Why, it seems that you can interpret it to mean anything you want. You simply take the parts that don't agree with you and you either claim they mean what you want them to mean or claim that they apply to some specific instance that doesn't apply to your argument.
Convenient, isn't it? I've witnessed essentialists(those who want to believe that Jesus and the bible represent love and peace) get into verbal fights with fundamentalists who take the bible literally in all it's gory violence and swear that their God is a jealous, angry God who would cast many of his children in a lake of fire to be tortured for all eternity, just for not believing in him. Incidentally, these same fundies are the ones who, by and large, are responsible for trying to bring back corporal punishment in the schools and torture by our government...yeah.

"We become complicit in violence when we attempt to maintain a book whose main truths can never be verified. We become complicit when we maintain the value of violent scripture by focusing on "aesthetics" that exist no more than the 'aesthetics" of Mein Kampf. We need to ask ourselves, as academics, why the Bible and the Qur'an, among other scriptures, are worth priveleging at all. Our final mission, as scholars of these scriptures, must be to help humanity close the book on a long chapter of human misery."

Damis

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything. I'm not trying to make converts. I just think if you are going to make ridiculous remarks about a person, you should take the time to find out a little more about Him, so you won't look like such a pathological liar.

Wait, so you can't back up your interpretations, but I'm the liar?

And, what vicious remarks have I made against any person that are unsubstantiated? Or do you mean that god is a person now? Well, god does commit genocide and many other attrocities, at least as recorded in the Bible. If the Bible is true, then god is a monster. The Bible also talks about hell and a lake of fire. You can try and explain it away, but many others come to different interpretations of those passages. Which one of you is right? You can't answer that. Will you admit that you may be wrong?

The Bible is a revelation, not a novel.

A revelation of what exactly? Who is this revelation open to?

If you have questions about it's veracity, ask Him yourself.

You assume too much. You assume that I was not a Xian before I became atheist. Bad assumption. You assume that I never asked god anything, never tried to engage god. Bad assumption.

He is the God who speaks. It's really simple, unless of course you don't really want an answer.

False dichotomy. You're really racking up the logical fallacies, aren't you?

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything. I'm not trying to make converts. I just think if you are going to make ridiculous remarks about a person, you should take the time to find out a little more about Him, so you won't look like such a pathological liar. The Bible is a revelation, not a novel. If you have questions about it's veracity, ask Him yourself. He is the God who speaks. It's really simple, unless of course you don't really want an answer.

http://www.gods-kingdom.org/Hearing/Default.htm

Could you trouble yourself to go read the links?

I glanced through.

The trouble is that this is all interpretation based. You have no proof that your interpretation is the correct interpretation. It's all well and good that you want your god to not be the monster that sends people to hell that just about everyone else thinks he is. In fact, I salute you for recognizing the fact that a god that would send people to hell is a monster. Most theists don't even recognize that. You are still relying on interpretation, however, and there are many interpretations of the same passages that do end in hell. How do we resolve which interpretation is the correct one? By which one gives the best warm and fuzzies? Your god is not a pleasant god, and the interpretation of a god burning people in hell meshes well with what we know about Yahweh. Sorry to have to point that out to you (actually I'm not sorry.)

So, why is your interpretation better than anyone else's? How can we tell?

http://www.gods-kingdom.org/JudgmentofDivineLaw/chapter_2.htm

and I've concentrated mostly on that so far.

Cheers,

G Riggs

It seems that one of the links does not work. Try this, I think it covers all the original words in question, but perhaps not all the translations derived from them.

http://www.gods-kingdom.org/JudgmentofDivineLaw/default.htm

Could you trouble yourself to go read the links? You asked for "evidence" and I provide you with what I have. It's probably not good enough for you since you have already decided what ever you have decided. I'd prefer an impasse to being hit in the eye with a turd.

"It is often claimed that this is a picture of a burning “hell” torturing conscious sinners in an afterlife, but that is an extended and unwarranted interpretation of this passage. First of all, neither Isaiah nor Jesus meant to imply that the worms were immortal, but rather that there were always worms there. Maggots live for a while and die after breeding more maggots."

===============> It's obvious you've thought about this interpretation quite a bit. I'd be curious if any translation says something like "Where there's always a worm" rather than "Where their worm dieth not", and does anyone know if the former would accord just as well with the original Greek? Does anyone here know? Thanks.

"The fire is not perpetual. The point is that no man can quench it. Only God can quench this fire. The NASB shows the bias of the translators when it renders the phrase too strongly, “shall not be quenched.” The literal rendering of the phrase is simply “is not quenched,” that is, not by any man. The fire of judgment will surely come, and no man can prevent it."

While I can see that that this reading need not entail eternal torment for the punished, I'm still not convinced that "is not quenched" means anything other than a fire that does last forever. Maybe the punished don't stay around there forever -- I think you've made your point there, pending another translation of the "worm" clause -- but "is not quenched" still suggests to me an actual fire that never dies. Again, I'd be curious as to other translations here too. Thanks.

Cheers,

G Riggs

Jesus spoke more of Gehenna than of Hades. In Mark 9 He was quoting and commenting upon Isaiah 66:24, which says, "Then they shall go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched [Greek: “is not quenched”]; and they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind."

Isaiah was writing specifically about the old and new Jerusalem (66:10) and the new heavens and the new earth (66:22). That is why Jesus used the term Gehenna, rather than Hades. It was a symbol of judgment upon the wicked. By the time Jesus walked the earth, Gehenna was no longer used for human sacrifice, but was the city dump. It was also the place where they cast the unclaimed bodies of criminals that had been executed or crucified. Like many dumps today, Gehenna was always smoldering, because it was fueled by the trash that people threw into it. But because it also contained organic matter, dead animals and men, it also was continuously infested with maggots (“worms”).

It is often claimed that this is a picture of a burning “hell” torturing conscious sinners in an afterlife, but that is an extended and unwarranted interpretation of this passage. First of all, neither Isaiah nor Jesus meant to imply that the worms were immortal, but rather that there were always worms there. Maggots live for a while and die after breeding more maggots.

The fire is not perpetual. The point is that no man can quench it. Only God can quench this fire. The NASB shows the bias of the translators when it renders the phrase too strongly, “shall not be quenched.” The literal rendering of the phrase is simply “is not quenched,” that is, not by any man. The fire of judgment will surely come, and no man can prevent it.

Gehenna, prophetically refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the slaughter occurring at this city’s final judgment, because its citizens have made themselves God’s enemies.

http://www.gods-kingdom.org/JudgmentofDivineLaw/chapter_6htm

http://www.gods-kingdom.org/CreationsJub/CJAppendixes/Appendix06.htm

Thumpalumpacus: Do you believe you have considered all the evidence?