Selling Your Soul to the Devil?

[VineBranch]

I can understand both sides here. Why is it that we feel comfortable in the translations (Bibles) that we use. Is it pride? Peace, Understandability or something else. I think it speaks to us concerning the truth we need to hear.

No Julie that's not it.  I personally don't have a favourite translation.  I have come to regard the Jerusalem Bible translated into French to be the bear translation of Tanak.  My Hebrew Professor turned me onto it many years ago, and it's still the one I personally think is the most accurate.  What I am getting at is that when I joined here I read and agreed to the conditions for posting. 

In the forum discussion titled Expectations, FAQ, Admin Posts , under the discussion Moderator/TM Expectations Regarding The Scriptures, it says:  "Outright texual criticism is not an allowed topic or matter of discussion on the TM discussion forum.  It is seen as a divisive tool within the body, and not helpful to others' growth in the faith of Jesus Christ. "  It then goes on to say:  "There are plenty of other places in the world today that are accepting to the deceit that the scriptures are either not reliable, not necessary, or that don't understand (or care) that the Father and Son, the Spirit, and the written scriptures work in tandem - that they don't cancel each other out, nor one make the other unnecessary.  TM is not one of those places."

What I am saying is that by calling a named translation (in this case the AV) incorrect, one is entering into the exact divisive discussion referred to in the Expectations. 

I am a little offended that you would associate that with a childish tantrum:  taking my bat and going home.   

[jabcat]

I actually appreciate that there's generally been a focus of keeping your discussions within the scriptures.   As far as scriptural expectations, I'd like to mention the following in there as well;  "We recognize there are translational issues, as well as many different viewpoints, levels of understanding, and varying degrees of levels of Spirit-revelation within the scriptures...discuss within the scriptures."   So my view on the recent posts is not that translations are being discussed, agree/disagreed with, but perhaps more so that we need to be sure and always post in the spirit of "as I understand", "I believe", "as I see it", etc.  That often cuts down or eliminates the whole "so you're saying you're right and I'm wrong and I don't like it" deal.  Also, helps keep things more of a discussion and exploring together rather than debate or argument.   :2c:

I think you guys can probably get back on track and discuss the real topic of the OP productively if you choose.  Blessings.

[mplsfitter539]

As far as all the different translations go I thought I would share my favorite with you.
Hebraic Roots Bible Literal Translation
http://coyhwh.com/
You can get a free copy of e-book on the website. This is the most UR friendly bible I have read yet.

Thanks bro. I took a look at it. I was glad to see "Gehenna," but I was surprised to see "Hades" because I thought, since it was Aramaic that it wouldn't have the Greek word. I was disappointed to see "eternal," "everlasting," and "forever and ever" instead of "eonian." I was also disappointed to see "world" instead of "eon," but it uses "age" in some places which is a little better. It uses "forever and ever" for "eon of the eons." It also uses "course" instead of "eon." It also uses "forever" instead of "eon." It was good to see the proper names for Yahweh and Yeshuah even in the New Testament. I was glad to see 1 John 5:7 translated without the bogus addition from the Roman church.

I think I'm going to stick with the Concordant Version because I think it's important to translate the Greek "aion" and "aionion" as "eon" and "eonian" to establish the concept of time periods rather than eternity which I believe is the true intention of scripture.

I've checked out some other Aramaic versions. I thought some were better than others, but I didn't see any that convinced me to start reading them full time even though I saw some good points about them. I keep hearing about the example of the eye of the needle and the rope instead of a camel. I think it's good to compare versions to get different perspectives. That's why I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer to compare the King James Version, Young's Literal Translation, and the Concordant Version. I've checked out e-Sword and theWord, but I prefer the ISA for now even though I know the Old Testament section of the CLV module needs some editing. There is supposed to be a new version coming, but the author hasn't gotten around to it yet because he has had to work on some money making projects instead. So I always compare what I search with the Concordant Version Old Testament PDF file. 

I think the good thing about this forum is we all share different perspectives. We're all seeking the truth in scripture which is good. No two people are going to agree on everything, but I think we all learn from each other. It's good to communicate with like minded folks even if we all see some things differently.

I'm returning the favor with these links.

http://concordant.org/online/index.html

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Thanks Tom I am converting the PDF Concordant to e-book right now and uploading it to my Kindle.

