> No one reads the Bible without interpreting it.

Clearly. No argument here. It's impossible to read without interpreting. All communication theory talks about at least three segments of communication affecting meaning: (1) the locutions (words, phrases, genres, etc.), (2) the illocutions (the form the locutions are couched in: prophecy, blessing, prayer, etc.), and (3) the perlocutions (the anticipated response from the audience: trust, obediences, belief, fear, etc.). On top of this we have the intent of the communicator, the message itself (the 3 segments), and the filters of the receiver. Communication is always a complex process. No one reads or hears [i]anything[/i] without interpreting it. It's impossible, actually, to read without interpreting.

> Most, if not all methods of interpretation are arbitrary.

This is where we would diverge in opinion. Dictionaries, for instance, are to govern interpretations so that communication is not only possible but understandable. Writers often define their terms, either individually or according to the known and accepted formulae of the field so that communication is not only possible but also understandable. And interpretation of most disciplines, Bible study included, is governed by certain hermeneutical rules that that interpretations are distinctively NOT arbitrary.

> The fact that we have over 1,000+ denominations is clear.

There are many reasons we have many denominations, and interpretation is only part of a segment of the reason. Some are divided by governance rules (ruled by a board of overseers; independent congregations; ruled by a central authority), others because of personal grievances (I didn't like the way they treated my family), others because of personal preference (I like liturgy in deference to free spirit), and others because of interpretation differences (are we saved by grace alone or do our works complete the work of Christ?).

The quote by Brian Zahnd is good. We always work toward good interpretation, but I can't vouch for every false teacher or lazy preacher out there. I subscribe to diligence in study, openness in mind (many new things are being discovered), accuracy in interpretation, and faithfulness in life.

> It seems you are trying to redirect the conversation toward your own definition of "omnipresence."

Not exactly, but I think that a proper understanding of God's presence and how it "works" is foundational to a good understanding of hell. God is everywhere, so he's in hell, but God's presence is not the same everywhere, so hell is different from other places. If we're going to talk about separation (your subject: Separation is a Lie), then we need to start (in my opinion) with a proper grasp of what presence with and separation from are.

> God was still present with Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel right through. The separation came in our minds. That is the lie of the serpent.

Great place to start. Let's deal with this before we extrapolate to the Church.

God's presence in the Garden is established by Genesis 2. Genesis 2.7 explains man's relation to God and vice versa. Thename for God ([i]YHWH Elohim[/i]) uses YHWH to emphasize the personal and [i]Elohim[/i] to emphasize the powerful. Now, the forming is not a sculpting process (I'm not advocating that), but certainly a relational one. He is [b]present[/b] with them. On through Genesis 2 we hear God instruct them, warn, them, and interact with them on a personal, relational level.

In Genesis 3 they sin and God banishes them from the Garden (3.23). Before that he clothed them, so it's obvious He doesn't plan to never have contact with them again. It specifically says that He is creating a barrier between them and the Tree of Life (3.23-24). But then in chapter 4 he still communicates with Cain, in chapter 5, Adam & Eve still attribute action in their life to God, so in what sense can we say they have lost His presence?

The relationship was marred and shattered. God was still there (He's omnipresent). God is still involved in their lives (He is a God of grace and mercy). But the relationship is not the same. When a family goes through a divorce, and mom & kids have to move from their beautiful home to a cheap 2-bedroom apartment, whatever sense of longing they have for their prior [i]house[/i] is insignificant compared to the loss of their [i]home[/i]—the family relationship that has been shattered. This is what we mean by separation and the loss of God's presence—the family is now broken. It's not just feelings of sadness, but a sense of true loss, regret, and emptiness.

I said before that what sin did to us is not as important as what sin did to God. It desecrated His presence. In a modern surgery room, one of the utmost priorities is the purity of the room and everything in it. Sin was not just a fly that somehow got in the room, but an invasion of a virus that desecrated the room. To change metaphors, it was like a nuclear accident that caused radiation damage that had lasting effects. People were irradiated; the ground was ruined; their homes were toxic. This is what sin did to God's good (functional) cosmos (Gn. 1)—it desecrated his "temple" (the cosmos) in apparently irreparable ways.

So God is still [i]present[/i] with them, but the relationship is broken. My daughter recently got divorced. When her ex comes in the house, it's just painful. It's not the same and never will be. To use the same words, where there was [i]presence[/i] there is now only problems. There is a separation of relationship that, despite presence, is not one of love, help, comfort, and joy.

