₦airaland Forum

@ Shahan

Right. When you carefully read that text in Luke 12:47-48, would you apply that to the judgement that takes place "for ever and ever" in Rev. 20:10? Are Satan and his rebels to be 'beaten' with few or many stripes in contrast to what the Lord meant by the judgement where people shall be cast into the place 'prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41)?

There is no relation whatsoever for obvious reasons that the expression "forever and ever" is a mis-translation of the original greek. The very expression "day and night, " indicates limited time periods, and runs opposed to "forever and ever", which as a phrase should not have been translated that way, as was mentoned umptheenth times.

And how does your own biased punctuated translation reflect the actual sense of what the Lord meant? Let us assume that the contruct stands as you offered: does it sound intelligent enough to polish your own idea? Absolutely not.

There can be no room for biases if one views the scriptures in a consistent manner. Nowhere in scripture does it teach that after death a person goes to heaven. It speaks of a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. So in the case of the refered text above which because of faulty punctuation seems out of line with other scriptural teachings then it becomes obvious that something went wrong with the punctuation. That is the only feasable explanation.

Any honest treatment of that verse has to be that the Lord meant it as 'Today shalt thou be with me in paradise'; rather than the other way round, "Today, verily I say unto thee. ." He meant that the event would take place that very day; rather than that He was speaking on that day. He was emphasizing the event rather than His speech. Three reasons strengthen this clearly:

The Lord didn't go to paradise the same day, and neither did the repentant thief. As far as my memory serves me right, Christ was buried and was resurrected on the first day of the week. When Mary attempted to hold on to Christ He said:

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:

#1. the thief knew that he was being spoken to that very day, and not on another day; so the emphatic word 'Today' applies to the last clause of the sentence, and not to the preceding clause.

Yes obviously the thief knew he was being spoken to, but that isn't the issue. The issue is punctuations were never a result of inspiration. Men placed punctuations in some instances to suit their religious biases, and this is one such case. The establishment of the canon of scriptures was done by cathlolic scholars, and isn't it obvious that it is they who teach that persons go to heaven after death? Who else teaches that?

#2. when you read the same word 'Today' (or, 'to day') in the Gospel of Luke, you'll see how the Lord used it in reference to His activity, rather than merely to His speaking.

Luke 13:32 - "And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Luke 19:5 - "And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house."

I am not too sure these have a bearing on the refered text. Each sentence must be taken in its own context.

#3. whenever the Lord wanted to emphasis anything in His speech by the clause "Verily I say unto thee," He most often did not add the word "Today". Why would Luke 23:43 be give a different and far-feteched rule of Greek grammar as in your supposed interpretation? If the Lord made reference to a distant date with regards to issues of the future, He stated it clearly in unmistakable terms:

That is why if you see the right punctuation being implemented everything would easily fall in place.

Hardly the sense at all, as shown above. Remove the punctuations and see your own bias - the very same bias you decried in the translations of the Bible.

Then how do you explain to the fora that Christ didn't enter paradise until after His resurrection?

Just to amuse us a little, let me reference several of them here from those who have a deeper grasp of the Greek construct than you and I could claim here on the internet (please notice the punctuations):

(Analytical Literal Translation) - And Jesus said to him, "Positively, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

(Amplified) - "And He answered him, Truly I tell you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

(Contemporary English Version) - Jesus replied, "I promise that today you will be with me in paradise."

(Darby) - And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

(Douay Rheims) - And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

(Holman Christian Standard Bible, HCSB) - 'And He said to him, "I assure you: Today you will be with Me in paradise"'

(Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, LITV) - And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you will be with Me in Paradise.

(NET) - "And Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

(YLT) - "and Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.' "

Did these experts punctuate the NT scriptures?ll they are doing is continuing the deception.





Quote from: Bobbyaf on Yesterday at 02:19:01 PM
We all know that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after He was resurrected, which was on the third day of His death.

That does not take away from the fact of the statement Jesus made to the penitent man on the Cross in Luke 23:34. Besides, the paradise spoken of in that verse does not exactly represent the very same place where Jesus later ascended and was glorified. He ascended into heaven, no doubt; but where exactly do you suppose that pointed to?

There can only be one paradise, and that is where God dwells. Jesus said He was going to His Father. Is there another paradise that you know of?

And my question hasn't been answered until now. Here again:

If we have to pander to your persuasion otherwise of the phrase meaning "from ages unto the ages", then this is how Revelation 20:10 will read ~~ they "shall be tormented day and night from ages unto the ages" Now, how long is the time period  "from ages unto the ages" that the torment would last?

No one can know how long each person will suffer for.

@ Shahan

@Bobbyaf,

I would've loved to oblige you your challenge; but would rather let it rest for now on just one question:

If we have to pander to your persuasion otherwise of the phrase meaning "from ages unto the ages", then this is how Revelation 20:10 will read ~~ they "shall be tormented day and night from ages unto the ages" Now, how long is the time period "from ages unto the ages" that the torment would last?

The length of the period will be determined by the length of the punishment that each individual will experience. As Jesus alluded to that some will be beaten by many stripes, while others by a few stripes. That is why I am concluding that the phrase "forever and ever" was never meant to be seen as an eternal torment for the wicked.

Let me give you an example as to how mis-translations, and mis-punctuations can pose serious problems with regards to how one understands what is being communicated, and especially if we confine ourselves to the KJV, or others.

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

From the above it seems to suggest that the very same day the thief went to paradise, doesn't it? The problem lies with how the translators punctuated the sentences.

As you might be aware the original writings of the NT had no punctuation marks. Most phrases, expressions be they idiomatic, or literal, and words ran alongside each other without any separation. Punctuation and versing techniques entered the original texts or manuscripts very much later on.