[VineBranch]

But surely we haven't come to the place where we pick a translation because it says what we want it to say. If we pick a scripture based on our desire to see only what we believe reflected in print, how are we different from anyone else who wants to stick to their scripture because it confirms what they believe?

I don't believe in Hell, and I do believe in UR.  So, I pick a version which agrees with me.  I know KJV only-ists who do believe in Hell, and are adamant that no other version is accurate.  They dismiss with prejudge any version which doesn't include Hell.  Why not just write our own bible?  We could write one which says everything we want it to, and nothing we don't want to deal with.  Then we could call it the only true version in English.  Or we could all  become latter day Joseph Smiths and write our own books to replace the bible and then we would always be right.

What I'm seeing here is the same old story.  We are making ourselves the authorities.  This started in the Garden.  Is this really where we want to go?  If we change versions based on new evidence, or because they are more accurate, I say hurrah.  If we change versions because they say what 'we' want them to, then we decide what is truth, and I am loath to cheer that.

[Lazarus Short]

VB, that is very wise and informed.  Theo(il)logical bias and feedback are what have got churchianity to where it is today, failing to believe what the Bible plainly teaches.  We must get past dependence on particular translations, no matter how loved, "buffet theology" (taking a little bit here and there - to the wrong conclusion), and proof texts, which promote our theology to the exclusion of many other texts which do not. 

Many years ago, Charles Fort collected bits of data which the Science of his day (still ongoing) swept under the rug, relegated to the circular file, ignored, or as he said, damned to oblivion.  He called this dominant attitude Exclusionism, and proposed a new dominant he called Inclusionism, proposing that a theory MUST account for ALL (not just some) of the data available.  Our theology must do the same, accounting for what is said in all scripture, not just in chosen proof texts, or translations-that-are-favorable-to-our-views.  Scripture first, then understanding, and only then theology.

[Tom]

As far as all the different translations go I thought I would share my favorite with you.
Hebraic Roots Bible Literal Translation
http://coyhwh.com/
You can get a free copy of e-book on the website. This is the most UR friendly bible I have read yet.

Thanks bro. I took a look at it. I was glad to see "Gehenna," but I was surprised to see "Hades" because I thought, since it was Aramaic that it wouldn't have the Greek word. I was disappointed to see "eternal," "everlasting," and "forever and ever" instead of "eonian." I was also disappointed to see "world" instead of "eon," but it uses "age" in some places which is a little better. It uses "forever and ever" for "eon of the eons." It also uses "course" instead of "eon." It also uses "forever" instead of "eon." It was good to see the proper names for Yahweh and Yeshuah even in the New Testament. I was glad to see 1 John 5:7 translated without the bogus addition from the Roman church.

I think I'm going to stick with the Concordant Version because I think it's important to translate the Greek "aion" and "aionion" as "eon" and "eonian" to establish the concept of time periods rather than eternity which I believe is the true intention of scripture.

I've checked out some other Aramaic versions. I thought some were better than others, but I didn't see any that convinced me to start reading them full time even though I saw some good points about them. I keep hearing about the example of the eye of the needle and the rope instead of a camel. I think it's good to compare versions to get different perspectives. That's why I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer to compare the King James Version, Young's Literal Translation, and the Concordant Version. I've checked out e-Sword and theWord, but I prefer the ISA for now even though I know the Old Testament section of the CLV module needs some editing. There is supposed to be a new version coming, but the author hasn't gotten around to it yet because he has had to work on some money making projects instead. So I always compare what I search with the Concordant Version Old Testament PDF file. 

I think the good thing about this forum is we all share different perspectives. We're all seeking the truth in scripture which is good. No two people are going to agree on everything, but I think we all learn from each other. It's good to communicate with like minded folks even if we all see some things differently.

I'm returning the favor with these links.

http://concordant.org/online/index.html

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Thanks Tom I am converting the PDF Concordant to e-book right now and uploading it to my Kindle.

I thought Kindle did PDFs. Is e-book a more compressed format?

[mplsfitter539]

Tom,

Kindle uses something more like Word. I can use Word format also and it works almost perfect but Kindle does have their own format and it works even better than Word. The name for the format is (MOBI). PDF works also but the font size can't be controlled so I always convert to Word or MOBI.

[Tom]

But surely we haven't come to the place where we pick a translation because it says what we want it to say. If we pick a scripture based on our desire to see only what we believe reflected in print, how are we different from anyone else who wants to stick to their scripture because it confirms what they believe?

