Meat Common Misconceptions and Mistranslation Issues

[Keith Martin]

My point is that the bride price would surely be high.
Without his inheritance he couldn’t pay it.
What happened to those who couldn’t pay what they owed? They were sold as a servant/slave.
Some punishments had the potential to be worse than stoning.

Indeed; many punishments are worse than stoning.

I agree the bride price should have been higher, but if dad doesn't expect the bride price it doesn't matter how high or low it was. Dad left it to his younger son to come up with an ill-fated consequence. Forget that 50-shekels stuff: essentially, dad reached into his pocket and paid the bride price to himself for his son. That's part of the lesson: intra-family corruption.

I continue to contend that we're to some significant extent looking to proof-text our way through Torah to absolve ourselves from using the benefit of not only Torah and the teachings of Yeshua and Sh'aul but 2000 years of additional wisdom inspired by millions of people attempting to put those teachings into action in order to clearly see that the Amnon/Tamar story was not written as any kind of guidance about either when marriage occurs or whether a bride price should be paid.

 

[steve]

I continue to contend that we're to some significant extent looking to proof-text our way through Torah to absolve ourselves from using the benefit of not only Torah and the teachings of Yeshua and Sh'aul but 2000 years of additional wisdom inspired by millions of people attempting to put those teachings into action in order to clearly see that the Amnon/Tamar story was not written as any kind of guidance about either when marriage occurs or whether a bride price should be paid.

Maybe I just don’t understand that statement, but it sure don’t sit right with me.

 

[FollowingHim]

I continue to contend that we're to some significant extent looking to proof-text our way through Torah to absolve ourselves from using the benefit of not only Torah and the teachings of Yeshua and Sh'aul but 2000 years of additional wisdom inspired by millions of people attempting to put those teachings into action in order to clearly see that the Amnon/Tamar story was not written as any kind of guidance about either when marriage occurs or whether a bride price should be paid.

I'm uncomfortable with the "additional wisdom inspired by millions of people" part. I really feel that you have decided in your own mind that rape deserves capital punishment, and are then trying to either read scripture to agree with that, or when scripture doesn't back it up just say it's the right punishment anyway. And if anyone else says the appropriate punishment is something less than death, you insinuate that they are soft on crime - unless they can come up with a reason to say that the punishment is actually worse than death, which then makes it ok.

Seriously, in a modern context, do you actually think that incestuous rapists of siblings should be sentenced to death?

Bear in mind it is not hypothetical, it actually happens in families today, there are recent prominent Christian examples.

 

[James Pease]

Looking at another misconception, Gehenna. People teach Gehenna was a trash dump outside the city. There is no scriptural background for it being the dump, and there has been no historical evidence either. The scripture calls it the valley of the son of Hinnom which we know to be right outside the city. I do understand that it will be a mass grave site, but the continued false doctrine that it was a burning trash dump is not provable. There is a lot more that goes into this but this is simple enough for pointing out the misconception.

 

[Keith Martin]

I really feel that you have decided in your own mind that rape deserves capital punishment

First, let me clarify something: I believe that, in order to be consistent among all the vying violations of Amnon's rape of Tamar and the associated, relevant Torah prescriptions, not to mention that their father was the King, Amnon should have at a minimum been banished forever and perhaps given the death penalty. For consistency's sake.

However . . . I don't even believe in the death penalty and prefer lifetime solitary confinement as a terminal punishment, so, no, I don't believe that rape deserves capital punishment. But, to be fair, I also don't believe women who aren't virgins should be shunned, especially if they lost their virginity via rape.

I continue to contend that we're to some significant extent looking to proof-text our way through Torah to absolve ourselves from using the benefit of not only Torah and the teachings of Yeshua and Sh'aul but 2000 years of additional wisdom inspired by millions of people attempting to put those teachings into action in order to clearly see that the Amnon/Tamar story was not written as any kind of guidance about either when marriage occurs or whether a bride price should be paid.

Maybe I just don’t understand that statement, but it sure don’t sit right with me.

