Thanks for clarifying that, Lucy P. Now I think I understand you better, and it turns out I wasn't misunderstanding you before, either.

How do you know "God loves us unconditionally"? Does the Bible say this?

I wonder also where the idea comes from that God loves people in Hell. The purpose of Hell is to punish those who hate and always will hate God

The part about trying to obey His commandments and give our imperfect love back -- I could almost agree with that! But the Bible is clear that unless we repent and admit our "righteousness" is worthless, we are counted among evil, reprobate, dead-in-sins human beings.

Unless we make this clear, we risk adding even more false Christians to churches. They may say only "God is love," and not remember the rest.

“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”

Many Christians skip to the God-is-love parts, as if Jesus came to make things easier for everyone. But God's Law is still very much in effect. Jesus said in Matthew 5: 17, 20: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ... For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus does not merely love us, as if He has gotten past all that Law stuff in the Old Testament. He raises the bar and expects more from people! What hope do we have? Only repenting and believing Him Himself.

Please, will you consider the verses I have included?

And please, also think about author Randy Alcorn's reminder that, based on clear Scripture, God is not just all-love (as if His holiness is swallowed up in His love). His character is all the same with Him: love, justice and all.

God's attributes of holiness, purity, and righteousness prompt him to hate evil, including some human attitudes and actions; and yes, even some people (see Deuteronomy 12:31; Proverbs 6:16-19; Jeremiah 44:4; Malachi 1:2-3). David writes, "He [God] is angry with the wicked every day" (Psalm 7:11, NLT). David also says, "You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong. You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the LORD abhors" (Psalm 5:4-6).

These statements make clear that our loving God won't allow the wicked to dwell in his presence. Certainly, he hates sin, but passages such as this go further by saying, "You hate all who do wrong." If we place God's love above his holiness, such statements will seem appalling. And they will seem especially jarring when we hear John, the "apostle of love," say something like, "Whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains [present tense] on him" (John 3:36).

from If God is Good; all brackets in original, but my own emphases added

Well said, Dr Ransom.

General question to all: take a look at Romans 5:6-8. Anything seem off to you? Steve Caruso thinks there is and on his website he wrote:

In the Greek of the Book of Romans, there is the following passage:

Romans 5:7
For one would hardly die for a righteous δικαιος (dikaios; righteous, upright, lawful, or just) man; though perhaps for the good αγαθος (agathos) man someone would dare even to die.

Arguably this progression is not logical. If someone is not willing to die for a “righteous man,” why would they be willing to die for a “good” man instead? Interestingly enough, within the Syriac Peshitta, we see that where the Greek reads δικαιος (righteous, upright, lawful, or just), the Aramaic reads רשעיא (rashe`yâ) which in the Syriac dialect means “wicked.” This in turn makes the text of the Peshitta read:

Nor one would hardly die for a wicked רשעיא man; though perhaps for a good טבא (tâbâ’; good) man someone would dare even to die.

This progression makes a greater deal of logical sense, however such a diversion from a well established textual tradition is rather bold. Why would the compilers of the Peshitta do this? The answer may be within the letter /ע/ (`ayin). In the Estrangelo, Madnyaha, and Serto Alphabets, the letter /ע/ looks almost identical to the letter /נ/ (nûn) except for a difference of a mere 20 to 30° on their respective stems.

If we deliberately confuse /ע/ for /נ/, we get the word רשניא (reshnâyâ’) which does not mean “wicked” but “righteous, justice, lawmaker, ruler, or leader.” This could have been easily translated as δικαιος (righteous, upright, lawful, or just), as it would have been the least absurd of the possible renderings.

ܪܫܥܝܐ
(rashe`yâ; “wicked”)

ܪܫܢܝܐ
(reshnâyâ’; “righteous”)

Within the context of this passage, however, רשעיא (wicked) is arguably a more authentic reading, as we can see in the verses that surround this part of the pericope, the author is building a logical progression:

Romans 5
6 For while we were yet weak, at the right time the Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a wicked man. Yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

If δικαιος (righteous) were the original reading, then it would seem to miss the context of the author’s words. The connundrum of salvation, according to him, rests within the fact that the Christ came and died for those who were unrighteous, sinners, and ungodly, not those who were upright in the eyes of God. רשעיא (wicked), therefore, is fits this argument, completing the three lines of parallelism and building upon the author’s theological concept laid down in verse 6.

