Immaculate Conception, Hell, etc.

[Hannah Joy]

Having attempted to wade through two megapages of  responses to "Contradictions in the Bible", I thought it would be easier to just start a new discussion along the same lines Just to mention a few of the topics that came up.

1.  The "Immaculate Conception" is an unbiblical Roman Catholic doctrine which states that Mary was sinless.  In her Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), Mary called God "my Saviour".  If she was sinless, she wouldn't need a Saviour.  

However, the popular conception of the Immaculate Conception equates it with the Virgin Birth.  As far as that is concerned, a God who could make humans to conceive the way they do could just as easily perform a miraculous conception.  All the science in the world can only cover what is natural - it doesn't deal with the supernatural.  So, the biblical answer HAS to be "God did it." (Ed, please don't bring in unicorns).  

2.  Hell is as clearly taught in the Bible as the Resurrection.  The Preacher in Ecclesiastes 9 is speaking of the vanity and evil of life on earth ("all thing that are done under the sun") without God.  Those who only life for this world are living in vain, because all they are and do ends when they die.  The Psalmist too is refering to life on earth - we can't trust in men because they will die.

If those were the only references to life after death, they could be taken to indicate that there's no hell, but they're not.  

In Mark 9:43-44, Jesus speaks of hell as "the fire that never shall be quenched."  He repeats that through v. 48.  Whatever you may say about the word tranlated "hell", fire means fire.  

In Matthew 18 Jesus speaks of "everlasting fire" and "hell fire", Matthew 13:50 "a furnace of fire", Matthew 25:46 "everlasting punishment."  

Skipping ahead to Revelation 20:14-15, "death and hell . . . and whomsoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

The reason it seems incomprehensible that a loving God would send anyone to hell is that we (I include myself) don't comprehend how holy God is, and the magnitude of our sin against Him.  The fact that God would send His Son to take the penalty for our sin is a demonstration of divine love beyond anything we could imagine.  This is why the Apostle Paul, in Ephesians 3:19, speaks of "the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge."

This is getting long, and I need to sign off, but I would be glad to discuss these and other topics further with anyone who's interested.

Hannah Joy

[liszmaninopin]

"God did it" may be the Biblical answer, but it doesn't satisfy those who don't believe in God or the Bible.  And if God did things like Noah's flood, why is there no evidence for it, and tons of evidence against it?  Evolution is also supported by mountains of evidence, unlike the creation doctrine which is supported by blind faith.

It doesn't seem like that great of an act to me.  Thousands of people have been crucified over the years, so it's not like Jesus was the only one who experienced that kind of death.  God didn't even really lose his son forever.  He was resurrected shortly thereafter, and is back up in heavenly perfection.  Suffering, indeed.

[Hannah Joy]

You're right - if you don't believe in God, you won't be satisfied with the Bible's explanation.  That doesn't mean it's false.  As far as evidence for Creation, the Flood, etc.  the first thing that's comes to mind in "The Stars Speak" by Dr. Stewart Custer.  I'll have to look into that more to refer you to other reading material, since I'm not enough of a scientist to debate very far myself.

The crucifixion itself wasn't an amazing event - it was fairly common.  That God Himself, Who sits on the throne of heaven, would humble Himself to come and live among sinful men, be rejected by them, and gave up His life is the wonder.  The worst of death is separation from God, which is the result of sin.  Because our sin was laid on Jesus, God turned His back on Him while He was on the cross.  That was the penalty Christ paid, far more than death on the cross, as excruciating as that was.  

There's a lot more I have to say, but I have to go practice organ  How do you all find the time to write the replies I see?

Hannah Joy

P. S. 6th_Gen_Beethoven, I'm looking for something on hell, since you do say you believe the Bible.

[liszmaninopin]

I appreciate that you refrain from name calling, and try to debate reasonably.

There's still a fundamental problem, though.  Why should I believe in the Christian god, when there are so many others, with just as much evidence (none) to support their existance.   The burden of proof lies on those who assert that there is a god and theirs is the correct one.

[chopiabin]

How is god lowering himself to join us? If he created us and is all-knowing, then it seems he would know that we would be "sinful." If he created us, then he could get over his haughtiness.

It also seems fairly self-righteous that a "loving" god would create a world to worship him. The fact that there is so much pain and suffering on earth makes it even worse.

[schnabels_grandson]

2.  Hell is as clearly taught in the Bible as the Resurrection.  The Preacher in Ecclesiastes 9 is speaking of the vanity and evil of life on earth ("all thing that are done under the sun") without God.  Those who only life for this world are living in vain, because all they are and do ends when they die.  The Psalmist too is refering to life on earth - we can't trust in men because they will die.

If those were the only references to life after death, they could be taken to indicate that there's no hell, but they're not.  

In Mark 9:43-44, Jesus speaks of hell as "the fire that never shall be quenched."  He repeats that through v. 48.  Whatever you may say about the word tranlated "hell", fire means fire.  

In Matthew 18 Jesus speaks of "everlasting fire" and "hell fire", Matthew 13:50 "a furnace of fire", Matthew 25:46 "everlasting punishment."  

Skipping ahead to Revelation 20:14-15, "death and hell . . . and whomsoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

The reason it seems incomprehensible that a loving God would send anyone to hell is that we (I include myself) don't comprehend how holy God is, and the magnitude of our sin against Him.  The fact that God would send His Son to take the penalty for our sin is a demonstration of divine love beyond anything we could imagine.  This is why the Apostle Paul, in Ephesians 3:19, speaks of "the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge."

This is getting long, and I need to sign off, but I would be glad to discuss these and other topics further with anyone who's interested.

Apparently we agree on point 1, but I have beef with some of your other stuff.

For point 2:  It is not a good idea to shrug off what the words meant in the original languages.  This can only proliferate the confusion surrounding the doctrine of hellfire.  The word rendered hell at Mark 9 is Gehenna.  Gehenna means literally "Valley of Hinnom".  The Valley of Hinnom in Jesus' time was something of a large garbage dump for the city of Jerusalem.  At this dump, the waste was burned in a large fire that was fed with sulphur, or brimstone to keep it going.  The bodies of dead animals and executed criminals that weren't considered worthy of a proper burial tomb were thrown on the burning heap.  If the bodies landed in the fire, they would be consumed but if the landed off to the side, maggots and flesh eating worms would infest their bodies and eat everything to the bones.  It is logical to conclude that Jesus was using the term Gehenna to symbolize everlasting destruction with no hope of resurrection, not cruel torment forever.  

At the scripture in Matthew 18 is using the same word as Mark 9.  Matthew 13:50 again uses fire to symbolize everlasting cutting off, or death with no hope for resurrection.  Matthew 25:46 makes all of this clear.  It says "And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life."  Jesus doesn't say: the unrighteous will go to hell and suffer forever for their relatively harmless sins, but the righteous, who also sinned but gained forgiveness through the sacrifice I made on behalf of all mankind, will have everlasting life.  

Once again, everlasting fire is symbolic of destruction without hope of life again.  Revelation 20:12-15 indicates that death and "hell" will give up those dead in them.  That means that everybody in death and "hell" will be resurrected.  Verse 14 says that death and "hell" were thrown into the lake of fire.  The lake of fire means the second death, from which there is no resurrection.  When death and "hell" are cast into the lake of fire, they are done away with completely.  After they are destroyed, mankind will no longer die naturally.  Of course, this wont take place until after Armageddon.

If I wasn't clear on something, tell me and I'll explain.    

[Hannah Joy]

I'm not sure what would be neccesary to prove the existence of God.  The people of Jesus' day saw His miracles and still rejected His claims, so I can't think of anything short of a visit to heaven that would be convincing.
 This is why I believe the God of the Bible:

1.  Since I chose to place my faith in Him for salvation at age 5, He has made me a "new creature".  He has given me the desire to know Him, to serve Him, and to please Him by living in a way that brings honour to Him.  I do fall very short in all these areas, but the desire is from Him.

2.  I am part of a universal body of believers, the Church, which, it spite of all attempts to destroy it, continues to grow and spread the Gospel through the world.  

3.  I see constant evidence in the world around that there is an all-powerful Creator who "upholds all things by the word of His power."  "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork."  That is proof of His existence, although I realize you don't accept that.

