Why is scripture so fuzzy about heaven and hell?

[ozso]

Doctrines can be a matter of interpretation, that much is true.
but the basis of a translation that doesn't fit with a plain reading of the text being "it was mistranslated" is very flimsy and seems more like a person is trying to argue with God over what He's trying to convey. They've already decided what they want the text to say, and dispute it when the actual text says something that conflicts it.

To be fair there are other doctrines than universalism that do this.

One of the most popular is pretribulation rapture. If you point out Matthew 24:29-31 they'll say "that's not the rapture, because we know the rapture is before the 7 year tribulation" They have put a rule on what God's word can say, and dispute when it goes against their rule.
Similarly, when you try and reach them that Jesus said that Great Tribulation starts after the midpoint, making it no longer than 3.5 years, the same people will again, inject a rule "But we know the tribulation is 7 years"
Instead of taking doctrine OUT of what the text says, they have implemented rules on what the text is allowed to say on a subject and discard anything that contradicts their rule.

Within baptist camps, as much as I agree with them on a lot of things.. there's a teetotalism aspect that isn't particularly biblical. The bible does warn against getting drunk but not to the point of total abstinence from alcohol. If you point out the drinking of wine in moderation as being something good, and acceptable.. they will flip it around and inject their rule on what the bible says, and decides that any mention of wine that IS allowable in scripture, such as Paul advising Timothy to add some wine to his water to help with his stomachaches (probably because the wine killed microbes in the water source he drank from).. well the teetotalers will say the rule is that those allowable uses of wine are actually unfermented grape juice.

The only rule I try to put on what the bible says is that I believe God wants me to be able to understand it without becoming a scholar in ancient languages, so the meaning should be clear no matter what language I read it in.

Considering there are literally hundreds of denominations, it's quite obvious scripture isn't as clear as we would like it to be. That's why I will never subscribe to a particular denomination. What's interesting to me about Christian universalism is there are people from many different denominations including most or all of the forms of Catholicism who believe in it. There's most likely many unversalists who agree with you on every other bit of doctrine you subscribe to. Christian universalism is quite universal. And you might be surprised as to who all among notable prechers and priests and Bible scholars and theologians, that either subscribe to it or at least consider it a possibility or come close to teaching it.

Even Billy Graham came really close to teaching it regarding his view of inclusionism.

 

[Jamdoc]

Not really the same thing as someone idolizing the KJV for example.

I prefer KJV, but that's just mainly because some churches I've gone to use it primarily, but I won't shy away from using another English version and if I don't feel clear on a particular verse I will use biblehub to compare all English versions because yeah, sometimes Elizabethan English just has differences in how it uses words compared to modern use of words.
I actually dislike when people cherrypick from a specific translation to get their doctrine from that specific version.
Like Andy Woods' interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 cherrypicking the Geneva Bible to try to "prove" pretribulation rapture, even though the other time the bible uses apostasia it's used to refer to someone departing from a religious practice, not a physical departure.
There are also those who like to use versions that don't translate the word rosh in Ezekiel 38, so they can say "see Rosh, sounds like Russia!"

The fact that we have multiple English translations and if you read them side by side you should get the same meaning from the scripture is to mek evidence of God preserving the meaning. it'd be more sketchy if there was only 1 version for your language, then you can make those claims of "mistranslation"
But so many scholars over so many hundreds of years have translated these things similarly if not using the exact same words, it has the same meaning, and the use of synonyms or better words for a concept in modern English than the word they chose to use 400 years ago, sometimes brings more clarity.

I will sometimes use interlinear, but I will stand that if God is going to judge us according to His word, then God will make sure we have His word and you will not need to be fluent in dead languages to understand it.

