Butch5 Posted August 3, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 559 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 136 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/09/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/01/1962 Share Posted August 3, 2014 You keep saying that but there's no reason not to take it literally. I am taking it literally. The problem here is that you are taking it at face value. You appear to take any usage of the word Gehenna and apply it in a one dimensional, face value approach. I am understanding the usage and I look for the literal meaning and intent behind it. That's what "literal" means. It means to understand the text in the light of the object the author has in view. Then you claim it's a metaphorical usage. You haven't given me any reason at all as to why I should understand this as a metaphor. People have burned there several times as a result of God's judgement. When God brought Nebuchadnezzar to judge the Jews it happened, when He brought Rome to against the Jews it happened and Jesus said it's gonna happen at Armageddon and that it was where the wicked will burn. With all of these judgement actually occurring in Gehenna, I'm supposed to believe that one is a metaphor? Sorry, I don't buy that, all of the others are literal occurrences, I believe the last one will be too. There's also another reason to accepts that Gehenna is the actual place of burning. The idea of Eternal Contentious Torment requires a belief in the idea of Platonic Dualism, which isn't Biblical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD Posted August 3, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 0 Topic Count: 905 Topics Per Day: 0.19 Content Count: 9,646 Content Per Day: 2.02 Reputation: 5,831 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/07/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2014 Since 'olam' doesn't mean forever and is a Hebrew word, and 'everlasting' and 'eternal' are English translations, then wouldn't hell be temporary since English translations can be wrong. Also, why is it ok to use the word 'olam' when describing hell, but it's ok to use the words 'everlasting' and 'eternal' when describing eternal life. Strong's Hebrew #5769 ...been from of old, from everlastinga. 3Therefore ... 5769 `owlam { o-lawm’} or `olam { o-lawm’} from 5956; TWOT - 1631a; n m AV - ever 272, everlasting 63, old 22, perpetual 22, evermore 15, never 13, time 6, ancient 5, world 4, always 3, alway 2, long 2, more 2, never + 408 2, misc 6; 439 GK - 6409 { עֹולָם } 1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world 1a) ancient time, long time (of past) 1b) (of future) 1b1) for ever, always 1b2) continuous existence, perpetual 1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch5 Posted August 3, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 559 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 136 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/09/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/01/1962 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Since 'olam' doesn't mean forever and is a Hebrew word, and 'everlasting' and 'eternal' are English translations, then wouldn't hell be temporary since English translations can be wrong. Also, why is it ok to use the word 'olam' when describing hell, but it's ok to use the words 'everlasting' and 'eternal' when describing eternal life. Strong's Hebrew #5769 ...been from of old, from everlastinga. 3Therefore ... 5769 `owlam { o-lawm’} or `olam { o-lawm’} from 5956; TWOT - 1631a; n m AV - ever 272, everlasting 63, old 22, perpetual 22, evermore 15, never 13, time 6, ancient 5, world 4, always 3, alway 2, long 2, more 2, never + 408 2, misc 6; 439 GK - 6409 { עֹולָם } 1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world 1a) ancient time, long time (of past) 1b) (of future) 1b1) for ever, always 1b2) continuous existence, perpetual 1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity John, If you look at how olam is used in the OT I think you'll see it can't mean forever, even though those who wrote the dictionaries claim it does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD Posted August 3, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 0 Topic Count: 905 Topics Per Day: 0.19 Content Count: 9,646 Content Per Day: 2.02 Reputation: 5,831 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/07/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2014 I've checked everlasting = olam. If you are hung up on a covenant that was to be everlasting but wasn't because man broke the covenant doesn't mean God wasn't going to keep up his side of the bargain for everlasting. Could it be yours is a presuppositional category error (because you believe it meant x and not y so therefore it cannot mean y)... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraught Posted August 3, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 105 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,741 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 28 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/30/1959 Share Posted August 3, 2014 I'm confused as to why the original post stated that 'Olam had anything to do with hell. I was taught that there have been more than one 'Olam. Not to add more confusion to the subject, of course, haha. (no, seriously, we have a biblical passage that states 'from olam to olam'. let me find it. Okay, I'm going to type in a few excerpts from now until olam translated as "from everlasting even to everlasting" in 1 Chron 16:36, Psalm 41:13, Psalm 90:2, etc. , translated "from this time forth and forever" in psalm 125:2, isaiah 59:21, Micah 4:7, etc. .....The Prophets indicate the future 'olam is, like every 'olam in the past, a specific point in time. from The Voice of Elijah Newsletter, Volume 11, Number 3. The author continues: Anyone who wants to claim that 'olam doesn't refer to the past as well as the future will have to do some rather fancy semantic footwork to explain not only the meaning of the phrases "from 'olam" and "unitl olam" . . . . .. They will also have to explain why the author of the Book of Ecclesiastes plainly tells us there has already been more than one 'olam.: Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages (olam) which were before us. (Ecclesiastes 1:10) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dscapp Posted August 3, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 253 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/20/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 3, 2014 If you look at how olam is used in the OT I think you'll see it can't mean forever, even though those who wrote the dictionaries claim it does Didn't the OT describe eternal life also with word 'olam'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch5 Posted August 4, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 559 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 136 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/09/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/01/1962 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I've checked everlasting = olam. If you are hung up on a covenant that was to be everlasting but wasn't because man broke the covenant doesn't mean God wasn't going to keep up his side of the bargain for everlasting. Could it be yours is a presuppositional category error (because you believe it meant x and not y so therefore it cannot mean y)... ? Or it could be that those who write the dictionaries have presuppositions that they're imposing on their definitions. You're talking about the words of men, I'm talking about the words of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch5 Posted August 4, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 559 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 136 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/09/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/01/1962 Share Posted August 4, 2014 If you look at how olam is used in the OT I think you'll see it can't mean forever, even though those who wrote the dictionaries claim it does Didn't the OT describe eternal life also with word 'olam'. The only place I found in the OT that uses owlam and chayay together is Gen.3:22. KJV Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (Gen 3:22 KJV) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch5 Posted August 4, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 559 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 136 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/09/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/01/1962 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I'm confused as to why the original post stated that 'Olam had anything to do with hell. I was taught that there have been more than one 'Olam. Not to add more confusion to the subject, of course, haha. (no, seriously, we have a biblical passage that states 'from olam to olam'. let me find it. Okay, I'm going to type in a few excerpts from now until olam translated as "from everlasting even to everlasting" in 1 Chron 16:36, Psalm 41:13, Psalm 90:2, etc. , translated "from this time forth and forever" in psalm 125:2, isaiah 59:21, Micah 4:7, etc. .....The Prophets indicate the future 'olam is, like every 'olam in the past, a specific point in time. from The Voice of Elijah Newsletter, Volume 11, Number 3. The author continues: Anyone who wants to claim that 'olam doesn't refer to the past as well as the future will have to do some rather fancy semantic footwork to explain not only the meaning of the phrases "from 'olam" and "unitl olam" . . . . .. They will also have to explain why the author of the Book of Ecclesiastes plainly tells us there has already been more than one 'olam.: Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages (olam) which were before us. (Ecclesiastes 1:10) Hi Fraught, I think a good understanding of the word was posted by OneLight in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dscapp Posted August 4, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 253 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/20/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 4, 2014 If you look at how olam is used in the OT I think you'll see it can't mean forever, even though those who wrote the dictionaries claim it does Didn't the OT describe eternal life also with word 'olam'. The only place I found in the OT that uses owlam and chayay together is Gen.3:22. KJV Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (Gen 3:22 KJV) You sure there's only one reference. The OT is a pretty big book. Didn't also the NT describe eternal life with the word 'aion'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts