Can a misplaced COMMA distort the account?

[highflyertoo]

When dying on the wooden cross that his body was hanged upon with nails,the Messiah said,

Assuredly I say to you today you will be with Me in Paradise

So where if any are the commas meant to be placed in this passage of scripture? If the comma is placed after the word ''you'' and before the word ''today'' then people think that the theif is to be with the Messiah in Heaven refering to the same day he was enquiring of him... Yet if the comma if after the word ''today'' then the Messiah can be talking about a far future date when judgement day happens.

Who really knows how to read scripture?

[duxrow]

When dying on the wooden cross that his body was hanged upon with nails,the Messiah said,

Assuredly I say to you today you will be with Me in Paradise So where if any are the commas meant to be placed in this passage of scripture? If the comma is placed after the word ''you'' and before the word ''today'' then people think that the theif is to be with the Messiah in Heaven refering to the same day he was enquiring of him... Yet if the comma if after the word ''today'' then the Messiah can be talking about a far future date when judgement day happens.

Who really knows how to read scripture?

:prayer:
The Holy Ghostwriter knows. And hopefully He led the translators to apply the proper punctuation.

Another example in Isa59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him. Reads diff when the comma is placed between the 'in' and 'like'.

BTW, it wasn't the Thief who said that (both thieves reviled him, and nothing said about a change of mind) -- it was a Malefactor.:yes:

[alec cotton]

When dying on the wooden cross that his body was hanged upon with nails,the Messiah said,
A silly question. There is no tomorrow in eternity. If there was then it would just be a long time . Time and space are curved . If you could travel through time to infinity then you would be where you are. Time is a dimension like an inch ,a yard or a mile. We often talk about the passing of time , but time does not pass . We pass through time. When we travel swiftly we get the illusion that the scenery is passing. The fact is that we are moving and the scenery is static. Imagine a long road or highway. A car is crashing into a tree . Further along a man is throwing a ball a l little bit down the road a child is skipping. You would have to travel a certain distance and arrive at a given point to observe any of these events although they all occurred on the same road. . So it is with time . To observe an event in time it would be needful to move from one event plain to another. The things which are not seen are more real than the thing that are seen.
Alec
Assuredly I say to you today you will be with Me in Paradise

So where if any are the commas meant to be placed in this passage of scripture? If the comma is placed after the word ''you'' and before the word ''today'' then people think that the theif is to be with the Messiah in Heaven refering to the same day he was enquiring of him... Yet if the comma if after the word ''today'' then the Messiah can be talking about a far future date when judgement day happens.

Who really knows how to read scripture?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

When dying on the wooden cross that his body was hanged upon with nails,the Messiah said,

Assuredly I say to you today you will be with Me in Paradise

So where if any are the commas meant to be placed in this passage of scripture? If the comma is placed after the word ''you'' and before the word ''today'' then people think that the theif is to be with the Messiah in Heaven refering to the same day he was enquiring of him... Yet if the comma if after the word ''today'' then the Messiah can be talking about a far future date when judgement day happens.

Who really knows how to read scripture?
Ah, you have discovered the post-modern critique of written texts! They can be made to say anything. If you have a doctrine that says folks go straight to heaven, then you have a proof text for that if you put the comma after "you." But if you want people to go off to "soul sleep" then you put the comma after "today." Therefore, the text is subject to the interpreters, whereas the interpreters often like to pretend that they have submitted themselves to the text as the "final authority."

But in this case, I can't see any justification for putting the comma after "today" since there is no example, as far as I know, of that construct ever appearing in any Greek document. And it contradicts the context because the malefactor had just asked Christ to remember him when he comes into his kingdom. His question involved TIME - "when you come into your kingdom." Therefore, Christ's answer is much more relevant and to the point if we understand that he was answering the question asked "today you will be with me in paradise." And besides all that, the argument for moving the comma just sounds like an attempt to force the text to fit a preconceived dogma.

[highflyertoo]

Ah, you have discovered the post-modern critique of written texts! They can be made to say anything. If you have a doctrine that says folks go straight to heaven, then you have a proof text for that if you put the comma after "you." But if you want people to go off to "soul sleep" then you put the comma after "today." Therefore, the text is subject to the interpreters, whereas the interpreters often like to pretend that they have submitted themselves to the text as the "final authority."

But in this case, I can't see any justification for putting the comma after "today" since there is no example, as far as I know, of that construct ever appearing in any Greek document. And it contradicts the context because the malefactor had just asked Christ to remember him when he comes into his kingdom. His question involved TIME - "when you come into your kingdom." Therefore, Christ's answer is much more relevant and to the point if we understand that he was answering the question asked "today you will be with me in paradise." And besides all that, the argument for moving the comma just sounds like an attempt to force the text to fit a preconceived dogma.

Why mention ''today'' if the Messiah wasn't answering him about going to paradise on the self same day?

I think the original texts were written in Hebrew,and then the Gentiles changed the texts over time so the words we have now are different in meaning.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Why mention ''today'' if the Messiah wasn't answering him about going to paradise on the self same day?

My point exactly!