The Aramaic primacy theory seems extremely unlikely to me, especially with Romans, but this passage is rather odd. Is this a solution searching for a problem or might there be something to it?

To be honest, looking at the context of the verse, it didn't really matter which word is used. It's obviously talking about Christ, and he died for all sinners (let's not start that debate again shall we ). Whether the man is righteous (and his righteousness is as filthy rags) or whether the man was wicked (aren't all of us wicked?) it doesn't matter. Christ died for people of all backgrounds; no matter whether you're arminian or calvinist.

That being said; God says in his word that He will preserve it. If the word had been translated incorrectly, than God would have seen to it that it would have been corrected somewhere along the line. To say that there is an error in God's word is to say that His word is flawed, which, by extension, is to say that God is flawed.

I have to ask myself, perspicacity, why you brought this up. To me, it seems a bit odd that this sort of thing just fell out into the open.

I got rather confused reading that quote by Steve Caruso.

The verse in the Amplified Bible makes a little more sense.

7Now it is an extraordinary thing for one to give his life even for an upright man, though perhaps for a noble and lovable and generous benefactor someone might even dare to die.

In this version, the second person seems to have some connection to the "one" who would be giving up his life. I also wonder if a when I think of "righteous" I think more of a person who is close to God; righteous has clear religious connotations. Yet, "good" could just be a person everyone likes and feels connected to. "Good" is not necessarily tied to someone who is religious. (I'm talking about what people considered "good" not what God would consider "good." Sometimes righteous people aren't well liked by the masses (i.e. the world will hate you because you belong to Christ (I don't think I got that verse quite right and I don't know where it comes from but the idea is the same).

Either way I agree with Digs the important thing is that Christ died for us although we weren't worth it.

To be honest, looking at the context of the verse, it didn't really matter which word is used. It's obviously talking about Christ, and he died for all sinners (let's not start that debate again shall we ). Whether the man is righteous (and his righteousness is as filthy rags) or whether the man was wicked (aren't all of us wicked?) it doesn't matter. Christ died for people of all backgrounds; no matter whether you're arminian or calvinist.

That is indeed by far the most important and essential thing.

That being said; God says in his word that He will preserve it. If the word had been translated incorrectly, than God would have seen to it that it would have been corrected somewhere along the line. To say that there is an error in God's word is to say that His word is flawed, which, by extension, is to say that God is flawed.

Oh, come on. I'm not saying Caruso's right, and I'm not trying to undermine your faith in Holy Writ, but that argument doesn't really make sense. Firstly because if Caruso is right, the Word was preserved - in the Peshitta. Secondly....have you ever heard of a Bible translation called 'The Message'? In John 1, verses 9 through 14, the translator gives the following rendering:

The Life-Light was the real thing:
Every person entering Life
he brings into Light.
He was in the world,
the world was there through him,
and yet the world didn't even notice.
He came to his own people,
but they didn't want him.
But whoever did want him,
who believed he was who he claimed
and would do what he said,
He made to be their true selves,
their child-of-God selves.
These are the God-begotten,
not blood-begotten,
not flesh-begotten,
not sex-begotten.

Now you're not going to convince me that the above translation (paraphrase more like) is without error. It is one thing to say God will preserve Holy Writ (something you and Caruso would probably agree on), quite another to expect him to render infallible the particular translation we are using.

I have to ask myself, perspicacity, why you brought this up. To me, it seems a bit odd that this sort of thing just fell out into the open.

Because I find it interesting, and because I want the thoughts of some of you...how did Shadowlander put it? Spiritual Navy SEALS?

I never said that it was, prespicacity. I don't believe that "The Message" is the flawless word of God. There are times when I think it can be downright disrespectful, and therefore I refuse to use it. There are several translations of the Bible with which I don't agree. Here is my rubric for testing a translation:

First: Did it go back to the original Hebrew and Greek texts?
Second: Did it translate said texts literally rather than metaphoriacally?
Third: What was the reason that this translation exists (was it for profit, or was it to better the translation of the word of God)

So. . . I use the 1611 King James Version. I have a lot of friends that use the ESV, and I'm okay with that because they pass the rubric (although I still don't like the fact that ESV is copywritten. KJV is not copywritten, and can be copied and distributed at will).

