Hell: What it is and isn't

[Frisbee]

Below, I've written a little bit about hell. The original audience was dominated by those who forcefully attack the faith and seek to stumble any Christian willing to go along with their seditious beliefs. I wanted to post this here as well so that I could have a dichotomy of opinions from both ends of the spectrum.






So Christians, what say you about the truth about hell?Introduction Hell is such an explosive subject isn’t it? But before I begin explaining what the bible says about hell, let me start by pointing out what hell isn’t. Hell is not the place that is depicted in Hollywood films such as Nightmare on Elm Street. It is not an imaginary place. In fact, it really isn’t even a place as we understand what it means to be somewhere. Hell is not the place described in Dante’s Inferno, nor any of the art masterpieces that have colored our perception of hell throughout history. That’s what hell isn’t. Hell is a word in English that is used to transliterate four words in Hebrew and Greek, the languages that the original autographs of the bible were written in. If you are unaware of what transliteration means, let me offer this definition… Transliteration is the practice of transcribing a word or text written in one writing system into another writing system or system of rules for such practice. It is a very good description of a process that we need to comprehend, as we will soon see. The reason is that translate, although very similar, doesn’t quite get the job done because three languages are involved, and two of the four words are translated twice before the word hell in English comes out of the mix. Transliteration more accurately makes the process transparent, whereas we can get lost if we stick with the more narrow definition of translation. We often say in English that things get lost in translation, and this is a perfect textbook example of why. If we were to simply translate the word hell from a dictionary definition, we would lose its original meaning in the bible. Because hell has been effected by popular culture and all of the things that I previously listed as what precisely hell isn’t, we must transliterate the words used in the original languages of the bible. So far I hope we are all in 100% agreement. If not, please refer to this introduction and let’s discuss the issue that you feel is incorrect. It is impossible to proceed without this foundation being mutually agreed upon, so let is reason together until we have an accurate understanding of the introduction. Hell Transliterated As I had mentioned in the introduction, hell is actually 4 words in the languages that the original autographs of the bible were written in. They are… 1. Sheol 2. Hades 3. Gehenna 4. Tartarus Let’s look at them one by one… Sheol: The word "Sheol" was for some time regarded as an Assyro-Babylonian loan-word, "Shu'alu," having the assumed meaning "the place whither the dead are cited or bidden," or "the place where the dead are ingathered." The source for this is the Jewish Encyclopedia: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=614 (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=614)Hades: The word “Hades” is a transliteration of Sheol. We know this because the Septuagint bible uses the replacement word throughout the text of the Old Testament. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, and also we know that the writers of the New Testament, who lived in a world dominated by Greek language as the Esperanto of the ancient world, absolutely used Hades in this precise manner. No serious biblical scholar refutes this fact. Gehenna: The word Gehenna is Greek, and it is a place. Specifically a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. The reason the dump was placed there was that Jews viewed that particular piece of land as cursed because of the child sacrifices performed there to the ancient god Molech. Specifically, Gehenna was a place where unclean animals and people who were not entitled to a proper burial (e.g. Gentiles and thieves who died within the city), were dumped and burned. It was a place that vividly projected this specific image when used throughout the New Testament. Gehenna was indeed a place, but it was not the fabled hell that most of us have stuck in our heads. Tartarus: This word occurs only once in the New Testament in 2 Peter 2:4 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&x=0&y=0&passage=2+Peter+2%3A4). To the ancient world (1st century AD), it was directly associated with Hades, and is a transliteration of that specific term, and concept. In effect, it is a transliteration of Sheol. We are unsure why Peter used Tartarus instead of the more commonly used Hades. Conclusion If you look at an interlinear bible, it becomes abundantly clear that hell is a completely inadequate transliteration of the thoughts and concepts being conveyed by the writers of the bible. In fact, after you’ve seen it enough times you can very easily know which word is used because of the context that the word hell in English, is being used in. All of the emphasis and talk about hell aside, we come to how the story ends. If you go to the last book of the bible, the Book of Revelation it is clearly laid out in a straight forward and easy to comprehend manner…

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020:11-15;&version=49;)


The very next words that follow speak of a new heaven and a new earth, giving us hope for a better day where we will finally be at peace with our destiny to spend eternity with our Creator.

[Mathetes the kerux]

Below, I've written a little bit about hell. The original audience was dominated by those who forcefully attack the faith and seek to stumble any Christian willing to go along with their seditious beliefs. I wanted to post this here as well so that I could have a dichotomy of opinions from both ends of the spectrum.


So Christians, what say you about the truth about hell?Introduction


Hell is such an explosive subject isn’t it?


But before I begin explaining what the bible says about hell, let me start by pointing out what hell isn’t.


Hell is not the place that is depicted in Hollywood films such as Nightmare on Elm Street. It is not an imaginary place. In fact, it really isn’t even a place as we understand what it means to be somewhere. Hell is not the place described in Dante’s Inferno, nor any of the art masterpieces that have colored our perception of hell throughout history.


That’s what hell isn’t.


Hell is a word in English that is used to transliterate four words in Hebrew and Greek, the languages that the original autographs of the bible were written in. If you are unaware of what transliteration means, let me offer this definition…


Transliteration is the practice of transcribing a word or text written in one writing system into another writing system or system of rules for such practice.


It is a very good description of a process that we need to comprehend, as we will soon see. The reason is that translate, although very similar, doesn’t quite get the job done because three languages are involved, and two of the four words are translated twice before the word hell in English comes out of the mix. Transliteration more accurately makes the process transparent, whereas we can get lost if we stick with the more narrow definition of translation.


We often say in English that things get lost in translation, and this is a perfect textbook example of why. If we were to simply translate the word hell from a dictionary definition, we would lose its original meaning in the bible. Because hell has been effected by popular culture and all of the things that I previously listed as what precisely hell isn’t, we must transliterate the words used in the original languages of the bible.


So far I hope we are all in 100% agreement. If not, please refer to this introduction and let’s discuss the issue that you feel is incorrect. It is impossible to proceed without this foundation being mutually agreed upon, so let is reason together until we have an accurate understanding of the introduction.