 

[ozso]

I prefer KJV, but that's just mainly because some churches I've gone to use it primarily, but I won't shy away from using another English version and if I don't feel clear on a particular verse I will use biblehub to compare all English versions because yeah, sometimes Elizabethan English just has differences in how it uses words compared to modern use of words.
I actually dislike when people cherrypick from a specific translation to get their doctrine from that specific version.
Like Andy Woods' interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 cherrypicking the Geneva Bible to try to "prove" pretribulation rapture, even though the other time the bible uses apostasia it's used to refer to someone departing from a religious practice, not a physical departure.
There are also those who like to use versions that don't translate the word rosh in Ezekiel 38, so they can say "see Rosh, sounds like Russia!"

The fact that we have multiple English translations and if you read them side by side you should get the same meaning from the scripture is to mek evidence of God preserving the meaning. it'd be more sketchy if there was only 1 version for your language, then you can make those claims of "mistranslation"
But so many scholars over so many hundreds of years have translated these things similarly if not using the exact same words, it has the same meaning, and the use of synonyms or better words for a concept in modern English than the word they chose to use 400 years ago, sometimes brings more clarity.

I will sometimes use interlinear, but I will stand that if God is going to judge us according to His word, then God will make sure we have His word and you will not need to be fluent in dead languages to understand it.

I'm pretty sure the comment "Some people make an idol of a book" was referring to those who are far more dogmatic. Like the KJV is the only version of the Bible inspired by God and that it's completely flawless. Even though the translators themselves wrote a forward in the first edition saying it wasn't flawless.

And also I'll add that I'd say in my opinion in a lot of cases it's that people make an idol of whatever interpretation of the Bible they subscribe to. There's one person who's been in threads about UR (but not this one as far as I know), who constantly accused others of saying the word of God is untrue, calling God a liar, and other comments along those lines, simply because they didn't agree with that person's dogmatic interpretation of scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my understanding of Christian UR, it is not saved no matter what. If that's your understanding of it, then I'd say you have misunderstood. It's been pretty clear to me that Christian unversalists have always said there's only one way to salvation through Christ. It's never been about how someone comes to salvation that differs from orthodox teaching, it's a matter of when they come to salvation.

Excuse me but I can't find any scripture which states that the unrighteous get a second, or third or whatever chance to hear the gospel and choose Jesus after death.
By "no matter what" I mean every kind of unrighteous person, petty thief to mass murderer and everything in between, dies in their sins, many even openly rejecting Jesus, they die and from what you say, I must suppose some kind of witnessing/preaching etc. occurs and they instantly accept Jesus. If they have been in some kind of fire, for even an instant, where does that instant change come from? One instant they hate Jesus the next instant they love Jesus?
IMHO the more likely occurrence is they pretend to be faithful believers but inwardly nothing has changed. I offer for evidence the prison recidivism rate in the U.S. 60+%.
And let us not forget not one word of scripture for any of this.

 

[Der Alte]

Considering there are literally hundreds of denominations, it's quite obvious scripture isn't as clear as we would like it to be. * * *

It is wrong to claim that scriptures are not clear when it is not the scriptures at fault rather it is often deliberately unclear translations/interpretations etc., many times by people who don't know a hithpael from a hatpin or and aorist from an apple. For example, "Young's Literal Translation." Robert Young was self taught in Greek and Hebrew. Why does anyone think his "translation" is more correct than scholars who have Phds/ThDs in Greek and Hebrew? I have linked to online older versions of Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon and Bauer, Gingrich, Arndt, Danker Greek lexicon but those are rejected for something that supports their assumptions and presuppositions.
BDBlink
A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament, with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic : Brown, Francis, 1849-1916 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

BDAG
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Gingrich & Danker (free.fr)

 

[Hmm]

I have linked to online older versions of Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon and Bauer, Gingrich, Arndt, Danker Greek lexicon but those are rejected for something that supports their assumptions and presuppositions.

.
Presumably you chose these particularscholars because they support your existing views so why can't others do the same?

 

[Hmm]

And let us not forget not one word of scripture for any of this.

