Annihilationism

[agua.]

OT

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy ( machah ) man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


H4229
מחה
mâchâh
BDB Definition:
1) to wipe, wipe out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to wipe
1a2) to blot out, obliterate
1a3) to blot out, exterminate
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be wiped out
1b2) to be blotted out
1b3) to be exterminated
1c) (Hiphil) to blot out (from memory)
2) (Qal) to strike
3) (Pual) full of marrow (participle)
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1178, 1179, 1181c


NT

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy ( apollumi ) both soul and body in hell.


G622
ἀπόλλυμι
apollumi
ap-ol'-loo-mee
From G575 and the base of G3639; to destroy fully (reflexively to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively: - destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

 

[Gary]

OT

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy ( machah ) man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


H4229
מחה
mâchâh
BDB Definition:
1) to wipe, wipe out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to wipe
1a2) to blot out, obliterate
1a3) to blot out, exterminate
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be wiped out
1b2) to be blotted out
1b3) to be exterminated
1c) (Hiphil) to blot out (from memory)
2) (Qal) to strike
3) (Pual) full of marrow (participle)
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1178, 1179, 1181c


NT

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy ( apollumi ) both soul and body in hell.


G622
ἀπόλλυμι
apollumi
ap-ol'-loo-mee
From G575 and the base of G3639; to destroy fully (reflexively to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively: - destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

Thanks.

Is there anyone who disagrees with this definition?
.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

again?

I didn't start it this time. lol

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

again?

<<<< does that keep going round and round when the laptop is closed ?

 

[chessman]

<<<< does that keep going round and round when the laptop is closed ?

Does God continue to sustain the wicked in Hell, once He stops sustaining the wicked in Hell?

James 4:12 There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy.​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos this verse of Matthew 10:28 is that man can kill the body but not the soul.

That's not all it says Kathi, let's look at the text again.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 (ESV)

Man cannot kill the soul, but God can absolutely destroy, both body and soul and therefore he is worthy of fear rather than man.

The soul is immortal and will go on forever and ever in a conscious state of punishment and torment in hell for unbelievers or in heaven with Jesus Christ for those who are believers.

Can you please provide the Scripture that says that there is an immortal immaterial soul that is innately immortal?

I believe this is an assumption on the part of those who believe in the Eternal Conscious Torment position.

Scripture rather teaches this:

who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:16 (ESV)

God alone has immortality, and we who believe are granted such only through Christ. He today, sustains all life whether earthly or heavenly and they live but by his decree.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 (ESV)

Whoever believes in God's Son will have eternal life, life that never ends, and those who do not shall perish (which means to die violently).

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hey Doulos. Sorry my response took so long. I was in the end times section.

Not a problem, feel free to respond when you are able.

Wouldn't (to ruin) be a synonym of (destruction). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destruction?s=t

Let's unpack the word verb to destroy a little bit more in the English, so that you'll see how it relates but why the translation of "to ruin" is not called upon here.

The word comes from the latin compound of two different words, "de" for negation and "struere" which means to build. With these two words together it basically means to "unbuild" from it's root. The picture is that of a building or city, where an invading army lays siege to the city and destroys it such that there is only ruin left.

Words have a range of meaning though depending on the context, and if I say, "I'm going to destroy that man's reputation," it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing if I said, "I am going to destroy that man." Though it could! That's the thing about words, they have a semantic range of meaning that the context must illuminate which meaning is at play. It doesn't do us much help to say, "this is a possible range of meaning and a synonym, therefore I am going to accept it as meaning such."

This might be a favorable way to support a Biblical interpretation that you really want to believe, but it would make communication with others almost impossible as we employ this concept all the time.

Now if the context of Matthew 10:28 is about man being able to kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, what does his statement about God being able to destroy both body and soul mean in that context? Well, it means that God can do worse to the body (in that he can destroy it, a stronger word in the Greek than the word to kill) and he can do what man cannot, he can destroy the soul in hell.

By the context, it in no way denotes some kind of "ruining" but because of the comparison to the man who can but kill the body, the word "destroy" should be the translation as it denotes the utter destruction of the individual as both body and soul are extinguished in hell.

