• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

What will we take to heaven....?

No worries.

Never said any such thing. What I said was the verse employed hyperbole, not that God's word is hyperbole. Please acknowledge the mistake before we proceed.
Perhaps I'm not seeing the distinction but if the verse is hyperbolized, then wouldn't that make what's being said exaggerated/altered beyond what the words say? And if so, isn't that the same as being "untrue"?
 
I have a friend who died and was resusitated (not to off topic into "near death experiences)
He said he was his essence, no physical,body, only his soul and he was in a "light" that was pure radiant love
He could remember the past but it was fading away.
It was perfect love and peace, all the world washed away but he was still distinctly himself, as a soul and God was a distinct essence or being that was a "light" of perfect love and peace.
He also states emphatically that there aren't any words to describe his experience because all our words define this world, such as "light" which he saw but doesn't have the words to truly convey.

"For now we see the glass darkly, but then face to face" was his best description of the experience.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I'm not seeing the distinction but if the verse is hyperbolized, then wouldn't that make what's being said exaggerated/altered beyond what the words say? And if so, isn't that the same as being "untrue"?
No.

But you're using false equivalence, besides. "Employs hyperbole" is not the same as "is hyperbolized".
 
I believe our experiences shape our relationship and our worship with/of Christ so I can't imagine worship without that relational ability based on experience.
I've heard it said that our first 2 years of our human life lays the foundation for our well-being throughout our entire lifespan. Our lifetime on earth might be similar in laying out our foundation for eternity. I can't remember my first 2 years of life even though it was only years back so I doubt if I will remember earth life very long (if at all), which is less than a nano-second of my eternal life. It's all speculatory though, I'm looking forward to whatever heaven surprises me with.
 
No.

But you're using false equivalence, besides. "Employs hyperbole" is not the same as "is hyperbolized".
Maybe I'm dense but I still don't see the difference, isn't employing hyperbole the definition of hyperbolizing? Is there other verses in the Bible that uses hyperbole, or is this the only time God employs it?
 
I have a friend who died and was resusitated (not to off topic into "near death experiences)
He said he was his essence, no physical,body, only his soul and he was in a "light" that was pure radiant love
He could remember the past but it was fading away.
It was perfect love and peace, all the world washed away but he was still distinctly himself, as a soul and God was a distinct essence or being that was a "light" of perfect love and peace.
He also states emphatically that there aren't any words to describe his experience because all our words define this world, such as "light" which he saw but doesn't have the words to truly convey.

"For now we see the glass darkly, but then face to face" was his best description of the experience.
Yet, even that, though inexpressible to him, may have been manufactured by his spirit and brain. It is not a good reference point for truth. I myself have had an experience that I can only describe as "a vision from God" but I do not dare to do so. It opened my eyes to the cosmic corruption that sin is, like a gaping wound in the universe, and logically I know God intended for me to see that, since I know that God intends all that comes to pass, but I can't say it wasn't manufactured by my brain. It certainly wasn't exhaustively descriptive of the horror of sin and the virulent paradoxical concept of a creation's contradiction against its own Almighty Creator. It has had a huge effect on my understanding of sin, humanity, and of God himself, and of many other intersecting subjects, but I can't call it more than "a way to look at the question".
 
isn't employing hyperbole the definition of hyperbolizing? Is there other verses in the Bible that uses hyperbole, or is this the only time God employs it?
It's not an altogether invalid question, but you are shifting the goalposts. I don't think you are doing so on the sly, however, like some people who argue on these forums.

The subject of this statement, "The verse employs hyperbole", is, "the verse", which is doing the action. While that statement might be argued to mean, "The verse is hyperbolizing", it cannot grammatically mean, "The verse is hyperbole", nor even, "The verse is hyperbolized", in which "the verse" is no longer the actor, but is the passive recipient of the hyperbolizing—there, it has been acted upon.
 
It's not an altogether invalid question, but you are shifting the goalposts. I don't think you are doing so on the sly, however, like some people who argue on these forums.

The subject of this statement, "The verse employs hyperbole", is, "the verse", which is doing the action. While that statement might be argued to mean, "The verse is hyperbolizing", it cannot grammatically mean, "The verse is hyperbole", nor even, "The verse is hyperbolized", in which "the verse" is no longer the actor, but is the passive recipient of the hyperbolizing—there, it has been acted upon.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be cunning or anything - God is the author of verse, correct? So he would be the one that "employs hyperbole", right? How is employing hyperbole not the same as "hyperbolizing"? Is something stated hyperbolically still truth? I'm not trying to be argumentative if I'm not understanding the difference explain it to me more elementary.
 
