An Unbiased Poll Concerning Hell

[guibox]

One doesn't need to be a universalist to appreciate Shana's comments (and I commend her for the delicate way she is stating her views while keeping universalism out of it).

I don't agree with her ultimate views, but her points about an eternal hell are valid ones and ones which too many traditionalists skirt around, ignore or gloss over with pat answers. All because they believe that if the Bible teaches it, who are we to question it? Thus ignoring the contradictions, moral fallacies and judicial errors that arise. The problem is, is that most read more into the Bible on this subject than what it says.

I think a systematic approach to this subject must be undertaken to expose and clarify some of the prevailing beliefs about hell out there right now. I think two questions need to be addressed and can be agreed upon whether you are a universalist, or a traditionalist.:

1) What was the human race saved from?

2) Is there a fire-y punishment awaiting the wicked at death?



1) As Shana pointed out, the 'wages of sin is death'. Man sinned and his punishment was that he was cut off from the life giving power of God. He began to die and the only way to help him was to send a Savior. We see that sin brings corruption and ultimate separation and to reverse this outcome, Christ had to live a perfect life to meet the just requirements of the law so that 'whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life'.

One is hard pressed to try and throw in a fiery hell as a primary method of punishment for sins into this picture, especially at one's physical death.

2) So if the "wages of sin is death" and the wicked hath not believed on His only begotten Son" and have "perished", how can they possibly be 'alive' in a fire-y hell at 'death'? The biggest assumption and error is assuming that the wicked have immortal souls. 'Everlasting life' is theopposite of what the wicked receive. Rather those in sin will 'perish' and suffer its wages which is 'death'. The wicked remain dead for they do not have life.

When do they get their reward?

"Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me to give every man according as his works shall be"

"And to preserve the wicked until the day of judgment to be punished"

"As the tares are separated from the wheat and thrown into the fire, so shall it be at the end of time"

"Marvel not at this for the hour is coming in the which all that are in their graves shall hear His voice and come forth. Some to everlasting life, the rest to everlasting contempt"

"The day of the Lord shall come as a thief in the night and the elements will melt with fervent heat and the works and all that are therein shall be burnt up"

"And the rest of the dead lived not again until the 1000 years were over...and they surrounded the holy city and fire came down out of heaven and consumed them"

We see that the wicked are not in 'hell' right now but await their judgment until the end of time. If in fact (as has already been pointed out) the 'fires are prepared for the devil and his angels', and God has banished them to hell fire BEFORE the angels and the devil even receive it (see Revelation 20), God is guilty of unfairness and gross favoritism towards the wicked and Satan respectively. The Deceiver gets to roam the earth 'seeking whom he may devour' and the deceived get to experience his reward millenia before he does??

We see that there is no biblical support (other than a completely erroneous interpretation of Luke 16) that shows that man is punished for his sins at death by a fiery hell where he is conscious and 'eternal'.

So even if we believe different views on Revelation 14 and 20, we can all agree that the bible does not teach punishment at death.

 

[aiki]

Hey, Shana!

I guess I'm not the only one with time and a computer on his hands today! :-D

You wrote:

Do you believe that God saw this from the beginning of the creation?

Yup.

From what I understand, the apostle Paul taught that the wages of sin is death. And this is what was communicated to Adam.

As I've already pointed out, the wages of sin encompassed rather more than physical death for Adam and Eve. They suffered death of their intimate fellowship with God. No more walking with Him in Eden in the cool of the evening. They suffered the death of their well-being. Sickness and pain became familiar to them. Their peace and ease in Eden died with Adam's choice to eat the forbidden fruit. An angel was set to prevent them ever entering Eden again. Death, then, as it is used in scripture, has as much, or more, to do with the loss of well-being than the loss of being itself.

The apostle John describes God as agape love in 1 John 4. God is holy, righteous, just, merciful, has all power, along with may other things.

Well, let's see...On the one hand scripture tells us God is "holy, holy, holy". Any number of commentaries will tell you that this thrice-repeated declaration is intended to impart greater emphasis and import to that which is repeated; that this is a literary device common to Jewish and biblical writings. No other attribute of God is given this kind of emphasis in all of scripture. Why is that? Because no other attribute is more preeminent in God.

