Interpretation depends entirely on context. And the context in which you read the bible is not based on the bible. The Bible is subjected to the interpretation. The instructions for interpretation is not found within the bible, so therefore the bible is subject to another authority above it, The Authority Of The Interpreter.

Text and the never ending interpretations that we can extract from it.

I was just looking at the process and this is how I think it works.

First there is the Axiom, or particular belief of the interpreter. This is often supported by a literal reading of some portion of the bible.


Once this has been accepted then everything else that is in the bible is interpreted to fit in wth the Axiom. Even things that are literal contradictions will be forcibly interpreted in such a way to make it fit the axiom. There is no limit to human ingenuity when it comes to doing this.


Of course as the bible is the infallible word of God and is consistent, it follows that while certain passages are to be taken literally others are to be subjected to quite extensive interpreting.


We have seen this recently on NL, where people are arguing over whether a christian can lose salvation. What passage do you take literally and which one do you subject to exegesis? so everybody is throwing passages at each other and when taken literally they are both right.

So you see, interpretation depends entirely on context. And the context in which you read the bible is not based on the bible. The Bible is subjected to the interpretation. The instructions for interpretation is not found within the bible, so therefore the bible is subject to another authority above it, The Authority Of The Interpreter.

Actually this applies to all text, not just the bible, so Koranist should also take note.

I want to believe that Yahoshua who appeared to Abraham as Ela (El) has given us the instructions, but perhaps many today do not understand. Also, I have read that the Ifa Scriptures contains a lot of metaphors, which some people have tended to misinterpret literally. In my opinion, deliberate misinterpretation may stem from the lack of control of one's ego, and the rejection of Light. This Light is the Light of men and (Light - knowledge, wisdom and understanding).

You mentioned that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Is Oro/Word of God the same as the Bible, or is the Bible a record of the teachings of God via His Word?

An example of this misinterpretation is the topic of rapture. It seems many do not see the connection between the assurance God gave to Abraham in Genesis 15 with the prophesies mentioned from Isaiah to Malachi and the Book of Revelations about the return of Abraham's descendants to Israel in the 4th generation.

@OP

YOU shoukd have given a case study. A quotation and the different interpretation. I know one thing, there are different levels of light by which men see.

Also, add to the OP's mix that the Bible is living/alive. This means/necessitates that sometimes a particular verse/passage may change in application, as by the Spirit of God. What one needs though is to be clean/pure before God, and to always walk in the Spirit. Fleshly interpretations would not profit much. Fleshly interpretations is common BTW.

Image123:

Also, add to the OP's mix that the[b] Bible is living/alive. This means/necessitates that sometimes a particular verse/passage may change in application,[/b] as by the Spirit of God. What one needs though is to be clean/pure before God, and to always walk in the Spirit. Fleshly interpretations would not profit much. Fleshly interpretations is common BTW.

Does this only apply to the bible or can it be said of any text. Can I say that Things Fall Apart is living/alive. Because everytime I read it I get some new insight. In fact I get this also from films. Everytime I watch a film I see something that I didn't notice before. And depending on my situation I might read different things into a book. Is it the book that changes or my perspective?

Joagbaje:

@OP

YOU shoukd have given a case study. A quotation and the different interpretation. I know one thing, there are different levels of light by which men see.

well, there is an issue that has been thrashed out on NL a lot recently.  Pastor Jo, could you please reconcile these two verses for me.

First from the second chapter of ephesians.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.

And then, from the gospel of Matthew 6:15

But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Which one do you take literally?  Or better still, can you please explain to me your understanding of what Jesus is saying there?  Is he suggesting that God's forgiveness is conditional?  That we first have to develop a forgiven nature before we too can be forgiven?  That would be a literal interpretation.  Or maybe there is some subtle point in there that I'm not taking into account.  Maybe if you translate it back to the original greek then you can tell me the real meaning of what Jesus was trying to say and why it means something different in that context.

Or yet again, consider the following parable.

      23“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24“When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25“But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. 26“So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ 27“And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. 28“But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ 29“So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ 30“But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. 31“So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32“Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33‘Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34“And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35“My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

How does the fact that the King withdrew the debt forgiveness on the first slave reconcile with the position of those that say 'Once Saved Always Saved'.  I haven't heard it yet but I'm sure if given the opportunity they will come up with a very clever interpretation of that parable that in fact supports their position.  Perhaps someone would like to try it. I love to read clever arguments.

Pastor AIO:

Does this only apply to the bible or can it be said of any text. Can I say that Things Fall Apart is living/alive. Because everytime I read it I get some new insight. In fact I get this also from films. Everytime I watch a film I see something that I didn't notice before. And depending on my situation I might read different things into a book. Is it the book that changes or my perspective?