I don't believe in Hell, and I do believe in UR.  So, I pick a version which agrees with me.  I know KJV only-ists who do believe in Hell, and are adamant that no other version is accurate.  They dismiss with prejudge any version which doesn't include Hell.  Why not just write our own bible?  We could write one which says everything we want it to, and nothing we don't want to deal with.  Then we could call it the only true version in English.  Or we could all  become latter day Joseph Smiths and write our own books to replace the bible and then we would always be right.

What I'm seeing here is the same old story.  We are making ourselves the authorities.  This started in the Garden.  Is this really where we want to go?  If we change versions based on new evidence, or because they are more accurate, I say hurrah.  If we change versions because they say what 'we' want them to, then we decide what is truth, and I am loath to cheer that.

Brother, I read the King James for many years until one day when I was on a die hard King James site I got mysteriously bounced to another site with information about universal reconciliation. I thought what I read was strange and had to be bogus because I never heard about it in church. So I read as much as I could online trying to disprove it, but the more I read the more I began to think it must be true. Then I became aware of inconsistencies in the King James translation. That's why I switched to Young's Literal Translation. I read it for awhile until I found out about it having the same 1 John 5:7 verse that's in the King James which has been discredited by modern scholars because it's not in earlier Greek manuscripts. Meanwhile I was still reading online about universal reconciliation, and I was mad that the church never told me about it. I finally realized though that's because the idea threatens the church's worldly power to control its followers by fear. After awhile I became aware of the Concordant Version, and I switched from Young's Literal Translation to it. I didn't choose it because it validates what I believe but because I think it is the best translation even though it's not perfect because no translation is. I know most folks prefer other versions, and I don't condemn them for that. I'm sorry you got that impression. All I was trying to do is establish a basis for understanding a word in scripture. If we are both looking at a word and disagree on what it means, and I use a reference to show my point of view, that doesn't mean I'm condemning your point of view. It just means I'm trying to clarify why I believe what I do. If we can't agree on what the word in question means, then we can't continue the discussion on the topic related to it. You need a common reference point. There are things about the Concordant Version that I would prefer to be different such as some of the funny words that sound like the old English of the King James which were used intentionally for that reason. I choose the Concordant Version because I think the method of translation is the most accurate meaning each word is used the same throughout the version according to what it means in the concordance. They tell you there are a few exceptions that they had to make due to idiom. My opinion is that taking words straight from the concordance without being changed according to the view of some theological scholar who is sure to have preconceived ideas about doctrine is the best way to translate, but, as I've said, I don't put folks down for disagreeing. I use the Concordant Version because it seems to reveal scripture accurately. For example, the Greek "aion" and "aionion," literally translated "eon" and "eonian," mean an indefinitely usually long period of time and its adjective. So, if I'm reading a version of scripture that translates "aion" or "aionion" as "eternal, everlasting, forever, forever and ever," I'm not going to want to keep reading it because I believe the translator used those words as a result of religious bias to the doctrine of immortality of the soul that is part of church doctrine that claims most folks will be tortured alive "forever." Of course I prefer to read a version of scripture that says what I believe, but I don't think that means I'm making myself an authority as you say. The word of God is the authority. There is only one master. I'm just a student of the word of God. I'm a truth seeker. So I refuse to study words that I believe are not true. I came to a better understanding of what I believe from reading the Concordant Version after reading the King James Version for many years. Did the Concordant Version distort what I believed from reading the King James? No, I think it corrected it by presenting a more accurate translation of the word of God. I'm sorry you misunderstand my intentions, brother. I'm just speaking what I believe to be true from scripture that I believe is the most accurate translation. You're free to read any version you prefer, but I think it's important to understand the true meaning of words in scripture to know the truth of scripture. That's harder to do when we're working from foreign languages and relying on other folks to translate for us, but I believe, if we seek the truth, we'll find it. God bless you.

[Tom]

Tom,

Kindle uses something more like Word. I can use Word format also and it works almost perfect but Kindle does have their own format and it works even better than Word. The name for the format is (MOBI). PDF works also but the font size can't be controlled so I always convert to Word or MOBI.

OK, thanks for the info.

[VineBranch]

I didn't choose it because it validates what I believe but because I think it is the best translation even though it's not perfect because no translation is.

