Is "soul sleep" a Scriptural doctrine?

[genuineoriginal]

Then I'll say again. Tyndale is wrong.

Let's look further.

Adam Clarke and John Gill are both wrong.
They are commenting based on their belief that a soul lives on as a spirit after death.
The truth is that a soul ceases to exist upon death (when the spirit leaves the body).

 

[Rosenritter]

The state of being dead is the lack of existence, not the lack of consciousness.

Ah, yes, the misplaced comma that changes the time from future to now.

Luke 23:42-43 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 Verily, I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.​

Do you know when Jesus will come into His kingdom?

The Misplaced Comma at Luke 23:43 Spoiler Verily, I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke xxiii. 43. This is often quoted as conclusive evidence that the righteous, at death, go immediately into heaven to dwell with Christ. But, strange as it may appear, this evidence hangs on the position of the little comma placed before the word to-day, making the word to-day qualify the verb shall be, in the second member of the sentence. Now, suppose we move the place of the comma, so as to make it read— Verily, I say unto thee to-day, shalt thou be with me in Paradise—This destroys the evidence that good men go to heaven at death. Now, the location of the comma is no part of inspired testimony, but is a thing of modern invention. But, says one, if the word to-day is made a part of the first member of the sentence, and qualifies the verb say, instead of shall be, it is not good sense; for the thief could not think Christ was saying it yesterday or to-morrow. This leads us to examine more closely the word. It is not a noun, in the original; but an adverb, semeron, and does qualify the first expression—I say, and is the same in other instances translated now; which is frequently used without the least regard to definite time. As I should say to my opponent—Now, you are mistaken with regard to what the Saviour said to the thief. Here I do not use the word now, to let my opponent understand he was not mistaken yesterday, to-day or to-morrow; but to give a force to that indicative form of expression. This appears to be the use of the word semeron in the text. Now verily, I say unto thee shalt thou be with me in paradise. When? Listen to the thief's prayer, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. Not when thou goest into thy kingdom, at death. But when thou comest into it." Now, according to the assurance Christ gave the thief, when he comes in his kingdom, the thief must be with him. And, when will that be—at the death of a Christian? No. Read Matt. xxv. 31 to 34.

​

There's nothing wrong with the comma placement. The bible provides examples of how the grammar is used, such as with King Saul. Given the amount of the trophies to be collected, the distance to travel, the mention that the days (plural) were not completed, and that there still had to be a wedding, it is clear that "today shalt" speaks to the date and certainty of the pronouncement, but remains silent as to the date of fulfillment.

1Sa 18:21 KJV
(21) And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.

Spoiler

As further evidence, King Solomon considered these equivalent statements.

1Ki 2:37, 42 KJV
(37) For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.

1Ki 2:42 KJV
(42) And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the LORD, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good.

Glory has seen this before, but she still insists that it can only refer to the date of fulfillment.

 

[genuineoriginal]

There's nothing wrong with the comma placement.

Sure there is, the comma placement makes it appear that "today" is the day the prophecy would be fulfilled.

it is clear that "today shalt" speaks to the date and certainty of the pronouncement, but remains silent as to the date of fulfillment.

Moving the comma after "today" makes it clear that Jesus is speaking about the date of the pronouncement instead of the date of the fulfillment.

 

[glorydaz]

@glorydaz, I was hoping that your retraction would be a simple thing when shown that the gospel contradicted your statement in short simple words. Perhaps it might help to emphasize the weight of this important statement in that it was repeated not once, not twice, but three times in three gospels? Besides Matthew, there's Mark and Luke as well.

I'm well aware of all the quotes. I even pointed out an additional point from the Gospel of Luke which you continue to choose to ignore. The key is there, but you refuse to see it.

Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. ​

Did you read any of these accounts before stating emphatically that Jesus was not proving the resurrection of the dead?

