Yes and the original 1st century meaning to those early Christians you are quoting it meant a very bad place you burn forever in. It doesn’t matter that 8 centuries prior the word didn’t even exist.
I gave you a specific example, Dartmouth, before and you are not acknowledging it. A word means what it means when it is spoken, the entymology is interesting but not the definition the word has forever.
Then how did the 1st century Christians interpret Ecclesiastes 9:5?
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all"
And how about all the times that Jesus referred to those who have died as being asleep? The comparison between death and sleep isn’t a coincidence. When sleeping we kinda cease to exist temporarily. The part that’s “us” goes away. Aside from dreams (which actually accounts for only a small portion of time unconscious, and we only remember a tiny fraction of dreams anyways) we don’t think, feel, or even care about anything.
Your example of Dartmouth is irrelevant. The colloquial definition of a word in common language doesn’t factor in, because we are looking at the scholastic definitions. And doing so would give us context of the origins of the word Dartmouth, the region it refers to, and how it was used later on. And that way we get a full understanding of what the word used to mean and how it’s used today.
Doing the same thing for the word “hell” gives us that important context. So your example is irrelevant.
Then how did the 1st century Christians interpret Ecclesiastes 9:5?
The same way they understand that their Messiah was supposed to be named Emanuel but wasn’t and that he was supposed to be from Bethlehem not Nazareth and that he was supposed to usher in the last days but didn’t. Christianity isn’t really big on consistency.
And how about all the times that Jesus referred to those who have died as being asleep? The comparison between death and sleep isn’t a coincidence. When sleeping we kinda cease to exist temporarily. The part that’s “us” goes away. Aside from dreams (which actually accounts for only a small portion of time unconscious, and we only remember a tiny fraction of dreams anyways) we don’t think, feel, or even care about anything.
Not relevant.
Your example of Dartmouth is irrelevant. The colloquial definition of a word in common language doesn’t factor in, because we are looking at the scholastic definitions. And doing so would give us context of the origins of the word Dartmouth, the region it refers to, and how it was used later on. And that way we get a full understanding of what the word used to mean and how it’s used today.
Incorrect. Very relevant. You are defining words with a 8th century understanding for a 1st century people.
He was born in Bethlehem. His family then moved to Nazareth. His birthplace is Bethlehem, so saying “from Bethlehem” and “Jesus the Nazarene” are both correct.
he was supposed to usher in the last days but didn’t.
He wasn’t supposed to while on earth.
Not relevant.
Just because you don’t care for the analogy doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s entirely relevant. Again, this isn’t something I came up with. It’s been agreed upon by many Bible scholars.
Incorrect. Very relevant. You are defining words with a 8th century understanding for a 1st century people.
How is that not relevant? How is understanding the basis and origin of a word and the evolution of its entomology not relevant?
Btw, the understanding of those words go back even further than the 1st century. It’s simply been reinforced and ratified by 1st century texts and newer manuscripts.
The origins of the word Ge’henna, for example, are not disputable. The intent and usage of the term are also clear once you have the context.
He was born in Bethlehem. His family then moved to Nazareth. His birthplace is Bethlehem, so saying “from Bethlehem” and “Jesus the Nazarene” are both correct.
Hearsay written decades later and not even consistent. The two accounts disagree on why it happened, what path they took, and what year it happened in. Also it doesn’t even make sense that Joseph wouldn’t have stayed with family. Nor that you would have to return to your birth place for a census. The other account with Egypt is just to solidify the Moses connection. It is so clearly a retrocon based on someone noticing the discrepancy. Not a single record shows the Massacre of the Innocents or the requirements to return home for a census. Not one.
He wasn’t supposed to while on earth.
And some of you present here will not taste death before all these things comes to past.
Just because you don’t care for the analogy doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s entirely relevant. Again, this isn’t something I came up with. It’s been agreed upon by many Bible scholars.
Well tell them to come here and argue instead of sending someone who can’t support their own argument.
ow is that not relevant? How is understanding the basis and origin of a word and the evolution of its entomology not relevant?
Dartmouth
he origins of the word Ge’henna, for example, are not disputable. The intent and usage of the term are also clear once you have the context.