Now lets take a look at the above verse re-stated without punctuation marks. 43 And Jesus said unto him Verily I say unto thee Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

It is believed that those persons who later punctuated the NT texts in some instances, displayed their biases towards their particular beliefs, leading to the now erroneous belief that as soon as a christian dies he goes to heaven, and that the wicked goes to hell upn death. One only needs to attend the funeral sessions of most preachers in certain denoms and you'll see the point being made.

The phrase should be like this in keeping with what is known to take place after death. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee Today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.

In other words Jesus was simply saying that " I am telling you this day, today, that you will be with me in paradise. We all know that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after He was resurrected, which was on the third day of His death.

This is just one of the reasons why we need to bear in mind these sorts of nuances that present themselves from time to time. We cannot take for granted that because its a famous version of the bible that all is good and dandy.

The same mistake was made with the translation "forever and ever" It was made out to be something it was never meant to be.

@ Shahan

As rendered in the KJV, the translation is accurate and not faulty

You're dead wrong and as a matter of fact I challenge you to break it down for the fora if you can.

Carry on Shahan,

@ Shahan

Any careful reader of Revelation 20:10 will immediately notice how that verse is being denied by Bobbyaf's statement above. The Bible does not suggest at all that they are "tormented for a while until . . ." What the verse does say is that they "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever!"

Does "day and night for ever and ever" sound like "a while until"?? What is the correlation between the two??

In all honesty Shahan an exposition was given on what Revelation 20:10 really means in the light of how the early writers used their words, or how they expressed themselves idiomatically.

It was already explained to the fora, and possibly you if you read it, that the phrase forever and ever is a faulty translation. No honest greek student including myself, could possibly walk away accepting that translation of forever and ever, when what was meant was "from ages unto the ages when we stop to consider that the original phrase existed in the plural.

The reality is the true expression as found in the greek as it pertains to the wicked points to periods of time, and not eternity. The strange thing is is that you will accept that phrase to be limited when it is used to describe the limited life of a slave as used by Moses, but you fail to see the context of Revelation 20:10 to be the same.

As I have said so many times if a few passages seem to run contradictory to the weight of evidence of those scriptures that point to a literal and final destruction of the wicked, then why struggle with a few difficult passages just to prove a point?

Please find those translations that give the proper rendition of the greek, and stop confining yourself to a traditional version that may have been faulty translated in some instances. You have to read between the lines.

@ Gblade

@ Bobbyaf:

please don't miscontrue or misinterprete "eternal destruction" as something else. The word "eternal destruction", in the very context of this issue is LITERAL.

I don't think I did. I am trying to explain what the word everlasting means in the context as its used in qualifing punishment. I agree that the act of destruction is literalI, but its the result of the destruction that is everlasting. In otherwords those who die in hell will never come back, period.

If you burn a piece of paper, the flames die out at the end of a day. Destruction of any kind, be it, fiery or whatever, has a beginning and an end. So putting the word "eternal" only makes it contradictory as the word "eternal" means never ending.

That would depend on how the word is used, and its context. If you were to take the fire in Jude's remarks to be literally eternal then it means the fire would still be burning. You and I know its not. Should e blame Jude for using the wrong word, or should we blame the translators for their difficulty in dealing with idiomatic expressions?

Destruction can't take place if it never ends. . .

We already know that Gblade, and you don't seem to realize that we are on the same side where the topic is concerned, but because the problem rests with the phrases forever and ever and everlasting when they are used idiomatically, we are now left in a position to have to explain why such words must be seen in their particular context.

So my burning-paper example above was just to show that the destructive effect of the fire is eternal , and not the fire itself.

@ sage

The problem Sage is their mis-understanding of the expression "everlasting punishment" The tendency is to associate that phrase with torment. In actual fact that phrase should be attributed to the final death. So in essence no one would be able to come back after they finally die.

Note also that part of that punishment is experienced by the wicked mentally as well as emotionally when they realize that they would be denied eternal life. So emotionally and physically they are tormented for awhile until the fire does its work completely.

Another of the phrase that bothers them is the one speaking of "unquenchable fire" Unquenchable to them means unending, but in reality it simply means that no power would be able to stop it from doing its work. No power outside of God would be able to stop it.

@ Gbade

Doesn't the word "eternal destruction" sound self-contradictory??

Not really! What if we said instead, destroyed eternally, would it make a difference? Let me give an example. If you burn a piece of paper with fire, and finally the paper is totally consumed, could we safely say that the effect of the fire was eternal? Hence we could also say that the destruction by the fire was also eternal. In other words the destruction cannot be reversed, just as how the paper could not have been brought back.

That is exactly how Jude meant it when he described how the fire destroyed Sodom. Mark you we are not quite accustomed to that kind of parlance, but they perhaps did, and that is why we must take into account both the context and style of bible writers.

We cannot always rely on translations, because in all honesty some translators are dishonest, while some may have had difficulty translating idiomatic expressions. All of these factors we have to bear in mind when coming accross difficult passages.

Anyway you choose to view the matter, the fact is the weight of evidence of scriptures, supports a final and total destruction of the wicked.

Can someone please tell me what Jesus meant by the word "perish" in John 3:16?

, :d

@ Oluchia

Bobbyaf, I've been suspecting that u are an Adventist for quite sometime now from Your contributions. I am one too and I'm glad meeting one of my own on this forum. Keep up the good work.

I am glad to meet you too. Look forward to more of your contributions.

Shalom.

While the Holy Spirit is not fire per se, fire is a fitting symbol of the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit, and that is what the poster was trying to bring accross. That symbolism was brought out by Babyosisi and its a fitting one.

