Does Hell Exist?

[Data]

The question for debate is does hell exist? If so, what does the Bible teach hell is?

[2timothy316]

[Mae von H]

[2timothy316]

[Mae von H]

[JehovahsWitness]

[2timothy316]

[onewithhim]

So you say that the locusts with womens' hair is literal?

No, but I don't claim that nothing in Revelation is figurative.

You, on the other hand, have claimed that everything in Revelation is figurative and used it as justification for one of your claims:

As for the Bible supporting the lake of fire being symbolic, the whole book of Revelation is symbolic, so why would you think that the lake of fire was not?

If that's not what you meant, then your argumemt carries no weight. My position is that some things in Revelation are meant to be symbolic and some things are meant to be literal. If the 144,000 is meant to be a literal number, then you must believe that, too. Do you?

I too believe that there are things in Revelation that are meant to be literal, and most things are symbolic. (God's word itself says that Revelation was given "in signs" (symbols) to Jesus from God. ("Signified" is also used in some translations.))

[Difflugia]

I too believe that there are things in Revelation that are meant to be literal, and most things are symbolic.

Fine. Your claim, though, is that the Lake of Fire must be a figurative lake of fire rather than a literal one. Your justification is that most things in Revelation are figurative, but not all of them. That's not enough.

So once again, your argument is that because something might be able to be read a particular way if one squints hard enough, it therefore must be read that way.

Do you, by chance, have more than that?

(God's word itself says that Revelation was given "in signs" (symbols) to Jesus from God. ("Signified" is also used in some translations.))

It hardly matters, but the Greek word ??????? has roughly the same breadth as "signify" does in modern English. It generally means mundane things like "show," "point out," or "indicate."

[Capbook]

So you say that the locusts with womens' hair is literal?

No, but I don't claim that nothing in Revelation is figurative.

You, on the other hand, have claimed that everything in Revelation is figurative and used it as justification for one of your claims:

As for the Bible supporting the lake of fire being symbolic, the whole book of Revelation is symbolic, so why would you think that the lake of fire was not?

If that's not what you meant, then your argumemt carries no weight. My position is that some things in Revelation are meant to be symbolic and some things are meant to be literal. If the 144,000 is meant to be a literal number, then you must believe that, too. Do you?

I too believe that there are things in Revelation that are meant to be literal, and most things are symbolic. (God's word itself says that Revelation was given "in signs" (symbols) to Jesus from God. ("Signified" is also used in some translations.))

Yes, I also that believe there are things in Revelation that are meant to be literal and symbolic.
Rev 20:10 mentions "lake of fire" I believe it is literal as "fire" in verse 9 devoured the wicked.
But "forever and ever" in verse 10 is just like the "eternal fire" in Jude 1:7 is/are symbolic.
It is defined by Barne's as "destroyed"
I don't believe that Sodom and Gommorah is on fire until now.

[JehovahsWitness]

Rev 20:10 mentions "lake of fire" I believe it is literal as "fire" in verse 9 devoured the wicked.

But it also devoured "death" and it devoured "hell" please explain.


JW