Christian afterlife

[Plotinus]

What I was trying to illustrate by comparing that verse between those two different bible versions is that:

One is saying 'I am crucified with Christ' (KJV) and the other says 'I have been crucified with Christ' (NRSV)

There is a difference here in the wording. 'Am' crucified conveys a permanency that 'have been' does not. Once saved always saved. If one has to conduct works in order to maintain his salvation then why did Jesus die on the cross?

I think you're actually being misled by the archaic English. In early modern English "I am" can mean the same thing as "I have", as in "I am arrived". (It's easier to see this in French, where a similar construction is still used.) In any case, the NRSV is absolutely correct here. The Greek word is συνεσταύρωμαι and that simply does mean "I have been crucified". It's in the past tense. I think that the King James translators were also trying to express this but the passage of time means that modern readers misinterpret them.

Now you may prefer "I am crucified" in the modern sense of that phrase, but that simply isn't what Paul wrote.

The next difference I was trying to show is in the following:

The KJV says 'I live by the faith of the son of God' whereas the NRSV says 'I live by the faith in the son of God'.

Again the difference at first glance might be insignificant but they are both two different concepts. To live by faith of God means that that faith is given to you by almighty God whereas to live by faith in God puts the emphasis on man and disrespects God.

This one's harder as the Greek is really all over the place. Paul writes ἐν πίστει ζῶ, which is simply "in faith I live", followed by τῇ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, "that from the Son of God". So neither "of the Son of God" nor "in the Son of God" actually appears in this verse. Though obviously "in Christ" is a standard Pauline phrase, so perhaps the NRSV translators used it for that reason?

It's not a matter of who got the translation correct word for word but who got the translation correct meaning for meaning. Remember something said in one language may have no equivalent in another language or might mean something else entirely. Translators must take that into account in addition to getting the words correctly translated.

It's true that translation is never exact and that all translations are, to some degree, paraphrases. However, that doesn't mean that you should just go with the translation you like the most. It can still be the case that one translation is more accurate than another. And the way to work out which one it is is to compare them to the original language, where possible.

 

[Plotinus]

Or are you saying that the original writers of the Bible got it wrong, and, then, what, God corrected them by divinely inspiring the writers of the KJV?

Fascinating fact: the early Christians thought that the Hebrew Bible was inspired not when it was originally written in Hebrew but when it was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). When Jerome translated it into Latin he was criticised for doing so from the Hebrew instead of from the Greek translation.

 

[El_Machinae]

I do wonder what it will feel like to have no free will once I'm in heaven. It might be like the blind spot, where I'm just not aware that I don't have it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I do wonder what it will feel like to have no free will once I'm in heaven. It might be like the blind spot, where I'm just not aware that I don't have it.

Eternal bliss that doesn't get boring. So they say.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

True. But how boring is that

 

[PhroX]

Fascinating fact: the early Christians thought that the Hebrew Bible was inspired not when it was originally written in Hebrew but when it was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). When Jerome translated it into Latin he was criticised for doing so from the Hebrew instead of from the Greek translation.

Was that the one with 70(?) monks who supposedly all got the same translation?

 

[Plotinus]

Yes, the Septuagint. They weren't monks though, because the Septuagint was a Jewish, pre-Christian translation. The legend of the 70 translators being miraculously led to produce the same text reflects the belief that it was this translation, not the Hebrew original, that was divinely inspired.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

I got summoned into this thread.

Good to know that the old incantations work

I hope you're well?

 

[Plotinus]

Just about surviving, thank you! I should be writing, and yet here I am...

 

[Joij21]

When you die, your "soul" leaves for either heaven or hell, in the former often thought as you become an angel. How literally this is up and down, depends.

You don't become an angel when you ascend into heaven. Your simply a human soul, the souls of angels are completely different. They are powerful and primordial beings created by God before he created humans. An angel's spirit is many times in magnitude more powerful than a human spirit as well as more ethereal, possibly multidimensional, etc.

Only the prophet Enoch ascended into heaven and became the Metatron. Also known as the mask of God. This is however only if you believe the book of Enoch to be canon which of course it is not in most denominations of Christianity. It is however canon in Judaism.

