[Wondergirl]

I read this. Seems pretty clear. You are trying to hide behind the pronoun "we", but don't include me in that. That is your philosophy you are describing. This is all on you.

we wish all the people who are evil and whom we hate will be sent when they die

And there is still no appeal to scripture.

The "we" is generic, not you and me and Fred. You've never told anyone (or whispered under your breath), "Go to hell!"?

I'm supposed to duel proof-passages with you?

[jlisenbe]

What a weak defense. You make a statement about sending people "we" hate to hell, and state that "we wish" it to happen, and then somehow try to suggest that it's not really YOUR wish, but it's that wicked Mr. Generic's fault! Oh please.

And besides, do you have any scripture whatsoever about hell being this "training ground" (which actually made me laugh), or a place just for wicked people that "we hate"? Anything at all? You say you studied this. Well, surely some passages of scripture stood out to you. I gave you fifteen or so. Do you have anything at all?

[paraclete]

You argue, but it makes no difference, this is purgatory, or perhaps hell on Earth

[talaniman]

Why would anyone respond to your queries since we all know you're ready to pounce on them. 'Cept me who don't give a crap.

[jlisenbe]

'Cept me who don't give a crap.

That's what I like about you. You've got some fight in you.

I'm not trying to be ugly, but remember what I told you last week about pouring water out of a boot?

[jlisenbe]

A little light-hearted start for the day.

[talaniman]

You are a challenge I look forward to. I love it when you bring it! Haven't had enough coffee yet so refresh me about pouring water from a boot.

[jlisenbe]

The old saying I mentioned last week was this: Don't pour water (or some other liquid) out of your boot on my head and then try to tell me it's raining.

[talaniman]

We say don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining. I should point out though I'm not the one peeing on your head. I'm the guy willing to share his umbrella. Doesn't matter if it's pee, or rain. We can still keep our head dry.

[jlisenbe]

I like your version better!! We still need to share that cup of coffee.

[Athos]

It was only in dispute in your mind. I never contended otherwise, so there is nothing to admit to. You must concentrate. Honestly, I frequently sit here in amazement at where you get these crazy ideas from.

Your amazement is equalled by your ignorance.

Oh? Tell us about those "competing versions" that had textual differences of any great concern.

In the 4th century, St. Jerome was asked to make a copy of the entire Bible. What became known as the Old Testament (the Jewish "Bible"), he translated from the Hebrew. The existing sources of the New Testament, however, were a mess. Jerome complained that there were almost as many versions as copies. The Gospels were in Old Latin and Greek. There were also copies in Syriac and in Coptic. Jerome translated from the Old Latin and Greek into then New Latin which became the Vulgate, the definitive version for the Catholic Church.

The word "Hell" never appears in either the Old or New Testaments. "Sheol" in the Old T meant the abode of the dead. It had nothing to do with eternal punishment. Jerome translated it as "inferno" meaning "the lower world". Later, inferno took on the connotation of "fiery place", from "Gehenna"(below), never eternal punishment. For the Gospels Jerome translated "Hades" (from Sheol) meaning "the hidden place" or "underworld", never eternal punishment. Hades did not have any connection to fire or eternity. "Tartarus" was translated once by Jerome as hell. No connection to anything. Finally, "Gehenna" was translated as Hell. Gehenna is the most common and was an actual garbage pit outside the walls of Jerusalem which was more or less constantly on fire or smoldering. Its use in the Gospels is figurative since it is hardly the place for eternal punishment of the body/soul.

When Catholic Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, hell as a place of punishment became current as a means of coercing converts and encouraging people to be good and not sin. Even so, it was never a major theological position.

It all changed with Dante's poem "The Divine Comedy" (Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso) when it exploded into the European consciousness with the "Inferno" showing the fantastic tortures of the damned. Dante intended the work to be an allegory - popes and bishops are in hell - but it became the definitive picture of a hell where the wicked suffer.

The word "hell" is an Old English word first appearing in English in the Bible translations. It was the English translation for Jerome's "inferno".

Every use of the English word hell as a place of eternal punishment is a mistranslaton of the Hebrew or the Greek.

So when I appeal to nearly twenty passages of scripture that support clearly the concept of hell, well that strikes you as not being "reasonable", so you reject it.

No, I reject it because it is a mistranslation.

When Jesus refers to an "eternal" hell, you are forced to appeal an extreme minority position regarding the meaning of aionios, a position held by virtually no one of consequence in the world of Bible translations.

It is held by those of enormous importance. Namely the original writers of the Gospels (and the Old and New Testaments). Aionios - this Greek word means A) a period of time that never ends, forever, or eternal, OR B) a period of time that begins and ends, an age, age-lasting.

The word in the Gospel context means an age, not eternal. See the next paragraph.

The context of Matthew 25 is in the word "kolasis". The phrase is "aionios kolasis". To the Greeks of the day, kolasis meant a corrective or redemptive process. In Greek outside of the Bible, it means "to prune", i.e., as in a garden, to fix or correct the desired growth. When the phrase is translated as "eternal punishment, it is not faithful to the original Greek. Eternal correction is worse. This mistranslation was energetically supported by Augustine and the English KJV and maybe two other English Bibles. For proof of this, all one has to do is research the original Greek for the meanings of the two words and how they are used in context. Matthew's 25 is impossible. Why so many later versions copied this mistranslation is another question.