The Message quote was just a colourful example. If the Greek of Romans is a translation from Aramaic (again, unlikely), then the same 'rule of fallibility' could apply to it.

Some of the moderized versions I would only use for cross-referencing to get a fuller picture of the original context, but never for studying straight out as the Word of God. I usually use NIV because that is what I have, but ESV, KJ, and the sometimes the Living Bible I am willing to study as well, when those Bible are immediately accessible to me. I would only use the Amplified for studying a particular passage and for context, not for general study.

I will say I am not in complete agreement with the KJV only folk (Kent Hovind is one), and while I understand how they get to that conclusion, there is more to the picture than that. DK has a pretty solid rubric for the versions, but it can be quite tricky to really understand it all.

I was under the impression that the guy that wrote The Message never claimed it was a translation and stated that he only intended it for use as a commentary. Not sure why anyone would use it as an actual Bible.

Some of the moderized versions I would only use for cross-referencing to get a fuller picture of the original context, but never for studying straight out as the Word of God. I usually use NIV because that is what I have, but ESV, KJ, and the sometimes the Living Bible I am willing to study as well, when those Bible are immediately accessible to me. I would only use the Amplified for studying a particular passage and for context, not for general study.

Which is why when quoting the Bible directly, especially in an argument, an essay or in some other place where it really matters, it is important to reference your quotes properly. I don't mean book, chapter and verse, only, but also which version you are using. It is not only the New International Version (used at church) or KJV that needs to be cited. It is also my Alexander Harkavy translation from the Hebrew Holy Scriptures version (Old testament only), the Douai version, or the Good News Bible. Or this other "version" you are discussing, if it is to be used at all.

Of course I will remember this is a message board, and the next best thing to a normal conversation, and we all get a bit lazy about referencing in our day-to-day existence. Especially as we all go on this site for fun, relaxation and enjoyment, not to get top marks in a university style examination. So I won't insist on full referencing for indirect quotes, though I hope you remember to also reference such quotes at school and college. And I promise not to quibble about whether you are using Harvard referencing or APA or whatever referencing system you think you might be using.

For example, I might ask you all, what do you make of Israel Finkelstein's comments in the May/June issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (ISSN: 0098-9444)? The interviewer (Herschel Shank) states on page 52, that 'Of course everyone accepts the fact that two million people did not cross the Sinai desert.' Finkelstein, in answer, said:

The story is nuanced. If you look at the archaeological evidence from the Sinai and from Israel and at the text, there is not a clue for a major migration of people from Egypt into Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age [c. 1200 BCE].....I am speaking positive archaeology here, plus extrabiblical texts*. What we know...does not let us read Exodus in a simplistic way......So there is no way for a large group of wanderers to enter Canaan from the desert without provoking a swift Egyptian reaction.

Finkelstein, mentioning the el-Amarna cuneiform tablets, also states (BAR p.52) 'It only took 50 or 100 Egyptian soldiers to pacify Canaan'. But he also says that much of the Exodus account does not come from the Late Bronze Age. Finkestein further says (p.52):

It moreso depicts geographical realities and historical concerns closer to the period of the compilation of the text, which means the background of the story, in my opinion, is closer, let's say to the seventh century BCE, and maybe even a bit later.

Finkelstein (not, I stress, myself, Wagga) finishes by saying, still on page 52:

All this does not mean that there was no group of people coming from Egypt. To follow Egyptologist Donald Redford, perhaps the expulsion of Canaanites [the Hyksos] from Egypt in the 16th century [BCE] could have left a memory and that memory became some sort of a myth that later found its way into the Biblical text in a way that we cannot fully reconcile. And even this is a somewhat simplistic answer.....There is no 13th century BCE major migration of people - Asiatics, Canaanites, Hebrews, whatever you want - from Egypt.... But...archaeology is not about individuals. Archaeology is not about ten people crossing the desert. Archaeology is not even about a hundred people crossing the desert.

