Let's Talk About Hell (3)

[Ed Bana]

Hell is not a lie, just because fire is pure doesn't mean that hell doesn't have fire. Here is where you always get on tangents relating to greek. A little knowledge of greek is a dangerous thing in the hands of the wrong person.

Greek is not the all the answer. But to ignore the language that the Bible is written in is ignoring the deep and hidden message that is always spiritual. Why are you so hell bound to want God to torture billions of people he never called.
Are you a Minster and your bread and butter depend of these false dogmas?

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll You are wrong. God always hides his deepness from the caranl religious mind.

Spiritual FIRE is real fire. Natural fire is waht the natural man sees an understand.

Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

the letter killeth the Bible says remember. and
my cat purrs too, it doesn't mean that because she purrs that there is no hell. (because you said we get the word pur from fire). Besides if there is such an existence of pyrex there must be fire somewhere in the world. Your point simply makes no sense.

 

[Ed Bana]

the letter killeth the Bible says remember. and
my cat purrs too, it doesn't mean that because she purrs that there is no hell. (because you said we get the word pur from fire). Besides if there is such an existence of pyrex there must be fire somewhere in the world. Your point simply makes no sense.

Your cat purrrr has nothing to do with the false believe in Hell or the Greek word "pur" which we get all these wonderful English words like pure, purify, purge etc.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your cat purrrr has nothing to do with the false believe in Hell or the Greek word "pur" which we get all these wonderful English words like pure, purify, purge etc.

what about pyrex? pyrex means something is fire resistant so there must exist real fire somewhere, not spiritual.

 

[Ed Bana]

what about pyrex? pyrex means something is fire resistant so there must exist real fire somewhere, not spiritual.

Pyrex has nothing to do with the Greek word "pur" when it comes to the word hell.

 

[Ed Bana]

Originally Posted by gradyll

fire means fire, not judgement and cleansing. This is where you stray off the path again ed. God could have used the words judgment or cleansing if He wanted to, but HE didn't like those words to describe HEll, he used fire. REAL fire.
​

The Lake of Fire is only used in the Book of Revelation and John was in Spirit on the Lord’s day. No where does it say John was being liberal in any since of the word.

Hell is a big fat religious lie which we have discussed in depth.

Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Do you reject the "glory" of God concealing things?

1 Corin 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come.

example NT:5178 a : Strong’s: tupikos (toop-ee-kos'); an adverb related to NT:5179; found only in 1 Cor 10:11: as a warning, by way of example, typologically (i.e. figuratively, as a prophetic type, a typological interpretation of Scripture)　 Matthew 13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

13:14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;

13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

13:16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;

 

[he-man]

my understanding is that when we die we either go to be with the lord or to hell. at final judgement day, all those not in christ will be cast into the lake of fire. I doubt that it is a literal lake of fire, but whatever it is it's going to be as ugly as a lake of fire is. What I know fer sure is I don't want to make it to the lake of fire.

It is strange that by your way of thinking Hell is cast into Hell.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

It tells you very plainly that Hell is Death and the GRAVE.

Hos 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

 

[Ed Bana]

It is strange that by your way of thinking Hell is cast into Hell.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

It tells you very plainly that Hell is Death and the GRAVE.

Hos 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

Yes hell/hates is the grave. We agree. For the flesh not the spirit.

Ecclesiastes 12: 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

All men have a spirit and it is not the Holy Spirit is man’s spirit for all men were created in God’s image and likeness. Which means man initially was created as a spiritual man for God is not flesh and he is not a soul H is spirit.
　
1 Peter 3
18 because also Christ once for sin did suffer -- righteous for unrighteous -- that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit,
19 in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach,
20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah -- an ark being preparing -- in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;

1 Peter 3:18-20 show us Jesus went and preach to the spirits that were in prison.

I hear all kinds of foolishness that these are not human spirits. Some say they were demons or what ever excuse they come p with. But they are the first to yell context in any scriptural issue. So I am doing the same.

