Evidence for God from Science

I have been reading though some of these post and have to comment on some of them NDE is exactly what it is near death experience. So if you come back then your chance of being saved is not over. If you die and you stay dead you have one other chance. Medically dead doesn't mean you are dead in God's eyes. So if you are medically dead and come back then your time was not over yet and you still have the opportunity to be saved. The bible says " Heb_9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: ". So if you die medically and stay dead then you are Judged and if you were a sinner sent to hell.

Why are we even debating if hell is for ever the bible says it is for ever
Revelation 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.
Revelation 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.
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 14:11 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.

The church didn't come up with it being for ever it gets that it is for ever from the bible. The bible said it was for ever.

People want a second chance but we do not get one. Ether reject God and die a sinner or except the gift of God which is salvation and go to heaven.

It is as simple as that.

jpbg33 wrote:Why are we even debating if hell is for ever the bible says it is for ever?

This debate exists because people don't want to believe what is plainly written in the Bible. So they interpret difficult passages metaphorically, or as allegories, or as having hidden messages, and can then cram them with the meanings they would like them to have.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

jpbg33 wrote:Why are we even debating if hell is for ever the bible says it is for ever?

This debate exists because people don't want to believe what is plainly written in the Bible. So they interpret difficult passages metaphorically, or as allegories, or as having hidden messages, and can then cram them with the meanings they would like them to have.

FL

Because we all know FL reads Song of Songs as fully literal.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

jpbg33 wrote:Why are we even debating if hell is for ever the bible says it is for ever?

This debate exists because people don't want to believe what is plainly written in the Bible. So they interpret difficult passages metaphorically, or as allegories, or as having hidden messages, and can then cram them with the meanings they would like them to have.

FL

Because we all know FL reads Song of Songs as fully literal.

The R rated book is a love letter back and forth between the bridegroom Jesus and his bride the church.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

jpbg33 wrote:Why are we even debating if hell is for ever the bible says it is for ever?

This debate exists because people don't want to believe what is plainly written in the Bible. So they interpret difficult passages metaphorically, or as allegories, or as having hidden messages, and can then cram them with the meanings they would like them to have.

FL

Because we all know FL reads Song of Songs as fully literal.

The R rated book is a love letter back and forth between the bridegroom Jesus and his bride the church.

I reject your metaphorical, allegorical, hidden message interpretation, it is plainly written in the Bible that Song of Songs is about a man's love affair with his his goat and various plants.

Question people claim that since Paul does not saying anything about Hell it is not a sound doctrine

They are wrong Paul talks about hell "Hebrews 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.". what do you think "fiery indignation,which shall devour the adversaries" is talking about. People do not want to go to hell so they try and say there isn't a hell,
but there is a hell and those that are not saved when they die will go there.

jpbg33 wrote:They are wrong Paul talks about hell "Hebrews 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.". what do you think "fiery indignation,which shall devour the adversaries" is talking about. People do not want to go to hell so they try and say there isn't a hell,
but there is a hell and those that are not saved when they die will go there.

IF by Hell you mean the biblical understanding of Sheol, then all will go there till the resurrection,
If by hell you mean the "lake of fire" then NO, only those not found in the book of life will go there AFTER the resurrection to judgment.

The bible says the only one's that have there names in the lams book of life are saved people. So all sinners will go to hell if they die sinners.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

jpbg33 wrote:Why are we even debating if hell is for ever the bible says it is for ever?

This debate exists because people don't want to believe what is plainly written in the Bible. So they interpret difficult passages metaphorically, or as allegories, or as having hidden messages, and can then cram them with the meanings they would like them to have.

FL

Because we all know FL reads Song of Songs as fully literal.

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.

It isn't surprising to me that allegorical/mystical interpretations do away with Hell, or add Purgatory, or promote Unitarianism, or claim that the Church is Israel, or say that Jesus partially returned in 70AD...all these false ideas - and others - are the result of faulty interpretive methods. The Word is quite clear; people pervert it and muddy its meaning.

abelcainsbrother wrote:The R rated book ^Song of Solomon] is a love letter back and forth between the bridegroom Jesus and his bride the church.

SS is R rated???