Short quotes need to be enclosed in single quotation marks. You can italicize your direct quotes, as I have done above, to emphasize that longer quotes are direct quotes. But as a rule I prefer to colour them a different colour to what I am typing, rather than italicizing. There is something which Israel Finkelstein already italicized in the quote I used immediately above which would be hidden if I italicized the whole extract. Also please note that where I omit parts of the text that are not necessary, I indicate this by using three dots - eg: ....

It would be interesting to find out whether the article I used is online or not. Because if you are quoting from an online source it is also important to add when you sighted the article online. By the way, the article should be included in your reference list something like this:

Shanks, H (2010). The Devil is not so black as he is painted: BAR interviews Israel Finkelstein, in Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol 36 no 3, pp 49 - 58.

And as a footnote, the asterisk I put in, is an opportunity to indicate that the extra biblical text in question is Merneptah's stele which is the earliest recorded mention of Israel as a nation. This stele does in fact date from the late 13th century BCE (circa 1200 BCE) and to the Pharaoh Merneptah.

To revive the Creation debate, you can also just link to the online source in question.

This is what I mean by proper referencing. Because the article you linked to, as interesting as it was, has nothing to do with the article I quoted from. And, more importantly, because the print article I quoted from and used in my post, was from a magazine called Biblical Archaeology Review, it had nothing whatsoever to do with what you linked to, perspicacity. If you had been able to read online the entire article I mentioned, you would realise that for cultural reasons, among others, Israel Finkelstein would simply love there to have been an Exodus just like in the Bible. And that he isn't excluding that there was one, just not the way expected. Maybe not on the scale of a major migration as people might insist, but maybe more like twelve Lebanese or Canaanite-style picnic parties that absconded from work in Egypt, coalesced and became indistinguishable from the surrounding Bedouin tribes.

And this is the problem with scholarship and why it is important to get it exactly right. You can use Merneptah's stele as proof that in 1200 BCE there was definitely a people called Israel, a large enough group for Merneptah to want to brag about his victory over them. But the existence of the undeniably genuine Merneptah stele does not prove that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, that there really was an Exodus or that it contained anywhere near the amount of people that careless readers of the Bible like to think, or that Merneptah would consider it worth his while to skite about beating them in battle.

Upon further consideration, posting a link unrelated to your rather lengthy post was boorish of me. I apologize.

Still, it is a pretty interesting link. I hope we can get to it sometime and discuss its contents.

As for all the stuff you said, Wagga, I'm not savvy enough to have a view.

Not to worry, perspicacity. I don't think you were boorish nor that you needed to apologise, quite frankly. I did look at the link and yes, I agree that the idea that six days for work and one for rest could be, among other things, a literary framework, demonstrating the perfection of God and Creation, is a lovely idea. But I wasn't intending to raise the subject of Creation, if I sounded a bit sharp.

I can't see any problem on this site of linking directly to an article, though it might be a good idea to indicate its relevance. Mainly I was demonstrating the importance of referencing, which is necessary to stop plagiarism, sloppy scholarship and to show that people have not misappropriated information they didn't write.

No, you can't find the article I mentioned online, not even in academic databases, because I looked. Israel Finkelstein is a well-known and well-regarded Israeli archaeologist, who measures his words carefully. That does not stop any amount of articles online about Merneptah, who seems to have quite a following as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, including his characterisation in Stargate, a popular TV series. I don't think that either Merneptah or his might father, Ramesses II, were the Pharaohs of the Exodus.

Hey guys It's been a little while since I've been on; been busy starting at my new (Christian) school haha.

While you're on the subjects of versions, I prefer the New American Standard Bible. I've heard it's the most direct translation from the Greek Biblical writings.

Anyways, I had an interesting discussion with one of my church leaders. It was mostly speculatory, though he had some verses to back up the idea, but here it was: Is hell really a lake of fire, or is it just an existance - maybe a psuedo earth, or something - lacking God or any of his attributes (love, mercy, etc...)? Just wondering what you all would think.

It seems to me that that idea would make a more reasonable, a more just punishment.