In his book The case for Christ, Lee Strobel recounts an incident that happened when he was the legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. He was covering the trial of a man accused of shooting a policeman. The man pled guilty and Strobel returned to his office to write a short blurb for the paper when he received a phone call from an informant that advised him to take a closer look at the case. In the end, he discovered that the policeman had responded to a call to the man’s apartment but had actually shot himself with an illegal pen gun that he had in his shirt pocket. The man pled guilty as part of a plea bargain, being told that he would be sentenced to a year in jail, but since he had already served 362 days awaitng trial he would be out in just a few day. This story was the motivation for his investigative report about the Bible’s claims concerning Jesus Christ. He realized that he had never looked into it himself but always blindly accepted what others had told him about it. In the process of conducting his own investigation he became a Christian and then wrote his book.
The reason I bring this up is because your questions and comments make it clear that you have never actually read the Bible yourself, but are simply parroting other’s opinions about it, having blindly accepted what they said to be true. (after all, they are all experts!). In the discussion of the book of Daniel, I already brought this matter up. You should take some time off from your commentaries and do some reading\investigation of your own, you have been terribly misinformed about the contents of the Bible.
I’ll give just two scriptures (there are many more if you decide to look for yourself) which declare that God put His own Words in the mouths of the prophets: Jeremiah1:9 states, “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.” and Ezek3:17, “…therfore hear the word at My mouth and give them warning from Me.”
-Concerning the Law, it is recorded that the 10 laws on the original tablets were written with the finger of God Himself (I don’t recall the scripture which states that, perhaps you could get a concordance and find it yourself?) By definition anything written by God is both inspired and innerrant.
-Concerning the inspiration of the Psalms which were mostly written by David, he is referred to as a prophet of God in the Bible (once again, I don’t remember where that is but perhaps you could find it?)
-Concerning the New Testament also being Scripture, 2Peter3:16 states, “There are some things in those epistles of Paul that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist and misconstrue to their own utter destruction, just as they misinterpret and distort the rest of the Scriptures”. Peter therefore testifies that Paul’s writings are inspired and equates them with the Old Testament Scriptures.
-Concerning my “cherry picking” of 2Peter1:20-21, 2Tim3:16 says, “Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline, and for training in righteousness.” This communicates the same message as 2Pet ie, God’s inspiration (and therefore innerrancy)
-Concerning other forms of God’s communication besides literal forms, Hebrews1:1 states, “In many separate revelations - each of which set forth a portion of the Truth- and in different ways God spoke of old to our forefathers in and by the prophets.” Sometimes God spoke thru the prophets by using words, sometimes the prophets acted out God’s message with symbolic actions or direct intervention. In the case of Hosea, He had the prophet marry a prostitute to symbolize the deteriorated relationship that existed between Himself and Israel. In the case of Elijah He had the prophet physically confront the opposition and destroy them.
-Concerning different interpretations and beliefs about the scriptures, the 2Pet passage indicates that there is only one interpretation of the Scriptures and it is the obligation of each person to seek out the Holy Spirit’s meaning. Further, we are each responsible and will be held accountable for our beliefs, especially if we have embraced error and then cause others to stumble (James3:1, Matt18:6-7, 1Cor3:17). Hopefully, these last verses might prompt you to read the Bible first before attempting to guide others in understanding it. You have taken on the supernatural armed with the faulty weapons of other men’s opinions. Don Quixote had much better success than you will have in your quest.
You are both presumptuous and very much wrong regarding my having read the bible. Given that I have already pointed out where you have both changed the words and changed the meaning of passages you have (mis)quoted, you might want to reflect on your admonition regarding embracing error and causing others to stumble.
(Is this an example of the quality of knowledge you bring from claiming to have “actually read the bible yourself”? 
)
Regardless, I am not going to get into a quote-fest in lieu of either a theological discussion or an exegetical study of scripture. I do not challenge that you believe what you have posted, but I do feel the need to point out factual errors when you present them. Your persistent need to tell others what they believe or why they believe it is not appropriate. If your arguments cannot stand on their own, resorting to ad hominems and well poisoning will not improve them.
Stick to making your claims regarding your beliefs of scripture and stop telling others what they believe or what they have studied. Given your serious rate of failure in both instances, you are in danger of “causing others to stumble” through misrepresentation and ignorance. This is particularly true because, despite your smug self-assurance, your own beliefs are also the result of “the faulty weapons of other men’s opinions” given that you are simply reporting what you have been taught to read into the bible–by such “other men” as Lee Strobel, for example.
