I say to you today, [comma] you will be with Me in Paradise

[GRACE ambassador]

with the Lord at death...we are NOT in the ground at death. Only our bodies are.

Precious friend, am I correct? = Your view is "we (believers) [soul and spirit] are with The Lord"
at the death of the body, and their view:

The Jewish view lends support to this idea by agreeing we are all exclusively piles of dirt. Walking gut bags.. and our soul is a part of that dirt. When we die, it dies.

= all are annihilated?

 

[Ziggy]

Still got no answer....
anybody?

How long is To day if we aught to exhort one another daily while it is called To day?

Hugs

 

[Starise]

Precious friend, am I correct? = Your view is "we (believers) [soul and spirit] are with The Lord"
at the death of the body, and their view:

= all are annihilated?

Hello,

I'm sorry for maybe some confusion.
I have gone round and round on this topic in other places and I often manage to say things which I think make my points, but in hindsight maybe they are taken in a completely different way.

My view- I believe a part of us ( the soul) goes to be with the Lord at death. I believe it was Aquinas who made some differentiation between soul and spirit of man among others. My base view is that only the physical is left behind. Everything else goes to be with the Lord, generally referred to as the soul but including the spirit.

The other view of this Jewish person who claims faith was that everything about us is intrinsic and therefore when we die NOTHING goes to be with the Lord. Only at the resurrection will we be made alive again.
To be fair his view would seem to make sense if only a few select scriptures are read.
So that if God chose not to raise a person from the dead there would ne nothing remaining for Him to do as a persion in that state is terminated. His view may not be reflecting all Jewish thought. But he definitely pulls the jewish card in his views which are likely founded mainly on the OT.

 

[Starise]

Still got no answer....
anybody?

How long is To day if we aught to exhort one another daily while it is called To day?

Hugs

Since today is any time of day and daily is a constant, that's pretty much all the time. A 'day' would also include evening in this context. Now is a good time to start

 

[Ziggy]

Since today is any time of day and daily is a constant, that's pretty much all the time. A 'day' would also include evening in this context. Now is a good time to start

Thank You
Hugs
And welcome to the Forum!

 

[DJT_47]

Luke 23:


Should the comma be placed after the word "today"?

At Biblehub, 31 translations placed the comma before *today*. Only 2 placed it after.

The following is from GotQuestions:

First, we note that every major Bible translation inserts the comma before the word today. Thus, the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and RSV all agree that Jesus was speaking of the time that the thief would enter paradise. The thief would be in paradise with Jesus on that very same day.

Also, Jesus prefaced His response with the phrase, “I tell you the truth” (“Verily I say unto thee” in the KJV). Many scholars have noticed that Jesus uses this as a prefix phrase when He is about to say something that should be listened to with care. Seventy-six times in the New Testament, Jesus uses the phrase. Interestingly, no one but Jesus ever says it. When the Lord says “I tell you the truth,” He is affirming that what He is about to say is worthy of special attention. It was Jesus’ way of saying, “Listen up! What I’m about to say is very important and should be listened to carefully.” We’re too used to hearing the phrase to appreciate the astonishing authority it expresses and the often solemn nature of the announcement that follows. In every one of the 76 times Christ uses this introductory phrase, He simply says it and then makes a startling statement.

It would be strange indeed if, in this one instance, Jesus departed from His normal way of making His signature statement by adding the word today to it. In every case where this sort of introductory phrase is used, Greek scholars add a punctuation break after the phrase in question and before the rest of the statement. So, the translators have it right. The comma in Luke 23:43 belongs where they put it.

It'd be meaningless and wouldn't make much sense to emphasize that Jesus was speaking to him "today", which is obvious. You get a better understanding of Jesus' words to the thief by reading the interlinear. There without doubt, the words are clear with emphasis not being on the fact that Jesus was speaking to him "today", but rather on the fact that he would be with Jesus in paradise "today". The comma is in the right place as written; before "today" and not after.

 

[lforrest]

No issue here, the kingdom of Heaven is near.

 

[Wrangler]

Let proposition P1 = The comma should go after *today* in Luke 23:43.
P2 = The comma should go before *today* in Luke 23:43.

Between 0 and 10, how much weight do you put on each of the above propositions? The stronger your belief in a proposition, the higher the weight.

Sadly, you keep attempting to invoke this illogical problem solving tool. Truth is not a matter of weighting; moral valuing is.

 

[Cassandra]

Here are verses where commas needed in the KJV, but are absent:

Judges 4:21: 21 " Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died."

Jael is the wife of Heber. It should be "Then Jael, Heber's wife..."

Acts 19:12 : "So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons , and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them."

Sick handkerchiefs?

Should be "... were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs or aprons,..."

 

[marks]

Here are verses where commas needed in the KJV, but are absent:

Judges 4:21: 21 " Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died."

