Johnny Skeptic

But that would not make any difference if God did not inspire the originals.

juergen

I agree, it wouldn't do any good to quench your thirst, if the rest of your body is being consumed by fire that can't be extinguished. The fact still remains that the context denotes physical suffering.

You were making a point that maybe at the time this was written in the original text, these examples weren't thought of as describing physical anguish, but psychological.

So the question is, why should a context of "burning" and "being thirsty" not be thought of as physical? What indication is there in the text, that these things were not thought of as physical pain back at the time the originals were written?

Kharakov

How do you know that saying "Suffering torment in the fires of Gehenna" doesn't mean "That's Hot". Paris Hilton is rich.

People call bald people curly. Greenland is icier than Iceland. Wouldn't a literal translation leave out the meaning of popular phrases of the time? What if it was dark humor?

makerowner

But there's nothing to indicate that this is so. There are various other threats of "hell fire" in the NT, but itsamysteryhuh isn't arguing that those are metaphorical, because they use the word 'Gehenna' rather than 'Hades'. If we interpret this passage as metaphorical, then it's open season to interpret anything else as metaphorical too, and then you can't make sense of anything.

juergen

What if they were talking about chocolate cake recipes, or possibly fruit salad?

What is there to indicate that "burning" and "thirsting" were not references for physical anguish?

Julian

What is amazing is that you are quibbling over a simple term (in Greek, which you don't understand, and in a grammatical form that you also don't understand) in a discussion that just makes you look worse and worse. And all the while you are missing the real meaning of the passage. The passage talks about rewards and punishments, about how the trappings and stations of this world will not avail you in the next. About how you must have faith. About how it is too late once you have been presented with evidence. About how that evidence might be visited upon you in the form of torment. I mean, I could go on and on about the ideas and meanings in this passage which are obvious and plentiful, and you would excise the entire meaning and point of this passage, a passage from the bible itself, just to make a point which you have already lost in everybody's mind but your own. Remember, people like me who would be going to hell would suffer no mental anguish about being separated from god and that whole thing. Mental anguish in this context only makes sense to someone who would actually feel such anguish, i.e. the believer who would not be subjected to it. A rather goofy argument typical of the kind that we hear believers make to other believers because it makes sense to them while the rest of us can only shake our heads in exasperation.

No need to reply to this. Please.

Julian

itsamysteryhuh

I put the part above in red just so you can see how that "looks" in an anonymous forum. Of course, I'm not concerned how I "look" here (I'm not here for dating, friendships, or whatever). Being concerned about your "looks" in something as simple as a forum would seem to be some extreme form of vanity. :thumbs:

How do you know? You've never been to "hell" (that'd be the grave, by the way) or Gehenna.


Juergen, here are several examples of how differently burning, fire, and thirsty could have different meanings (different than their "normal" meanings) depending upon how they are used.

1. A fire was burning in my heart for her on the night of the prom.

2. She was thirsty for more knowledge about her family tree since not knowing her real parents was the fire that motivated her.

3. The diamond's fire was burning even more when the morning sun struck it.

4. Global warming seems to be a burning issue in our time.

juergen

I'm sure there's tons more ways to find different meanings for flames, fire, and thirst in all kinds of contexts, but that isn't the point, is it? You yourself brought up the question of what these words meant to the people back then, right?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...31;&version=9;

His problem is physical. He wants water for his tongue, because he is "tormented in this flame." He's not haunted by guilt, he doesn't feel oppression, all he wants is a drop of water.

If you think there is a good reason why people did not understand it as physical suffering, it would be great to hear it now.

Katie's mom

For the sake of the argument, if I accept that the meaning of the word torment in this case is intended to mean mental anguish so severe that it is similar to being in a lake of fire, how is this meant to make the situation any more acceptable. I can think of many things that would cause me mental anguish that would , I believe, be as bad as physical anguish. For example, watching a loved one be tortured, would certainly be no picnic.

spin

Christ, I wish this guy would learn to fucking read. From my previous post in this thread:

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 word "burn" has a primary sense, which causes you to think of fire. The other metaphorical sense require context to clarify.

Stop the senseless quibbling. The linguistics is plain.


spin