Diogenes the Cynic

Once again, you have the burden backwards. It is you who is making a claim that the Bible should be tranlsated non-literally to support a concept of eternal hell. Since that concept is not in the literal text then it's up to you to make that case.

Amaleq13

You've made that quite obvious but are you willing to take on the task Peter has suggested? If you notice, he agrees that the most sensible approach is to refuse to consider either position as the default but to expect both sides to present a reasoned argument supporting their view. Are you willing to lay out a researched defense of the position you hold?

Jagella

No. I have neither the time nor the expertise to carry out such a project.

I disagree with Peter. According to the research I’ve done which includes reading the English translation of the Bible as well as checking what information I can find on the internet regarding the role of the hell dogma in the New Testament, hell, as illustrated in that document, is obviously a myth created by the New Testament writers. I have deemed that my research is more than adequate, and I am satisfied that the belief in hell as we know it originated in the New Testament. I also feel that no “reasoned argument� is required due to the straight-forward nature of the evidence. In other words, it’s a no-brainer to see that hell is indeed a New Testament dogma.

No, but I’m more than willing to keep looking into this issue in the future. Perhaps I will read a book in which the author makes a good case that hell was read into the New Testament some time after it was written. Until then, I will maintain my current position.

Jagella