Marilyn McCord Adams and the Problem of Hell

[Davy]

Ha! You haven't even engaged the argument, passage poster. I know this can be hard and challenging, but try to address the argument. Which premise or premises do you reject? If you have a passage that shows why a premise is erroneous, good enough. Otherwise, yeah, we all know the bible.

That kind of thinking of course, is just more of the philosophy of men. Do you recall Acts 17 with Apostle Paul in Athens, Greece, conversing with the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers? Apparently, you forgot about that. They called Paul a "babbler" even before he said anything to them.

 

[public hermit]

kind of thinking of course, is just more of the philosophy of men

Well, she's a woman. Try again.

 

[Davy]

So it's back to God creating people He knows are going to be roasted for all eternity.

Scared? Why else would someone want to do away with the Bible Scripture about it? When those who argue against eternal condemnation, that's what they're doing, i.e., trying to discard the Scripture about it.

 

[Hmm]

Scared? Why else would someone want to do away with the Bible Scripture about it? When those who argue against eternal condemnation, that's what they're doing, i.e., trying to discard the Scripture about it.

There is no Scripture about it unfortunately. Thinking doesn't make it so.

 

[Davy]

Ps 37:9-11
9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
KJV

Ps 37:20
20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
KJV

Rev 14:9-11
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
KJV

 

[Hmm]

Ps 37:9-11
9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
KJV

Ps 37:20
20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
KJV

Rev 14:9-11
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
KJV

This is one translation for sure but it's not Scripture.

 

[Davy]

This is one translation for sure but it's not Scripture.

If it's not Scripture, then you aren't a real person, you probably don't exist.

 

[Hmm]

If it's not Scripture, then you aren't a real person, you probably don't exist.

Well, if one translation differs from another, which one is Scripture and which one isn't?

 

[Davy]

Well, if one translation differs from another, which one is Scripture and which one isn't?

I have to assume by your statement, that you are not familiar with the Westcott & Hort Greek manuscript hoax.

In 1881, Wescott and Hort produced a 'new' Greek text that they translated (they claimed) from some rare Greek manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) which they claimed was older than the Greek Majority Text used by the KJV translators. They secretly gave members of a committee a copy of their 'translation' and asked them to use it, instead of the "vile Textus Receptus" which Hort hated.

The Textus Receptus Greek text, also called the Majority Text, because it makes up the majority of ancient New Testament manuscripts (over 2000), is what was used by the 1611 King James translators. Most all... later Bible New Testament translations are from Wescott and Hort's personal Greek manuscript translation.

So when you've learned about that hoax by Wescott and Hort, then maybe we can talk more.

 

[Hmm]

I have to assume you're not familiar with the Westcott & Hort Greek manuscript hoax

You're right I'm not but from what you describe how is it at all relevant to my question?

So when you've learned about that hoax by Wescott and Hort, then maybe we can talk more.

Okay, well it was nice talking to you

 

[Davy]

You're right I'm not but from what you describe how is it at all relevant to my question?

Are you serious? You are the one who brought up the subject of different translations. I led you to the field of study that answers that.