See new thread Bible verses you believe clearly support universal salvation for various lists.

 

[ozso]

It is wrong to claim that scriptures are not clear when it is not the scriptures at fault rather it is often deliberately unclear translations/interpretations etc.

What I meant is scripture obviously isn't as clearly perceived as we would like it to be. Sometimes that's a good thing, as in when you read a passage that you've read many times before, and suddenly you pick up something from it you hadn't seen before. As for deliberately unclear translations/interpretations etc., I'm sure there are many Christians who would say that about at least one particular translation/interpretation etc. you adhere to. Would accuse you of twisting scripture, not applying hermeneutics, or of eisegesis or not rightly dividing the word etc. It's another practically one size fits all type of accusation.

 

[Der Alte]

.
Presumably you chose these particularscholars because they support your existing views so why can't others do the same?

WRONG! I first became acquainted with BDB and BGAD, now BDAG, more than 4 decades ago when I was in graduate school. They were required. I have both in hard back and digital versions. BDB represents about 90 to 120 years of combined scholarship. BGAD represents about 120-160 years combined scholarship vs. e.g. Young's 0 years of scholarship.
If there was anything questionable about either one troublemakers have had 120+ years to find it. If Young's was the superior book why has it not replaced the scholarly versions?

 

[ozso]

Excuse me but I can't find any scripture which states that the unrighteous get a second, or third or whatever chance to hear the gospel and choose Jesus after death.

That might be, but they do exist. Regardless of whether or not you think they're applicable.

By "no matter what" I mean every kind of unrighteous person, petty thief to mass murderer and everything in between, dies in their sins, many even openly rejecting Jesus, they die and I must suppose some kind of witnessing/preaching etc. and they instantly accept Jesus. If they have been in some kind of fir, for even an instant, where does that instant change come from? One instant they hate Jesus the next instant they love Jesus.

It doesn't make any sense that you would think UR teaches an instant change, when one of your biggest arguments with universalists is whether or not aianos et al means eternal or age long. If they're arguing in favor of an age long duration, that obviously precludes "instantaneous".

 

[Der Alte]

See new thread Bible verses you believe clearly support universal salvation for various lists.

Bintheredunthatgotthetshirt. Show me one verse, 2 or more would be better, Where the Father, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, unequivocally state that all mankind will be saved even after death. I have one verse spoken by Jesus which refutes the UR interpretation of all the vss. in the above list.

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”​

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
.....Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years +/- ago. Who better than the team of; native Greek speaking scholars, who translated the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB] know the meaning of the Greek words in the N.T.?
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1. Matt 25:46 and the second occurrence is 1 John 4:18.

EOB 1 John 4:18 here is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[ κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.​

Note the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars who translated the EOB translated “aionios” as “eternal,” NOT age.
The Greek word translated “punishment” in Matt 25:46 is “kolasis.” Some folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction” but according to the EOB Greek scholars it means “punishment.” 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect.

 

[Der Alte]

That might be, but they do exist. Regardless of whether or not you think they're applicable.

I have not seen any scripture supporting that.

It doesn't make any sense that you would think UR teaches an instant change, when one of your biggest arguments with universalists is whether or not aianos et al means eternal or age long. If they're arguing in favor of an age long duration, that obviously precludes "instantaneous".

Really? That is your objection? Instantaneous or over a period of time. I have not seen any scripture supporting that.

However, if there is an instantaneous change, that change would come about the same way it comes about for anyone/everyone. Like Zacchaeus for example.

One OT example supposedly supports megamillions being instantly converted? Still waiting for supporting scripture.

 

[ozso]

See new thread Bible verses you believe clearly support universal salvation for various lists.

Rubbish.

 

[ozso]

I have not seen any scripture supporting that.

Really? That is your objection? Instantaneous or over a period of time. I have not seen any scripture supporting that.

One OT example supposedly supports megamillions being instantly converted? Still waiting for supporting scripture.