I get that but on what basis do you use the word 'best'?  Best needs to be defined by criteria.  It's a value term with all sorts of agendae attached to it.

I know most folks prefer other versions, and I don't condemn them for that. I'm sorry you got that impression.

I got that impression because you called one of them 'incorrect'.  This implies you know what is correct.  Why not just give us truth and we don't have to wander around through these bible thingies, we can just call you when we want to know what is correct.

I choose the Concordant Version because I think the method of translation is the most accurate meaning each word is used the same throughout the version according to what it means in the concordance.

Because you think ... not because it is absolutely correct?   BTW if you've done any translation at all you must by now know that a word in one language can mean different things in the receiver language, it is not necessarily better that the same word in the source language always be translated as the same word in the receiver language.  I respect that that is your bias, but there are different translation philosophies.  Yours doesn't make your way correct.

I'm not going to want to keep reading it because I believe the translator used those words as a result of religious bias to the doctrine of immortality of the soul that is part of church doctrine that claims most folks will be tortured alive "forever."

There you go "because I believe"...  You believe one thing, and because of your belief you chose a particular version:  or you rejected a particular version.  That is not the same as saying one is correct and the other one isn't.

Of course I prefer to read a version of scripture that says what I believe, but I don't think that means I'm making myself an authority as you say.

But that's not how you phrased it before, in this post you have softened your language to include:  I believe, I prefer, I think.  That is more the phrasing I was looking for.  But, this is different from the language you used to present your previous posts.  If I were to translate this post into another language, I would have to use moods (modal words) and phrasing to represent your words accurately.  If I were to translate one of you previous posts into that same language, I would use different words to represent the words you used because the mood and context have been changed.  So, I wouldn't necessarily translate the same words the same way.

[Tom]

I didn't choose it because it validates what I believe but because I think it is the best translation even though it's not perfect because no translation is.

I get that but on what basis do you use the word 'best'?  Best needs to be defined by criteria.  It's a value term with all sorts of agendae attached to it.

I know most folks prefer other versions, and I don't condemn them for that. I'm sorry you got that impression.

I got that impression because you called one of them 'incorrect'.  This implies you know what is correct.  Why not just give us truth and we don't have to wander around through these bible thingies, we can just call you when we want to know what is correct.

I choose the Concordant Version because I think the method of translation is the most accurate meaning each word is used the same throughout the version according to what it means in the concordance.

Because you think ... not because it is absolutely correct?   BTW if you've done any translation at all you must by now know that a word in one language can mean different things in the receiver language, it is not necessarily better that the same word in the source language always be translated as the same word in the receiver language.  I respect that that is your bias, but there are different translation philosophies.  Yours doesn't make your way correct.

I'm not going to want to keep reading it because I believe the translator used those words as a result of religious bias to the doctrine of immortality of the soul that is part of church doctrine that claims most folks will be tortured alive "forever."

There you go "because I believe"...  You believe one thing, and because of your belief you chose a particular version:  or you rejected a particular version.  That is not the same as saying one is correct and the other one isn't.

Of course I prefer to read a version of scripture that says what I believe, but I don't think that means I'm making myself an authority as you say.

But that's not how you phrased it before, in this post you have softened your language to include:  I believe, I prefer, I think.  That is more the phrasing I was looking for.  But, this is different from the language you used to present your previous posts.  If I were to translate this post into another language, I would have to use moods (modal words) and phrasing to represent your words accurately.  If I were to translate one of you previous posts into that same language, I would use different words to represent the words you used because the mood and context have been changed.  So, I wouldn't necessarily translate the same words the same way.

I say "best" because it is my opinion that the concordant method is the most accurate since it determines consistent word usage from the concordance.

If you're talking about this, it is a quote from the Concordant site... 

""Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version. Soul is not life itself, though it is intimately connected with it. A man's "soul," speaks of a man's sensations or experiences. A man who is termed a "soul," speaks of a man from the standpoint of his sensations or experiences."

If I say I think something is incorrect it is simply my opinion based on my understanding from what I have learned.

If you want to believe the Hebrew word "nphsh" means life, that's your thing, bro. Personally I think it means "soul" and corresponds to the Greek "psuche."

I think the problem is you're making a false assumption that I'm claiming absolute authority which I think is kind of funny really. Anything you ever see me post is my opinion unless I'm quoting scripture or something else, and I assume anything you post is your opinion also unless you're quoting scripture or something else. I don't consider either one of us to be an authority, but I do consider the word of God to be the authority. That's why I want to know what it really says.