@ nferyn

I will believe in God if you show me some solid evidence of his existence. There is none.

How can you be asking and concluding that there is no evidence all at once? It only goes to show your bias towards not believing nferyn.

The very evidence is you. Look how highly developed you are? Would you rather attribute such a marvellously constructed life form to the chance of bio-molecules coming together in some cosmic soup? Come on!

The bible says we were made in the image of God, the Creator of the universe. The story of creation lies in the divine words of God spoken through His chosen prophets, and these divine words hold true no matter what.

Long before science achieved such attention, or fame the bible stood the test of time. For example long before science discovered that the earth was round, the bible declared it was through divine inspiration. "He . . . sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22. The Bible said the earth is round centuries before man found out. How did the prophet come to such knowledge if he weren't inspired?

"By Him [Jesus] all things consist." Colossians 1:17. The word "consist" here literally means "hold together" or "cohere." Many Bible translations put it "hold together." This is the answer to the nuclear physicists' worrisome question about the atom. The real mystery of the atom does not involve its benumbing mega-power, but rather, "Why doesn't the atom fly apart?" The Creator of the universe has been holding this universe together, and He has put laws there in to govern the universe so that it doesn't collapse on itself.


The Bible says, "I the Lord speak the truth, I declare what is right." Isaiah 45:19, RSV.*
Ancient artifacts unearthed by archaeologists repeatedly confirm the accuracy and truth of the Bible. Bible historical statements are accurate. What God says in His book is true. Sometimes, temporarily, evidence may not be found to substantiate certain historical facts from the Bible, but in time the evidence surfaces. Note the following:

For years skeptics said the Bible was unreliable because it mentions the Hittite nation (Deuteronomy 7:1) and cities like Nineveh (Jonah 1:1, 2) and Sodom (Genesis 19:1), which they denied ever existed. But now modern archaeology has confirmed that all three did, indeed, exist.

Critics also said that Bible-mentioned kings Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1) and Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) never existed. Once again, it has now been confirmed they did exist.

Skeptics also said the Bible record of Moses was not reliable because it mentions writing (Exodus 24:4) and wheeled vehicles (Exodus 14:25), neither of which they said existed at the time. They, of course, know better today.

At one time the 39 kings of ancient Israel and Judah who reigned during the divided kingdom were authenticated only from the Bible record, so critics charged fabrication. But then archaeologists found cuneiform records that mentioned many of these kings and, once again, the Bible record was proved accurate. Critics have repeatedly been proved wrong as new discoveries confirm biblical people, places, and events. It will always be so.


The evidence of Bible inspiration is found in the lives of people? If nothing else this proves the bible true. Accepting Christ and obeying Scripture changes a drunken, immoral, profane sinner into a loving, sober, pure Christian. Skeptics cannot explain this fact. The Bible says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." 2 Corinthians 5:17.

The changed lives of those who follow Jesus and obey Scripture constitute the most heartwarming proof of Bible inspiration. The drunkard becomes sober; the immoral, pure; the addicted, free; the profane, reverent; the fearful, courageous; and the rude, kind.

An American skeptic was visiting an island whose natives were originally cannibals. When he spotted an old man reading the Bible, he ridiculed him for reading a book "full of myths which had already been exposed." The native smiled at him and said, "My friend, be grateful we do believe this book. Otherwise, we would be serving you for dinner." The Bible really does change people, and this amazing fact confirms its inspiration.


What great advantage does a person have who accepts the Bible as God's inspired word? The Bible teaches that the earth was created in six literal days. The Bible says, "I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts." Psalms 119:100. "Thou . . . hast made me wiser than mine enemies." Psalms 119:98. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are . . . my thoughts [higher] than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9.

A person who accepts the Word of God will soon know the answers to many complex challenges that secular scholars will never figure out. For example, the Bible teaches:

A. God created the earth and all living organisms in six literal, 24-hour days (Exodus 20:11; Psalms 33:6, 9).
B. A worldwide flood destroyed every living thing except the sea life and what was inside Noah's ark (Genesis chapters 6, 7, .
C. The different languages of the world began at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9).

The Bible's account of the Flood provides the answers secular scholars are searching for. God, who has always existed and knows everything, shares the above three truths with us, recognizing that we could never figure them out on our own. We know only "in part" now (1 Corinthians 13:9). And God's knowledge is "past finding out." Romans 11:33.

Evolutionists will never know the age of the earth because it was created with apparent age, as were Adam and Eve. The couple were only one day old on their second day of life, but they appeared to be mature. Man's measuring instruments cannot allow for apparent age. In such cases, they are not trustworthy. Believe the Bible, and you will always be ahead of the speculation of secular scholars and the worldly-wise.

Robert Gentry's book Creation's Tiny Mystery has unsettled many evolutionists with its apparent, clear evidence of instant creation. (Mystery in the Rocks, an easy-to-understand book based on his research) Is it any wonder Jesus said the "rocks will cry out if we don't?"

For all those interested in viewing a streaming video online about proof that the earth was created instantly, then you can view this video at the following page. The evidence is astounding and you will be blessed by it.

http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm

My question about the big bang.

1. Did it create the universe?

2. Did the big bang occur after the universe existed?

3. How extensive was the big bang relative to the size of the universe? Did it occur in a smaller section of the universe?

4. If the big bang was an explosion why is it that the universe is so orderly? Why aren't bodies crashing over each other? I am under the impression that explosions tend to lead to chaos, and not order. I mean if one wwere to blow up a building, or a junk yard would you expect to see something being formed automatically from the chaos?

5. Was the big bang the only one of its kind? If there was one why haven't we heard about another since? Do the same forces exist today in the universe that once supposedly caused the big bang?