Hell Transliterated


As I had mentioned in the introduction, hell is actually 4 words in the languages that the original autographs of the bible were written in. They are…


1. Sheol

2. Hades

3. Gehenna

4. Tartarus


Let’s look at them one by one…


Sheol: The word "Sheol" was for some time regarded as an Assyro-Babylonian loan-word, "Shu'alu," having the assumed meaning "the place whither the dead are cited or bidden," or "the place where the dead are ingathered."


The source for this is the Jewish Encyclopedia: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=614 (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=614)


Hades: The word “Hades” is a transliteration of Sheol. We know this because the Septuagint bible uses the replacement word throughout the text of the Old Testament. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, and also we know that the writers of the New Testament, who lived in a world dominated by Greek language as the Esperanto of the ancient world, absolutely used Hades in this precise manner. No serious biblical scholar refutes this fact.


Gehenna: The word Gehenna is Greek, and it is a place. Specifically a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. The reason the dump was placed there was that Jews viewed that particular piece of land as cursed because of the child sacrifices performed there to the ancient god Molech. Specifically, Gehenna was a place where unclean animals and people who were not entitled to a proper burial (e.g. Gentiles and thieves who died within the city), were dumped and burned. It was a place that vividly projected this specific image when used throughout the New Testament. Gehenna was indeed a place, but it was not the fabled hell that most of us have stuck in our heads.


Tartarus: This word occurs only once in the New Testament in 2 Peter 2:4 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&x=0&y=0&passage=2+Peter+2%3A4). To the ancient world (1st century AD), it was directly associated with Hades, and is a transliteration of that specific term, and concept. In effect, it is a transliteration of Sheol. We are unsure why Peter used Tartarus instead of the more commonly used Hades.


Conclusion


If you look at an interlinear bible, it becomes abundantly clear that hell is a completely inadequate transliteration of the thoughts and concepts being conveyed by the writers of the bible. In fact, after you’ve seen it enough times you can very easily know which word is used because of the context that the word hell in English, is being used in.


All of the emphasis and talk about hell aside, we come to how the story ends. If you go to the last book of the bible, the Book of Revelation it is clearly laid out in a straight forward and easy to comprehend manner…



Quote:Revelation 20:11-15 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&x=0&y=0&passage=Revelation+20%3A11-15)


11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.


The very next words that follow speak of a new heaven and a new earth, giving us hope for a better day where we will finally be at peace with our destiny to spend eternity with our Creator.

So . . . what exactly are you promoting?

Anihillationism
Universalism

or

a simple change in the term?

Seems like you are attempting a already used etymological approach to make a case for one of the two hetero-orthodox views mentioned above . . .

[Frisbee]

Actually I'm not promoting anything but the word of God. We have added to it (the modern concept of hell that most people hold), and I shared a re-centered look at scripture. I have no stake in making any point other than the fact that we should know what the bible says, not what we think it means.

Regarding views or approaches in general...

I am staunchly anti-fundamentalist!

I love the book set (probably the best extra-biblical commentary ever written!), but reject any attempt by humans to stand between the reader of God's word and the Holy Spirit working in and through our lives as it (God's word) comes alive inside of us.

It's not that I even have a problem with commentary, I love commentary to be honest. But when we start making creeds and believing in doctrines, we excuse ourselves from the inner struggles that take place as believers sort out for themselves difficult spiritual truths. Nothing does more or can do more to retard the spiritual development of a believer than to fail to work through the bible yourself. It's something that nobody can do for you.

FYI: Here is a great resource for studying these things... http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html

[Mathetes the kerux]

Actually I'm not promoting anything but the word of God. We have added to it (the modern concept of hell that most people hold), and I shared a re-centered look at scripture. I have no stake in making any point other than the fact that we should know what the bible says, not what we think it means.

Regarding views or approaches in general...

I am staunchly anti-fundamentalist!

I love the book set (probably the best extra-biblical commentary ever written!), but reject any attempt by humans to stand between the reader of God's word and the Holy Spirit working in and through our lives as it (God's word) comes alive inside of us.

It's not that I even have a problem with commentary, I love commentary to be honest. But when we start making creeds and believing in doctrines, we excuse ourselves from the inner struggles that take place as believers sort out for themselves difficult spiritual truths. Nothing does more or can do more to retard the spiritual development of a believer than to fail to work through the bible yourself. It's something that nobody can do for you.

FYI: Here is a great resource for studying these things... http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html
You are side stepping the question . . .

Are you promoting universalism (all will be saved) or anihilationism (the unrighteous will suffer cessation of existence)?

A simple answer will do for it will allow me to understand your presuppostion in approaching this issue.

Your denom says Calvary Chapel . . . I know that denominationally they do NOT hold to either of these . . . SO WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM?

(what book set are you speaking of?)

[Frisbee]

I'm not side stepping it, I just didn't give you an answer. The answer is neither. I have examined both at length and it is indeed where I educated myself on the matter to be perfectly honest. Regarding Christian Universalism specifically, it's called the beautiful heresy; and indeed it is! Annihilationism is not anything I've ever seriously studied, as I rejected it out of hand for it's serious theological flaws regarding what the bible says about our post mortem state of eternal being (believers and unbelievers alike).

Christian Universalism is not just a denial of the fate of all of those who are not covered by the blood of the Lamb, but it also extends into a fundamental error in it's perception of who Jesus is, why He came and why and when He will return. It's a slippery slope in many respects.

The book (books actually, it is a book set) is called the Fundamentals (http://www.xmission.com/%7Efidelis/). It was written at the turn of the 20th century, and is as solid of biblical teaching as one is likely to ever encounter outside of the bible itself. I take no issue whatsoever with it's contents, but with the approach of relying on anything but the Holy Spirit and scripture to grow and mature as a Christian.

The reason I wrote about this was simply to share the truth. It is important to know what the bible says, and also what it does not say. Many people have made entire beliefs that revolve around the misapplication of the word hell.