The paragraph with the words "incorrectly translated" in it was part of a body of text that was in quotes from the Concordant site. It does seem that they're correct about that though if "nphsh" actually does mean "soul," but that's only my opinion from my limited knowledge of Hebrew. The real problem is the lack of consistency in the translation of the word "nphsh" in the King James Version. If you read the list on this page, you saw what I mean. http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/WhatIsTheSoul.html That's why I prefer the concordant method. It's easier to know what a word means if it means the same thing all the time, and I think it usually should.

So have I convinced you yet that I don't claim to be "absolutely correct" as you say? I think this is starting to get comical.

[VineBranch]

If I say I think something is incorrect it is simply my opinion based on my understanding from what I have learned.

But you didn't say you thought it was incorrect, you said it WAS incorrect.  You said:  ""Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version."  Why are you backpedaling?  Just say you misspoke and let's move on. 

[Tom]

If I say I think something is incorrect it is simply my opinion based on my understanding from what I have learned.

But you didn't say you thought it was incorrect, you said it WAS incorrect.  You said:  ""Soul" (Hebrew, nephesh, Greek, psuchê) does not mean "life," though it is often incorrectly translated "life" in the Authorized Version."  Why are you backpedaling?  Just say you misspoke and let's move on.

You are ignoring the fact that I said it was a quote from the Concordant site.

This "nphsh" is quite a flexible word according to the Authorized Version (KJV). Here's another quote you can accuse me of saying personally.

"THE "AUTHORIZED" RENDERINGS OF THE HEBREW

With two exceptions the word soul, as found in the Authorized Version, always represents the Hebrew word nphsh. Job 30:15 and Isaiah 57:16 have no reference to the soul. The latter should be rendered "breath." Apart from these, every occurrence of "soul" in the accepted version may be depended upon to be correct.

But in a multitude of instances nphsh has been translated by other English expressions. We give a list of these passages so that the student may correct them in his King James Bible. In all, there are about forty-four variations. These are grouped together where the meaning is allied.

THE TRANSLATIONS OF (nphsh) IN THE AUTHORIZED VERSION except where rendered "soul"