Now here's what I mean is actually the case (or the actual christian view):
When you die, you are put to rest in the ground. You're lieing there, doing nothing. This is why you can say "rest in peace". This is how ghosts can fit in, people who are dead but not resting in peace. If you're in hell, you're obviously not resting in peace, if you're in heaven, you would maybe be extatic in stead.

Another thing that fits with this is the disaster of drowning at sea. Then you're not resting in the earth.

And the english phrase "ashes to ashes, dust to dust", I really don't understand. I'd dismiss it as some mistranslation. Here the priest says to the person getting buried: "From earth you've come, to earth you shall become, from earth you shall again arise"

And so this is where the afterlife really comes in. The end of the world begins, and all those who've died, who've been resting in peace for centuries and millenia, rise up from the grave, completely physically with bodies, not some vague ghostly soul. They're then judged, the sinners either go to a kind of hell or are just destroyed, and the people deemed worthy of eternal life, live eternally here on the earth. The earth is transformed in various ways, I kinda remember something about the ocean dissapearing, but the thing is they rise from the grave and don't have any further vertical translation, and then get to live forever.

The whole dead rising from their graves is something that happens on Judgement Day, which happens after Satan is defeated for the second and last time (the first time being Armageddon). This all takes place in the book of Revelation and is a prophecy of the future of something that is said to take place and yet one must also be wary of a literalist interpretation. Especially since the book of Revelation was written by John of Patmos who was an early Christian at a time when Christians were being purged by the Roman Empire. It is also claimed that this John of Patmos is the same person as the apostle John, the last of Jesus' disciples who hadn't been brutally executed by the authorities but rather exiled to the remote Greek island of Patmos (where he gets his name from). It is on this island of Patmos inside of a cave that the now disgruntled John after watching all his friends die wrote down the book of Revelation as a hermit. In the cave he had visions of the end of days and most likely wrote them down symbolically or in some kind of code as to not get the ire of the empire. However the phropecy could also have been literal as well we're just not sure, it's one of the so called "mysteries of faith".

Traditionally the way the rising dead are interpreted is that when one dies you go to either Heaven or Hell. Then on Judgement Day God puts the souls of those from Heaven and Hell back into their former bodies where he then judges them with a trial on wether they can enter into the Eternal Kingdom on Earth. After burning a long time in Hell this is allegedly the final and last time a sinner gets a second chance to make one's case before God to not be cast into oblivion. It is also a time where those that came from heaven are truly tested to be pure enough or cast into oblivion. Any normal humans who are just regularly alive at this time and have survived Satan's second assault are also to be judged on this day, stand before the true face of God, and either be allowed to reside in the Kingdom in eternal bliss now that Satan is gone for good, or be obliterated. Hence God shall judge both the living and the dead.

The reason why getting buried at sea was so terrifying was because people in the middle ages believed that if your corpse was destroyed before Judgement Day you would not be able to get out of Heaven or Hell on that day and be automatically obliterated by God. This is why in a proper Catholic Christian burial your not supposed to cremate the body but rather bury it so it's preserved for Judgement Day. Modern Christians however tend to believe that cremation is sorta okay because they believe God will magically put together all the ashes of your former corpse and make it back into your corpse however some Christians still cling on to the older belief and therefore insist that a corpse must always be buried.

Hope this sorta clears some things up.

 

[Lohrenswald]

You don't become an angel when you ascend into heaven.

You couldn't parse my text enough to understand I thought this wasn't the case? To be honest I included it to discredit the "opposition"

Only the prophet Enoch ascended into heaven and became the Metatron

that is a kinda interesting thing I hadn't heard about

Traditionally the way the rising dead are interpreted is that when one dies you go to either Heaven or Hell. Then on Judgement Day God puts the souls of those from Heaven and Hell back into their former bodies where he then judges them with a trial on wether they can enter into the Eternal Kingdom on Earth.

