toldailytopic: Hell, what is it really like?

[Arthur Brain]

Quite often words are added in the English translations that are not in the Greek text for the sake of readability. In this case, to translate it word for word it would read: who is Saviour all men. Translators will put in whatever prep's make it flow and have their pick of quite a few so it's really arguing from silence to make a point based on that preposition since it's not even there.

I've yet to read any translation that renders it differently. I actually hold to the 'Young's concordance' in terms of authenticity regarding the original texts where possible but every other version also reads the same in light of this passage. It strikes me as odd that they could all be wrong? No offence intended but you've gone from the initial position that it was a *bad* on the apostle's part in failure to clarify "potential saviour", to now espousing that the English translations are in error. How many other passages suffer from the same?

 

[Arthur Brain]

its a place where your seperated from god, your in tormenting sulfur and chained maybe. we truely wont know untill your either there, or you can see from heaven. those lucky/blessed few that have had a death experience and gone there, and have come back to life would know.

Well that's nice and fair isn't it? Two people die on an operating theatre. One comes back to life after experiencing 'hell' and has the opportunity to change. The other just dies and ends up there ad infinitum. Yup. Makes perfect sense....

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

And even if justice is part of the argument, the concept of eternal suffering is contrary to what the bible teaches on justice - though it does make a good concept of justice for a Jewish fable borrowed from the Egyptians.

Well quite. I don't believe that eternal suffering constitutes any form of 'justice' either biblically or otherwise.

 

[Arthur Brain]

toldailytopic: Hell, what is it really like?

I would imagine it would be like experiencing the worst nightmare of immense sadness, depression, guilt, fear, horror and anxiety, one could ever experience, ten fold.

Well then lets just hope that it's actually a loving God that created life, where such a fate as you describe is simply the darker realm of the human psyche at work. lain:

 

[fzappa13]

Hell from the Greek word hades simply refers to physical death. Jesus died and went to hell, he just didn't stay there.

Hell from the Greek word gehenna refers to the second death at the end of the white throne judgment period.

Hell from the Greek word tartaros refers to the place of restraint for sinful angels awaiting judgment by the saints.

Jamie

Okay, now hop back into the Hebrew and things get much simpler.

 

[chair]

Why speculate about the nature of Hell, when we have solid evidence?

 

[bybee]

Hmmmmm

Hmmmmm

Why speculate about the nature of Hell, when we have solid evidence?

Very interesting! I suspect, however, there shall be no laughter in Hell. bybee

 

[sdgareth]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 7th, 2010 10:33 AM

toldailytopic: Hell, what is it really like?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

It is the suffering of being unable to love

:dead:

 

[Aimiel]

God said that He'd wipe away all our tears. I'm sure the very memory of those who are lost would be taken care of, or that couldn't happen.

 

[Krsto]

I've yet to read any translation that renders it differently. I actually hold to the 'Young's concordance' in terms of authenticity regarding the original texts where possible but every other version also reads the same in light of this passage. It strikes me as odd that they could all be wrong? No offence intended but you've gone from the initial position that it was a *bad* on the apostle's part in failure to clarify "potential saviour", to now espousing that the English translations are in error. How many other passages suffer from the same?

My point was they were not wrong, just arbitrary, and it's difficult to argue based on a Greek word that's not even there and arbitrarily supplied by the translators.

I'll modify my statement about the apostles not being clear to saying if you must have an exact prep. to use then it was God's fault for using Greek and not English. He could have prevented this whole discussion, huh?

Even if "of" communicates the original idea precisely then my earlier analogy still stands. Jesus is the Savior of those who don't get saved just as much as a Rescue Swimmer is the Rescue Swimmer for all on the sinking boat, regardless of whether they got rescued or not. No newspaper would need to qualify that by saying, "The Rescue Swimmer, who wasn't the Rescue Swimmer for the 2 who drowned, rescued 4 of the 6 crew on the ship." Rather, they would report, "Mat Reader, who was assigned by the Coast Guard to be the Rescue Swimmer for all those on that fishing boat was able to heroically rescue 4 of the 6 crew." And someone might add commentary that Mat was their Rescue Swimmer, and even more so for those who survided, if he had a reason to make a point about it.

It's just common sense Arthur.

