/lit/ - Literature

>>19646965
I was expecting someone to bring that up so I thank you for this.

The five Bible verses that mention “the lake of fire” show it to be a symbol rather than a literal lake. (Revelation 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8)

The following are cast into the lake of fire:

The Devil. (Revelation 20:10) As a spirit creature, the Devil cannot be harmed by literal fire.—Exodus 3:2; Judges 13:20.

Death. (Revelation 20:14) This is not a literal entity but represents a state of inactivity, the absence of life. (Ecclesiastes 9:10) Death cannot literally be burned.

“The wild beast” and “the false prophet.” (Revelation 19:20) Since these are symbols, doesn’t it seem reasonable to conclude that the lake they are thrown into is also a symbol?—Revelation 13:11, 12; 16:13.

The Bible says that the lake of fire “means the second death.” (Revelation 20:14; 21:8)

The first kind of death mentioned in the Bible resulted from Adam’s sin. This death can be reversed by resurrection and will eventually be eliminated by God.—1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 26.

The lake of fire represents a different, or second, kind of death.

Although it too represents a state of total inactivity, it is different in that the Bible says nothing about a resurrection from the second death.

For example, the Bible says that Jesus has “the keys of hell and of death,” showing that he has the authority to release people from the death brought by Adam’s sin. (Revelation 1:18; 20:13, King James Version) However, neither Jesus nor anyone else has a key to the lake of fire.

That symbolic lake represents eternal punishment in the form of permanent destruction.—2 Thessalonians 1:9.

>>19625561
So what? The Gospels were written in Greece, while eyewitnesses would have been located in Galilee region, and again, this was decades prior. Anon, you clearly aren't making a strong case, where beliefs comes before evidence.

Luke stated that he had spoken with many eyewitnesses and had “traced all things from the start with accuracy.” (Luke 1:1-4)

Does that sound as if he were a plagiarist or a mythmaker? On the contrary!

After a thorough analysis of Luke’s writings, archaeologist William Ramsay concluded: “Luke is a historian of the first rank: not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”

>Other evidence contradicts this

for the lack of archaeological evidence for the wilderness sojourn, we must remember that the Jews were nomads. They built no cities; they planted no crops. Presumably, they left behind little more than footprints. Still, convincing evidence of that sojourn can be found within the Bible itself. Reference is made to it throughout that sacred book. (1 Samuel 4:8; Psalm 78; Psalm 95; Psalm 106; 1 Corinthians 10:1-5) Significantly, Jesus Christ also testified that the wilderness events took place.—John 3:14.

Unquestionably, then, the Bible’s account of Moses is credible, truthful.