End of the world

231
0
Originally posted by Another God
When did he say that? Do you have some sort of reference?
Yes, sorta, he says it in the Bible :D

If I don't remember wrong he says it in not just matthiew, but also some of the other evangelics

Matthew 24 :

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of "


So he states this many times.. [zz)]
 
Last edited:
231
0
Markus 13, 21 - 22 tells excatly the same as Matthew 24, 23-24.

Markus 13, 33- 37:

33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.


Maybe some christians tells about that he will come there and then because they want to commercialise, or spread christianity, and consciously lying. But lying is also against the ten commandments, so.. ?
 
Last edited:
231
0
I'll take NIV version this time for variation. Lukas 12:

Watchfulness

35 Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, 36like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. 37It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. 38It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. 39But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."
41Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?"
42The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

17:

The Coming of the Kingdom of God

20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within[2] you."
22Then he said to his disciples, "The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23Men will tell you, 'There he is!' or 'Here he is!' Do not go running off after them. 24For the Son of Man in his day[3] will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.


That's it. All I found in the evangelics :wink:
 
84
0
Originally posted by radagast
Depending on how you interpret different sections in the bible, I've read all the sections the would support all mentioned above.

Since reading the bible completely literally, leaves contradictions and certainly behaviour that isn't compatible with current beliefs (stoning adulterers, selling offspring into slavery, preventing those with poor eyesight from approaching the alter of the lord...), everyone I've known treat, at least some of, the bible metaphorically (no matter how much they believe that they believe it literally). Since nobody picks the same metaphors, nor the same sections to treat literally, differences in what the bible means have to exist.
Even alowing for inturprutation, i would like to see your quotes supporting the existance of heaven and hell as a place to go after death. Please post them for me, i am very interested in this.

taking the bible litraly does not posess the problems stated above. there are no contradictions, take it as it comes. it is a time line, there were diffrent laws at diffrent times for diffrent reasons. you cant take the laws that were prominent in the old testemont (such as the 10 commandments)and apply them to the time of jesus, as the rules have simply changed. you have to take what was said as a time/place thing. if they say 'go and stone this person for such a crime' it is because that is what should be done then. if it said 'dont marry or have children' its because the city you are living in is about to be destroyed, why slow your self down with large familys and cause yourself heart break when they get killed? there is nothing wrong with a litral translation.

The churches love to put 'inturprataion' into it, basicly so they can twist it into saying what they want to say. i am going to have a look at all of these contradictions that have been mentioned so far in these postings, and if i can give an explanation for them that will satisfy the members of this thread, then present me with more. if it turns out that there are REAL contradictions - after any translation problems i can find or definition problems have not been explained - then i shall absolutly agree with you, and argue against my current side. if it can be proven that the bible is simply a load of clap trap, then i will be the 1st to agree with you and turn.

this is my stance. I dont actuly have the net, so it may be a while between my postings, but i will go through them as they come up (the contradictions) and post them once i have formulated my answer.
 

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
974
3
OK Dark Wing. From the post above, I think these three are the first that need attention. With the first one, I think you need to justify how the Bible says that God doesn't change his mind, when he most obviously does. The other two just seem to be plain time line/plot contradictions.

When I have time, and when you have done these three, I will go and look for more for you.

Originally posted by Another God
GE 6:6. EX 32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16 God does change his mind.
NU 23:19-20, IS 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.

GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.


EX 9:3-6 God destroys all the cattle (including horses) belonging to the Egyptians.
EX 9:9-11 The people and the cattle are afflicted with boils.
EX 12:12, 29 All the first-born of the cattle of the Egyptians are destroyed.
EX 14:9 After having all their cattle destroyed, then afflicted with boils, and then their first-born cattle destroyed, the Egyptians pursue Moses on horseback.
 
462
0
Originally posted by Dark Wing
Ok, there are a few objections here, i shall do my best to answer them...

Why do people think that the end of days has do do with destruction?

Exactly! We would still have nights! Thanks for clearing that up.
 
