what we commonly believe to be hell is not place of torment

Rebuttals to Con's arguments My definitions defended. Con has falsely claimed that his definitions are directly from the bible. This is false for the reason that there is no dictionary in the bible, any words defined in it are solely from a third party. The people who wrote the definitions in the back of Cons bible are not the same people who wrote the bible. If you visit any of my sources, you will see written by the definition is (Christian Religious Writings / Bible) meaning the definitions are backed up by the bible. If Con remains unconvinced that my definitions are reliable, then I will go on and show scriptures that support their definition. Since our first two definitions are virtually the same, I shall only dispute Gehenna and Hell. Gehenna Gehenna is given three characteristics1)It is an unquenchable and eternal fire. Mark 9:43-442)It is a place of torment: Mark 9:45, James 3:6, Revelation 20:103)The wicked souls would be cast into it. Mark 9:45, Revelation 20:15 As you can see, while Gehenna may have been a burial site outside Jerusalem, it must also be a place of eternal punishment. It makes no sense why the above three characteristics of Gehenna/Hell would apply to a physical grave site. Side note: If you look up these scriptures, you will find Hell in place of Gehenna. This is because Gehenna is a Greek word used in the original untranslated version of the Bible. When people started to translate the bible into various languages, Gehenna was replaced with Hell.Gehenna=The Hell of torment=Lake of fire Hell Since Hell is just a word that replaces Gehenna, then it safe to assume that Hell is1)A place of torture with a unquenchable and eternal fire as described above. 2)An abode of the dead where the dead are conscious of nothing. Again, Hell is a word that replaces the Hebrew word, Sheol. This is backed up by all of my opponents original arguments describing a pit filled with the dead that are not conscious. If you want scriptures, then I encourage you to look at his argument in round 1. It is clear now that Hell has two meanings in the bible. Christian translators simply replaced both the Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek word Gehenna with Hell instead of coming up with two separate words. Side note- My opponent thinks I am using another source instead of the bible when I talk about NRSV. To clear up confusion, NRSV= New Revised Standard Version Bible. Hell thrown into Hell? Going back to my earlier defense of my definitions, you can see that Hell has two meanings- Sheol and Gehenna. After all the dead have been judged, Sheol(the first hell) will be thrown into Gehenna(the second hell). As it is, if Con doesn't accept my explanation, then he creates a paradox in Revelation 20:11-15. Since he was unable to provide an alternate explanation, then my explanation that has been shown to be valid still stands. Jesus, no hope of being resurrected? Con claims since the scriptures say there is no hope of resurrection, then Jesus would be in hell eternally and therefore my logic is flawed. 1) I do hope Con isn't claiming God doesn't have the capabilities to resurrect anybody he wants. 2) The scripture is referring to those who have sinned. Jesus went there to redeem mankind of their sinful state so they might have a heavenly hope. Since Jesus was sent down to hell to fulfill a duty for God, then it makes perfect sense that he would be resurrected. Con ignored my alternate explanation, that being that Jesus went to Sheol instead of Gehenna making that argument still a possible explanation. Take your pick, Jesus went to Gehenna to redeem man of their sin or he went to Sheol, either one works with the present argument. Are the dead really conscious of nothing? This is absurd because I have given many scriptures showing that they would be tormented day and night in an eternal fire meaning they must be conscious somehow. I have shown numerous times how the dead being conscious of nothing only applies to the Sheol version of hell, not Gehenna. Again, the dead are conscious of nothing only temporarily until the day of second judgment, when they will be either sent to heaven or hell(Gehenna). If my opponent still remains unconvinced, then he should look up Matthew 13:42 “They will throw them into the blazing furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”- Matthew 13:42 Let me reverse the question on Con, How does the dead weep and gnash their teeth along with being tormented but be conscious of nothing at all? The only explanation that makes sense is that hell has two meanings. One of temporary death with no consciousness and one with eternal punishment with consciousness. Recap Con claims that my definitions are unreliable and not from the bible. But all my definitions came straight from translations of the bible and are supported by actual scriptures, something Con was unable to do.Con never made a good defense as to why Hell and the Lake of fire are not the same thing. He never made the distinction between the two types of hell and just insisted that I am wrong. Con creates many paradoxes in the bible by refusing to accept my explanation for Hell. When the bible says on one hand the dead are consciousness of nothing and then on the other hand says they will suffer for all eternity, it creates a confusion as to what to believe. I gave my explanation to this paradox, but Con denied it without offering an alternate explanation. Most damaging to Con's case though is his outright refusal to acknowledge my scriptures that show Hell to be a place of torment. Never once did he explain or even talk about these scriptures which were my proof that hell is a place of eternal punishment. Conclusion Hell is a place of eternal punishment. Maybe if the title had been, “Hell is an abode of the dead”, then Con might have had a strong case. As it is, his title was “What most Christians think of hell is not a place of torment”. I have shown this sentence to be false on numerous occasions and therefore have completed my side of the argument.