I said, "Jesus wasn't attempting to prove the resurrection", He was plainly stating the Sadducees were ignoring the very Scripture they purported to believe...which was the books of Moses. The Sadducees were claiming there was no life after death, and Moses, himself, made it clear there was.

If you admit your mistake you are again in agreement with the gospel, but if you retain that error and deny the gospel account I suppose you are enabled to continue to claim that Abraham is in heaven. Your choice.

Too bad for you, because I won't be bullied into agreeing with you. You're wrong. I agree completely with what is said in the Gospels....even better, I understand what is being said. I know why they were out to trap Jesus, I know how He accused them of erring in their reading of the Scripture, and I agree totally with Jesus when He says that God is the God of the living....being the God of Abraham who is only asleep in the grave but alive with the Lord. "For all live unto Him", as Luke says.

 

[glorydaz]

Disembodied spirits are as good as dead since without a physical body they can't function in the physical realm.

They are no longer in the physical realm. There is a whole family in heaven.

Ephesians 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,​

 

[glorydaz]

William Tyndale has far greater credentials and superior recommendation from God than either Adam Clarke or John Gill. Tyndale translated the scriptures from the original languages and lost home, friends, and ultimately his own life in the spread of the gospel. He is called "God's Mattock against the Papacy" by Foxes Book of Martyrs, but perhaps his greatest sign of approval comes from God himself, as his dying prayer of "Open the eyes of the King of England' was granted in a massive world-changing fashion. John Gill and Adam Clarke lack both his skill and his testimony.

Regardless, neither John Gill nor Adam Clarke (mere commentators) were able to answer Tyndale's question: they continue to spew contradiction in their error. The same question has been brought forth here (today and yesteryear) for which no one here has yet been able to successfully answer. If Abraham is alive in any sense, Christ's statement does not prove the resurrection, and given that he said his aim was to prove the resurrection and he gave no other proof, "soul wake" would render Christ's argument worthless.

Ah, so a translator's opinion is better than any old commentator. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

You are sadly misreading the grammar of "today shalt thou be with me in paradise" as the "today" modifies the "shalt" which is the giving of the command... as we have already previously proven is the biblical usage of the term in other passages through the scripture, even including statements from King Saul and King Solomon.

You're sadly reaching....

Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.​

Show me another example where Jesus ever said, "I say today" rather than just "I say". opcorn:

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're sadly reaching....

Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.​

Show me another example where Jesus ever said, "I say today" rather than just "I say". opcorn:

The examples of Jesus' speech shows that He would have put "today" at the end of the sentence or would have put "that" in front of "today".

Luke 22:34 34 And he said, [JESUS]I tell thee, Peter, the **** shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.[/JESUS]​

Mark 14:30 And Jesus saith unto him, [JESUS]Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.[/JESUS]​

That would have changed Luke 23:43 into:

Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt be with me in paradise Today.​

or

Verily I say unto thee, that Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.​

But that is not what Jesus said.
Jesus said:

Verily I say unto thee Today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.​

 

[glorydaz]

So besides the scripture saying that he did actually die, you haven't answered the problem that you don't believe Jesus actually bore the full penalty for our sins. If you don't understand what I mean by this, I will explain what you have stated you believe is the penalty of sin, compared to what I have stated I believe is the penalty of sin.

You need to stop doing this. I can't help it if you misread what I've stated. Nor can I help it if it's beyond your ability to understand. Try to state your questions without these ridiculous assumptions.

 

[glorydaz]

Sure there is, the comma placement makes it appear that "today" is the day the prophecy would be fulfilled.

Moving the comma after "today" makes it clear that Jesus is speaking about the date of the pronouncement instead of the date of the fulfillment.

See, you two can't even agree. :chuckle:

 

[genuineoriginal]

See, you two can't even agree. :chuckle:

Haven't you heard of the saying, "ask two Jews, you'll get three opinions"?

(check out this 11 second video)

 

[glorydaz]

Haven't you heard of the saying, "ask two Jews, you'll get three opinions"?