462
0
Originally posted by Dark Wing
Even alowing for inturprutation, i would like to see your quotes supporting the existance of heaven and hell as a place to go after death. Please post them for me, i am very interested in this.
Hell:

Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the Judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the counsil: but whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire."

Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell."

Proverbs 9:18 "But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guest are in the depths of Hell."


Matthew 5:29,30 "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into Hell.
"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into Hell."


Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murders, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the Lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

Psalm 9:17 "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."

Revelations 20:12,15 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."


Now, it takes some pretty skewed thinking to rationalize all of that away.



taking the bible litraly does not posess the problems stated above. there are no contradictions,
Contradictions

[Should we own slaves?]

Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever."
Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
Exodus 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the manservants do."
Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it."
Luke 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
Colossians 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters."

vs.


Isaiah 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens . . . let the oppressed go free, . . . break every yoke."
Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."
Pro-slavery bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa. There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here.



[Are we punished for our parents' sins?]

Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)
Exodus 34:6-7 " . . . The Lord God, merciful and gracious, . . . that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."
I Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, . . ."

vs.

Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."
Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."



Now, no matter how literal you want to get Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20 are in direct contradiction.

I could go on and on and on with this. A simple search engine check will turn up a few sites with the contradictions.

Here's one: http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html [Broken]


I know it won't change you mind, but you were the one that brought this up.

You know, if you are going to debate this stuff, you really need to read you bible more.

One other thing. I'm not one to talk about spelling, as atrocious as I am, but it was hard to follow your post, the spelling was so bad. A trick I do is to copy my finished text into word or another text editor and have it's spell checker find and correct the misspellings. It would greatly increase you're readability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
974
3
Great post Radagast.
Originally posted by radagast

Contradictions

[Should we own slaves?]
The quotes against it were a little sketchy/vague/metaphorical even, but I believe most of these "What should we do" contradictions are only contradictions if we accept god as a stagnant being. Thats why the one important contradiction which I await explanation is the one from above RE "God Changes his mind VS God Does NOT change his mind". Because if the "God does NOT change his mind" option is shown to not actually be represented, then all of the apparent contradictions RE what God advocates and what god tells us to do become irrelevent.

I can tell you from Dark Wing that her belief in God is that he is just a prick doing what he wants (ie: Not omnibenevolent and not one who can't change his mind). But if the Bible says that God doesn't change his mind, and she believes that the bible holds the truth, then this must be rationalised out and solved, else the book must be discarded as fiction.

[Are we punished for our parents' sins?]
Same as above...if God can change his mind...then this isn't a contradiction, its just God being a prick.
I know it won't change you mind, but you were the one that brought this up.

You know, if you are going to debate this stuff, you really need to read you bible more.
Don't worry, Dark Wing and I have a bet with each other. We are going to convince each other that one of us is right. Either the Bible is True, or it is False. Simple. One of them must be the correct answer, and both of us are willing to give up our current belief in the face of real evidence.

As far as I am concerned, internal contradictions constitute a good reason to doubt/dismiss a book which is said to speak absolute truth.

So, I await her reply, because she does know a lot more about the Book than I do...
 
84
0
The first thing i would like to ask you to do is make sure when you are quoting you either use a King James bible (one of the 1st editions is best) or one of the really early NIV's. Why? simply due to translation issues. of course we have a probelm in the translation from hebrew/greek to english, and many of the churches use this as an excuse to basicly write what they want in the later editions, and change entire paragraphs of the text to suit their teachings, this is just what they do.

I dont have my concordances here to show you the original hebrew and show you the real manings of words, which is basicly what this argument comes down to. the meaning of the word "hell" as it is translated into english. what this basicly means (i will post the original hebrew word used with the explanation of what that word means when i am home, i am on the road at the moment, and it is hard enough to get online as it is here...) :eek:)

Hell basicly means "to be in the ground" or underground. ie burried. dead. you are burried in the ground, and that is hell. as simple as that. i will go through yor quotes now with a little explanation, maybe that will make what i am trying to say clearer...



Originally posted by radagast
Hell:

Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the Judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the counsil: but whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire."

