That's interesting. I always thought the idea of bringing the Israelites out of Hell when He descended was a Gnostic view. I think it comes from the Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate.

(I could be wrong, this is just what I've thought.)

Growing up, I was taught that He descended into Hell to prove that He had "won". Though, I'm not quite sure I believe that nowadays.

Something I've been dealing with lately has to do with faulty interpretation of the Bible. I mentioned on the last page that my Intervarsity Christian Fellowship chapter brought a creation science speaker, Dr. Charles Jackson, to speak about science and believe in God, and the Resurrection of Jesus. Dr. Jackson is one of the Young Earth Creationists and does believe God made the earth in six literal days approximately 6,000 years ago.

That event brought up some really interested discussions with someone else in my group, who believes differents. While the "Age of the Earth" discussion does not necessarily play a vital role in whether someone can be saved or not, that issue does greatly affect how one reads Scripture. This person is a follower of Hugh Ross, who founded Reasons to Believe. For the topics discussed, his top choice for a speaker would be Hugh Ross. So I decided to check up on him and find out what this guy is really about since I've heard a variety of things about him.

I have found Hugh Ross to be a compromiser of Scripture and treading in the waters of heresy. I'm still reading up on the posts on his website but I've already found glaring errors where he interprets Scripture to fit his theory. One of the first examples I found (among several others) is his use of Psalm 104:5-9 to claim that Noah's Flood depicted in Genesis 6 was just a local flood over Mesopotamia. His reasons according to the verses is that "the waters separated" and "God would never let the land be covered again" refer to Day 3 of Creation when God separated the waters to form land. But the context of the passage does not fit Day 3 of Creation but of the Flood itself. The passage describes the springs bursting forth as well, which is only described as part of the bringing of the Flood itself. Only after the Flood does God say "Never will I do this again". And after the Flood, the waters would have separated. The clues in the passage make is pretty clear to me that this verse is not talking about Day 3, but about the Flood itself.

The heretical parts comes in with the issue of "death before sin". His claim is that 'death' is only refering to human spiritual death, and even before sin, plants would die so people and animals could eat. If you have to jump around the bush to explain Scripture, something is fishy. There are several big assumptions here for it to hold. It assumes God did not make his creation 'good' the first time. And for God, 'good' means exactly the way he wanted it. It assumes the same processes took place before sin as they do after sin, let alone in conjunction with the Flood. And these arguments still fail to address that God said that the plants and thier seed were to be food for us. Does eating an apple or orange count and killing a plant? Not to mention that plants weren't really considered part of life back then.

My point here is that while Hugh Ross makes a pretty impressive claim for those that don't really take the time to think about it, he has compromised the Bible with what he understands about science and actually holds science above the Bible. I do admit there are passages in the Bible that are pretty open to interpretation and don't necessarily have one explicit meaning, but all interpretations should be done through the Bible as the interpretor. I have found Hugh Ross and several others to be guilty of interpreting the Bible to fit thier agenda. This doesn't change their standing with Christ per say, but it does make their standing as a teacher and leader to be very dangerous.

So, how do you judge a speaker, preacher, pastor, teacher, etc and make a decision whether you believe what they say or not? If you do find someone that teaches heresy, how do you determine that? My answer is simple, go straight to the Word and see what stands. That's what I did with Hugh Ross and his own resource betrayed him to what he is really doing. But that being said, I do the same thing with Dr. Jackson. When he gives a Scriptural reference or makes a claim, I try to go and check what the Bible says. So far, I've found him to be right on for the most part. (Some things I don't entirely agree with, but that's true with everyone).

I'm going to come out and say this. I don't believe in Hell. At least not as a place that exists now or as a place where people will suffer forever. I believe that God will eventually return and destroy the world with fire and sulphur and those who are thrown in will be destroyed too -as in exist no more in either body or soul. I think when we die now, our bodies are destroyed and our souls sleep, waiting for Christ's return and the judgment. Some people such as Moses go to Heaven right after they die but I think that's rare. Since the Bible says that Michael the Archangel had to argue with the devil for Moses (Jude 1:9), it seems like it was a special arrangement.

"Do not be afraid of those who kill in body but cannot destroy the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28 NIV

This verse tells me that both the body and soul will be destroyed-as in no longer exist after it is burned up.