As to the 17 verses from your post claiming proof of eternal punishment in hell, every one can be debunked.

Now I would suggest you appeal to specific scriptures which tell us there is no hell, that no one will ever go there, or that they will only go for a short period.

Let me get this straight. You want me to tell you of a scripture that says there is no hell - a concept that is not there in the first place? Did you ever learn that a negative cannot be proved? Another idea for you to research.

[jlisenbe]

Let me get this straight. You want me to tell you of a scripture that says there is no hell - a concept that is not there in the first place? Did you ever learn that a negative cannot be proved? Another idea for you to research.

About what I figured. You love to blow and shout, but when it's time to actually demonstrate any knowledge of the Bible, you fail miserably. 17 verses can, you say, be debunked. You have mystery translations of Greek words that no translation of the Bible agrees with. When you say, "Why so many later versions copied this mistranslation is another question," you have hit the nail on the head at last. The answer to your question is simple. You don't know what you're talking about. "Maybe two other English translations" support your position? You don't know? Watching your mental gymnastics leaving you twisted like a pretzel is a sad sight.

In Matthew 25 Jesus used the greek word "pyr" which translates "fire". It is immediately followed by "eternal", and is a place, he says, prepared for the devil and his angels. People are plainly sent there. You are greatly mistaken.

[Wondergirl]

About what I figured. You love to blow and shout, but when it's time to actually demonstrate any knowledge of the Bible, you fail miserably.

I agree with Athos. He nicely sums up what I learned in college theology classes, discussed in Bible study groups and themed workshops, and learned during private research and reading on the subject.

[jlisenbe]

I agree with Athos. He nicely sums up what I learned in college theology classes, discussed in Bible study groups and themed workshops, and learned during private research and reading on the subject.

First of all, you would agree with Athos if he said you are a man or a bird. You will agree with him on anything and everything. If he is summing up what you learned in theology classes, then he is evidently summing up what you learned outside of the Bible. Neither of you can ever refer to scriptures to support your positions. I posted nearly twenty scriptures on hell. You refuse to even comment on them. For him, it's always a minority position based on highly questionable translations of Greek words that no Bible translations agree with it. You are as far out in left field as you can get, and you are largely alone.

[Wondergirl]

He must be nicely summing up what you learned outside of the Bible. Neither of you can ever refer to verses to support your positions. It's always a minority position based on highly questionable translations of Greek words that no Bible translations agree with it. You are as far out in left field as you can get, and you are largely alone.

Do a bit of study. You have a huge advantage that I never had. Please open your mind!

[jlisenbe]

You said you did MUCH study, and yet you have no scripture to support your position. Now you think I need to do a "bit" of study? I ask you again. Look at the scriptures I posted. Study them. Ask yourself if they seem to be referring to a place like what you described earlier. Clearly they don't.

A really good place to start is Isaiah's experience with God in Isaiah 6. It will give you a fresh look at the intense holiness of God.

My mind is wide open. I don't tend to adopt beliefs because someone else says I am supposed to. I read my Bible a great deal and do my own thinking and praying. Above all else, I avoid reading my own prejudices into it. I am convinced that is what you are doing.

[Wondergirl]

You said you did MUCH study, and yet you have no scripture to support your position. Now you think I need to do a "bit" of study? I ask you again. Look at the scriptures I posted. Study them. Ask yourself if they seem to be referring to a place like what you described earlier. Clearly they don't.

A really good place to start is Isaiah's experience with God in Isaiah 6. It will give you a fresh look at the intense holiness of God.

Which version? Or maybe the JW Bible or the Mormon version? The Vulgate? Better yet, please point me to the original manuscripts.

[jlisenbe]

Which version? Or maybe the JW Bible or the Mormon version? The Vulgate? Better yet, please point me to the original manuscripts.

If you really believe all of that, then why do you bother with it? The New World Translation (JW) is clearly skewed to reflect their beliefs. The Mormons don't have their own translation. They use the KJV. Point you to the original autographs? Come on. You know that's a foolish comment. No original manuscripts of antiquity survive for any works.

I think your problem is that you want to read your prejudices into the Bible rather than letting the Bible read it's truth into you. That's why you cannot use the Bible to support what you believe.

I'm very disappointed that you refuse to simply read and comment on a group of scriptures.

[jlisenbe]

Just as a point of conversation, I have started something new. In addition to my other Bible reading, I'm taking one book a month in the mornings. This month it's Colossians. I'm reading it in Biblegateway.com, though there are other options. I like that because it let's me set up a parallel Bible. I'm using the Living Bible, NASB, NET (first time with that one), and the Expanded Bible. I read one chapter a day. It's been interesting.

[Wondergirl]

If you really believe all of that, then why do you bother with it? The New World Translation (JW) is clearly skewed to reflect their beliefs. The Mormons don't have their own translation. They use the KJV. Point you to the original autographs? Come on. You know that's a foolish comment. No original manuscripts of antiquity survive for any works.

I think your problem is that you want to read your prejudices into the Bible rather than letting the Bible read it's truth into you. That's why you cannot use the Bible to support what you believe.

I'm very disappointed that you refuse to simply read and comment on a group of scriptures.

I am not going to fence with you, each parrying and thrusting with our hand-picked proof passages.