Second, I have to agree with you, Zen Trucker -- I think I rushed that post as I was about to go out the door for a couple hours, and almost immediately on my driving rounds I began to regret it. It doesn't sit right with me, either. I should have been more succinct, and what I wrote seriously suffered from failure to proofread:

• I do think some inconsistency exists sometimes when we're discussing Torah and how it was applied throughout subsequent Scripture -- and I specifically think that, not always but too often, we (myself included) can end up dragging our current understandings back into ancient times while simultaneously dragging ancient prescriptions into current times.
• I'm also asserting that, while I share the position that Scripture is His Word and trumps all other material written by man, it is the case that Scripture doesn't address everything, so my bias is toward seeking the closest cultural elaborations and verifications possible for filling in those missing holes. Scripture simply doesn't address everything that impinges on Scripture, and it also fails to fully or in some cases even partially define terms it uses -- which means that, at the time of writing, those terms were considered to be no-brainers to the point of not needing to be explained.
• I further assert that the Amnon/Tamar story was included not just as a random historical recounting but that it was intended to teach a lesson -- and that the lesson is not about bride prices or the definition of marriage, but instead is a lesson about intra-family corruption at the highest levels. David was beloved of Yah, but he was still human and failed on various fronts. This is one of them.

 

[Keith Martin]

Looking at another misconception, Gehenna. People teach Gehenna was a trash dump outside the city. There is no scriptural background for it being the dump, and there has been no historical evidence either. The scripture calls it the valley of the son of Hinnom which we know to be right outside the city. I do understand that it will be a mass grave site, but the continued false doctrine that it was a burning trash dump is not provable. There is a lot more that goes into this but this is simple enough for pointing out the misconception.

One very common logical fallacy is to deny the previous existence of something because no evidence for its existence can be provided in the present. Evidence, by definition, is presently tangible. Therefore, just asserting that it's not provable is a moot point.

If you're going to assert that Gehenna was not a trash dump, given that that's a very common understanding, you would at least have to posit what it was instead. Historical records assert it was a place where human sacrifices were made to Moloch, as well as that it was used as a trash dump. Given the state of technology at the time, fire would have been the most common effective method of tamping down stench, decay and disease.

So, James, what do you think Gehenna was. While researching this, see if you can find any reference to Gehenna being a place of eternal conscious torment prior to the 4th century AD.

 

[James Pease]

One very common logical fallacy is to deny the previous existence of something because no evidence for its existence can be provided in the present. Evidence, by definition, is presently tangible. Therefore, just asserting that it's not provable is a moot point.

If you're going to assert that Gehenna was not a trash dump, given that that's a very common understanding, you would at least have to posit what it was instead. Historical records assert it was a place where human sacrifices were made to Moloch, as well as that it was used as a trash dump. Given the state of technology at the time, fire would have been the most common effective method of tamping down stench, decay and disease.

So, James, what do you think Gehenna was. While researching this, see if you can find any reference to Gehenna being a place of eternal conscious torment prior to the 4th century AD.

Here are the verses about the valley.
H2011 - hinnōm

H2011​

H2012 ›› ‹‹ H2010

הִנֹּם

Transliteration: hinnōm

Pronunciation: hin-nome'

Part of Speech: proper locative noun

Root Word (Etymology): Probably of foreign origin

Outline of Biblical Usage: Hinnom = "lamentation" a valley (deep and narrow ravine) with steep, rocky sides located southwest of Jerusalem, separating Mount Zion to the north from the hill of evil counsel' and the sloping rocky plateau of the 'plain of Rephaim' to the south

KJV Translation Count: 13x The KJV translates Strongs H2011 in the following manner: Hinnom (13x).

Strong's Definitions: הִנֹּם Hinnôm, hin-nome'; probably of foreign origin; Hinnom, apparently a Jebusite:—Hinnom.

Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon​

[Jump to Scripture Index]
STRONGS H2011:
† הִנֹּם proper name, masculine (derivation & meaning dubious; according to Sim Bö Gf and others = wailing, Arabic

from cries of children (see below), but this improbable) — only in גֵּי(גֵּיא)בֶןהֿ׳, & abbreviated ה׳ ג׳, proper name, of a location of valley south of Jerusalem, (

φάραγγα Ὀνομ Joshua 15:8 (twice in verse) Σονναμ Joshua 18:16; Ταιεννα Joshua 18:16; Ταιβενθομ 2 Chronicles 28:3,

φάρ. Βενεννομ; γὲ βανὲ Ἑννομ) 2 Chronicles 33:6,

γῇ Βενεννομ; elsewhere usually φάρ. (υιὁῦ) Ἑννομ) — compare below גַּיְא; — as mere topographical term גֵּי בֶןהִֿנֹּם, boundary between Judah & Benjamin Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16; also גֵּי ה׳ Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16 (all P) compare Nehemiah 11:30; elsewhere always בֶןהֿ׳ גּ׳ (2 Kings 23:10 Kt has גּי בני הנם, Qr &

singular), & always with reference to the sacrifice of children by fire, 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31, 32; Jeremiah 19:2, 6; Jeremiah 32:35; on account of this inhuman & idolatrous practice it was abhorred by priest & prophet, & defiled by Josiah; this conception afterward developed, through Isaiah 66:24, into Jewish Gehinnom (compare WeberSynagog. Theol. 326 ff. DiBuch Henoch. 131 f.) & NT γέεννα. On locality compare RobBR ii. 273 f. ToblTopogr. ii 39 ff. BdPal 103; modern name (of lower half of valley, toward southeast) Wady er-Rabâbi.
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database.
Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc.
All rights reserved. Used by permission. BibleSoft.com

BLB Scripture Index of Brown-Driver-Briggs​

Joshua
15:8; 15:8; 15:8; 18:16; 18:16; 18:16; 18:16
2 Kings
23:10; 23:10
2 Chronicles
28:3; 28:3; 33:6; 33:6
Nehemiah
11:30
Isaiah
66:24
Jeremiah
7:31; 7:32; 19:2; 19:6; 32:35
Tap to view the entire entry

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon​

Tap to view the entire entry

Concordance Results Shown Using the YLT​

Strong's Number H2011 matches the Hebrew הִנֹּם (hinnōm),
which occurs 13 times in 11 verses in the WLC Hebrew.

Jos 15:8 and the border hath gone up the valley of the son of Hinnom, unto the side of the Jebusite on the south (it is Jerusalem), and the border hath gone up unto the top of the hill-country which is on the front of the valley of Hinnom westward, which is in the extremity of the valley of the Rephaim northward;

Jos 18:16 and the border hath come down unto the extremity of the hill which is on the front of the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is in the valley of the Rephaim northward, and hath gone down the valley of Hinnom unto the side of Jebusi southward, and gone down to En-Rogel,

2Ki 23:10 And he hath defiled Topheth, that is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, so that no man doth cause his son and his daughter to pass over through fire to Molech.

2Ch 28:3 and himself hath made perfume in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burneth his sons with fire according to the abominations of the nations that Jehovah dispossessed from the presence of the sons of Israel,

2Ch 33:6 And he hath caused his sons to pass over through fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and observed clouds and used enchantments and witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and a wizard; he hath multiplied to do the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, to provoke him to anger.

Neh 11:30 Zanoah, Adullam, and their villages, Lachish and its fields, Azekah and its small towns; and they encamp from Beer-Sheba unto the valley of Hinnom.

Jer 7:31 And have built the high places of Tophet, That are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, To burn their sons and their daughters with fire, Which I did not command, Nor did it come up on My heart.

Jer 7:32 Therefore, lo, days are coming, An affirmation of Jehovah, And it is not said any more, 'The Tophet,' And 'Valley of the son of Hinnom,' But 'Valley of the slaughter,' And they have buried in Tophet -- without place.

Jer 19:2 and thou hast gone forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, that is at the opening of the gate of the pottery, and hast proclaimed there the words that I speak unto thee,

Jer 19:6 'Therefore, lo, days are coming -- an affirmation of Jehovah -- and this place is not called any more, Tophet, and Valley of the son of Hinnom, but, Valley of slaughter.

Jer 32:35 And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, so as to cause Judah to sin.