"By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." 2nd Peter 3:7 NIV

The fire is going to be used to also burn up the earth and heavens.

"Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the 2nd death." Rev. 20:14 NIV

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. Rev. 21:1 NIV

From these verses it seems like the fire destroyed the old earth and then a new one has been built in its place. It makes no sense to me why God would keep a fire burning with suffering souls forever someplace after everything is all decided.

For people who do believe in Hell, why do you believe that there is an impending final judgment? Are people who are now burning in Hell brought out, just to go back in? Why have a judgment if its all decided already? How do you define the 2nd death?

I'm going to come out and say this. I don't believe in Hell. At least not as a place that exists now or as a place where people will suffer forever. I believe that God will eventually return and destroy the world with fire and sulphur and those who are thrown in will be destroyed too -as in exist no more in either body or soul. I think when we die now, our bodies are destroyed and our souls sleep, waiting for Christ's return and the judgment. Some people such as Moses go to Heaven right after they die but I think that's rare. Since the Bible says that Michael the Archangel had to argue with the devil for Moses (Jude 1:9), it seems like it was a special arrangement.

I (loosely) believe the same!

I believe in soul sleep.
As for Hell, I'll admit, I am not 100% sure what exactly Scripture means by "Hell" - a lake of fire? Eternal torment? Being destroyed? I just know it above all means not being with God and that is someplace I, as a Christian, do not want to be.
I also had an issue with the end of times (among other things) - if souls are already in Heaven and Hell, then God puts the souls back on Earth, just to raise them up again? That makes no sense...

I also don't think those issues are "core" issues.

@Fencer, to my knowledge he is also flawed in the belief that eating the seed kills the plant... at least I know with some animals, and I believe all- they pass through the system unharmed, and its actually a benefit because the animals help "spread" the seeds if you will. However his interpretation is severely flawed. Have you ever stumbled upon this belief that the creation story is a metaphor? I know someone who believes this, and I must say I do not understand where it comes from.

Wolf, there are a lot of people out there who bow to peer pressure (talking about scientists for this particular group), who try to find ways to not have to take the Bible as seriously, and in many cases, don't want to be held accountable to a creator God. It is the same reason why a lot of people read the Bible in full and flat out reject it. It's not because they don't understand it. It's because they understand it too well. They know that calling Jesus "Savior" really means calling Jesus "Lord". And people do not want someone else ruling over them, as Jesus demands. And yes, even salvation ties into the creation because if people can interpret the creation figuatively, they will use that pretext to interpret Jesus figuratively.

Genesis 1 is not figurative. It is not a metaphor. It is not poetry. It is not a fairy tale. People (even some on this forum) will tell you otherwise. The whole Bible in context with itself all points to Genesis 1 as a literal event like it is history. Not only that, true science, true history, true... has never conflicted with this. The interpretations of the data and bias on the interpretation as I showed Hugh Ross does are flawed because man is flawed. Does this mean that the Young Earth People are absolutely correct? No. I believe the Young Earth Model is flawed as well. It doesn't answer everything. But it is the closest one that matches the data from science and more importantly the Bible.

Again, I ask, how do you intepret the Bible? Or even science? Or anyone else? By your theories? By your level of understanding? By what you've been told? Or do you interpret everything through Scripture including Scripture?

I believe Genesis is literal. I do question people who don't take it literally for exactly what you pointed out - it affects how they see the rest of Scripture. What else might they think is just a metaphor? And doesn't that cast doubt on the power of God?!

I think "Creation Scientists" are great and everything for people who already believe. I am a bit dubious when said scientists start off with "I am out to convert you all". I was under the impression in order to be saved, you must recognize yourself as a sinner and realize you need God in your life. Not because of a Creation Science seminar.
Don't get me wrong, I think if an unbeliever sees such a thing and it convinces them to do further study, that's great. I am saying I don't think it's right for Creation Scientists to put their emphasis in conversions.