Strobel is a joke. Despite his pretense that he is some sort of tough journalist getting the facts, his books are little more than compilations of stock apologist arguments and “interviews” with only the most rabidly fundamentalist, non-scholars. He never interviews any real scholars or checks any of his facts or bothers to get an opposing view. All his “cases” are incredibly spurious and all can be resoundingly debunked by anyone with even a little bit of knowledge. He “objective journalist” pose is completely fraudulent.
Strobel started as an avowed atheist who set out angrily to disprove the claims of Christianity because his wife had become a born again believer. He instead found that the evidence for Christ and His resurrection was overwhelming and was converted. As it happens, he talked to the most eminent and recognized scholars that are alive today. And actually it doesn’t matter who Strobel talked to as long as he found the Truth and gave his heart to Christ. But wait, you’ve taken us way off the thread of our Post’s subject. So how hot do you think hell will be Mr Cynic?
-I stand by my quotation of the verse(s) in question, and the interpretation that I gave is 100% accurate.
-I thought if I could get a concordance and a Bible in your hands for a moment you might find it interesting enough to read through. My mistake, I stand corrected. You win on this point.
You first allusion to 2 Peter 1:20 - 21 and your later misquotation of it in separate threads are are both inaccurate. I do not think the Lord is happy with people who lie about what is recorded in the bible.
I have read each book of the bible on several occasions and continue to read the bible for support and guidance. Your glib assertion that I have not read it is based on nothing more than an attempt to insult me–hardly a way to bring the word of God to people whom you think need to hear it.
Stroble is a former drunk who got Jesus when he quit drinking. Whatever the nature of his self-proclaimed former atheism, it was not especially informed if he was able to be so easily persuaded by the kinds of lame arguments he presents in his books. He also isn’t much of an investigative reporter considering he never actually investigates the hogwash that his interview subjects regurgitate at him. He does not interview actual scholars, but only the most conservative evangelical fundamentalists, very few of whom have any serious academic credentials as to that which they expound upon. He won’t even interview liberal Christians, much less objective or “skeptical” scholars. His books are targeted at audiences who are already converted and are unlikely to investigate the veracity of Strobels nonsense themselves or to discern the numerous kinds of fallacies he frequently employs (for an example, Strobel is quite fond of beating up on straw men - creating arguments and objections that skeptics don’t actually make- and sincerely believing he has thus made some kind of point).
Even a lot of conservative Christians will tell you that Strobel is worthless as an apologist and there are far more sophisticated Christian defenders out there, but since you seem to be so impressed by the man, then I invite you to cite one or two of what you believe are his most “irrefutable” arguments and let’s see if I can’t refute it. Who knows? maybe you’ll win a convert.
If you’ll scroll up a little, I think you’ll find that you are the one who introduced Strobel into this thread. Did you not expect a response?
Without meaning the question as a frontal assault, would you mind telling me, out of your personal experience, why it is that many people “like you” (and I realize I am making a possibly unwarranted assumption there) feel that anyone who holds differing beliefs about God from your own must not have read the Bible? I have never met Tom~ in real life but have known him for six years on this and other boards, and have immense respect for his knowledge of Christianity generally and the Bible in particular. I myself confess that there are a few books of Scripture I have never read through (Jeremiah and a couple of the minor prophets in particular), but I have in fact read the majority of it, and studied much of it in depth.
For the record:
2Peter1:20-21 reads, “First you must understand this, that no Scripture is a matter of any personal or private or special interpretation. For no Scripture ever originated because some man willed it, but as men spoke from God who were borne along by the Holy Spirit.”
The interpretation is this: The Scriptures are directly authored by God and only penned by men. (Note: by definition, anything authored by God is inerrant.) Further, there is only one interpretation to the Scriptures and it is held by the writer, Who is the Holy Spirit.
-If you have a Bible version that does not agree in substance with the above or if you have an interpretation that does not agree, they are false.
