Does Hell Exist?

[Data]

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

[Difflugia]

You and myth have done exactly that---cherry-picked verses,

I don't know about myth, I wasn't paying attention to what they wrote. I was more interested in the commenter asserting that a particular theological viewpoint was biblical, but insisting that some verses don't mean what they say. Since I believe that all of the authors meant what they wrote and I'm not hamstrung by the notion that they somehow have to fit together like misshapen puzzle pieces, you can hardly claim that I'm cherry-picking. I might be wrong for some other reason, but I accept that every Bible verse is just as valid in its own context as any other.

and not paying attention to the explanations of those verses,

I definitely paid attention to them. Explaining why they're wrong is pretty much the opposite of ignoring them. You can have whatever theology you want, but you can't discard parts of the Bible and still believably call it biblical.

which make sense entirely.

I don't see it. Perhaps you could make sense for me of what 2timothy316 didn't?

To refresh your memory, Revelation 14:9-10 says that anyone worshipping the beast will be tormented in fire and brimstone. Taken out of context, one might claim that such torment has an end, but verse 11 first says that the smoke from their torment is eternal, then says that those being tormented will never have rest from the torment. Then, as though it were anticipating faulty Witness theology, it reiterates that those being eternally tormented are those that worship the beast and receive his mark.

Now, perhaps you can make sense of your theology that must treate Revelation 14:9-11 as though it doesn't say what it says, yet purports to be biblical.

[myth-one.com]

You (Difflugia) and myth have done exactly that---cherry-picked verses, and not paying attention to the explanations of those verses, which make sense entirely.

Should we randomly select verses to respond to the claims of others?

[2timothy316]

However to try and use the scriptures to try and prove hell, one will be left with inharmonious a Bible full of contradictions.

That's what we started with. One has to deal with that whether trying to prove something or not.

I do not believe the Bible to be inharmonious and it has no contradictions.

One way to deal with it is denial. Another is to try to trust each author tell you his or her own story.

If you believe it to be the Word of God, wouldn't it be best to read it as God gave it to you, contradictions and all, rather than try to tell God how He should have written it?

The Bible is the word of God and I don't see contradictions and you're wasting your time trying to convince me there are. This is why I am not trying to convince you of anything as it would be a waste of my time. Just like I don't waste my time with a person that thinks every scripture is symbolic. So, if you want to think the exact opposite of that guy, go for it, no skin off my nose. All Im doing is giving the reader another choice and leaving it up to them to weigh the evidence. If you ignore it, then that's your choice, Im not going to try and convince you otherwise. Making your posts personal isn't a convincing debate tactic.

[Difflugia]

The Bible is the word of God and I don't see contradictions

That's why I told you where to look. "Horse to water," though, eh?

and you're wasting your time trying to convince me there are.

Most hobbies are seen as a waste of time by those that don't share them.

This is why I am not trying to convince you of anything as it would be a waste of my time.

I support you in your choices.

Just like I don't waste my time with a person that thinks every scripture is symbolic. So, if you want to think the exact opposite of that guy, go for it, no skin off my nose.

There's a lot of latitude between all Scripture being symbolic and none of it.

I'll Im doing is giving the reader another choice and leaving it up to them to weigh the evidence.

And your presentation of that evidence is what I'm engaging with.

If you ignore it, then that's your choice, Im not going to try and convince you otherwise.

It's hard to argue that I'm ignoring what you wrote when I'm explaining exactly why it's wrong.

[onewithhim]

You and myth have done exactly that---cherry-picked verses,

I don't know about myth, I wasn't paying attention to what they wrote. I was more interested in the commenter asserting that a particular theological viewpoint was biblical, but insisting that some verses don't mean what they say.

So you are saying that these verses "mean what they say":

Locusts came out of an abyss and "the likenesses of the locusts resembled horses prepared for battle, and upon their heads were what seemed to be crowns of gold, and their faces were like men's faces, but they had hair as women's hair. And their teeth were as those of lions; and they had breastplates like iron breastplates....Also they have tails and stings like scorpions." (Revelation 9:7-10)

Is that to be taken literally?

"And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and upon its horns ten diadems. Now the wild beast that I saw was like a leopard, but its feet were as those of a bear, and its mouth was a lion's mouth. And the dragon gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority." (Revelation 13:1,2)

Is that literal?

If you say no, then why do you take Revelation 20:10 literally?

[2timothy316]

If you ignore it, then that's your choice, Im not going to try and convince you otherwise.

It's hard to argue that I'm ignoring what you wrote when I'm explaining exactly why it's wrong.

Its wrong to you, not to me. And I'm fine with that.

[Difflugia]

So you are saying that these verses "mean what they say":

Yes.

Locusts came out of an abyss and "the likenesses of the locusts resembled horses prepared for battle, and upon their heads were what seemed to be crowns of gold, and their faces were like men's faces, but they had hair as women's hair. And their teeth were as those of lions; and they had breastplates like iron breastplates....Also they have tails and stings like scorpions." (Revelation 9:7-10)

Is that to be taken literally?

No.

"And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and upon its horns ten diadems. Now the wild beast that I saw was like a leopard, but its feet were as those of a bear, and its mouth was a lion's mouth. And the dragon gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority." (Revelation 13:1,2)

Is that literal?

No.

If you say no, then why do you take Revelation 20:10 literally?

I don't.

