Amaleq13

Recognizing that the the actual words in the extant texts do not mean when they have been reinterpreted to mean and recognizing that, apparently, the only scholars supporting this reinterpretation consider the conclusion part of their religious beliefs is not "brushing aside" anything. What else can you you? Accept the fact that you have been mislead by men arguing from faith rather than the evidence. The same is true of most of the atheists here at some point in their lives.

We are obviously discussing the original words in the extant texts.

I would be interested in any scholar who agrees with claim but has no religious faith about the matter.

Jagella

Now once I learn Greek—I assume you mean first-century Greek—then which Greek text should I use? How will I know which Greek text is most accurate?

Like all of us, you are biased in favor of your own viewpoints. I’m afraid there’s no escaping it.

I’m still in the dark as to how you can imply that you are some infallible translator of “the Greek.�

I suppose we may have a disagreement about language, words, and meanings of words. I can speak and write English, of course, yet I’m sometimes stymied about what I may read in that language. This puzzlement is often the result of words that have more than one meaning, and the meaning that the writer intends may be unclear. For example, if somebody states: “Hoover is gay,� then I might not be sure about the meaning of that statement. Is Hoover a homosexual? Is he merry? And for that matter, who is “Hoover�? I could spend time checking the context of that statement if that context is available. Also, I might investigate the time the statement was made. If it was made two years ago, then Hoover is probably being said to be homosexual. If the statement was made, say, 50 years ago, then the writer might be saying that Hoover is merry. In any case, I don’t know for sure, and I must rely on my own fallible, subjective judgment to try to come up with the most likely interpretation of the statement: “Hoover is gay.� Other people may disagree with me with perhaps equal justification that their alternate interpretation is correct.

Applying this reasoning to the word “Gehenna,� I realize that historians know that many of the Jews referred to a burning garbage dump that they used to dispose of the bodies of convicted criminals as “Gehenna.� So I know of at least one meaning for that word. Are there other meanings for Gehenna? You seem to think that there is one and only one possible meaning that Jews or anybody else might use the word, Gehenna: It is the Jewish garbage dump. Consequently, if you read the word Gehenna in some New Testament Greek text, then you insist that it means a Jewish garbage dump. My position is that the writers of the New Testament used the word Gehenna with a different meaning: It is a place of punishment for sinners after they die. Now I’m not saying that all of the New Testament promotes such a belief. I’ve read some passages in which it appears that the writer believes that souls are “destroyed� in some way and cease to exist. In any case, I hope you can understand that I allow for words to be used with different meanings by different people. It happens today, and I see no reason why it couldn’t happen in the first century.

I would say that objectivity regarding language—especially religious texts—may very well be impossible. As we both know, the Bible, for example, is a very confusing book. People can study it all their lives and still be unable to agree with many other people who have studied it. Moreover, being able to read Hebrew and Greek is no guarantee that two people won’t disagree about what it says either.

I had many of the same feelings while watching Mysteries of the Bible. I think that the Exodus was probably a myth as well. Nevertheless, I didn’t automatically dismiss what I was watching because I disagreed with it.

The “tradition� I’m referring to is the position that is commonly accepted. The writers of the New Testament were probably Jews.

Mark tells us a story about a Jewish peasant who was allegedly the messiah of that religion. The story is set in Judea. The writer refers to some of the beliefs and practices of the Jews at that time. As a result, I believe it’s safe to assume that this writer was a Jew. If he was a gentile, I would expect him to say so.

I already posted passages from the New Testament which speak of hell. You may be referring to a different New Testament than the one I’m referring to.

Jagella

Jagella

Perhaps I have been mislead by men arguing from faith rather than the evidence, but I don’t get that impression from Religious Tolerance or the organizations that provide information about the issues we’ve been discussing. In fact, most of what I’ve read at http://www.religioustolerance.org seems to be information that would expose people arguing from faith rather than evidence as dangerous fanatics.

And the extant texts are copies of copies of copies…you get the idea. My opinion is that since we don’t have the original autographs, then we are remiss in insisting what those documents actually said.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

Koine, to be exact.
It doesn't matter. We are not discussing what the autographs said. We are discussing what the extant texts say. I'm not sure why you seem to be having trouble grasping this.

We have a number of Greek manuscripts for the various books of the NT. Some of them are at variance with each other. Some have been used as the basis for English translations. Those translations have not always been accurate. The accuracy of the source text as per the autograph has no bearing on how to translate the text into English.

As to which one to pick for this paticular conversation, it makes no difference. They all say Gehenna.
My translations are not "viewpoints,' and neither is anything I've said about the historical significance of the Valley of Gehenna in ancient Jewish eschatology.
I haven't claimed any such thing on a grand scale. only as it pertains to a couple of unambiguous words that any first semester student of Biblical Greek could translate. If I say that buenos dios does not mean "sandwich" does that mean that I'm claiming an infallibile ability at translating Spanish.
No.
No, it's the Valley of Hinnon which was used as a garbage dump. It's a specific geographical location like naming a river or a mountain. No, it's the Valley of Hinnon. It's the name of a real valley outside of Jerusalem. It doesn't mean "garbage dump. It's a place name like "Grand Canyon" or "Sea of Galilee."
You have utterly failed to support that position, despite repeated requests for explication.
It can and it did. There are all kinds of debates which rage about all kinds of words. We just had a long thread debating exactly what Paul meant by kata sarkos. There are indeed some words and phrases in the Greek NT that are ambiguous or unclear in their meanings.