Just one more question. How do you explain the origin of atoms and the extensive force which they possess. Did they just happen to be like that, or were they created?

You have a witness Kintayo. If a person is possessed they will bear much fruit, and others on the outside will notice the change and will be led to ask about the change. I so very much agree with you we do need a fresh outporing every single day.

I must confess though, that whether or not persons agree on the subject at hand, the whole debate has been a blessing to me. I have no doubt that there are sincere persons in the fora who are searching for answers, and I am more than confident that God is willing to give us answers.

Shalom.

I am going to repeat the questions I asked about giving a meaning to the word perish in John 3:16 which stands to mean the opposite of living forever.

I am also asking for someone to tell me if the english expression "forever and ever" is a honest translation of the Greek. Remember goodly people we are only reading from translations. If we are looking for truth about any subject matter as difficult as this one, shouldn't we be looking to the original for some assistance?

At least we know for sure that both positions cannot be correct, and if we desire to be 100% certain then we must do the honourable thing and check out the expression "forever and ever" for what it is worth.

Are we prepared to take the risk in holding on to what we are not certain about? If the concept of the "forever and ever" doctrine as it relates to the wicked being punished without end is wrong, then the advocates would have been responsble for depicting their loving Creator as a despot ruler, who after giving His creation a choice to obey, or disobey now turns around and hands down the most severe punishment ever witnessed in the universe.

Yes its easy to quote texts to render support for such a doctrine, because anyone can quote, but do such texts really point to an un-ending agony of the wicked in the light of multiple bible passages that say the opposite.

Once again let me supply a few texts that say the opposite:

Malachi 4:1
For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says the LORD of hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch.

What say you Tayod and Syrup about the above text? What does "burn them up" means in this text?

Malachi 4:3, You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet On the day that I do this, Says the LORD of hosts. 

Question for you Tayod and Syrup. Why would the prophet utilise the word "ashes" if the idea of continuous burning was meant? Certainly Malachi was not in opposition to John, so why would Malachi be saying something different than John. Doesn't that make you stop to think?

Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Does the word eternal mean indefinite in this passage? And if it doesn't then why shold we accept that the expresson "forever and ever" is an indefinite period? Could it be that Jude wanted us to see the permanence of the destruction rather than the fire itself burning indefinitely? Food for thought don't you think?

2 Peter 2:6
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

Have you noticed how Peter qualifies Jude's use of eternal fire with his use of the word ashes? This is the crux of the matter. There will be times when one comes accross difficult passages that seem to be contradicting other passages, bu tif one studies to show himself/herself approved unto God, then the answers will come.

Let em continue with texts proving a complete destruction of those who oppose God.

Ezekiel 28:18
18Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

Here we see without a moment's doubt that Satan will be devoured by God's specially prepared fire. Notice that Satan will become ashes, literally. Notice too that this fire shall start burning from within Satan. It starts inside out signifying that he is the instigator of evil, or as Malachi calls him the "root". Looks like a Sci Fi movie doesn't it? 

Let me pose this question to those who believe that the wicked will be punished for ever. The bible teaches that God will re-create a new earth where He and His people will live together. See Revelation 21:3, 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.

Yes we know that God and the redeemed will live on planet earth for sure because "the meek shall inherit the earth" according to the psalmist David.

My question to you is this.

1. Why would God allow the memory of sin to continue in the act of a continuous burning of the wicked? Wouldn't the redeemed be aware of such a burning still taking place? If God is aware and we aren't assuming we are saved, then why not allow us to remember too? Revelation 21:4 says that "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”, and Isaiah 65:17 says “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.

Could the pain John refers too include mental pain? It wouldn't be fair to us to have to be subjected to such knowledge especially if our loved ones didn't make it to the kingdom. You wouldn't expect God to tamper with our minds would you by giving us selective memory? My take on this is that after God grants us judgement during the 1000 years when we shall examine the books of the records of all those who will be lost, including Satan and the evil angels, we would have been satisfied that God did everything in His power to save all those who would be destroyed. (Paul said that we would judge the world and angels)

The tears of the redeemed will for the last time flow. God will assure His redeemed that even in the act of destroying the wicked, including some of their loved ones, it will be done for their own good. Even while destroying the wicked God does it in love. Instead of allowing the wicked to suffer throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity, they recieve their punishment in accordance with their level of sins. Many stripes for some, and a few for others as Jesus alluded to.


2. Where would those wicked sinners be burning if the earth has been made new again for the redeemed? If hell or the lake of fire is literal, or physical then where else could they be occuring, if all of the earth has been cleansed and renewed and is now being occupied?

Can someone interpret this verse for the fora:

John 3:16, "for God so love the world that He gave His Oly begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life"

What does perish mean in this verse? And by extention what does perish mean in general?


2) What is the translation for the expression in Revelation 20:10, "forever and ever"

Part of the problem with us as readers of the bible is that we emphasise meanings of words without fully understanding the translations of words. We fail to understand that words have changed their meaniing with time, and the original meaning that was intended by the original writers has been altered because of poor translations.

If the translation is wrong then the meaning we have ascribed to such words are wrong. One such word or expression is "forever and ever" The English idiom "It's raining cats and dogs" only makes sense to us because we have been taught to associate the meaning, "It's raining heavily" with those words. Should a Chinese person just beginning to learn English read "it's raining cats and dogs," their natural instinct would first be to take the phrase literally. There is no way they could determine the "idiomatic" meaning of that phrase unless someone explained to them they were reading an idiom and then gave them its meaning.

In the original it is written: kai okarnos tou basanismou auton eis aionas ton aionon anabainei which translates literally as: and smoke the torment of them into eons of the eons is ascending.