Yes Jewish writings that make it clearly to be hell.
And some of you present here will not taste death before all these things comes to past.
And here we still are as we read those words.
Well tell them to come here and argue instead of sending someone who can’t support their own argument.
I haven’t supported my own arguments, eh? I guess the Bible isn’t the only one with revisionist history.
Dartmouth
Pertinacious.
“When I say Dartmouth to you do you think “mouth of the Dart river” or do you think of the famous school there?”
Personally, I think of the school. But that’s irrelevant because when I look into the word itself I can find all the information about the word and where it came from, why it was used, etc. I understand what you’re trying to say. You’re implying that the words had an original meaning long before the Bible was written, and that the meaning had changed by the time of the Bible to mean “hell” as a place of eternal torture.
But that’s not the case, and most scholars agree that both She’ol and Ge’henna (two words often associated with hell, and even translated as “hell” in some Bibles) did not refer to a place of torment or an afterlife at the time of writing. And those viewpoints are supported by other parts of the Bible.
If you see the words “It is right”, you know it could mean “morally just” or “a relative direction”. By itself it’s ambiguous. But if in the next sentence you see “Be sure to not go left”, then with the context you know that’s a direction. This is a simplistic example, and the words She’ol and Ge’hanna are not ambiguous, but I’m illustrating that with additional context the meaning is revealed, and we see that with the other verses in the Bible.
Yes Jewish writings that make it clearly to be hell.
You keep saying this, and I haven’t seen you cited a source or shown some kind of supporting evidence (unless I genuinely missed it). Your comments are “trust me bro” and “nuh-uh!”.
and most scholars agree that both She’ol and Ge’henna (two words often associated with hell, and even translated as “hell” in some Bibles) did not refer to a place of torment or an afterlife at the time of writing. And those viewpoints are supported by other parts of the Bible.
Argument from authority.
Your comments are “trust me bro” and “nuh-uh!”.
I see we don’t know how “” work. I told you to go read the Talmud already and you didn’t even put that supposed language ability you have work.
Really? You’re gonna pull that one and nitpick about proper grammatical use of double quotes?
I told you to go read the Talmud already and you didn’t even put that supposed language ability you have work.
What’s the point? You want me to read it to satisfy this argument? You know it’s a unreasonable and unattainable request just on the merit of the volume of reading alone, all for a “Reddit” debate. But you’ll just position it as me not putting in the requisite work to approach your level of knowledge. It’s the same argument flat earthers make when they say “show us an actual picture of a round spinning ball”, but when presented with a satellite photo they just claim it’s CGI, so they insist “if you didn’t take the photo yourself, then you don’t have any proof”. Because it’s obviously ridiculous for an average person to muster the finances and resources to get into orbit and take a photo just to win an argument with a flat earther.
I’m not going to read the Talmud based on your insistence, and frankly you already knew that. Which is why you said it so that you can try to chock it up as a “win”. You do you.
I’m not moving the goalpost at all. The discussion is about the definition of the word that in some English translations is rendered “hell”.
The discussion about She’ol and Ge’henna is that it’s those words translated into “hell”.
So to discuss what “hell” is, the original meaning of those words need to be considered.
Yes and the original 1st century meaning to those early Christians you are quoting it meant a very bad place you burn forever in. It doesn’t matter that 8 centuries prior the word didn’t even exist.
I gave you a specific example, Dartmouth, before and you are not acknowledging it. A word means what it means when it is spoken, the entymology is interesting but not the definition the word has forever.
Then how did the 1st century Christians interpret Ecclesiastes 9:5?
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all"
And how about all the times that Jesus referred to those who have died as being asleep? The comparison between death and sleep isn’t a coincidence. When sleeping we kinda cease to exist temporarily. The part that’s “us” goes away. Aside from dreams (which actually accounts for only a small portion of time unconscious, and we only remember a tiny fraction of dreams anyways) we don’t think, feel, or even care about anything.
Your example of Dartmouth is irrelevant. The colloquial definition of a word in common language doesn’t factor in, because we are looking at the scholastic definitions. And doing so would give us context of the origins of the word Dartmouth, the region it refers to, and how it was used later on. And that way we get a full understanding of what the word used to mean and how it’s used today.