I am in full support of it being a place where children were sacrificed through the fire. I believe it was used in the new Testament to speak of judgement and also the location is just outside the city, this is significant. Being right outside of the city but not in the city. Kinda reminds me of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke. If Gehenna was supposed to be a burning trash dump whose flame didnt go out it seems odd that we can look at that valley today and not see any fire, kinda weird huh. Also if it was a trash dump then we would have plenty of evidence of that. When we want to learn about a people normally we excavate the trash dump, oddly enough there wasnt anything significant found when the valley of Gehenna was excavated.

Here is a neat little clip of it

Here is the burning trash dump whos fire is not quenched.

 

[Keith Martin]

Here are the verses about the valley.
H2011 - hinnōm

H2011​

H2012 ›› ‹‹ H2010

הִנֹּם

Transliteration: hinnōm

Pronunciation: hin-nome'

Part of Speech: proper locative noun

Root Word (Etymology): Probably of foreign origin

Outline of Biblical Usage: Hinnom = "lamentation" a valley (deep and narrow ravine) with steep, rocky sides located southwest of Jerusalem, separating Mount Zion to the north from the hill of evil counsel' and the sloping rocky plateau of the 'plain of Rephaim' to the south

KJV Translation Count: 13x The KJV translates Strongs H2011 in the following manner: Hinnom (13x).

Strong's Definitions: הִנֹּם Hinnôm, hin-nome'; probably of foreign origin; Hinnom, apparently a Jebusite:—Hinnom.

Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon​

[Jump to Scripture Index]
STRONGS H2011:
† הִנֹּם proper name, masculine (derivation & meaning dubious; according to Sim Bö Gf and others = wailing, Arabic

from cries of children (see below), but this improbable) — only in גֵּי(גֵּיא)בֶןהֿ׳, & abbreviated ה׳ ג׳, proper name, of a location of valley south of Jerusalem, (

φάραγγα Ὀνομ Joshua 15:8 (twice in verse) Σονναμ Joshua 18:16; Ταιεννα Joshua 18:16; Ταιβενθομ 2 Chronicles 28:3,

φάρ. Βενεννομ; γὲ βανὲ Ἑννομ) 2 Chronicles 33:6,

γῇ Βενεννομ; elsewhere usually φάρ. (υιὁῦ) Ἑννομ) — compare below גַּיְא; — as mere topographical term גֵּי בֶןהִֿנֹּם, boundary between Judah & Benjamin Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16; also גֵּי ה׳ Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16 (all P) compare Nehemiah 11:30; elsewhere always בֶןהֿ׳ גּ׳ (2 Kings 23:10 Kt has גּי בני הנם, Qr &

singular), & always with reference to the sacrifice of children by fire, 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31, 32; Jeremiah 19:2, 6; Jeremiah 32:35; on account of this inhuman & idolatrous practice it was abhorred by priest & prophet, & defiled by Josiah; this conception afterward developed, through Isaiah 66:24, into Jewish Gehinnom (compare WeberSynagog. Theol. 326 ff. DiBuch Henoch. 131 f.) & NT γέεννα. On locality compare RobBR ii. 273 f. ToblTopogr. ii 39 ff. BdPal 103; modern name (of lower half of valley, toward southeast) Wady er-Rabâbi.
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database.
Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc.
All rights reserved. Used by permission. BibleSoft.com

BLB Scripture Index of Brown-Driver-Briggs​

Joshua
15:8; 15:8; 15:8; 18:16; 18:16; 18:16; 18:16
2 Kings
23:10; 23:10
2 Chronicles
28:3; 28:3; 33:6; 33:6
Nehemiah
11:30
Isaiah
66:24
Jeremiah
7:31; 7:32; 19:2; 19:6; 32:35
Tap to view the entire entry

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon​

Tap to view the entire entry

Concordance Results Shown Using the YLT​

Strong's Number H2011 matches the Hebrew הִנֹּם (hinnōm),
which occurs 13 times in 11 verses in the WLC Hebrew.

