Thread:JayZX535/@comment-26094355-20160425230258/@comment-27170788-20160427203652

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

JayZX535 wrote:

But see, my evidence comes from scripture, which you disregard. So then, perhaps we should look at scripture and its reliability, in order to test my evidence.

Actually, Matthew 25:31-46 is not a parable. It directly follows two parables earlier in the chapter, yes, but it itself is not a parable. The closest we get to a parable in that section is verses 32-33, where the analogy of a shepherd separating sheep from goats is made. But the rest of that section is not a parable.

It is true that the verse in Luke is isolated, however given the number of other times in scripture where Hell is mentioned (and I have not named all of them) and discussed, I do not believe it is.

I do believe the Psalms were inspired. Yes, they, like the rest of the Bible, were written through men, but as 2 Peter 1:21 tells us, "...no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." In addition, the Psalms are quoted or referenced numerous times by other books in scripture-- such as Mark 12:36 (Psalm 110:1), Matthew 21:42 (Psalm 118:22-23), Matthew 27:35 (Psalm 22:18), John 10:34 (Psalm 82:6), Acts 4:25-26 (Psalm 2:1-2), and many more. So I believe that verse is quite valid as well.

Little to no visible evidence? For those who believe in the scriptures, there is an abundance of visible evidence... Since you bring this up for yourself, a book which you claim to be inspired by a deity, that the start of was in itself most likely Jewish propaganda, and the main body could be quite a few things - I'm not claiming to know. One thing I will not accept, however, is claiming it is factual. It's a book, and that's all that can be said on the matter.

It may not necessarily be a parable, but it was a follow-up on ethics. My point about it being a focus on the ethics, rather than the fiery pit, still stands...

Let me quickly Google how many times.

"Authorized" King James Version (KJV) based on corrupted texts 31 OT 23 NT 54 Total

New King James Version (NKJV) still wrong about Sheol 19 OT 13 NT 32 Total

New International Version (NIV) the best-selling English Bible 0 OT 13 NT 13 Total

American Standard Version (ASV) 0 OT 13 NT 13 Total

Now, to me at least, that number decreasing seems to be indeed a factor. Barely 13 times in the New Testament, probably mostly in Revelation, doesn't seem to be the multitude you claim it to be.

The Psalms are quoted because, like Proverbs, they are held in high esteem. Indeed, all parts of the Old Testament are quoted. The mere fact that certain phrases are quoted does not deem it of any more merit than others.

And, as I have said, as soon as you factor in the quite literally non-existent evidence behind the scriptures, what then? Then how do you account for texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which, even when compared to Hebrew texts from different times, were almost completely identical (and the few discrepancies that were found did not change the meaning, and were only differences in minor things such as spelling)? How do you account for the fact that the Bible was written by many different authors, and still fits together as a cohesive whole?

Also, is the information you collected from Google from a credible source? Have you yourself researched the number of times that Hell is mentioned in the Bible, or are you looking only at outside research? How many sources did that information come from? And, since you've taken concern with translation errors, if you consider the Bible to have such errors, could they have not inadvertantly omitted information about Hell as well?