[Frisbee]

Regarding the Fundamentals, here is an excerpt on the subject of creation. Keep in mind that when it was written (late 18 and early 1900s) science (evolutionists) were saying that the universe was not created, but in fact eternally existed....

The eternity of the universe is most clearly disproved by its evolution. From a scientific point of view that hypothesis is now discredited and virtually abandoned. Astronomers, physicists, biologists, philosophers, are beginning to recognize more and more, and men like Secchi, Dubois-Reymond, Lord Kelvin, Dr. Klein and others, unanimously affirm that creation has had a beginning. It always tends towards an entropy, that is, toward a perfect equilibrium of its forces, a complete standstill; and the fact that it has not yet reached such a condition is proof that it has not always existed. Should creation, however, ever come to a standstill, it could never again put itself in motion. It has had a beginning, and it will have an end. That is demonstrated most clearly by its still unfinished evolution. Should anyone say to us, of a growing tree or of a young child, that either of these forms of life has existed forever, we would at once reply, Why has it not then long ago, in the past eternity, grown up so as to reach the heaven of heavens? In like manner, reasons that great astronomer, William Herschel, with regard to the Milky-Way, that just as its breaking up into different parts shows that it cannot always endure, so we have, in this same fact, proof that it has not eternally existed. (http://www.xmission.com/%7Efidelis/volume1/chapter4/bettex.php)

Interestingly, science changed it's mind around the 1960s and 1970s, something most modern evolutionists conveniently ignore.

Like I said earlier, the Fundamentals was and remains to be an amazing work of great wealth and value. However nothing can or will ever replace the Holy Spirit working through the bible in each of our individually as we struggle through each and every page and difficult to understand or even believe, concept.

[Mathetes the kerux]

I'm not side stepping it, I just didn't give you an answer. The answer is neither. I have examined both at length and it is indeed where I educated myself on the matter to be perfectly honest. Regarding Christian Universalism specifically, it's called the beautiful heresy; and indeed it is! Annihilationism is not anything I've ever seriously studied, as I rejected it out of hand for it's serious theological flaws regarding what the bible says about our post mortem state of eternal being (believers and unbelievers alike).

Christian Universalism is not just a denial of the fate of all of those who are not covered by the blood of the Lamb, but it also extends into a fundamental error in it's perception of who Jesus is, why He came and why and when He will return. It's a slippery slope in many respects.

The book (books actually, it is a book set) is called the Fundamentals (http://www.xmission.com/%7Efidelis/). It was written at the turn of the 20th century, and is as solid of biblical teaching as one is likely to ever encounter outside of the bible itself. I take no issue whatsoever with it's contents, but with the approach of relying on anything but the Holy Spirit and scripture to grow and mature as a Christian.

The reason I wrote about this was simply to share the truth. It is important to know what the bible says, and also what it does not say. Many people have made entire beliefs that revolve around the misapplication of the word hell.
So then you are NOT espousing either . . . so WHAT praytell are you then espousing?

A changing of the terms? A transliteration of the words in the next new translation?

[Frisbee]

I have a chellenge for you brother...

Ask the next 10 people you meet what hell is.

Write the answers you are given without qualifying their responses.

The go back and read what I wrote and you tell me if their view of hell is biblical or not.

What I'm doing is is trying to shine the light of truth on a word that almost everybody has gotten wrong. They gotten what it means wrong, and what the bible says about it wrong.

I'm all about the truth my friend. God doesn't do lies, nor does He settle for willfull ignorance. I can understand fully if a person is truly ignorant of these things, but I can not understand how or why any believer would continue believing something that they know to be false regardless of how false it may be.

Too many people preach about a hell that doesn't exist in the context that it is presented in, in about 90% of the sermons I've ever heard. The word hell is typically thrown around in the cultural light of or our day and age, and little or no effort is made to correctly explain what God's word does in fact say.

Do you oppose the truth? Or in other words are you proposing that what you feel is correct, remain being held up as the truth when in fact it is not true?

There is a hell my friend, make no mistake about that. It simply isn't what virtually everyone thinks or imagins it is though. My effort here is the truth.

[Mathetes the kerux]

I have a chellenge for you brother...

Ask the next 10 people you meet what hell is.

Write the answers you are given without qualifying their responses.

The go back and read what I wrote and you tell me if their view of hell is biblical or not.

What I'm doing is is trying to shine the light of truth on a word that almost everybody has gotten wrong. They gotten what it means wrong, and what the bible says about it wrong.

I'm all about the truth my friend. God doesn't do lies, nor does He settle for willfull ignorance. I can understand fully if a person is truly ignorant of these things, but I can not understand how or why any believer would continue believing something that they know to be false regardless of how false it may be.

Too many people preach about a hell that doesn't exist in the context that it is presented in, in about 90% of the sermons I've ever heard. The word hell is typically thrown around in the cultural light of or our day and age, and little or no effort is made to correctly explain what God's word does in fact say.

Do you oppose the truth? Or in other words are you proposing that what you feel is correct, remain being held up as the truth when in fact it is not true?

There is a hell my friend, make no mistake about that. It simply isn't what virtually everyone thinks or imagins it is though. My effort here is the truth.
Ok bro, then what do YOU say it is (obviously from your understanding of the Scriptures)?