Jos 15:8 and the border hath gone up the valley of the son of Hinnom, unto the side of the Jebusite on the south (it is Jerusalem), and the border hath gone up unto the top of the hill-country which is on the front of the valley of Hinnom westward, which is in the extremity of the valley of the Rephaim northward;

Jos 18:16 and the border hath come down unto the extremity of the hill which is on the front of the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is in the valley of the Rephaim northward, and hath gone down the valley of Hinnom unto the side of Jebusi southward, and gone down to En-Rogel,

2Ki 23:10 And he hath defiled Topheth, that is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, so that no man doth cause his son and his daughter to pass over through fire to Molech.

2Ch 28:3 and himself hath made perfume in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burneth his sons with fire according to the abominations of the nations that Jehovah dispossessed from the presence of the sons of Israel,

2Ch 33:6 And he hath caused his sons to pass over through fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and observed clouds and used enchantments and witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and a wizard; he hath multiplied to do the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, to provoke him to anger.

Neh 11:30 Zanoah, Adullam, and their villages, Lachish and its fields, Azekah and its small towns; and they encamp from Beer-Sheba unto the valley of Hinnom.

Jer 7:31 And have built the high places of Tophet, That are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, To burn their sons and their daughters with fire, Which I did not command, Nor did it come up on My heart.

Jer 7:32 Therefore, lo, days are coming, An affirmation of Jehovah, And it is not said any more, 'The Tophet,' And 'Valley of the son of Hinnom,' But 'Valley of the slaughter,' And they have buried in Tophet -- without place.

Jer 19:2 and thou hast gone forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, that is at the opening of the gate of the pottery, and hast proclaimed there the words that I speak unto thee,

Jer 19:6 'Therefore, lo, days are coming -- an affirmation of Jehovah -- and this place is not called any more, Tophet, and Valley of the son of Hinnom, but, Valley of slaughter.

Jer 32:35 And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, so as to cause Judah to sin.

I am in full support of it being a place where children were sacrificed through the fire. I believe it was used in the new Testament to speak of judgement and also the location is just outside the city, this is significant. Being right outside of the city but not in the city. Kinda reminds me of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke. If Gehenna was supposed to be a burning trash dump whose flame didnt go out it seems odd that we can look at that valley today and not see any fire, kinda weird huh. Also if it was a trash dump then we would have plenty of evidence of that. When we want to learn about a people normally we excavate the trash dump, oddly enough there wasnt anything significant found when the valley of Gehenna was excavated.

Here is a neat little clip of it

Here is the burning trash dump whos fire is not quenched.

View attachment 3402

So what was it?

 

[Keith Martin]

Here is a neat little clip of it

Here is the burning trash dump whos fire is not quenched.

Snazzy video, but it glosses over something by making the same mistake Constantine did in the 4th century AD: conflating Hades and other words with Gehenna. The concept of Hell as we know it in modern Christianity wasn't introduced until the 4th Century, when, during the Latin Vulgate translation project, 6 separate Hebrew and Greek words were collapsed into being translated as Hell, an other-worldly place of eternal conscious torment. None of those six words had previously meant eternal conscious torment. Sheol was one and meant, simply, grave, as in burial site. Hades was the closest, as it was a zone of spiritual punishment considered an integral part of Greek and Roman mythology, but it was always temporary punishment, and even many of their gods were sent there, according to paganism. It's inconsequential whether constant fires ever existed in Gehenna (Valley of Hinnon); all that is tangibly asserted by non-sensationalists was that it had devolved over the years into basically a trash landfill area, which it likely was at the time of Yeshua. No matter how much the protagonists of this video grin from ear to ear, it makes no difference that 2000 years earlier Abraham was inhabiting the area or that 2000 years hence cars are whizzing by. We can observe even in modern times how quickly certain areas are repurposed. For example, does the existence of JFK Airport in NYC preclude the fact that it partially sits on top of what was previously a landfill?

It's pure hyperbole for one of the video's narrators to assert that "all of Western Civilization associated with Hell." I don't doubt that some small percentage of people have indeed believed that 'Hell' was located just outside Jerusalem, but most Hell believers I've ever known consider it to be an other-dimensional place apart from Earth, just like Heaven. They thus debunk their own Straw Man.

