A Book I Wanted to Throw: "Erasing Hell" by Francis Chan

[iamTOTALLYredeemed]

Ecclesiastes!! Are you serious? The perspective of the first 11 chapters of Ecclesiastes are that from, what would be referred to today as, a humanist. A person who's focus only goes as far a the creation and not the creator. The perspective of life is of the here and now and never on the afterlife.

Sadly it's true that not all sure be teachers. :(

[MichaelSeeds]

i have a scripture for you Phil 4:4 "Always be full of joy in the Lord. I say it again—rejoice!"

[dcsoehren]

doesn't your juxtaposition of the passages in Ecclesiastes and Daniel depict the perception of an afterlife from two different perspectives (Ecclesiastes - to that of a "dead" person, Daniel - to that of a "living" person)? If so, I feel that careless comparison undermines the argument that these descriptions of the afterlife are diametrically opposed rather than a progression as indicated by Chan. These passages address two fates, one of the non-believer and the other of a believer.

[violentlygraceful]

@dcsoehren I think this is entirely off-base. Ecclesiastes makes no differentiation between "believers" and "non-believers". It states plainly that the destination of all people is the grave, from which there is no return. On the other hand, Daniel describes a general resurrection of the dead, some to everlasting life (aionios zoe, the same words used by Matthew 25:46), others to everlasting contempt. One writer affirms literal, bodily resurrection, the other does not.

[dcsoehren]

@violentlygraceful but doesn't Ecclesiastes 9:5 indicate an alternate fate? "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten." The writer appears to address the physcial death of all, living or dead, but applies the final two tragedies to those that are dead. It sounds to me that there is a distinction in this passage between the "living" and the "dead", which would indicate alternate fates

[violentlygraceful]

@dcsoehren The living are going to die, and the dead are already dead. Same fate. Eccl. 3:18-20 confirms the author's opinion that like animals, we are all going to die and no longer exist. There is no distinction between different kinds of death. Death is death.

[dcsoehren]

@violentlygraceful how about Ecclesiastes 12:7?...."and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." does this not describe a spiritual reunion with God and thus a life after death for those who, in ch 12:13, "fear God and keep His commandments"? I don't see how this represents a ceasing to exist...

[TruthIsLife7]

@violentlygraceful While you are obviously well read (I commend you for that), you are misusing linguistics (my field) and worse chopping off crucial words. You deleted 2 major concepts in the verses,

A) That at the end of time, God will stand on the earth (this is the crucial context)

B) At that time, after Job's flesh/skin/body is destroyed, he will see God.

These sites have a list of many translations confirming this.

bibleDOTcc/job/19-25DOThtm

bibleDOTcc/job/19-26DOThtm

[violentlygraceful]

@TruthIsLife7 I'm well aware of that Web site. Reasserting that the original language supports your point doesn't accomplish anything. I'll continue with the Anchor Bible Commentary:

"I know my vindicator lives, A guarantor upon the dust will stand." "The application of the term goel to God in this context is questionable since elsewhere it is is Job's complaint it is God himself who is Job's adversary rather than defender."

[violentlygraceful]

@TruthIsLife7 "The word aharon has generally been construed here as adverbial, 'at last'. It may also be taken substantively as parallel to goel. Second Isaiah uses the term as a divine epithet, 'First and Last', and in Isa xliv 6 it stands in virtual parallelism with goel. If aharon is parallel to goel one may appeal to the Mishnaic and Talmudic term aharay in the sense of 'guarantor'."

The Anchor Bible: Job, pp. 146. I'm NOT just making this up.

[TruthIsLife7]

“Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.You who dwell in the dust, awake&sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light,&the earth will give birth to the dead. (Isaiah 26:19)

Then, "For as the new heavens&the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed&your name remain.&it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another,&from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. " Isaiah 66:22,23

[violentlygraceful]

@TruthIsLife7 Regarding the Isaiah passages:

"Other than in Daniel 12:2-3, 12 does the Tanakh unambiguously endorse the idea that humans will be given life after death. Belief in life after death became central to apocalyptic forms of Judaism (attested to in the book of Daniel and postbiblical, pre-rabbinic documents)." The Jewish Study Bible, p. 834

[violentlygraceful]

@TruthIsLife7 66:24 - "Many medieval rabbinic commentators take this v. as a reference to Gehinnom or hell, where sinners suffer punishment forever... It is not clear, however, that Deutero-Isaiah imagines the sinners are remaining cognizant or in any sense alive; rather, the eternal fire burns but does not consume their corpses as a sign to those who pass by. Nonetheless, the later Jewish belief of punishment after death in a location called Gehinnom developed out of this v." JSB, p. 916

[violentlygraceful]

@TruthIsLife7 For a Christian apologist source regarding Isaiah 26:19 - "The original Hebrew refers literally to bodily resurrection, and this is certainly how the verse is taken in the LXX and Qumran. It is still possible, of course, that here resurrection is, as we shall see in Ezekiel, a metaphor for national restoration..." N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, p. 117.