any,   Lev.2:1; 24:17; Num.19:11; Deut.24:7.
appetite,   Prov.23:2; Ecc.6:7.
beast,   Lev.24:18,18,18.
body,   Lev.21:11; Num.6:6; 19:13; Haggai 2:13.
breath,   Job 41:21.
creature,   Gen.1:20,21,24; 2:19; 9:10,12,15,16; Lev.11:46,46.
dead,   Lev.19:28; 21:1; 22:4; Num.5:2; 6:11.
dead body,   Num.9:6,7,10.
deadly,   Psa.17:9.
desire,   Ecc.6:9; Jer.22:27; 44:14; Micah 7:3; Hab.2:5.
fish,   Isa.19:10.
ghost,   Job 11:20; Jer.15:9.
heart,   Ex.23:9; Lev.26:16; Deut.24:15; 1 Sam.2:33; 2 Sam.3:21; Psa.10:3; Prov.23:7; 28:25; 31:6;
Jer.42:20; Lam.3:51; Ezek.25:6,15; 27:31; Hosea 4:8.
hearty,   Prov.27:9.
him,   Prov.6:16.
life,   Gen.1:30; 9:4,5,5; 19:17,19; 32:30; 44:30,30; Ex.4:9; 21:23,23,30; Lev.17:11,14,14,14; Num.35:31; Deut.12:23,23;
19:21,21; 24:6; Josh.2:13,14; 9:24; Judges 5:18,9:17, 12:3, 18:25, 25; Ruth 4:15; 1 Sam.19:5,11; 20:1; 22:23,23;
23:15; 26:24,24; 28:9; 21;2; 2 Sam.1:9; 4:8; 14:7; 16:11; 18:13; 19:5,5,5,5; 23:17; 1 Kings 1:12,12; 2:23; 3:11;
19:2,2,3,4,10,14; 20:31; 39,39,42,42; 2 Kings 1:13,13,14; 7:7; 10:24,24; 1 Chron.11:19,19; 2 Chron.1:11;
Esther 7:3,7; 8:11; 9:16; Job 2:4,6; 6:11; 13:14; 13:39; Psa.31:13; 38:12; Prov.1:18,19; 6:26; 7:23; 12:10;
13:3,8; Isa.15:4; 43:4; Jer.4:30; 11:21; 19:7,9; 21:7,9; 22:25; 34:20,21; 38:2,16; 39:18; 44:30,30; 45:5;
46:26; 48:6; 49:37; Lam.2:19; 5:9; Ezek.32:10; Jonah 1:14; 4:3.
lust,   Ex.15:9; Psa.78:18.
man,   Ex.12:16; 2 Kings 12:4; 1 Chron.5:21; Isa.49:7.
me,   Num.23:10; Judges 16:30; 1 Kings 20:32.
mind,   Gen.23:8; Deut.18:6, 28:65; 1 Sam.2:35; 2 Sam.17:8; 2 Kings 9:15;
1 Chron.28:9; Jer.15:1; Ezek.23:17,18, 18,22,28; 24:25; 36:5.
mortally,   Deut.19:11.
one,   Lev.4:27.
person,   Gen.14:21; 36:6; Ex.16:16; Lev.27:2; Num.5:6; 19:18; 31:19,35,40,40,46; 35:11,15,30,30; Deut.10:22; 27:25;
Josh.20:3,9; 1 Sam.22:22; 2 Sam.14:14; Prov.28:17; Jer.43:6; 52:29,30,30; Ezek.16:5; 17:17; 27:13; 33:6.
pleasure, at,   Deut.23:24; Psa.105:22; Jer.34:16.
self,   Lev.11:43,44; Deut.4:15; Josh.23:11; 1 Kings 19:4; Esther 4:13; 9:31; Job 18:4; 32:2; Psa.131:2;
Isa.5:14; 46:2; 47:14; Jer.3:11; 17:21; 37:9; 51:14; Amos 2:14,15; 6:8; Jonah 4:8.
they,   Job 36:14.
thing,   Lev.11:10; Ezek.47:9.
whither will,   Deut.21:14.
will,   Psa.27:12; 41:2; Ezek.16:27.
would have,   Psa.35:25.
omitted entirely,   Gen.37:21; Lev.24:17,18; Num.31:35; Deut.19:6; 22:26; Judges 18:25; 1 Sam.22:2;
1 Chron.5: 21; Isa.3:20; 56:11; Jer.2:24; 40:14,15]."

http://concordant.org/expohtml/DeathAndJudgment/WhatIsTheSoul.html

[eaglesway]

But surely we haven't come to the place where we pick a translation because it says what we want it to say. If we pick a scripture based on our desire to see only what we believe reflected in print, how are we different from anyone else who wants to stick to their scripture because it confirms what they believe?

I don't believe in Hell, and I do believe in UR.  So, I pick a version which agrees with me.  I know KJV only-ists who do believe in Hell, and are adamant that no other version is accurate.  They dismiss with prejudge any version which doesn't include Hell.  Why not just write our own bible?  We could write one which says everything we want it to, and nothing we don't want to deal with.  Then we could call it the only true version in English.  Or we could all  become latter day Joseph Smiths and write our own books to replace the bible and then we would always be right.

What I'm seeing here is the same old story.  We are making ourselves the authorities.  This started in the Garden.  Is this really where we want to go?  If we change versions based on new evidence, or because they are more accurate, I say hurrah.  If we change versions because they say what 'we' want them to, then we decide what is truth, and I am loath to cheer that.

People are going to speak from their perspectives. If they did not think they were in some measure correct- they would not speak(mostly :o). We may disagree about what is the correct translation for a particular verse, or one may feel a particular translation handles some things better than others. This is not setting ourselves as authorities. Setting ourselves as authorities is fruitless and circular ad infinitum. We are simply sharing our points of view. This site is not for setting up such authorities. The parameters are simple. Respectful discussion of opinions within the context of the scriptures and a simple acceptance that the scriptures are dependable with the exceptions of translation issues which can be discussed, again, as opinions among peers and friends in Christ. The same old story is that some people think they see a little more clearly than the rest and are very forward in stating their opinions as facts.

Their are some things we do accept as facts on TM.

The scriptures are divinely inspired, "God-breathed", and the foundation and medium of our discussions.

Jesus Christ is Lord and has secured the salvation of all men through His death burial and resurrection.