Sorry, I'm not trying to be cunning or anything - God is the author of verse, correct? So he would be the one that "employs hyperbole", right? How is employing hyperbole not the same as "hyperbolizing"? Is something stated hyperbolically still truth? I'm not trying to be argumentative if I'm not understanding the difference explain it to me more elementary.
Josheb said:
Do you think that verse was spoken and written with a certain degree of hyperbole?

Josh then used the phrase, against your remonstrance, "employing hyperbole". I tried to explain that "employing hyperbole" CAN be (arguably) the same as "hyperbolizing". I did not say it is not the same. What I said was that if the verse is doing either one, "the verse", is grammatically doing the action.

You had said, "[the verse was] hyperbolized". I tried to point out the difference: In your grammatical construction, the verse is not doing the action, but being acted upon.

But we can put that aside and go back to the original statement: Josh said, "Do you think that verse was spoken and written with a certain degree of hyperbole?" which he later explained as essentially, "employing hyperbole". So, yes, God is the one employing the hyperbole in that construction.

Then you answered with these two: "I would be careful before considering God's word [to be]"hyperbole"". and, "Perhaps I'm not seeing the distinction but if the verse is hyperbolized, then wouldn't that make what's being said exaggerated/altered beyond what the words say? And if so, isn't that the same as being "untrue"?"

The best you could have done in your remonstrance would be to translate what he said, into "God's word [to be] hyperbolic" which is non-committal, grammatically. But you will have a hard time showing that the Bible is not, in places, hyperbolic.

Maybe @Josheb can take it over, now that I have planted weeds all about. :p
 
but I can't call it more than "a way to look at the question".
Yes, as I stated, it would be pointless and off topic to discuss near death experiences.
The interesting point of the man's experience is that there was a "soul" without body or wordly memories or thought, yet still essentially himself.
There wasn't any temporal time, he did particularly note that.
It was being in the presence of indescribable love, yet being separate from the source of that love, each being a separate entity.
As a not particularly religious but very careful to keep the commandments as just good common sense and affirming the Nicene Creed, he is just an ordinary man who had an extra ordinary experience.
 
Josheb said:
Do you think that verse was spoken and written with a certain degree of hyperbole?

Josh then used the phrase, against your remonstrance, "employing hyperbole". I tried to explain that "employing hyperbole" CAN be (arguably) the same as "hyperbolizing". I did not say it is not the same. What I said was that if the verse is doing either one, "the verse", is grammatically doing the action.

You had said, "[the verse was] hyperbolized". I tried to point out the difference: In your grammatical construction, the verse is not doing the action, but being acted upon.

But we can put that aside and go back to the original statement: Josh said, "Do you think that verse was spoken and written with a certain degree of hyperbole?" which he later explained as essentially, "employing hyperbole". So, yes, God is the one employing the hyperbole in that construction.

Then you answered with these two: "I would be careful before considering God's word [to be]"hyperbole"". and, "Perhaps I'm not seeing the distinction but if the verse is hyperbolized, then wouldn't that make what's being said exaggerated/altered beyond what the words say? And if so, isn't that the same as being "untrue"?"

The best you could have done in your remonstrance would be to translate what he said, into "God's word [to be] hyperbolic" which is non-committal, grammatically. But you will have a hard time showing that the Bible is not, in places, hyperbolic.

Maybe @Josheb can take it over, now that I have planted weeds all about. :p
Fair enough, I apparently didn't articulate well.
If it is hard to "show that the Bible is not, in places, hyperbolic" then perhaps someone can show me another verse that is clearly hyperbolic as I still suspect "exaggeration" is outside the parameters of pure truth I expect the Bible to be.
 
Fair enough, I apparently didn't articulate well.
If it is hard to "show that the Bible is not, in places, hyperbolic" then perhaps someone can show me another verse that is clearly hyperbolic as I still suspect "exaggeration" is outside the parameters of pure truth I expect the Bible to be.
Hyperbole, beams and motes...
Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

A more secular one is "I am so hungry I could eat a horse."

It is a Truth stated in a picturesque way, not an exaggeration but an illustration.
Christ was stating a pure truth in fact. Hyperbole seems to be a choice of language for illustration rather than anything untruthful or misleading.
I don't think that the original verse quoted in this thread is hypberbole, rather a simple statement of fact.
I am hungry enough to eat (simple statement of fact)
I am hungry enought to eat a horse (hyperbolic language to illustrate a point.)
 