[TruthIsLife7]

@violentlygraceful We also have Enoch, Elijah&Moses translated into heaven without seeing death or after death as well as King Saul thinking Samuel was conscious after death and asking a witch to meet him (but meeting a demon instead).

Ezekiel&other places also mention resurrections and other afterlife concepts. A paper & book on this:

stongeDOTinthewayDOTorg/docume­nts/Life%20after%20Death%20in%­20the%20Old%20TestamentDOTpdf

wwwDOTamazonDOTcom/Life-After-­Death-Afterlife-Religion/dp/03­85422997

[violentlygraceful]

@TruthIsLife7 From the same source regarding Ezekiel: "Both the content of the vision and the immediate conclusion that the prophet draws from it mark out this passage as an intentional and sustained metaphor. Ezekiel is no more envisaging actual bodily resurrection than he envisaged, when writing chapter 34, that Israel consisted of sheep rather than people." NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, p. 120

[savedbyjesusm68]

what book are you reading from!? there is no macabes in the bible!

[IamLarryWakefield]

ummm... I'm Done.

[IamLarryWakefield]

You guys are Catholic I am assuming?

[IamLarryWakefield]

BRO! Seriously!!!! You lost me. You are using NONE canonical books to prove a point. Go ahead and use the book of Enoch or Thomas why dont you.

[IamLarryWakefield]

Bro... Maccabees is NOT one of the 66 Canonical Books in the Holy bible. Just sayin...

[n8tron25]

Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text. ... Read the whole book of Ecclesiastes...IN CONTEXT....

[violentlygraceful]

@n8tron25 I'm well familiar with what eisegesis and exegesis mean. I have read the whole book of Ecclesiastes in context. The author explicitly denies the existence of an afterlife.

[TruthIsLife7]

"aion" &Hebrew terms translated forever, eternal, etc. are often used to refer to things that end. (Ex. 21:6, Deut 23:6, 1 Sam 1:22, 1 Sam 27:12, 2 Sam 7:16). Kittle’s 10 Volume Unabridged Theological Dictionary, one of the most authoritative word study series,says that "aion" is conditioned by the material&means as long as the material lasts.It can mean without end...since God&His people will live forever in heaven. But, it can refer to things that end with death, such as hell.

[TruthIsLife7]

@violentlygraceful The doctrine of eternal hell has caused literally millions to reject God because they think He's an evil sadistic power monster who enjoys torturing people, etc. This false doctrine has caused more harm to Christianity than almost any other.It is completely impossible to reconcile an eternal hell with a righteous God or many verses in the Bible. The only way to harmonize all verses is hell stopping sin forever, permanently. See the links below & esp. wwwDOThelltruthDOTcom

[mrscameron717]

@TruthIsLife7

Perhaps someone should inform God that His methods, character, and VERY WORDS are no longer socially acceptable so that He can update them... you may also want to mention that sexual purity, marriage and family itself and heterosexuality are also going out of style. Actually, you may just want to tell Him that His very existence is no longer acceptable to society, so He should just cease to exist... you know, if he really loves us. 

[TruthIsLife7]

@mrscameron717 You are unfortunately misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with being socially acceptable. It has to do with demons trying to portray God as someone who is sadistic and crueler than any human being or even Satan himself has ever been. THAT is what is driving people away from God when they hear the doctrine of eternal hell which is not biblical at all. There IS a hell, but Jesus said it's a place where both body and soul will be destroyed (in mercy), not something eternal.

[mrscameron717]

@TruthIsLife7 "Jesus said it's a place where both body and soul will be destroyed (in mercy), not something eternal."

Where does He say that?

[TruthIsLife7]

@mrscameron717 "Don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28 along with a number of other verses. Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death. Malachi 4:1-4 says that the wicked will be ashes. Revelation 21:1-4 says there will be no more pain or suffering or tears. Many others. I'll pm you something you will find enlightening.