I can't judge your motives or heart - only God can.  I have to believe Romans 1:20 - "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."  

If you do want more material on Creationism, I can try to find more titles or websites, but I'm really not concerned to prove Creationism to you.  Your eternal destiny depends not of your view of origins, but on your acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ.

That said, I am interested in explaning and discussing what Christians/fundamentalists believe and why, as far as I'm able, so "fire away"

Hannah Joy

P. S. I quote from the KJV because it's my personal favorite and what I'm most familiar with, but I can use another version if it would make things clearer.  I can even go to the Greek in the NT passages, if you want to be really technical.

[Hannah Joy]

Sorry guys, that was an answer to Liszmaninopin, but apparently I took too long and other answers came though before I finished.  I'll have to respond to the others later.

[Hannah Joy]

Posted by: Chopiabin Posted on: Feb 13th, 2004, 4:09pm
How is god lowering himself to join us? If he created us and is all-knowing, then it seems he would know that we would be "sinful." If he created us, then he could get over his haughtiness.

It also seems fairly self-righteous that a "loving" god would create a world to worship him. The fact that there is so much pain and suffering on earth makes it even worse.  

I don't quite follow your first paragraph.  Of course God knew we would be sinful.  
God is righteous, so I suppose you could say He's self-righteous in the sense that He considers Himself to be righteous in contrast to us.  The difference between His selfrighteousness and ours is that His is justified.  I'm not sure what that has to do with Creation.
Pain and suffering is the result of sin.

Posted by: 6th_Gen_Beethoven Posted on: Feb 13th, 2004, 4:32pm It is not a good idea to shrug off what the words meant in the original languages.  This can only proliferate the confusion surrounding the doctrine of hellfire.  The word rendered hell at Mark 9 is Gehenna.  Gehenna means literally "Valley of Hinnom".  The Valley of Hinnom in Jesus' time was something of a large garbage dump for the city of Jerusalem.  At this dump, the waste was burned in a large fire that was fed with sulphur, or brimstone to keep it going.  The bodies of dead animals and executed criminals that weren't considered worthy of a proper burial tomb were thrown on the burning heap.  If the bodies landed in the fire, they would be consumed but if the landed off to the side, maggots and flesh eating worms would infest their bodies and eat everything to the bones.  It is logical to conclude that Jesus was using the term Gehenna to symbolize everlasting destruction with no hope of resurrection, not cruel torment forever.

I don't shrug off what words meant in the original languages.  I didn't have my Greek Bible, lexicon, or any other helps available at the time, so I had to skip the translation issue.  I'm well aware that the work for hell referred to the Valley of Himmon.  It would be logical to infer a description of hell from that, if we weren't given any other description.  I concede that it was a symbol for hell, but I deny, on the basis of other descriptions, that it meant annihilation.

At the scripture in Matthew 18 is using the same word as Mark 9.  Matthew 13:50 again uses fire to symbolize everlasting cutting off, or death with no hope for resurrection.  Matthew 25:46 makes all of this clear.  It says "And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life."  Jesus doesn't say: the unrighteous will go to hell and suffer forever for their relatively harmless sins, but the righteous, who also sinned but gained forgiveness through the sacrifice I made on behalf of all mankind, will have everlasting life.

If hell is simply one-time destruction, why is it a "fire that shall never be quenched" - asbeston, literally "the unquenchable"(Mark 9:43)?  Once the work is done, it hardly need continue burning - unless there is continued existence.

No, Matthew 25:46 does not say "And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off."  It says, "everlasting punishment."  The word is kolasin, and means punishment.

On what do you base your claim that fire symbolizes "death with no hope of resurrection"?  The word used in all these passages is pur - it literally means fire.  
If you're going to interpret words symbolically, you need sound scriptural reasons for doing so - otherwise the only limit to what the Bible could mean is the interpreter's imagination.  Imagination is useful, maybe even essential, but not authoritative.

Once again, everlasting fire is symbolic of destruction without hope of life again.  Revelation 20:12-15 indicates that death and "hell" will give up those dead in them.  That means that everybody in death and "hell" will be resurrected.  Verse 14 says that death and "hell" were thrown into the lake of fire.  The lake of fire means the second death, from which there is no resurrection.  When death and "hell" are cast into the lake of fire, they are done away with completely.  After they are destroyed, mankind will no longer die naturally.  Of course, this wont take place until after Armageddon.

Revelation 20 does indicate that hell will be absorbed in the "lake of fire".  In this lake the Devil his servants will "be tormented day and night for ever and ever." All the dead "not found written in the book of life" will also cast in.  And no, there will not be another resurrection.

Where does the Bible say that sins against a holy God are "relatively harmless"?

I don't say all this because I want anyone to suffer in hell.  I have to stand by what the Bible teaches.  God is "longsuffering . . . , not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9)  Nevertheless, He does give men a choice, and some will choose death.

Sorry to end on that note, but it's not a hopeless situation.

Hannah Joy

[schnabels_grandson]

If hell is simply one-time destruction, why is it a "fire that shall never be quenched" - asbeston, literally "the unquenchable"(Mark 9:43)?  Once the work is done, it hardly need continue burning - unless there is continued existence.

No, Matthew 25:46 does not say "And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off."  It says, "everlasting punishment."  The word is kolasin, and means punishment.

On what do you base your claim that fire symbolizes "death with no hope of resurrection"?  The word used in all these passages is pur - it literally means fire.  
If you're going to interpret words symbolically, you need sound scriptural reasons for doing so - otherwise the only limit to what the Bible could mean is the interpreter's imagination.  Imagination is useful, maybe even essential, but not authoritative.

It is a fire that will not be quenched in the sense that once a person is burned (figuratively) with it, they will never have the chance of life again.  It's a continual banishment from living.  

The word you so tactfully pointed out - kolasin, can be translated as "punishment" but it has three definitions in greek.  The Emphatical Diaglott is the translation I used and states in a footnote for the word Kolasin:  "Kolasin...is derived from kolazoo which signifies,
1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune.  2.  To restrain, repress...  
3.  To chastise, to punish.  
To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment; - hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word.  The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis.  The righteous go to life, the wicked go to the 'cutting-off' from life, or death."

I'm am not debating that those words mean literally "fire", I am sayng that fire is being used in a symbolic sense to convey the totality of loss that would be experienced by a non-repentant sinner.  At the moment, I will not explain my reasoning on the symbolism of fire, but I will ask you what you think about Romans 6:7.  If death acquitts the sins of the dead, what purpose would hell serve?  Where would be the justice in torturing or continually burning someone who has already suffered the penalty of sin which is death?  

Romans 6:23 says : "For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our lord."  Notice that Paul doesn't say 'the wages sin pays is eternal torture with fire'.  

Revelation 20 does indicate that hell will be absorbed in the "lake of fire".  In this lake the Devil his servants will "be tormented day and night for ever and ever." All the dead "not found written in the book of life" will also cast in.  And no, there will not be another resurrection.

Where does the Bible say that sins against a holy God are "relatively harmless"?

I don't say all this because I want anyone to suffer in hell.  I have to stand by what the Bible teaches.  God is "longsuffering . . . , not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9)  Nevertheless, He does give men a choice, and some will choose death.

Sorry to end on that note, but it's not a hopeless situation.

Hannah Joy

Again, I would like to point out that the word hell and it's associated definitions are not found in the bible.  When Jesus uses the illustrations of a ceaseless burning, the words translated as hell are not included in the context.  

[Hannah Joy]

You still haven't answered my questions:
What biblical reason do you have for saying that "fire" is only a symbol?
Where does the Bible say that sins against a holy God are "relatively harmless"?
I'm not concerned at this point about the "purpose" or "justice" of hell.  Anything God's says He will do I have to believe is right.  That's not to say we shouldn't look for reasons, but we have to believe what He says first.  We haven't even gotten to first base yet.

As I see it, the difference between us boils down to this:
You interpret the Bible literally is some areas (Creation?), and firguratively in others.
I interpret it literally whenever possible.  Maybe "literal" isn't the best word - there are unquestionably symbols and figurative language: "in the most obvious sense", or maybe "at face value" would be better.