[Frisbee]

It's just what I said. The word hell in English should mean what it is supposed to mean... Sheol: The word "Sheol" was for some time regarded as an Assyro-Babylonian loan-word, "Shu'alu," having the assumed meaning "the place whither the dead are cited or bidden," or "the place where the dead are ingathered." The source for this is the Jewish Encyclopedia: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=614 (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=614)Hades: The word “Hades” is a transliteration of Sheol. We know this because the Septuagint bible uses the replacement word throughout the text of the Old Testament. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, and also we know that the writers of the New Testament, who lived in a world dominated by Greek language as the Esperanto of the ancient world, absolutely used Hades in this precise manner. No serious biblical scholar refutes this fact. Gehenna: The word Gehenna is Greek, and it is a place. Specifically a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. The reason the dump was placed there was that Jews viewed that particular piece of land as cursed because of the child sacrifices performed there to the ancient god Molech. Specifically, Gehenna was a place where unclean animals and people who were not entitled to a proper burial (e.g. Gentiles and thieves who died within the city), were dumped and burned. It was a place that vividly projected this specific image when used throughout the New Testament. Gehenna was indeed a place, but it was not the fabled hell that most of us have stuck in our heads. Tartarus: This word occurs only once in the New Testament in 2 Peter 2:4 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&x=0&y=0&passage=2+Peter+2%3A4). To the ancient world (1st century AD), it was directly associated with Hades, and is a transliteration of that specific term, and concept. In effect, it is a transliteration of Sheol. We are unsure why Peter used Tartarus instead of the more commonly used Hades. Let's try this a few times. Find the definition above for the corresponding words:

Pro 7:27 Her house [is] the way to hell (Sheol), going down to the chambers of death.
Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (Hades), neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;It doesn't really change much other than clearly one speaks to the abode of the dead (either literally or figuratively), while another is about the fires burning to purify that which is corrupt. It's all about context, and in light of our distorted view given to us from Hollywood of what hell is according to thrasher slasher films, it is import to be able to distinguish between the various words used by the authors of the original autographs.

[Mathetes the kerux]

It's just what I said. The word hell in English should mean what it is supposed to mean... Sheol: The word "Sheol" was for some time regarded as an Assyro-Babylonian loan-word, "Shu'alu," having the assumed meaning "the place whither the dead are cited or bidden," or "the place where the dead are ingathered." The source for this is the Jewish Encyclopedia: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=614 (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=614)Hades: The word “Hades” is a transliteration of Sheol. We know this because the Septuagint bible uses the replacement word throughout the text of the Old Testament. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, and also we know that the writers of the New Testament, who lived in a world dominated by Greek language as the Esperanto of the ancient world, absolutely used Hades in this precise manner. No serious biblical scholar refutes this fact. Gehenna: The word Gehenna is Greek, and it is a place. Specifically a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. The reason the dump was placed there was that Jews viewed that particular piece of land as cursed because of the child sacrifices performed there to the ancient god Molech. Specifically, Gehenna was a place where unclean animals and people who were not entitled to a proper burial (e.g. Gentiles and thieves who died within the city), were dumped and burned. It was a place that vividly projected this specific image when used throughout the New Testament. Gehenna was indeed a place, but it was not the fabled hell that most of us have stuck in our heads. Tartarus: This word occurs only once in the New Testament in 2 Peter 2:4 (http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&x=0&y=0&passage=2+Peter+2%3A4). To the ancient world (1st century AD), it was directly associated with Hades, and is a transliteration of that specific term, and concept. In effect, it is a transliteration of Sheol. We are unsure why Peter used Tartarus instead of the more commonly used Hades. Let's try this a few times. Find the definition above for the corresponding words:

Pro 7:27 Her house [is] the way to hell (Sheol), going down to the chambers of death.
Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (Hades), neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell (Tartarus), and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;It doesn't really change much other than clearly one speaks to the abode of the dead (either literally or figuratively), while another is about the fires burning to purify that which is corrupt. It's all about context, and in light of our distorted view given to us from Hollywood of what hell is according to thrasher slasher films, it is import to be able to distinguish between the various words used by the authors of the original autographs.
IMO, they are all descriptions of the same thing. Revelation being progressive, the OT concept of an afterlife was not honed as we have in the NT.

The multiple concepts put forth for the abode of the unrighteous, to me, describe different facets of the same thing.

Gehenna (The Valley of Hinnom) was not meant to purify . . . it was meant to destroy. As such, it is illustrative . . . of what is part of the reality of the unrighteous after death and then further after the judgement.

Batter up brother . . . let have some fun ;0)

[Frisbee]

I disagree about Gehenna. Those who are annihilationist may go for that, but I would say that 1 Corinthians 3 Paul is speaking to believers when he says...

11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

What the difference between a believer and a non-believer?

I'm thinking that it leans towards what you implied by Gehenna meant to destroy, but it seems to me that it is everything not built upon Christ that is destroyed. Which either leaves nothing at all, or a soul which has been stripped of everything left that was impure.

I honestly don't know how that works. I do know that the Freddie Kruger Nightmare on Elm St scenario more resembles Pagan mythology than what the bible says though. I'm cool with any answer if it is biblical. I only object when folks try to ignore the context given in the bible, and paint pictures with the views of popular culture above the bible.

[Artificial Intelligence]

"Hell"? Itsa place where ya meet up wit all yur' friends, party to Slayer and Led Zep concerts till ur ears bleed, intake all forms of mind expanding substances, dance around the golden calf and have morgy’s. …SOMething like that *Pries tongue out of cheek* . Basically a place where all us [actual] fundies (balanced) aint welcomed. heh and we are almost as popular with the anti-fundies (some of which go to a fundie church?) lol.

[Mathetes the kerux]

I disagree about Gehenna. Those who are annihilationist may go for that, but I would say that 1 Corinthians 3 Paul is speaking to believers when he says...


What the difference between a believer and a non-believer?

I'm thinking that it leans towards what you implied by Gehenna meant to destroy, but it seems to me that it is everything not built upon Christ that is destroyed. Which either leaves nothing at all, or a soul which has been stripped of everything left that was impure.

I honestly don't know how that works. I do know that the Freddie Kruger Nightmare on Elm St scenario more resembles Pagan mythology than what the bible says though. I'm cool with any answer if it is biblical. I only object when folks try to ignore the context given in the bible, and paint pictures with the views of popular culture above the bible.
I didn't mean that the connotation of Gehenna as an illustrative name was ALSO for destruction. I believe Gehenna in relation to the abode of the unrighteous is a place of eternal burning . . . but NOT for purification. I am not an anihillationist in the least. The picture in Rev 14 is of eternal torment pictured in smoke going up forever and ever.

Paul's reference in Cor. says NOTHING about Gehenna . . . and while the parallel concept MAY be interesting . . . there is NO linguistic or hermeneutical reason to seem them as the same. Paul is just using a metaphor for the testing of the minister's work (it is not for all believers contextually).