Pretty much all of Revelation is broadly allegorical and as such, we have to try to figure out what the author intended us to understand by the imagery. Since you haven't actually attempted to do so, I can only assume that you're trying to establish that 20:10 (which I'd yet to mention) can mean anything at all. The author of Revelation uses fantastic imagery and you clearly recognize that by having selected some, but also gives us ways to interpret and ground the imagery into something meaningful, at least in the milieu of late first or early second century Christianity.

In your first pick, we have tormentors rising out of the Abyss to torment those without the Seal of God. If we have to pick one extreme of your attempted gotcha, then it's clearly non-literal. There must be enough "literal" there for us to understand the warning. Are the men lacking the seal of God in 9:4 literally men? Is there literally a seal? In verse 5, are the locusts not allowed to literally kill the men? Is "kill" a metaphor for something else? Is the torment of verse 5 literal torment?

In 20:10, are the devil, beast, and false prophet literally a devil, beast, and false prophet or are they a metaphor or metaphors for something else? Either way, what's the eternal torment metaphor for? Since we were earlier discussing chapter 14, an angel is showing the Revelator men that have a mark of the beast on their foreheads or hands. Is the angel literal or a metaphor for something else? Is the mark literal? Is it literally on the foreheads or hands of real literal men? Is the wrath of God literally wrath of the literal God? Is the torment literal torment? Is eternity literal eternity?

If the Revelator isn't warning those that oppose God of eternal torment, then why not go all the way. Perhaps Revelation is a warning that anyone that opposes and blasphemes God will feel so bad about themselves before they're ushered into heaven that it will feel like an eternity of torment.

Your attempted argument (such as I assume your rhetorical questions are intended to be) is nothing more than a slippery slope. If Revelation includes metaphorical imagery, as we know it does, I guess I must be expected to accept any sort of harmonizing interpretation, no matter how hamhanded. Not only that, by virtue of apparently being merely possible, we must further accept the description of such fancy as "biblical."

[onewithhim]

So you are saying that these verses "mean what they say":

Yes.

Locusts came out of an abyss and "the likenesses of the locusts resembled horses prepared for battle, and upon their heads were what seemed to be crowns of gold, and their faces were like men's faces, but they had hair as women's hair. And their teeth were as those of lions; and they had breastplates like iron breastplates....Also they have tails and stings like scorpions." (Revelation 9:7-10)

Is that to be taken literally?

No.

"And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and upon its horns ten diadems. Now the wild beast that I saw was like a leopard, but its feet were as those of a bear, and its mouth was a lion's mouth. And the dragon gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority." (Revelation 13:1,2)

Is that literal?

No.

If you say no, then why do you take Revelation 20:10 literally?

I don't.

Pretty much all of Revelation is broadly allegorical and as such, we have to try to figure out what the author intended us to understand by the imagery. Since you haven't actually attempted to do so, I can only assume that you're trying to establish that 20:10 (which I'd yet to mention) can mean anything at all.

Um, I have "attempted" to explain what Revelation 20:10 means, many times. It's not "anything at all." The Devil is cast into the lake of fire along with "death and Hades" (verse 14), and we know this is symbolic because death and Hades can't be "hurled." The lake of fire is symbolic for complete destruction; annihilation; obliteration.....no more existence. There will be no more Devil and his minions, no more death and no more Hades. Completely gone, forever.

[Difflugia]

Um, I have "attempted" to explain what Revelation 20:10 means, many times.

I don't doubt that.

It's not "anything at all."

We'll see.

The Devil is cast into the lake of fire along with "death and Hades" (verse 14), and we know this is symbolic because death and Hades can't be "hurled." The lake of fire is symbolic for complete destruction; annihilation; obliteration.....no more existence.

First, this is a non sequitur. Even if we accept that Death and Hades can't be "hurled," you haven't explained (and it's certainly not obvious) why that means eternal torture can't occur in the lake of fire.

Second, Death and Hades here are personal names rather than place names ("the Death" and "the Hades" in Greek). These are references to 6:8 where Death and Hades are metaphorically riding the green horse. Anyone that can metaphorically ride a green horse can metaphorically be hurled into a lake of fire. You seem to be arguing, though, that anything that applies to one hurlee must also be true about the other hurlees. Since Death and Hades aren't really people (or at least beings), does that mean the devil and false prophet aren't really people?

Your interpretation isn't completely out of the question, but it's only barely above "anything is possible." If your only support against the eternal torment of 14:11 is that death and Hades can't be hurled, you've got a bit of heavy lifting to do yet. For now, your personal reading of those verses has exactly as much support as "anything at all."

"Death and Hades can't be hurled, so the lake of fire is symbolic of a giant can of soup."

When you have more than that, let us know.

There will be no more Devil and his minions, no more death and no more Hades. Completely gone, forever.

You're confidently asserting something as fact that isn't supported by the text, which means that it isn't biblical in the way that you and 2timothy316 use the word. If you have some sort of evidence that the author of Revelation agrees with you, I'd love to see it. I expect that you're just going to keep asserting it without justification, though. I hope I'm wrong.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #59]

I have not seen you use the Bible to refute any of what is posted on this thread. I'm not sure you have even read everything on this thread.

For example: Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Matt. 10:28

The term destroy means in Webster's definition: to put out of existence.

You say you read the Bible for what it says. Do you do that here with Matt 10:28? Or must we not take Matthew 10:28 at 'face value'? viewtopic.php?p=1137143#p1137143