Annihilation or Hell?

[stovebolts]

http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view. ... hapter=020

Verse 10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And the devil ... was cast into the lake of fire ...
This is the hell of which Jesus so often spoke, and concerning which he revealed it is prepared, not for man, but for Satan and his angels (Matthew 25:41). Alas, men also shall suffer therein, but God never intended that it should be so. Christ spread wide his bleeding hands upon the Cross in order to prevent any man from ever suffering the punishment of the damned; but people who choose to ignore this must assume the full responsibility for the consequence of their failure.

Revelation has already clearly recounted how the beast and the false prophet were destroyed in the same lake of fire, but we are not at liberty to suppose these are three separate events. "The fact that John saw the beast destroyed before he saw Satan bound has nothing to do with the order in which these things actually happen." F48 It is clear enough that the final judgment is the occasion when all of these things will occur. Read Matthew 25:31-46, which is the best possible commentary on what the apostle wrote here.

Shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever ...
Here is the doctrine of endless punishment, a teaching visible throughout the New Testament. "Whether the fire is construed literally or figuratively is immaterial: the lesson taught is intense and endless punishment; and no more impressive emblem could have been used." F49 This clause positively identifies this scene as the final judgment, an event already depicted six times previously in this prophecy. See chapter introduction for a list of these.

Beginning back at Rev. 12:1, we witnessed in the vision the appearance of the dragon (Satan), the sea-beast (perverted government), and the land-beast (perverted religion); and then there came successive judgments in which these three were destroyed in reverse order, thus bringing to an end the period of the Christian age. All evil will ultimately fall before the will of God.

All that remains now is, "to show forth the surpassing glory of the saints in their eternal home, and thus to bring the book to a conclusion. This, therefore, is the theme of the remaining two chapters." F50

49: John T. Hinds, op. cit., p. 293.
50: A. Plummer, op. cit., p. 474.

 

[Drew]

Annihilation is nothing more than preconceived notions read into the text that the Bible doesn't support but blatantly contradicts.

Any suggestion from them as to how long "day and night, forever and ever" actually is?

Consider the following from Isaiah 34:

Edom's streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!

It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever.

Since smoke is not presently rising from Edom, we may conclude that "forever does not always mean forever". So in answer to Gary's question: I do not know how long "forever and ever" is, but there is powerful Biblical evidence that forever does not necessarily mean forever.

Isaiah 34 seems full of metaphor / exaggeration in respect to the fate of Edom. Consider Isaiah 34:3:

Their slain will be thrown out,
their dead bodies will send up a stench;
the mountains will be soaked with their blood.

This seems like clear metaphor.

When Isaiah 34 is read as a chapter, the use of poetic exaggeration seems clear. It seems a little forced to acknowledge the non-literality of phrases like "The mountains will be soaked with blood" and yet insist that "forever" really means forever (even if we did not have direct evidence that Edom does not smoulder today). I also think that the context of Revelation 20 clearly establishes the use of metaphor - Satan is described as a serpent, talk of people with marks on their foreheads, etc.

The overall point being this: The supporter of the "eternal torment" cannot simply lay claim to the "forever means forever" argument and think the matter has been resolved. They need to show why "poetic" usage of this term is always to be ruled out, especially when the surrounding text is chock full of obvious metaphor, as is the case for both Rev 20 and Isaiah 34.

 

[guibox]

The overall point being this: The supporter of the "eternal torment" cannot simply lay claim to the "forever means forever" argument and think the matter has been resolved. They need to show why "poetic" usage of this term is always to be ruled out, especially when the surrounding text is chock full of obvious metaphor, as is the case for both Rev 20 and Isaiah 34.

Yes. And it is also important to notice that Revelation 20 wasn't written and then scholars just suddenly discovered that it sure sounded like Isaiah 34. John borrowed the same language of destruction and annihilation directly from the OT to use in another metaphorical situation.

Traditionalists would have us believe that in the exact situation with the exact same language used, one is to be taken metaphorically and temporally (Isaiah 34:10) and the other is to be taken literally and mean forever in duration (Revelation 14 and 20). :roll:

Why don't any traditionalists see a serious error in hermeneutics here? Is orthodoxy in this matter that important to turn a blind eye to error, no matter the evidence against it?

Why is it so hard to let go of the belief that God will maintain an everlasting Auschwitz simply for the sake of punishment, when the evidence for the contrary is so glaring and obvious?

