itsamysteryhuh

The only evidence we have is the text itself, along with the possible definitions of each significant word (words such as I, he, she, and, the, etc. would not be as significant to the meaning as words such as "torment" or "fire") in the text. In addition, today's "normal" significance regarding the meanings of words written centuries ago can be totally different from the "normal" significance of those meanings today.

No comments on the quote below?

knotted paragon

Just a reminder:I think it's pretty clear at this point who the common user is around here.This is comedy. Has the one doing the scolding received an adequate education yet?

spin

Will you admit that torment, unless otherwise indicated, means a type of physical pain inflicted on someone?

Will you admit that flames are usually a physical phenomenon?

Will you admit the desire to quench one's thirst in the context of flames is through a physical phenomenon?

If yes, then why on earth do you fly in the face of the obvious, by proposing without any evidence whatsoever a metaphorical analysis?

We know why. Your beliefs are compromised, so you act irrationally.


spin

itsamysteryhuh

But spin, your so-called "evidence" seems to consist of nothing more than "These are the most commonly used definitions for these terms (of today), so we should assume that is what was meant when they were written in the original texts (not from today). Do you not have anything more? :huh:

It actually (and "normally") refers to either physical pain or mental distress, but you conveniently left "mental distress" out. Why? :huh:

Knotted paragon, are you (in some subtle form or fashion) begging the question or attempting to use an argument from authority? No one here knows my level of education or the position(s) I hold. I keep it that way because it helps ensure such logical fallacies are not used when addressing my posts. :thumbs:

makerowner

You're the one making the claim that despite all the physical representations of suffering in v. 23-24, it should be interpreted metaphorically. The burden of proof is on you. Is there any evidence in the text that the physical suffering of the rich man in Hades is metaphorical? If so, please cite it.

itsamysteryhuh

Replace "should be" (the red part in your quote above) with "could be" and you will be correct. I am making both the claim that it could be interpreted metaphorically and the claim that (if it's not metaphorical writing) each main word (torment, flame, etc.) could have a different meaning than the "normal" meaning (since these words have various meanings).

makerowner

Sure it "could be". And every time that the NT says 'Jesus', it "could be" that the authors really meant 'Satan'. You've given no reason to believe that this particular statement was intended by the author to be metaphorical/figurative/allegorical or whatever, so the only explanation I can think of as to why you might believe it is simply that otherwise it contradicts your church's doctrine. That's called eisegesis and is a rather irresponsible way of interpreting a text.

spin

Linguistics is about the language and how it is used. That's what I've got. You've got a hope and a prayer. Oh, and no evidence whatsoever.

Your ideas about the English verb "torment" help in no way to understand the semantic range of the Greek verb. Here is Liddell and Scott on the verb odunaw. This is a scholarly dictionary, unlike Strongs. The online version is old, but similar enough to a recent edition.

Just think for a few moments: a word cannot mean two things at the same time indiscriminantly. No-one would ever know what another means.

In real life there is a favored meaning and secondary meanings. When I use the word "run" to you, you will think of a person moving quickly on foot; but if I say "run that past me again", you'd then get a different idea of "run". Or "go out and play", but "go out and play that sonata". The context helps differentiate secondary meanings, while you don't need a context for the primary meaning.

The Greek verb, odunaw, deals with pain, so the first meaning will be physical. And the context deals with physical circumstances. Now, tell us how a reader could get a metaphorical significance out of the word in its context? (Can you see your problem?)

We know it's physical, because that is the only natural way to read the text.


spin

juergen

Are you asserting that being burned in flames wasn't considered to be physical pain at the time it was written in the original text?

Are you asserting that not being able to quench one's thirst in the context of flames wasn't considered to be physical pain at the time it was written in the original text?

itsamysteryhuh

One might ask "Why would he be more concerned about quenching his thirst than getting his skin out of the flames?" Think about it. What good would quenching his thirst do "if" he were still engulfed in flames? Would you be asking for a drink of water if you were engulfed in flames? Not likely. Instead, you would likely be asking for something like a water hose or a fire extinguisher, and you'd worry about getting something to drink later (after the fire all over your skin has been extinguished). Yet another reason (possible evidence? )to believe this could be metaphorical writing.