On the other hand, the scripture you mention doesn't actually say anything about love being the preeminent quality of God. 1 John 4 tells us that God is love and, if we know Him, we, too, will love also. But that is all it says. By your own admission, Shana, scripture says as much about forgiveness, mercy, patience, meekness, etc. -- although never in emphatic triplicate. :o

I believe that when the apostle Paul speaks of love being the greatest gift of the Spirit, that this is an indication of the greatest aspect of God.

If you're speaking of the end of 1 Corinthians 13, what Paul says is that of faith, hope, and love, love is the greatest. This is a very small basis of comparison -- three things in all. Paul does not say that, of all things love is the greatest. Have you ever looked up the words "holy" or "holiness" in an exhaustive concordance? Doing so might make my case for me. :

I also understand what God's will for all men as described in 1 Timothy 2.

God's perfect will is that all men be saved. However, we see from scripture, and from life, that this is not how it works out.

And I am not denying God's holy judgment. I don't believe that the judgment is eternal hell.

Yes, I suppose you would with the view of God and scripture that you have.

If the threat of God's judgments never had an effect on His chosen people, why did He warn them time and time again. Why does He speak of those times when they would return to Him?

Actually, I never said God's judgments never had an effect on the Israelites. I said the sin-nature of the Israelites produced a regular wandering from God, and that neither His goodness nor judgment prevented it.

I don't believe that the Bible would be horrible if God who will have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, revealed this to all men, or gave all men the opportunity to have access to this truth, if eternal hell is the truth.

That is precisely what they have in the Bible. If the whole Bible, though, was nothing but a warning about Hell we'd have a very skewed idea about God and His purposes concerning us. As I said, even one warning about a lake of fire and eternal punishment in it is, in my opinion, sufficient warning. I don't come to a stop sign and, seeing only one sign telling me to stop, ignore it because it stands alone. HOw much more so those "stop signs" God has given us in His Word. If He only said a thing once, coming from Him it would be quite enough.

Well, I disagree that God is only the potential Savior. He is described as the Savior and my understanding of the narrow road and gate differ from yours.

I didn't mean that Jesus was only a potential Saviour, but that all men being saved was only a potential possibility. Is this splitting hairs? Probably. I already know what the passages speaking of the broad and narrow way mean, so I'll skip your postings on it. Thanks anyway! :-D

Jesus has taught us who the Father is and we realize from the teachings of Jesus , that God loves all men, enemies included.

No, as the scripture I gave you reveals, God hates certain wicked folk. He has even designed some of them purposely for destruction. You'll either have to ignore these verses or adjust your thinking, Shana.

It's good hashing this out with you!

God bless you as well! :angel:

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Michael Burke]

aiki wrote

You know, the Bible clearly states that God does as He pleases with what He has made -- even including destroying it: "As it is written, 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.' What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion....Therefore has He mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardens (ie. Pharaoh)...Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?" Romans 9:18-21 The passage goes on to speak more of vessels made unto honor and vessels fitted to destruction.

You neglect to notice Romans 11:30-32, which says a lot about these vessels fitted to destruction. The original Greek reads "for as ye also once did not believe in God, and now did find kindness by the unbelief of these: so also these now did not believe, that in your kindness they also may find kindness; for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness." (Young's Literal Translation.) Please notice that from the context of the preceding verses, it can only be the olive branches who were cut off--these hardened and blinded "vessels fitted to destruction"--who are spoken of as finding kindness in verse 31.
Aiki also wrote

Sorry to nitpick, but we all fall under the heading of "wicked" before we are saved.Quote:

I think Shanna already pointed that out to you, didn't she?

 

[Judy]

Great responses aiki. :

 

[Michael Burke]

Great responses aiki. :

Please notice that from the context of the preceding verses, it can only be the olive branches who were cut off--these hardened and blinded "vessels fitted to destruction"--who are spoken of as finding kindness in verse 31.
Romans 11:30-32
"for as ye also once did not believe in God, and now did find kindness by the unbelief of these: so also these now did not believe, that in your kindness they also may find kindness; for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness." (Young's Literal Translation.)