[chopiabin]

Hannah, do you actually think that a five year old has the mental faculty to decide something like religion? I'm sure your parents are Christian, but what if they hadn't been? You are simply a product of your parents, and I think that your "decision" at five years old could hardly be called a choice.

[Hannah Joy]

Maybe not - I'm not basing my assurance on a choice I made then, but on where I am today (spiritually).  I did pray for salvation again at 12, because I had doubts.  At what point I understood enough to have saving faith, I'm not sure, though I suspect it was at 5.  I know the Lord is working in me now, whenever it was that I first became His child.

If my parents hadn't been Christians, I might not have heard the gospel - thank God that wasn't the case.  I am old enough now to make my own choices.

Hannah Joy

P.S.  Although most people call me Hannah, I do prefer Hannah Joy  

[liszmaninopin]

How does one take the Bible at face value when it contradicts both itself and observable facts in the world?  I still find it amusing that Leviticus refers to cud chewing rabbits, four legged locusts, and classifies bats as birds.  Also Leviticus doesn't want us to have different kinds of seed in the same field, different fibers in the same clothing, different cows in the same pasture.  Also, we are to stone those who try to tell us about different Gods, according to Deuteronomy.  Why don't people follow their own Bible any more?  Also, James seems fairly confident that we are saved by works; not faith.  Jesus himself said to the rich boy that in order to get to heaven he needed to follow the commandments.  He didn't mention anything about salvation or dying on the cross.

[DAwud7]

Hello indeed i have been absent for a while but im back. How are ya 6thgen? Ok im going too post contradictions in the bible.

Where did Fowls (birds come from)

GEn 1:20 The are called forth from the water
Gen 2:19 God creates everything out of the land including the fowls that he had created from the water earlier.

The number of fowls called too enter noahs ARk
in Gen 6:19-20 there is two of each.
Gen 7:3 contradicts and says the birds come in numbers of sevens.

Does the Devil ever tell the truth indeed he does proved by the bible.


Genesis 3:4,5,6,7,22 :: 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Printer-Friendly Page  Bookmark this Page
See this passage in AlbanianEnglishFrançaisDeutschItalianoLatinNorskPortuguesEspañolSvenskaTagalogArabicNederlandsPlautdietschDanishSlovakPolishRussianRomanianCzechHungarianIcelandicKoreanBulgarianChineseHaitianMaoriUkrainianCroatianGreekNIVNASBMSGAMPNLTKJVNLVESVCEVNKJVKJ21ASVWEYLTDARBYWYCNIV-UK
Previous chapter | This chapter | Next chapter



Genesis 3
4   And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die;
5   for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
6   And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and ate, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he ate.
7   And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves things to gird about.
22   And the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever"--

Yet another verse clearly states he tells no truth
John 8
44   Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Clearly the thought of everyone talking the same language also wasnt universal.
Genesis 10
5   By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided into their lands, every one after his own tongue, according to their families, into their nations.
20   These are the sons of Ham, according to their families, according to their tongues, in their countries and in their nations.
31   These are the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their tongues, in their lands, according to their nations.

While in a ealier verse it is stated everyone talks the same language.
Genesis 11
1   And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

ANd time obviously is not kept well by the word of god.

Genesis 15
13   And He said unto Abram, "Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.

Exodus 12
40   Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.

God perfect only off by 30 years that aint much right.

Anyways there are a million things just like this contradictions if i must i will post them all. THe bible is a story fabricated by someone for power. WIthin it are good principles and values if u choose too follow this go ahead u aint harming me, but in a debate thier is no validity in the bible what so ever. The bible was written by man much the same as the Hindu Vehda the egyptian book of the Dead the talmud all those things written by man. And the origin of the word hell is Sheol a hebrew word meaning Grave, or pit a resting place of the dead. The original meanign of the word used in enlglish like Helling a potatoe meant too cover up a concealed place, like a grave.

[liszmaninopin]

There's good stuff in the Bible, you are right.  If one wants to read uplifting Bible, I'd recomment either Proverbs, Job, or Ecclesiastes.  Avoid at all costs any of the Pentatuch, some of the more violent histories, anything written by Paul, and Revelation.

[DAwud7]

Also another verse that is just insane and showed the ignorance of eraly man not including so called Jehova or God.
Genesis 1
16   And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
17   And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth

The Earth revolves around the sun. Stars are proven too be older than planets and this is completly ignorant too claim that the earth was put here and then the sun and the stars when overwhelming evidence proves otherwise.

Genesis 1
11   And God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth"; and it was so.
12   And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
13   And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14   And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years;
15   and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"; and it was so.
16   And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
17   And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18   and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19   And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

OK this is stupid how could grass and plants survive without the sun impossible. Clearly states plants and grass came before the creation of the sun when we know without the sun these things could never exist.

[DAwud7]

Isaiah 65
25   The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock; and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain," saith the LORD."
LAst i checked dust wasnt a meat and snakes dont eat it.

OK the flood thing is not possible just by logical thought where the hell would 500 million cubic miles of water come from, and if it did come where the hell woudl it all go. Not logical think about it.

Lots wife turned into a pillar of salt come on now this is supposed too be real, another myth.

DEUT 14:18 and the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

This claims the bat is a bird, another false statement.

Must I go on

[liszmaninopin]

Don't forget the stars falling from the sky onto the earth during the tribulation!  And Genesis' dust eating snakes.  I don't think we need to go on anymore, though.

[schnabels_grandson]

You still haven't answered my questions:
What biblical reason do you have for saying that "fire" is only a symbol?
Where does the Bible say that sins against a holy God are "relatively harmless"?
I'm not concerned at this point about the "purpose" or "justice" of hell.  Anything God's says He will do I have to believe is right.  That's not to say we shouldn't look for reasons, but we have to believe what He says first.  We haven't even gotten to first base yet.

As I see it, the difference between us boils down to this:
You interpret the Bible literally is some areas (Creation?), and firguratively in others.
I interpret it literally whenever possible.  Maybe "literal" isn't the best word - there are unquestionably symbols and figurative language: "in the most obvious sense", or maybe "at face value" would be better.

For the record, I didn't say plain fire.  I said everlasting fire, or a ceaseless burning would be symbolic of everlasting destruction.  Perhaps it was an error on my part.  What I meant to say is that Gehenna is symbolic of everlasting destruction.  In Mark 9:43-49, Jesus alludes to Isaiah 66:24 by describing Gehenna as a place where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out.  It is evident that the symbolic picture here is not one of torture, but one of complete destruction because Isaiah was speaking about the carcasses, not the living bodies or spirits of those sinning against God.    

We must understand that the words translated as hell, which are Hades (Greek) and Sheohl (Hebrew) refer simply to death or the grave.  In view of this fact, it is logical to conclude that hell would be plain death.  I wonder that in the entire old testament, hell is never metioned as being an unending punishment.  See Job 14:13.  I wonder why Job would practically beg to go to hell until God's wrath had turned back.  Acts 2:22-36 indicates that Jesus himself went to hell.  What's the story?

I should also retract my claim that sins against God are harmless.  They are definitely serious and can rob one of everlasting life.  What I meant was that the sins that humans commit are hardly worth an eternity of torture.  Psalms 37:28 says that God is a lover of justice.  Since God created humans, I would think that he also put a little sense of justice in us.  I find the idea of an eternity of suffering quite irreconcilable to my inborn sense of justice.  

I have the feeling that you are dodging my questions.  Can you not see the obvious?  There is no justice or purpose to hell.  I believe perfectly what God says and Psalms 37:28 says that God is a lover of justice.

So there really isn't a lot of difference between us.  You ascribe a literal meaning to Gehenna, I assume the figurative.  

[schnabels_grandson]

Hello indeed i have been absent for a while but im back. How are ya 6thgen? Ok im going too post contradictions in the bible.

Where did Fowls (birds come from)

GEn 1:20 The are called forth from the water
Gen 2:19 God creates everything out of the land including the fowls that he had created from the water earlier.

The number of fowls called too enter noahs ARk  
in Gen 6:19-20 there is two of each.
Gen 7:3 contradicts and says the birds come in numbers of sevens.

Does the Devil ever tell the truth indeed he does proved by the bible.


