A rather unusual response to my book

Post Reply
User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

A rather unusual response to my book

Post by steve » Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:58 pm

I expect to get some disagreeable responses to my book—though it is hard to know how a book that advocates no view and affirms (in one part or another) every view of a topic can draw much disagreement. It is possible, apparently, to be critical of the whole concept of presenting three views. This is seen in the correspondence between a critic and myself that arose yesterday. I post, for your interest, the entire correspondence thus far:


------------------------------------------------------

Hello Steve
This question involves your book on the Three Views of Hell. After reading your book, could not a reasonable person with no agenda conclude that the Bible contradicts itself? I believe that your book has provided very strong evidence that since the Bible contradicts itself it is not inspired by God. Alec

-----------------------------------------------

Hi Alec,
Thanks for writing. Where are you seeing the contradictions? Having looked at all the relevant texts on hell, I don't see any contradictions. I see different people giving different interpretations to the same passages—which means that these people contradict each other. But I don't see how this fault could be laid at the door of the Bible. When people misunderstand a document, that is their own fault—not the fault of the document—isn't it? Where are you finding the faults in the scriptures themselves?
Steve

---------------------------------------

Hello Steve
These are the verses that I looked at for support of an eternal view of hell; Isaiah 66:24, Daniel 12:2, Revelation 20:10. These are the verses for Annihilation; John 3:16, Matthew 10:28, Ezekiel 18:4.
I believe that if a person begins with the premise that the Bible is inspired by God, this person can form an argument to harmonize the mentioned verses. But more importantly, this person is obligated to harmonize the verses. There is no other choice. It is impossible for this person to be impartial or objective.
If a person starts with the premise that the Bible may or may not be inspired by God, this person is better equipped to evaluate the evidence. But for a Christian to make this premise would be blasphemous. Thanks, Alec

------------------------------------------

Hi Alec,
I see the matter very differently. You wrote:
These are the verses that I looked at for support of an eternal view of hell; Isaiah 66:24, Daniel 12:2, Revelation 20:10. These are the verses for Annihilation; John 3:16, Matthew 10:28, Ezekiel 18:4.
Isaiah 66:24 and Daniel 12:2 do not make any mention of eternal torment or even eternal consciousness. This may be read into them, but it is unnecessary. They only speak of certain persons being the objects of contempt. We hold Hitler in contempt today, without suggesting that he is around to take cognizance of our attitudes toward him. In the former passage, the objects of contempt are said to be "corpses", not conscious souls.

The verse in Revelation speaks of the eternal torment of Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet. These are not ordinary humans, nor (in my judgment) are any of them humans. The latter two are symbols for political and religious institutions. Ordinary people, when cast into the lake of fire (Rev.20:15) are not said to be endlessly tormented there. In fact, they experience a "second death" there—not endless life. We have no clear mention in these verses of eternal torment. Thus they do not contradict your second set of verses, whether we come to them with a prejudice about the inspiration of scripture or not.
I believe that if a person begins with the premise that the Bible is inspired by God, this person can form an argument to harmonize the mentioned verses. But more importantly, this person is obligated to harmonize the verses. There is no other choice. It is impossible for this person to be impartial or objective.
When you come to a text that claims to be inspired, you may hold the claim at arm's length until you have examined it to check its credentials. You may come at it with one or another prejudice—either for or against its integrity. Those not prejudiced against it will naturally look for ways to harmonize passages. Those with the negative prejudice will resist all attempts at such harmonization. A truly unprejudiced man will examine the facts of the case, and make a judgment afterward. This examination will certainly include inquiry as to whether passages can be reasonably harmonized. If so, then additional evidences will have to be considered as well. This is how I approach such questions and claims. You sound as if you have jumped to the negative judgment and by-passed these investigative procedures. This leads me to suspect that you may be the one being guided by prejudice.
If a person starts with the premise that the Bible may or may not be inspired by God, this person is better equipped to evaluate the evidence. But for a Christian to make this premise would be blasphemous.
There is no blasphemy in making a critical test of a document's claims to being inspired. In fact, both the Old Testament (Deut.13:1-3; 18:21-22) and the New Testament (Matt.7:15-20; 1 Thess.5:20-21; 1 John 4:1) urge believers to test every word that claims to be from God and to reject the false. This is not a blasphemy, but is a procedure exhibiting a high reverence for God's words and an unwillingness to accept anything less than the genuine. To be careless and gullible in the acceptance of claims of inspiration is to demonstrate a low view of God's word and a willingness to play fast and loose with His authority. Therefore, I always practice and advocate a critical (but unprejudiced) approach. Most unbelievers adopt a critical, but prejudiced approach. This is seen when they seize upon apparent flaws without sufficient investigation. They assume that their first impressions settle the question. Honest researchers do not do this, obviously.
Steve

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: A rather unusual response to my book

Post by Paidion » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:11 am

Alec wrote:I believe that your book has provided very strong evidence that since the Bible contradicts itself it is not inspired by God.
He seems to be saying that if the Bible is inspired there are no contradictions. But since Steve gave arguments for three mutually contradictory views, then he provided evidence that it contradicts itself, and is therefore not inspired.

Maybe I'm stating the obvious.
Last edited by Paidion on Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: A rather unusual response to my book

Post by steve7150 » Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:39 am

I think bible translations may contradict each other, in fact they do. KJV translates "aionios" into eternal and Rotherham's translates it into "pertaining to the age" which is a contradiction.
This seemingly minor difference determines the postmortem fate of the great majority of humanity.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: A rather unusual response to my book

Post by Paidion » Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:24 pm

I meant, maybe I'm stating the obvious concerning Alec's position and thought concerning the matter.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”