I am going to seriously question the translation use of hell fire here. not a good example to start my argument with , i know, but i will look that up through the concordance and the original hebrew (and if you want to get into an argument about how do you know its the original even in hebrew etc, then lets start up another thread, this one already has many issues...) :eek:)


Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell."


killing the soul is used here as killing your faith, your belief. ie. those who would persecute you for being a christian in the time of matthew can kill you and your body, but thats to no avail if you keep your faith. for even after you have been killed under persecution, you are ressurected on judgement day to see what happens next (possibility of eternal life doing Gods work around the place). do not fear those who would kill the body, fear the one that can take both your body and your chance for ressuraction, ie life. (this may need more explanation) so soul=life, God can take the chance of you having eternal life. fear him more than your persecutors.


Proverbs 9:18 "But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guest are in the depths of Hell."


yes, guests with in the depths of the earth. where they await ressurection...
Matthew 5:29,30 "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into Hell.
"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into Hell."


cast into the ground... into death... get rid of part of you if you must, better that then your whole body die and rot in the grave.


Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murders, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the Lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."


ahhh, now we get to the interesting bit. yes, they will be cast into the fire, and welcome to revelations. here, you have to be careful what you are talking about when you say fire, again, there are diffrent hebrew words used for many of these terms...

the devil and the beast and the false phrophet- these are all symbols that have been explained in previous chapters. the lake of fire that they are talking about in these 2 quotes mean 2 things (in each context) 1. fire, being the already mentioned symbol for war and death around the world (at which point 2/3 of the jews will be killed the last 1/3 refined through the fire like gold) and 2. the lake of fire that will be in the middle of mt Zion when it splits along the tectonic plates there (also described previously) yes. very space, i know, but i will explain that in greater depth later if you want me to (that is about the end of days, after all, and that is what this thread was meant to be about...)

Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."


i am going to have to look this one up. i will get back to you.

Psalm 9:17 "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."


yes, they will die. they will not become immortal. they will no longer have life. we are currently the walking dead anyway, we will doe, and turn to dust, its just a matter of time. these are the nations that do not believe. the people that do have the chance at eternal life. they will not be in hell for ever. the others will stay in the ground.

Revelations 20:12,15 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."


yes. this is the ressusrection. those found worthy become immortal. those who are not are killed. killed by being thrown in the lake of fire (flesh does not last long in a lake of fire)

So if Hell becomes the earth, and death with no chance of ressurection is death into hell with no soul, then most of these get cleared up. i will look up those matthews quotes, and write a whole post on revelations when i have my stuff in front of me (this is a rush job, am at work)

but hopefully this gives you a start onto what i am saying.
 
Last edited:
462
0
DW,
I won't be drawn into an debate on the bible. I've haven't accepted it as absolute truth for close to 35 years, so to me, this would only be some form of intellectual masturbation about an entity I accept as only the derivation of human consciousness. You asked for literal contradictions, I gave you literal contradictions.

You said that you took it literally, yet the very first thing you do is start interpreting what it means, in terms of you're take on the meaning of the ancient hebrew. Since many, many other hebraic and biblical scholars have had a completely different take, I hope you don't take offense that your views are taken with a grain of salt.

AG,
God can change his mind - no problem. If we were reading those portions of the bible as a chronicle of events, then god changed his mind.

But these, as I read them, were statements of what [guilt] children bear for the sins of their fathers - this cannot be some AND none. If it is, then some parts of the bible are invalid because god changed her mind and we are left not knowing what is valid and what isn't. Moreover, we are left trying to play a game whose rules can change at a whim, without being informed of the changes. This contradicts the biblical assertions that god is just.

If you want another:

James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

vs.

Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."


James 1:13 states that god doesn't tempt man, and Genesis 22:1 says he tempted Abraham.

This is not a case of changing ones mind - they are irreconcilable. One states an aspect of god, then contradicts it with a specific example.
 