We are here to share our faith from various perspectives and hopefully edify one another without "biting and devouring" one another.

None of us is the final authority, all of us have something to offer, any of us can be incorrect -even when we are sure we are absolutely correct.

All of us can respect one another and recognize when "correctness" has become counterproductive because fellowship is the first foundation stone set upon the cornerstone of Christ.

"And you all, as living stones, fitly joined to the chief-cornerstone, are being built together into a habitation of God in the Spirit".  :2c:

[VineBranch]

This "nphsh" is quite a flexible word according to the Authorized Version (KJV).

Well Tom, I think you are absolutely right.  Nephish is a really flexible word in the AV.  It is also, I believe a really flexible word in the original Hebrew.  I admire the way you isolate the word.   Personally I almost started pulling my hair out a while ago trying to see what all the Hebrew words translated as 'understanding' have in common.  In my mind's eye I could myself in a small padded room mumbling to myself.

When I translate from one modern language into another modern language (both indo-european), I am often forced to choose between meanings of a word.  That's just two modern languages.

One of my philosophy profs years ago spent an entire semester class studying the word logos.

So, I am willing to let it go as:  we are brothers who have come to some conclusions through their Christian walk, and look differently at things.  Personally I think your providing a link to a specific translation is an endorsement of that translation, but some would see it as something different:  so be it.

So, I'm willing to go back to the OP and start again, if you are.

[Tom]

This "nphsh" is quite a flexible word according to the Authorized Version (KJV).

Well Tom, I think you are absolutely right.  Nephish is a really flexible word in the AV.  It is also, I believe a really flexible word in the original Hebrew.  I admire the way you isolate the word.   Personally I almost started pulling my hair out a while ago trying to see what all the Hebrew words translated as 'understanding' have in common.  In my mind's eye I could myself in a small padded room mumbling to myself.

When I translate from one modern language into another modern language (both indo-european), I am often forced to choose between meanings of a word.  That's just two modern languages.

One of my philosophy profs years ago spent an entire semester class studying the word logos.

So, I am willing to let it go as:  we are brothers who have come to some conclusions through their Christian walk, and look differently at things.  Personally I think your providing a link to a specific translation is an endorsement of that translation, but some would see it as something different:  so be it.

So, I'm willing to go back to the OP and start again, if you are.

Brother, I never claimed to be "absolutely right" as you say about anything. I was simply providing some information that I read online about a translation that is my personal preference. I also said I don't understand Hebrew or Greek. So I have to rely on other folks to translate. I don't see anything wrong with folks endorsing a translation. I like to check out any translation I haven't seen before. I'm always looking for the best way to understand the ancient languages of scripture. So since you're "willing to go back to the OP," what do you think about "selling your soul to the devil?"

[VineBranch]

So since you're "willing to go back to the OP," what do you think about "selling your soul to the devil?"

I think firstly if we treat it like a Faustian scenario, or something Hollywood depicts as a possibility, it probably doesn't make any sense. King David tells us that where-ever we go, there is God;  even in the remotest places he says we still see God there.  Selling my soul to the devil would suggest that Satan then 'owns' it.  He would then be able to do with it as he pleased.  Everything in the universe belongs to God (even Satan) so ultimately my soul belongs to God.  Therefore (1) I can't sell it, and (2) Satan can't buy it.   From a UR perspective, even if God allowed it, it would only last until Christ drags me to Him, and there would be nothing Satan could do about it; so the soul doesn't belong to him because he could control what happened to it.  So, it's just my opinion but  I would say nah ah to that one.

Secondly, if we use that phrase metaphorically like I sold my soul the company to get a promotion,  I love you so much you own my soul, I think it just becomes part of vernacular expression.  It simply means I spend all my time at work, or I am trying to tell you how much I love you.  I think it is an exaggeration used to present the idea of something have taken our time or concerns.

As a thought experiment what if the recipient of the soul were God.  How would we make sense of the phrase:  I sold me soul to God.  Would anyone take us seriously unless we were talking about maybe becoming obsessed with theology, or spending a lot of time reading the word to the exclusion of anything else?  Would we really thing I literally 'sold' God my soul?  Personally, I don't think so.

I know that's not a very sophisticated answer, but it's the only way I can make sense of the question.

[Tom]

I'd say this is the most concise answer so far.