So I would [i]not[/i] say that the separation is just in our minds. A divorce has happened between humanity and God. Humanity adulterated himself, God (the innocent party) was wounded, and the relationship became toxic.

I'll be glad to read your response.

I'm game, sorry about the long delay. I'll try and not write essay long responses. We can both agree that can get really annoying.

No one reads the Bible without interpreting it. Most, if not all methods of interpretation are arbitrary. The fact that we have over 1,000+ denominations is clear. A lot of pastors don't even do theology. They tell a funny joke, talk about an incidental life lesson, and they connect it to a Bible verse.

Brian Zahnd is one of the few pastor and preachers who actually studies theology and not, in his own words "reserve for the academy." This is taken from an article he wrote. [url]https://brianzahnd.com/2016/06/when-the-bible-is-bad-for-you/[/url]

“The Bible clearly says, _______________________________________.”
(Fill in the blank with what you want to believe socially, scientifically, politically, theologically.)

[b]Brian Zahnd[/b]
[quote]If we don’t see the Bible as directing us to the true Word of God who is Jesus, we can play tricks with the Bible. We can make it do our bidding. We can make it roll over and fetch. We can make it stand on its hind legs and dance a jig. If we just want to proof-text our own opinion, we can do that with a concordance and a bit of cleverness in ten minutes. It’s a game of proof-texting. And there is little you can’t “prove” with the Bible if that’s the game you want to play. Wars of conquest, capital punishment, the institution of slavery, women held as property, and genocidal ethnic cleansing can all be (and have been) justified by the Bible. But Jesus doesn’t endorse any of those things! If Christians aren’t going to read the Bible in the light of Christ, they would be better off not reading it at all.[/quote]

Augustine, champion of eternal suffering, decried Greek influence that Clement, Origen, and others embraced.

It seems you are trying to redirect the conversation toward your own definition of "omnipresence." The wounding which results in our perception of separation is not some limitation on God's presence, it is a wound to our perception and the way in which that wound impacts our psychology. For we were enemies in our minds as Colossians says.

God was still present with Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel right through. The separation came in our minds. That is the lie of the serpent. And the Church today unknowingly emphasizes the lie, and use the bandwagon of "holiness" or "God's justice" for the reason of separation. It's antichrist.

Excellent thoughts! Simple excellent. Thanks for writing. I would love to trace through this together with you. It will motivate me to do more research on questions like this, and help both of us (hopefully) to frame our thoughts. I've done an awful lot of research on hell through the years, since it's such a problem subject for many people, but I've never studied or discussed this particular angle, so if you're game to work it through, so am I.

I'll start off by saying that we have to get our theology from the Bible, not from Church history, Church tradition, theologians, or (pagan) philosophers. Church history is useful, but not decisive or authoritative, in the delineation of doctrine. If the church has arrived at its doctrine of sin, hell, and punishment from Augustine (as smart as he was) and Dante (very influential in the Western doctrinal mindset), that needs to be set aside in deference to biblical teaching. My brother and nephew have done some out-of-the-box thinking about such things. It's really hard to set aside what we've always been taught to consider what the Bible really says (whether the same as what we were taught or different).

Let's at least start the conversation and consider where it takes us.

First, in terms of generalities, God's presence is a major theme in the Bible. The loss of Eden in Gn. 3 is not the loss of the garden, but the loss of access to God's presence. As my brother says in his book [u]The Old Testament Today[/u], "What sin did to us is not as important as what sin did to God. It desecrated his presence." Throughout the entire rest of the Bible, the object is not to regain Eden but to regain access to God's presence. John Davis comments that "the expulsion was not merely geographical; it was spiritual. Fellowship between man and God was broken." So we at least have this overarching biblical framework of fellowship between man and God, the breach of relationship, and the loss of access to God's presence. It would make some sense, therefore, that hell somehow pertains to these realities.