Last edited:

megashawn

Science Advisor
435
0
Hell basicly means "to be in the ground" or underground. ie burried. dead. you are burried in the ground, and that is hell. as simple as that. i will go through yor quotes now with a little explanation, maybe that will make what i am trying to say clearer...
So, if I go dig a hole and burry myself, I can be a mortal in hell? I'm sorry, either a large majority of the bible has been mistranslated, or you are wrong. Which is it?


do not fear those who would kill the body, fear the one that can take both your body and your chance for ressuraction, ie life. (this may need more explanation) so soul=life, God can take the chance of you having eternal life. fear him more than your persecutors.
But in a sense, could I to also kill your soul? Assuming god exists, suppose I convince you that god doesn't exist. Would this not mean that your soul would be killed as a direct effect of my actions?

So in a way, Man does have the power of god.
__________________________________________________________

Ok, back to reality.

yes, they will die. they will not become immortal. they will no longer have life. we are currently the walking dead anyway, we will doe, and turn to dust, its just a matter of time. these are the nations that do not believe. the people that do have the chance at eternal life. they will not be in hell for ever. the others will stay in the ground.
Ouch. Awfully pesimistic are we? See, thats my problem with religion. You just give up. Let god handle it. I'm just a walking dead man. Hell no. I'm alive, to my knowledge, the most an individual can be alive. I've got numbered days, but medicine and science is adding to that number daily.

I think it makes sense though, that god would not keep an army (because all of us in hell will definetly out number those in heaven) of enemies around for eternity. We're sneaky enough, and with satans help we'd probably take this whole universe over given enough time.


But basically what your saying is as others have suggested, hell is not a real place, but more so being without god. Losing consciousness and being burried in the ground would probably be pretty crappy, but hey, thats life, er, death, well, you get it.



Interesting in seeing the hebrew meaning for Hell.
 

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
974
3
That is a point: Many many Christians themselves (well, 2 or 3 anyway) have told me that Hell is quite simply being without God. They point out that there is nothing worse than being without God. And while I don't think being without God is so bad, the point stands that what DW is saying, and what many christians actually believe isn't too far seperated at all.
 
462
0
Originally posted by Another God
That is a point: Many many Christians themselves (well, 2 or 3 anyway) have told me that Hell is quite simply being without God. They point out that there is nothing worse than being without God. And while I don't think being without God is so bad, the point stands that what DW is saying, and what many christians actually believe isn't too far seperated at all.
I wouldn't disagree with the above, for the most part. However, I was responding to her statement that there was no hell people were sent to after death (assuming some degree of sinning), AND that she took the bible exactly and literally.

Most christians do accept an actual hell (vs seperation from god) and heaven.
 
84
0
Originally posted by radagast
DW,

You said that you took it literally, yet the very first thing you do is start interpreting what it means, in terms of you're take on the meaning of the ancient hebrew. Since many, many other hebraic and biblical scholars have had a completely different take, I hope you don't take offense that your views are taken with a grain of salt.

what other way is there to be a litralist that to find the meaning of the words? words, especily the ones used in these passages, have very specific meansings that oftern get translated into just one english word. they have specific meanings in hebrew, thats why there are so many words describing the same thing. i do not understand how i can not be litral in taking it back to the meaning of the words. others 'have a diffrent take' when they start going into inturpratation of what the words mean as an over all symbology. thats not what i do. i simply look uo the word, and find out what it means. how else can one be a litralist? maybe i have not understood your argument properly.

as far as hell being a separation from god - this is not entiry what i meant. Hell is simply the state of you being dead in the ground. you turn to dust. you stay there if you are not ressurected for judgment, and the only way to get this chance is to believe the gospel (things concerning jesus christ, the kingdom and the promises made to the people of israel). i guess then you can all separation from god hell, but only after death, and only in virtue of the fact that you will not raised again, not even for judgment.

i havent 'inturprated' anything. its just what the meaning of that hebrew word is.

the best example that i can give you to describe what i mean is the case of noah's flood. it is a common misperception that what is writtern is that the whole world goes under. here we have to look at the word used in hebrew to figure out whats going on.

there are 3 words that are translated into 'earth' in the english - 'eretz' meaning a very specific strip of land in the middle east, and there are 2 others that i forget the hebrew for, but basicly the 2nd word is for an area a size larger than that, then another word for the whole globe. but all are translated into earth in english. why? i dont know.

the word in noah's flood is eretz. thats what flooded. not the globe. and he didnt take 2 of every animal, just 2 of every clean animal (there again there are diffrent words for diffent grioups of animal, clean and unclean and another for the whole lot that all get translated into 'animals' in english)

this is what i am saying about translation. thats what i say about hell. there is no place your soul goes after death. not even for those who believe. you die, you go to hell. but those who believe dont stay there for ever. thats the only diffrence.
 
