Loving God = Eternal Torture?

[sojourner]

I have read 38 versions of the English translations of the scriptures, and compared all of them to all available original texts existent. I have compared each scripture to each other scripture to discern it's meaning and ensure it's harmony with the entire Bible, and have not interpreted anything. The scriptures do not mean what God intended if we interpret them. Interpreting them is nothing more than taking a guess as to their meaning. I do not guess at their meaning, I find out what the intended meaning actually is.

"Available 'original' texts???" There are no "original texts." And to read them, you'd have to be fluent in both Hebrew and Greek. Are you? If you're "discerning meaning," you're interpreting. If you're trying to "harmonize" all texts with the "entire bible," you're interpreting, because the texts just don't harmonize in all ways. Since the texts foster multiple interpretations, I don't see that there is only one "intended meaning." If you're trying to find such, you're interpreting.

Interpreting is so much more than simply "taking a guess as to their meaning." Oh, you're interpreting, all right.

 

[sojourner]

In the meaning of explaining, yes. In the meaning of interpreting, most certainly not.

Hermeneutics is part of the interpretational process, yes.

 

[truthofscripture]

"Available 'original' texts???" There are no "original texts." And to read them, you'd have to be fluent in both Hebrew and Greek. Are you? If you're "discerning meaning," you're interpreting. If you're trying to "harmonize" all texts with the "entire bible," you're interpreting, because the texts just don't harmonize in all ways. Since the texts foster multiple interpretations, I don't see that there is only one "intended meaning." If you're trying to find such, you're interpreting.

Interpreting is so much more than simply "taking a guess as to their meaning." Oh, you're interpreting, all right.

That is rediculous on the face of it. There are many pieces of original texts, copies of original texts that were created in the same century as the original, and more are found almost daily. If I'm discerning meaning, I am NOT interpreting at all. When a sentence is in harmony with all other sentences in the scriptures, then one has discerned it's true meaning. Your postulation that the texts don't harmonize in all ways is 100% completely wrong. Each sentence harmonizes with each other sentence completely with no exceptions. Having studied, in depth, over and over, all such non-harmonizing texts, I have learned that anyone making such an assertion isn't being honest, or has not studied them enough. The texts foster NO interpretations. Each sentence has only one intended meaning WITHOUT ANY INTERPRETATION WHATSOEVER. You sound tainted by religion and by religionists, clergy, and so called scholars who start their work with a predetermined outcome. It's not intelligent to follow such false teachers.

 

[sojourner]

That is rediculous on the face of it. There are many pieces of original texts, copies of original texts that were created in the same century as the original, and more are found almost daily. If I'm discerning meaning, I am NOT interpreting at all. When a sentence is in harmony with all other sentences in the scriptures, then one has discerned it's true meaning. Your postulation that the texts don't harmonize in all ways is 100% completely wrong. Each sentence harmonizes with each other sentence completely with no exceptions. Having studied, in depth, over and over, all such non-harmonizing texts, I have learned that anyone making such an assertion isn't being honest, or has not studied them enough. The texts foster NO interpretations. Each sentence has only one intended meaning WITHOUT ANY INTERPRETATION WHATSOEVER. You sound tainted by religion and by religionists, clergy, and so called scholars who start their work with a predetermined outcome. It's not intelligent to follow such false teachers.

When you can spell a simple word like "ridiculous" correctly, perhaps I'll begin to take you seriously where your opinion on scholarship is concerned. Your assertion that we have "pieces of original texts" belies your ignorance on the matter.

 

[Me Myself]

Since I do not interpret scripture, as God said interpretion belongs only to Him, then your postulation isn't correct at all.

Its impossible to read without interpreting.

 

[sojourner]

Its impossible to read without interpreting.

Indeed!

 

[BilliardsBall]

In this case context bears consideration.

For you will become like a big tree with withering leaves,
And like a garden without water.
The strong man will become tow, (a flammable ropelike fiber.)
And his work a spark;
Both of them will go up in flames together,
With no one to extinguish them.
- Isaiah 1:30,31

Do the men and women here literally become big trees? or a garden? or tow?

I know you're not joking here. But it seems like it--as if you've forgotten that Jesus promised to sort people into wheat and chaff for eternal judgment, that He described the gospel as seeds, believers as vines, Israel as a vine, and Himself as the vintner.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Remember that the ancient Judaic religion was patently anti-life after death -- and not because they saw God as some "eternal punisher." That stance was in place to safeguard the monotheistic religion from "cults of the dead," in which dead ancestors were seen to be godlike.

No it wasn't.

1. Ancient Judaism had a Bible before any written Talmud (Talmud is commentary on the HB) and the Hebrew Bible contains heaven, judgment and afterlife.

2. Judaism moved away from certain doctrines soon after it split with Christianity, which began as a Jewish sect.

3. Ancient Judaism/the HB represents a triune God. God also revealed Himself to His chosen people, and nowhere does the HB say, "I'm a monotheist God standing against godlike ancestors of the nations." It does say God is not like pagan gods.

 

[sojourner]

No it wasn't.

Oh? Really! And you get this information from... ?

Ancient Judaism had a Bible before any written Talmud

How is this cogent to the topic?

the Hebrew Bible contains heaven, judgment and afterlife.