Yes, that the Bible is alive applies only to the Bible. It means that it can give life, and can change your life. You can get new insight or perspective on almost anything from smell to taste to meditation. That why i added 'as by the Spirit of God'. Fleshly new perspectives and introspections would not produce life. It may produce a new book or message for the G.O, but not spirit and life that affects the spirituality of the man.
BTW, I just 'threw that into the mix' of your OP as to why 'interpretations' may differ.

Image123:

Yes, that the Bible is alive applies only to the Bible. It means that it can give life, and can change your life. You can get new insight or perspective on almost anything from smell to taste to meditation. That why i added 'as by the Spirit of God'. Fleshly new perspectives and introspections would not produce life. It may produce a new book or message for the G.O, but not spirit and life that affects the spirituality of the man.
BTW, I just 'threw that into the mix' of your OP as to why 'interpretations' may differ.

cool, my only concern now is that 'the spirit of God' can only be applied to the bible. Why can't the 'spirit' give me a new perspective when I read the morning paper? Why can't i use the 'spirit' to read my memo when I get to work? this will surely give me some deep insights that will make me an asset to my company.

Pastor AIO:

cool, my only concern now is that 'the spirit of God' can only be applied to the bible. Why can't the 'spirit' give me a new perspective when I read the morning paper? Why can't i use the 'spirit' to read my memo when I get to work? this will surely give me some deep insights that will make me an asset to my company.

Waiting for an answer,

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. " (John 3:6).
The Word of God is spiritual. Meanwhile, the Spirit of God can help you in 'non-spiritual' activities. But you've been given top quality brains, body and soul to get solutions for your life issues.

PASTOR AIO:

Interpretation depends entirely on context. And the context in which you read the bible is not based on the bible. The Bible is subjected to the interpretation. The instructions for interpretation is not found within the bible, so therefore the bible is subject to another authority above it, The Authority Of The Interpreter.

john 3

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d

musKeeto:

PASTOR AIO:
john 3

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d

Ah ah, Muskeeto, are you suggesting that Image 123 has totally misinterpreted the passage in the gospel of John 3 by applying it to the issue of interpreting texts. You are obviously not following this thread. If the spirit twists the context then that is equally valid.

Pastor AIO:

well, there is an issue that has been thrashed out on NL a lot recently.  Pastor Jo, could you please reconcile these two verses for me.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.

First from the second chapter of ephesians.

And then, from the gospel of Matthew 6:15.
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Which one do you take literally?

The two of them are to be taken literally.

  Or better still, can you please explain to me your understanding of what Jesus is saying there?  Is he suggesting that God's forgiveness is conditional?  That we first have to develop a forgiven nature before we too can be forgiven?  That would be a literal interpretation.  Or maybe there is some subtle point in there that I'm not taking into account.  Maybe if you translate it back to the original greek then you can tell me the real meaning of what Jesus was trying to say and why it means something different in that context.

A man who believes in forgiveness must PRactise it. I believe the verse has to do with consequences. There's law of sowing and reaping.  God forgiveness takes away consequences of sin off our lives. But a man who does not let go the offence of another will bring his own consequence upon himself. This has nothing to do with houngan to hell. It has to do with judgment on the earth in the now. There are sins that will be judged in heaven ,there are sins that will be judged in the earth now.

Or yet again, consider the following parable.

      23“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24“When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25“But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. 26“So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ 27“And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. 28“But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ 29“So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ 30“But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. 31“So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32“Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33‘Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34“And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35“My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

How does the fact that the King withdrew the debt forgiveness on the first slave reconcile with the position of those that say 'Once Saved Always Saved'.  I haven't heard it yet but I'm sure if given the opportunity they will come up with a very clever interpretation of that parable that in fact supports their position.  Perhaps someone would like to try it.  I love to read clever arguments.

All these verses are in harmony. A man who dwell on the mistakes of others ,will resurrect the consequences of his own errors also. It's based on spiritual principles.But these has to do with judgement on the earth in the now. Not heaven.

I was having a discussion about bible Interpretaion for a particular passage a few days ago, that maybe can be discussed here as well:

Matthew 24:5
For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 13:6
For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Luke 21:8
And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name saying I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

The discussion about this passage is that was jesus warning his disciples that many people will come in his name (as his representatives) telling people that he (Jesus) is Christ and shall deceive many people; or is he saying that many will come in his name saying that 'they are Christ'.

For many shall come in my name, saying I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many. Or

For many shall come in my name, saying 'I am Christ'; and shall deceive many.