Look at verse 18. Christ suffered for s not demons notice righteous for unrighteous .

 

[Superfast]

It is strange that by your way of thinking Hell is cast into Hell.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

It tells you very plainly that Hell is Death and the GRAVE.

Hos 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

(Rotherham) Revelation 20:14 And, death and hades, were cast into the lake of fire. This, is, the second death--the lake of fire.

(ASV) Revelation 20:14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, [even] the lake of fire.

(Darby) Revelation 20:14 and death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, [even] the lake of fire.

(NASB) Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

WH is different than the TR on this verse, the TR doesn't have the ending "the lake of fire" , WH does. Without the WH ending "lake of fire" the second death could refer to either death and hades, or the lake of fire, but since "this is the second death" is closer to lake of fire than it is to death and hades, it would seem to me that even the TR reading should mean that the lake of fire is the second death.

I see how you get that hell is the second death, from rev 20.14, I disagree with it for the reasons I stated above. I don't see though how you get that the grave is the second death from hos 13:14. If anything the grave would be the first death not the second.
I see hos. 13.14 as saying that Christ death for us who believe in him causes God to ransom us from both the first and second death. True we all die the first death, but when our salvation/ransom is completely worked out, there will be no more first or second deaths. That's what it is saying to me. I also see the verse as being figurative. Figuratively death and the grave are cast into the lake of fire. In that after judgement day when sinners are cast into the lake of fire, there will be no more death or grave after that day. I don't see it as literal.
i also do not see 'the power of the grave" as being literal. to me a grave is just where our bodies lie when we die, a grave doesn't have arms and legs and a brain and thus no literal power. God is speaking to the grave in a figure of speech called an apostrophe, which means speaking to someone or something that isn't there, or speaking to an inanimate object.

the grave is where we go when we die the first death, when we die we don't grave.

 

[he-man]

(NASB) Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

Thanks for the correction:
14 και ο θανατος και ο αδης εβληθησα εις την λιμνην του πυρος και ουτος ο δευτερος θανατος εστιν η λιμνη του πυρος

14 And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire: this is the second death this is the lake of fire.

the grave is where we go when we die the first death, when we die we don't grave.

The grave is where you go if you resurrected and Judged and are found worthless to die a second time.

Why would there be a judgemnet at all if some were not to be found guilty of treason?

Rev 21:8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

[Superfast]

Thanks for the correction:
14 και ο θανατος και ο αδης εβληθησα εις την λιμνην του πυρος και ουτος ο δευτερος θανατος εστιν η λιμνη του πυρος

14 And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire: this is the second death this is the lake of fire. The grave is where you go if you resurrected and Judged and are found worthless to die a second time.[/b]

I don't interpret hos 13.14 to mean that the grave is the second death.. I take the meaning of the word grave to be what everyone uses the word to mean, namely a hole in the ground filled with a dead body and coverd with dirt.

Why would there be a judgemnet at all if some were not to be found guilty of treason?

The judgement is for those whose names are not written in the book of life, all of them will be cast into the lake of fire. I know that we shall be rewarded and demerited for our actions on earth as christians, but I do not believe this occurs on judgement day. Judgement day , as I understand the scriptures, is for those who reject Christ. So judgement is for those quitly of treason, and innumerable other sins.


I;m not really following your reasoning on how you get that judgement for those guilty of treason has to mean that the grave is the second death.

Rev 21:8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Yes the lake of fire is for the unsaved, not christians.

 

[createdtoworship]

(Rotherham) Revelation 20:14 And, death and hades, were cast into the lake of fire. This, is, the second death--the lake of fire.

(ASV) Revelation 20:14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, [even] the lake of fire.

(Darby) Revelation 20:14 and death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, [even] the lake of fire.

(NASB) Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

WH is different than the TR on this verse, the TR doesn't have the ending "the lake of fire" , WH does. Without the WH ending "lake of fire" the second death could refer to either death and hades, or the lake of fire, but since "this is the second death" is closer to lake of fire than it is to death and hades, it would seem to me that even the TR reading should mean that the lake of fire is the second death.