Jael is the wife of Heber. It should be "Then Jael, Heber's wife..."

Acts 19:12 : "So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons , and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them."

Sick handkerchiefs?

Should be "... were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs or aprons,..."

I agree on the first, but not the second, fwiw.

Much love!

 

[Cassandra]

I agree on the first, but not the second, fwiw.

Much love!

How do we write the 2nd then?
So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons
There has to be a pause between sick and handkerchiefs.

This punctuation helps to clarify that it is the sick people who are being referred to, rather than "sick handkerchiefs."

 

[marks]

How do we write the 2nd then?
So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons
There has to be a pause between sick and handkerchiefs.

This punctuation helps to clarify that it is the sick people who are being referred to, rather than "sick handkerchiefs."

from his body . . . were brought unto the sick . . . handkerchiefs or aprons . . .

"the sick" is the direct object of "brought". As a direct object, it's being used as a noun and not an adjective. Therefore it doesn't require a comma. That's how I learned it.

Much love!

 

[Cassandra]

fine, but it still needs to be offset with punctuation--there is no pause reading it, and there needs to be, . C'mon, the phrase handkerchiefs and aprons needs to be offset.

 

[Debp]

The other view of this Jewish person who claims faith was that everything about us is intrinsic and therefore when we die NOTHING goes to be with the Lord. Only at the resurrection will we be made alive again.

I wonder what he thinks of the verse...
8We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5:8

 

[rebuilder 454]

Luke 23:43 - Punctuation

Just because a modern text writer decides where he wants the punctuation and capitalization to be in his interpretation of the original text (as Westcott and Hort did for the text that is used by the NWT and Nestle did in the text used by the NASB, etc.) does not mean that is how the original Bible writer intended the meaning.

We see The Emphasized Bible by Joseph B. Rotherham also punctuating Luke 23:43 to produce the meaning found in the NWT:

"Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise."

And the footnote for Luke 23:43 in Lamsa's translation admits:

"Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today."

The Concordant Literal New Testament renders it: "43 And Jesus said to him, 'Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise.'"

2001 Translation – An American English Bible: 43 And [Jesus] replied, `I tell you this today; you will be with me in Paradise.'

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament by E.W.Bullinger, DD., page 811 says:

"'And Jesus said to him, Verily, to thee I say this day, with Me shalt thou be in the Paradise.' The words today being made solemn and emphatic. Thus, instead of a remembrance, when He shall come in... His kingdom, He promises a presence in association (meta, 'with') Himself. And this promise he makes on that very day when he was dying.... Thus we are saved (1) the trouble of explaining why Jesus did not answer the question on its own terms; and (2) the inconvenience of endorsing the punctuation of the [KJV] as inspired; and we also place this passage in harmony with numberless passages in the O.T., such as 'Verily I say unto you this day,' etc.; 'I testify unto you this day.' etc. Deut.vi.6; vii.1; x.13; xi.8;,13,23; xii.13; xix.9; xxvii.4; xxxi.2, etc., where the Septuagint corresponds to Luke xxii.43."

Yes, there is no reason to deny the rendering of Luke 23:43 as, "I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise."

............................................

An example from the Hebrew Scriptures of the OT in modern Bibles:

(NKJV) Deuteronomy 30:18 "I announce to you today that you shall surely perish"

(NASB) Deuteronomy 30:18 I declare to you today that you shall surely perish.

(RSV) Deuteronomy 30:18 "I declare to you this day, that you shall perish"

(GodsWord) Deuteronomy 30:18 "If you do, I tell you today that you will certainly be destroyed"

(MKJV (Green)) Deuteronomy 30:18 "I declare to you today that you shall surely perish"

Nope
The doctrine of paradise under the earth has around 5 verses backing it up.
The comma is moved FOR THE PURPOSE of voiding that doctrine.

 

[TonyChanYT]

I wonder what he thinks of the verse...
8We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor. 5:8

Try What happens to your soul when you die?

 

[Starise]

Here is how some who believe in what amounts to soul death try to get around it. They use time and God's control of it to say that it seems immediate to us, but we could have been laying in the ground for 100 years.
Thoughts?

 

[Starise]

Do you think the all knowing God who foreknew english translations would trip us all up over a comma?

 

[TonyChanYT]

Here is how some who believe in what amounts to soul death try to get around it. They use time and God's control of it to say that it seems immediate to us, but we could have been laying in the ground for 100 years.
Thoughts?

The passage of time can be affected by speed or gravity. Two people, P1 and P2, experiencing different gravitational fields would experience the passage of time differently. One day to P1 could be 1000 years to P2. This is the effect of time dilation under general relativity.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Do you think the all knowing God who foreknew english translations would trip us all up over a comma?

Human beings inspired by God wrote the Bible. See Is the Bible the word of God?