Why Would a Loving God Create Hell?

===============
I'm not aware that the ancient Jews had any concept of the after-life, until the Babylonian Exile.
==============Pardon the interuption, but I was reading through this thread and just wanted to make a brief historical correction. The above statement is false, although I must clearly admit it is qualified by "not aware".In fact, since you mentioned him, Job stated a clear understanding of an afterlife in the book of the Bible bearing his name. This is significant because it is widely understood that the account of Job predates Jewish occupation of the land that would come to be known as Israel. (This means it took place sometime during the book of Genesis.) Again, though not to be redundant, the significance of this is that the Babylonian exile did not take place until well after David was king, which was well after the initial occupation of Israel. So, there is a definite case for "ancient Jews" having a concept of the afterlife.thnx for pardoning the digressionRuss
(p.s. the handle is greek for sent one, and not meant to be a self-claimed honorific title)

First:
I will look into the "sheol" reference but that was not the reference of afterlife I was thinking of. I will have to attend to this another time due to my current schedule with apologies (no pun intended).Second:
=======
The word "Rahab" is used twice in Job:=======I do not wish to make this a textual debate however this is the rendering of the passages in the King James translation of the scriptures (with emphasis)"Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou? If God will not withdraw his anger, the PROUD helpers do stoop under him." Job 9:12-13"He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the PROUD. By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent." Job 26:12-13Furthermore, the "serving as a priest to his house" is referenced at the latest in the life of Abraham which takes place in the teen chapters of Genesis.Again, not trying to divert the main discussion. I just wanted to make a clarification based on what the Bible says.Russ[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-13-2003]

=======
Here's the definition:
1) Storm, arrogance (but only as names)
a) mythical sea monster
b) emblematic name of Egypt.
=======First, I do not know anything about Blue Letter Bible. They could be some fly-by-night, hack organization, or they could be completely valid in terms of scholarship. I would like to present a quote, however, from "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" which has a copyright of 1890 and has been widely used in theological circles since then, because of its proven accuracy. (FYI: the numbers refer to the system used to link the uses of words through out the Bible to their definition in the textbook. The word looked up was "proud", found to be in the forementioned two passages of Job.)#####
7293 xxx(please excuse the absence of the hebrew letters) raw-hab from 7292; bluster(-er):-proud, strength.7292 xxx raw-hab; a prim. root; to urge severely, i.e. (fig) importune, embolden, capture, act insolently: -overcome, behave self proudly, make sure, strengthen.
#####Now that definition of the Hebrew word seems contrary to the one you found, so both can not be right. Obviously my position is that the above definition is correct. I say this because of the proven accuracy of the work it comes from. Also, the translation "proud" has a more harmonious connection to the immediate context. This is because both passages are statements against the position of stating you have knowledge and not recognizing Him from whom all knowledge comes. This would be a proud man, one who lifts himself up in the face of God impudently. This idea is also harmonious with the larger context of the debate that goes on between Job and his friends over the course of the book.=======
Besides, if you're silly like the KJV and translate it as "proud", the other passages that I referenced don't make sense.
=======Thus far you haven't proven the KJV translation to be errant logically, grammatically, historically, or in any other way. So your considering it "silly" seems to be a rush to judgement instead of an accurate conclusion. As far as it not fitting in with your passages of scripture, that is not valid to the argument.The reason I say this is because the usage of a word (or words) in multiple passages of scripture does not unify those passages uness the definition can be seen to be synonymous, and that definition must include contextual considerations. I could add more about this (because the original hebrew, and even the english translation, is in a format called 'ancient hebrew poetry', and thus affects contextual consideration) but that is not the main issue.The original point was the knowledge of an afterlife before Babylonian exile. This is true because of, for one example, Job's statement in Job 19:25-26.
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."Many factors indicate this book predates the Babylonian exile. This, coupled with the two verses, shows that there was an understanding of afterlife in the ancient hebrew mind before the forementioned time.Russ[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-13-2003][This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-13-2003]

This is in my post just above but it is possible you over looked it. So I will paste it here for viewing. By the way, this is not the only statement from Job, or his friends for that matter, that verifies that the jews of that time believed in an existence after this one.

quote:

---

The original point was the knowledge of an afterlife before Babylonian exile. This is true because of, for one example, Job's statement in Job 19:25-26.
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."

---

And, again, I was not trying to detract from the main thrust of this discussion. I simply wanted to correct an error based on what the Bible actually says.Russ[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-13-2003]

That is interesting, all of it. It will take me a little while to really think about it and come up with some answers because I want to do some digging.While you wait, might I suggest Genesis 14 and the encounter w/Melchizedek [who was just a man(I have proved this in an offline work)] as an encounter with the God of all existence, thought it was through a non-jew.Russ

Rei,I want to point out clearly that you are changing the argument from a discussion of "Why Would a Loving God Create Hell?" to "Is the Bible a valid source of truth, and if so which Bible?"While they may seem the same, they are not. One is about a doctrine stated in the pages of scripture, already assuming, on previously established criteria, that the Bible is a source of absolute truth.The other is a discussion as to whether anything that is said at all from a scriptural point of view can be considered truth. Now I want to say that this is the argument you are changing it to because the questions your response demands are questions concerning the texts that the Bible comes from. Certainly you know that there are many forms of the Bible out there, and certainly you can understand that it is very easy for a corrupted version of the Bible to exist. So, again, the questions you are raising are concerning the text of the Bible, not what the Bible says. And there is a very significant difference. If you are going to be reasonable you simply must acknowledge that to be true.My point in saying all of this is that I would be interested in responding, but I will restate my first goal: to clarify a point without taking the discussion from the main line of argumentation. This new post of yours would threaten to do just that (please understand I do not say that in accusation of wrongdoing). So before we continue, I just want to be sure what we are talking about.Are we talking about why God created Hell, or are we talking about what is the reliable source of absolute truth for man in the English language?Russjust a note for information - I looked again at your last post and counted 8 separate issues raised which relate to textual purity and only two which relate directly to the issue originally raised by Prozacman.[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-13-2003]

Rei (and others),I wanted to clarify. I did not mean to suggest that you were the only one drawing the subject away from the main topic and to Biblical accuracy, and I appologize for doing so. I know I was also doing that. I just felt uncomfortable with your questions and responses because it seemed like they took away from the main discussion instead of adding to it.I think that the idea of new threads is very interesting and would be very keen on seeing our discussion developed there, instead of here, where it would be more relevant. But let me know what you think.Russ

=======
What a great loving God that is...
=======Intellect,Please excuse the belated reply, but I was curious if you were putting this thought out, along with the rest of your post, for response. The reason I ask is because it seems, by your post, as thought you are not grasping the whole context of the book of Job. While this is not dealing with the issue of hell, it does call into question the character of God in reference to his love.So I guess I was wondering if you were interested in hearing another take on what you presented.Russ

Prozacman,I also have periods of extended absence from this site, but I will try to stay up on things.I understood that you were doing some serious searching, which I have not yet done on your post to me (#33), and that is why I suggested looking into Melchizedek. The word he uses for God is different than the name used durring the time of the Aaronic priesthood but it refers to the same God, the God of creation.I will look into your comments in the forementioned post this week and get back with you. Let me know what you think about all this. And I realize this discussion, w/my suggestion of Melchizedek, may take things off subject. I will leave all this for your consideration.Russ