I think the original texts were written in Hebrew,and then the Gentiles changed the texts over time so the words we have now are different in meaning.
Really? Why would you think that? Have you ever studied the history of how the text of the Bible was transmitted. I don't think your theory coheres with the evidence very well (if at all). I know that Matthew and Hebrews may have originally been written in Hebrew/Aramaic, but the entire NT? I don't know of any evidence that would support that position. And if you are correct, then the Bible is even a worse mess than I thought since God didn't bother preserving any copies of the original Hebrew manuscripts.

It's funny that you think the "Gentiles changed the texts" as if Jews wouldn't do such a thing. Don't you realize that the whole Gospel plan of the NT was centered on the Gospel going to the Gentiles? That's why it makes so much sense to have the OT in Hebrew (Jews) and the NT in Greek (Gentiles). Two witnesses. If the whole Bible were Hebrew it wouldn't be half as rich.

[highflyertoo]

My point exactly!


Really? Why would you think that? Have you ever studied the history of how the text of the Bible was transmitted. I don't think your theory coheres with the evidence very well (if at all). I know that Matthew and Hebrews may have originally been written in Hebrew/Aramaic, but the entire NT? I don't know of any evidence that would support that position. And if you are correct, then the Bible is even a worse mess than I thought since God didn't bother preserving any copies of the original Hebrew manuscripts.

It's funny that you think the "Gentiles changed the texts" as if Jews wouldn't do such a thing. Don't you realize that the whole Gospel plan of the NT was centered on the Gospel going to the Gentiles? That's why it makes so much sense to have the OT in Hebrew (Jews) and the NT in Greek (Gentiles). Two witnesses. If the whole Bible were Hebrew it wouldn't be half as rich.


The whole Gospel plan was for all of Israel to be taught to the Gentiles by the Hebrews. It was the Jews who were saved first,as all the Apostles were Jewish. They are the teachers of the New Covenant.

As quoted in Scripture.First to the Jew and then to the Greek

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The whole Gospel plan was for all of Israel to be taught to the Gentiles by the Hebrews. It was the Jews who were saved first,as all the Apostles were Jewish. They are the teachers of the New Covenant.

As quoted in Scripture.First to the Jew and then to the Greek
It is an historical fact that the Gospel first went to the Jews, and the the Gentiles.

If the "whole Gospel plan was for all of Israel to be taught to the Gentiles by the Hebrews" then it must have happened that way, or the whole Gospel plan failed quite spectacularly.

[highflyertoo]

It is an historical fact that the Gospel first went to the Jews, and the the Gentiles.

If the "whole Gospel plan was for all of Israel to be taught to the Gentiles by the Hebrews" then it must have happened that way, or the whole Gospel plan failed quite spectacularly.

The Jews of the New Covenant did teach the Gentiles in the early days. Yet Paul explicity says how ravenous wolves will enter into the Church to bring in false teachings to cause many to stray.

So it's so much easy to go back to the Old Testament and see what the prophets wrote to show many errors in the translation of the Gentile influenced texts that they call the word of God... And even the Old Testement texts have had Greek and Gentile influence to distort the true texts.

[duxrow]

:sCh_christian:
Roger. The Jews were a schoolteacher to bring us to Christ. The LAW of Moses was superceded by the NEW COVENANT for the Gentiles. ('They' could marry the new guy(Jesus), since the old one(GOD/brother) died on the cross!) The OC was for the Hebrews, and the NC is for EVERYONE!

http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc20.htm for my extended personal opinion.. ha :Investigate:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Jews of the New Covenant did teach the Gentiles in the early days. Yet Paul explicity says how ravenous wolves will enter into the Church to bring in false teachings to cause many to stray.

So it's so much easy to go back to the Old Testament and see what the prophets wrote to show many errors in the translation of the Gentile influenced texts that they call the word of God... And even the Old Testement texts have had Greek and Gentile influence to distort the true texts.
What makes you think it was the "Greek and Gentile influence"? It sounds like you have a strange racial prejudice against non-Jews. Sort of an "anti-Gentileism." Are you unaware that the OT is translated from the Masoretic Text which may have been altered by the Hebrew scribes in their effort to oppose Christianity?

Where are you getting your ideas? Have you studied the history of the Bible? Do you know that the Greek NT frequently quotes the LXX? How do you account for that?

[David M]

What if the word "today" was used in the colloquial sense of the word "now"? "I tell you now, you will be with me in paradise".

Jesus was in the grave 3 full days and nights during which time Jesus had no consciousness. Into God's hands Jesus commended his spirit and in the grave God says; "there is no remembrance". So for 3 days Jesus had no remembrance (Jesus was dead).

Consider what happened to Jesus once he was raised from the dead. For a short period he ascended to be with his Heavenly Father. From being with His Heavenly Father for a very short time, Jesus returned and was visible to men and women. Jesus was not in paradise when he was back on earth and so the malefactor could not have been with Jesus in paradise.


God tells us that there will be a time of resurrection. The first resurrection includes those who will reign with Christ and be "kings and priests" on the earth. Paradise has to be restored on earth as this is will be God's kingdom on earth. Hence, the malefactor could not have been in paradise on the day Jesus made the statement, as that contradicts a lot of other teaching in the Bible. It is this majority of teaching in the Bible,which is in agreement that means that this one verse in which the word "today" has been used must be understood correctly .


David