Where is hell in a round earth?

[Kenneth Redden]

Yes, there is that. The Bible tells us that this Earth is going to be completely destroyed and a 'new Earth' will take it's place.

Blessings,

MEC

Yes, and I believe that that "new earth," will be the earth of the third day of the Creation, in Genesis 1:9-13. It is with Jesus now, waiting for us.
Now please be aware; the earth of the third day, has no stars. So; is the earth flat, on the third day?
I would think this to be a moot point in the hereafter. However; when He made the stars also, it took away the sin of the world, John 1:29.

 

[TheCurioustChristian]

Here's a good video if you would like to know more about the truth and the lie you all believe.

Flat Earth: The Biggest Lie of All - Part1

via @youtube

 

[Luke Paul]

I like many others believe that the world is flat, there is insurmountable evidence to believe so, but one question I have always asked the marble earth believers is "where would hell be?" I'd be more than happy to explain why the marble earth "theory" is incorrect and how the bible proves it.

This is an confusing subject when the
Question Is it round or flat? I was falsely Schooled for Conditioning, with movies and scientific historical research. For we were Forced to accept a doctrine that has been seriously supressed to the inhabitants
The actual true shape. I did not follow any-one else's research or perspective.
I did my own and come to find out, that the earth really didn't make sense with what I was taught that if round on a axis while spinning around 1000 mph.
There is no spin at that speed where the surface and any object of any size and wieght leaves that surface- and in a direction and doesn't carry or fly off at a longer distance at a rotational spin @ 1000 mph roughly. If we're round the atmosphere would be drastically different from the center to
The top. Last time I checked water does not curve, nor would I believe that Gravity and the electromagnetic
Field keeps water from falling off on the bottom of a round shaped planet.
As heaven ,earth and hell are usually
Aknowledged and Hell is geolocated or placed accordingly as its written.
The Atmosphere(air) cannot accel at that speed givin as around 1000 mph.
Do your own research to come to your
Conclusion that supports what the
Truth Will be. finding out yourself either way it should be a honest test.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Um, I'm pretty sure it was King Saul who did it.

As to the spirit's identity...

So the person identified himself as Samuel. King Saul understood him to Samuel. Sacred Scriptures identifies this person as Samuel. So either it really was Samuel or else the Holy Spirit is lying to us via the scriptures. If this person wasn't actual Samuel, why wouldn't the scriptures say so?

Mind you, I'm not advocating using mediums to have conversations with the dead. In fact, what I advocate is NOT doing that. You correctly said that is forbidden.

Having said that though, I see nothing in the passage to indicate that King Saul spoke to a demon.

Now on this point, the Orthodox are routinely accused falsely of necromancy, however, this did not stop one of our theologians from, IIRC, posting a blog post which offered the theologoumemnon that the entity contacted by Saul was not St. Samuel but rather of a diabolical nature.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The only silliness on here is that the earth is flat and hell is in the centre of it.

Which is beyond silly owing to being logically impossible and contradictory.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Now on this point, the Orthodox are routinely accused falsely of necromancy, however, this did not stop one of our theologians from, IIRC, posting a blog post which offered the theologoumemnon that the entity contacted by Saul was not St. Samuel but rather of a diabolical nature.

And what are your thoughts on that? Was that a demonic entity with which King Saul made contact? Or was it in fact Samuel?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

And what are your thoughts on that? Was that a demonic entity with which King Saul made contact? Or was it in fact Samuel?

I don't know. One could make a theological argument that because our Lord had not yet despoiled Hades saints like St. Samuel were not at liberty to provide assistance to us. But I wouod really have to research the matter, and I am not entirely sure it matters doctrinally. The Orthodox and Catholic doctrines regarding the communion of the saints are basically identical, and I don't feel the need to hunt down a supporting proof from the MT just to defend us from the pitiful smear that is the necromancy argument.

That said, if you desire I can research this matter in greater detail and attempt to provide a broad overview of relevant opinions among our theologians, as it is an interesting question.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I don't know. One could make a theological argument that because our Lord had not yet despoiled Hades saints like St. Samuel were not at liberty to provide assistance to us. But I wouod really have to research the matter, and I am not entirely sure it matters doctrinally. The Orthodox and Catholic doctrines regarding the communion of the saints are basically identical, and I don't feel the need to hunt down a supporting proof from the MT just to defend us from the pitiful smear that is the necromancy argument.

That said, if you desire I can research this matter in greater detail and attempt to provide a broad overview of relevant opinions among our theologians, as it is an interesting question.