I see how you get that hell is the second death, from rev 20.14, I disagree with it for the reasons I stated above. I don't see though how you get that the grave is the second death from hos 13:14. If anything the grave would be the first death not the second.
I see hos. 13.14 as saying that Christ death for us who believe in him causes God to ransom us from both the first and second death. True we all die the first death, but when our salvation/ransom is completely worked out, there will be no more first or second deaths. That's what it is saying to me. I also see the verse as being figurative. Figuratively death and the grave are cast into the lake of fire. In that after judgement day when sinners are cast into the lake of fire, there will be no more death or grave after that day. I don't see it as literal.
i also do not see 'the power of the grave" as being literal. to me a grave is just where our bodies lie when we die, a grave doesn't have arms and legs and a brain and thus no literal power. God is speaking to the grave in a figure of speech called an apostrophe, which means speaking to someone or something that isn't there, or speaking to an inanimate object.

the grave is where we go when we die the first death, when we die we don't grave.

The ESV, Youngs literal, the KJV, the NKJV, NASB, Darby, Wuest, NIV, ESV, RSV, and the NRSV all state that the "lake of fire" is in the greek. We also know it's in the greek in the westcott and hort text and also in the receptus. To stray from either of the two main mss families on this issue is in error superfast.

 

[createdtoworship]

The Lake of Fire is only used in the Book of Revelation and John was in Spirit on the Lord’s day. No where does it say John was being liberal in any since of the word.

Hell is a big fat religious lie which we have discussed in depth.

Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Do you reject the "glory" of God concealing things?

1 Corin 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come.

example NT:5178 a : Strong’s: tupikos (toop-ee-kos'); an adverb related to NT:5179; found only in 1 Cor 10:11: as a warning, by way of example, typologically (i.e. figuratively, as a prophetic type, a typological interpretation of Scripture)　 Matthew 13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

13:14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;

13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

13:16 "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;

when you try to define words in greek you always pick the second or third definition and not the first, this is where you mess up.

 

[Superfast]

The ESV, Youngs literal, the KJV, the NKJV, NASB, Darby, Wuest, NIV, ESV, RSV, and the NRSV all state that the "lake of fire" is in the greek. We also know it's in the greek in the westcott and hort text and also in the receptus. To stray from either of the two main mss families on this issue is in error superfast.

I never said the words "lake of fire'' were not in rev. 20.14 . I strayed from neither manuscript. I didn't even voice an opinion as to which manuscript I believe is more accurate because I haven't investigated it to know which is more accurate, WH or TR. Either way it makes no difference to me doctrinally. Either manuscript reading supports the interpretation or understanding that the lake of fire is the second death.

WH has the words "the lake of fire" in rev. 20:14 twice, and WH ends the verse with the words "lake of fire". The TR only has the words 'lake of fire' one time and the TR doesn't end the verse with the words "lake of fire''. Which is why there are 2 versions of what rev. 20.14 says. The TR is different than the WH. Some bibles go with the TR, others go with WH.
(NASB) Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

lake of fire 2 times in the NASB, because the NASB is translating the WH text.

[SIZE=+0](KJV) Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [/SIZE]

KJV has lake of fire only one time because it translates the TR.

 

[createdtoworship]

I never said the words "lake of fire'' were not in rev. 20.14 . I strayed from neither manuscript. I didn't even voice an opinion as to which manuscript I believe is more accurate because I haven't investigated it to know which is more accurate, WH or TR. Either way it makes no difference to me doctrinally. Either manuscript reading supports the interpretation or understanding that the lake of fire is the second death.

WH has the words "the lake of fire" in rev. 20:14 twice, and WH ends the verse with the words "lake of fire". The TR only has the words 'lake of fire' one time and the TR doesn't end the verse with the words "lake of fire''. Which is why there are 2 versions of what rev. 20.14 says. The TR is different than the WH. Some bibles go with the TR, others go with WH.
(NASB) Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

lake of fire 2 times in the NASB, because the NASB is translating the WH text.