I don't agree with that approach too. The Bible says make disciples of all nations, not converts. That requires spending time with them, teaching them, following up, demonstrating to the person what it means to be a Christian by how you live your life and not by your words. What I love about how Dr. Jackson presents his talks to the masses, his focus is simply to get you to think. He is a teacher by nature and by vocation and he loves more than anything else to get with a body of believers and strengthen them in thier faith. His talks are how he get out and he does his fair share of battle with athiests and non-believers. He can get aggressive at times, but because he has such a passion for making sure his audience hears the truth and won't allow a lengthy argument to slide in faults (deliberate or not). But he does it all out of tough love and he has successfully gotten many believers and non-believers to really think about thier position. He rarely if ever has the tone of "I'm right, your wrong" but lets the argument speak for itself. And while he is in the Mensa Society for having one of the top 2% IQ in the world, you would never know it by a simple chat with him. He is very humble and such an effective tool God uses. Is he perfect? No, no one is. But he will present a very solid case without bringing in questionable interpretations and will get you to think.

That's really one of the best approaches for a wide range of audiences. You know you can't convert the ones that don't want to believe and the ones that do already believe. But you can get them to think about why they are where they are. The Bible says to think about its words and to meditate on it. So many Christians these days take a preacher at his word and don't think about what he is actually saying. I challenge all of you (including myself to keep doing it) to test what you hear. The blind faith Christians are often accused of having is quite real and prevalant. And it doesn't have to be that way. I try to test what I hear with the Word, especially when it's a speaker I haven't heard enough to trust. There are many false teachers out there and the only way to really discern which is good and which is bad is to know Scripture and know how to test. And with that, you have to have the right interpretation for the given context. If you use a faulty interpretation system, then your testing of the spirits and of speakers is faulty too. It's a chain effect that doesn't necessarily take long to reach your view of Jesus and your faith as a Christian. Be aware.

Speaking of such things, has anyone gone out to venture and read the "forbidden" gospels such as the Nag Hammadi library?

I'm going to come out and say this. I don't believe in Hell. At least not as a place that exists now or as a place where people will suffer forever. I believe that God will eventually return and destroy the world with fire and sulphur and those who are thrown in will be destroyed too -as in exist no more in either body or soul. I think when we die now, our bodies are destroyed and our souls sleep, waiting for Christ's return and the judgment.

...From these verses it seems like the fire destroyed the old earth and then a new one has been built in its place. It makes no sense to me why God would keep a fire burning with suffering souls forever someplace after everything is all decided.

For people who do believe in Hell, why do you believe that there is an impending final judgment? Are people who are now burning in Hell brought out, just to go back in? Why have a judgment if its all decided already? How do you define the 2nd death?

As far as I've ever understood, Hell and Torments or Hades is the place the (unsaved?) soul goes until Judgment Day. And then after Judgment Day, they're thrown into the Lake of Fire.

"The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." -- Revelation 20:13-15

This verse seems to be speaking of eternal punishment:

"9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” -- Revelation 14:9-11.

So, from those scriptures, it sounds like the "Second death" is being burned in the Lake of Fire for eternity.

(All scriptures from the NIV)

~Riella

I've always been confused why Hades is mentioned in Revelation because that was a pagan god. I have reached my conclusions on the hereafter but I trust that God has the best and fairest system in place-even if its not the one I think is. I have some other verses and questions I'll post later.

I have had discussions with people on both sides of the debate about the creation account. Here are my thoughts...

Asking the Bible scientific questions is asking something that it is not trying to answer. The Bible wasn't written to explain how salmon find their way back to their birth place at the end of their lives to lay eggs or which of the periodic elements can be found in Mars. Why? Because when it was written, no one looked at the world that way. The Bible was written to keep an account of God's interactions with the ever widening group that was His people.

Science operates under a system of paradigms. For example, if everyone believes that the Earth is flat, they operate under that model. Then when more and more evidence comes in that it is spherical, there is a paradigm crash. Over time people accept that the Earth is sperical not flat. So in Science-I like to keep up with what the current paradigm and what their evidence is but I know that this is just the current paradigm "fad" and it is subject to change as more information comes in. In college my friends called this "truth" rather than Truth.

The imperical method is a useful system for learning about the world. The best we have ever had for improving technology, finding cures for diseases etc. But nothing we have discovered in science holds a candle to the awe-inspiring grace that can be found in the Bible. Trying to bend the Bible to science doesn't seem to serve any purpose to me. The Bible has repeatedly been proven to be historically accurate (archaeological findings for the activities of kings such as Nebuchadnezzar to be true to what the Bible said) My guess is that if the Earth lasts long enough, science will more and more align itself with what the Bible says.