[mrscameron717]

After all, the people who are driven away by the idea of hell are equally driven away by any concept of universal moral standards or expectations, the doctrine of man's sinfulness, and the very idea of God. Most of the people who accuse that God is an evil, sadistic power monster because of the doctrine of hell are not actually arguing for the non-existence of hell - they're arguing for the non-existence of God.

[BreathOFLaminin]

You're intellectually dishonest.

Solomon was not saying that there was no afterlife, as you have to read the whole book to understand what he meant. He was nearing the end of his life and was depressed, searching for the meaning of life, as do us all. At the end, he came to the conclusion as to the meaning of life, "fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to EVERY person. For God will bring EVERY act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil."

[violentlygraceful]

@BreathOFLaminin I have read the whole book, and do understand what the author (who was not Solomon) meant. You also appeal to an ending which many scholars believe is a later addition to the book, and superimpose your own afterlife concept onto it. Even if the author did write it, he would have believed, like the other authors of the Hebrew Bible, that judgment was meted during this life, not after death.

[BreathOFLaminin]

@violentlygraceful "The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem" (Ecc. 1:1). Let's see, go with your word or the Word of God?! I'm going with the Word of God, which says that Solomon was the one to pen Ecclesiastes. Also, there is no evidence at all that the last part is a later addition, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls puts to rest any "later addition" garbage.

Also, the OT is all about Final judgment incurring AFTER death (examples, see Psalm 73 and Enoch 103).

[violentlygraceful]

@BreathOFLaminin Just because the Bible says someone wrote something, doesn't mean they actually wrote it. Psalm 73 does not refer to an eschatological judgment after resurrection. The only clear allusion to belief in an afterlife in the OT is in Daniel 12, a writing contemporary with 1 Enoch.

[BreathOFLaminin]

@violentlygraceful The Bible is the Word of God and is INFALLIBLE. If it says Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes then Solomon was the one who penned it. Do not question the Word of God, TRUST in the Lord with ALL thine heart and lean not unto thine own understandings (PROVERBS 3:5-6).

If you don't believe in hell and eternal punishment, you either don't believe in Jesus or you believe that he was a liar. Yeshua spoke more about hell and the last days than ANY other topic.

Shut up & believe the Bible!

[TruthIsLife7]

@BreathOFLaminin Hell is the agent that causes death. The Bible does not teach an eternal hell. Revelation 20:9 shows the wicked will be consumed. 20:14 says the lake of fire is the 2nd death. If hell is eternal, God is evil, a liar and completely unjust.

Please look at these sites which lists many verses OT and NT showing that the wicked will be completely destroyed. Replace DOT with .

wwwDOTcreation-science-prophec­yDOTcom/hellDOThtm

wwwDOTteachingheartsDOTorg/dre­17hsthellDOThtml

[TruthIsLife7]

@violentlygraceful "The only clear allusion to belief in an afterlife in the OT is in Daniel 12"

Sorry, but not true. While the Jews and Torah were much more focused on this life (probably largely due to God dealing with very immature people), the OT has more references to an afterlife than you say.

"I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last. And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God! " Job 19:25,26

[violentlygraceful]

@TruthIsLife7 That's certainly not one of them. Other translations: "After my awakening, he will set me close to him, and from my flesh I shall look on God." New Jerusalem Bible . "This, after my skin will have been peeled off. But I would behold God while still in my flesh." New Jewish Publication Society TANAKH. "v..26b should probably be translated 'Yet, to behold God while still in my flesh- that is my desire, to see him with my own eyes'" - New Oxford Annotated Bible, 4th Ed., p. 745.

[violentlygraceful]

@TruthIsLife7 "Even after my skin is flayed, without my flesh I shall see God." "This verse is notoriously difficult. The ancient versions all differ and no reliance can be placed in any of them. Various emendations have been proposed, but are scarcely worth discussing. Many Christian interpreters since Origen have tried to read here an affirmation of immortality or resurrection, but without success: Chrysostom quite correctly refuted this interpretation with the citation of xiv 12 ff."

[violentlygraceful]

@TruthIsLife7 "If one sticks to the text as received, the given translation appears to fit the context as well as any, though many problems persist." The Anchor Bible: Job, pp. 139, 147.

[86Eugene]

there is forgiveness in Christ alone.

[rickgigliotti]

This video is a waist of 20 minutes.

