bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Forum related how to's?  Post your questions to the membership.


.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: The dead  (Read 1143 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rinus

  • Guest
The dead
« on: December 01, 2014, 06:43:01 AM »

Ola

The below 2 paragraphs are taken from Ray's paper,"Was it better for Judas had he not been born"

Ecc. 9:5-- "...but the dead know not anything." Another point:  Something can be better for someone who exists and is alive, but not for someone who is dead.  How pray tell then could anything be good for something if they never existed in the first place?  If Judas had never been born, that could have been good for some other people, but it could not be good for Judas for if Judas was never born there could be nothing good or bad for him -- HE DOESN'T NOR DIDN'T EVER EXIST! Nothing could ever be of value for anyone who has not even been born.

How foolish of Weymouth who translated this portion of Scripture as follows:  "It had been a happy thing for that man, had he never been born"  (The New Testament in Modern Speech).  How in the world could someone be "happy" who was never even born?  Sometimes we forget to use our God-given minds.
                                                          end of the paragraphs

And then comes this:

"So I concluded that the dead are better off than the living."(Ecc 4:2)NLT
Question
How in the world could someone "dead" be "better off than the living?"

And again:

"But most fortunate of all are those who are not yet born."(Ecc 4:3)NLT
Question
How in the world could someone be "fortunate" who was never even born?


Logged

Kat

  • Guest
Re: The dead
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2014, 11:23:08 AM »


Hi Rinus,

You do understand that Ray was explaining there how improper translations had the wording wrong and therefore were saying it would have been better for Judas had he never been born. But Ray did not agree with that wording in those translations, here is where Ray shows the correct reading of that Scripture.

http://bible-truths.com/JudasNotBorn.htm ----

We already know for a fact that Judas is identified as "that man."  But who then is "him?"  For whom would it have been better or ideal if "that man" -- Judas had never been born?  Maybe we should rather ask for whom did the life of Judas not produce feelings of goodness on that tragic Passover?"  Why Jesus, of course!  Do we not realize that Jesus was a human being with the same sensitive nervous system that all of us have.  That He hurt and feared and pained from inhumane treatment just as all of us would?  Skip ahead a few verses in this same chapter and we will see the mental turmoil Jesus endured before the cross. 

IDEAL WERE IT FOR JESUS IF JUDAS HAD NOT BEEN BORN 

"And He takes with Him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;  And said unto them, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.   And He went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him.  And He said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee; TAKE AWAY THIS CUP FROM ME: nevertheless not what I will, but what Thou wilt" (Mark 14:33-36).
v
Surely we can see by how agonizing this evening was to our LORD that He would have said of Himself (speaking in the third person) how much better He would have felt were it not for the fact that this Judas was about to expose Him to the greatest beatings and torture that any human could ever go through.  Yes indeed it had been better for Jesus that evening had Judas never been born. 

In it's proper order it is easy to distinguish between "him" and "that man."  Jesus is referred to as "Him" and "the Son of man."  And that is how we must translate the word order to make sense and be in harmony with the dozens of other Bible verses supporting the salvation of all.  The words of Jesus are consistent.  He did not use the pronoun "him" to represent Himself and Judas, just of Himself. 


"Truly the Son of man [Jesus] goes as it has been written concerning Him [Jesus], but woe to that man [Judas] by whom the Son of man [Jesus] is betrayed!  It were good for Him [Jesus] if that man [Judas] had never been born" 

Jesus is consistent in His use of the third person pronoun, Him. The Son of man & The Son of man is Himself.  He refers to Himself in the third person as Him & Him--both times, and He refers to Judas as that man & that man--both times. 

NO ONE TALKS LIKE THAT IN ENGLISH 

When we translate this verse in the correct word order, "him" cannot possibly also be "that man."  "Him" cannot be Judas.  "Him" has to be someone else, and therefore the argument that it would have been better for Judas if Judas had not been born is fallacious.
v
Yes, Judas did a evil and cowardly thing, but it was written and prophesied, and therefore someone had to do it.  But let's not think that Judas will be forever doomed to a hellish torture. He will not.  Judas repented and therefore is qualified for salvation:
v
Those who teach an eternal hell because they think it would have been better for Judas had he never been born, fail to believe and understand that Judas was so sorrowful that he hanged himself--he repented of his sin.
------------------------------------------------------

Now in those 2 verses you posted from Ecclesiastes we see that Solomon is very grieved by what he sees happening in the world, as it shows in verse 1.

Ecc 4:1  Then I returned and considered all the oppression that is done under the sun: And look! The tears of the oppressed, But they have no comforter— On the side of their oppressors there is power, But they have no comforter. 

So in verse 2 Solomon states that he feels it's good when people die and leave this world, "I praised the dead who were already dead," because he felt they were better off not living in such a horrible world.

Now in verse 3 he goes even further to say it is better that a person was never born, "has never existed." These are relative comments made by Solomon and NOT an absolute truth of God. It seems that he made these comment in the state of deep despair. I don't see where Solomon believed or understood anything about resurrection (at least it's not in the Scripture from him), so that could explain why he was so dejected by life. It is a great blessing to have the knowledge of the truth that was not revealed until the NT in the gospel record.

Col 1:26  the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.

Eph 3:9  and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;

mercy, peace and love
Kat
« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 11:23:41 PM by Kat »
Logged

Dave in Tenn

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4115
    • FaceBook David Sanderson
Re: The dead
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2014, 06:34:18 PM »

And then comes this:

"So I concluded that the dead are better off than the living."(Ecc 4:2)NLT
Question
How in the world could someone "dead" be "better off than the living?"

And again:

"But most fortunate of all are those who are not yet born."(Ecc 4:3)NLT
Question
How in the world could someone be "fortunate" who was never even born?


Your first question might be answered this way:  Things can be so very bad that it is better to be dead.  People may wish they are dead, but not be able to die.

Your second question doesn't match the statement in the verse.  Someone "who was never even born" is not someone who "is not yet born".  Every "literal" translation I have says it essentially the same way--not yet born, or 'not yet'.

An expected child is "not yet born" or "not yet".  It could be that he or she is fortunate that he or she has "not yet been born".  He or she is not, however, a person who "has never been born".  There's no such thing as a 'person' who has never been born.  There are 'persons' who have not yet been born, or who have not yet 'been'. 

And if you take the long view of a Sovereign God who knows the End from the Beginning, such persons may not yet be (or be born) for a long, long time.  He calls things that are not (yet) as though they are (yet).     

 
« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 06:51:31 PM by Dave in Tenn »
Logged
Heb 10:32  But you must continue to remember those earlier days, how after you were enlightened you endured a hard and painful struggle.

Rinus

  • Guest
Re: The dead
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2014, 03:19:43 AM »

Oh yes.U are rite Dave."not yet" and "never been" are two different sayings.

I didn't pay attention to ALL the words.

Thanx
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 27 queries.