 

[Scott]

Yes, I know what I believe. I think from reading the passages I posted you know as well what I believe. But its part of the "I don't see it that way so I don't understand the verses" game. The verses say what they say, and I'll leave it at that. I'll even throw in the Book of Jude with the rest of the passages I posted.

Anyway, for those who do believe in an eternal hell, do you believe that people will continue to remain enemies of God for all of eternity, meaning that the rule and power of sin and death will not have been abolished or rendered powerless?

: : ..... I'm sorry Shana, I've answered this question for you too many times today.

 

[Michael Burke]

Dkc wrote

I'll even throw in the Book of Jude with the rest of the passages I posted.

If the city of Sodom is to be restored, as it says in Ezekiel 16, the "aionion" fire Jude spoke of cannot be eternal, everlasting, or endless. It follows that the scriptural use of the word "aionian" does not signify endless duration. When this fact is taken into consideration, I fail to see how any of the passages you cite prove your case. I do thank you for reminding me of Jude though.

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal (Greek: aionian) fire.
(Jude 7, N.I.V.)
I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, 54 so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort. 55 And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before.
(Ezekiel 16:53-55, N.I.V.)

 

[Shana]

Again, I am not sure if you believe that people will be living in hell for all of eternity or not, DkC,If I knew what you believed, believe me, I would not ask you to clarify! Believe me, I am not playing any kind of game here. As you can see Christians disagree on what is being communicated in these passages for many reasons and Christians have disagreed on what passages like this say, since the early days of the church. But you don't have to clarify what you are saying. It's your choice.So I am interested in hearing from others ,who do believe that people will be living in hell for all of eternity , if they care to respond. Thank you for sharing. The question is:

Do you believe that people will continue to remain enemies of God for all of eternity, meaning that the rule and power of sin and death will not have been abolished or rendered powerless?Thanks for any feedback and God bless

guibox, thank you for your encouraging comment. It is difficult though to keep the subject out when subjects tend to overlap . Mike, I agree with your statements.

Aiki, just a response to what you posted about the wicked. God evidently hated us according to your position, when we were lost in sin. Evidently, His love overruled whatever hatred He may have had in that Jesus was the lamb slain for us for us before and when we were yet sinners. Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation or disruption of the world. Justice demands death for our sin. We were all in opposition to God's holiness being His enemies, yet God's love for us provided us with a Savior when He knew that we would become sinners , His enemies, or wicked. This tells me much about the love of God. God is love according to 1 John 4. God bless.

 

[Shana]

You neglect to notice Romans 11:30-32, which says a lot about these vessels fitted to destruction. The original Greek reads "for as ye also once did not believe in God, and now did find kindness by the unbelief of these: so also these now did not believe, that in your kindness they also may find kindness; for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness." (Young's Literal Translation.) Please notice that from the context of the preceding verses, it can only be the olive branches who were cut off--these hardened and blinded "vessels fitted to destruction"--who are spoken of as finding kindness in verse 31.

Thanks for sharing, Mike. God bless.

 

[smaller]

Just as there are Three Babylon's written of in the scriptures...

...there are also Three Major Destructions.

The first major destruction was the flood.

The second major destruction was S & G.

These first two destructions are physical pointers to the coming destruction on the Day of Wrath for the devil and his messengers.

The Last Destruction will be permanent and fatal and eternal and Mystery Babylon will surely fall and her collapse will be great and utter.

 

[Scott]

If the city of Sodom is to be restored, as it says in Ezekiel 16, the "aionion" fire Jude spoke of cannot be eternal, everlasting, or endless.

Incorrect, it doesn't say the city of Sodom itself was to be restored. To this day it still has not been (the city itself). It does say Sodom and its daughters (which now make up Jordan) are captivated by inhabitants. You need to understand what is being said in Ezekiel 16. These were all lands at one time given to Israel (lands that she possessed). Samaria, Sodom, Edom, Ammon were all under David's rule. Thats why they are referenced as sisters, daughters, mothers and fathers. See Ezekiel 16:44-46. Like the passage says, these lands eventually became enemies with Jerusalem (Israel).