-And I don’t think you need to read the Bible as much as you need to obey its teachings as authoritative. What’s your purpose in reading it if you refuse to believe it and obey it? ( "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do the things I tell you to do?(Luke6:46))
This is not really a matter of different interpretations or beliefs, in this and other forums Tom has continually challenged basic doctrines that are clearly and repeatedly set forth in the Bible (God’s direct authorship and inerrancy for example). To reject certain doctrines is one thing, to claim that the Bible doesn’t teach them is another. I don’t see how anyone who has actually read the Scriptures could deny such basic concepts that are repeated throughout the Book. Further, when I pointed out one verse to clarify an issue, he made the accusation that I was “cherry picking” certain verses to support my position. After following with other verses which teach the same concepts he countered by saying that he’s “not going to get into a quote-fest in lieu of either a theological discussion or an exegetical study of scripture” (?!) It seems that the bottom line is that not enough scripture is unacceptable to Tom and too much scripture is even worse. Claiming to be a Christian is great but one who rejects His Word and refuses to hear His voice, is only a Christian in name
The phrase that you continue to render as “For no Scripture ever originated because some man willed it” is not what the verse says.
In the Greek, that phrase is
“[symbol]ou | gar | qelhmati | anqrwpou | hnecqh | pote | profhteia[/symbol]” (vB is not amenable to diacritical marks)
or
“not | for | by will | of man | was brought | ever | prophecy”
Every single extant version of the Greek manuscripts agree with this wording. (The Sinaiticus and some derivative texts change the order of [symbol]pote profhteia[/symbol] to [symbol]profhteia pote[/symbol] (which does not change the meaning in Greek) and a single third century manuscript inserts the word “may be” before the phrase “ever prophecy.” In other words, you are claiming that I have “an interpretation” that is false when you have deliberately changed what was written.
Now, you may feel you have ample reason to change the words of the passage, based on your beliefs from the word “prophecy” to the word “scripture,” but you cannot claim that you have rendered the verse the way it was written and it is dishonest of you to make that claim. I am not reading some “commentary” or some “interpretation” I am reading the words that we have in every Greek manuscript available to us.
There is no disagreement in substance between “prophecy of scripture” and simply “scripture” . All scripture is prophecy, all prophecy is scripture. The meaning of the passage was the issue being discussed ie, that all Scripture (or prophecy) is directly authored by God (therefore inerrant), only penned by men, and that there is only one interpretation that is valid. You simply do not believe this verse or any other verse (no matter how they are written) which conveys the doctrine of innerrancy and God’s direct authorship of what is wriiten in the Bible. I won’t bother you again with the other scriptures which convey that same Biblical Truth, as you previously ignored them saying you didn’t want to get into a “quote fest” about the issue. You obviously don’t want to be bothered by the substantive Truths conveyed by the Bible and are content to be sidetracked and focus on a subtle (and unimportant) shade of meaning which has no bearing on the real issue that was being discussed. But keep doing your homework, knowing what the Bible says is very important, but knowing what it means is greater, and doing the Word is greatest (Luke6:47-48).
It is not a “subtle (and unimportant) shade of meaning” that we are looking at, here. It is a deliberate effort on your part to change what has been written in order to support your beliefs (taken from commentaries by humans) imposing a particular meaning on scripture.
Sorry. When someone deliberately lies about what is actually found in scripture just to make their own (human interpreted) claims about what God has said, I am unimpressed by any further sanctimony that they issue.
Your allegation, that Tom~ (and I am proud to ally myself with him on this) rejects the doctrine of inerrancy, is 100% true. Because it is an interpretation, created by fallible man, placed on Scripture. And we both know what Jesus said about rejecting the Word of God for the word of men. You would of course use that against our perspective, but it is equally true of yours.
Equating Scripture with prophecy is contrary to the basic concept of Biblical prophecy, in place since at least the time of Amos and arguably since Samuel’s time, that certain men are called to speak with the voice of God. What they say is generally in their own words (note the differences between Isaiah and Ezekiel’s style, for example) but inspired by Him. Exactly what one means by “inspired” is debatable, but the concept of plenary verbal inspiration of every word of Scripture is disprovable by Scripture itself, notably the passage from I Corinthians 7 which I mentioned recently.
Eh, no. It’s introduced differently from most of the parables, & in any case, why use a parable about a pagan/untrue idea of Hell?
How I view the account/parable of Lazarus & the Rich Man…
If I held that the Dead are unconscious until the Resurrection-
Larazus died in his suffering & on Resurrection Day awoke into Paradise
(Heavenly or Earthly) aka Abraham’s bosom while the Rich Man died in his
prosperity & on Resurrection Day awoke out of Hades to face the Gehenna
judgement. As he suffered on his way to eventual destruction, the Rich Man had
this conversation with Abraham, who may be representing God as “Father of
All Nations” or Jesus as “the Greater than Abraham”.