As you say, this is at best trivial from a doctrinal standpoint. I inquired only out of curiosity. I don't see it as particularly worthwhile to chase down answers related to this since, in the broader analysis, the main takeaway lesson from that section of 1 Samuel is King Saul committed a grievous sin. That, I think, is the more important issue and it's one that anybody can understand based upon a cursory reading of the chapter. I'm content to leave that aspect of the discussion where it is.

 

[ViaCrucis]

1Sa 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

So you think Samuel was a god?

If I may interject. Personally I think the woman was astonished by the fact that her usual trickery wasn't going on, something else was going on, and the "soul" or shade of Samuel appeared. The medium didn't have any other frame of reference by which to comprehend what was happening except to describe the thing as a powerful something, as "gods" (elohim).

But if you are concerned with Samuel being described as "elohim", but aren't concerned with demons being called "elohim" then I'd say that is something I find concerning.

I'm okay with a huckster, in a moment of shock, misidentifying the spirit of Samuel as "gods".

I'm not okay with identifying demons as actual gods.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mmksparbud]

If I may interject. Personally I think the woman was astonished by the fact that her usual trickery wasn't going on, something else was going on, and the "soul" or shade of Samuel appeared. The medium didn't have any other frame of reference by which to comprehend what was happening except to describe the thing as a powerful something, as "gods" (elohim).

But if you are concerned with Samuel being described as "elohim", but aren't concerned with demons being called "elohim" then I'd say that is something I find concerning.

I'm okay with a huckster, in a moment of shock, misidentifying the spirit of Samuel as "gods".

I'm not okay with identifying demons as actual gods.

-CryptoLutheran

Yah, but, God is what Satan wants to be---and, still, compared to us, they are fallen angels, and still of a higher order than humans. That a medium would call a thing she thought she managed to conjure up as a god (little "g") is not unusual. We would not call demons gods, a medium, obviously would. It is not that the bible is calling them god, but she.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yah, but, God is what Satan wants to be---and, still, compared to us, they are fallen angels, and still of a higher order than humans. That a medium would call a thing she thought she managed to conjure up as a god (little "g") is not unusual. We would not call demons gods, a medium, obviously would. It is not that the bible is calling them god, but she.

Here's the major difference: I don't believe the medium had any actual power. I don't believe psychics, diviners, etc actually have any power. When she saw what she saw, her response seems to be that of shock and surprise. If she was used to actually conjuring [evil] spirits, then her response seems out of place; but if this is something out of the ordinary, then her response seems very fitting.

She calls Samuel "elohim".
The Bible, however, calls what she saw Samuel.

So if we are going by what Scripture says, rather than what the medium believed she saw, then we must conclude that it was Samuel.

1. Mediums don't actually have any power, they are simply participating in one of the world's oldest con games.

2. Scripture says it was Samuel. Period.

3. The medium is fearful and shocked by the experience, indicating that this was unusual.

4. Scripture says it was Samuel. Period.

5. Scripture at no point says it was a demon.

If your reason for needing this passage to be talking about a demon, when it explicitly and constantly says it is Samuel, is because your personal theology is being challenged by the explicit and expressly clear word of Scripture, then that is a good indication that it's time to change your personal theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mmksparbud]

Here's the major difference: I don't believe the medium had any actual power. I don't believe psychics, diviners, etc actually have any power. When she saw what she saw, her response seems to be that of shock and surprise. If she was used to actually conjuring [evil] spirits, then her response seems out of place; but if this is something out of the ordinary, then her response seems very fitting.

She calls Samuel "elohim".
The Bible, however, calls what she saw Samuel.

So if we are going by what Scripture says, rather than what the medium believed she saw, then we must conclude that it was Samuel.

1. Mediums don't actually have any power, they are simply participating in one of the world's oldest con games.

2. Scripture says it was Samuel. Period.

3. The medium is fearful and shocked by the experience, indicating that this was unusual.

4. Scripture says it was Samuel. Period.

5. Scripture at no point says it was a demon.

If your reason for needing this passage to be talking about a demon, when it explicitly and constantly says it is Samuel, is because your personal theology is being challenged by the explicit and expressly clear word of Scripture, then that is a good indication that it's time to change your personal theology.