Only in very limited places. And those places generally reflect a much later Judaic tradition than I'm talking about. "Heaven" is a completely different concept for the ancient Hebrews than it is for the later Greeks. The judgment found in most places in the OT has nothing to do with an afterlife. A Hebrew position on afterlife really didn't begin until quite late -- later than 200 BCE. I'm talking ancient Hebrews, you know, the hebrews that were around before the texts were written, and before the babylonian exile.

Judaism moved away from certain doctrines soon after it split with Christianity, which began as a Jewish sect.

I'm referring to the Judaic tradition well before the advent of Xy.

Ancient Judaism/the HB represents a triune God.

No. It doesn't. But feel free to point out where you believe it does this. (This should prove entertaining...)

God also revealed Himself to His chosen people, and nowhere does the HB say, "I'm a monotheist God standing against godlike ancestors of the nations."

Your point? If the bible doesn't explicitly say it, it ain't so?

 

[sojourner]

It is, however, what the scriptures say. I don't adhere to any religion, I adhere to the written word of God.

I don't care if you adhere to a pair of elephant's pajamas. It's what the texts say in some places. In others, however, it's a different story. From many of your other posts, I'm not convinced that you know what the written word really says.

 

[Kolibri]

I know you're not joking here. But it seems like it--as if you've forgotten that Jesus promised to sort people into wheat and chaff for eternal judgment, that He described the gospel as seeds, believers as vines, Israel as a vine, and Himself as the vintner.

No, I am not joking. You were asking how do we know that the fire in this verse was not literal. It is because the strong men were not literal robelike fibers. Tow is a metaphor, so the fire that burns it is also metaphorical.

Jesus also spoke of weeds being separated from wheat in the end times, and sheep from goats during the great tribulation. These separations were not after people had died, nor was did these people become literal sheep and goats. So the putting on Jesus' right and on his left is also metaphorical. Also when the weeds are bound up in bundles to be burned up while the wheat are put in a storehouse, the method of destruction for the weeds is metaphorical and the storehouse is also metaphorical.

Fire destroys. When you throw a flammable object into a fire, it is consumed. It is generally not a "burning bush". Putting something in a fire does make a good metaphor for bringing something to a state of non-existence.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus promised to sort people into wheat and chaff for eternal judgment

I wonder why the writer of Matthew would have Jesus say that? What do you suppose the writer's agenda is? What's the writer trying to say about people who are metaphorically referred to as "wheat" and "weeds?"

 

[sojourner]

No, I am not joking. You were asking how do we know that the fire in this verse was not literal. It is because the strong men were not literal robelike fibers. Tow is a metaphor, so the fire that burns it is also metaphorical.

Jesus also spoke of weeds being separated from wheat in the end times, and sheep from goats during the great tribulation. These separations were not after people had died, nor was did these people become literal sheep and goats. So the putting on Jesus' right and on his left is also metaphorical. Also when the weeds are bound up in bundles to be burned up while the wheat are put in a storehouse, the method of destruction for the weeds is metaphorical and the storehouse is also metaphorical.

Fire destroys. When you throw a flammable object into a fire, it is consumed. It is generally not a "burning bush". Putting something in a fire does make a good metaphor for bringing something to a state of non-existence.

Fire also purifies. The "chaff" will be purified. Think about that...

 

[truthofscripture]

I don't care if you adhere to a pair of elephant's pajamas. It's what the texts say in some places. In others, however, it's a different story. From many of your other posts, I'm not convinced that you know what the written word really says.

You certainly are incorrect about the scriptures. Not one word of contradiction in the entire scriptures.

 

[truthofscripture]

When you can spell a simple word like "ridiculous" correctly, perhaps I'll begin to take you seriously where your opinion on scholarship is concerned. Your assertion that we have "pieces of original texts" belies your ignorance on the matter.

I could not care less whether you take me or anyone or anything else seriously. It means nothing to me. Your opinion to me is worth less than the dust on the bottom of my shoes.

 

[sojourner]

You certainly are incorrect about the scriptures. Not one word of contradiction in the entire scriptures.

BZZZZZZT!!! Thanks for playing! We have some lovely parting gifts for you, including the home version of our game, "Reality Guide to the Bible!"

When you can pick out irrefutable examples that the Hebrew texts consistently present a cosmology that includes an afterlife, I'll publicly apologize. If not, then your assertion that I'm incorrect will stand as ... incorrect.

Oh, and then there's the whole afterlife as presented in the NT, which is contradictory to what much of the OT says.

 

[sojourner]

I could not care less whether you take me or anyone or anything else seriously. It means nothing to me. Your opinion to me is worth less than the dust on the bottom of my shoes.

It says much about your level of biblical knowledge that, even debating against "worthless dust," you still haven't prevailed...

 

[truthofscripture]

It says much about your level of biblical knowledge that, even debating against "worthless dust," you still haven't prevailed...

My knowledge of the scriptures is substantial. Your knowledge of religion is probably substantial. But your knowledge of scripture isn't.

 

[sojourner]

My knowledge of the scriptures is substantial.

Uh huh. You're claiming that there are no contradictions in the bible. Such a claim does not reflect "substantial knowledge."

But your knowledge of scripture isn't.

That's probably why I've been invited to publish scholarly papers on the subject. Because they always hire morons to do that sort of thing.

 

[Kolibri]

Fire also purifies. The "chaff" will be purified. Think about that...

fire does also purify. I was thinking of the smelting reference at Proverbs 25:22 and Romans 12:20, but that isn't what is said about the "chaff" or "weeds". They were collected together to eventually be burned up, not softened and purified.