But "Gehenna" is not one of those words. It always means "Valley of Hinnon" just like Aiguptos always means "Egypt."
Commonly accepted by who? It's not accepted by scholars. The only people who accept it do so based on the 2nd century patristic tradition which you've already said that you reject.
With a definition of "Messiah" that was completely at odds with that religion and hero who is rejected by that religion.
And the author shows a complete lack of knowledege of the geography of Judea.
Many of which he gets wrong.
Why should he say so if he's a Gentile outside of Palestine talking to a Gentile audience? It would go without saying.

And why would he attack Jews if he was one?
I've explained to you what those verses say in Greek and what they meant in context. You have not rebutted either my translations or my history.

Diogenes the Cynic

Nobody's making any assertions about what the original documents said, only about what the extant ones say.

Jagella

Then I hope you are aware that those extant texts are of dubious veracity.

I see. So what you’re saying is that you have made a perfect translation from a very imperfect document.

Everything you’ve said is of unimpeachable integrity.

You could still be wrong especially if some person in Mexico invents a new sandwich and calls it a “buenos dios.� Again, the meanings of words change as people change those meanings.

Oh, that’s quite a distinction.

Although you’ve made repeated “requests for explication,� I have met your request. Once should be enough.

There’s no debate on what this word means? Then I must have dreamed this whole discussion.

Most Christians and theologians.

True, but Jews can come up with religious ideas that are at odds with what most other Jews believe.

Jew are not perfect geographers.

I would assume that the writer of Mark would realize that most of his readers would not know he was a gentile if he in fact was a gentile.

Are you saying that a Jew would never attack other Jews? He might attack other Jews if he disagrees with their religious beliefs and practices.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

If by "veracity," you mean corrupted from the autographs, then certainly they are dubious. I have not made any argument to the contrary. It makes no difference to this discussion, however because I have made no attempt to defend their transmissional integrity.
Exactly.
I don't think "integrity" is the right word. What I've said is factually accurate. I attach no personal moral connotations to that.
It would be up to you to show that new meaning. If you're going to say that there can never be an agreed upon translation for any word of any language then I think you're just being specious.
I think it's a substantive distinction. You have asked multiple times if Gehenna should be translated as "garbage dump." It should not. Gehenna is a place name. It was a valley that was incidentally used as a garbage dump but that is not the definition of the word and it should not be translated as such.
Forgive my bad memory, but I don't think you have. When have you supplied a rebuttal to the translation of Gehenna as anything but the Valley of Hinnon? When have you presented an argument that anyone in the 1st century viewd Gehenna as an eternal hell?
There's no debate between people who study Biblical Greek.
Dude, you're arguing in circles. Those Christians base their belief on patristic tradition. If you reject that tradition as you say you do then what do you have left?
In the case of an anonymous author, it still mitigates against Jewish authorship. You have not shown any default reason to suppose the author was a Jew. The language and audience for the book are both Gentile and those facts alone are enough to merit a prima facie presumption of Gentile authorship. In addition to that, the author is hostile to Jews, does not know Jewish law, redifines the Jewish Messiah and does not know the geography of Palestine.
Neither are Gentiles.
Why wouldn't they know that? The vast majority of the world was Gentile. A Gentile, by definition, is anyone who isn't a Jew. It was a Jewish word for non-Jews that non-Jews were mostly unaware of and wouldn't have cared if you told them.

It would have only been worth calling attention to if the author was not a Gentile (i.e. was a Jew).
I'm saying that Mark's hostility towards Jews does not help your case for Jewish authorship, especially when the author has claimed no such background for himself and does not know Jewish law.

Amaleq13

You haven't dreamed it but you, apparently, haven't grasped the nature of it either. There has never been a debated about the meaning of "Gehenna". This debate has been about whether or not it is appropriate to replace that word with "hell".

As far as I can tell, all you've offered to support this replacement is the belief of later Christians that the Gospel authors shared their conception of the afterlife for sinners.

Jagella

Where did I read this before?

Some people might agree with your translation, and all the others are “biased fundies.�

The New Testament.

Which Greek text are your referring to?

And none of them can read Greek?

All of what you’ve presented here is merely circumstantial evidence. Do you have any idea of who wrote Mark? Can we get a name?

They wouldn’t know that the person who wrote Mark was a gentile because they wouldn’t know who he or she was.

Maybe, but it doesn’t help your case much either.

Jagella

Jagella

I suppose I haven’t grasped why people insist that a word’s meaning cannot change.

And how do you know that?

Well, that’s the way it got started.

In closing, allow me to point out that to maintain that the New Testament writers never actually referred to a hellish afterlife for sinners is a radical reinterpretation indeed. Claiming that some Greek word used in the Greek text cannot mean a hellish afterlife because its meaning cannot be altered, reflects a very naïve view of both language and religion. Moreover, if you think this specious argument is going to overthrow the age-old interpretation, among both believers and skeptics, of the New Testament hell as a fiery place for sinners after they die, then, like I said before, I don’t see that you have a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding (pun intended).

Jagella