Fair enough, I apparently didn't articulate well.
If it is hard to "show that the Bible is not, in places, hyperbolic" then perhaps someone can show me another verse that is clearly hyperbolic as I still suspect "exaggeration" is outside the parameters of pure truth I expect the Bible to be.
I should let @Josheb answer this, though it wouldn't take me long to look up several, but I'm in a hurry. One example, that is maybe even usually taken for hyperbole, (which I don't think is hyperbole), is "Apart from me you can do nothing!" (I've had it explained that it is in reference to the immediate context only, and therefore at best hyperbolic concerning other things.)

Most people reading hyperbole in Scripture seem to gloss right over it, because it is a common mode speech in most languages. I don't think it is falsehood if it is understood as intended in Scripture AS hyperbole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QVQ
Yes, as I stated, it would be pointless and off topic to discuss near death experiences.
The interesting point of the man's experience is that there was a "soul" without body or wordly memories or thought, yet still essentially himself.
There wasn't any temporal time, he did particularly note that.
It was being in the presence of indescribable love, yet being separate from the source of that love, each being a separate entity.
As a not particularly religious but very careful to keep the commandments as just good common sense and affirming the Nicene Creed, he is just an ordinary man who had an extra ordinary experience.
Reminds me of a bro-in-law of mine who did drugs in college. He says one time he and a friend were on their way to a concert with two girls. He was sitting in the back seat of a Volkswagon bug, talking to one of them, when all the sudden he was sitting on that tiny ledge under the back window, WATCHING HIMSELF talking to the girl. It scared him so bad that he quit doing drugs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QVQ
One example, that is maybe even usually taken for hyperbole, .... "Apart from me you can do nothing!" (I've had it explained that it is in reference to the immediate context only, and therefore at best hyperbolic concerning other things.)
Hyperbole - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

I see no exaggeration here.
Acts 17:28 "in Him we live and move and have our being"
Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Romans 11:36 For from Him [all things originate] and through Him [all things live and exist] and to Him are all things [directed]. To Him be glory and honor forever! Amen. AMP
Possible Hyperbolic Verses
Those verses that claim God changes His mind:
Genesis 6:6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
 
It scared him so bad that he quit doing drugs.
I spent time dealing with drug overdoses and the near death experiences brought about by those substances.
There is a thin line between dose and overdose.
It is something to consider when a person is having a normal drug induced hallucination or very near to death from overdose.
One "drug" that will give an out of body experience, which drug I shall not name, is said to induce those "out of body" experiences because the drugs action is to kill brain cells. The "out of body" is the brain dying.
However, those experiences, of which I listened to many such drug induced recounters, do not include another being or essence who is the source of indescribable love.
Most of the drug induced hallucinations are entirely of this world, just distortions or hallucinations.

Still not saying my friends experience was more than or less than that
I understand your point because I know the "near death experience" are almost always "near death" and not after complete brain death itself.
 
Last edited:
I should let @Josheb answer this, though it wouldn't take me long to look up several, but I'm in a hurry. One example, that is maybe even usually taken for hyperbole, (which I don't think is hyperbole), is "Apart from me you can do nothing!" (I've had it explained that it is in reference to the immediate context only, and therefore at best hyperbolic concerning other things.)

Most people reading hyperbole in Scripture seem to gloss right over it, because it is a common mode speech in most languages. I don't think it is falsehood if it is understood as intended in Scripture AS hyperbole.
I think taken in context, the "nothing" has to relate to doing anything of spiritual value outside of Jesus but re-reading Isaiah 65 in context I'll concur that "the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind" can be related to just the sorrows and cares discussed previous to the verse and not necessarily literally no prior memories. My apologies if I came off adamant, I should have considered the verse context more. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Perhaps I'm not seeing the distinction but if the verse is hyperbolized, then wouldn't that make what's being said exaggerated/altered beyond what the words say? And if so, isn't that the same as being "untrue"?
Are you familiar with any literary devices? There are more than two dozen of them. Alliteration, allusion, allegory, analogy, irony, paradox, hyperbole, metaphor, simile are some of the most commonly used ones. Are you familiar with them. Are you aware one of the things that makes the Bible unique is its use of all the literary devices before they were common occurrences in human literature? Do you know the definition of hyperbole? Hyperbole is, by definition, an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally. That is how and why hyperbole is not a lie. A lie is the knowing or intentional misrepresentation of fact for the purpose of deceit.

