Doctrine of Hell

[PaulSacramento]

Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.

Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.

If you want to know more about it, you can scroll down on this link.
https://bible.org/seriespage/8-bible-un ... ts-message

Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.

Nothing is "normal".

Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things. The Bible has to many nuances to just use this "normal" method of of interpretation.

Dude...

NORMAL:
adjective
1.
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2.
serving to establish a standard.
3.
Psychology.
approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
free from any mental disorder; sane.
4.
Biology, Medicine/Medical.
free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
of natural occurrence.
5.
Mathematics.
being at right angles, as a line; perpendicular.
of the nature of or pertaining to a mathematical normal.
(of an orthogonal system of real functions) defined so that the integral of the square of the absolute value of any function is 1.
(of a topological space) having the property that corresponding to every pair of disjoint closed sets are two disjoint open sets, each containing one of the closed sets.
(of a subgroup) having the property that the same set of elements results when all the elements of the subgroup are operated on consistently on the left and consistently on the right by any element of the group; invariant.
6.
Chemistry.
(of a solution) containing one equivalent weight of the constituent in question in one liter of solution.
pertaining to an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight unbranched carbon chain, each carbon atom of which is joined to no more than two other carbon atoms.
of or relating to a neutral salt in which any replaceable hydroxyl groups or hydrogen atoms have been replaced by other groups or atoms, as sodium sulfate, Na 2 SO 4.
noun
7.
the average or mean:
Production may fall below normal.
8.
the standard or type.
9.
Mathematics.
a perpendicular line or plane, especially one perpendicular to a tangent line of a curve, or a tangent plane of a surface, at the point of contact.
the portion of this perpendicular line included between its point of contact with the curve and the x- axis.

Yes, normal exists, there is such a thing as "normal".

[abelcainsbrother]

The normal method of biblical interpretation, also known as the literal-historical method, allows for poetry, for idiomatic expressions, for figurative language and such, and seeks to understand the literal meaning behind the literary construct. The allegorical, the mystical and other fruitcake methods of interpretation create confusion by spiritualizing the meaning. Adherents of these methods must confront a plasticity of meaning that ends up being meaningless. In plain language: it's just a bunch of BS and adherents don't know what theiy're talking about, and don't know that they don't know. The Bereans were certainly not allegorical/mystical interpreters because they "...examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." They consulted the Scriptures themselves and verified that they were being taught the truth. The only way they could understand the Scriptures was to interpret them literally. Any other form of interpretation requires some sort of twisted Template that says This=That...or a guru.

I don't think it is so nice and neat since one must first decides what IS the literary genre, lets us not forget that Augustine believed Genesis to be allegory.

Augustine?Allegory? Why do you say allegory?Is it because he believed the first day in Genesis 1 started in verse 3 and not verse 1? Because he definately thought as a Gap theorist does about 500 years ago long before Charles Darwin.

[RickD]

The normal method of biblical interpretation, also known as the literal-historical method, allows for poetry, for idiomatic expressions, for figurative language and such, and seeks to understand the literal meaning behind the literary construct. The allegorical, the mystical and other fruitcake methods of interpretation create confusion by spiritualizing the meaning. Adherents of these methods must confront a plasticity of meaning that ends up being meaningless. In plain language: it's just a bunch of BS and adherents don't know what theiy're talking about, and don't know that they don't know. The Bereans were certainly not allegorical/mystical interpreters because they "...examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." They consulted the Scriptures themselves and verified that they were being taught the truth. The only way they could understand the Scriptures was to interpret them literally. Any other form of interpretation requires some sort of twisted Template that says This=That...or a guru.

I don't think it is so nice and neat since one must first decides what IS the literary genre, lets us not forget that Augustine believed Genesis to be allegory.

Augustine?Allegory? Why do you say allegory?Is it because he believed the first day in Genesis 1 strated in verse 3? Because he definately thought as a Gap theorist does about 500 years ago long before Charles Darwin.

ACB,

Do you work for The Gap, as a commissioned sales rep.? If you had a dollar for everytime you mentioned Gap, or Gap Theory, even in threads that have nothing to do with the subject, you'd be a rich man.

[PaulSacramento]

The normal method of biblical interpretation, also known as the literal-historical method, allows for poetry, for idiomatic expressions, for figurative language and such, and seeks to understand the literal meaning behind the literary construct. The allegorical, the mystical and other fruitcake methods of interpretation create confusion by spiritualizing the meaning. Adherents of these methods must confront a plasticity of meaning that ends up being meaningless. In plain language: it's just a bunch of BS and adherents don't know what theiy're talking about, and don't know that they don't know. The Bereans were certainly not allegorical/mystical interpreters because they "...examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." They consulted the Scriptures themselves and verified that they were being taught the truth. The only way they could understand the Scriptures was to interpret them literally. Any other form of interpretation requires some sort of twisted Template that says This=That...or a guru.

I don't think it is so nice and neat since one must first decides what IS the literary genre, lets us not forget that Augustine believed Genesis to be allegory.

Augustine?Allegory? Why do you say allegory?Is it because he believed the first day in Genesis 1 started in verse 3 and not verse 1? Because he definately thought as a Gap theorist does about 500 years ago long before Charles Darwin.

I say allegory because Augustine said it was.
Bishop of Hippo Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis.

[abelcainsbrother]

The normal method of biblical interpretation, also known as the literal-historical method, allows for poetry, for idiomatic expressions, for figurative language and such, and seeks to understand the literal meaning behind the literary construct. The allegorical, the mystical and other fruitcake methods of interpretation create confusion by spiritualizing the meaning. Adherents of these methods must confront a plasticity of meaning that ends up being meaningless. In plain language: it's just a bunch of BS and adherents don't know what theiy're talking about, and don't know that they don't know. The Bereans were certainly not allegorical/mystical interpreters because they "...examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." They consulted the Scriptures themselves and verified that they were being taught the truth. The only way they could understand the Scriptures was to interpret them literally. Any other form of interpretation requires some sort of twisted Template that says This=That...or a guru.