[Frisbee]

Does it say that the smoke is the torment of those who God is punishing for not being saved?

Revelation 14:9-11

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

I'm reading that this is a specific warning to those who receive the mark of the beast. Apparently God has specifically issued a dire warning for that particular group of individuals, but I am not seeing it as a general threat to all of mankind.

Or is it possible that we are looking at this with a view that is perhaps to earthly? We are talking about a time before God creates the new heaven and new earth, right? That occurs after all of this in chapter 21. The only things that remain to be explained after the declaration of a new heaven and new earth are that of what he sees that as being like, and a warning not to add to or take away from the words of this book. Something I am very carefully trying to follow. I am trying to understand what it says, and am doing everything in my power to avoid adding to or taking away from, the words of that prophecy. We need to be EXTREMELY careful with that, wouldn't you agree?

[Mathetes the kerux]

Does it say that the smoke is the torment of those who God is punishing for not being saved?



I'm reading that this is a specific warning to those who receive the mark of the beast. Apparently God has specifically issued a dire warning for that particular group of individuals, but I am not seeing it as a general threat to all of mankind.

Or is it possible that we are looking at this with a view that is perhaps to earthly? We are talking about a time before God creates the new heaven and new earth, right? That occurs after all of this in chapter 21. The only things that remain to be explained after the declaration of a new heaven and new earth are that of what he sees that as being like, and a warning not to add to or take away from the words of this book. Something I am very carefully trying to follow. I am trying to understand what it says, and am doing everything in my power to avoid adding to or taking away from, the words of that prophecy. We need to be EXTREMELY careful with that, wouldn't you agree?

Yes I agree . . .

This is the first mention of the Lake and what happens to those in it. There is the other mention that ANY whose name is not written in the Lamb's Book of Life enter into the Lake as well. Same judgement.

Rev 20:14-15
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
NASU

And AFTER the New Creation . . .

Rev 21:8
8 " But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
NASU

[Frisbee]

So it happens twice? That's what it looks like if what you're saying is true. I need to look this up. I'll do that and post what I find!

[Mathetes the kerux]

So it happens twice? That's what it looks like if what you're saying is true. I need to look this up. I'll do that and post what I find!
Twice . . . no. The Book of Revelation is notoriously NON-linear (which is why trying to interpret time frames into the prophecy anywhere between Chapters 4 and 19 is a erroneous task). I think that they are proleptic statements about what will happen, included where they are for the sake of clarity of thought. I see them as reffering to the same event, the second passage making mention of the event in passing for clarity. But it shows that more than just Satan and his demons and those who recieve the mark are to be in the Lake of Fire.

[Frisbee]

I was always told that it was in fact unique in that it is linear. The chain of events described generally flow from one event to another, where very little "skipping back and forth through time" occurs. I will admit that your explanation makes sense after re-reading it though but for different reasons...

After looking at it again I can see that it doesn't necessarily state that those cast into the lake of fire happened after the new heavens and the new earth are created. It can simply be that it is repeated after we are told about the new heavens and the new earth. What makes sense about this is that the point may very well be that the new heavens and the earth will be free from those, all those (men and angels) who rebelled against God.

[Artificial Intelligence]

Twice . . . no. The Book of Revelation is notoriously NON-linear (which is why trying to interpret time frames into the prophecy anywhere between Chapters 4 and 19 is a erroneous task). I think that they are proleptic statements about what will happen, included where they are for the sake of clarity of thought. I see them as reffering to the same event, the second passage making mention of the event in passing for clarity. But it shows that more than just Satan and his demons and those who recieve the mark are to be in the Lake of Fire.
Yeah, non-linear is correct. Lake of fire is post 1000yr mil at the white throne judgment. This has to do more with those that have been raised from shoel since the beginning of time and through the millennium as they were deposited there. The other judgment that happens at the beginning of the trib (as some of us interpret it) is the Bema seat judgment, which is for believers and the receiving of rewards (such as the elders have crowns early during the trib). So Shoel is simply a waiting place and not eternal, but at the white throne judgment begins the eternal punishment which is similar to a great big trash bin that many things get thrown into which wont be found in the new heavens and new earth. It still exists and all, but just taken out to the curb and removed.

[Frisbee]

What do you guys mean by non-linear specifically?

The Book of Revelation flows quite clearly I thought.

Here is an excerpt from gotQuestions.org on the topic of "How can I understand the Book of Revelation? (http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-Revelation.html)"...

A simple outline for the Book of Revelation is found in Revelation 1:19. In the first chapter, the risen and exalted Christ is speaking to John. Christ tells John to "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later." The things John had already seen are recorded in chapter 1. The "things which are" (that were present in John's day) are recorded in chapters 2-3 (the letters to the churches). The “things that will take place" (future things) are recorded in chapters 4-22.

Generally speaking, chapters 4 through 18 of the Book of Revelation deal with God's judgments on the people on the earth. These judgments are NOT for the church (1 Thessalonians 5:2, 9). The church has been removed from the earth in an event called the Rapture. The Rapture is described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. This is a time of Jacob's trouble—trouble for Israel (Jeremiah 30:7; Daniel 9:12; 12:1). It is also a time when God is judging the world for their rebellion against Him.

Chapter 19 describes Christ's return with the Church, the Bride of Christ. He defeats the Beast and the False Prophet and casts them into the lake of fire. In Chapter 20, Christ has Satan bound and cast in the abyss. Then Christ sets up His kingdom on earth that will last 1,000 years. At the end of the 1,000 years, Satan is released and he leads a rebellion against God. He is quickly put down and also cast into the lake of fire. Then the final judgment, the judgment for all unbelievers, when they, too, are cast into the lake of fire.

Chapters 21 and 22 describe what is referred to as the eternal state. This is where God tells us what eternity with Him will be like. The Book of Revelation is understandable! God would not have given it to us if its meaning were entirely a mystery. The key to understanding the Book of Revelation is to interpret it as literally as possible. The Book of Revelation says what it means.
I personally don't care what the truth is, but I do want to know what in fact the truth is. I've never heard that the Book of Revelation was non-linear beofre, and right here I just heard it twice. Do you guys have an explanation for this that might help me better understand what you're saying?