Genesis 3:4,5,6,7,22 :: 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Printer-Friendly Page  Bookmark this Page  
See this passage in AlbanianEnglishFrançaisDeutschItalianoLatinNorskPortuguesEspañolSvenskaT agalogArabicNederlandsPlautdietschDanishSlovakPolishRussianRomanianCzech HungarianIcelandicKoreanBulgarianChineseHaitianMaoriUkrainianCroatianGre ekNIVNASBMSGAMPNLTKJVNLVESVCEVNKJVKJ21ASVWEYLTDARBYWYCNIV-UK
Previous chapter | This chapter | Next chapter



Genesis 3
4   And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die;
5   for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
6   And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and ate, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he ate.
7   And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves things to gird about.
22   And the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever"--

Yet another verse clearly states he tells no truth
John 8
44   Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Clearly the thought of everyone talking the same language also wasnt universal.
Genesis 10
5   By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided into their lands, every one after his own tongue, according to their families, into their nations.
20   These are the sons of Ham, according to their families, according to their tongues, in their countries and in their nations.
31   These are the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their tongues, in their lands, according to their nations.

While in a ealier verse it is stated everyone talks the same language.
Genesis 11
1   And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

ANd time obviously is not kept well by the word of god.

Genesis 15
13   And He said unto Abram, "Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.

Exodus 12
40   Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.
 
God perfect only off by 30 years that aint much right.

Anyways there are a million things just like this contradictions if i must i will post them all. THe bible is a story fabricated by someone for power. WIthin it are good principles and values if u choose too follow this go ahead u aint harming me, but in a debate thier is no validity in the bible what so ever. The bible was written by man much the same as the Hindu Vehda the egyptian book of the Dead the talmud all those things written by man. And the origin of the word hell is Sheol a hebrew word meaning Grave, or pit a resting place of the dead. The original meanign of the word used in enlglish like Helling a potatoe meant too cover up a concealed place, like a grave.

Uh!  I can't believe I'm doing this....

The word so commonly translated as "Fowls" really refers to all winged creatured, including insects.  

With the numbers on the ark:  God first commanded Noah to take in all kinds of animals in pairs.  Then God told Noah to take seven of all the clean beasts including birds.  The clean beasts were animals that were acceptable for sacrifice to God.

This scripture in John does not say that Satan never ever told the truth.  Satan was originally a very beautiful angel, but he wanted power for himself and became a liar to get it.  

Genesis 10:  Ever heard of a dialect?  The languages were the same but likely to have changed slightly.  The languages were still interchangeable.

Genesis 15,
Exodus 12:40  I hate stating the obvious but...  The total time of the Israelites bondage, or their sojourn, was 430 years!!  Even if they were in Egypt for exactly 400 years, then they wandered in the dessert for 40 years, it would only be ten years off.  But it is more likely that the prophecy in Genesis that said that Abraham's seed would be slaves for 400 years was an apporximation.  So, if the Israelites were in Egypt for 390 years + 40 years wandering, Voila!! 430 years.  The sojourn included the Israelites moving to Egypt and leaving it and wandering.

[chopiabin]

Hannah Joy, what about those who are not born to Christian parents and never hear the "word of god"? Are they damned?

The bible also states that women should wear their hair covered at all times and that they can not have short hair.

Why would a loving god who only needs faith to "come into your heart" need sacrifices? Could this not be the remnants of the religion that evolved into Christianity?

[schnabels_grandson]

Also another verse that is just insane and showed the ignorance of eraly man not including so called Jehova or God.
Genesis 1
16   And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
17   And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth

The Earth revolves around the sun. Stars are proven too be older than planets and this is completly ignorant too claim that the earth was put here and then the sun and the stars when overwhelming evidence proves otherwise.

Genesis 1
11   And God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth"; and it was so.
12   And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
13   And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14   And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years;
15   and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"; and it was so.
16   And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.
17   And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18   and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19   And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

OK this is stupid how could grass and plants survive without the sun impossible. Clearly states plants and grass came before the creation of the sun when we know without the sun these things could never exist.  

All I will say is that it's obvious that you are forgetting who was doing the creating.  It was God.  God created this planet and the sun and the stars, yet you're putting it past him to preserve vegetation and to make the sun and stars after the Earth.  

Isaiah 65
25   The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock; and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain," saith the LORD."
LAst i checked dust wasnt a meat and snakes dont eat it.

OK the flood thing is not possible just by logical thought where the hell would 500 million cubic miles of water come from, and if it did come where the hell woudl it all go. Not logical think about it.

Lots wife turned into a pillar of salt come on now this is supposed too be real, another myth.

DEUT 14:18 and the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

This claims the bat is a bird, another false statement.

Must I go on

Isaiah 65:25 is a prophesy concerning the kingdom of God.   This verse is emphasizing the level of peace that will be among God's creation when God eliminates all wickedness and restores mankind and the Earth to a perfect state.

Genesis 1:6-8 indicate that the entire Earth was covered with water when it was first created.  God seperated the water into a lower and upper expanse.  This means that there was a canopy of water in the atmosphere.  At the time of the flood, the canopy was released on to the Earth.  

Again, you're putting things past the all mighty of the universe.  I can't give you physical proof, but to say something that God did is impossible doesn't really fly as an argument against him.  Remember, all you've got is human logic and knowledge.  God has much more.

You don't have to go on, but you haven't convinced me that the bible is really contradictory.  You have demonstrated that you are without any kind of faith in God, and because of that lack of faith, you find fault with things that are as clear as possible to people who have taken the time to understand the deeper things of God.  

[Hannah Joy]

For the record, I didn't say plain fire.  I said everlasting fire, or a ceaseless burning would be symbolic of everlasting destruction.  Perhaps it was an error on my part.  What I meant to say is that Gehenna is symbolic of everlasting destruction.  In Mark 9:43-49, Jesus alludes to Isaiah 66:24 by describing Gehenna as a place where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out.  It is evident that the symbolic picture here is not one of torture, but one of complete destruction because Isaiah was speaking about the carcasses, not the living bodies or spirits of those sinning against God.    

We must understand that the words translated as hell, which are Hades (Greek) and Sheohl (Hebrew) refer simply to death or the grave.  In view of this fact, it is logical to conclude that hell would be plain death.  I wonder that in the entire old testament, hell is never metioned as being an unending punishment.  See Job 14:13.  I wonder why Job would practically beg to go to hell until God's wrath had turned back.  Acts 2:22-36 indicates that Jesus himself went to hell.  What's the story?

I should also retract my claim that sins against God are harmless.  They are definitely serious and can rob one of everlasting life.  What I meant was that the sins that humans commit are hardly worth an eternity of torture.  Psalms 37:28 says that God is a lover of justice.  Since God created humans, I would think that he also put a little sense of justice in us.  I find the idea of an eternity of suffering quite irreconcilable to my inborn sense of justice.  

I have the feeling that you are dodging my questions.  Can you not see the obvious?  There is no justice or purpose to hell.  I believe perfectly what God says and Psalms 37:28 says that God is a lover of justice.  

So there really isn't a lot of difference between us.  You ascribe a literal meaning to Gehenna, I assume the figurative.

There comes a point where there's too much difference to waste time arguing.  If we hold to a different hermenuetic, we'll never agree on what the Bible teaches.  
It's not the meaning of Gehenna I'm debating - I realize that in some places at least it does refer simply to physical death or the grave.  I'm basing my doctrine of existence after death on the descriptions of it.  When Jesus uses phrases like "unquenchable fire", and Revelation speaks of Satan, the Beast, and the false prophet being tormented "for ever and ever" in the lake of fire, I have to assume the Bible means what it says.  Otherwise my imagination is the limit on what it could mean symbolically.
You still haven't said why "everlasting fire" is only symbolic.  You changed it to Gehenna being the symbol instead, but "everlasting fire" is still there.

[schnabels_grandson]

There comes a point where there's too much difference to waste time arguing.  If we hold to a different hermenuetic, we'll never agree on what the Bible teaches.  
It's not the meaning of Gehenna I'm debating - I realize that in some places at least it does refer simply to physical death or the grave.  I'm basing my doctrine of existence after death on the descriptions of it.  When Jesus uses phrases like "unquenchable fire", and Revelation speaks of Satan, the Beast, and the false prophet being tormented "for ever and ever" in the lake of fire, I have to assume the Bible means what it says.  Otherwise my imagination is the limit on what it could mean symbolically.
You still haven't said why "everlasting fire" is only symbolic.  You changed it to Gehenna being the symbol instead, but "everlasting fire" is still there

No, Gehenna always refers to everlasting destruction.  Not only death, but death with no hope of resurrection.  If Gehenna itself is symbolic, then the fire or conditions within it are also symbolic.  Would you say that the lake of fire of revelation 20 is the same fire that Jesus was refering to in the gospels?    