84
0
Originally posted by megashawn
So, if I go dig a hole and burry myself, I can be a mortal in hell? I'm sorry, either a large majority of the bible has been mistranslated, or you are wrong. Which is it?
yes, a large majority of the bible has been mistranslated. that is precisly my point. as for you burring yourself in a hole to be a mortal in hell, come on, we are talking about death and turning to dust here, not caving.
Ouch. Awfully pesimistic are we? See, thats my problem with religion. You just give up. Let god handle it. I'm just a walking dead man. Hell no. I'm alive, to my knowledge, the most an individual can be alive. I've got numbered days, but medicine and science is adding to that number daily.
why is that pessimistic? its not pessimistic or optimistic, it just is. there is death. death is nothingness. thats not negitive (well, not in my opinion). yes you are alive now, and no matter how much you elongate that, when you die you no longer exist. i dont care how long or how furfilled you can live your life. thats not the issue. you could proberly live for thousands of years if you wanted to, and do everything you wanted to, and chage the world twice over, but when you are dead, you are still dead. you no longer exist. even if you decided to live forever, and realised how boring that could be (not saying you would, just if it got to a few millenia down the track) and you killed yourself to get out of it, you would again not exist. non existance is not a negitive thing. people who want to live forever to do the work of god have that option through religion. thats all i am saying.

But basically what your saying is as others have suggested, hell is not a real place, but more so being without god. Losing consciousness and being burried in the ground would probably be pretty crappy, but hey, thats life, er, death, well, you get it.

well... thats kind of what i am saying (see above post) but i dont see eteral non exsistance as a bad thing. i really dont. anyway, you wouldn't know that it was a bad thing once you were there. you wouldent know anything, as there would no longer be a you. :eek:)
 

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
974
3
Earth from Erets translation

'erets

Definition
1. land, earth
a.earth
1. whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2. earth (as opposed to heaven)
3. earth (inhabitants)

b. land
1. country, territory
2. district, region
3. tribal territory
4. piece of ground
5. land of Canaan, Israel
6. inhabitants of land
7. Sheol, land without return, (under) world
8. city (-state)
c. ground, surface of the earth
ground
soil
d. (in phrases)
people of the land
space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
level or plain country
land of the living
end(s) of the earth
(almost wholly late in usage)
e. lands, countries 1e
f. often in contrast to Canaan



Now, in Genesis we see
And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
Ge 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
Ge 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
Ge 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
Ge 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Ge 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Using the definitions above, earth (in every case here can taken from erets) can mean just about anything. From the whol earth, to that which isn;t heaven, to the people inhabiting the earth, to a city, a state, or a piece of ground.

Lets face it: Even translating from the original text doesn't take ambiguity out of it. The best we can do with this, is take it in context. What is the context? Well: "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered"
The WHOLE heaven part makes this appear to be the context of the whole earth. Another way to check this, would be to find out how high the mountains around this part of the earth is (pretty high I think) and then compare that height to the rest of the world. Now if the water covers these mountains, and stays at that height for 40 days...then it is imposible that the water hadn't reached that general height world wide. Now that is a global flood.

Secondly. In the NIV Bible I have here, it says in GE 7:15 "Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to noah and entered the ark."

It says nothing of them being clean, but it says several times that it is every animal, all types etc.
 
462
0
DW,

To say you haven't interpreted the bible is absurd - literal, symbolic, or metaphorical, they are all interpretations.

You glossed right past the basic point I made - that thousands of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you.

