> General Discussions
What's the Deal with "Ideal?"
Pax Vobiscum:
--- Quote from: Kat on January 16, 2007, 06:53:31 PM ---
Hi Pax,
Here is a email I found of Ray's concerning this scripture.
Maybe it will help you.
http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,43.0.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ray,
If the lake of fire is temporary, and even to be tormented for a long time and then have eternity with the Lord is better than to not exist at all, tell me what this is saying:
Mat 26:24 Indeed, the Son of Man goes, as it has been written about Him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It were good for him if that man was never born.
Is this saying it is better for Judas to not have existed than to be tormented and cleansed.?
I know this means something different than I am thinking.
thanks,
Dan
Dear Dan:
I have answered this many times in emails. There is a problem in the King James Translation. Read this verse from an Interlinear in the original word order found in the Greek Manuscripts, the the meaning is totally different:
"The indeed Son of the man goes as it has been written about HIM [Jesus]; Woe but to THE MAN THAT [Judas] through whom the Son of the man is delivered up; good [ideal] it was to HIM [Jesus, NOT JUDAS] if not was born THE MAN THAT [Judas, NOT JESUS]."
Plainly it would have been ideal for JESUS, if JUDAH had not been born. NOT ideal would it have been for JUDAS if JUDAS had not been born.
Consistant in this verse, "The Son of man" and "Him" and "Him" is JESUS, and "the man that" is JUDAS.
The "Him" (Jesus) in the first part of the verse does not change to "him" (Judas) in the second part of the verse: The "The Son of man--Him and Him" is constistantly Jesus, and "that man" and "that man" is consistantly, Judas.
God be with you,
Ray
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercy, peace, and love
Kathy
--- End quote ---
Thank you for this, Kathy. I, too, have searched the site. Ray doesn't really comment on the fallout of this translation only on the translation itself. I have asked him to speak on the ramifications of this translation but have been told this could take up to 5 months.
Most "mainstream" Bibles translate and interpret these verses the traditional way: Jesus was dissing Judas with an admonishment reserved for the worst of the worst. This translation (Knoch?) turns everything upside down when taken to its logical conclusion.
Peace
hillsbororiver:
Hello Pax,
Jesus explained many times that His Word was Spirit, not given to human wisdom or logic, without His Spirit revealing the meaning of these Words the natural man will see them as confused, illogical and foolish. If this were not the case all we would need is teachers with Ph.D's in English or Languages and all the Truth and Wisdom contained within the scriptures could be broken down into "plain language" for all to understand. This has never been the case nor will it ever be.
As a matter of fact;
1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither, can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called:
You mention Jesus using His Son of Man title as a sign of authority, does that mean He never used it in conjunction with His humanity only His divinity?
How would one interpret these scriptures;
Mat 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
This certainly appears to use the Son of Man title for a fairly basic desire, here He is comparing Himself to a beast not even the emotional heartbreak most of humanity suffers at one point in time, betrayal of a loved one.
Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Does this infer Jesus was a party animal who enjoyed getting drunk with a bunch of losers?
Without His Spirit guiding us, if we use human logic we are going to find many a stumbling block in our paths.
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
His Peace and Wisdom to you,
Joe
bobf:
I don't think there is a problem even if the "orthodox" transalation is correct.
In judgment there are those who will prefer death over life. They will seek death and not find it. They will beg for the mountains to fall on them. They will bless the wombs that are barren (wish never to have been born).
Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
Luke 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. 29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. 30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. 31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
Isaiah 2:19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.
Revelation 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. 6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
Hosea 10:8 The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed: the thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us.[/list]
Even Job wished to never have been born.
Job 3:11 Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?
Job 10:18 Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me![/list]
Jeremiah expressed the same thought.
Jeremiah 20:18 Wherefore came I forth out of the womb to see labour and sorrow, that my days should be consumed with shame?[/list]
Youngs Literal Translation translates it the way Ray says it should be.
Matthew 26:24 the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but wo to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him if that man had not been born.'
Mark 14:21 the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but wo to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up; good were it to him if that man had not been born.'
[/list]
But still, its not clear to me that the "him" in "...good were it to him..." refers to Christ rather than Judas, because it also says "WOE to that man [Judas]..."
If it is referring to Judas, I simply see it as telling us that FOR Judas (i.e. from his perspective) he will prefer to be dead or not to have been born when he is judged.
rrammfcitktturjsp:
To All,
Okay set 'em up my friends. "I deal" you 7 cards, and you seven cards, and you seven cards. And the rest of you get to watch. ;D
Sincerely,
Anne C. McGuire
TimothyVI:
"Most "mainstream" Bibles translate and interpret these verses the traditional way: Jesus was dissing Judas with an admonishment reserved for the worst of the worst. This translation (Knoch?) turns everything upside down when taken to its logical conclusion."
Even when accepting the main stream interpretation, I did not think that Jesus was admonishing Judas. After all, Judas just did what he had to do. Jesus picked him as one of the twelve for just that purpose. How could Judas have done differently? Instead, I thought that Jesus was expressing sorrow for Judas, sorrow for the pain that Judas had to go through in this life. Judas would have truly been better off if he had not even been born.
Now, looking at this new interpretation of that verse. Why would Jesus say that it would have been better for Him if Judas had never been born? Jesus knew that, if not Judas, it would have had to have been someone else in order to fullfill scriptural prophesy.
Tim
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version