 

[mutzrein]

Does anyone believe that those who have not been given eternal life, perish - but those who have been, are judged - the righteous to eternal reward and the unrighteous to eternal torment?

Regards

 

[Gary]

Annihilation is nothing more than preconceived notions read into the text that the Bible doesn't support but blatantly contradicts.

Any suggestion from them as to how long "day and night, forever and ever" actually is?

Consider the following from Isaiah 34:

Edom's streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!

It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever.

Since smoke is not presently rising from Edom, we may conclude that "forever does not always mean forever". So in answer to Gary's question: I do not know how long "forever and ever" is, but there is powerful Biblical evidence that forever does not necessarily mean forever.

Bad example. Have Edom's streams turned to pitch? No.
Has Edom's dust turned into burning sulfur? No.
Has Edom's land become blazing pitch? No.
Therefore this is unfulfilled prophecy.

So your extrapolation of "forever" only lasting a certain period time is meaningless.

 

[Drew]

Annihilation is nothing more than preconceived notions read into the text that the Bible doesn't support but blatantly contradicts.

Any suggestion from them as to how long "day and night, forever and ever" actually is?

Consider the following from Isaiah 34:

Edom's streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!

It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever.

Since smoke is not presently rising from Edom, we may conclude that "forever does not always mean forever". So in answer to Gary's question: I do not know how long "forever and ever" is, but there is powerful Biblical evidence that forever does not necessarily mean forever.

Bad example. Have Edom's streams turned to pitch? No.
Has Edom's dust turned into burning sulfur? No.
Has Edom's land become blazing pitch? No.
Therefore this is unfulfilled prophecy.

So your extrapolation of "forever" only lasting a certain period time is meaningless.

This counterargument does not work, unless one is prepared to argue that Edom has not yet been destroyed. Although I am no historian, I did a little internet cruising and the information I disovered suggests that Edom was indeed attacked and effectively destroyed as a nation.

Assuming that we agree that Edom was destroyed, the argument above does no damage to what I have claimed. In fact, I believe it adds credence to it. As I have said all along, there is a lot of poetic exaggeration in this material. So one could very reasonably assert that the material in Isaiah 34 does not require that the following literally occur in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled:

Edom's streams turned to pitch.
Edom's dust turned into burning sulfur
Edom's land become blazing pitch

I propose that the prophet never intended to predict the literal occurrence of the above conditions - these are metaphors for good old fashioned destruction. So if history tells us that Edom was indeed destroyed (about 500 B.C., I believe) and if Edom's streams have not turned to pitch, etc., this actually seems to support the notion that the term "forever" in the Isaiah package does not demand a literal reading - precisely because a precedent has been set for the use of metaphor.

If the historical information I have read is accurate, Edom has indeed been destroyed as a nation and the prophecy has in fact been fulfilled, and smoke is not presently rising from Edom.

 

[TanNinety]

I am glad it is translated that one should be a cheerful giver instead of a gay giver ..taking how we dont take the culture and the usage of language into consideration the mainstream fundamentalism would have us be homosexuals before we put some money in the offering bucket.

Not sure how one can continue to exist without God :roll:. No matter what the lake of fire is, isn't it separation from God? Then how can anything separated from God continue to exist all the while being consumed away from the unquenchable fire?

 

[TanNinety]

A sentence can be sliced, diced and analysised word for word but the weight of the message therein is NOT the sum total of it's parts. Passion doesn't work by defining, redifining and analysing the smaller pieces into an acedemic soup of little substance but by the way the whole is said through the power of God and the majesty of His language. The Word is not a collection of pieces or meanings as in the text of a sciencific paper or thesis but the passionate plea of God reaching out to man's wayward heart and soul because He knows there is a greater consequence than going back to where one once was, back to oblivion.

Can I borrow this quote so I can use it on a trinitarian who slices and dices and analyzes the doctrine of three in one god? Or is it just the annihilationists that are guilty of slicing and dicing and analysing the Word?

 

[Simple Mind]

If the smoke is not rising from Edom forever, then either one of two things can be metaphorical - "smoke" or "forever". Why not consider that "rising smoke" is metaphorical for destruction and "forever" is literal? The physical evidence seems to support that interpretation of the text, as would the then cultural significance of "rising smoke". "Forever means forever" certainly would still work with this passage.