Actually, there is a limit to what the imagination could do.  You can apply all kinds of weird meanings to the bible's teachings but logic only supports one of them.  I think my understanding of the bible has a good deal of logic.  It seems to me that a fiery place of torture is extremely illogical considering that God is love- 1st John 4:8.  Torture and suffering are evil.  God is not evil, therefore he cannot administer torture or suffering and there's no reason to believe he would allow others to do those things after he cleanses the world of wickedness.

The existence of hell is dependent on the immortality of the soul.  I contend that the soul is mortal.  If there is no soul leaving the body at death and the physical body is dead, there is no point in hell.  In fact, one can't believe in an immortal soul and the resurrection at the same time.  If the soul never dies and goes either to heaven or hell, then resurrection of the dead is unnessecary.    

You didn't answer my question about the Hebrew scriptures.  I think that the evidence against hell is far greater than the few scriptures which on the outside seem to support its existence.  

If you take into account that fire in Jesus' day was the most effective way of destroying something, you can see why he might use it in a symbolic sense.  At Matthew 13:40  Jesus says that "just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things."  He then says that the angels will go through the Kingdom of God and collect all thing that cause stumbling and persons who commit lawlessness and pitch them into to fiery furnace, where they will weep and gnash their teeth.  Jesus drew a paralel between weeds and wicked people.  When weeds are burned, they are destroyed completely.  So to it will be for those who refuse to submit to God's authority.  Simple destruction.      

If all you weigh these scriptures that appear to indicate hell against the scriptures that point to nonexistence after death, the latter wins out.  The scriptures at Eccl. 9:5 and Ps. 146:4 (which I have already cited) indicate that death is the complete end to ones life.  It contradicts the idea that a soul lives on to be tortured in hell or raised to heaven.  John 11:11-14 is the story of lazarus.  Jesus says "lazarus sleepeth".  Jesus didn't say 'Lazarus is in hell or heaven, I must go retrieve him from whatever place he is in'.  

You are yet to offer any challenge to my reasoning, you are still hung up on the fire thing and that looks like stalling or avoidance of the deeper issues.

[DAwud7]

Well indeed i do not have faith in god. But logically Y would god create the Sun which sustains our life and all life on this planet after he had created the things that nedded too be sustained, this makes no sense and if this is how a perfect being thinks its insane, if god built all these natural laws y did he break them all while creating us and the universe. Your qoutes from the scriptures sorry one verse cleary states that fowls came out of the water where created from the water, the other verse clearly states that everything was made from the land this is contradiction too me. All this just makes no sense Y accept something on faith when u can cee and prove the natural laws of the universe. And also the bible is not the oldest book or philosophy on earth, so y would i follow the bible it would make more sense too follow the oldest know philosphy as the people would have been nearer too the age of creation, if all this was even true. And really come on the noah story all these animals in one ark man if this isnt some fairy tale then i really dont know what is.

[Hannah Joy]

6th_Gen_Beethoven, this is my last post on hell.

No, Gehenna always refers to everlasting destruction.  Not only death, but death with no hope of resurrection.  If Gehenna itself is symbolic, then the fire or conditions within it are also symbolic.  Would you say that the lake of fire of revelation 20 is the same fire that Jesus was refering to in the gospels?

You yourself said that Gehenna sometimes refers to the common grave of mankind.  To my mind you haven't shown biblically that it always refers to everlasting destruction, or that death is only annihilation.  Maybe I'm just to slow to do anything besides take the Bible at its word.
I doubt that the lake of fire is the same fire Jesus was refering to - more likely He was speaking of hell, which will be absorbed into the lake of fire.

Actually, there is a limit to what the imagination could do.  You can apply all kinds of weird meanings to the bible's teachings but logic only supports one of them.  I think my understanding of the bible has a good deal of logic.  It seems to me that a fiery place of torture is extremely illogical considering that God is love- 1st John 4:8.  Torture and suffering are evil.  God is not evil, therefore he cannot administer torture or suffering and there's no reason to believe he would allow others to do those things after he cleanses the world of wickedness.

Say rather, torture and suffering are the result of evil.  I guess your logic is just different from mine.  It makes sense to me that the worse punishment sin deserves, the greater is God's love in providing salvation.  Sin against an infinite God deserves an infinite punishment - only infinite, divine love could forgive it.  But His justice demands punishment, so He sent His Son to take that punishment.  Anyone who rejects Christ is choosing to bear that punishment himself.

The existence of hell is dependent on the immortality of the soul.  I contend that the soul is mortal.  If there is no soul leaving the body at death and the physical body is dead, there is no point in hell.  In fact, one can't believe in an immortal soul and the resurrection at the same time.  If the soul never dies and goes either to heaven or hell, then resurrection of the dead is unnessecary.

The resurrection taught in Scripture is bodily.  Job 19:26 - "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God".  Jesus told the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43)  Jesus was the first to be resurrected with an immortal body - we will eventually follow after Him - Philippians 3:21, I Corinthians 15.

You didn't answer my question about the Hebrew scriptures.  I think that the evidence against hell is far greater than the few scriptures which on the outside seem to support its existence.

You might look at Daniel 12:2.  I'm sure you could find others if you really want to know.

If you take into account that fire in Jesus' day was the most effective way of destroying something, you can see why he might use it in a symbolic sense.  At Matthew 13:40  Jesus says that "just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things."  He then says that the angels will go through the Kingdom of God and collect all thing that cause stumbling and persons who commit lawlessness and pitch them into to fiery furnace, where they will weep and gnash their teeth.  Jesus drew a paralel between weeds and wicked people.  When weeds are burned, they are destroyed completely.  So to it will be for those who refuse to submit to God's authority.  Simple destruction.

Fire is still probably the most effective way of destroying something.  That doesn't mean that when I say "Satan, the Beast, the false prophet, and whoever rejects Christ will have their place in the lake of fire, where they will be tormented forever and ever,"  that I don't really mean it - and mean it literally.

If all you weigh these scriptures that appear to indicate hell against the scriptures that point to nonexistence after death, the latter wins out.  The scriptures at Eccl. 9:5 and Ps. 146:4 (which I have already cited) indicate that death is the complete end to ones life.  It contradicts the idea that a soul lives on to be tortured in hell or raised to heaven.  John 11:11-14 is the story of lazarus.  Jesus says "lazarus sleepeth".  Jesus didn't say 'Lazarus is in hell or heaven, I must go retrieve him from whatever place he is in'.  

Jesus was speaking of Lazarus' body "sleeping" in the grave.  
I've already answered your questions about Ecclesiastes 9:5 ans Psalm 146:4, but since you apparently ignored my answer, it hardly worth my time to keep arguing with you.
Speaking of Lazarus, you might look at the story of another Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.

You are yet to offer any challenge to my reasoning, you are still hung up on the fire thing and that looks like stalling or avoidance of the deeper issues.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this discussion was about the existence of a fiery hell.  Maybe that's why I'm "still hung up on the fire thing".
I'm not sure what deeper issues I'm avoiding.  I consider the interpretation of Scripture to be a deeper issue, but you apparently don't.
1.  I haven't denied God's justice.  Since He created us, He has the right to do whatever He wills with us.
2.  I haven't denied God's love - on the contrary, I have repeatedly affirmed and magnified it.  

I'm going to let you have the last word on this (assuming you post a reply), because we will both answer to God, both for our use of God's Word, and for our example and influence on others.

[schnabels_grandson]

You yourself said that Gehenna sometimes refers to the common grave of mankind.  To my mind you haven't shown biblically that it always refers to everlasting destruction, or that death is only annihilation.  Maybe I'm just to slow to do anything besides take the Bible at its word.
I doubt that the lake of fire is the same fire Jesus was refering to - more likely He was speaking of hell, which will be absorbed into the lake of fire.