On the other hand, I have heard of people refusing to go to the doctor because they believe scripture tells them not to. So when their kid breaks a bone, if they get sick with something that is treatable-still no treatment. Is this admirable or is this a point where some of you would say that they are upholding the Bible too far above science?

I'm going to come out and say this. I don't believe in Hell. At least not as a place that exists now or as a place where people will suffer forever. I believe that God will eventually return and destroy the world with fire and sulphur and those who are thrown in will be destroyed too -as in exist no more in either body or soul. I think when we die now, our bodies are destroyed and our souls sleep, waiting for Christ's return and the judgment. Some people such as Moses go to Heaven right after they die but I think that's rare. Since the Bible says that Michael the Archangel had to argue with the devil for Moses (Jude 1:9), it seems like it was a special arrangement.

"Do not be afraid of those who kill in body but cannot destroy the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28 NIV

The thing is people would choose not to be saved if hell were temporary. I believe hell is a literal place of fire as previously quoted above by Ithilwen in Revelation.

Revelation 20:10 (KJV)
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 20:11-15 (KJV)

11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I don't think this is any temporary lake of fire, otherwise hell and losing one's soul wouldn't have such serious importance.

Genesis 1 is not figurative. It is not a metaphor. It is not poetry. It is not a fairy tale. People (even some on this forum) will tell you otherwise. The whole Bible in context with itself all points to Genesis 1 as a literal event like it is history.

Genesis 1 is the truth as far as its original writer/s knew. I don't have a problem with Genesis 1, though I have a problem with succeeding chapters which embroider the account somewhat more. Look at my avatar, please do. It was meant to be a library joke, but many a true word is said in jest. Mathematics, from your shopping bill, to the most complicated equations ever devised, is a language, after all. The language of science and computation. Just like music, another language, and magic all its own.

I don't want to have to repeat a response to a N & C thread where I pointed out that I am numerically challenged to the extent that most mathematical equations mean nothing to me, whatever they might say about sin, sines or cosines, let alone logarithms, tangents and the rest. Even if they use Greek letters instead of numbers to prove their statistical points. I'm never going to be able to manage world finances or find an alternative to petrol. It is quite enough to manage my own affairs effectively. The scientists may explain what they like about the formation of the world, and yes they are right. But however they explain what happend, and whatever mathematical equations are elucidated, all it boils down to is this:

And God said (Let there be light). And there was light. (Genesis 1:6) How simple, elegant and to the point is that? Why seek to haggle over it? Why embroider that simple statement further? That is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Let there be light saves ever so many lengthy equations and logical deductions. And it is most likely the defining point at which science and religion might actually find themselves agreeing.

It is the mythology in a subsequent chapter that gets to me, and the idea that a timeless, eternal God would be confined to any human measurement of time.

^^ it's always made me wonder why it says they were jusdged according to their works... Anyone have any thoughts on that?

~Riella

I don't think she is saying it is temporary, she is saying that after all is said and done, God will destroy all the unsaved souls.

Let's not forget that there are translator biases and when nitpicking with words, we should get the closest translation possible or even research the original foreign word itself. In this case, "destroy", "lake of fire", and "hell".

One of the original words for Hell was the Hebrew word Sheol meaning "grave". Sheol was not used for all modern variants of 'Hell' in the Bible, but definitely a few. (It was only written in the O.T.) As far as this word goes, I'd say the NIV is most accurate and KJV is not at all.

KJV:
"The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me;"
- 2 Samuel 22:6

NIV:
"The cords of the grave coiled around me; the snares of death confronted me."
- 2 Samuel 22:6

When the N.T. was translated into Greek, the translators chose the word Hades, from mythology, which generally meant "abode of the dead". They also used words such as "Geenna" and "Tartaroo".
Then "hell" replaced most of them.

Geenna = Valley Of Hinnom, a physical place here on Earth where followers of different gods sacrificed their children.
Tartaroo = From Roman Mythology, a level in the underworld that is even lower than Hades. This only appears once.

I do have to say this makes a better case for souls being destroyed.
Some people also believe that "Hell" just means an eternal separation from God - the ultimate punishment.

Also interesting to note, the KJV O.T. has the word "hell" in it 31 times. The Jewish Tanakh, from which our Scriptures derive (it is basically the entire O.T.), does not have the word "hell" in it at all.