I don't think it is so nice and neat since one must first decides what IS the literary genre, lets us not forget that Augustine believed Genesis to be allegory.

Augustine?Allegory? Why do you say allegory?Is it because he believed the first day in Genesis 1 strated in verse 3? Because he definately thought as a Gap theorist does about 500 years ago long before Charles Darwin.

ACB,

Do you work for The Gap, as a commissioned sales rep.? If you had a dollar for everytime you mentioned Gap, or Gap Theory, even in threads that have nothing to do with the subject, you'd be a rich man.

No I don't but Augustine's name came up and eventhough it is a side issue I guess I was maybe trying to maybe get Paul and Dan to think about something else,not seeing eye to eye,I just thought of it.

[RickD]

The normal method of biblical interpretation, also known as the literal-historical method, allows for poetry, for idiomatic expressions, for figurative language and such, and seeks to understand the literal meaning behind the literary construct. The allegorical, the mystical and other fruitcake methods of interpretation create confusion by spiritualizing the meaning. Adherents of these methods must confront a plasticity of meaning that ends up being meaningless. In plain language: it's just a bunch of BS and adherents don't know what theiy're talking about, and don't know that they don't know. The Bereans were certainly not allegorical/mystical interpreters because they "...examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." They consulted the Scriptures themselves and verified that they were being taught the truth. The only way they could understand the Scriptures was to interpret them literally. Any other form of interpretation requires some sort of twisted Template that says This=That...or a guru.

I don't think it is so nice and neat since one must first decides what IS the literary genre, lets us not forget that Augustine believed Genesis to be allegory.

Augustine?Allegory? Why do you say allegory?Is it because he believed the first day in Genesis 1 strated in verse 3? Because he definately thought as a Gap theorist does about 500 years ago long before Charles Darwin.

ACB,

Do you work for The Gap, as a commissioned sales rep.? If you had a dollar for everytime you mentioned Gap, or Gap Theory, even in threads that have nothing to do with the subject, you'd be a rich man.

No I don't but Augustine's name came up and eventhough it is a side issue I guess I was maybe trying to maybe get Paul and Dan to think about something else,not seeing eye to eye,I just thought of it.

It was a rhetorical question.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.

Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.

If you want to know more about it, you can scroll down on this link.
https://bible.org/seriespage/8-bible-un ... ts-message

Ask a conspiracy theorist if they read the paper the same way you do, or ask a child, or ask someone with a mental disability.

Nothing is "normal".

Anyway we are referring to the "normal" interpretation of scripture and not a news paper, they are completely different things. The Bible has to many nuances to just use this "normal" method of of interpretation.

Dude...

NORMAL:
adjective
1.
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2.
serving to establish a standard.
3.
Psychology.
approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
free from any mental disorder; sane.
4.
Biology, Medicine/Medical.
free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
of natural occurrence.
5.
Mathematics.
being at right angles, as a line; perpendicular.
of the nature of or pertaining to a mathematical normal.
(of an orthogonal system of real functions) defined so that the integral of the square of the absolute value of any function is 1.
(of a topological space) having the property that corresponding to every pair of disjoint closed sets are two disjoint open sets, each containing one of the closed sets.
(of a subgroup) having the property that the same set of elements results when all the elements of the subgroup are operated on consistently on the left and consistently on the right by any element of the group; invariant.
6.
Chemistry.
(of a solution) containing one equivalent weight of the constituent in question in one liter of solution.
pertaining to an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight unbranched carbon chain, each carbon atom of which is joined to no more than two other carbon atoms.
of or relating to a neutral salt in which any replaceable hydroxyl groups or hydrogen atoms have been replaced by other groups or atoms, as sodium sulfate, Na 2 SO 4.
noun
7.
the average or mean:
Production may fall below normal.
8.
the standard or type.
9.
Mathematics.
a perpendicular line or plane, especially one perpendicular to a tangent line of a curve, or a tangent plane of a surface, at the point of contact.
the portion of this perpendicular line included between its point of contact with the curve and the x- axis.

Yes, normal exists, there is such a thing as "normal".

Sorry I am not convinced about normality, people can claim something is normal, but I don't think there is anything in this universe which I could consider normal.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

I hope you are kidding.
That is like someone saying that because they don't agree with the term "deviant" because it may have negative connotations.
I word is what it is, its definition is what it is and the name given to something, in this case the "normal method" is the name.
Agreement is irrelevant.

What I am trying to say is that I reject this standard and I find it misleading that they call it the normal method.

[1over137]

Curious, how would you name that method?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Curious, how would you name that method?

You don't wanna know!!

Seriously though I think I am done besting this dead horse, it not going to do any good to keep pounding away at it.

Why do we feel the need to label everything anyway.

[Proinsias]

Daniel wrote:
Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything.

I think my original point still stands.

Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal method of interpretation.

Think of it this way...the way you would read a newspaper, or the way you'd read recipes in a cookbook, is the normal method.

If you want to know more about it, you can scroll down on this link.
https://bible.org/seriespage/8-bible-un ... ts-message

There is a slight difference in that most cookbooks & newspapers, the Daily Mail aside, do not claim you will spend eternity in hell if you don't take them seriously.........though vegans offering cookbooks will strongly imply it.

[Philip]

When we question whether or not something is "normal," do we mean, is it TYPICAL and common for any one group, society or place, or are we applying some moral evaluation to it? And if it's the latter, whose standards are we applying as the measuring stick? I hope we're not questioning whether there are actual truths.