makerowner

:banghead:
The point of translations is to approximate the meaning for people who don't know the original language of the text. To try to understand the intent of the author, the translations are useless. The text in question was written in Greek, and the Greek word οδυνωμαι was used to describe the rich man's experiences in Hades. The Greek word οδυνωμαι is a verb.
This whole thing is a derail anyway. It's clear that Luke 16:23 refers to physical suffering occurring in Hades, so your OP is an oversimplification.

spin

I admit I'm wrong: there are some people who are so refractory, they will never learn.

When you have no response other than to wear the egg in defiance, I guess I should let you lie in the sty of contentment.

When you see someone parading their ignorance, you try to help them (you remember, we're dealing with a Greek verb, not an English adjective, etc.), but when they refuse to be helped but escalate their ignorance, what can you do? You simply don't have a clue about the problem you are farting about getting wrong. I see that it doesn't help to show you that you can deal with it with more information.

I don't have the guilt of hell to push me to come here and try to prove it wrong.

You should be able to appreciate your own quandary.


spin

itsamysteryhuh

You're just "approximating" the meaning, yet you have the correct translation? Are you 100% sure you know exactly what the person(s) were trying to tell you when they wrote the original texts? That's the main point. If you're not that sure, then using such terms as the existence of "hell," etc., when arguing the existence of God is automatically an "unsure" argument.

I'm afraid it's not clear either. Luke 16:23 could very well be referring to mental anguish as well (re: the possible definitions of "torment"). Either way, it gets people (some of them at least) to look under the surface of the text.

spin

Your task is clear. You have to do more than fall back on the other person's possible unsureness. You have to show that a word doesn't mean what it normally means...

First you have to metaphorize the meaning of "torment" from the Greek then you have to metaphorize the meaning of "flames", oh and then you have to metaphorize the significance of the parched tongue. In short you're desperately fiddling the text. Significance is what it normally means unless there is sufficient context to suggest something different. In our case, the context actively points to the normal significance. Perhaps you'd like to propose some semantic rule to extricate your musings from meaninglessness.


spin

makerowner

I'm not talking about translations, I'm talking about the actual Greek text. In said text, the rich man is said to suffer in Hades, contrary to the claims of your OP.

The only reason to interpret it that way is your doctrinal biases. The text never explicitly says that it's figurative or metaphorical, nor does any of the context suggest that. It uses a word that primarily refers to either a torture instrument or the pains of disease, both of which are obviously references to physical suffering. It is followed in v. 24 by a reference to flames tormenting the man's body, and his request for water to ease his suffering. Is there anything in the text that suggests this is not physical pain?

itsamysteryhuh

Would that be physical suffering or mental suffering? See my point?

spin

You have no point. This was already dealt with in my last post with and you had no response.


spin

makerowner

I'll assume you didn't read the rest of post #86, where I addressed this, so I'll quote it for your convenience:

itsamysteryhuh

If the word "primarily" in your quote above was instead the word "exclusively" (especially during the time the original texts were written), then I would see your point. However, the word "primarily" does not rule out the other possible meanings of the word "torment"... and this doesn't even account for metaphorical writing.


Is that today's normal significance, or the "normal" significance it had when it was written?

makerowner

So I assume what you mean is that you found some evidence in the text that supports your view. Mind sharing?

Both, but only the latter matters for the purposes of this discussion.