Be careful not to fall into contradiction when speaking of synonyms. If you do then it's just your opinion over mine.

As I noted, words have a range of meaning given the context. A popular example of this is the word "run" which can have several very different meanings depending on the context.

If I say, "I'm going to run for president."

or... "I'm going for a run."

Does this mean the same thing? It's the same word right, therefore simply providing a possible definition and inserting into the text we should be fine, right?

As you can see, depending on the context a particular definition is called for, as the first one means that I am going to be a candidate and the second means I am going to go jogging for fitness purposes.

Well I don't fear God anymore, I'm no longer under his wrath. You would have to ask a Jehovah Witness, Catholic or a Muslim that.

I was asking a basic hypothetical question.

Blessings,
DI

 

[Doulos Iesou]

To no longer exist and just being burned and it is over would be a piece of cake.

So you see a raging furnace and are asked to jump in, and you respond, "piece of cake!" Really?

This is very odd to me.

Now.....to be in a lake of fire and to be tortured and be conscious and aware of everything around you for an eternity...that means it never ends.That is a terribly frightful thought.

What matters is the punishment actually described in Scripture. Not the scariest punishment possible, but rather the one that is JUST regarding the crimes committed, which Paul says the wages of sin is not eternal torment, but death.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I don't believe in annihilation and I think it makes the consequence seem much lighter but I don't think the severity of hell scares people into becoming a Christ follower. I think no matter how bad hell sounds people will reject Jesus because they want to follow their own will.

In my experience, the Eternal Conscious Torment position tends to be a barrier to the gospel. That people reject a kind of God who would be content to torture people whom he created in his image for all eternity. That this type of torment extracts some type of justice or satisfaction of his wrath.

This is another side of the issue that I think needs to be discussed.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

and that's why evangelists are evangelists.

What do you mean?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Thanks.

Is there anyone who disagrees with this definition?
.

Nope, so long as the proper usage is given for a particular context, as it has a small range of meaning.

 

[chessman]

That's a strange way to go about doing doctrine. Rather than individually interpreting these texts, you look to the ones you think refute Annihilationism (they don't) and then insert that doctrine everywhere else, despite the fact this eisegesis doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
Why wouldn't a better way to approach this topic be to prove the Scripture that goes against Eternal Conscious Torment and go from there?

Thank you for pointing out that destroy (apolesai) really does mean destroy (and not ‘ruin’) in the context of Matt 10. I find it odd that is necessary to point this out in the first place.

Would you say the same thing about its use in James 4:12? That is, is it proper exegesis for someone to believe a meaning of "ruin" there (or what would absolutely be supportive of ECT, "to torture") within James' use of Apolesai in James 4:12 ?

A. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy (apolesai).
B. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to ___?_____.
C. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to __ruin?__.
D. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to __torture?__.​

It seems to me, the literal interpretation (A) is the best evidenced once again. First, as you already pointed out from Matt 10:28; 'aplolesai' is translated as destroy (not 'ruin' or 'torture') by every translation. It’s obviously so as Jesus is warning his disciples that they will face death by the Jewish/Roman leaders in the near future. We have that clear situation in James 4:12 as well.

Even the AMP says: "Amplified Bible (AMP)
12 One only is the Lawgiver and Judge Who is able to save and to destroy [the One Who has the absolute power of life and death]."
In other words, all these translators recognized that James had the intention of contrasting life with death, not life with ‘ruin’ or life with ‘torture’.
Second, if 'destroy' has this ever so elusive figurative use in James 4:12 for apolesai, then what about the rest of the verse being equally figurative? Is "saved (sosai) also just as figurative? I think most people hold to the literal meaning of sosai.

Matthew 8:25Lexham English Bible (LEB) 25And they came and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We are perishing (apollymi)!”​

I doubt that the disciples were requesting to be saved from ‘ruin’ or ‘torture’. They were requesting to be saved from death (perishing by drowning in this case) in a very real sense.