If we follow the greek we would see that there is no and in the original expression as we see in "forever and ever" What we see is ton instead of kai, and kai means and in greek. So the expression "forever and ever is a mis-translation. There is no forever and ever in the original greek, but what we have is an expression of:

If the translators of the KJV and their cousins were honest in their translation they would have come up with an expression as: "And the smoke of their torment is ascending for the evers and evers." because the original greek was written in plural form and not in the singular fom as we now see it. Its critical that we take note of that fact.

Any greek student would know that the word for and is kai, and not ton, so how did we come to the point where we have kai translation instead of ton[/b]translation?, simply put [b]tradition. We have come to accept things without questioning how and why we got them.

Fortunately for us there are still some honest translations out there that have given us the true meaning of a true translation, and in which you will see this: "aionas ton aionon" So because the word aion is in its plural form two times in the same sentence, we would expect to see "evers unto the evers" shouldn't we?

The Greek had no problem using the word aion in its plural form becuse they know that such a word meant eons as we know it today to mean periods of times, and not time indefinite. The Greek language is a very precise language. If it uses three different constructions of the double use of "aion," there is a very good reason for it. To arbitrarily translate all of them exactly the same way "forever and ever" as the KJV, NIV, NASB, NRSB, Amplified, Living, etc. have done, is NOT translating, its butchering the Greek through dark age traditions.

The word "aion" in all its forms refers to "ages" which have ends and beginnings. There are at least 5 ages mentioned in the Greek New Testament. There is only ONE eternity, not multiples.

Think on these things.

@ Goodguy

About 4 years back, I was a in a youth gathering, and there was a Christian motivational speaker. As usual, his words uplifted me internally and I was really flowing with him. But the problem set in when we went into a prayer session and everyone was required to "pray in tongues". At first, I was confused, as I had never spoken in tongues before. As if he knew what my problem was, he then asked everyone of us to just open our mouths and begin to utter anything that comes to the mouth at that moment. There I stood for minutes, with my mouth wide open - nothing happened. Then I tried mimicking my friends who were apparently rapping in random syllables (they later confirmed this because they all joked about it after the programme). But after a shortwhile, I stopped and realised that the whole thing did not make sense at all, because the Muslims among us were also required to speak in tongues. I then started praying to my God in simple English language that I myself could understand.

Well, I happened to have been in a similar situation, but the only difference was I didn't try anything. I just watched as the church broke loose. I felt really alone, and I felt extremely uncomfortable. Out of respect for the person who had invited me I stayed until the service was over.

What is my point, you ask?

This act of speaking in tongues has been seriously basterdized by the modern day church, and millions of Christians over the world have been made to believe that rapping in random syllables is indeed the true way to speak in tongues, under the guise of "speaking in mysteries" or some "angelic language". Some are even made to believe that only those with the Holy Spirit can speak in tongues, and that those that do not speak in tongues do not have the Holy Spirit.

In my discourse with Pentecostals and other charismatic christians they make me feel as if I don't have the Holy Spirit. If one isn't careful one goes away feeling deficient, and anemic.

However, my own understanding of the Holy Scripture on this issue of speaking in tongues stems from 1 Corinthians chapter 14.

1. Speaking in tongues is meant to serve as a sign to the unbelievers --> 1 Cor 14:22

The true understanding of this remark is very crucial. Acts 2 was a perfect example of that, and especially as it related to the diasporic jewish people. The miracle of the gift of tongues as it served it purpose then, was to serve as a sign to unbelievers, that those same disciples could be trusted with the gospel they now were entrusted with.

God delibrately used wind and fire as evidence that He was with the disciples, according to Acts 2. There was the sound of a mighty rushing wind and the cloven tongues of fire on their heads. Ever wondered why God used those signs? Nothing was more familiar to the Jews than those two symbols, especially as they were associated with God's power and presence. It was a strong wind that God raised up the red sea. It was with fire that He warmed them during the cold nights in the wilderness for 40 years. Don't forget the Mount Carmel experience.

Let's go back to Acts Chapter 2. There, we'll see that the speaking of other tongues by the apostles led to the conversion of about 3000 people that very day. Apparently, the speaking of the tongues served as a sign to the unbelievers that got converted.

And especially as they witnessed the typical Gallaleans speaking in their own mother tongue. That must have been an experience. And to think that Peter was unlettered, and was now versed in other person's languages, amazing!

In today's churches, how many people get converted by the Pastor's/members' speaking of tongues?

2. Speaking in tongues is meant for the edification of the church, and not for some spirituality show-off. And that's why Paul said this in 1 Cor 14:19: "But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."

Can you imagine what Paul would be saying if he were alive today?

So what really is speaking in tongues all about? In Acts 2: 4 - 12, we were made to understand that those that spoke in tongues, spoke in other languages that other people could hear and understand.

They would say that the tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is not the same as in Acts 2. They would argue that the gift has somewhat taken on different functions. Is it possible that indeed such a change could have taken place? As I have always said God started out with a motif for the gift, and which was to enable the disciples to spread the gospel without having to spend undue time learning the languages.

Speaking in tongues, to my own understanding, is not some kind of magical recitation or incantation of random syllables, as is clearly visible in the pentecostal churches of today. They try to make one believe that they speak in "mysteries", using 1 Cor 14:2 as a back up. But that verse, indeed, has been widely erroneously interpreted, even by the most ardent Bible-thumping folks, claiming to be born again.

Speaking in tongues, to my own understanding, simply means speaking in other languages. Full Stop! There's absolutely nothing more to it.

Absolutely right about that!

