Materialists

Turok · May 12, 2004

Clearly we have an example of your lack of reading comprehension... Here is my request for stipulation:

>For the sake of discussion can we stipulate that
>I BELIEVE the non-believer is destroyed?

>I believe that I can fairly ask for this stipulation as I
>have NEVER stated anything on this thread (or any
>other for that matter) that would imply that I believe
>the non-believer is NOT destroyed?

And this "unfairly disarms" you. Since you of course will not attribute it to reading comprehension, apparently you wish to INSIST that I believe something that I DO NOT.

That is all I need to know.

JB

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

What you are doing is asking me not to post verses that support my position, so my answer is no. That's unfairly disarming me.

ShoeshineBoy · May 12, 2004

Quote from Turok:

Clearly we have an example of your lack of reading comprehension... Here is my request for stipulation:

>For the sake of discussion can we stipulate that
>I BELIEVE the non-believer is destroyed?

>I believe that I can fairly ask for this stipulation as I
>have NEVER stated anything on this thread (or any
>other for that matter) that would imply that I believe
>the non-believer is NOT destroyed?

And this "unfairly disarms" you. Since you of course will not attribute it to reading comprehension, apparently you wish to INSIST that I believe something that I DO NOT.

That is all I need to know.

JB

I have never insisted on any such thing. You have interpreted my responses as forcing you into some position, but that is simply not the case.

Regardless, I think we have both articulated our position to a nearly complete position and just have to "agree to disagree"...

Turok · May 12, 2004

Shoe:
>I have never insisted on any such thing.

A lack of stipulation says just that -- that the point is in question and requires further investigation to determine validity.

I don't understand HOW the point can be in question since I have NEVER stated anything inconsistent with the stipulation.

JB

ShoeshineBoy · May 12, 2004

Quote from Turok:

Shoe:
>I have never insisted on any such thing.

A lack of stipulation says just that -- that the point is in question and requires further investigation to determine validity.

I don't understand HOW the point can be in question since I have NEVER stated anything inconsistent with the stipulation.

JB

I stipulate that you are not arguing against the destruction of the believer. Is that what you mean?

ShoeshineBoy · May 12, 2004

But if you're asking me not to use any verses that talk about the destruction of the non-believer, then I'm done. You've just eliminated 90% of the discussion....

Turok · May 12, 2004

It means just what it says...

>For the sake of discussion can we stipulate that
>I BELIEVE the non-believer is destroyed?

What's not clear?

JB

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I stipulate that you are not arguing against the destruction of the believer. Is that what you mean?

damir00 · May 12, 2004

Quote from Turok:

Mark 9:45/47...be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched...

this is a mistranslation. what is being read in english as "unquenchable" is more accurately rendered "unextinguishable". very different connotations. the "unextinguishable" nature of g-d's wrath is used in numerous places in Tanakh and it always clear from that context such fire is not eternal, it is merely not put-outable by human means. (jeremiah 7:20).

there is also no inference in here whatsoever that the (allegorical) burning to death takes an appreciable amount of time so it would not be correct to say this shows a torturous fate.

Matthew 18:8...rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

"hell fire" is a mistranslation of a place name

Matthew 5:22...Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

as above "hell fire" is a mistranslation of the name of jerusalem's temple-era garbage dump.

Matthew 25:41...into everlasting fire...

as in the first example, this is a mistranslation. the original text does not say "everlasting", it actually says the opposite: it uses a word more in line with "periodic" or "epochic", which clearly need the "everlasting" fire to end to have any meaning whatsoever.

ShoeshineBoy · May 12, 2004

Quote from Turok:

It means just what it says...

>For the sake of discussion can we stipulate that
>I BELIEVE the non-believer is destroyed?

What's not clear?

JB

You got it: I accept that your position is that the biblical text says that the non-believer is destroyed.

ShoeshineBoy · May 12, 2004

Quote from damir00:

this is a mistranslation. what is being read in english as "unquenchable" is more accurately rendered "unextinguishable". very different connotations. the "unextinguishable" nature of g-d's wrath is used in numerous places in Tanakh and it always clear from that context such fire is not eternal, it is merely not put-outable by human means. (jeremiah 7:20).

...........................

as in the first example, this is a mistranslation. the original text does not say "everlasting", it actually says the opposite: it uses a word more in line with "periodic" or "epochic", which clearly need the "everlasting" fire to end to have any meaning whatsoever.

Hey, thx! Needless to say, I didn't have my Strong's with me and wouldn't have been able to answer Turok's earlier question in any detail...

Turok · May 12, 2004

And you too are presenting arguments against the "enternal, unextinguishable, unquenchable" hell and I have made NO ATTEMPT to argue that. Why must YOU ALSO argue with me something not in my question?

JB

PS I am VERY familiar with the differing meanings and origins of the three works for "hell" in the original translations.

Quote from damir00:

this is a mistranslation. what is being read in english as "unquenchable" is more accurately rendered "unextinguishable". very different connotations. the "unextinguishable" nature of g-d's wrath is used in numerous places in Tanakh and it always clear from that context such fire is not eternal, it is merely not put-outable by human means. (jeremiah 7:20).

there is also no inference in here whatsoever that the (allegorical) burning to death takes an appreciable amount of time so it would not be correct to say this shows a torturous fate.

"hell fire" is a mistranslation of a place name

as above "hell fire" is a mistranslation of the name of jerusalem's temple-era garbage dump.

as in the first example, this is a mistranslation. the original text does not say "everlasting", it actually says the opposite: it uses a word more in line with "periodic" or "epochic", which clearly need the "everlasting" fire to end to have any meaning whatsoever.

Materialists

Guest