Second, we know that God's presence is both absolute and variable. Obviously, we believe in the omnipresence of God (Ps. 139.8), but we also know that God's presence can be changed. When, in the Garden, they lost access to God's presence, that doesn't mean God was no longer omnipresent, but somehow God's presence was changed in its intensity (I hardly know what word to use). We know that when Solomon built the Temple, God's presence descended on it. So somehow his omnipresence can be more or less intense, or his presence can be stronger or weaker, greater or lesser. If we're trying to be biblical, how can we describe this? This is where I'd love to talk to you about this. Obviously God was present on the earth in Jesus in a different way than God is ever present on the earth, and he's present in Christians (through the Holy Spirit) in a different way than he's generally present on the earth. I think all of these things, if we can sort them out, pertain to our understanding of hell.

Maybe before we talk about your specific verses, Augustinian doctrine, nuances of separation, what happened when they ate the fruit in Gn. 3, and God's justice, we need to figure out with more precision about what omnipresence is. But I love the way you're thinking, and we can get to these other matters eventually. (It might be too bulky to tackle it all at one time anyway.) I could sort of write a veritable wall of text in response to all your excellent thoughts, but we're going to get lost in the quantity if we address too much at once. Let's bite off a chunk at a time so the conversation is more manageable.

Obviously some questions we'll eventually be addressing are...

1. What God's omnipresence is and how it "works"
2. Is separation a biblical concept?
3. Holiness
4. "All in all"; God reconciling all things to himself
5. God's concept of justice
6. what hell is
7. the nature of atonement

Are you game?

Hello, I was led here by a few friends because I have been struggling and researching the concept of eternity in Hell and this idea of separation...

First off, I believe what we learn about God regarding sin, hell and punishment in the American Church is a Western/Greek dualistic mindset that came from the pagans and was highly emphasized by Augustine and Dante's Inferno. Dualism is defined as "separation between the material world and the spiritual world or separation between God and man." It's a Greek/Pagan mindset that is obsessed with separation good and evil, in other words; the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Isaiah 59:2
[i]"But your iniquities have separated you from your God."[/i]

Colossians 1:21
[i]"And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now he has reconciled you."[/i]

Isn't it interesting that these verses are talking about us being separated by God only in our minds because of sin!? It doesn't say sin separates God from you? Big difference. Sin caused us to pull away from God, just like in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. They are where always in union with God and when the Fall happened, they didn't see God as being holy in the sense where he is easily offended and easily pissed off by the slightest mistake. That concept didn't exist in their minds until they ate from the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is where it all started. Once they ate from that tree, the lie of separation entered in their hearts and minds. Adam and Eve saw themselves as unholy, unworthy and separated which drove them away from God. Not God driving Himself away from them. Yet, God was still in union with them. Humanity entered an identity crisis. Our rejection of God never stopped Him from including us. Hell is the insanity of trying to escape your inseparable union with the love of God. Jesus didn't die to reconcile God back to you, as if He had to get on God's good side, He died to reconcile us (in our fallen minds) back to God. The death of the incarnation was a demonstration of mankind's inseparable union with the Father.

All of creation came into being through Christ who is "all in all." Nothing exists outside him. In Acts 17, Paul even tells unbelieving heathen on Mars Hill that they live and move and have their being in Christ! But our Western notions of separation from God are rooted in the Greek philosophy of dualism - the ancient pagan idea that the natural and spiritual world are separate from one another.

Even Hell is not separation from God... King David said...

Psalm 139:8
[i]"If I ascend up into heaven, there you are: if I make my bed in hell, there you are."[/i]

Even this whole concept of "God's justice" is a twisted, 21st century, attorney in the sky, western mindset. The legal system is a human construct. It is not divine. We think sin is a crime that needs to be punishment, rather than a disease that needs to be cured. If you have a child dying of cancer, who are you going to punish, the child or the cancer? Thinking sin is a crime that needs to be punished, you are only going to see people the way you think God sees people. A God who loves people, but there is also His bipolar side that must throw sinners in hell because they offended His ego...

If any parent thinks it is ok for God to allow their child to be tormented in order to justify his twisted sense of justice, they are no better than the parents who threw their children onto the burning alters of Molech and Baal. Attempting to party with food and wine, while your Host keeps your loved ones alive to be tormented in excruciating fashion, there is nothing holy and good about that, as much as we want to put lipstick on that swine...

To say there is a separation is to emphasize the lie from Eden which is the entire reason why our Savior died in the first place, to save us from the destructive power and corruptive disease of sin and death, from the accusatory damnation of satanic principalities and powers, from our self destroying inclinations and from the insanity of believing that God was ever my enemy and that somehow I had to appease Him in order to pacify His anger and displeasure.