I'm not in any way looking for an argument or a fight, I am asking an honest question to both of you. What I presented from gotQuestions.org is a very good explanation of what I have been taught up until this point. My mind is always open to the turth, but I consider myself a Berean of sorts. I chaeck everything against scripture. You know us calvary Chapel folks, real sticklers for sola scriptura! :cool:

[Artificial Intelligence]

Well John was not only taken up into heaven in the spirit, but he also time traveled. Notice it says (Rev 1:10) ‘on the Lord’s day’. That is not necessarily the 7th day, but the ‘Day of the Lord‘. From this vantage point, he was shown the different parts of the time line, not necessarily in complete order but in relation to the events that take/took place. There is a flow, but it does not require a point a. to point b. flow in a linear manor as we view time. Such as I mentioned of the Bema seat, but the elders had their crowns at the beginning of the tribulation, yet the rewards are mentioned as being given out later in the book. Non-linear delivery of the told events.

The link you posted/quoted I think is in error, the final lake of fire isn’t until after the white throne, which is at the end of the millennium. Until then, for the 1000 years, Satan is in chains inside the bottomless pit. I suppose it’s like the same thing, but at the end of the 1000 years when it all flees away, the bottomless pit is tossed in there too since it is a part of the earth which fled away. When I think fled away, I envision a giant black hole that smashes it all up and spits it out far away, may not even be in the same dimension, but a footstool of this...or the next.

The bottomless pit is where the locusts come from, and also the worst of demons that were locked up there. They come from the sea, or deep places. I suppose if you made it to the center of the earth, there would be no bottom, since all directions would lead up. Will flee away though.

[Frisbee]

I have always carefully made sure that I wasn't adding anything to what I was reading in Revelation (we're warned not to), and have come to a bit of a different conclusion regarding the lake of fire out of my extremely cautious approach to this partiicular book in the bible...

If you look at what it says very carefully, you'll see that it says the lake of fire will burn forever and ever, but only specifically mentions the devil, the beast and the false prophet being tormented day and night forever and ever. Every other reference you'll find throughout the bible speaks of a place that continually burns, but doesn't specifically state that those not found in the Lamb's Book of Life will meet that particular fate. Jesus uses words like "cast into the out darkness" to convey the final state of those who are not saved, which I interpret as being seperated from the presence of God.


Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


In any case the people mentioned before and after the new heaven and new earth can be sent to the lake of fire at any time. It doesn't matter when because it's always burning. And if you think about it, it makes sense that people are not tormented day and night forever with the devil, the beast and the false prophet. God is just and we should expect Him to deal with those who enter judgment without the blood of Christ to be treated faily, not equally with the devil, the beast and the false prophet.

That's where I sit on this. I'm always open to hearing what folks say because like I said before I seek the truth and have no personal stake in any of this. If I am wrong about something I am very quick to admit it and move on. If I learned something and the truth has been more perfectly revealed, I consider that a good thing because it means I'm growing.

[Artificial Intelligence]

I have always carefully made sure that I wasn't adding anything to what I was reading in Revelation (we're warned not to), and have come to a bit of a different conclusion regarding the lake of fire out of my extremely cautious approach to this partiicular book in the bible...
I’m not adding or taking away anything.
Scripture interprets scripture.
Reasoning is a valuable tool.

[Frisbee]

I'm not say you were AI. I know were sharing your views and not intentionally adding things to the Book of Revelation. I was trying to say that in light of the warning not too add things to the book, here are things that I have come up with. Sorry if I gave that impression.

[Mathetes the kerux]

What do you guys mean by non-linear specifically?

The Book of Revelation flows quite clearly I thought.

Here is an excerpt from gotQuestions.org on the topic of "How can I understand the Book of Revelation? (http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-Revelation.html)"...

A simple outline for the Book of Revelation is found in Revelation 1:19. In the first chapter, the risen and exalted Christ is speaking to John. Christ tells John to "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later." The things John had already seen are recorded in chapter 1. The "things which are" (that were present in John's day) are recorded in chapters 2-3 (the letters to the churches). The “things that will take place" (future things) are recorded in chapters 4-22.

Generally speaking, chapters 4 through 18 of the Book of Revelation deal with God's judgments on the people on the earth. These judgments are NOT for the church (1 Thessalonians 5:2, 9). The church has been removed from the earth in an event called the Rapture. The Rapture is described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. This is a time of Jacob's trouble—trouble for Israel (Jeremiah 30:7; Daniel 9:12; 12:1). It is also a time when God is judging the world for their rebellion against Him.

Chapter 19 describes Christ's return with the Church, the Bride of Christ. He defeats the Beast and the False Prophet and casts them into the lake of fire. In Chapter 20, Christ has Satan bound and cast in the abyss. Then Christ sets up His kingdom on earth that will last 1,000 years. At the end of the 1,000 years, Satan is released and he leads a rebellion against God. He is quickly put down and also cast into the lake of fire. Then the final judgment, the judgment for all unbelievers, when they, too, are cast into the lake of fire.

Chapters 21 and 22 describe what is referred to as the eternal state. This is where God tells us what eternity with Him will be like. The Book of Revelation is understandable! God would not have given it to us if its meaning were entirely a mystery. The key to understanding the Book of Revelation is to interpret it as literally as possible. The Book of Revelation says what it means.
I personally don't care what the truth is, but I do want to know what in fact the truth is. I've never heard that the Book of Revelation was non-linear beofre, and right here I just heard it twice. Do you guys have an explanation for this that might help me better understand what you're saying?

I'm not in any way looking for an argument or a fight, I am asking an honest question to both of you. What I presented from gotQuestions.org is a very good explanation of what I have been taught up until this point. My mind is always open to the turth, but I consider myself a Berean of sorts. I chaeck everything against scripture. You know us calvary Chapel folks, real sticklers for sola scriptura! :cool:
Ok our concept of linear progression is not universally held in the Scriptures.

Perfect example? The tempation accounts. One has the order one way . . . and the other inverts the last two. Well which is it? The solution, they are not concerned with linear progression as much as we are in our western world.

Within Revelation? The birth of the Christ child. OBVIOUSLY predates the time that Jesus says "things that are and things that shall come to pass." Revelation has been seen to cover the scope of redemptive history, in some interpretive schemes.

Another good example? The beheading of John the Baptist. In this account:

Luke 3:18-22
18 So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people. 19 But when Herod the tetrarch was reprimanded by him because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and because of all the wicked things which Herod had done, 20 Herod also added this to them all: he locked John up in prison.
21 Jesus Is Baptized

Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, " You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."
NASU

If you read the passage in a linear thought, then Jesus is baptized AFTER John is thrown in prison . . . but I thought John baptized Jesus?! He did . . . Luke finishes the thought he was trailing and then jumps back to where he was going with the story of Christ.

[Mathetes the kerux]

I have always carefully made sure that I wasn't adding anything to what I was reading in Revelation (we're warned not to), and have come to a bit of a different conclusion regarding the lake of fire out of my extremely cautious approach to this partiicular book in the bible...

If you look at what it says very carefully, you'll see that it says the lake of fire will burn forever and ever, but only specifically mentions the devil, the beast and the false prophet being tormented day and night forever and ever. Every other reference you'll find throughout the bible speaks of a place that continually burns, but doesn't specifically state that those not found in the Lamb's Book of Life will meet that particular fate. Jesus uses words like "cast into the out darkness" to convey the final state of those who are not saved, which I interpret as being seperated from the presence of God.



In any case the people mentioned before and after the new heaven and new earth can be sent to the lake of fire at any time. It doesn't matter when because it's always burning. And if you think about it, it makes sense that people are not tormented day and night forever with the devil, the beast and the false prophet. God is just and we should expect Him to deal with those who enter judgment without the blood of Christ to be treated faily, not equally with the devil, the beast and the false prophet.

That's where I sit on this. I'm always open to hearing what folks say because like I said before I seek the truth and have no personal stake in any of this. If I am wrong about something I am very quick to admit it and move on. If I learned something and the truth has been more perfectly revealed, I consider that a good thing because it means I'm growing.
While I do appreciate you dear brother, this:
God is just and we should expect Him to deal with those who enter judgment without the blood of Christ to be treated faily, not equally with the devil, the beast and the false prophet.


WAY underestimates the sin condition.

think of this:

The magnitude of sin. You see the magnitude of the punishment should be, if the judge is righteous, in relation to the magnitude of the crime. In the case of sin, if all sin has been paid for, but needs to be appropriated, then one does not go to "hell" for sin, per se, but rather for rejection of Christ. So in essence, one looks at the cross, the love of God in propitiating His own Son for their sin, the beauty and majesty of the Gospel, the worth and greatness of GOD HIMSELF AND SAYS NO, NOT EVER, I DON'T WANT THAT! And spits on the ground and turns away. It is the essence of :
Jer 2:11-13
But My people have changed their glory
For that which does not profit.
12 "Be appalled, O heavens, at this,
And shudder, be very desolate," declares the LORD.
13 "For My people have committed two evils:
They have forsaken Me,
The fountain of living waters,
To hew for themselves cisterns,
Broken cisterns
That can hold no water.
NASU

John Piper illustrates this by the image used by Jeremiah . . . someone looks at a great and beautiful fountain gushing with refreshing pure vitalising water . . . and turns their nose up at it . . . sniffs the wind and CHOOSES to place their mouth in dry dirt and relish in the dirt rather than the glory and sustenance and satisfaction of the fountain. THIS IS EVIL. To reject God for less.

So then, sin is not measured so much in the act itself in its temporal significance . . . ie murder, rape, theft . . . but measured in its eternal dimension in the rejection of God and His worth . . . for all sin boils down to this. Ergo, if the magnitude of the punishment is in relation to the magnitude of the crime . . . one has commited an eternal crime as it is an eternal front to an eternal God. Stealing a candy is the same as murder for both are an afront to the eternal worth and glory of God for both are rebellion against HIM. God becomes the measure of sin instead of the mere act.

This is why we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God . . . human depravity, total depravity is based on this . . . for just the mere act of selfishness incurs God's holy and righteous judgement. Otherwise a simple payment could be made for a simple sin . . . but it cannot. ANY sin . . . just ONE . . . one LITTLE one (from our view), is an eternal afront to God.


Take a crayon scribble and the Mona Lisa . . . if the crayon scribble is ruined . . . big deal . . . but if the Mona Lisa is ruined . . . someone goes to jail. ALL SIN BECOMES THE WILLING REJECTION OF THE FOUNTAIN OF LIFE AND IS TANTAMOUNT TO SPITTING ON THE MONA LISA.

This is one reason why Jesus had to be God. For Hebrews speaks of His blood having eternal value . . . for that blood MUST have eternal value . . . for the sin is gauged eternally as well . . . for the One sinned against is eternal Himself. Ergo Jesus' blood must be of eternal value to cover sin eternally . . . not that it must always CONTINUALLY cover . . . but that its value is immeasurable . . . and we will ALWAYS relate to God in light of the Cross . . . it is the wisdom of God and the GLORY of the Gospel. AMEN.

[Frisbee]

I spoke with my Pastor last night about the Book of Revelation and he said that Revelation 2 to 4 straddles time in that it spoke to churches of Johns day, and also prophetically of different church ages, but from there out it is linear (flows from point A to point B in time). He said, as I said I believed, that the sequence of events is one event occuring after another. He also added that the time that these events will take place in will be extremely short because they occur one after an other over a period of just 3 and a half years.

Anyhow, thought I'd share that to see what your reaction would be. I'm into the truth, and always try to be the Berean! If you got something different, by all means educate me!!!