I have little doubt you can find 'a' meaning in ancient Hebrew, which contradicts the current interpretations of the bible. Not being a biblical scholar, nor a scholar of ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, I cannot address your translations. I have had enough experience with language to know that many, many words have multiple shades of meaning, many with completely different definitions housed in the same word. The interpretation of the word aikido (a compound word) from Japanese could mean the spiritual path of harmony, or doorway to balanced strength. The word hara could mean belly, the seat of the soul, or strength of will. In English, to say a person 'has Heart' isn't trying to convey he has a blood pumping organ. Obviously, the interpretations of these are quite different, with potentially dramatic differences in meaning and intent. That Hell (ancient hebrew) could mean both in the ground or in a really bad place, I would see as not only possble, but likely, given the consistency of biblical translations over the past 700 years. Translations require both an understanding of the meanings of the words and a good understanding of the cultures from which the writings arose.
 
462
0
Originally posted by radagast
DW,

To say you haven't interpreted the bible is absurd - literal, symbolic, or metaphorical, they are all interpretations.

You glossed right past the basic point I made - that thousands of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you.

I have little doubt you can find 'a' meaning in ancient Hebrew, which contradicts the current interpretations of the bible. Not being a biblical scholar, nor a scholar of ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, I cannot address your translations. I have had enough experience with language to know that many, many words have multiple shades of meaning, many with completely different definitions housed in the same word. The interpretation of the word aikido (a compound word) from Japanese could mean the spiritual path of harmony, or doorway to balanced strength. The word hara could mean belly, the seat of the soul, or strength of will. In English, to say a person 'has Heart' isn't trying to convey he has a blood pumping organ. Obviously, the interpretations of these are quite different, with potentially dramatic differences in meaning and intent. This doesn't even touch on the idea of idiomatic usage. That Hell (ancient hebrew) could mean both in the ground or in a really bad place, I would see as not only possble, but likely, given the consistency of biblical translations over the past 700 years. Translations require both an understanding of the meanings of the words and a good understanding of the cultures from which the writings arose.
 

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
974
3
Originally posted by radagast
You glossed right past the basic point I made - that thousands of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you.
I thought about commenting on this point, but decided not to bother, but since you think its a point which needs to be addressed, I will address it for you.

Argument from Authority is not a good way to convince people of anything. :smile:

And thats all I have to say on that topic.

I have little doubt you can find 'a' meaning in ancient Hebrew, which contradicts the current interpretations of the bible. I have had enough experience with language to know that many, many words have multiple shades of meaning, many with completely different definitions housed in the same word. Translations require both an understanding of the meanings of the words and a good understanding of the cultures from which the writings arose.
I do agree with all of this completely.

As for the hell thing though, I understand better now what DW means, and so I'll try to explain it, and see if you disagree with this:

Hell, translated by the lexicon means: sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit. So it could be any of those. I point out that it could mean 'The Underworld', but what exactly is that 'Underworld'? Does it have a description of 'The place' Hell anywhere within the Bible? What is 'The place' Hell like?

Darkwings point basically comes down to "Going to Hell" doesn't mean you are going to some place where you will suffer for eternity (since it doesn't say any such thing in the bible), but instead it means that you die, in a very real world deathly sort of way. Hell = the end of your life forever.

If you can find anywhere which describes hell as anything other than this, then I think DW wants to know.
 
462
0
Originally posted by Another God
I thought about commenting on this point, but decided not to bother, but since you think its a point which needs to be addressed, I will address it for you.

Argument from Authority is not a good way to convince people of anything. :smile:
Strange comment.

First, it was DW that was trying to convince 'us' of certain things, that deviated from popularly accepted meaning.

Second, DW is presenting herself as an authority on ancient hebrew and biblical interpretation.

As a result, I bring up that other authorities disagree, and have for over 700 years.

Since I'm not an authority, I cannot rely on my own knowledge. That said, some disembodied web personality is going to hold less sway with me than those I know of as authorities.

