itsamysteryhuh

I assure you than any "pre-conceived" assumptions I have are thoroughly tested by me before reaching the most reasonable (logical) conclusions.

What about your "pre-conceived" assumptions about my being a believer... even though you have little more than your own beliefs/opinions to back up those "pre-conceived" assumptions?

Well, in a way. If a person isn't careful enough to pay attention to such trivial things, imagine what else (things that aren't so trivial) could be potentially overlooked by the person when reading certain books, attempting to interpret information, trying to use logical arguments, etc.

itsamysteryhuh

You "suspect" incorrectly.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/149.htm

Darklighter

If you're arguing that the idea of a 'traditional' hell is not well supported in scripture, I agree. However, that little misconception is the least of the Bibles problems.

Dogfish

And picking apart the grammar sure beats having to come up with a coherent, logical argument, huh?

I would pay more attention to such trivialities if I was writing a formal paper. By your response, you understood what I said. But you go and have your little fun.

Doug Shaver

OK, I skimmed your site. It is not clear to me what you think it proves, except that there is no Old Testament support for the typical evangelical's description of hell. So what? Most of the regulars in this forum already know that.

itsamysteryhuh

I agree. But the biggest problem is that most people just read the Bible (if they actually bother to read it at all) on the surface, rather than actually digging deeper to figure out what it really means.

For example, I can't recall the exact chapter (possibly Psalms 141, but not sure), but there's a part in the Bible about bashing children's heads on rocks. An ignorant person who doesn't read any further might (somehow) take this as meaning the Bible says to bash children's heads on rocks. However, when you dig deeper, you find out that this was a song/poem written in response to a group of people who attacked another group of people. The group of people attacked were basically saying (in this song/poem) "Should we bash the heads of their children on the rocks as they did ours when they attacked us?"

itsamysteryhuh

1. It's not my site. My sites would be much more attractive (better color combos, etc.).

2. It proves that using "Why would I believe in a God that sends people to burn in 'hell' forever" is not a rational question for atheists to be asking, since hell is the grave (not a place where a person burns forever). If most of the "regulars" know that, then they should know better not to ask that question.

spin

Why do you say "mistakes", when it is merely choses made by translators?

This stuff is quite unhelpful in the task of understanding the evolving christian ideas about what happens to naughty people after death and judgment. Hell is frequently a translation of geenna. In turn geenna is a grecified form of the Hebrew GY HNM (valley of Hinnom), eg Josh 15:8, the valley where bad Jews sacrificed their own children to Molech. Hmmm.

The term "hell", being flexible as it is (used for sheol, gehenna, hades, tartartus, etc), could well enough also cover the lake of fire (h limnh tou purou) mentioned in Rev 20, for we often find the notion of being cast into hell fire. Rev 20:10 tells us that the devil would be cast into the lake of fire to be "tormented day and night for ever and ever". 20:15 tells us that those poor fools who didn't accept Pascal's wager and thus didn't get their names in the book of life would also be cast into the lake of fire, which strongly suggests the doom of the devil, ie god sends people to burn in hell for ever and ever. (If one objects to the use of "hell" , just read it as "lake of fire" and get over the semantic playing.)

If there are any problems with the above, please elucidate using clear reference to original language (here Greek) plus relevant biblical citations, so that one can see the coherence in your argument, ie none of this "I can't recall the exact chapter" stuff. Thank you.


spin

itsamysteryhuh

By human translators (prone to error and/or influence).





If you look at the bold words in your quote above, you'll see the problem.

Actually, the Bible says murderers, etc., will have their part in the lake of fire, which is the second death. It also says that the SMOKE from their torment (the pain, loss, etc. they feel during their part in the lake of fire) will rise forever and ever. So, if it's truly burning forever and ever, why is it referred to as their part rather than, say, their eternity? If it's not burning forever and ever, and those "regulars" here know this, why do they continue to use an argument such as "I don't/won't believe in a God that burns people in 'hell' forever and ever?"

spin

As are human writers. Quibbling about translation is irrelevant to the issue that you are trying to avoid.

All I see is you wriggling to avoid the logic of the passage. You want to change order and deny consequences. If that is acceptable to you then, why bother in the first place?

The "etc.," is everyone else not found in the book of life, the cowardly, the polluted, the unbelieving, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars. (That's most of us.)

(When you refer to the bible it is a normal courtesy to cite exactly what you are referring to, so one doesn't have to read your mind or look for what you are talking about.)

If the lake of fire is the second death and in the lake of fire is where one is tormented day and night for ever, the term "second death" doesn't relate well to the notion of death, which apparently is the first death, for it has a clear continuative aspect to it: you know, "for ever".

Death, 20:14, goes into the lake of fire, ie the end of existence no longer has effect. The "second death" is (in) the burning lake. If the existence of the "etcs" were to have ended (unlike the beast and the false prophet), you wouldn't need a lake that continues to burn to put them in.

I can understand your conscience leading you to pervert the text.

Do you imagine that, although the beast and the false prophet -- ending up in the lake of fire -- continue their existence therein, those nominated in 21:8 don't? Isn't that their destiny (or "part"), to be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, along with the beast and the false prophet?

The contrast in 21:7-8 is between those who get it good (the water of life) and those who get it bad (the lake of fire). This also implies a continuation for both.

I personally have never used the argument. I'm interested in your active fleeing from the significance of the text. It clearly bothers you and you need to be in denial because otherwise, it would seem, you could not reconcile two sides of your life, modern thinking feeling with ancient religious retributional. You, being saved, shouldn't care about the nasty implications of god's plans for the "etcs".


spin