I mean this is the view Plotinus (assuming I understood him, which I think I did) explained was a "new" idea of greek origin inserted into christianity, which theologians now (and I would think for a long time) think isn't the case

The reason why getting buried at sea was so terrifying was because people in the middle ages believed that if your corpse was destroyed before Judgement Day you would not be able to get out of Heaven or Hell on that day and be automatically obliterated by God.

that's basically what I posited

I hate being negative, but the only real thing you've contributed that hasn't been mentioned before is the Enoch to Metatron trivia, which was just a tangent to countering a position I've explained several times I don't hold

 

[Joij21]

I mean this is the view Plotinus (assuming I understood him, which I think I did) explained was a "new" idea of greek origin inserted into christianity, which theologians now (and I would think for a long time) think isn't the case

The book of Revelation was allegedly written on the Greek island of Patmos. So it is of Greek origin. But because the author is believed by church authorities to have been written by John the Apostle, it is considered a viable phropecy. Remember even if it was written by an exclusively Greek John it could still remain canon if it can be proven that this John is in fact communicating with God, that is divinely inspired. It's why many Saints exist that are of different ethnic backgrounds but the Church believes they are holy and divinely inspired due to miracles in which they have performed when they were still living (and sometimes dead). I know theologians believe Revelation was possibly written by multiple authors or may not been the same John, but this is what any typical Catholic priest or clergyman would tell you is the actual legitimate truth according to the faith. Although it was controversial and debated a lot back in the day and almost never made it into the official canon.

Also remember that nowhere else except Revelation does the Bible mention the resurrection of the dead. Jesus resurrects one dead guy but that was simply a miracle to prove he was the son of God to any bystanders.

that's basically what I posited

I hate being negative, but the only real thing you've contributed that hasn't been mentioned before is the Enoch to Metatron trivia, which was just a tangent to countering a position I've explained several times I don't hold

I'm not countering what you believe, I know you don't believe it. I'm refuting you for believing that Christians hold on to that belief. Because they simply don't.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think you're actually being misled by the archaic English. In early modern English "I am" can mean the same thing as "I have", as in "I am arrived". (It's easier to see this in French, where a similar construction is still used.) In any case, the NRSV is absolutely correct here. The Greek word is συνεσταύρωμαι and that simply does mean "I have been crucified". It's in the past tense. I think that the King James translators were also trying to express this but the passage of time means that modern readers misinterpret them.

Συνεσταύρωμαι isn't in the past tense, that would be συνεσταυρώθην.
It is in the present tense, and just means "co-crucified". The meaning is "I am crucified along with Christ" etc, and obviously it is used metaphorically. I am, as in "I am now". Similar to the sentiment of that speech "I am also a Berliner" (and likely equally serious).
Another possibility is that they used present tense (συνεσταύρωμαι) while still referring to the past, for added emphasis, which is usually referred to with the oxymoronic term "historic present tense". Either way, the term is in the present, that much is obvious from the letters.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Thank you Kyriakos for explaining the differences. So in other words I am is not the same as I have.

It's very important to get this correct because I am crucified is greatly different from I have been crucified.

 

[Kyriakos]

Thank you Kyriakos for explaining the differences. So in other words I am is not the same as I have.

It's very important to get this correct because I am crucified is greatly different from I have been crucified.

If you give me the verse (apparently the term appears in more than one) I can also try to use the context. But yes, the loyal to the original translation would be "I am crucified along with (Christ)/I am co-crucified". "Syn" just means "together with (x)", and the term is certainly in the present tense in Greek.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

If you give me the verse (apparently the term appears in more than one) I can also try to use the context. But yes, the loyal to the original translation would be "I am crucified along with (Christ)/I am co-crucified". "Syn" just means "together with (x)", and the term is certainly in the present tense in Greek.

That would be awesome, thank you. I've got a few verses that I could use your help on clarifying. I'll post here again later on when I have had time to collect my notes.

 

[Hygro]

Maybe this is a selection bias thing, but every time I see a highlight of grammar, from an accepted translation to a more literal translation, the more literal translation is deeply more interesting and religious.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe some of the non-literal translations just operate on the premise that the reader is dumb and they don't have any ability to interpret the text for themselves. But in this way they can often alter the meaning while trying to force-simplify it

 

[Birdjaguar]

Συνεσταύρωμαι isn't in the past tense, that would be συνεσταυρώθην.
It is in the present tense, and just means "co-crucified". The meaning is "I am crucified along with Christ" etc, and obviously it is used metaphorically. I am, as in "I am now". Similar to the sentiment of that speech "I am also a Berliner" (and likely equally serious).
Another possibility is that they used present tense (συνεσταύρωμαι) while still referring to the past, for added emphasis, which is usually referred to with the oxymoronic term "historic present tense". Either way, the term is in the present, that much is obvious from the letters.