Check out some of Francis Chans videos for a better use of your time

[manlioman]

Francis Chan is ready for a nice rubber room, a straightjacket, classical music and some chocolate.

[epiqkon1]

Oh....yep you did. Just got to continue watching :P

[epiqkon1]

You do know Sirach and Maccabees are not in the 66 cannical books right??

[violentlygraceful]

@epiqkon1 They are included in the Catholic and Orthodox canons, and were cited often by the early fathers of the church. It doesn't make sense to me that the Protestants wanted to let Jews decide which books would be in their Christian canon.

[OCaoimhghin]

Really nice work, as usual. I suppose one could claim God must have progressively inspired biblical authors to choose and repeat mythical elements which just so happened to be true, but the idea of verbal inspiration strains credulity enough without multiplying assumptions in support of it.

[wayman29]

OOOOOHHHH That book was the crappy response to the crappy book by Bell which as still probably better then "Erasing Hell" but still somewhat crappy! LOL thanks this was quite fun! I did like some parts of Rob Bells book but mostly dull. LOL

[TruthSurge]

Love the "inerrant in the original texts" and "god preserved [them]" hahahahaha If they admit they are not inerrant in the texts we DO have, he did NOT preserve them. I'm so mad right now, I want to throw my monitor. heheheheh j/k

The nephilim stuff ... the Enoch author clearly just embellished the Genesis snip, yes? Enoch is hundreds of years later than Genesis. But Chan sounds like a typical fundy type who will never realize his religion evolved.

[violentlygraceful]

@TruthSurge That's exactly what Enoch does: fill in gaps left by earlier tradition. Chan believes that the Bible speaks unilaterally regarding all matters and always has, so when this dogmatic presupposition doesn't hold up, excuses are made regarding "progressive revelation". It's a way of recognizing that change occurred, while simultaneously pretending that nothing ever changed.

[TruthSurge]

@violentlygraceful yep. Saying one thing from one corner of his mouth and the opposite from the other corner.

[IntelligentProbe]

What do you know about Jesus' statement that god can destroy body and soul in hell? This would suggest that it isn't an everlasting torment?

[violentlygraceful]

@IntelligentProbe Using the axiom "scripture interprets scripture", Chan attempts to clarify that statement in Matthew 10:28 with the following:

Matthew 18:8 - refers to eternal fire

Mark 9:48 - unquenchable fire

Matthew 25:41 - everlasting fire

Matthew 25:46 - everlasting punishment, which he equates to the everlasting fire

[IntelligentProbe]

@violentlygraceful "scripture interprets scripture" is typically nothing more than using one scripture against another. However in the case of a single author, then I would say it is somewhat valid, though with the reservation that it IS possible for an author to contradict himself and mean it, and/or we cannot really know what the author meant. However in this particular case, we are getting the words of Jesus not from Jesus, thus the author could be rewriting Jesus' understanding with his own.

[violentlygraceful]

@IntelligentProbe Of course, Chan would say that we are getting the words of Jesus from Jesus, due to Jesus being God, and the words of scripture being dictated by God to the writers. In Chan's view, it's impossible for the gospel writers to force words into Jesus mouth. This is confirmed by Chan additionally quoting Mark 9:44, which references unquenchable fire. I deliberately left it out, due to the statement being duplicated by Mark 9:48, and the earliest manuscripts do not contain the verse.

[IntelligentProbe]

@violentlygraceful I understand. I wouldn't argue that Jesus didn't teach an eternal hell, but that verse has always given me a scratch-my-head moment, as it seems fully contradictory to me, and simply sweeping it under the rug because of other supposedly "more clear" verses doesn't do its own clarity (and it is a clear verse, imho) justice. I could understand if the verse wasn't clear, but a child could tell you what that verse is saying.

[jimthepleb]

why do i find this sort of dogmatic , semantic, self delusion so distressing? Ah yes, because all that scholarship is used for such banal apologetics that cant withstand the simplest scrutiny. These people, Chan and Willhemake Claims Vague frighten me far more than the Hovinds and Hams of this world, they are almost convincing, and for those with no critical analysis skills they provide answers that allow unquestioning faith to continue.

Ty for suffering so we dont have to:)

[DeathofSpeech]

Elegantly done.

[RaynorGo]

They always lie about hell. WLC did the same in his debate.

Hell is afterlife blackmail, the end. Why Craig, Zacharias et al wish to be slaves is almost beyond me.