If we put the words 'I am Christ' in inverted comas, then it changes the meaning to say that these people are CLAIMING to be christ, but as there were no punctuation marks in those days, it's subject to how you want to read it from the english translation.

Interesting thing is if you read the newer translations of the bible, the words 'claiming to be' has been added to these verses in some translations and it is totally different meaning from the original KJV. But when you check the Strong's concordance online, it is clear that it is wrong to add 'claiming to be' to that verse.

Idi-Amin:

I was having a discussion about bible Interpretaion for a particular passage a few days ago, that maybe can be discussed here as well:

Matthew 24:5
For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 13:6
For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Luke 21:8
And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name saying I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

The discussion about this passage is that was jesus warning his disciples that many people will come in his name (as his representatives) telling people that he (Jesus) is Christ and shall deceive many people; or is he saying that many will come in his name saying that 'they are Christ'.

For many shall come in my name, saying I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many. Or

For many shall come in my name, saying 'I am Christ'; and shall deceive many.

If we put the words 'I am Christ' in inverted comas, then it changes the meaning to say that these people are CLAIMING to be christ, but as there were no punctuation marks in those days, it's subject to how you want to read it from the english translation.

Interesting thing is if you read the newer translations of the bible, the words 'claiming to be' has been added to these verses in some translations and it is totally different meaning from the original KJV. But when you check the Strong's concordance online, it is clear that it is wrong to add 'claiming to be' to that verse.

This is quite interesting. I had never come across this pasage before. From my perspective, it appears that Jesus was aware, during his life ,of attempts to deify him by conflating him with the christ principle or kristos. the building of a religion in his name is probably what he was warning his disciples about.

Idi-Amin:

I was having a discussion about bible Interpretaion for a particular passage a few days ago, that maybe can be discussed here as well:

Matthew 24:5
For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 13:6
For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Luke 21:8
And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name saying I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

The discussion about this passage is that was jesus warning his disciples that many people will come in his name (as his representatives) telling people that he (Jesus) is Christ and shall deceive many people; or is he saying that many will come in his name saying that 'they are Christ'.

For many shall come in my name, saying I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many. Or

For many shall come in my name, saying 'I am Christ'; and shall deceive many.

If we put the words 'I am Christ' in inverted comas, then it changes the meaning to say that these people are CLAIMING to be christ, but as there were no punctuation marks in those days, it's subject to how you want to read it from the english translation.

Interesting thing is if you read the newer translations of the bible, the words 'claiming to be' has been added to these verses in some translations and it is totally different meaning from the original KJV. But when you check the Strong's concordance online, it is clear that it is wrong to add 'claiming to be' to that verse.

This is an extremely interesting passage when you look at it from this new perspective.

^it's not exactly a new perspective. The statement is 'ambiguous' if i'm permitted to use that word. Actually it's a play of/on words by the all seeing, all knowing Creator. The two meanings are true and applicable. Many will say that Jesus is Christ, and will deceive many. Other manys will say they are the Christ i.e the messiah, and many will be deceived. Also add that Jesus had not just the immediate audience in mind when He spoke/abi na spake. He seemed to have a future audience, even yet in our future, in mind. He's the unparalleled, really, the One who created grammar, the Word personified.

Idi-Amin:

I was having a discussion about bible Interpretaion for a particular passage a few days ago, that maybe can be discussed here as well:

Matthew 24:5
For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Matthew 24:5
5 For many will come claiming to be the Messiah and will lead many astray.

I never saw it in a different light more than this before . Except somebody tries to read a new meaning into it. It's true that if care is not taken ,we can indeliberatley read different meaning into verses.

Joagbaje:

Matthew 24:5
5 For many will come claiming to be the Messiah and will lead many astray.

I never saw it in a different light more than this before . Except somebody tries to read a new meaning into it. It's true that if care is not taken ,we can indeliberatley read different meaning into verses.

As I mentioned in my post, the newer modern translations have changed the sentence and added 'claiming to be'

The original version in english which is KJV does not say they are claiming to be the Messiah.

You are right by saying someone is trying to read a meaning into it, that somebody are the new translators that changed the sentence to mean something different.

The phrase "There is no God" is found in Psalm 14:1, does that mean we have the right to interprete it that way? A text without a context is a pretext.

Interpreting the Bible

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

One basic reason why so many people seem to have trouble understanding the Bible is that they try to "interprete" it to fit their private opinions.  The Greek word for "private" (idios) is related to such English words as "idiom" and "idiosyncrasy," and this key passage warns us against any exposition of Scripture which is based on the teacher’s pet doctrinal or behavioral prejudices.  A reader or hearer of the Word of God whose  "heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing" will be unable to "understand" (Matthew 13:15) because he comes with his mind and heart already bound to his own opinions.