The Greek translation of 1 Cor 14:2 explains explicitly what Paul meant by "unknown tongues". Bobbyaf is indeed right by saying "unknown" is an applied word. In Greek, the phrase "unknown tongue" is "glossa" or "gloce-sah'", which means "a language (specially, one naturally unacquired)".

And talking of "mysteries", other Bible translations use "secret", which simply means that the one who speaks in another language is simply saying things that are secret or mysterious to the rest of the church, but only known to God, hence, the need for an interpreter/interpretation so that the church may be edified, as the "tongue speaker" edifies himself alone at that moment.

Agreed and that is why I have always said that it has nothing to do with being used as a prayer tool, that not even the one praying understands what he is communicating to God. Most persons I ask about understanding what they speak usualy say they don't understand a thing they utter. The very remarks by Paul in certainn sections of chapter 14 say the very opposite. He says our tongue should be easy to understand.

You've made some good pointers overall.

Hola Syrup!

Hi again @Bobbyaf,

The problem with many in understanding the second death is that they envisage a situation of annihilation, which is not what the Bible teaches.  The word 'death' to such indicates non-existence and inactivity. However, if you carefully study the various meanings of the word 'death', you will find that people could be very active and alive in another context, while being described as 'dead'.

I understand where you're coming from, but there is still a but. The word death can be used figuratively yes, but in the case of hell fire it certainly is not the case.

#1. "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ" (Eph. 2:5)

This too fits the figurative language.

#2. "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." (1 Tim. 5:6)

Also this one.

In these two instances, you find that to be "dead" does not mean cessation of life, annihilation or inactivity; it rather describes a state of conscious existence in reality quite different from the way many people take the ordinary meaning to apply to every case.

Point taken Syrup, and I agree that the use of the word isn't always confined to its literal meaning, but as much as a word can be used to literally, or figuratively describe an experience, we aught to be in a position to make that all-important distinction.

In the same way, when Revelation 20:10 speaks of torment 'day and night for ever and ever', it affirms that the wicked who experience the wrath of God in the second death are actually conscious in the lake of fire. This may be hard to take in; but the context bears it out plainly.

My question is this. Is the torment literal, or figurative? It has to be one of both descriptions. My contention is not whether there is a lake of fire, and that the wicked will be punished literally, because there can be no doubt about the literalness of such a punishment, but with the use of and application of the phrase "forever and ever"

Listen as David describes the same wicked:, But the wicked shall perish; And the enemies of the LORD, Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish. Into smoke they shall vanish away. Psalm 37: 20.

I have posted quite a few texts that un-equivocally show that the wicked will perish and be no more. How does one compare Rev. 20:10 with those, unless they take into account that the expression must be viewed in its rightful context?  

Another way of understanding the word 'dead' as sometimes describing a state of conscious existence in another plane is found in Revelation 20:12 ~~ "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God. . ." The question is: do "dead" people stand at all?

Dead people do not stand at all. So the expression used by John has to be seen in the context of other scriiptures, relative to what John was talking about. But before proceeding I'd like for the readers to understand one thing, and that is, the book of Revelation is a difficult book to understand, and so one must be careful to get it right. The sequence of description as given by John was not always given in time order of events. There are times when John changes the subject matter abruptly, and persons who read the verses automatically think that each verse is an ordered listing of events that should take place as seen.

Rev. 20:11, And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

This verse is a prelude to verse 12 which describes the actual judgement itself. It introduces the overall judgement where the life's record of all are brought into review before God. Notice how John started out by saying that "he saw", thus introducing another subject matter different and apart from hell fire.

Certainly not in the ordinary sense! So what is meant by the dead who stand before God in that verse? Simply that the word 'dead' describes their state in precisely the same way that Eph. 2:5 uses the word - "dead" in their sins. They are in a state of conscious existence when standing before God to be judged; but for all that, they are described as "the dead" as a matter of their fate.

My take on it is that the expression "dead who stand before God" means that their life's record will do the standing. There are some who will take it even further and say that we will stand literally before God in the judgement, but God doesn't have to do that in order to judge us, becasue our life's record is there to judge us, and that is why John said that the books were opened. It is these books that contain every thought and action that we produce during our life time.

I recall using a text in Revelation 22:11, 12 that bring support to the above understanding. It says:

11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

This is what the judgement is all about. Jesus as our High Priest is our lawyer who defends us as His people. He atones for us in the sanctuary or temple. Each time we confess our sins He forgives and at the end of the overall  judgement He blots them out for good. If after the probationary period ceases and our records are not up to God's standards of righteousness, then such records will remain filthy. There can be no change afterwards. Jesus now hands down a reward for both sets of people, the righteous and the wicked. He seals God's people for life everlasting, and he seals the wicked for their reward. At His second coming according to verse 12 the rewards will become obvious.

Then there is the judgement that is given to the saints of the Most High God after we get to heaven. We will be previleged to see the books for ourselves. God Himself the king of the universe places His judgement at our disposal. All our questions will be fully answered as to why God made certain decisions. We will see why brother so and so wasn't saved, and why sister so and so who we thought could not make it, did. We will see who faked it from those who didn't. Everything will be revealed to God's redeemed during the 1000 thousand years.

The only other aspect of the judgement that remains is that of hell fire which would be rewarded to Satan, his angels and the wicked who followed him in rebellion against God. However, before the fire begins God will allow them to see why He has to punish them. God doesn't just up and destroy without showing to them where they went wrong, and all the opportunities he provided, and so forth, and why He must put an end to sin and those who chose to cling to it, once and for all.

