We have a new culture today which gives rise to new words - App, Download, Tweet, Fax, etc. The technology has given rise to words or word usages which previously either did not exist or did not mean certain things which we now need to express.
For lack of a better word, I would say there is a "culture" involved in knowing the Triune God. And this "culture" arising from experiencing the living God does at times cause new expressions to exist in our typical language.
Some of the real meanings of these words are not that well defined in the dictionaries of people not giving much thought to experience of the supernatural.
For instance if I asked you what do you think of the human spirit, I am pretty sure that you would say something about the human soul. That is because you assume the two terms are interchangeable - soul / spirit. IE. the soul of a person is the spirit of a person.
But entering into the experience of New Testament salvation some have seen and correctly shown us that human spirit is not exactly synonymous with human soul.
I have a soul. But now I see that I also have in addition to a soul / a self, something deeper too - a human spirit.
This could be seen by some outside the experience as redefining language.
They may have a case. But it is not an invalid need which gives rise to new usages of words or even some new sounding words.
So we're talking about literal and even degrees of literalism in the Bible.
When it says "Jesus spoke a parable" it is obvious that it is not literal.
Then we have to ascertain what is the meaning of the allegorical speaking.
Divegeester hates the phrase "lake of fire" and puts for at least an arguable case that it is allegorical language. But if that is so it is impossible for most people to derive from the allegorical language (if that be the case) anything less than a total negative nightmare of whatever it represents.
Can something benigh and harmless be derived from the usage of the biblical phrase "the lake of fire" ? I don't think so.
A volcano is not used to represent an ice-cream cone.
And regardless how you object the usage of "lake of fire" can hardly be thought to represent the essential escape from punishment via unconscious non-existence.
Usage of the expression just doesn't allow that kind of interpretation to easily be assumed.
If you are in dread, in horror at the thought of an eternal lake of fire, face it, you have got the right idea that the Scripture intended to convey.
"Nothing could be worse as punishment!
Avoid this at all costs."
There is no way without considerable labor that I could imagine a volcano to allegorically represent a vanilla ice-cream cone. And as much as I may like to, a "lake of fire" as used in the Bible hardly conveys the escape from punishment into benigh non-existence.
Originally posted by @sonshipAre the "chains" - that you believe the burning non-Christians are hung out on as a deterrence to beings on other planets - literal or allegorical?
So we're talking about literal and even degrees of literalism in the Bible.
When it says "Jesus spoke a parable" it is obvious that it is not literal.
Then we have to ascertain what is the meaning of the allegorical speaking.
Divegeester hates the phrase "lake of fire" and puts for at least an arguable case that it is allegorical language. But if th ...[text shortened]... " as used in the Bible hardly conveys the escape from punishment into benigh non-existence.[/b]
Originally posted by @sonshipAnother possibility you should consider is that the "lake of fire" is just a bit of florid and calculatedly scaremongering prose written during tha Dark Ages by ideologues looking to add some teeth to the text they were brandishing in order to control others. What is your evudence that the notion of a "lake of fire" was divinely inspired?
And as much as I may like to, a [b]"lake of fire" as used in the Bible hardly conveys the escape from punishment into benigh non-existence.[/b]
Originally posted by @fmfThe phrase preceded the Dark Ages.
Another possibility you should consider is that the "lake of fire" is just a bit of florid and calculatedly scaremongering prose written during tha Dark Ages by ideologues looking to add some teeth to the text they were brandishing in order to control others. What is your evudence that the notion of a "lake of fire" was divinely inspired?
You can blame the Dark Ages for some things for sure.
But you can't blame the Dark Ages for the way "the lake of fire" was written about in the Greek manuscript of the book of Revelation .
This is like saying - " I am going to use Dante's Divine Comedy or Milton's Paradise Lost to object to what was written in the Greek New Testament centuries before. "
It doesn't work.
More effective (if it were possible) would be to use the New Testament canon to try to show my interpretation of the awfulness of the lake of fire is faulty.
Originally posted by @sonshipSo, what is your evidence that the notion of a "lake of fire" was divinely inspired?
The phrase preceded the Dark Ages.
You can blame the Dark Ages for some things for sure.
But you can't blame the Dark Ages for the way [b]"the lake of fire" was written about in the Greek manuscript of the book of Revelation .
This is like saying - " I am going to use Dante's Divine Comedy or Milton's Paradise Lost to object to what wa ...[text shortened]... Testament canon to try to show my interpretation of the awfulness of the lake of fire is faulty.[/b]
Originally posted by @sonshipMy point being, you want to frame it as a choice between being literal or being a metaphor; but a third possibility is that is fiction, in which case your talk of it being literal or being a metaphor is all moot.
The phrase preceded the Dark Ages.
You can blame the Dark Ages for some things for sure.
But you can't blame the Dark Ages for the way [b]"the lake of fire" was written about in the Greek manuscript of the book of Revelation .
This is like saying - " I am going to use Dante's Divine Comedy or Milton's Paradise Lost to object to what wa ...[text shortened]... Testament canon to try to show my interpretation of the awfulness of the lake of fire is faulty.[/b]
Originally posted by @sonshiprobbie carrobie often used to direct this kind of little pouty remark at me when he had something to go off and do, despite the fact that I never once accused him of "running away" if he took a break from a thread because he had to go be busy with something.
Now I'm going to catch up on some other things for awhile.
Maybe that will give a couple of you reason to brag -
"You see, sonship [b] ran away. Oh yes he did." [/b]
Originally posted by @fmfSure, and Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Someone somewhere just made that up. In fact, everything in the Bible has been proven wrong.
The book was canonized by corporate Christianity in the 5th century. The earliest still existing copies of it date from around that time. The "Dark Ages" refer to the 5th century onwards.
You're a genius FMF. Thank you for clearing that up for us. I especially like the way you provide recognized scholarly references to back your claim. That's ok too. We can take your word for it.
Originally posted by @sonshipOkay, let's simplify it for you.
[b] Sure sonship, let's redefine the English language to incorporate your bizarre teachings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fact that culture can influence language.
Unique cultural experiences can give rise to a new way of speaking.
You should cons ...[text shortened]... ability of Jesus Christ necessitates a language change or at least strong influence on language.[/b]
A literal account is meant to be taken 'factually' (due to it 'actually' happening). -A metaphor is used instead of a factual account, to illustrate a point. (In this sense it is a 'fictional' tool to get a particular message across).
This is why I said you can't have two opposites and claim they are the same, for how can something be both 'factual' and 'fictional' at the same time? (The answer is, it can't).
To conflate the two is a nonsense. You just need to be satisfied with the knowledge that a metaphor still carries meaning, despite its lack of literal integrity.
Originally posted by @fmfMy opinion at present is that this thing will involve something of the earth's inner bowls of magma or lava.
I suppose I am reminding you that it's just your personal assertion that a "lake" exists or will exist.
My opinion is that prophecy, usually when fulfilled, ends up being a "then some" matter of at least what was prophesied plus more.
In the principle of prophetic prediction what we read is often just the tip of the iceberg. More than we are not told in detail actually ends up happening. With the book of Revelation i am pretty sure many things we are told are certainly not the entire amount of details.
You and I are different. You see I think God who created our minds knows exactly WHAT we need to hear and exactly HOW we need to hear it. This is not only on the negative side but certainly on the positive side as well.