Blessings,
Lou

 

[Drew]

If the smoke is not rising from Edom forever, then either one of two things can be metaphorical - "smoke" or "forever". Why not consider that "rising smoke" is metaphorical for destruction and "forever" is literal? The physical evidence seems to support that interpretation of the text, as would the then cultural significance of "rising smoke". "Forever means forever" certainly would still work with this passage.

Blessings,
Lou

Hello Simple Mind (and my use of your handle shoud not be taken as a belief on my part that you have a "simple" mind : )

I am not 100 % sure that I understand what you are saying here. Why is it an "either / or" choice? It seems that you are ruling out the possibility that both terms are metaphorical. Why can't they both be metaphorical?

I certainly have no problem believing that "rising smoke" means destruction. If, as you suggest, we take "forever" to be literally forever, I am not sure where we are - possibly that Edom is destroyed forever? What could this mean?

1. Edom was destroyed and that end state of destruction persists forever
2. Edom's destruction never reaches an end state, it is continually "experiencing" destruction.

Are we not fairly sure that Edom has indeed been destroyed and is not presently undergoing destruction? It seems like option 2 is out. Option 1 might work, but that interpretation would seem to actually support an annihilationist viewpoint, since we (legitimately, I believe) see words like "forever" as sometimes connoting the permanence of some finished act, not an ongoing process.

 

[Simple Mind]

Hello Simple Mind (and my use of your handle shoud not be taken as a belief on my part that you have a "simple" mind : )

I am not 100 % sure that I understand what you are saying here. Why is it an "either / or" choice? It seems that you are ruling out the possibility that both terms are metaphorical. Why can't they both be metaphorical?

I certainly have no problem believing that "rising smoke" means destruction. If, as you suggest, we take "forever" to be literally forever, I am not sure where we are - possibly that Edom is destroyed forever? What could this mean?

1. Edom was destroyed and that end state of destruction persists forever
2. Edom's destruction never reaches an end state, it is continually "experiencing" destruction.

Are we not fairly sure that Edom has indeed been destroyed and is not presently undergoing destruction? It seems like option 2 is out. Option 1 might work, but that interpretation would seem to actually support an annihilationist viewpoint, since we (legitimately, I believe) see words like "forever" as sometimes connoting the permanence of some finished act, not an ongoing process.

Hi Drew,

I do have a simple mind - so no problems even if you think so! :-D

Yes, both could be metaphorical, but given the evidence you state, forever being literal makes more sense. And yes, it's pretty plain that Edom is forever destroyed. But it doesn't support annihilation for two reasons: this verse cannot be used as evidence that forever doesn't mean forever, and this text is talking about the physical destruction of an earthly city when God takes vengeance "to uphold Zion's cause", not the annihilation of the unsaved soul. NT verses which contain unambiguous sayings by Jesus has to be taken as more authoritative than speculative interpretations of verses that don't speak directly on the same subject.

Much blessings,
Lou

P.S. - almost the same issue came up in the thread on OSAS
http://christianforums.net/viewtopic.ph ... &start=390

 

[guibox]

But it doesn't support annihilation for two reasons: this verse cannot be used as evidence that forever doesn't mean forever,

But in the context of its application, it CANNOT mean 'eternal duration'. Hence the term 'forever and ever' can also have a temporal meaning. As a matter of fact, every instance where 'forever and ever' is applied and explained clearly, it means 'as long as life lasts'

Take a look at 1 Samuel 1:22b,28 when Samuel was being dedicated by Hannah to the house of Eli:

I will not go up until the child be weaned and then I will bring him that he may appear before the Lord and there abide forever....Therefore also I have lent him to the Lord; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord.

Now with the obvious parallel with the EXACT same language in Isaiah 34 and Revelation 14, there is given no reason to not treat the language in the same context for both.

and this text is talking about the physical destruction of an earthly city when God takes vengeance "to uphold Zion's cause", not the annihilation of the unsaved soul

But the process and the nature are the same. The language is the same, the metaphor is the same, the nature is the same.

The wicked do not have immortal souls because they still suffer the wages of sin which is NOT eternal life, but 'death'. They can no more burn for eternity than Edom could. So the language of annihilation still applies.

The traditionalist's logic is akin to this: you read somewhere that there is a 'green apple' and elsewhere that there is a 'green banana'. You decide that the word 'green' in describing the apple does in fact denote the color green. The banana, however, is not green but actually translated as a 'blue banana'.

Doesn't make any sense, does it?