"No you can't sell your soul it belongs to Yahweh. Yahweh purchased your soul and everyone else's with the perfect blood of His Son Yahshua. Anything you do here will not change the will of Yahweh who provided payment in full for all souls. All means all.

DuWayne"

"For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:5,6)

[WhiteWings]

Despite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.

Rev 2:1-4 (AKJV)
RevAKJV
Rev 2
1 To the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things said he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the middle of the seven golden candlesticks;
2 I know your works, and your labor, and your patience, and how you can not bear them which are evil: and you have tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars:
3 And have borne, and have patience, and for my name's sake have labored, and have not fainted.
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against you, because you have left your first love.


"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, IF IT WERE
POSSIBLE, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24).

I think only the elect can't be deceived; everyone else can.

[Tom]

Despite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.

Rev 2:1-4 (AKJV)
RevAKJV
Rev 2
1 To the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things said he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the middle of the seven golden candlesticks;
2 I know your works, and your labor, and your patience, and how you can not bear them which are evil: and you have tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars:
3 And have borne, and have patience, and for my name's sake have labored, and have not fainted.
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against you, because you have left your first love.


"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, IF IT WERE
POSSIBLE, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24).

I think only the elect can't be deceived; everyone else can.

I think "the elect" or "believers" can be deceived, but they still have no reason to fear Satan. I think some of "the elect" or "believers" are deceived by the church doctrine of torture forever in fire which I believe is a deception perpetrated by Satan, but they are still saved because they believe Christ died for their sins and was roused from the dead.

"if ever you should be avowing with your mouth the declaration that Jesus is Lord, and should be believing in your heart that God rouses Him from among the dead, you shall be saved" (Romans 10:9)

"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor messengers, nor sovereignties, nor the present, nor what is impending, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord." (Romans 8:38,39)

http://concordant.org/expohtml/TheEvangel/BelievingAndUnderstanding.html

[VineBranch]

I think only the elect can't be deceived; everyone else can.

How do you make sense then of Matthew 24:24?

[mplsfitter539]

VB the verse does say "if possible even the elect". IMO it doesn't say that it is possible but IF possible. I am not saying that it is impossible but the verse you refer to says "IF".  :2c:

[WhiteWings]

For me the verse gives several bits of information.

The verse defines the elect as a group meaning there is at least one other group. Most certainly unbelievers are a group but I think saints are a group too.
Saints=body. Elect=bride

"IF possible" means "not possible" the way I read it. But even if I'm totally wrong about that it answers the original question/statement because satan tricks a part of the believers to follow the wide road (again)

Despite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.

:2c:

[WhiteWings]

I think "the elect" or "believers" can be deceived, but they still have no reason to fear Satan. I think some of "the elect" or "believers" are deceived by the church doctrine of torture forever in fire which I believe is a deception perpetrated by Satan, but they are still saved because they believe Christ died for their sins and was roused from the dead.

With that sort of reasoning, which isn't strictly wrong, I can just as well state nobody has to fear satan because Jesus will be totally victorious. He was also roused from the dead for unbelievers.

The "fear of satan" never was satan personally kills people. It was satan controlling (church) leaders to move people away from God/Jesus. Or in its most direct way let pagan kings attempt to wipe out believers.
So all that combined I think satan should be feared, but the type of fear can vary. For example missing out on the 1st and/or 2nd resurrection.

[Tom]

For me the verse gives several bits of information.

The verse defines the elect as a group meaning there is at least one other group. Most certainly unbelievers are a group but I think saints are a group too.
Saints=body. Elect=bride

"IF possible" means "not possible" the way I read it. But even if I'm totally wrong about that it answers the original question/statement because satan tricks a part of the believers to follow the wide road (again)

Despite the fact that Satan is very adept at deception, I think believers have no reason to fear Satan.

:2c:

The Concordant Version uses the word "chosen" rather than "elect." 1 Timothy 5:21 speaks of "elect angels" (KJV) or "chosen messengers" (CLV). Paul refers to the chosen a few times in other epistles. So the chosen or elect as you say must include "the body of Christ." I think saints are believers of both. That leaves me wondering why you say, "Saints=body. Elect=bride." I know some folks think the "body" and "bride" are the same, but I don't.

http://concordant.org/expohtml/CorrectPartitioning/AreTheBrideAndBodyIdentical0.html

http://concordant.org/expohtml/CorrectPartitioning/AreWeTheBrideOfTheLamb.html