In verse 52 we see why God restored these enemies, because the sins of Jerusalem were more vile than all these others. The end of verse 57 ("-all those around you who despise you") brings us to modern day Israel. Verse 63 tells us that God will honor His covenant with Israel, and by doing so they will shut their mouths in embarrassment when they recongize their wicked ways. This is prophecy yet to come.

The problem here is that you are assuming Jude is talking about the land site of Sodom. He is not. He is talking about the inhabitants in that city. For what do we know about them?! Read Genesis 18:32. We know from Genesis 19 that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed and by doing so that tells us there weren't even 10 righteous people there. Land doesn't sin, men do and are judged for it. The inhabitants of Sodom will be part of those in Revelation 20:12.

Now, if you need more proof read Isaiah 1. Verse 10 draws the comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah. Gods Holy Judgement awaits as you read down to Isaiah 28-31.

Isaiah 1:28-31
"But rebels and sinners will both be broken, and those who
forsake the LORD will perish.

You will be ashamed because of the sacred oaks in which
you have delighted; you will be disgraced because of the
gardens that you have chosen.

You will be like an oak with fading leaves, like a garden
without water.

The mighty man will become tinder and his work a spark;
both will burn together, with no-one to quench the fire.â€Â

I fail to see how any of the passages you cite prove your case.

Sorry, but that does nothing to disprove what God's Word says.

Context....Context....Context.
To understand God's Word you need to read things in context with the passages in which you find them. You can't pull individual verses out and expect to understand things.

 

[Michael Burke]

Dkc wrote

It does say Sodom and its daughters (which now make up Jordan) are captivated by inhabitants

I have found no translation that says this. But it does say "When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them" (Ezek. 16:53.)

In verse 52 we see why God restored these enemies, because the sins of Jerusalem were more vile than all these others.

It seems more likely that verse 52 is speaking of the same time (yet future) that is spoken of in verse 61, and the restored cities of the plain are not depicted as Israel's enemies in that verse:
"Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant."

...Sodom and its daughters (which now make up Jordan)

It seems to me that you're the one straining the context here, apearently to make it fit an amillennial view. My interpretation requires no such straining. As to Sodom and her daughters being the modern inhabitants of Jordan, you overlook the fact that Sodom's daughters--the other cities of the plain--were completely destroyed (with the exception of Zoar.) With Lot and his daughters being the only survivers of Sodom itself, the "captives" (especially of these other cities) could only be held in death, as they are to this day. Jesus also spoke of these "captives" when He said that it would be more tolerable for them in the day of Judgement, then it would for the Scribes and Pharisees of His own generation.

Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. (Genesis 19:24-25.)
Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the people of Ammon to this day. (Gen. 19:36-38.)

I'm curious as to whether you've ever read Augustine's "City of God"? It was largely due to the influence of this book (and it's Author) that UR (and pre-millennialism) became minority views, and this is where the argument concerning the sheep and the goats came from. Even though he admitted that there were many who did not see "aionian" punishment as everlasting in his day, Augustine contended that we would then have no promise of eternal life. In my opinion, that argument is logically flawed for two reasons. First, the affirmation of a shorter period of blessedness does not deny a longer period. Second, there are other passages of scripture that promise eternal life. The very concept of death being abolished--swallowed up by life--of God making all things new, drying all tears, and death being no more (affirmed by all universalists) speaks of endless life. Augustine's claim that Christians need the doctrine of eternal torment to be assured of their own immortality seems mistaken, but that claim is still made today.

 

[Shana]

Is the message of an eternal hell a description of God's own defeat? Are the scriptures a description of sin and evil's everlasting effect and stain on the creation of God? Will the power of sin and deceit proved too strong in that the masses will forever remain separated from the Creator and lost in a place of eternal suffering/torment, forever remaining enemies of God and being sinners? Will sin, evil, and death claim this victory in the creation of God? Have the masses been specifically created so that they may exist in an place/state of eternal torment in that God in His omniscience knew what would result when He created? God bless.