The real issue here is not whether unquenchable fires were at Gehenna; the issue is that organized religion conspired to change its meaning to Hell. Hell was never on the outskirts of Jerusalem, because 'Hell' was never in any of the original manuscripts of Scripture.

 

[James Pease]

I

Snazzy video, but it glosses over something by making the same mistake Constantine did in the 4th century AD: conflating Hades and other words with Gehenna. The concept of Hell as we know it in modern Christianity wasn't introduced until the 4th Century, when, during the Latin Vulgate translation project, 6 separate Hebrew and Greek words were collapsed into being translated as Hell, an other-worldly place of eternal conscious torment. None of those six words had previously meant eternal conscious torment. Sheol was one and meant, simply, grave, as in burial site. Hades was the closest, as it was a zone of spiritual punishment considered an integral part of Greek and Roman mythology, but it was always temporary punishment, and even many of their gods were sent there, according to paganism. It's inconsequential whether constant fires ever existed in Gehenna (Valley of Hinnon); all that is tangibly asserted by non-sensationalists was that it had devolved over the years into basically a trash landfill area, which it likely was at the time of Yeshua. No matter how much the protagonists of this video grin from ear to ear, it makes no difference that 2000 years earlier Abraham was inhabiting the area or that 2000 years hence cars are whizzing by. We can observe even in modern times how quickly certain areas are repurposed. For example, does the existence of JFK Airport in NYC preclude the fact that it partially sits on top of what was previously a landfill?

It's pure hyperbole for one of the video's narrators to assert that "all of Western Civilization associated with Hell." I don't doubt that some small percentage of people have indeed believed that 'Hell' was located just outside Jerusalem, but most Hell believers I've ever known consider it to be an other-dimensional place apart from Earth, just like Heaven. They thus debunk their own Straw Man.

The real issue here is not whether unquenchable fires were at Gehenna; the issue is that organized religion conspired to change its meaning to Hell. Hell was never on the outskirts of Jerusalem, because 'Hell' was never in any of the original manuscripts of Scripture.

We are in agreement with this Keith. I do not call this Hell, and I think it is an awful translation. I also don't hold the idea that it was a landfill because its not proven. This shows the Gehenna definitely fits on our misconceptions page. Thanks for helping point this out.

 

[James Pease]

The clip was not me showing agreement with the uneducated people, just showing anyone who hasnt been there what it looks like.

 

[Keith Martin]

what it looks like

Yeah -- what it looks like now.

 

[Luke S]

"Gehenna" does not equal "hell" indeed.

Really, we should just stop using "hell" in our translations, it's used of way too many words that have different connotations and different biblical usage. "Gehenna", "Lake of Fire", "Hades", "outer darkness", "abyss", "Sheol", "the grave", "death", "chasm", "Tartarus", to name a few, we should just regard each as its own. Is there some overlap, most likely, but we certainly cannot translate all of them the exact same way.

 

[Luke S]

But, while we are on the topic of mistranslations and misconceptions in regards to places of afterlife, I have a fun one to posit for y'all!

"Paradise" is not "Heaven".

In Luke 23:43, Jesus tells the thief in the cross that "today you will be with me in paradise."

This cannot be heaven as we know it -- the throneroom of God.

The reason for this is because of Matthew 12:38-42. The sign of Jonah, that the Son of Man would spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Thus, in order for both passages to fit, "Paradise" has to be in the heart of the earth, where Jesus went, and thereby where the thief went as well. This difference is further reinforced by Ephesians 4:9-10, He descended to the lower parts of the earth before He ascended. This likewise impacts our understanding of 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. Most teachers, at least those whom I've heard, take the stance that the "third heaven" mentioned in verse 2 is the same thing as the "paradise" mentioned in verse 4. I would posit that these are two different places and that Paul is speaking of two different events.

I personally theorize that "paradise" is the place we more commonly refer to as "Abraham's bosom", where Lazarus was taken in Luke 16:22.