The Bible does not need to be "interpreted" at all.  In every other New Testament reference to "interpretation," except the one in our text (which means "explanation" or "exposition", the meaning is simply "translation."  The Bible does, of course, need to be correctly translated from Greek and Hebrew into English and other national languages, but that is all.  God is able to say what He means, and He wants to communicate His authoritative Word to men and women of obedient hearts, who are willing to devote diligent study to all the Scriptures (2 Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 5:12-14), to obey them (James 1:22), and then teach them to others (2 Timothy 2:2, 24-26) carefully, and clearly, and graciously.

To such students of the Word, the promise is: "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God" (Proverbs 2:3-5). HMM

For more . . . .

Interpretation depends entirely on context. And the context in which you read the bible is not based on the bible. The Bible is subjected to the interpretation. The instructions for interpretation is not found within the bible, so therefore the bible is subject to another authority above it, The Authority Of The Interpreter.

12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

[b] 19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I find it to be very telling that people are always interpreting the bible differently. The same can be said of the koran and other religious text. Why is it that a supposed almighty creator can't make it clear what "he" means in his supposedly perfect and true word as written? Surely the message would have been given in such a way that it could be understood without "human interpretation"? There are just so many interpretations and this strongly point to the fact that religion and all its scriptures is a man made thing and that remain the fact and the ultimate truth.

OLAADEGBU:

Interpreting the Bible

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

My problem with this is that the passage is clearly talking about prophecy and how it is received, yet the passage is being applied to the entire bible and how it is to be read/understood.

Or is the passage not talking of prophecies and how they are not just made up privately by the prophets but rather were given to them by the Holy Spirit. Presumably a different Holy Spirit from the one that only arrived on earth on the Day of Pentecost according to some born again christians.

It is impossible to read a text and have an understanding of the text without interpreting the text.

Pastor AIO:

My problem with this is that the passage is clearly talking about prophecy and how it is received, yet the passage is being applied to the entire bible and how it is to be read/understood.

The word "prophecy" does not only imply future predictions but to any divinely inspired utterance, therefore to all the Holy Scriptures.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Pastor AIO:

Or is the passage not talking of prophecies and how they are not just made up privately by the prophets but rather were given to them by the Holy Spirit. Presumably a different Holy Spirit from the one that only arrived on earth on the Day of Pentecost according to some born again christians.

The same Holy Spirit that "moved" upon the primeaval waters at the beginning of God's creation is the One that moved the hearts, minds and pens of holy men of God and the Scriptures were formed, proceeding from the eternal mind of God to be revealed to His creatures.

Pastor AIO:

It is impossible to read a text and have an understanding of the text without interpreting the text.

A text without a context is a pretext.  It is normal to read the context of any text to understand any book why don't we use that same standard in reading the Bible?  If we understand the use of figures of speech, prophecy, poetry, historical accounts and the language being used in any passage we wouldn't have any problem comprehending the message being passed, especially if we don't come to the table with our own private opinions.

Joagbaje: @OP

YOU shoukd have given a case study. A quotation and the different interpretation. I know one thing, there are different levels of light by which men see.

I will do sir. Thank you very much for the request. I've done a fair bit of writing already today, so I think I'll leave it for another day. but I've got a few good case studies on this matter.

. . . And the Lord has provided a perfect case study here:

https://www.nairaland.com/900588/catholic-purgatory-absolute-insult-jesus

Of special interest in this thread is the interpretation of passages such as :

6For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

From 1Peter chapter 4.

and the following is quite something:

Here is Goodnewz4u:
In 2Timothy 1:16-18, Paul actually was praying for his partner in ministry while in Rome; He Paul did not indicate him(Onesiphorus) as been dead !

the poster arrived at the conclusion that the person being spoken about was in Rome. All from the passage.

Did you read this?
"But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me." (2 Timothy 1:17).
This matter of misinterpretations.

I generally understand 'was' to refer to the past.

Pastor AIO: . . . And the Lord has provided a perfect case study here:



and the following is quite something:



the poster arrived at the conclusion that the person being spoken about was in Rome. All from the passage.

Compare bolded with scripture passage, 'was in rome'.

Gimme a break. 'Was in Rome' at the time that Paul was writing?


Edit: Actually as I read 'Goodnewz4u''s post again I realise that he wasn't saying that Onesiphorus was in Rome at the time Paul was writing but that Onesiphorus and Paul had been in Rome together. So I misunderstood him.

However I do not see how that has any bearing on whether Onesiphorus was dead or alive at the time that Paul was writing that letter.

You have your break. I was specific about the 'was in rome' part. Good morning