 

[Simple Mind]

But it doesn't support annihilation for two reasons: this verse cannot be used as evidence that forever doesn't mean forever,

But in the context of its application, it CANNOT mean 'eternal duration' Hence the term 'forever and ever' can also have a temporal meaning. As a matter of fact, every instance where 'forever and ever' is applied and explained clearly, it means 'as long as life lasts'

Take a look at 1 Samuel 1:22b,28 when Samuel was being dedicated by Hannah to the house of Eli:

I will not go up until the child be weaned and then I will bring him that he may appear before the Lord and there abide forever....Therefore also I have lent him to the Lord; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord.

I'll make a case that forever really means forever in both those places.

Edom was destroyed and it will not be suddenly re-erected when this world ends, so its destroyed state remains into eternity and forever here does mean forever.

It is far more likely 1 Sam 22 really means "forever" as in "eternity". Samuel was brought not to abide with Eli, but with the eternal Lord, so I don't doubt at all that it means abide "forever" as it plainly says. There is no need to invent another meaning here.

v. 28 is plainly making a different but consistent statement. One is talking about abiding forever, another is talking about lent for lifetime. Why do we need to force the two different sentences to mean the exact same thing?

You were trying to make the case that the "forever" in Isaiah 34 doesn't mean forever because it should be the same as 1 Sam 22. I've shown that the two are indeed the same but they do both mean forever.

Now with the obvious parallel with the EXACT same language in Isaiah 34 and Revelation 14, there is given no reason to not treat the language in the same context for both.

I've shown that Isaiah really means forever above. And therefore if they are the same, they both mean forever, as the language plainly says.

and this text is talking about the physical destruction of an earthly city when God takes vengeance "to uphold Zion's cause", not the annihilation of the unsaved soul

But the process and the nature are the same. The language is the same, the metaphor is the same, the nature is the same.

As above.

The wicked do not have immortal souls because they still suffer the wages of sin which is NOT eternal life, but 'death'. They can no more burn for eternity than Edom could. So the language of annihilation still applies.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You cannot say that the destruction of an earthly city implies the annihilaton of the soul. How are the two related? I've shown that forever literally means forever in both places, one says the city is destroyed forever, the other says the torment will be forever, which is not annihilation of the soul.

The traditionalist's logic is akin to this: you read somewhere that there is a 'green apple' and elsewhere that there is a 'green banana'. You decide that the word 'green' in describing the apple does in fact denote the color green. The banana, however, is not green but actually translated as a 'blue banana'.

But I'm not doing that at all - I'm saying green is just green - forever just plain and simple means forever in the cases we looked at so far.

(To be accurate, we have to recognize that some words do mean different things depending on context, like "trunk" can be an elephant's nose or the storage in the back end of a car.)

Blessings,
Lou

 

[guibox]

I'll make a case that forever really means forever in both those places.

Edom was destroyed and it will not be suddenly re-erected when this world ends, so its destroyed state remains into eternity and forever here does mean forever.

It is far more likely 1 Sam 22 really means "forever" as in "eternity". Samuel was brought not to abide with Eli, but with the eternal Lord, so I don't doubt at all that it means abide "forever" as it plainly says. There is no need to invent another meaning here.

But what you are doing is taking the same language to mean two different applications. Edom is 'forever' in results, you are saying that Samuel is forever in duration in this world and the next.

Firstly, your problem is that forever in human terms is not used in the OT to mean 'duration', second, you are imposing a Greek dualistic view that Samuel would go to heaven at death to keep serving God, on the Hebrew wholistic view of man. Third, you are neglecting the earthly application that it was in the house of Eli that Samuel was serving and not some heavenly realm. Fourth, you have ignored the explanation Hannah gave that forever was meant to mean 'as long as Samuel lives'.

I've shown that forever literally means forever in both places, one says the city is destroyed forever, the other says the torment will be forever, which is not annihilation of the soul.

You are making 'forever' mean two different things. First, forever in results and forever in duration are two different types of forever. Second, my point is that it is the exact same usage of the term 'forever' that is the same. If it is the same, then they must be interpreted the same. Either results or duration, not both. It is not enough to merely have the same word, but also look at the context it is used.

Look at the language of Isaiah 34:9,10:

And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall be burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day. The smoke thereof shall go up forever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; non shall pass though it forever and ever

Now let's look at the SAME language used in the SAME way in Revelation 14:1b,11 applying to something else:

...and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever. And they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of this name.

and Mark 9:46

Where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched

So we language applied in Isaiah 34 to show annihilation and complete destruction with no existence. And then we have the exact same language applied the same way in Revelation and Mark but this denotes 'eternal conscious torment'?? :roll:

Not exactly proper exegetical study here,my friend.