Note I did not claim Isaiah 65:17 was hyperbole, I simply asked if @fastfredy0 considered it to have been said with a degree of hyperbole.

The phrase "heaven and earth" is imagery used in various ways throughout the Bible. Logically speaking, God cannot literally mean he is replacing creation with an alternative, new creation in the physical sense because that would require God to take all the plants and animals on the planet and put them some place during the interim of replacement. Notice the language of Isaiah 65:17 and its tenses. God AM creating new heavens and earth. The verse does not say He will create new heavens and earth some yet unidentified time in the future. He am doing it right then and there at the time He spoke to Isaiah and Isaiah spoke to a rebellious covenant-breaking Jewish people. The conjugation is present tense ongoing, not fixed future. Notice also that this creating a new heavens and earth in Isaiah 65 is couched in a time when God will "bring forth offspring from Jacob, and an heir of My mountains from Judah." That would be during the period of time during the incarnation, not the second coming. That was when the offspring of Jacob (Jesus) was brought forth. The passage is messianic, not apocalyptic. Isaiah 65 17's new heavens and earth occur when Jerusalem is created for rejoicing and God also rejoices in it (vss 18-19 ).

What does the NT have to say about the new Jerusalem? The NT has two avenues of commentary. The first is that the redeemed have already come to the new Jerusalem, the city of peace (jeru = city; salem = peace) built by God.

Hebrews 12:22-23
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all....

According to the author of Hebrews Isaiah 65:17 has happened! But we all also know and believe there is still a future coming. Unless a person is a full-preterist we all look forward to the day when...

Revelation 21:1
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.

In between Hebrews and Revelation we have this...

2 Peter. 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be discovered.

And, sadly, there is no end of the ways that verse gets abused because, for example, many Christians think there is only one single, specific "day of the LORD/Lord," when scripture uses that phrase to describes several different events (all of which have a two common themes, not one: redemption and judgment).

More to the point of hyperbole, it is that phrase, "the elements will be destroyed," that causes confusion and error because if the verse is taken literally then it means everything is literally destroyed literally at an atomic level. If that happens then ALL life ceases to exist. That nonsensical literal interpretation means all life is destroyed when God is in the business of making alive those previously dead in sin. If the heavens and the earth is literally destroyed at the elemental level then neither the heavens or the earth exist and neither do any of the creatures existing therein. You, @Two-Edged Sword, will cease to exist if the verse is read literally. The same goes for me and @fastfredy0. We cease to exist because our elements are destroyed. We're not born a new from above - we are destroyed at an elemental level, the atoms of our constitution undone and we're made anew in entirety. That's not consistent with the whole of scripture.


Here' a more obvious example of figurative language that cannot logically be taken literally.

Revelation 12:4a
And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and hurled them to the earth.

Most Christians do not take that sentence literally, but I have crossed paths with a few who do. I hope you're not one of them because if a literal third of the literal stars were literally to "fall" from heaven and literally fall to earth then the earth would literally be destroyed. The closest star to earth is Proxima Centauri. It's about 4.24 light years from earth. That means if that star were to start "falling" toward earth at the speed of light it would take four years to impact this planet. We'd see it coming long before it got here. If it literally crashed into this planet moving at the speed of light, then the earth would be smashed into sub-atomic particles faster than we could measure the event, and no life on the planet would or could possibly survive. Not only would that be the case, but Alpha Centauri, the second closest star would have no earth to fall to. Neither would the rest of the third of the stars. The first star to literally fall to earth would make earth non-existent. Furthermore, just one star leaving its gravitational point in the cosmos would change the movement of all the other stars. A third of the stars would be more than 60 billion stars! If 60 billion stars left their orbits, then radical changes would occur with all the other heavenly orbs. The entire heavens would be changed, if not also destroyed.

Revelation 12:4 (in its entirety)
His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.

If just one star left its place in the heavens and fell to earth, then Satan would have nothing to stand on and the woman giving birth (assuming she survived the cataclysm) would be birthing a child into nothing - no earth on which to live.


So Revelation 12:4 falling stars is a figure of speech, a hyperbolic one. God is exaggerating the imagery in order to make a point, and He does not intend His readers to take the sentence literally. He is not lying. Something cataclysmic did/will happen but it is not a literal star literally falling to earth and literally crashing into it.
 
On Topic
I am asserting that even though a person may or may not take his body, his memory or any thing of this world, the person does retain himself, his Soul, his individual identity, his essential self even without a body or a brain to store it in
 
Back
Top