Why is scripture so fuzzy about heaven and hell?

[Der Alte]

Speaking of resources...
Here's an interesting presentation I just viewed that helps to explain the fuzziness. It's from a Jewish POV.

James Kugel, director of the Institute for the History of the Jewish Bible at Bar Ilan University, argues that the Hebrew Bible was, from the beginning, the Interpreted Bible. In the third and second centuries B.C.E. – well before the last books of the Bible were written – groups of interpreters were puzzling over the stories of Abraham and Sarah, Jacob and Esau, and other ancient figures. Their interpretations were often fanciful, and sometimes wildly inventive, but their grasp of the very idea of the Bible is still with us and continues to influence today’s readers. [6/2013] [Show ID: 24917]

I was really impressed by the historical evidence he provided for his theories.

 

[Water and Fire]

It is. I look forward to hearing some of the things you've learnt on your quest.

I'm not looking forward to the huge backlash from sharing it. People claim to want the truth, but what they want is affirmation of their pet doctrines. You'd be amazed at how much scripture is actually about this.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm not looking forward to the huge backlash from sharing it. People claim to want the truth, but what they want is affirmation of their pet doctrines. You'd be amazed at how much scripture is actually about this.

We could discuss some things off forum.
I'll send a PM to initiate a conversation between us three. (sent)

 

[Jamdoc]

Similarly, I often ask, "How are such things measured?"
As soon as you add anything to the finished work of Christ, it causes trouble. And as a Baptist, I imagine that you, or the denomination, has some additional requirements.

IFB tend to add nothing to it, in fact they can get in trouble with some more organized Churches with the idea that even repentance doesn't mean "repent from your sins", but rather the repent is "turn to Jesus".
IFB's are often associated with OSAS (the fancy theological term is "Eternal Security") and "Easy Believism" and it's just.. well. that's what the bible teaches, our obligation is to believe on Jesus.

John 6

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Now, IFB often associates good works and obedience of evidence of a life changed by the Gospel.
But the good works and obedience are not what saves you and is not what enters you into a saving relationship. That's faith, and that's grace.

IFB's will accept though, that some Christians, who are truly in Christ, have seasons of backsliding into sin.
We'll look at biblical examples like Noah the Drunk and Lot who offered up his own daughters to get gang raped as examples of backsliding saints who God actually used as pictures of people being saved from the wrath of God, and the rapture in fact.

But you do need that relationship with Christ.
None of the religious junk hanging onto many churches is required.
to me?

I hate religion
but I love Jesus.

So I don't treat Christianity as a religion, but rather a personal relationship with Jesus.

 

[Der Alte]

I'm not looking forward to the huge backlash from sharing it. People claim to want the truth, but what they want is affirmation of their pet doctrines. You'd be amazed at how much scripture is actually about this.

I have found that to be true for the hell no! group. I don't think there is a single verse in the Bible which they can't twist to make it seem to support UR.

 

[earthmover]

The Amazon book price seems to be $9.99, not 99 cents.

I watched the video presentation.
I made a few observations that should be addressed.

To be clear, I'm not making a statement against these things. I am pointing out big holes and contradictions in the points presented.

The presenter begins by talking about authority, but then goes on (8:05) to say, "Scripture declares its divine authority and integrity" citing 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, 2 Corinthians 5:20, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and Revelation 1:1-3, 22 9:9-10, 18 Therefore, no proof of authority is given from any outside source. (I think some could be identified)

I imagine that other religions could make the same claim. That their holy book is self-authorizing.

The presenter also claims (9:05) that there are hidden codes in the text that would fall apart if you changed even one letter. Then (9:38) says that error is introduced in the human translation of the texts. Even though he declared at the start that our Bible (the translation) is"God-breathed". This seems contradictory. Does this mean that every word of the original manuscripts was divinely inspired, but God was "hands-off" during the translation process? If so, how come?

More to come.

my fault, I use ebooks instead of regular books, the ebook is 99 cents. and is available immediately.

earthmover.

 

[earthmover]

The Amazon book price seems to be $9.99, not 99 cents.

I watched the video presentation.
I made a few observations that should be addressed.

To be clear, I'm not making a statement against these things. I am pointing out big holes and contradictions in the points presented.

The presenter begins by talking about authority, but then goes on (8:05) to say, "Scripture declares its divine authority and integrity" citing 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, 2 Corinthians 5:20, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and Revelation 1:1-3, 22 9:9-10, 18 Therefore, no proof of authority is given from any outside source. (I think some could be identified)

I imagine that other religions could make the same claim. That their holy book is self-authorizing.

