makes no sense why an author would do that here. Now if you or anyone else wants to argue there is a single unified account here, let him step forth and provide a rebuttal to what I have just said.

 

[Justme]

Thanks for your comment, Justme. Moe than one major scholar sees Genesis as an allegory or metaphor for evolution. My concern here is simply that Genesis provides two conflicting chronologies. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then man, then woman. Also, these passages ere written by two different authors with vey different writing styles coming from different times in ancient history. Attempts to fuse these two conflicting accounts into one unified one have all failed.

Thank you

 

[DamianWarS]

The afterlife is not mysterious at all, we have many prophecies speaking concerning it. We know of a fire. We know of a resurrection. We know of a coming. We know of a new heaven and new earth. Alot has been declared and revealed.

We know the broad strokes but much of it is unexplained and much of it is allegorical. This is because the bible is written for living not the dead or the resurrected. We should not use the bible to paint a clear picture of the afterlife because that is not what the bible is for. Scripture says that "we see in a mirror dimly but then face to face. Now [we] know in part; but then [we] shall see clearly"

 

[thecolorsblend]

We know the broad strokes but much of it is unexplained and much of it is allegorical. This is because the bible is written for living not the dead or the resurrected. We should not use the bible to paint a clear picture of the afterlife because that is not what the bible is for. Scripture says that "we see in a mirror dimly but then face to face. Now [we] know in part; but then [we] shall see clearly"

Good points. One argument I've seen kicked around is the nature of our existence in this life is so different than the life to come that there's really nothing anybody can say to make us understand what's on the other side. You may as well try describing what Netflix is and how it works to your dog. There are limits to what Sacred Scripture tells us because there are limits to what we can understand, thus all the allegory. I personally find this to be a rational analysis and try to discourage people from taking these things too literally.

 

[Der Alte]

First of , Der Alter, have you explored any of these attempts? Secondly, not everyone involved here is a scholar. There are many online website managed by self-styled apologists who do claim to have reconciled these, but have only published the unqualified judgments of unqualified people.

Since you are dismissing some counter arguments as "unqualified judgments of unqualified people." Would you please state your qualifications? Could you share with us the titles of some of your peer reviewed published works?

Secondly, you need to review the arguments for there being contradictions here. I have already shared two basic ones above: that the chronologies conflict and that the texts were written by two different scribes at two different times. There is no way around those facts.

Saying something is a fact does not make it so.

For example, let me review the main arguments for denying a contradiction here. There is the two-creation theory. Gen. 1 talks about creation in general, whereas Gen. 2 talks of a second creation account, that is, what went in the Garden of Eden, after all the rest was created. The main problem here is how to account for all of the personnel that are involved in the story.

Begs the question without establishing that there were people other than Adam and Eve.

During the Middle Ages, the answer was to give Adam two wives. The first wife (the woman in Gen. 1), Lilith, was Adam's first wife. Trouble was, she liked to have sex riding Adam. Neither he nor God liked that. So God gave a second wife, Eve, who was more submissive. Lilith ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children. Hence, more than one cradle had "God save us from Lilith" written on it. Nothing, however, was said about the identity of the man created before Adam. If you go for this is story, fine. But I sure don't.

Irrelevant. A theory from the middle ages which I never heard of. Is that your best shot trying to dismiss arguments which refute your assumptions/presuppositions?

Among other things, it fails to honor the fact these two texts represent a major difference in literary style, which puts Gen. 2 having written long before Gen.1.

More question begging. Stating something is a fact does not make it so.

Next is the pluperfect theory. Everything in Gen. 2 has been mistranslated, put in the wrong tense. It should all be in the pluperfect. So the line should read "...so God had created the animals." Everything, then, could be easily referred to Gen. 1. Only problem is, there is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew.

Would you please identify the tenses in Hebrew for me?

Next is the hidden-chronology theory. The author of Gen. 2 (the same author as that f Gen. 2) had in mind the Gen. 1 chronology as the real one; but somehow, for the purposes of explicating Gen. 1, he started jumping around in the chronology. Problem is, we have no way of looking into the mind of the imaginary scribe here, to see if that is true. And how do you know which chronology this scriber had in mind? What's to say but that he didn't have Gen. 2 in mind as his real chronology? And exactly why would an author do that anyway? A similar theory is the flash theory. The author here was simply presenting sudden flash forwards or flash backwards. But the texts how none of this, and it makes no sense why an author would do that here. Now if you or anyone else wants to argue there is a single unified account here, let him step forth and provide a rebuttal to what I have just said.

A lot of assumed theories. Nothing to rebut just more assumptions/presuppositions.