We are talking about Gal 2:20. You seem to be saying that the 2 interlinear translations below and the 20 or so different translations shown in the link are all wrong.

4957 [e] synestaurōmai συνεσταύρωμαι ; I have been crucified with V-RIM/P-1S​

2:20 sunestaurwmai sunestaur Omai G4957 vi Perf Pas 1 Sg I-HAVE-been-TOGETHER-impalED I-have-been-crucified-together with

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/gal2.pdf

Versions of Gal 2:20

https://biblehub.com/galatians/2-20

Are all those others ignorant? I have no Greek language skills at all but do question how so many over so many years could have it wrong and you have correct.

 

[Kyriakos]

We are talking about Gal 2:20. You seem to be saying that the 2 interlinear translations below and the 20 or so different translations shown in the link are all wrong.

4957 [e] synestaurōmai συνεσταύρωμαι ; I have been crucified with V-RIM/P-1S​

2:20 sunestaurwmai sunestaur Omai G4957 vi Perf Pas 1 Sg I-HAVE-been-TOGETHER-impalED I-have-been-crucified-together with

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/gal2.pdf

Versions of Gal 2:20

https://biblehub.com/galatians/2-20

Are all those others ignorant? I have no Greek language skills at all but do question how so many over so many years could have it wrong and you have correct.

I am not a theologian, but to any Greek speaker it is crystal clear that συνεσταύρωμαι is the present tense. I even provided the past tense of the word. No past tense in Greek would ever end in -ωμαι. It is as if one was to claim that "have" is the past tense instead of "had".

Here is a link with the (same ending) present tense of "I am being asked (now)", which is ερωτώμαι. Notice the same ending, which is found in all present tense terms of this type.

ἐρωτῶμαι - Αρχαία: Κλίση, Λεξικό, Ορθογραφία, Αναγνώριση, Γραμματική (Αρχαία Και Λόγια Ελληνική) - Lexigram

ἐρωτῶμαι αρχαια. ἐρωτῶμαι κλιση. ἐρωτῶμαι αρχαία. ἐρωτῶμαι κλίση. ἐρωτῶμαι ορθογραφία. ἐρωτῶμαι λεξικό αρχαίας. ερωτωμαι ορθογραφια. ἐρωτῶμαι αναγνώριση. ερωτωμαι αναγνωριση. ἐρωτῶμαι χρονική αντικατάσταση. ερωτωμαι χρονικη αντικατασταση. ἐρωτῶμαι εγκλιτική αντικατάσταση. ερωτωμαι εγκλιτικη...

www.lexigram.gr

Relevant here is the "Chronos: Enestwtas" (Χρόνος: Ενεστώτας) which means "Tense: Present".

As for To Galateans (in Asia Minor, not France) it is "χριστω συνεσταυρωμαι ζω δε ουκετι εγω ζη δε εν εμοι χριστος ο δε νυν ζω εν σαρκι εν πιστει ζω τη του υιου του θεου του αγαπησαντος με και παραδοντος εαυτον υπερ εμου" (I would translate that, loosely, to "I am crucified with Christ, I live and yet it is not me who lives but Christ within me, I live now in flesh but in faith I live through the son of God who loved me and I have given myself (up) to Him")
which seems to rather use the aforementioned "historic present tense". It is a literary device which you often find in story telling for added emphasis: instead of saying "I did that" you would say "I do that". In other words, it is the present tense, but may be a literary device and not mean much in regards to "I literally am now doing that". The phrase can easily mean the latter, though, in other passages. Either way, it is not a good idea imo to translate it as a past tense, far better to make a note if you must.

(lexigram.gr is a known site for both ancient and modern Greek terms)

Edit: I also found this site, with the terms in English, noting that σταύρωμαι (obviously it doesn't change with the syn prefix) is passive voice subjunctive present tense. https://hellas.bab2min.pe.kr/hk/staurow?l=en&form=stauro/w&q=stauro/w
If we assume the subjunctive is of the "expressing a wish" variety, then the term in context does not use historic present tense, but the regular present tense: "I am crucified with Christ (so that I can have so and so). So this is even more prohibitive of translating it in the past tense!

@Plotinus may be interested.

(maybe @Arakhor too, I suppose)