 

[Krsto]

He didn't. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. It became man's reward when he sinned. God doesn't send anyone to hell, their sins do. He demands perfection.

Oh paleeeease!

 

[Aimiel]

Thank you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Thank you.

For not smoking...

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

My point was they were not wrong, just arbitrary, and it's difficult to argue based on a Greek word that's not even there and arbitrarily supplied by the translators.

I'll modify my statement about the apostles not being clear to saying if you must have an exact prep. to use then it was God's fault for using Greek and not English. He could have prevented this whole discussion, huh?

Even if "of" communicates the original idea precisely then my earlier analogy still stands. Jesus is the Savior of those who don't get saved just as much as a Rescue Swimmer is the Rescue Swimmer for all on the sinking boat, regardless of whether they got rescued or not. No newspaper would need to qualify that by saying, "The Rescue Swimmer, who wasn't the Rescue Swimmer for the 2 who drowned, rescued 4 of the 6 crew on the ship." Rather, they would report, "Mat Reader, who was assigned by the Coast Guard to be the Rescue Swimmer for all those on that fishing boat was able to heroically rescue 4 of the 6 crew." And someone might add commentary that Mat was their Rescue Swimmer, and even more so for those who survided, if he had a reason to make a point about it.

It's just common sense Arthur.

I'm sorry Krsto but if we're prepared to accept that the translators got it right then the difference between 'for' and 'of' is a tangible one. With your line Jesus is not especially the saviour of believers but only. The rescue swimmer is indeed the rescuer for all on a sinking boat but he is not the saviour of all if some drown during the attempt. What newspaper would run with the article: "Matt Reader was the saviour of all on the sinking boat, especially those who didn't die"? Lets face it. They wouldn't.

That's common sense.

 

[Krsto]

I'm sorry Krsto but if we're prepared to accept that the translators got it right then the difference between 'for' and 'of' is a tangible one. With your line Jesus is not especially the saviour of believers but only. The rescue swimmer is indeed the rescuer for all on a sinking boat but he is not the saviour of all if some drown during the attempt. What newspaper would run with the article: "Matt Reader was the saviour of all on the sinking boat, especially those who didn't die"? Lets face it. They wouldn't.

That's common sense.

They would if they had a theological point to make.

How many of these translators believe in Universal Salvation? Any? Why would they put in "of" if it supported your view? They put in "of" because it doesn't demand your view and it's the best prep. for readability.

Does this horse have anything left to beat?

 

[Arthur Brain]

They would if they had a theological point to make.

How many of these translators believe in Universal Salvation? Any? Why would they put in "of" if it supported your view? They put in "of" because it doesn't demand your view and it's the best prep. for readability.

Does this horse have anything left to beat?

Well, again, no they wouldn't. If they wanted to implicitly express what you'd suggest they would report that he was the rescuer for all. He is still only the rescuer of those he manages to save!

As it happens Origen and many of the early church actually did believe in universal salvation. Go figure....

 

[Krsto]

Well, again, no they wouldn't. If they wanted to implicitly express what you'd suggest they would report that he was the rescuer for all. He is still only the rescuer of those he manages to save!

As it happens Origen and many of the early church actually did believe in universal salvation. Go figure....

This proves . . . NOTHING. Our translations were done by men who did not believe in universal salvation and they put in "Savior of all men" because it doesn't contradict with their theology as you seem unable to accept. You must know something they don't know about English.

 

[chrysostom]

Well, again, no they wouldn't. If they wanted to implicitly express what you'd suggest they would report that he was the rescuer for all. He is still only the rescuer of those he manages to save!

As it happens Origen and many of the early church actually did believe in universal salvation. Go figure....

it just proves that for some their heart is bigger than their brain

 

[Arthur Brain]

This proves . . . NOTHING. Our translations were done by men who did not believe in universal salvation and they put in "Savior of all men" because it doesn't contradict with their theology as you seem unable to accept. You must know something they don't know about English.

How do you know what they all did and didn't believe? You asked and I answered. Origen and much of the early church did believe in universal salvation. They were experts in Greek. All you've achieved is redefining 'especially' into 'only'.

 

[Arthur Brain]

it just proves that for some their heart is bigger than their brain

What?