Third, the impression I get is that you are equating what I said with the Argument from Authority argument flaw. If so, this is a complete misinterpretation of the flaw. The flaw states you cannot use an authority in one subject as an authority in another (which they are not qualified). In other words, I wouldn't take Newton as an authority on the bible (he may have been, but go with this for the moment) because he was a well respected mathematician and physicist.


As for the hell thing though, I understand better now what DW means, and so I'll try to explain it, and see if you disagree with this:

Hell, translated by the lexicon means: sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit. So it could be any of those. I point out that it could mean 'The Underworld', but what exactly is that 'Underworld'? Does it have a description of 'The place' Hell anywhere within the Bible? What is 'The place' Hell like?

Darkwings point basically comes down to "Going to Hell" doesn't mean you are going to some place where you will suffer for eternity (since it doesn't say any such thing in the bible), but instead it means that you die, in a very real world deathly sort of way. Hell = the end of your life forever.

If you can find anywhere which describes hell as anything other than this, then I think DW wants to know.
It's been 30 years since I've read the bible, but from the times I did, it seemed that many considered the link between the terms 'lake of fire', 'lake of burning brimstone', etc. referred to in Revelations and hell, used elsewhere. While I cannot point to a direct link, both types of phrases refer to the unworthy and the sinful as being sent to either hell or the burning lake of fire (depending on where you reference the phrase). The synonymous use seems to form a basis for considering that they refer to the same place.
 
Last edited:

Nade_Fodder

I think you will find that the bible says the world will end when Bush mistakes the little red button for a skittle.
 

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
974
3
Originally posted by radagast
Strange comment.

First, it was DW that was trying to convince 'us' of certain things, that deviated from popularly accepted meaning.

Second, DW is presenting herself as an authority on ancient hebrew and biblical interpretation.

As a result, I bring up that other authorities disagree, and have for over 700 years.

Since I'm not an authority, I cannot rely on my own knowledge. That said, some disembodied web personality is going to hold less sway with me than those I know of as authorities.

Third, the impression I get is that you are equating what I said with the Argument from Authority argument flaw. If so, this is a complete misinterpretation of the flaw. The flaw states you cannot use an authority in one subject as an authority in another (which they are not qualified). In other words, I wouldn't take Newton as an authority on the bible (he may have been, but go with this for the moment) because he was a well respected mathematician and physicist.
Well, my memory of the Argument from Authority flaw is different to that, But I am not willing to push the point, because I am not certain. But, I am certain of one thing: Telling someone "Such and such says this is true" is not an argument. And thats all that I am trying to say.

DW wasn't using authority in anyway, she was trying to frame an argument against the common belief, by using particular reasoning and particular references. This is normal in an argument. Whether you accept these resons yourself or not, is entirely up to you, but saying that other people, no matter how many million people, disagree with her, will do nothing to convince her that she is wrong, nor is it a good reason for you to disagree. If you truley care, then you would find a real reason to disagree, but lets be honest here, I don't really think you care that much? Which is fine... I normally don't either.

But what i think of as the argument from authroity, any argument which says "This is true because X says so" is not an argument at all, and only shows that the person expressing the view really doesn't want to think about it anymore.
 
462
0
Originally posted by Another God
Well, my memory of the Argument from Authority flaw is different to that, But I am not willing to push the point, because I am not certain. But, I am certain of one thing: Telling someone "Such and such says this is true" is not an argument. And thats all that I am trying to say.
You are quite correct, just making a statement isn't an argument.

An argument has, explicitly or implicitly, one or more premises, inference(s), and a conclusion. The above "such and such says" would be evidence to support an inference, assuming that "such and such" were an authority in the field covering the subject of said evidence.

DW had stated a premise - that the bible didn't say that hell was a bad place that sinners were sent after death. When presented with evidence to the contrary she states her opinion (as evidence), which we (as non-experts) cannot check directly. By presenting this evidence, we can accept she is an authority in the area then compile contrary expert opinions, or treat her opinion as non-evidence. I chose the former, giving her the benefit of the doubt.

The precise name of the Argument from authority flaw is "Argumentum ad verecundiam", and it is specific to appealing to a popular or authority figure(s), that is/are not authorities in the area of the evidence, therefore not valid sources for expert opinions on the subject.