[SIZE=+0](KJV) Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [/SIZE]

KJV has lake of fire only one time because it translates the TR.

why does it matter then, if they both say the lake of fire, then what is the argument about at this point?

 

[he-man]

I never said the words "lake of fire'' were not in rev. 20.14 . I strayed from neither manuscript. I didn't even voice an opinion as to which manuscript I believe is more accurate because I haven't investigated it to know which is more accurate, WH or TR. Either way it makes no difference to me doctrinally. Either manuscript reading supports the interpretation or understanding that the lake of fire is the second death.

WH has the words "the lake of fire" in rev. 20:14 twice, and WH ends the verse with the words "lake of fire". The TR only has the words 'lake of fire' one time and the TR doesn't end the verse with the words "lake of fire''. Which is why there are 2 versions of what rev. 20.14 says. The TR is different than the WH. Some bibles go with the TR, others go with WH.
(NASB) Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

lake of fire 2 times in the NASB, because the NASB is translating the WH text.

[SIZE=+0](KJV) Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [/SIZE]

KJV has lake of fire only one time because it translates the TR.

Good job!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

why does it matter then, if they both say the lake of fire, then what is the argument about at this point?

Semantics I guess.
3 out of the 4 greek Mss agree with each other so I would probably go with them

Revelation 20 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com

NASB)
Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
RSV)
Revelation 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire;
Darby's English Translation)
Revelation 20:14 and death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire.
Rotherham)
Revelation 20:14 And, death and hades, were cast into the lake of fire. This, is, the second death--the lake of fire.
NIV)
Revelation 20:1414 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
NKJV)
Revelation 20:14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Young)
Revelation 20:14 and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire--this [is] the second death;
　
Textus Rec)
Revelation 20:14 kai o qanatoV kai o adhV eblhqhsan eiV thn limnhn tou puroV outoV estin o deuteroV qanatoV
W-H )
Revelation 20:14 kai o qanatoV kai o adhV eblhqhsan eiV thn limnhn tou puroV outoV o qanatoV o deuteroV estin h limnh tou puroV
Byz./Maj.)
Revelation 20:14 kai o qanatoV kai o adhV eblhqhsan eiV thn limnhn tou puroV outoV o qanatoV o deuteroV estin h limnh tou puroV
Alexandrian)
Revelation 20:14 kai o qanatoV kai o adhV eblhqhsan eiV thn limnhn tou puroV outoV o qanatos o deuteroV estin h limnh tou puros

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

when you try to define words in greek you always pick the second or third definition and not the first, this is where you mess up.

This may be off topic, but it made me question how a definition is labeled first, second, or third and how that affects its meaning.

For example, if I said that I know this girl Gracie, what do I mean?

1. She's someone I am familiar with.

2. She's a friend/acquaintance of mine.

3. She's someone I have had sex with.

4. A combination of any of the previous three choices.

Really, any definition could fit. It depends on the context of whom I was addressing and how I was addressing them.

I guess my point is that what definition comes first, or is most popular, does not determine the meaning of a word. Its how its used.

 

[Superfast]

never mind

 

[createdtoworship]

This may be off topic, but it made me question how a definition is labeled first, second, or third and how that affects its meaning.

For example, if I said that I know this girl Gracie, what do I mean?

1. She's someone I am familiar with.

2. She's a friend/acquaintance of mine.

3. She's someone I have had sex with.

4. A combination of any of the previous three choices.

Really, any definition could fit. It depends on the context of whom I was addressing and how I was addressing them.

I guess my point is that what definition comes first, or is most popular, does not determine the meaning of a word. Its how its used.

the most prominent definition is the one you should go with when defining, Ed Bana says the second or third is what you should go with. But it does depend on context, however for our discussion on hell context went out the window along with the proper definitions.