This btw comes from HW & maybe GT Armstrong.
If I held that everyone is eventually saved-
this whole account refers to those who died before Christ, in which convicted souls have no power to cross the gulf nor is any miracle promised to reveal the truth to those who knew the Bible truths & rejected them…
HOWEVER Christ has crossed the Gulf to bring those sentenced into Sheol/Hades back to God and will at the Final Judgement reveal all Truth to every soul so that they will all collapse in surrender & devotion to God/Jesus.
How I do view the L&RM account-
those dead outside Christ have are semi-conscious now until the Resurrection,
those who died in a basically decent state have a pleasant rest, those who died in their sins have a restless tormented repose, at the Resurrection/Final Judgement when all souls come into the Divine Presence, they will either reconciled to God through Jesus or may possibly continue to defy both - the latter company with either suffer forever in God’s Presence because of their choice to remain shut to Him, or are allowed to take their own bad miserable selves into eternal exile, or are allowed to burn out of existence, having ultimately rejected the Source of all existence.
What I don’t believe-
that the L&RM have no relation to the Afterlife/Resurrection but refer to
those who were favored with God’s blessings being distressed by seeing the
seeming-outcasts so favored while their own blessings are removed. Btw,
the version of that view which no one has expressed is that L represents the
despised Gentiles & maybe publicans & harlots & etc while TRM represents the
self-righteous Christ-rejecting Jewish leadership. It shows up in both Witness & Adventist materials.
There may be room for debate there.
But it is most striking and, I believe, totally inarguable that it is absent in the oldest tier of the “OT” – particularly Genesis, the first of the Torah.
Not that Genesis is necessarily the very oldest book (I’ve heard the claim made about Job) but it is surely close.
There are many, many places, starting with Adam and Eve, to give the most obvious example, where it would be expected that a sobering description of hellish afterlife would issue from the Almighty, directly or indirectly. Or at least a brief outline of the idea, to be filled in later.
What possible reason would the Almighty have for not “revealing” it from the start?
(IIRC no one has claimed to find “hell” in Job either. Or the rest of the Torah, for that matter.)
Absolute, revealed “truths” and gradual development of a concept (whether it reached completion inside the Bible or not) make a poor mix, IMHO.
Or maybe not so “humble” opinion!
TBJ
True Blue Jack said:
You came to the right place…
Of course, “hell” is entirely absent throughout the whole bible; with the original words being “Hades”, “Sheol” and “Gehenna.” As noted earlier (and in retrospect I should have listed an index that noted the various translations that were simply listed by only initials…) the various translations take great liberties with the translations, and are quite inconsistent with the translations. Does it make sense that a word— the same word— be rendered, “hell”, “grave”, “pit”, “world of the dead”, “world on the underworld” etc? Not in my mind ,…unless…one comes from a predisposition that accepts a burning hell. In which case…there may be times that “hell” doesn’t fit contextually, and “grave” or “pit” must be used.
Exactly. Exactly. If Adam & Eve were to sent to a burning hell, it seems only fair that they were warned appropriately. A burning hell is a much more compelling threat than just simple death. Yet that was their pre-fruit-eating warning. (Ge 3:3) And, their post-fruit-eating-verdict was death; dust to dust. (Ge 3:19)
Actually…as noted there is no “hell”;-----however…The exact word, hades, found in Luke 16 used to support a burning hell, is found in Job. And in that context job is in absolute misery. (Job 14:13)
And what’s the context? Job not only prays for death (hades), he sees it as a relief! And he expresses confidence that God will remember him and bring him back from hades! Does that suggest that hades is a place of torment, from which a single drop of water provides respite? No! To accept this text in light of a burning hell doctrince one must divide hell/hades into 2----the part that Abraham, Lazarus, Job and even Jesus [briefly] inhabit. Of course the other side of hades is where the torment goes on. The only justification I see for a division in hades is the simple words “afar off.” That’s pretty tenuous.
[ Nitpick ]
The exact word used in the Hebrew version of Job is sheol, although I would guess that it would have appeared as hades in the Septuagint, since there was a pretty close correspondence between the ideas conveyed by both words in their earliest usage.
[ /nitpick ]
You’re right Tom
I wasn’t paying attention.
I appreciate the correction.