The presenter also claims (9:05) that there are hidden codes in the text that would fall apart if you changed even one letter. Then (9:38) says that error is introduced in the human translation of the texts. Even though he declared at the start that our Bible (the translation) is"God-breathed". This seems contradictory. Does this mean that every word of the original manuscripts was divinely inspired, but God was "hands-off" during the translation process? If so, how come?

More to come.

OK, I am not sure about the video and how different it is from the ebook/book.
There are hidden codes within the Bible and that is pretty well a fact.....it is one integrated book...The Hebrew meaning is "God-breathed".

The bottom line is this....How much faith do you have that GOD perserved a copy of His WORD as He specifically wanted it. Could he prevent any miss translations, etc. One important part is: is there any one chapter that contains the full information about a particular doctrine...NO-----why....if you lose part of the bible you can still learn about every doctrine contained within. I use the KJV but also use others to show the difference in the translations...The KJV has about 200 errors that are mapped and the majority of these errors are in name transliterations. None of them that I have found change anything about a doctrine or say the deity of Jesus Christ. Example is the Septuagint LXX which reads differently than the King James at times. This in itself is informative and proves that the translations of 350 BC in some cases followed a different line of thinking.

I again apologise as I should have stated the book in question was an Ebook.

My bad!

earthmover

 

[earthmover]

@earthmover

He then discusses (24:47) inerrancy and infallibility. In reference to the original autographs (manuscripts) However, translators had to choose (human error?) which manuscripts were most reliable. This footnote illustrates this. Which of these manuscripts was "inerrant and infallible"?

Footnotes

1. Mark 16:8 Some manuscripts have the following ending between verses 8 and 9, and one manuscript has it after verse 8 (omitting verses 9-20): Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter. After this, Jesus himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

Yes, this was removed from the originals by the gnostics and left out quit a bit..However, God's finger prints are all over it...Like the Gospels where it is said they are the same and one copied from another...Yet, they leave out the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all used words that the others did not use. So if they copied from one another, which one wrote their book last....for this is the only way they would have known what NOT to write. a little further study will help..

Earthmover.

 

[Jamdoc]

Never understood the point of believing in the bible being "hidden" rather than revealed knowledge of God. It would be unfair of God to judge people based on standards that He did not reveal to them, and God is fair.
To those who've never been exposed to the bible there is still general revelation, and the human conscience, to which, everyone will have violated, thus earning condemnation.
Nobody is condemned without doing something they know they should not have done, and they will know that it is wrong before doing it.

That said, for UR, the "hidden knowledge" (AKA Gnosticism) is to arrive at the same conclusion that Atheists have... and that is there is no judgement so live how you want.
It directly contradicts scripture which teaches there is a judgement and punishment.

If there was no judgement and UR was the truth.. why did Jesus scold so many people for not believing in Him?
If they'd all be saved anyway, He should have just .. gotten Himself nailed to the cross without doing anything wrong and atoned for everyone.. rather than ministering for 3 years trying to get people to believe He was who He said He was.

 

[tomartomau]

I don't think God is fuzzy about heaven and hell, I think for humankind it is far easier to fuzzy the prospect of hell than the presence of heaven.

 

[earthmover]

@earthmover

He claims (35:08) that the Apocrypha in non-canonical. This is not true. The Latin/western Church that gave us the canon included the Apocrypha. Protestants have discarded it, or removed it from the original canon.

This begs the question: If the original manuscripts of the canon were inspired, inerrant and infallible, why did the Protestants remove them from the Bible?

This is an area that is debatable in an appropriate atmosphere,not here.

Earthmover

 

[earthmover]

@earthmover

He speaks (38:38) about the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) being the "Bible" that the early church used. Shouldn't this be the "Scripture" mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16 ???

What became of the inerrant and infallible original manuscripts? And the Bible code that depended on the original texts. Is that suddenly unimportant?

Not sure what you are speaking of here but will take a stab at it.. The Septuagint LXX was the only Bible the people in the first century had...It is included in 2 TIm 3:16 as Jesus was speaking of the whole Bible, not just the NT or just the OT...you cannot separate them for they are one integrated book. ONe Author (Jesus Christ) and 40 writers of 66 books.

What do the individual words of 2 tim 3:16 mean to you? To me they mean this:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

doctrine tells what is good, reproof tells us what is bad, correction tells us how to correct ourselves back to the right path and instruction in righteousness tells us how to keep us on the right path. Yes, this would also apply to the OT.

earthmover.

