Does hell exist? (page 3)

notverylikely

Evidence is rarely conclusive.

EverAStudent, both definitions you provided suggest the opposite using words like "proof" and "fact".

What evidence do you have? Evidence is testable. Evidence is NOT hearsay.

THE GLADIATOR

Yizuman, you look a bit like a gladiator. I shall have to tread carefully.

Yizuman

Matthew 12: 38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." 39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Sign of Jonah referred to our Lord’s resurrection to come (Acts 2:22 -36). Jonah was at the door of death, and God kept him alive with a miracle.

In spite of all Jesus did to prove who He was, using miraculous, unfathomable healings, and words of incredible wisdom that baffled the most learned of men, they still asked for a sign. While Jesus continued to receive criticism from the pious, fraud Pharisees and Scribes who just did not get it, they still had the audacity to ask Him to prove it. They attacked Him, tried to falsely implicate Him of a crime, tried to trick Him and accused Him of being a demon, yet, they still had the impertinence to ask The God of Eternity and their only Hope for Salvation to prove it. Thus, Jesus turned the tables on their unrighteous deeds and placed a mirror in their face for them to see their own hypocrisy!

Any of that sound familair?

Yiz

EverAStudent

This is becoming a silly discussion, so this will be my last post on the meaning of evidence.

quote: "both definitions you provided suggest the opposite using words like 'proof' and 'fact'. What evidence do you have? Evidence is testable. Evidence is NOT hearsay."

Look more closely at the dictionary definitions. The phrases used also include statements like "tend" and "signal." In other words, evidence leans (tends) toward a given conclusion, it signals a given conclusion, but can also signal multiple conclusions. Signals can be false, and so are not necessarily proof. So, evidence is not "proof" until the evidence is singularly conclusive to the mind of an individual.

Imagine the chaos in the world if every individual piece of evidence were immediately construed as an absolute proof of a suggested fact or conclusion. Every mistaken observation, every coincidence, every old wives' tale would be taken as fact. No, it remains clear that a grouping of pieces of evidence is generally needed to establish a fact, and a grouping of facts is needed to draw a conclusion. Even then, the conclusion may be rejected if the groupings of evidence are debateable and thus is not seen as provable.

Hearsay, while not good evidence, is often used as such. Hearsay IS the core of what we call the grapevine. Some studies have shown grapevines in Fortune 500 companies to be about 75% accurate. The fact that people use grapevines and take action based on what they hear from grapevines demonstrates they accept the information as evidence and draw conclusions from the evidence (thus showing they see the accumulated evidence as proof).

hear·say: second-hand information: information that is heard from other people

Information, including second hand information, can be and is often, evidence. Information, like evidence, is rarely accepted as proof.

Blessings to you.

Robdar

I believe hell exists and I believe it is hot.

I have met people who seem to be in a hell that appears to be boiling them from within. These people have hatred and negativity and give off a heat, especially around their forehead and top of their heads, that you can feel.. They are miserable and they are in the hell of their own making. And there they will stay until they learn how to free themselves.

superpunk

There's "evidence" in the bible that witches exist and 7 headed leopards with crowns can come out of the ocean.

We seem to be awful choosy when it comes to which biblical literary devices we assign literal status.

notverylikely

Sign of Jonah referred to our Lord’s resurrection to come (Acts 2:22-36). Jonah was at the door of death, and God kept him alive with a miracle.

Why? How do we know it didn't refer to the bottle gourd miracle?

In spite of all Jesus did to prove who He was, using miraculous, unfathomable healings, and words of incredible wisdom that baffled the most learned of men, they still asked for a sign.

So jesus says there will be no miraculous sign, but then he performs miracles as a sign to prove that they should trust him when he says there will be no miraculous sign?

Any of that sound familair?

Yes, it reminds me of a lot of the Bible, but in particular 1 Samuel 4:13-15:

13 When he came, behold, ( N ) Eli was sitting on his seat by the road eagerly watching, because his heart was trembling for the ark of God. So the man came to tell it in the city, and all the city cried out.

14 When Eli heard the noise of the outcry, he said, "What does the noise of this commotion mean?" Then the man came hurriedly and told Eli.

15 Now Eli was ninety-eight years old, and ( O ) his eyes were set so that he could not see.

In verse 13 Eli was watching something, in verse 15 he was blind. So it reminds of a lot of the Bible, contradictory and self inconsistent.

notverylikely

Imagine the chaos in the world if every individual piece of evidence were immediately construed as an absolute proof of a suggested fact or conclusion.

So using this method, you haven't provided any proof that hell exists. Cool.

Hearsay, while not good evidence, is often used as such. Hearsay IS the core of what we call the grapevine. Some studies have shown grapevines in Fortune 500 companies to be about 75% accurate. The fact that people use grapevines and take action based on what they hear from grapevines demonstrates they accept the information as evidence and draw conclusions from the evidence (thus showing they see the accumulated evidence as proof).

You can cite the study, I am sure. Since we aren't talking about a Fortune 500 company, but a re-re-retranslated document 2000 years old written at least 40 years after the described events, it doesn't even count as hearsay.Translators can't even agree on exactly what it said, so at best it's sortofheardsay.

Even then, the conclusion may be rejected if the groupings of evidence are debateable and thus is not seen as provable.

Done and done.

cheerios

"does hell exist?" ... not the right question imho. the real question is: "what does it matter if it does?"

EverAStudent

notverylikely wrote: " In verse 13 Eli was watching something, in verse 15 he was blind. So it reminds of a lot of the Bible, contradictory and self inconsistent."

It is easy to find "contradictions" and "errors" when you get to pick and choose the definitions you want to apply to other people's words. Like almost every word in any language, the word "watch" in 1 Samuel 4:13 has a range of meanings, and not just one. It can mean, "to act as a watchman, to anticipate, to wait for, to peer into the distance," and so on.

Yes, a blind man can wait for, anticipate, and even use his hearing to act as a watchman. However, if one insists that they have the authority to dictate that the Hebrew language word tsaphah can only mean "to peer into the distance" then they might have a point to make. However, since more scholarly authorities on the Hebrew language have written that the word tsaphah has an entire range of common meanings, I am forced to reject notverylikely as such an authority. In this instance, it is not the Bible which is mistaken or contradictory. Eli, though blind, was on watch for, anticipating, and waiting for the arrival of the ark.

Does hell exist?

Share this