-CryptoLutheran

1Sa 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

She saw gods--pleural--ascending out of the earth.
If you believe that this is Samuel, who is now in heaven with God and as such is still an old man covered in a mantel, but is coming up from the earth, instead of descending from above, along with "others"----maybe it's your theology that needs to change.
Balaam could not prophesy against Israel, neither did God let this "Samuel" say anything but the truth. The "bible" is not calling this apparition Samuel, the witch and Saul are being quoted as to what they saw and believed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

1Sa 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

She saw gods--pleural--ascending out of the earth.

The NRSV translates elohim here as "a divine being", which I think is a pretty good way of putting it. Yes, elohim is the plural construction of the word, but grammatical context is essential. It is also essential that we understand the different ways in which language operates. We translate elohim as "gods" or "God" (depending on grammar and context), but that doesn't always mean the concept--as the ancients understood it--was identical to our concept of gods. Etymologically the word is related to "mighty", the most literal translation of elohim is "mighty ones". The word is used in reference to mere mortals, for example, in Psalm 82.

The medium believed she saw something so incredible that she describes it as seeing "gods" ascend from out of the earth. Does she believe this is a "god" in the purely theistic sense, a powerful being of some kind, a great spirit, etc? That's not possible to know I don't think. But that's not really the point of the text either: the point is the Saul went to see a medium, he desired to see Samuel. There is no reason to believe the medium actually had the power to call forth the dead, nor is there any reason to believe that she called forth a demon imitating Samuel. The text says two things: that the medium became deeply frightened, and instantly knew the stranger visiting her was King Saul; second that this was Samuel. That's what the text says.

If you believe that this is Samuel, who is now in heaven with God and as such is still an old man covered in a mantel, but is coming up from the earth, instead of descending from above, along with "others"----maybe it's your theology that needs to change.

Samuel would have been in She'ol, which is always described as "below". It was the Hebrew view that She'ol was the common destination of the dead, by the time of Jesus She'ol was understood to have two parts: the place of the righteous dead known as Paradise and the place of the wicked dead known as Gehenna.

Describing Samuel as ascending from the earth is totally in keeping with biblical and traditional Christian teaching on this matter. The Harrowing of Hell did not happen until Christ plundered She'ol when He descended into Hades and set captives free.

"The "bible" is not calling this apparition Samuel, the witch and Saul are being quoted as to what they saw and believed.

The Bible specifically says it is Samuel. Whatever hoops you want to jump through in order to avoid that is up to you.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mmksparbud]

The NRSV translates elohim here as "a divine being", which I think is a pretty good way of putting it. Yes, elohim is the plural construction of the word, but grammatical context is essential. It is also essential that we understand the different ways in which language operates. We translate elohim as "gods" or "God" (depending on grammar and context), but that doesn't always mean the concept--as the ancients understood it--was identical to our concept of gods. Etymologically the word is related to "mighty", the most literal translation of elohim is "mighty ones". The word is used in reference to mere mortals, for example, in Psalm 82.

Yes, I know that is what it means and have had discussions on Psalm 82 with Mormons about the meaning of "gods." ''Judges", men of authority, being the preferred meaning for the Jews who didn't believe in other gods but One.

There is no reason to believe the medium actually had the power to call forth the dead, nor is there any reason to believe that she called forth a demon imitating Samuel. The text says two things: that the medium became deeply frightened, and instantly knew the stranger visiting her was King Saul; second that this was Samuel. That's what the text says.

The Bible specifically says it is Samuel. Whatever hoops you want to jump through in order to avoid that is up to you.

Make up your mind. You either believe what the text says or not. You don't want to believe she had the power to bring up Samuel, even though the text says:
1Sa 28:11 Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.

Indicating she did (I do not believe she did either). The text says she called it Samuel nd so did Saul, so therefore it is Samuel, The text says she brought up Samuel so therefore she did. The text says the Saul perceived it was Samuel. Therefore, Saul believed it was Samuel. Nowhere does it state that it was Samuel, only that is who Saul thought it was, and that the old woman saw and old man covered in a mantel.
per·ceive
[pərˈsēv]
discern · recognize · become aware of · see · distinguish · realize ·
grasp · understand · take in · make out · find · identify · hit on · comprehend · apprehend · appreciate · sense · divine · figure out · twig · become cognizant of

• become aware of (something) by the use of one of the senses, especially that of sight:
  "he perceived the faintest of flushes creeping up her neck"
  synonyms: see · discern · detect · catch sight of · spot · observe · notice

• interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as:
  "if Guy does not perceive himself as disabled, nobody else should" ·

• If you do not believe she brought up Samuel, but you believe Samuel was brought up---then who did bring him up?? Certainly not God when He said to not do this or to go to these people.