If you could direct me to where I said that Gehenna means just death, I would appreciate it, I am unable to find it anywhere.  I wouldn't say you're slow, but some extra study is nessecary to understand the deeper things of God.  How have I not shown that death is anhililation?  Even if Hellfire was real, would it not mean everlasting destruction?  If you were burning in hell, wouldn't you continually being destroyed?  I have given several scriptures and if you don't think they are valid points for my argument, the problem is yours.  The word used in Revelation that is translated as hell is the Greek word Hades.  Hades, as I have pointed out already, means "the grave" or a slight variant.  So Revelation says literally, 'Death and the grave will be thrown into the lake of fire.'  If those in death and the grave (or hell) are to be resurrected, and then death and the grave (or hell) are to be thrown in the lake of fire, then those that are supposed to be being tortured in hell forever are let out, right?  Then the dead that were in death and the grave (or hades) will be judged according to their deeds and anyone not found in the scroll of life will be thrown into the lake of fire as well.  If you must maintain that hell is real, surely you must acknowledge that those in it are not doomed to burn forever.  They will be able to change their ways after the resurrection.    

Say rather, torture and suffering are the result of evil.  I guess your logic is just different from mine.  It makes sense to me that the worse punishment sin deserves, the greater is God's love in providing salvation.  Sin against an infinite God deserves an infinite punishment - only infinite, divine love could forgive it.  But His justice demands punishment, so He sent His Son to take that punishment.  Anyone who rejects Christ is choosing to bear that punishment himself.

That is inconsistent with the scriptures.  Romans 6:7 says it as clearly as possible.  "For he who has died has been acquitted from his sin."  The wages sin pays is death and when you are dead, your sins are acquitted.  You are no longer accountable for them because you have paid the price, which is death.

The resurrection taught in Scripture is bodily.  Job 19:26 - "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God".  Jesus told the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43)  Jesus was the first to be resurrected with an immortal body - we will eventually follow after Him - Philippians 3:21, I Corinthians 15.

What makes you think we will have immortal bodies?  according to Revelation 20:4-6 indicates that there will be a first resurrection, which implies that there will be a second.  The ones resurrected in the first resurrection are the only ones that will gain immortality, it says that "over these the second death has no authority".  According to the account, these ones will rule with the Christ as kings.  Since the Christ is in heaven, it is logical to conclude that those resurrected in the first resurection will also be in heaven with spirit bodies.  However, the rest of the dead are not given this freedom from the second death.  If the rest of the resurrected people choose to disobey God, they are subject to the second death from which there is no return.

You might look at Daniel 12:2.  I'm sure you could find others if you really want to know.

I read and reread that scripture and could find nothing in it that supports your views.  ?

Fire is still probably the most effective way of destroying something.  That doesn't mean that when I say "Satan, the Beast, the false prophet, and whoever rejects Christ will have their place in the lake of fire, where they will be tormented forever and ever,"  that I don't really mean it - and mean it literally.

Well, if you refuse to accept what I'm saying, can you at least acknowledge the possibility?  Maybe you didn't notice, but Revelation is full to the brim with symbolism.  

Jesus was speaking of Lazarus' body "sleeping" in the grave.  
I've already answered your questions about Ecclesiastes 9:5 ans Psalm 146:4, but since you apparently ignored my answer, it hardly worth my time to keep arguing with you.
Speaking of Lazarus, you might look at the story of another Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.

I didn't ignore your answers, I think you miss the point of these scriptures.  They do say that nothing is certain, but they also emphasise that when humans die, they no longer have any consciousness at all.  I find it quite offensive that you feel like you're doing me a favor by replying to me.  

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this discussion was about the existence of a fiery hell.  Maybe that's why I'm "still hung up on the fire thing".
I'm not sure what deeper issues I'm avoiding.  I consider the interpretation of Scripture to be a deeper issue, but you apparently don't.
1.  I haven't denied God's justice.  Since He created us, He has the right to do whatever He wills with us.
2.  I haven't denied God's love - on the contrary, I have repeatedly affirmed and magnified it.  

I'm going to let you have the last word on this (assuming you post a reply), because we will both answer to God, both for our use of God's Word, and for our example and influence on others.

Immaculate Conception, Hell, etc.  Obviously, this thread is multi-purpose.
You are avoiding the deeper issues that I haven't, which have led to my conclusions about hell.  God's justice for example.  You would rather blindly believe in an unscriptural doctrine than examine the truth about it.  I have given you several scriptures and reasons to question an eternal torture, but you seem to disregard it because you feel that I misunderstand it.  

Apparently, you don't interprate the scriptures at all, you simply read them and take what they say at "face value".  You aren't really trying to understand anything that doesn't fit with your idea about the bible.

1. I have never denied God's supreme status and his right and ability to treat us lowly humans how he will.  I have however pointed out that hell is inconsistent with God's justice.  This reminds me of the account at Jeremiah 7:31.  God says here refering to the live human sacrifice that went on at Topheth: "And they have built up the high place of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind"  God never requested live or human sacrifices.  Why would he continually burn humans to torture them?

2.  I have never denied God's love either, in fact, I have shown that it is greater than you think it is.  I have demonstrated from the bible that the idea of fiery hell is ludicrous.  God is so loving that he will just let you die instead of torturing you forever.  

I hope this really isn't the last word.  I think we are leaving your comfort zone and you want to stop debating, lest I plant a little seed of doubt and throw your whole idea of Christianity off.      

Yes, we will both answer to God.  I have a feeling though, that God doesn't like it much that people consider him to be so cruel and vengeful that he is willing to torture and hurt for eternity.    

[chopiabin]

6th, I think your form of Christianity is one of the few that I can respect.

[schnabels_grandson]

Thanks Chop.

I would also like to add that it is very hypocritical of you, Hannah Joy, to take a scripture such as Matthew 13:50 as a literal description of a fiery afterlife, but refuse to use the same system to understand plainer scriptures which refute the existence or nessecity of such a place.  Romans 6:7.  You can say nothing.

If you would like to take the scriptures at face value, you should at least take all of them that way, not just the ones that support your precious doctrines.  

[DAwud7]

I also 6th agree i respect your views and the way u present your religion.

[Hannah Joy]

I did say I wouldn't post other reply on hell, and I meant it.  I do need to correct my paraphase of 6th_Gen_Beethoven.

If you could direct me to where I said that Gehenna means just death, I would appreciate it, I am unable to find it anywhere.

I'm sorry, make that Hades.  My memory is certainly not infallible.  This is your statement I was referring to.

Sheol is Hebrew, Hades is Greek.  They both mean the same thing, which is the common grave of mankind.  Sheol and Hades are the words that are often translated as hell.  Ask them what scripture leads them to the conclusion that hell is a violent place of torture or that there is existence there after their death.  They will probably be unable to find one.

I was answering the question you suggested Liszmaninopin ask.  I think between the two of us, we've quoted most of the verses related to hell.  All I can do now is to challenge anyone seeking the truth to examine them for himself.

I'm sorry if anything I've said has offended you - I certainly did not intend that.  It has been my goal in this discussion to present what I believe to be the Bible's teaching in as gracious a way as possible, because I believe that would bring the most glory to God.  The only legitimate fear I can have is to dishonour Him.  If I have in any way failed to do this, I ask your forgiveness and God's.   I'm not sure if sarcasm is acceptable by that standard, but there does seem to be Biblical precedent.

Apparently I made a mistake in naming rather than defining my hermeneutics.  Terms like "literal" and "face value" are too easy to misunderstand.  I'll list here the basic principles that guide my interpretation of the Bible.  This is very much simplified, but I hope it will give at least the basic ideas.

1.  Interpret literally when possible.
     - the most common use of language is literal, so this is the place to start.  Of course, there are many times when the literal meaning wouldn't make sense, but the literal possibility should be exhausted first.

2.  Interpret grammatically.  
    - study the meanings of the words, and their use in the sentence.  This may require an in-depth word study.

3.  Interpret contextually.
    - look at the passage around it, the theme and scope of the book, and the historical background.

4.  Compare Scripture with Scripture.
    - since all of Scripture is inspired by God, it all agrees at least in the mind of God, though our limited mind may not grasp it.  This also includes making sure our seemingly logical deductions don't contradict Scripture - there are several examples of this in Romans.