Paul spoke of this day when He said that in Phillpians 2:10:, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,

Every knee includes God's angels, God's redeemed, Satan and his angels, and the wicked. So just picture the Holy Jerusalem that John saw coming down from heaven, with transparent walls clear as crystal, suspending over planet earth with God and His angels and redeemed from all ages inside, and Satan and his angels and the wicked on the outside. Jesus said, There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

Yes the wicked will be able to see live people in God's kingdom, and vice verse. The weeping begins when God shows them their wasted opportunities and where they could have been if they had made the right choices. He shows them that sin, and those who cling to it, could not be tolerated to continue for ever and has to be totally annhilated from the presence of the Lord.

Then the fire begins to fall from heaven and soon every wicked will be totally destroyed from God's presence. The earth will be cleansed from sin, and after the fire would have done its work, God once again makes a new heaven and a new earth. The people within the city will once again walk the earth in total peace and harmony. God will dwell with them and Be their God. The earth will now become the new capital of the universe where God's control centre will be. The scripture says as it was in the beginning so shall it be in the end.

Amen and amen. Bless be the God of heaven and earth.

@ Syrup

As regards the expression "for ever and ever", please consider these other scripture verses where they appear:

#1. He who lives for ever and ever ~~
"And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever." (Rev. 5:14); "And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer" (Rev. 10:6)

#2. God, who lives for ever and ever ~~
"And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever." (Rev. 15:7)

#3. "The LORD shall reign for ever and ever." (Exo. 15:18)

#4. "Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever." (1 Chron. 29:10)

#5. "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre." (Psa. 45:6)

#6. "I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever." (Psa. 45:17)

#7. "Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his" (Dan. 2:20)

#8. "But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever." (Dan. 7:18)

Since you are convinced that "The expression forever and ever doesn't mean as Syrup thinks, an indefinite period", then I guess that these scriptures do not not at all mean what they say. In your own view, if the expression doesn't mean what it does, then perhaps, just perhaps, your theology denies that "God lives for ever and ever" and "He shall reign for ever and ever".

At the moment, I just want to point out the meaning of the expression "for ever and ever" within the context of the verses where they appear. What it does mean as applied in Rev. 20:10 is apparent in its context there - they "shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

Point taken and I suspected you'd have raised those texts to strengthen your argument. Its obvious that context will determine the meaning of the expression "forever and ever" as its used in each case. Bear in mind that the expression is used as a qualifier for the object being described. In God's case the expression would naturally mean without end since one of God's attributes is immortality, but in the case of it being used to describe an activity by humans which turns out to be limited then its other meaning comes to light.

Revelation 20 is especially interesting. The wicked are said to be tormented day and night for ever and ever, yet twice in the same chapter, the wicked are said to experience the second death. John could not have been so inconsistent as to mix this issue up in the very same chapter! There is no returning from the second death. Jesus Himself says we should fear God who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell, when the wicked are destroyed!

Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." If the wicked are destroyed, both soul and body, in the lake of fire as Jesus says, then how can they be tormented for ever and ever?.

You will see, over and over again, that all the rest of the Bible says: The wicked will be completely destroyed. They will perish. They will be burned up until they will be ashes under the soles of your feet. They will be no more. They will cease to exist, etc.

So, why does Revelation say the wicked will be tormented for ever and ever when all the rest of the Bible says the wicked will be completely destroyed and cease to exist? Does Scripture disagree with itself? No it does not have to disagree with itself. The answer lies in our understanding of the word "forever".

In general the Greek word aion is translated: forever. However its real meaning is "Age". There are actually two meanings for the word "Age" and it must be seen in each of its context.

"Age" can mean a human lifetime, or life itself. So it can be a limited time, as long as someone is going to live. "Age" can also mean an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, or an eternity. So it can mean forever and ever. Basically, if the subject is God or Jesus, since they exist in eternity, the meaning of "Age" would be an unbroken age, or an eternity. On the other hand, if the subject is referring to finite human beings, then the meaning of "Age" would be limited to the life-span of a human lifetime.

@

The above represents a summary of my previous post, when you pray in tongues (speaking as you would want to call it) you are not speaking to people but to God for no one understands but God. Please note the reason you are speaking in tongues in your own capacity is to build up yourself and not for the edification of the church.

What does paul mean by praying in tongues? I am curious to see your response.

Hi TVOI

Hi Syrup,

Quote from: syrup on Today at 10:54:10 AM
I haven't changed my views on that as long as Rev. 20:10 remains unchanged: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

Okay. It could be read as meaning the three only. The devil, the beast and the false prophet.

The expression forever and ever doesn't mean as Syrup thinks, an indefinite period. The expression means from one period to another, from one age to the next. As a matter of fact the expression has been used in other sections of scripture to refer to the living doing something, yet those people are dead and gone. Let me give you an example:

Psalm 145:1, I will extol You, my God, O King; And I will bless Your name forever and ever.

Here we see David's proclamation of doing something forever and ever, and that was extoling God's name. David is dead and gone and hence his being able to bless God has also ceased with his death. A dead person cannot bless or extol God.

Another example of the use of forever is found in:

Exudus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

So here we see what forever means in those contexts. In those contexts the act of doing something was limited to one's lifetime. Likewise the devil, the beast and the false prophet do not necessarily burn in hell indefinitely, but they do so as long as their level of punishment allows. Some of the wicked no doubt will be punished over a longer time period than others, and might I add that Satan will be punished the longest, being the instigator of evil Himself.

Allow me to give you just one more example of the use of a word that we have attached a definite meaning to, but which is used in a different context in this verse:

Jude 7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

My question is, does the fire that burnt Sodom still burning today, even though the bible referred to it as eternal? Certainly not! Hence the expression for ever and ever, must be seen in its context, and apart fom that, it must be seen and understood in the light of the weight of evidence of other texts that do not support an everlasting and indefinite burning or punishment of the wicked.

