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