Maybe if you're Amish...or a Hutterite...

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
The normal method of biblical interpretation

Let's stop you right here at normal.

I'm sorry who died and made you the decider of what is normal interpretation, please define how you came to decide that this was normal.

As far as I am aware interpretation of the Bible has gone through many different changes at different times throughout history, who had this fabled "normal" interpretation, the Pharisees, the RCC, the modern Evangelicals, the early Church fathers, the ancient Israelites?

A lot of these different groups would disagree with your "normal" interpretation, especially a lot of the early church fathers, I am pretty sure Augustine of Hippo would disagree with you definition of "normal", even the Jewish people would disagree with you and it's their part which we are arguing over.

Doesn't seem so "normal" to me, sounds more like, I am FL and I have supreme authority over Biblical interpretation and anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic.

Please excuse me if I don't buy your claim to infallibility.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

jpbg33 wrote:Why are we even debating if hell is for ever the bible says it is for ever?

This debate exists because people don't want to believe what is plainly written in the Bible. So they interpret difficult passages metaphorically, or as allegories, or as having hidden messages, and can then cram them with the meanings they would like them to have.

FL

Because we all know FL reads Song of Songs as fully literal.

The R rated book is a love letter back and forth between the bridegroom Jesus and his bride the church.

I reject your metaphorical, allegorical, hidden message interpretation, it is plainly written in the Bible that Song of Songs is about a man's love affair with his his goat and various plants.

Dan220... I'm beginning to think you're hopeless! READ MY LIPS:

The literal-historical method of biblical interpretation is called The Normal Method.

(next time, look it up before saying something...nonsensical.)

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
Dan220... I'm beginning to think you're hopeless! READ MY LIPS:

The literal-historical method of biblical interpretation is called The Normal Method.

(next time, look it up before saying something...nonsensical.)

FL

I did look it up.............................and it does not lead me to believe it is the normal method of interpretation, it's opinion that it is the "normal" method.

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/ ... 25.htm?x=x

Just because you call something the normal method, does not a normal method make.

Eastern thought is so vastly different to western thought.........................

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
The normal method of biblical interpretation

Let's stop you right here at normal.

I'm sorry who died and made you the decider of what is normal interpretation, please define how you came to decide that this was normal.

As far as I am aware interpretation of the Bible has gone through many different changes at different times throughout history, who had this fabled "normal" interpretation, the Pharisees, the RCC, the modern Evangelicals, the early Church fathers, the ancient Israelites?

A lot of these different groups would disagree with your "normal" interpretation, especially a lot of the early church fathers, I am pretty sure Augustine of Hippo would disagree with you definition of "normal", even the Jewish people would disagree with you and it's their part which we are arguing over.

Doesn't seem so "normal" to me, sounds more like, I am FL and I have supreme authority over Biblical interpretation and anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic.

Please excuse me if I don't buy your claim to infallibility.

Daniel,

Another name for the grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation, is called the normal method. "The normal method" is THE NAME OF THE METHOD, because it is interpreted in the text's literal or normal sense.

It's not FL's definition of normal. The method is called "a The Normal Method".

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
The normal method of biblical interpretation

Let's stop you right here at normal.

I'm sorry who died and made you the decider of what is normal interpretation, please define how you came to decide that this was normal.

As far as I am aware interpretation of the Bible has gone through many different changes at different times throughout history, who had this fabled "normal" interpretation, the Pharisees, the RCC, the modern Evangelicals, the early Church fathers, the ancient Israelites?

A lot of these different groups would disagree with your "normal" interpretation, especially a lot of the early church fathers, I am pretty sure Augustine of Hippo would disagree with you definition of "normal", even the Jewish people would disagree with you and it's their part which we are arguing over.

Doesn't seem so "normal" to me, sounds more like, I am FL and I have supreme authority over Biblical interpretation and anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic.

Please excuse me if I don't buy your claim to infallibility.

Daniel,

Another name for the grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation, is called the normal method. "The normal method" is THE NAME OF THE METHOD, because it is interpreted in the text's literal or normal sense.

It's not FL's definition of normal. The method is called "a The Normal Method".

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.