Sad thought about Jesus.

[drfuzzy]

---

So, let me see if I have this right: We're on an atheist forum, where the vast majority of the members supposedly do not believe that god, heaven, or hell exists.  Most of us are in agreement that the Holy Babble is a deeply flawed piece of human literature.

A quote was made from 11 English translations regarding the meaning of "eternal" or "everlasting".
So, somebody who apparently is not a Greek scholar looks up a Greek word - gets conflicting translations - and tries to use it to prove his original point . . . by strongly implying that all of the English translations are, well, to be generous, let's say "unclear".  Lek's original point seems to be that Hell is not ETERNAL torture. It's a finite period of time.  

Drippy Doodle gets into the mix somehow, but I have him on ignore.  

---

Is no-one going to point out that 1) the entire argument is spurious and moot to people who don't believe in the existence of god or hell;

How is that relevant?  How is your belief in a claim relevant to the accuracy of an ancient text and it's translation from Greek to English?

2) Lek's pleading to the mis-translation of this passage can be applied to the entire book with ease, and

Even the definite articles?

3) attempting to re-define hell and its duration is acknowledging that the original concept is flawed, illogical, unbelievably cruel and unfair?

By that logic, when new scientific discoveries lead to a redefining of the cosmos and a changing of the duration of it's existence, we are now acknowledging that the original concept (the cosmos) is flawed, illogical, unbelievably cruel and unfair?  A person's understanding of a concept has no bearing on the truth or validity of the concept.

How is that relevant?  How is your belief in a claim relevant to the accuracy of an ancient text and it's translation from Greek to English?  Oh, if you're just focusing on the basic debate point - it isn't.  I was simply pointing to what I see as wasted time and effort, arguing over the parameters of something that isn't there.  Of course, somewhere on the internet, there are probably folks who will argue over the columns of Olympus, the rooms of Valhalla, the levels of Hades, the workplace environment of Santa's workshop (I need to get back to work) various countries of Middle Earth - you get the picture.

Even the definite articles?  Silly.  The meaning of the text.  

By that logic, when new scientific discoveries lead to a redefining of the cosmos and a changing of the duration of it's existence, we are now acknowledging that the original concept (the cosmos) is flawed, illogical, unbelievably cruel and unfair?  A person's understanding of a concept has no bearing on the truth or validity of the concept.   When new facts about something we are studying are found, we rejoice, because of the addition to the pool of human knowledge.  If the day comes when hell is identified and being studied, a change of factual knowledge will be a good thing.  My point, that you are ignoring, is that someone who claims to believe in the existence of hell was trying to argue that christians should not think of hell as eternal punishment, despite being shown 11 biblical examples to the contrary.  This means that the believer is uncomfortable with the idea of eternal punishment.  The fact that he is uncomfortable implies that he views it as unfair, or at least, unpopular.

I'm not going to try to comment on Greek words because I am not a Greek scholar.