 

[Michael Burke]

Is the message of an eternal hell a description of God's own defeat? Are the scriptures a description of sin and evil's everlasting effect and stain on the creation of God? Will the power of sin and deceit proved too strong in that the masses will forever remain separated from the Creator and lost in a place of eternal suffering/torment, forever remaining enemies of God and being sinners? Will sin, evil, and death claim this victory in the creation of God? Have the masses been specifically created so that they may exist in an place/state of eternal torment in that God in His omniscience knew what would result when He created? God bless.

As I believe Paul would say, God forbid.

 

[Scott]

I have found no translation that says this.

It in fact does say that. You confirmed it by the very verse you posted in the KJV. I noticed you quoted NIV the first time and now the KJV and it appears you still really don't understand what it is saying. Read Ezekiel 16 in its entirety. This is a deep passage that you are not going to be able to skim over and expect to understand what it is saying. I already explained what is being said when the passage references sisters, daughters, mothers and fathers. See Ezekiel 16:44-46. Like the passage says, these lands eventually became enemies with Jerusalem (Israel).

It seems more likely that verse 52 is speaking of the same time (yet future) that is spoken of in verse 61, and the restored cities of the plain are not depicted as Israel's enemies in that verse:
"Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant."

Notice the verse says Israel will receive its sisters (God is in fact giving those lands back to Israel). But notice verse 61 also says not as sisters, but as daughters (to be part of their own land). God will deliver Israel's enemies unto them in Ezekiel 39:1-8 (see verse 4 specifically).

It seems to me that you're the one straining the context here, apearently to make it fit an amillennial view. My interpretation requires no such straining. As to Sodom and her daughters being the modern inhabitants of Jordan, you overlook the fact that Sodom's daughters--the other cities of the plain--were completely destroyed (with the exception of Zoar.)

The millenium hasn't happened yet, neither has the 7 years of tribulation. God will fufill His covenant with Israel in the Battle of Armageddon and then Christ will reign for 1000 years on earth.

I did notice that you made no mention of your current views in your previous post only saying that "the city of Sodom is to be restored" (which you have now seemed to back away from). I'm getting the impression that you are starting to understand to some extent what I was saying about Ezekiel 16 now.


I noticed you didn't comment on the other part of my last post....

The problem here is that you are assuming Jude is talking about the land site of Sodom. He is not. He is talking about the inhabitants in that city. For what do we know about them?! Read Genesis 18:32. We know from Genesis 19 that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed and by doing so that tells us there weren't even 10 righteous people there. Land doesn't sin and it isn't judged. Men sin and are judged. The inhabitants of Sodom will be part of those in Revelation 20:12.

If you need yet more proof, read Isaiah 1. Verse 10 draws the comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah. Gods Holy Judgement awaits as you read down to Isaiah 28-31.

Isaiah 1:28-31
"But rebels and sinners will both be broken, and those who
forsake the LORD will perish.

You will be ashamed because of the sacred oaks in which
you have delighted; you will be disgraced because of the
gardens that you have chosen.

You will be like an oak with fading leaves, like a garden
without water.

The mighty man will become tinder and his work a spark;
both will burn together, with no-one to quench the fire.â€Â

I'm curious as to whether you've ever read Augustine's "City of God"?

No I've never read it Mike. I don't recall ever hearing of it before. I really don't do much reading of supplemental books. I'm a meat and potatoes kind of guy. I really do just enjoy sitting down and just studying the Word without being influenced by additional readings. Any way, I hope this helped.

 

[Michael Burke]

Dsk wrote

It in fact does say that. You confirmed it by the very verse you posted in the KJV.

It does not say "captivated by inhabitants" in either the N.I.V., or the K.J.V. What God said in the passage I quoted (from the K.J.V.) was "When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them." You seem to be not only taking something out of context here, but changing the words to suit your interpertation. The inhabitants of Sodom and her daughters are not "captivating" anyone, they are held captive in death.

 

[aiki]

Hey, Mike!

You wrote:

You neglect to notice Romans 11:30-32, which says a lot about these vessels fitted to destruction. The original Greek reads "for as ye also once did not believe in God, and now did find kindness by the unbelief of these: so also these now did not believe, that in your kindness they also may find kindness; for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness." (Young's Literal Translation.) Please notice that from the context of the preceding verses, it can only be the olive branches who were cut off--these hardened and blinded "vessels fitted to destruction"--who are spoken of as finding kindness in verse 31.