There is a quite excellent handling of the topic of informal logic and logical arguments, it can be found at:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html



DW wasn't using authority in anyway, she was trying to frame an argument against the common belief, by using particular reasoning and particular references. This is normal in an argument. Whether you accept these resons yourself or not, is entirely up to you, but saying that other people, no matter how many million people, disagree with her, will do nothing to convince her that she is wrong, nor is it a good reason for you to disagree. If you truley care, then you would find a real reason to disagree, but lets be honest here, I don't really think you care that much? Which is fine... I normally don't either.


For DW to make her argument, then she has to present evidence (premises) that is acceptable, if others are to accept her conclusion, then thru inference proceed to her conclusion. Since my initial evidence was dismissed on grounds that the ancient hebrew was mistranslated and I, and most here, are not subject matter experts on ancient hebrew and the hebrew culture of the time, we have to take her as an expert and compare her expert opinion to expert opinion presented by other experts in the field. To me, this seems fairly straightforward. My motivations for being in this argument are irrelevant to the argument [but if you must know, I have always been one that values accuracy, so when I see something I consider inaccurate, I will often challenge it].

You are correct that appeal to the popular isn't a valid argument, but appeal to an authority (in the field of the evidence) is not only valid, but almost required in any argument where we all are not completely in agreement that the evidence is obvious.


But what i think of as the argument from authroity, any argument which says "This is true because X says so" is not an argument at all, and only shows that the person expressing the view really doesn't want to think about it anymore.
You are confusing evidence presented (expert opinion) with the inference needed to progress to a conclusion. Please visit the site mentioned. Whatever you're opinion of the lack of beliefs of the authors, they have done an excellent job of compiling a cogent description of a logical argument and common argument flaws.

For instance, if I'm making an argument concerning the subjective travel time to Alpha Centari, and state when traveling at 0.9810 c the subjective travel time will be significantly shorter than the simple product of distance and velocity (from an alpha centari frame of reference), then back this up by the expert opinion of Albert Einstein, then this is valid. I don't have to demonstrate the effects of relativity thru the use of tensor mechanics, since Albert's opinion is considered evidence in the field.
 
Last edited:

Phobos

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,927
6
Originally posted by Dark Wing
Hell basicly means "to be in the ground" or underground. ie burried. dead. you are burried in the ground, and that is hell. as simple as that. i will go through yor quotes now with a little explanation, maybe that will make what i am trying to say clearer...
So which is the best translation?
If this error is so apparent, then why are so many translations so far off? (instead of being corrected)
If this is a translation error (on so important an issue), then how many other errors are there?
What is someone to do if they don't speak the ancient languages and don't have copies of the original manuscripts in hand?
 

Another God

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
974
3
Originally posted by radagast
You are confusing evidence presented (expert opinion) with the inference needed to progress to a conclusion.
An 'expert opinion' is not evidence at all. Thats my whole point. There is no evidence in the opinion of another, no matter how expert they are. Experts are just as fallible as anyone else, sometimes even moreso: They are stuck in their paradigm. How many experts in astronomy throughout the years have thought the earth was the center of the universe, how many experts disagree with relativity? How many experts believe evolution is wrong?

How many experts make mistakes? At least 99% of them, because eveeryone only believes what they are told until one lone person says "Hang on...that's not quite right."

And besides, you don't need to kep referring to DW as 'claiming to be an authority' on the topic, because all she does is look up the literal translations in a lexicon. Something anyone can do, and something I did 4 or 5 posts back for a selection of words. Why the need to start claiming correctness or incorrectness based on who has the most support and best names supporting their view?

Argue the discussion on the grounds of solid evidence and reason.

PS: I haven't gone to the site yet, and I may go later if I have more time, but I don't feel any strong desire to. I know arguments, I understand them, I engage in them all the time, and I have read stuff on argument structure before. I'll only go if i have the time and feel inclined to refresh.
 

Related Threads for: End of the world

  • Posted
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
54
Views
6K
Replies
31
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top