 

[earthmover]

@earthmover

He discusses (42:17) the differences between the Masoretic and the Aramaic, said that in that translation, Enoch led the teaching against God. Which differs from the KJV, of course. (Hebrews 11:5)

would have to hear what He was speaking of. Enoch walked with GOD and was raptured to heaven. The Masorectic text was written in the 4-5th century and the OT has chapters written in Aramaic for a specific reason...(i.e. Parts of Daniel, etc...)

earthmover

As far as Heb 11:5

 

[earthmover]

@earthmover

Then (44:42) he tells us that the only complete manuscripts are from the 4th to 10th centuries AD. From which our modern translations come. Are these still inerrant and infallible original manuscripts? Do they contain the Bible code referred to earlier? (nope) Not the original language.

Here is an author/presenter that gives a different view on the subject.

Focus 2017 Keynote 1: The Bible Tells Me So - Peter Enns

From what I have heard and read of Chuck Missler, is the manuscripts he speaks of being inerrant and infallable are the originals. Yet,GOD told us in PSA12:6-7
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

I believe that God keeps his word and the above should be heeded by all.

earthmover

 

[earthmover]

Never understood the point of believing in the bible being "hidden" rather than revealed knowledge of God. It would be unfair of God to judge people based on standards that He did not reveal to them, and God is fair.
To those who've never been exposed to the bible there is still general revelation, and the human conscience, to which, everyone will have violated, thus earning condemnation.
Nobody is condemned without doing something they know they should not have done, and they will know that it is wrong before doing it.

That said, for UR, the "hidden knowledge" (AKA Gnosticism) is to arrive at the same conclusion that Atheists have... and that is there is no judgement so live how you want.
It directly contradicts scripture which teaches there is a judgement and punishment.

If there was no judgement and UR was the truth.. why did Jesus scold so many people for not believing in Him?
If they'd all be saved anyway, He should have just .. gotten Himself nailed to the cross without doing anything wrong and atoned for everyone.. rather than ministering for 3 years trying to get people to believe He was who He said He was.

Do you believe this? One can find Jesus on every page of the OT!

If you cannot then you are missing out on a huge part of His WORD.

Blade

 

[earthmover]

@earthmover

Then (44:42) he tells us that the only complete manuscripts are from the 4th to 10th centuries AD. From which our modern translations come. Are these still inerrant and infallible original manuscripts? Do they contain the Bible code referred to earlier? (nope) Not the original language.

Here is an author/presenter that gives a different view on the subject.

Focus 2017 Keynote 1: The Bible Tells Me So - Peter Enns

The title of the book is enough for me never to pick it up much less read its pages.

I have tried to answer all of your post, Hope I have not miss even one.

Hidden things....look to the "Generations of Adam" Gen. 5


Blade

 

[ozso]

But isn't that also a debatable doctrine as well? There are differing views on the Atonement.

From my perspective, Jesus died to conquer death. (not to pay for our sins)

Since the wages of sin is death, it sounds like you're on the right track.

 

[ozso]

We could discuss some things off forum.
I'll send a PM to initiate a conversation between us three. (sent)

Add me also please if that's alright with everyone.

 

[ozso]

IFB tend to add nothing to it, in fact they can get in trouble with some more organized Churches with the idea that even repentance doesn't mean "repent from your sins", but rather the repent is "turn to Jesus".
IFB's are often associated with OSAS (the fancy theological term is "Eternal Security") and "Easy Believism" and it's just.. well. that's what the bible teaches, our obligation is to believe on Jesus.

John 6


Now, IFB often associates good works and obedience of evidence of a life changed by the Gospel.
But the good works and obedience are not what saves you and is not what enters you into a saving relationship. That's faith, and that's grace.

IFB's will accept though, that some Christians, who are truly in Christ, have seasons of backsliding into sin.
We'll look at biblical examples like Noah the Drunk and Lot who offered up his own daughters to get gang raped as examples of backsliding saints who God actually used as pictures of people being saved from the wrath of God, and the rapture in fact.

But you do need that relationship with Christ.
None of the religious junk hanging onto many churches is required.
to me?

I hate religion
but I love Jesus.

So I don't treat Christianity as a religion, but rather a personal relationship with Jesus.

Philosophical arguments I hear against universalism are pretty similar to arguments I hear against eternal security.

 

[ozso]

I've begun looking into salvation as used in the Old Testament. Depending on the translation, the word "salvation" appears up to 178 times in the OT. Lots of salvation, but no lake of fire or similar to be saved from. Not even really a hint of such. With perhaps the exception of where the fire is not quenched and their worm dieth not in Isaiah and everlasting contempt in Daniel.