A couple of things that occured me as I thought on what you wrote:

In verse 14 of chapter 11 Paul writes, "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh (the Jews), and might save some of them." (italics mine) Paul doesn't say, "All of them", only "some of them". Also, in verse 5 of the same chapter Paul writes of, "...a remnant according to the election of grace". A remnant is only a part of something -- in this case the nation of Israel. Connected to all this is the thought that a vessel which is fitted to destruction, but which is not destroyed, is not actually, then, a vessel fitted to destruction. In other words, Jews grafted into the vine of Christ were never vessels fitted to destruction, but are the "some who are saved" or the "remnant" of which Paul writes in verses 5 and 14 of chapter 11. Pharaoh is given as an example in Romans 9 of what is meant by a "vessel fitted to destruction". He met with destruction both temporally (in the Red Sea) and eternally (in Hell). There was no redemption for him. Besides all this, Paul writes in chapter 11 very plainly about what has happened to some of the unbelieving Jews past and present. They were "cast away" and "broken off". Also, when Paul uses the word "all" in speaking of the Jews in the end of chapter 11, he is meaning National Israel. As one commentary puts it: "Not necessarily every individual, but enough individuals to make the believers in Christ representative of the nation (Israel)." (Wycliffe Bible Commentary)

God bless!

P.S. - Thanks, Judy for the encouragement!

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Scott]

Shana, your beliefs on Heaven and Hell seem to be based more in your rationale than on God's Word. What you or I think is fair or just is of little consequence. God is Holy and Righteous and will do exactly what He said He will do in Revelation 20:11-15. Gods Judgement will be Final, Just, and Eternal no matter how its carried out. The main problem with UR is that it lacks Biblical support.

 

[Scott]

You seem to be not only taking something out of context here, but changing the words to suit your interpertation. The inhabitants of Sodom and her daughters are not "captivating" anyone, they are held captive in death.

I'm not the one who used the NIV to say one thing and the KJV to say another.

Michael wrote:

The inhabitants of Sodom and her daughters are not "captivating" anyone, they are held captive in death.

Michael wrote:

If the city of Sodom is to be restored, as it says in Ezekiel 16

Your are trying to say 2 different things with the same verse. You are contradicting yourself. Its evident you still don't understand what Ezekiel is saying. If Ezekiel is in fact talking about people when it says daughters, why then does it not say sons and daughters. According to your interpretation of this passage, everyone in Jersusalem has a Hittite mother and a Amorite father..... : (Ezekiel 16:45).

The passage as I said is talking about Israel (Jerusalem) as a whole land, just as it does when it describes it sisters, mother, father, and eventually daughters (as I've already shown you that God will deliver Israel's enemies unto them in Ezekiel 39:1-8 (see verse 4 specifically).

 

[Michael Burke]

Dsk wrote

I'm not the one who used the NIV to say one thing and the KJV to say another.

I wasn't aware that I had to confine myself to one translation, do you?

Your are trying to say 2 different things with the same verse. You are contradicting yourself. Its evident you still don't understand what Ezekiel is saying. If Ezekiel is in fact talking about people when it says daughters, why then does it not say sons and daughters. According to your interpretation of this passage, everyone in Jersusalem has a Hittite mother and a Amorite father..... (Ezekiel 16:45).

The cities are synonymous with the people. It's called a figure of association. Are you suggesting that males are excluded from the bride of Christ? The fact remains that the inhabitants of these cities are not spoken of as "captivating," but of being captive (until God restores them to their former estate--when they are not enemies of Israel, but daughters.) The cities spoken of are clearly "daughter" cities. Sodom itself (in the person of Lot and his daughters--which itself seems somewhat of a stretch since Genesis regards them more as sojourners) and the small town of Zoar were the only cities of the plain to have any survivors. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT! The captivity of Sodom and her daughters can only refer to the captivity of Death (the last enemy of mankind), as virtually all of the inhabitants of these cities perished in God's Judgement, and left no descendents.