You still have not shown that the wicked have immortality to BE tormented for eternity. Herein also your argument of 'eternal torment' breaks down.

But I'm not doing that at all - I'm saying green is just green - forever just plain and simple means forever in the cases we looked at so far.

(To be accurate, we have to recognize that some words do mean different things depending on context, like "trunk" can be an elephant's nose or the storage in the back end of a car.)

No, what you are doing is putting the 'trunk' in the same context of an elephant but making the second application mean a 'trunk' of the car when the trunk is fully intended by context to mean the 'trunk' of an elephant in both instances. You are taking the exact same language used the same way in both instances but making one mean the exact OPPOSITE of the other.

 

[Simple Mind]

But what you are doing is taking the same language to mean two different applications. Edom is 'forever' in results, you are saying that Samuel is forever in duration in this world and the next.

I did that? ... No, in my simple mind the "result" is that something happens "forever", and "forever" is simply the duration. I really don't understand how else to look at this, so in both places it means the same.

You need to support your claim that I introduced two meanings here.

[quote:0cf16]Firstly, your problem is that forever in human terms is not used in the OT to mean 'duration', second, you are imposing a Greek dualistic view that Samuel would go to heaven at death to keep serving God, on the Hebrew wholistic view of man. Third, you are neglecting the earthly application that it was in the house of Eli that Samuel was serving and not some heavenly realm. Fourth, you have ignored the explanation Hannah gave that forever was meant to mean 'as long as Samuel lives'.

I've imposed no view that isn't plainly there in the text. And you need to support your claim that forever never means duration in the OT, which is a very strange claim to me but I'm here to learn.

You are making 'forever' mean two different things. First, forever in results and forever in duration are two different types of forever.

As above, I did no such thing. Honestly, my simple mind does not understand what you're talking about.

Second, my point is that it is the exact same usage of the term 'forever' that is the same. If it is the same, then they must be interpreted the same. Either results or duration, not both. It is not enough to merely have the same word, but also look at the context it is used.

Since I think they both mean duration I do interpret them the same.

Look at the language of Isaiah 34:9,10:

[quote:0cf16]And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall be burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day. The smoke thereof shall go up forever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; non shall pass though it forever and ever

Now let's look at the SAME language used in the SAME way in Revelation 14:1b,11 applying to something else:

...and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever. And they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of this name.

[/quote:0cf16]
Same language used the same way, both meaning forever in duration. You seem to be repeating the same argument you had before and not addressing my supported arguments.

and Mark 9:46

[quote:0cf16]Where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched

[/quote:0cf16]
And what does that say? No annihilation.

So we language applied in Isaiah 34 to show annihilation and complete destruction with no existence. And then we have the exact same language applied the same way in Revelation and Mark but this denotes 'eternal conscious torment'?? :roll:

I showed it did not support annihilation and you claimed I introduced two meanings of forever which is waiting to be substantiated.

Not exactly proper exegetical study here,my friend.

Hey, I'm trying my best ...

You still have not shown that the wicked have immortality to BE tormented for eternity. Herein also your argument of 'eternal torment' breaks down.

[/quote:0cf16]
Actually, as far as I can tell I showed it and you haven't rebutted it. Show me how I inserted two meanings and we'll go from there.

Blessings,
Lou

 

[Simple Mind]

I forgot a few things.

second, you are imposing a Greek dualistic view that Samuel would go to heaven at death to keep serving God, on the Hebrew wholistic view of man.

The text plainly said to abide with the Lord forever (or "appear before the Lord, and there abide forever"), and there is no reason for me to believe that Hannah meant something else other than forever. You tried to make a case by linking this verse to v. 28 and I showed why this is not valid. There is no support for why forever is not forever here. I didn't impose anything, the text said so.

Third, you are neglecting the earthly application that it was in the house of Eli that Samuel was serving and not some heavenly realm.

How did I neglect that? The fact that Samuel's earthly service is limited by his earthly life doesn't change the fact that Hannah meant forever when she said abide with the Lord forever.

Fourth, you have ignored the explanation Hannah gave that forever was meant to mean 'as long as Samuel lives'.

I already showed in my earlier post that v. 28 is not an explanation for v. 22b. It was clearly a different statement.