For further word fun, the term "paradise" (Greek paradeisos), is only used three times in the NT, but it seems to be synonymous with "garden" in the OT Hebrew (Hebrew word "gan") and is found many a time in the Septuagint, including in reference to Eden, in Ezekiel 28:13; Ezekiel 31:8-9; Joel 2:3; and Isaiah 51:3

This seems to be correlative with the NT use of the word as well, in Revelation 2:7, which speaks of the tree of life being in the midst of the garden (paradeisos) of God.

Thus, the term "paradise" is not speaking of Heaven as we know it, but some place else entirely. I would more simply render -- the good side of Sheol.

 

[FollowingHim]

I personally theorize that "paradise" is the place we more commonly refer to as "Abraham's bosom", where Lazarus was taken in Luke 16:22.
...
I would more simply render -- the good side of Sheol.

That is exactly how I see "paradise" in that verse also.

Whatever the final eternal destination of humanity (be it heaven or a new earth), we don't go there until after the resurrection at the last trumpet, when the dead rise. Before the dead rise, they are in Sheol. Whether that stay is conscious or unconscious is something I am unsure of, but have no need to work out, as I'll find out eventually!

 

[meryc]

I think the word "porneia" is not well translated. Some verses it means "incest" (like 1Co 5 - all chapter) and some others it would be "worship sex professional" (1Co 6). I believe that there's no one word in English or Portuguese (my language) that could explain that word, only two or more terms.

 

[Keith Martin]

I think the word "porneia" is not well translated. Some verses it means "incest" (like 1Co 5 - all chapter) and some others it would be "worship sex professional" (1Co 6). I believe that there's no one word in English or Portuguese (my language) that could explain that word, only two or more terms.

This is one of those instances in which the translation of Tanakh into Greek and then English has become subject to antisexual human teachings being injected into translated Scripture. Porneia (πορνεία) itself has had an ever-expanding definition since its first introduction into the Bible, which makes it difficult to interpret even when one has original snippets from New Testament writings. When we go back to Old Testament writings, though, zenunim (זָנוּן), the closest Hebrew precursor to porneia, is much more specific, because it points to harlotry, which at the time of the writings wasn't what we broadly understand as 'prostitution,' mainly because such a profession was rare, given a man's ability to satisfy unsatisfied sexual desires by taking another wife in one form or another; instead, harlotry was almost exclusively pointing toward what you mentioned: a "worship sex professional" who, within her pagan culture, was highly venerated and with whom a non-pagan could have sex, usually for no money charge, but with the stipulation that the dude pledged belief in one or more pagan gods. Thus, cult prostitutes served the function of religious conversion, a rather slippery form of evangelism -- and this is what, with both זָנוּן and πορνεία, Paul and others before him were most specifically warning against.

These words have improperly been used to justify demonizing almost every legitimate form of sexuality as well as their originally-intended targets.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think the word "porneia" is not well translated. Some verses it means "incest" (like 1Co 5 - all chapter) and some others it would be "worship sex professional" (1Co 6). I believe that there's no one word in English or Portuguese (my language) that could explain that word, only two or more terms.

Given the wide range of things "porneia" is used to refer to, I think the closest translation is "unlawful sexual intercourse" - any sexual activity that was already prohibited by God. It does not add any new classes of prohibited sex, it's just a handy catch-all way to refer to all the stuff that's already banned. It has been often misused as @Keith Martin states.

 

[Luke S]

Alrighty, lads! I know I've been radio silent for a while but its about time I posted another shot at our modern translations.

Matthew 25 -- parable of the ten virgins. In verse ten, the word translated "wedding", "marriage", or "wedding feast" -- gamoi -- is actually in the plural, making it actually "weddings", "wedding feasts", or "marriages.

Since this is bibfam, I don't need to explain why that's an important difference, but I will at least point out that this subtle change definitely lends to the whole "no no, Luke, those are bridesmaids, not brides" notion that so many people seem to take.

 

[Off-gridinwv]

Don't you see how dangerous it is to be calling something scripture and then proceeding to correct it every time you see something in it that doesn't suit your fancy (Proverbs 30:5,6). To you scripture is a pile of lost pieces of paper you've never seen,read,or heard preached a day in your life