(check out this 11 second video)

LOL Yeah, and I loved that movie. :thumb:

 

[jamie]

Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.​

Jesus' statement was true for that man.

Because there is no consciousness in death the man's resurrection would be instantaneous to him.

For him it would be the same day.

 

[glorydaz]

Jesus' statement was true for that man.

Because there is no consciousness in death the man's resurrection would be instantaneous to him.

For him it would be the same day.

You say that because you don't know any better.

Tell that to Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration.

 

[Rosenritter]

Sure there is, the comma placement makes it appear that "today" is the day the prophecy would be fulfilled.

Moving the comma after "today" makes it clear that Jesus is speaking about the date of the pronouncement instead of the date of the fulfillment.

The reason that it would appears to have a different meaning is because of a deficiency in the grammar of most English speakers. I say this acknowledging that I didn't understand the grammar of "shall' and "will" myself until I learned it from reading biblical grammar. It "dawned" and then I afterwards found confirmation through actual grammar authorities, including Wikipedia and "The King's English."

The reason why changing a comma placement is unjustified is because Jesus that is not an accurate translation of the phrasing. Many many times in the gospels Jesus says "Verily I say unto thee, ..." and that phrase requires a comma.

Luke 18:29 KJV
(29) And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

Luke 21:32 KJV
(32) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Luke 23:43 KJV
(43) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

There is no reason that Jesus would suddenly change from this pattern in this one and only instance, and changing the location of the punctuation would not be a properly accurate translation. And I'll say this also, one should NEVER start altering the bible text to make it "say what it should have said." That is a dangerous slippery slope.

Regardless, the context of the passage "When you come into your kingdom" combined with the actual grammar of the passage "Today shalt" (the command is proclaimed that day) doesn't require editing the text. Those that believe the bible (including Christ's words to the Sadducee) already have had it iterated dozens of times that the dead await the resurrection without knowledge and in silence, and that there is no life without benefit of that resurrection.

If someone is determined to twist a scripture backwards and make it contradict the rest of the bible, such will always find a way. Changing the text to make it appear to say what you want or arguing against the translation is not a legitimate method. Stay true and simply insist that the scripture be read properly as it is already written, and let those that refuse to accept the scripture as it is written be in the wrong.

 

[Rosenritter]

I said, "Jesus wasn't attempting to prove the resurrection", He was plainly stating the Sadducees were ignoring the very Scripture they purported to believe...which was the books of Moses. The Sadducees were claiming there was no life after death, and Moses, himself, made it clear there was.

Too bad for you, because I won't be bullied into agreeing with you. You're wrong. I agree completely with what is said in the Gospels....

Wow, what the gospels repeats three times in no uncertain language you come out and say the opposite, and then have the brazenness to say "I believe what is said in the Gospels." ... but not enough to admit you were wrong in that statement. Where Jesus says "as touching the dead, that they rise" you say Jesus was wrong in all three accounts and that he was not speaking of the resurrection of the dead.

 

[Rosenritter]

Deleted post.

 

[Rosenritter]

The examples of Jesus' speech shows that He would have put "today" at the end of the sentence or would have put "that" in front of "today".

Luke 22:34 34 And he said, [JESUS]I tell thee, Peter, the **** shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.[/JESUS]​

Mark 14:30 And Jesus saith unto him, [JESUS]Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.[/JESUS]​

That would have changed Luke 23:43 into:

Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt be with me in paradise Today.​

or

Verily I say unto thee, that Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.​

But that is not what Jesus said.
Jesus said:

Verily I say unto thee Today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.​

Exactly. If the fulfillment was meant to be that day, it would have said "Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt be with me in paradise to day." Basic sentence structure and grammar.

 

[Rosenritter]

See, you two can't even agree. :chuckle:

I don't agree with substituting a paraphrase in an attempt to combat ignorance. A lack of understanding can be cured in an honest individual.

 

[jamie]

You say that because you don't know any better.

Tell that to Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Why? I don't talk to visions.

"Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, 'Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.'" (Matthew 17:9)