5.  Recognize the progressiveness of Revelation.
    - the NT doesn't contradict the OT, but it does give new teaching and fuller explanation of OT principles.  

I can show how these principles apply to different passages, if anyone's interested.  And no, these are not original with me.  I certainly haven't had time in my short life to do this myself for the whole Bible - thankfully, it has already been done for me by many faithfull interpreters.  I don't blindly accept what they say - a good interpreter shows how he came to his conclusions.

6th_Gen_Beethoven, I'm still not sure what deeper issues you're saying I'm avoiding.  I did address the issue of God's justice, though briefly.  Since I can't read your mind, do you mind telling what you're referring to?

I hope this at least helps to clarify where I'm coming from.  Again, if anything I've said is offensive, I'm sorry - I don't mean for it to be.

Hannah Joy

[schnabels_grandson]

Thank you for your kind reply.  I feel like I should appologize for my rudeness as well, the way I spoke was not very Christ-like.  

What I mean by deeper issues:
Those things which are intertwined with the doctrine of hellfire, such as Gods justice, love etc.  You did touch on them, but you don't seem to have reached a conclusion that is consistent with understanding their power and magnitude.

I want to tie up some loose ends now.

Here is an example of fire being used symbolically for destrucion.  Isaiah 34:8-12.  This account speaks of God's judgement against Edom.  It says that the land of Edom would become burning pitch and it wouldn't be quenched night or day.  Obviously this was not a literal account, or Edom would still be burning and if it was burning, the pelican and the owl would not be able to live there as the account prophesied.

Jude 7:7 demostrates symbolic fire again.

More to come...

[schnabels_grandson]

Here are some more arguments supporting the nonexistence of Hell as a fiery place of torture.

I noticed something about the scripture at Matthew 25:41 where Jesus says: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels".
What I noticed was that the wicked humans are to be thrown into the very same fire that is prepared for Satan and his angels.  If Satan could be destroyed or tortured by literal fire, I'm sure we would all be getting our revenge, but there is no indication in the scriptures that this is possible.  Because Satan can't be harmed with literal fire and the wicked humans are to be thrown in the same "fire" with him, we can conclude that the fire Jesus spoke of was symbolic.    

John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Now, this scripture indicates that whoever believes will have everlasting life.  If a wicked unbeliever is in hell for eternity, is he not also having everlasting life?

[Hannah Joy]

It seemed to me that the topic of hell was getting into useless arguing and doing more harm than good.  I've accomplished what I intended, which was to lay out verses that present the Bible's teaching.  I can look at the same verses you do and come to very different conclusions, but since neither of us accept the other's conclusions, is would be useless to debate further.  That's why I decided to end the debate, at least on my side, and I believe I should stick to that decision.  If I come to understand things differently than I have stated, I'll say so.  

I don't understand the power and magnitude of God's love and justice, and I won't until I get to heaven.  His love, according to your explanation, seems to negate His justice.  If God could let sin get away with less than it deserves,  why did Jesus have to die?  Why couldn't God just forgive us all and let us live forever?  It doesn't seem fair that if God could let us get away with sin, He wouldn't just do it rather than making us believe in Jesus.

[DAwud7]

Just curious 6th Gen Y is it do u think that a almighty god would use terms in a symbolic fashion, instead of just getting too the point. And i do agree on u with the hell thing i have read numerous translations hell once again was perpetuated by those seeking power Constatine in example, too sway people too christianity.

[schnabels_grandson]

It seemed to me that the topic of hell was getting into useless arguing and doing more harm than good.  I've accomplished what I intended, which was to lay out verses that present the Bible's teaching.  I can look at the same verses you do and come to very different conclusions, but since neither of us accept the other's conclusions, is would be useless to debate further.  That's why I decided to end the debate, at least on my side, and I believe I should stick to that decision.  If I come to understand things differently than I have stated, I'll say so.  

I don't understand the power and magnitude of God's love and justice, and I won't until I get to heaven.  His love, according to your explanation, seems to negate His justice.  If God could let sin get away with less than it deserves,  why did Jesus have to die?  Why couldn't God just forgive us all and let us live forever?  It doesn't seem fair that if God could let us get away with sin, He wouldn't just do it rather than making us believe in Jesus.

I understand your reasoning for ending the debate.  You don't want to see things my way and I can't see them yours.  The purpose of debate in my mind, is to put everything on the table and come to a similar understanding based on the evidence.  We both failed.  Not because either of us are poor at making an argument, but because we both came here with full confidence that our side was the correct one.  I have given my logic and shown how I have come to my conclusions.  You have done the same to a much lesser extent.  You have not offered any solid challenge to what I have said on the whole, you have not even responded to half of the scriptures I quoted.  Perhaps if you did present a different point of view on the scriptures, I could respect your ideas but, as it is, I am unable to see their validity in the absence of evidence and supportive scriptures.      


I find it very difficult to understand you saying that God's love according to my explanation negates his justice.  I think it is the other way around completely.  The doctrine of hell negates both God's love and his justice.  It negates his love by implying that he is very cruel.  It negates his justice by saying that 70 (give or take a few) years of sinning is worth an eternity of punishment.  Nobody anywhere, including God, would honestly say that is just.  

The answer to all your questions is found in the bible (of course).  Matthew 20:28 says: "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."  1st Timothy 2:6 is similar.

This "ransom" is nessecary becuase only by it could our sins be forgiven without death.  I strongly reccomend that you read Romans chapters 5-7 and meditate on them.  These scriptures explain the ransom completely.

Interesting that you don't realise that DEATH is what sin deserves.  Plain death - Romans 6:7.
God could just forgive everybody's sins but it would serve no purpose because we as humans would just sin again and then God would have to keep forgiving and forgiving forever.  The ransom provides the opportunity for everyone to be free from sin, period.  This is not the case now, but in the future when God's kingdom rules over the earth, humans will be perfect and nobody will be inclined to sin.

Just curious 6th Gen Y is it do u think that a almighty god would use terms in a symbolic fashion, instead of just getting too the point. And i do agree on u with the hell thing i have read numerous translations hell once again was perpetuated by those seeking power Constatine in example, too sway people too christianity.

I think in some examples, It was more powerfull to use symbolism than plain language.  Symbolism was used to emphasize the gravity of the situations it was describing.  Imagine if Isaiah had just said in Isaiah 34:8-12,  "And Edom will eventually die off, and wild animals will live in the territory of Edom."  That wouldn't have been a powerfull message.

I don't know if hell was devised specifically to blackmail the masses, the idea for it comes from "pagan" cultures.  It somehow slipped into Christian teachings and later was exploited to gain converts.  

[Hannah Joy]

You can evaluate your intentions and success however you choose.  Please allow me to do the same.  It was my intention to present as much of the Bible's teaching as I could without getting into endless and unprofitable debate.  If I have failed in that purpose, it was in going to far into debate, rather thn simply giving the verses.  I have realized from the first that I can't persuade anyone (though it's a tempting thought), and that it would be to little purpose if I could.  I have to believe what God says in Isaiah 55:11 - "So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

God is so loving that he will just let you die instead of torturing you forever.

1. If it's because of God's love that He "will just let you die", the implication is that sin deserves more than that.  It was on this basis that I said that your explanation of God's love negates His justice.  
2. On the other hand, if sin only deserves "plain death", than His love has nothing to do with it.  
So, choose your position so that we can understand each other better.

Please don't accuse me of calling God cruel.  I have never said any such thing.  The doctrine of hell only negates God's justice if it is unbiblical, not if it conflicts with our ideas of justice.  Whatever God says must be right.  That brings it around to the original debate, which I'm not going to get into again.  
Also, God is "vengeful".  Nahum 1:2-3a  - "God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies.  
The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked."

In the context of Romans 6:7, Paul is speaking of himself and other believers as being death to sin.  It can't be referring to physical death, or "plain death", since Paul and his audience were alive at the time.

[schnabels_grandson]

You can evaluate your intentions and success however you choose.  Please allow me to do the same.  It was my intention to present as much of the Bible's teaching as I could without getting into endless and unprofitable debate.  If I have failed in that purpose, it was in going to far into debate, rather thn simply giving the verses.  I have realized from the first that I can't persuade anyone (though it's a tempting thought), and that it would be to little purpose if I could.  I have to believe what God says in Isaiah 55:11 - "So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

Quote:God is so loving that he will just let you die instead of torturing you forever.  