[Mathetes the kerux]

I spoke with my Pastor last night about the Book of Revelation and he said that Revelation 2 to 4 straddles time in that it spoke to churches of Johns day, and also prophetically of different church ages, but from there out it is linear (flows from point A to point B in time). He said, as I said I believed, that the sequence of events is one event occuring after another. He also added that the time that these events will take place in will be extremely short because they occur one after an other over a period of just 3 and a half years.

Anyhow, thought I'd share that to see what your reaction would be. I'm into the truth, and always try to be the Berean! If you got something different, by all means educate me!!!
I am not a dispensationalist . . . nor do I subscribe to the 70 weeks of Daniel motiff in importing these weeks into the Book of Revelation to come up with 7 years with a 3-1/2x3-1/2 dichotomy.

The problem . . .

from there out it is linear (flows from point A to point B in time).

Rev 12:1-6
12:1 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.
3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.
5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
NASU

This is OBVIOUSLY the Christ, Jesus, so if the point a to point b is continual . . . then where does this fall? If John wrote on Patmos about 90-95 AD . . . then this goes BACK some 90 years to the birth of Christ!

[Artificial Intelligence]

Well yeah, it’s not non-linear to the extreme. I also take it as literal. How is that... “literal“? Well John was a man speaking of things he literally “saw” but explained them in 1st century terms and as a man of that time. Anyway, there is a flow, but it’s not entirely in order, there is some jumping around between the day of the Lord which where he was by perspective (or time frame of days), and the things that were taking place around the time in which he was caught-up to on that day. And yes, I am fully a Dispy, just to mention- pre-trib, pre-mil, Acts 2, Dispensationalist. As in all things, perspective of the writer is profoundly important, such as understanding John's perspective.

Oh and yes, John saw the lamp stands of the Churches of those days, but those lamp stands still exist today. It's not only then, but now too, apart from any that may have been removed already(?). And there are probably more lamp stands now, or possibly are.

But like I mentioned as an example of non-linear, Bema seat happens early, not late. That's because the Church is removed from Earth at the beginning of the 70th week of Danial (before the AC is revealed). That's why the Elders have crowns to throw at the feet of Jesus, because the Berma seat has already happened by that point. Many take it that it does not happen until the end of the GT, but that doesn't fit, thus it's not in order of account.

[Frisbee]

I think another important aspect of prophecy is that there are a lot of prophecies concerning Jesus that hav not been yet fulfilled. Christians are usually very quick to point out to Jews who question aspects of Messiah that they observe Jesus as falling short of the mark. Well the answer to that HAS TO BE that He will fulfill them between now and the end.

To me that is where you see time all over the place. The prophets of old weren't seeing the future, they were seeing the truth despite the "when". That being the case, then we are left with one possibility regarding those items that have yet to be fulifilled... they must be fulfilled of course.

Then you have the Book of Revelation. It is a post resurrection prophecy so it isn't laden with the same difficulties that earlier writers were seeing (two sides of Messiah: suffering servant, conquering King). For this reason John's prophecy flows much better. Until I have a reason to believe that the events will not flow as they very apprently read, I'll have to stick with the linear view.

And FYI AI... An amen to virtually everything you said :)

Mathetes... Just out of curiosoty, what makes you think that the Book of Revelation was written in 90 - 95 AD? What scripture do you base that on? Do you have a reason that you could articulate to defend that claim?

[Artificial Intelligence]

Hmm well I don’t know, I’m pretty much in alignment with Chuck Missler, David Hawking, Hal Lindsey, and Chuck Smith on bible prophecy and the aspects of the lake of fire etc.. Hawking was probably the first Dispy teacher I became aware of, before I redefined my view of eschatology, in a big part because of his teachings. Missler I can hardly find a thing I disagree with if I disagree with anything from him. Smith tends to be a little more uncertain or undecided on some things where as I may be a bit more certain, but only in a few cases. And Lindsey is of course a wealth of information regarding the application of prophecy to the things going on around us. But they all pretty much agree, and I agree with them, mainly because that's what the bible teaches.

[Mathetes the kerux]

I think another important aspect of prophecy is that there are a lot of prophecies concerning Jesus that hav not been yet fulfilled. Christians are usually very quick to point out to Jews who question aspects of Messiah that they observe Jesus as falling short of the mark. Well the answer to that HAS TO BE that He will fulfill them between now and the end.

To me that is where you see time all over the place. The prophets of old weren't seeing the future, they were seeing the truth despite the "when". That being the case, then we are left with one possibility regarding those items that have yet to be fulifilled... they must be fulfilled of course.

Then you have the Book of Revelation. It is a post resurrection prophecy so it isn't laden with the same difficulties that earlier writers were seeing (two sides of Messiah: suffering servant, conquering King). For this reason John's prophecy flows much better. Until I have a reason to believe that the events will not flow as they very apprently read, I'll have to stick with the linear view.

And FYI AI... An amen to virtually everything you said :)

Mathetes... Just out of curiosoty, what makes you think that the Book of Revelation was written in 90 - 95 AD? What scripture do you base that on? Do you have a reason that you could articulate to defend that claim?
There are two dates held for Revelation. The early date 68-69 ad is held by many preterists and partial-preterists. It holds that many of the things in Rev were fulfilled in the mid 1st cent and within a few years of the date of composition.

The latter date places the composition between 85-95 ad and sees the things spoken of as having yet to be fulfilled. The strongest here being a citation in the Patriarchs refering to John and the revelation and a possible dating for the vision in the reign of Domitian.

There are many evidences for both and issues for both . . . but I am assuming that you and your circles would PROBABLY take a later date due to your adherance to dispensationalism and pre-trib rapture dogma (a heavy emphasis in Calvary Chapel).

[RefrusRevlis]

There are two dates held for Revelation. The early date 68-69 ad is held by many preterists and partial-preterists. It holds that many of the things in Rev were fulfilled in the mid 1st cent and within a few years of the date of composition.


"Redating the New Testament" By John A T Robinson gives good arguments that basically the whole Bible was written before AD 70. Personally that "works for me" as I take essentially a preterist view, or at least partial preterist view, though a later date is not a problem either.

Refrus