Martinez said:
Hi,
Care to read the next paragraphs? Sheol and Hades in OT and NT respectively should be translated "Grave", but the heading "Hell" in this context is talking about the consequences of not ending up in eternal Shalom.
Like the notes state, one must use care when comparing "the grave" with a place of "destruction".
Hi there Mikepking!
actually, I wasn't really having a go at that seperation from God thing as such.
although I know it did look that way.
I was trying to make a point about people who continue to make arguments for the exsistence of Hell by refering to part of a verse just because it has the word Hell in it.
seeing as the word is not even supposed to even be in there at all.
There are four words incorrectly translated as Hell, all of which do not talk about everlasting torcher.
My point I was making in the above parable is that,
some people find it very hard to think for themselves and apply God given logic to the situation.
case in point,
saying that the word of God is infallible and falliure to agree with it is heresy.
I will point out at this point that I am not a liberal christian.
I am a follower of Christ.
anyways, the word of God is infallible, but the ability of man to translate from one language to another, and interperate that that is supposed to be read with the eyes of the spirit certainly are.
and at worse mans ability to be influenced by satan to change God into His own image is not to far fetched, wouldn't you agree?
after all, satan has a bit of a track record of deceiving and man has track record of being decieved!
The thing that bugs me the most is this.
If the bible is the infallible word of the living God, as I believe it is,
and certain parts contradict each other, applied to guide lines set down in said book,
then something is a miss!
If something is a miss, then there must be something wrong somewhere!
logical?
now if the scriptures are examined and there are two conflicting views,
then one needs to call on the power of His logical mind.
If one group of verses seem to suport one veiw, and the other seem to support the other, the what alterative do we have but to search them both and determine what is the most sensible as viewed in the light of the rest of the scriptures.
if searched with a open heart and a logical mind, the scriptures reveal that,
certain aspects of God's charicter are not up held by certain verses,
for exaple.
psalm 104-9
He will not always chide or be contending,
neither will He keep His anger forever or keep a grudge. (ampilfied)
and,
psalm 30-5
For is anger is but for a moment, but his favour is for a life time
orHis favour is Life.
weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.
and there are many more like that.
I'm sure your very familiar with the ones that talk about roasting people alive forever and ever, if not ask Dan, He knows them well.
We are also aware that Jesus hates Hypocricy, as He mentions that a few times aswell.
so if we examine these three examples, we can make the following conclusion.
the scrptures that talk of The lord not being angry forever,
clash with the ones that say that He is angry forever.
but since we know that God is not a Hypocryte, or some kind of schitzo, then we can assume one of these is in error!
It is then up to us to scour the scriptures for the bigger picture, and determine what makes sense and what doesn't.
that is why we must use logic and not just take isolated peices of scripture,
or we will fall prey to doctinal and translation errors.
that is why we simply cannot form doctrines based on small peices of the bible,
especialy when those parts have been proven to been mistranslated.