I also note verse 14 which reads; "and death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death"

This would suggest that death, hell and the lake of fire are all seperate? Could anyone give an in-depth explanation here?

As you are aware the word hell has multiple meanings. The word used for hell in this verse is hades which means the grave. So in actual fact John is simply using the expression to mean that there will be no more death and the holding of the dead in a grave after hell comes to its natural end. The fiery puishment will totally anhilate Satan and the wicked after which there will be no more death.

The issue rests with how persons see the expression everlasting punishment as used by Jesus Himself in Matthew 28:46, And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

In the context of what other texts are saying we must and should interpret Jesus's words properly and not just loosely use a word because we think it means something. Context must override in every situation. Another important approach to scriptures is applying consistency of interpretation. In other words if 10 bible passages indicate the reality of something, and one comes accross a text or two that seem to be contradictory, then the weight of evidence must take precedence when it comes to making a judgement on doctrinal matters.

My understanding of everlasting punishment is the knowledge of the fact by the wicked that they will be totally removed from the presence of the Lord for good. The punishment meted out to the wicked was not meant to confine itself to a mere physical one. It can't be that the wicked will be alive and suffering indefinitely, because that would mean that they are still in the presence of God, if we stop to think that God's presence is everywhere. Recall what David said about God being in hell with him if he were to go there.

Bobbyaf, please don't dissapear (as if ), I'd appreciate some added depth to this.

God bless you too

@Syrup, u say u speak in toungues lite?? do u even know d meaning of d things u say? ( i bet not!!) just keep deciving your self!!!

Leave her to her own confusion. She knows not what awaits her.

@ syrup

@Bobbyaf,

Lose my cool? I thought you could do better than your SDA-cultism taught you to accuse others with unbridled pride?

Do you feel better now that you have released all that bitterness? I love you too.

@ Aluchia

I am a Christian but I don't speak in tounges and Of Course I beleive in it  b/c it's one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12). I've had an argument with a friend over this issue. She was of the opinion that as a beleiver, I must be able to speak in tounges and that is exactly where I have a problem with speaking in toungues. That is not what my bible tells me. Christians these days tend to focus so much on Speaking in tounges that they forget that it is just one of the many gifrts of the Holy spirit which includes Wisdom, Knowledge, Faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, Speaking in tounges and even interpretation of tounges (1 Cor 12:8-11), and one must not have all the gifts for God's sake. I may have the gift of healing without having the gift of tounges,It doesn't make me less a Christian. I have a very intimate relationship with my God. He hears and answers my prayers even though I don't speak in tounges. The most important thing is having the Love of Christ in you. 1 Cor 13:1 says, "Though I speak with the tounges of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal". Let us note that Spiritual gifts will not take us to heaven b/c that is simply what they are 'gifts'- added favours. They are just to edify us and that is why Paul even advised to desire prophesy rather than speaking in tounges b/c people are edified when u prophesy. We should rather pray and strive to exhibit the 'fruits' of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). These are what will draw men to God and give him glory.

Well said! Thank God someone sees the more important impact of bearing fruits from God's Spirit than trying to force a gift on someone to whom the Holy Spirit hasn't given utterance. The all-should-speak-in-tongues advocates don't seem to recall what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12 and 13 when he rhetorically asked the following in verse 29 and onwards:

1 Cor. 12:28-31, 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

As for the question as to whether all should speak in tongues is conviniently overlooked by those pushing the tongue agenda. They fail to realize that the most important gift, as well as fruitage from God's Spirit is love. So in order to go around the simple expressions they fill your head with allsorts of interpretations, that only contradict what the very same bible teaches. Here is a perfect example by Paul:

1 Cor. 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

When someone in this day and age speaks in tongues, does he or she understand what he or she is saying? Do others around understand? Is not this what Paul is concerned about in the first place?

Why would someone speak in tongues as is customary in these churches that push the issue, and not be able to even as much as understand what they are communicating to God, assuming that is what the purpose is?

It is plain and simple that simple truths are being overlooked. In fact the more they talk about the issue the more confusing they make it seem.

Regards.

@ Syrup

@Bobbyaf,

When you have lost face, your low thinking comes to the fore. Hiding behind such pseudo-spirituality has not helped your SDA cultism, has it?

Not being very Christlike are you? Loosimg your cool? Come on do better than that!!!

You're still hung up on this matter, heh?  , Syrup you'll soon see reality. By the way why not start handling snakes too! Where is your faith Syrup?

@ Oluchia

Bobbyaf, You are realy a Bible student. Thank You very much for that exposition. You took the words right out of my mouth, so let me reserve my comment

Praise God! I am still looking forward to your comments anyway.

Hmmm,looks like africa is the original parent of christianity afterall.Gives us africans more claim to the religion.An african for the papalcy?

Come on my friend why can't you take up wellborn's challenge? Find the scriptural passages to support your views. Is that too hard for you?

Wellborn I like the way you responded and all your points are salient. Christianity was never founded on paganism and could never have been.

I'd like to ask you this question however. Do you think that as much as christianity started out as pure, that Satan would not have used the opportunity to at least infiltrate its pure teachings with some semblance of paganistic practises? Notice I said practises!!!

I once raised the issue on this board in a thread that was created by another poster, and was personally attacked by some religious quacks. Of course they mis-construed what I meant so I hold no grudges.

I guess its just a way for denominations to identify themselves as being different in some aspects of things. I don't have a problem with that at all. As Seventh-day Adventists we often say we are SDA christians. We use our trade name so to speak to indicate that we are either unique, or complete, or that we have something that others don't have.

Pentecostals believe that they have the whole truth, and so do all denoms. None is exempt. As to whether each making the claim can substantiate it, is quite another story.