1. If it's because of God's love that He "will just let you die", the implication is that sin deserves more than that.  It was on this basis that I said that your explanation of God's love negates His justice.  
2. On the other hand, if sin only deserves "plain death", than His love has nothing to do with it.  
So, choose your position so that we can understand each other better.

Please don't accuse me of calling God cruel.  I have never said any such thing.  The doctrine of hell only negates God's justice if it is unbiblical, not if it conflicts with our ideas of justice.  Whatever God says must be right.  That brings it around to the original debate, which I'm not going to get into again.    
Also, God is "vengeful".  Nahum 1:2-3a  - "God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies.  
The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked."

In the context of Romans 6:7, Paul is speaking of himself and other believers as being death to sin.  It can't be referring to physical death, or "plain death", since Paul and his audience were alive at the time.

All I can say is that you should have known better.  On this forum, if somebody says something that others don't agree with, they get told.  Besides, the scriptures you quoted haven't concretely supported your own understanding.  

I was making a comparrison.  If you are right that God tortures those who disobey him, then you are in effect saying that God is very cruel.  If God is not cruel, then he is loving.  If he is loving, he will not unjustly torture people.  I was pointing out that God is more just and loving than you suppose him to be.  I will admit that that was more confusing than it needed to be.

Right, the doctrine of Hellfire is unbiblical as I've shown several times.  I strongly feel as a human who was created by God, in the image of God, that my sense of justice is in harmony with God's.  I have strengthened this sense of justice by reading the scriptures and understanding God's reasoning.  What God says is right, but when people misunderstand God, doctrines such as hellfire are born.  

Yes, God is vengeful toward those who would usurp his sovreignty.  Nahum is speaking God's judgement against Ninevah.  If you'll remember, Ninevah was a wicked place and the assyrians were cruel warriors.  God didn't like this so he decided that they would be destroyed.  This in no way indicates that wicked ones will be sent to hell.    

What?  Romans 6:7 says as plain as possible: "He who has died has been acquitted of his sins."  This is physical death.  It boggles my mind that you could put such a meaning to this scripture.

I have come to some definite conclusions about you based on what you've said and your questionable reasoning.

You either want to believe in hell, or you have been brainwashed and are no longer able to see the obvious.
In spite of your continual reassurance that you don't want others to go to hell, I think the opposite is true.  I think that your very stability as a human being is dependent on the stability of your faith.  When something you think is explained to be incorrect, you shut down and refuse to think about it.  You are in what I call "denial".  

If you wish to return that assesment to me, provide explanations and logic on your interpretation of the scriptures.  

Sorry if I'm coming off as a jerk, I am one to be frank and I do not intend offense.

[DAwud7]

6th if one thing could slip into christian teachings as u admitted, what is too say many other things could have not also slipped or slithered into the teachings.

[schnabels_grandson]

Many things have slipped into "Christian" doctrine.  There are a lot of things such as immortality of the soul and the trinity.  Lots of other unscriptural practices are also observed such as infant baptism, confession, icon worship and prayers to saints to name a few.  

There is an explanation.  The apostasy which was described by Jesus himself at Matthew 13:24-30:

24:Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25:But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26:When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27:"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28:" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29:" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30:Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.

As if it wasn't obvious enough, Jesus clearly explains exactly what his parable means.  Matthew 13: 36-43:

36:Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
37:He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38:The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39:and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40:"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41:The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42:They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.  

I recognize these apostates as any group or persons who adhere to unbiblical teachings and practices.  They are not following the Christ's teachings and will not disown their adopted pagan ones.  When God's time comes, Jesus will send forth his angels and cleanse the earth of such False Christians and others who refuse to acknowledge God's sovreignty.  The term "False Christians" is indeed contradictory, but I use it for want of a better description of those who claim to follow Christ but in effect are calling him a liar by disregarding his teachings.  

[Hannah Joy]

I have come to some definite conclusions about you based on what you've said and your questionable reasoning.

You either want to believe in hell, or you have been brainwashed and are no longer able to see the obvious.
In spite of your continual reassurance that you don't want others to go to hell, I think the opposite is true.  I think that your very stability as a human being is dependent on the stability of your faith.  When something you think is explained to be incorrect, you shut down and refuse to think about it.  You are in what I call "denial".  

If you wish to return that assesment to me, provide explanations and logic on your interpretation of the scriptures.  

Sorry if I'm coming off as a jerk, I am one to be frank and I do not intend offense.

If I said things like that, I would be called "intolerant", "hypocritical", and "judgemental".  But your beliefs are more popular than mine, so you're probably safe.
As for your psychoanalysis of me, I really don't care.  You're not the one I have to answer to for what I choose to believe.  Besides that, you don't even know me.  You only know as much of my thoughts as I choose to write on this forum - and that's not much.
You can choose to disbelieve what I say, but since you can't read my mind, you're standing on shaky ground.
I've already given you my reasons for ending the debate, several times.  Although I haven't responded to your answers, I have read, researched, and though about them, but I can't in logic and good conscience agree to them.

Having said all that, I need to say that I'm leaving the forum, for these reasons.
1.  I'm a busy college student, and it's taking too much of my time.  I have other responsibilities which have to take priority.
2.  The discussions are getting out of hand - into personal accusations rather than civil and sensible discussion.
3.  Although I am a pianist, I'm more interested in orchestral music and composition.  The discussions on piano repertoire and technique are helpful, but not as much as they would be if I was more into piano.

I suspect that other reasons will be assigned to me, but, as I've pointed out before, none of you can read my mind.

So, I'm leaving the forum to you guys, and time will tell who is right.

Hannah Joy Patterson

[bitus]

...and she will come back...
The Bitus

[schnabels_grandson]

If I said things like that, I would be called "intolerant", "hypocritical", and "judgemental".  But your beliefs are more popular than mine, so you're probably safe.
As for your psychoanalysis of me, I really don't care.  You're not the one I have to answer to for what I choose to believe.  Besides that, you don't even know me.  You only know as much of my thoughts as I choose to write on this forum - and that's not much.
You can choose to disbelieve what I say, but since you can't read my mind, you're standing on shaky ground.
I've already given you my reasons for ending the debate, several times.  Although I haven't responded to your answers, I have read, researched, and though about them, but I can't in logic and good conscience agree to them.

Having said all that, I need to say that I'm leaving the forum, for these reasons.
1.  I'm a busy college student, and it's taking too much of my time.  I have other responsibilities which have to take priority.
2.  The discussions are getting out of hand - into personal accusations rather than civil and sensible discussion.
3.  Although I am a pianist, I'm more interested in orchestral music and composition.  The discussions on piano repertoire and technique are helpful, but not as much as they would be if I was more into piano.

I suspect that other reasons will be assigned to me, but, as I've pointed out before, none of you can read my mind.

So, I'm leaving the forum to you guys, and time will tell who is right.

Actually, your beliefs are more popular than mine.  On this forum, however, the people are by and large too smart to accept the doctrine of hell.  

You really shouldn't care about my analysis of you.  If it is correct, that would mean change is nessecary on your part, and by the way you speak with your feigned piety, I can see that change is an enemy to you.  I didn't say that I knew you or that I really can be certain about the way you are.  I clearly explained that my conclusions are based on what you have said.  How else am I to determine who and what you are?  So I'm on shaky ground because I can't read your mind?  That implies that you are withholding information that would refute my beliefs.  

So you can't in good logic and conscience agree with me?  This is not a matter of conscience.  I have given you every reason not to believe in hell, yet you fail to even give it a thought.  There are many like you.  People who need doctrines such as hellfire and immortality of the soul to feel justified in their faith.  I think that you need the belief in hell to validate yourself.  If you weren't afraid of hell, you wouldn't be a Christian.  Therefore, when someone disproves it or reasons it out a different way, you refuse to think about it.  You say that you have thought about it, but if you had and your I.Q. is over 80, you would have come to the same conclusion as me.

Time has already told who is right.  I'm glad that I don't have to wait until God's day to know that hell is a lie.