Later,
Lou

 

[Simple Mind]

I reread some of the earlier posts from before I joined the discussion and I think I may have a hint about this duration vs results thing.

Greek and Hebrew verbs can have the connotations of a continuing action (duration) versus a finished result. But I was under the impression that adverbs like "forever" can only describe one or the other because that's their funciton. For example, "already" would describe a finished result, while "forever" would describe a duration of time. I don't believe we can force "already" to have a meaning of duration, nor "forever" to mean finished. Adverbs don't have this choice as far as I recall - at least Greek adverbs, but I think Hebrew too.

Perhaps this is one source of confusion.

Blessings,
Lou

 

[Drew]

Greetings bretheren (unless "Simple Mind" is actually a "sisteren"):

Very interesting and challenging stuff.

I'll make a case that forever really means forever in both those places.

Edom was destroyed and it will not be suddenly re-erected when this world ends, so its destroyed state remains into eternity and forever here does mean forever.

It is far more likely 1 Sam 22 really means "forever" as in "eternity". Samuel was brought not to abide with Eli, but with the eternal Lord, so I don't doubt at all that it means abide "forever" as it plainly says. There is no need to invent another meaning here.

v. 28 is plainly making a different but consistent statement. One is talking about abiding forever, another is talking about lent for lifetime. Why do we need to force the two different sentences to mean the exact same thing?

You were trying to make the case that the "forever" in Isaiah 34 doesn't mean forever because it should be the same as 1 Sam 22. I've shown that the two are indeed the same but they do both mean forever.

Guibox, I am not sure that I understand what you mean when you draw a distinction between two types of "forever" - one of "results" and the other of "duration". However, I do not think this distinction is necessary to "make your case" anyway. Here is how I see things:

1. In Isaiah 34, we have a prophecy about the destruction of Edom. Reference is made to "smoke going up forever" and no one passing through it "forever". Simple obervation tell us that Edom is not smoking today. In my view, this means that "forever" is a "poetic exaggeration" - the smoking of Edom lasted for a limited time, so forever really denotes a limited time. Simple Mind: I know what you are saying, but I suggest that the "destroyed state lasting into eternity" argument does not work here for the following reason: The process of "smoke rising up" is not really a description of a completed state, but rather a description of an ongoing process - "smoke rising up" suggests process, activity, etc, not a completed state. Perhaps you will reply that I am pushing things too far here...

2. I can see each of your respective points about 1 Sam, but I am inclined to think that v 28 and v 22 actually do refer to the same state of affairs, so I do think that "forever" means a limited time. However, I am not prepared to make that argument now.

3. I think that the conclusion that I come to in item 1 (above) combined with the very striking similarity between material from Isaiah 34 and Rev 14 is very compelling evidence that the torment of the lost does not last forever, just as the smoke rising from Edom did not last forever.

 

[Vic C.]

Drew, you quoted Simple Mind but addressed Guibox in your post. Is this correct? :-? :-?

 

[Drew]

Regarding 1 Samuel 1, here is part of the chapter as rendered in the King Jim (I have added bolding):

21And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and his vow.

22But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.

23And Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him; only the LORD establish his word. So the woman abode, and gave her son suck until she weaned him.

24And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the LORD in Shiloh: and the child was young.

25And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli.

26And she said, Oh my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying unto the LORD.

27For this child I prayed; and the LORD hath given me my petition which I asked of him:

28Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshipped the LORD there.

I now think I can make a good case that v 22 and v 28 refer to the same thing. Verses 21 and 22 are clearly referring to an earthly location - the people are going "up" to some earthly place. I think it is self-evident that, in verse 22, when Hannah says "then I will bring him", context demands that she is referring to an earthly place - seconds before she was clearly referring to an earthly place. So we pretty much have to conclude that Samuel's "appearance before the Lord" takes place in "this earthly life" and at an "earthly place" - "there" in v 22 must refer to the place she was intending to go, not a place in heaven.

This argument is strengthened by the content of verses 23 and 24 where Hannah tarries for a while and then goes to Shiloh, presumably a real place. To me, this clearly confirms that her previous talk about Samuel dwelling some place "forever" clearly meant a physical place, and therefore she could not possibly have really meant "forever as in an unending duration" in verse 22.

This is all confirmed in verse 28, with the reference to "as long as he liveth". So we can indeed conclude that the reference to "foerver" in v 22 really means "as long as life lasts".