Way to distort what I said and deflect.

 

[ozso]

Show me one verse, 2 or more would be better, Where the Father, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, unequivocally state that all mankind will be saved even after death.

“And I, [Jesus] if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (literally “drag” in the Greek, helkuo) all mankind unto Myself.” (John 12:32)

I have one verse spoken by Jesus which refutes the UR interpretation of all the vss. in the above list.
EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”

Do you view the entire passage of Matthew 25:31-46 as being completely literal? That giving someone a cup of water will result in being given eternal life? Because if you don't view the entire passage as being completely literal, then you don't have a foundation to say the last verse is completely literal.

 

[Der Alte]

“And I, [Jesus] if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (literally “drag” in the Greek, helkuo) all mankind unto Myself.” (John 12:32)

EOB John 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all [fn] to myself
fn: Or “all kinds [of people]” (Jews and Gentiles)​

We must remember which you seem not to have done is the same Jesus who spoke John 3:2 also spoke Matt 25:46

EOB Matt 25:45 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”​

Do you view the entire passage of Matthew 25:31-46 as being completely literal? That giving someone a cup of water will result in being given eternal life? Because if you don't view the entire passage as being completely literal, then you don't have a foundation to say the last verse is literal

.

Wrong! Did you really make this patently ridiculous statement? Just because one or more things are obviously figurative, in a particular passage, that does NOT make everything figurative. The actions Jesus mentioned are the results of salvation, they cannot be done to attain salvation.
There are other vss. which address this I have read them, have you? Or do you only read the vss. which when read/quoted out-of-context appear to support UR? I think I read somewhere " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

 

[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.

Maybe you are looking at it the wrong way. Nothing I have found nor what others (some of them) have found, change anything the Bible already tells those who want to hear the truth. Alas, the Hidden things are represent a fingerprint of GOD, removing all those versions that are changing GOD's WORD for their benefits.

Do you agree that Jesus is on every page of the OT? In Genesis 5 we see "the generations of Adam" does that ring a bell...WHy has God put so many generations and names in these pages?///////

Pro 25:2.."It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Who are these Kings this verse speaks of. It certainly is not the kings of earth but rather those kings in heaven!

In Rev 1:5-6.."And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

Earthmover

 

[earthmover]

Which translation preserved God's word specifically as He wanted it?

Furthermore, there are differing opinions about the doctrines. Which one is correct?

Was it you who said something about the last 12 verses of Mark 16? The version is really up to the person...I have come to use the KJV 1611 (Old English) and 1769 versions because I know where they came from and can be verified through many different avenues...Yet, there is something else that binds me to these versions and that is the Hidden treasures that GOD has placed within the WORD of HIS Book. Those last twelve verses have His fingerprints all over it and if one studies it, there is no doubt....Yet, for those versions that say it was not there in the beginning, I can show through History that it was being read from in the early centuries from prominent people.

Look to Gen 5 "the Generations of Adam" What Hidden things are there. Yet, in other versions the deity of Jesus is removed and many WORDs that will not show those hidden fingerprints of GOD.

Earthmover

 

[earthmover]

The synoptic gospels are too similar to have not been copied to some extent. And there are debates about authorship.

OK,,,,let me ask you....Mat had several words in his gospel that was not used in any of the other gospels. To do this, He would have had to write his book LAST in order to make sure these specific words were not found anywhere else.. We can find the same scenario in Mark, Luke and John...Each used words that are not found in any of the other three gospels and they too would have had to written theirs last as well. OOPS how did so many write their books last.....unless their words (letter by letter) was the WORDs of the Author, GOD.!

earthmover

 

[earthmover]

The canon was not collected and voted on until the 4th century. It did not exist at the time 2 Tim 3:16 was written.

exactly.......Jesus tells us that :"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" and He was speaking about the OT as well. Long before the canon was ever thought of.

Earthmover