Doing the same thing for the word “hell” gives us that important context. So your example is irrelevant.
The same way they understand that their Messiah was supposed to be named Emanuel but wasn’t and that he was supposed to be from Bethlehem not Nazareth and that he was supposed to usher in the last days but didn’t. Christianity isn’t really big on consistency.
Not relevant.
Incorrect. Very relevant. You are defining words with a 8th century understanding for a 1st century people.
It is, but not when citing ad-hoc scriptures.
He was born in Bethlehem. His family then moved to Nazareth. His birthplace is Bethlehem, so saying “from Bethlehem” and “Jesus the Nazarene” are both correct.
He wasn’t supposed to while on earth.
Just because you don’t care for the analogy doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s entirely relevant. Again, this isn’t something I came up with. It’s been agreed upon by many Bible scholars.
How is that not relevant? How is understanding the basis and origin of a word and the evolution of its entomology not relevant?
Btw, the understanding of those words go back even further than the 1st century. It’s simply been reinforced and ratified by 1st century texts and newer manuscripts.
The origins of the word Ge’henna, for example, are not disputable. The intent and usage of the term are also clear once you have the context.
Edit: etymology, not entomology
Hearsay written decades later and not even consistent. The two accounts disagree on why it happened, what path they took, and what year it happened in. Also it doesn’t even make sense that Joseph wouldn’t have stayed with family. Nor that you would have to return to your birth place for a census. The other account with Egypt is just to solidify the Moses connection. It is so clearly a retrocon based on someone noticing the discrepancy. Not a single record shows the Massacre of the Innocents or the requirements to return home for a census. Not one.
And some of you present here will not taste death before all these things comes to past.
Well tell them to come here and argue instead of sending someone who can’t support their own argument.
Dartmouth
Yes Jewish writings that make it clearly to be hell.
And here we still are as we read those words.
I haven’t supported my own arguments, eh? I guess the Bible isn’t the only one with revisionist history.
Pertinacious.
“When I say Dartmouth to you do you think “mouth of the Dart river” or do you think of the famous school there?”
Personally, I think of the school. But that’s irrelevant because when I look into the word itself I can find all the information about the word and where it came from, why it was used, etc. I understand what you’re trying to say. You’re implying that the words had an original meaning long before the Bible was written, and that the meaning had changed by the time of the Bible to mean “hell” as a place of eternal torture.
But that’s not the case, and most scholars agree that both She’ol and Ge’henna (two words often associated with hell, and even translated as “hell” in some Bibles) did not refer to a place of torment or an afterlife at the time of writing. And those viewpoints are supported by other parts of the Bible.
If you see the words “It is right”, you know it could mean “morally just” or “a relative direction”. By itself it’s ambiguous. But if in the next sentence you see “Be sure to not go left”, then with the context you know that’s a direction. This is a simplistic example, and the words She’ol and Ge’hanna are not ambiguous, but I’m illustrating that with additional context the meaning is revealed, and we see that with the other verses in the Bible.
You keep saying this, and I haven’t seen you cited a source or shown some kind of supporting evidence (unless I genuinely missed it). Your comments are “trust me bro” and “nuh-uh!”.
Argument from authority.
I see we don’t know how “” work. I told you to go read the Talmud already and you didn’t even put that supposed language ability you have work.
Well, do you have one?
Really? You’re gonna pull that one and nitpick about proper grammatical use of double quotes?
What’s the point? You want me to read it to satisfy this argument? You know it’s a unreasonable and unattainable request just on the merit of the volume of reading alone, all for a “Reddit” debate. But you’ll just position it as me not putting in the requisite work to approach your level of knowledge. It’s the same argument flat earthers make when they say “show us an actual picture of a round spinning ball”, but when presented with a satellite photo they just claim it’s CGI, so they insist “if you didn’t take the photo yourself, then you don’t have any proof”. Because it’s obviously ridiculous for an average person to muster the finances and resources to get into orbit and take a photo just to win an argument with a flat earther.
I’m not going to read the Talmud based on your insistence, and frankly you already knew that. Which is why you said it so that you can try to chock it up as a “win”. You do you.