Thirdly, it’s called “Bible Study” for a reason. If we already know (or think we do) everything that the Bible has to communicate about every subject/doctrine (the final fate of the wicked in this case), then we are not learning anything. If I come into Matt 10:28 and/or James 4:12 with an open mind to being wrong (no matter what I preconceive about it), then how in the world can you come out of the “study” with the accurate knowledge that Apolesai really means ‘ruin’ not ‘destroy’? I’ve never heard a good exegetical argument for that being the case. However, lots of people have taught that’s what it should mean.
Fourthly, with respect to James 4:12, God is the Lawgiver and Judge. I’m familiar with the wages of sin being death and stoning commands/laws. But where does it say that the Law provides for an unlimited amount of torture as a Godly oriented punishment? To my knowledge, never.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Thank you for pointing out that destroy (apolesai) really does mean destroy (and not ‘ruin’) in the context of Matt 10. I find it odd that is necessary to point this out in the first place.

Would you say the same thing about its use in James 4:12? That is, is it proper exegesis for someone to believe a meaning of "ruin" there (or what would absolutely be supportive of ECT, "to torture") within James' use of Apolesai in James 4:12 ?

A. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy (apolesai).
B. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to ___?_____.
C. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to __ruin?__.
D. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to __torture?__.​

It seems to me, the literal interpretation (A) is the best evidenced once again. First, as you already pointed out from Matt 10:28; 'aplolesai' is translated as destroy (not 'ruin' or 'torture') by every translation. It’s obviously so as Jesus is warning his disciples that they will face death by the Jewish/Roman leaders in the near future. We have that clear situation in James 4:12 as well.

Even the AMP says: "Amplified Bible (AMP)
12 One only is the Lawgiver and Judge Who is able to save and to destroy [the One Who has the absolute power of life and death]."
In other words, all these translators recognized that James had the intention of contrasting life with death, not life with ‘ruin’ or life with ‘torture’.
Second, if 'destroy' has this ever so elusive figurative use in James 4:12 for apolesai, then what about the rest of the verse being equally figurative? Is "saved (sosai) also just as figurative? I think most people hold to the literal meaning of sosai.

Matthew 8:25Lexham English Bible (LEB) 25And they came and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We are perishing (apollymi)!”​

I doubt that the disciples were requesting to be saved from ‘ruin’ or ‘torture’. They were requesting to be saved from death (perishing by drowning in this case) in a very real sense.

Thirdly, it’s called “Bible Study” for a reason. If we already know (or think we do) everything that the Bible has to communicate about every subject/doctrine (the final fate of the wicked in this case), then we are not learning anything. If I come into Matt 10:28 and/or James 4:12 with an open mind to being wrong (no matter what I preconceive about it), then how in the world can you come out of the “study” with the accurate knowledge that Apolesai really means ‘ruin’ not ‘destroy’? I’ve never heard a good exegetical argument for that being the case. However, lots of people have taught that’s what it should mean.
Fourthly, with respect to James 4:12, God is the Lawgiver and Judge. I’m familiar with the wages of sin being death and stoning commands/laws. But where does it say that the Law provides for an unlimited amount of torture as a Godly oriented punishment? To my knowledge, never.

Great post!

 

[Butch5]

To no longer exist and just being burned and it is over would be a piece of cake.Now.....to be in a lake of fire and to be tortured and be conscious and aware of everything around you for an eternity...that means it never ends.That is a terribly frightful thought.

What dos that say about God's character?

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

Psalm 135:6
The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.

Does God continue to sustain the wicked in Hell, once He stops sustaining the wicked in Hell?

James 4:12 There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy.​

 

[Doulos Iesou]

My response would be that God CAN do everything, but He doesn't and won't. Jesus Himself said unbelievers will spend eternity with the devil in the lake of fire. Matthew 25:41 (NIV)

Let's exegete the passage in regards to that objection and see if it stands.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 (ESV)

Jesus' was telling them not to fear those men, the Romans and Jews whom they would be sent to, but rather to fear God. Why was this? They were not to fear man, because of his inability to kill the soul. They were then told to fear God because of what he had the ability to do.

Now, would it make any sense for Jesus to tell them to fear God for something that he would never do? Or rather was he describing what happens in hell, which namely is the destruction of body and soul. This seems to me the only rational way to look at this text. Why wouldn't he tell them to fear God who can torture body and soul in hell, since that is your position?

Also, no where in the text in Matthew 25:41 does it say they will spend an eternity with the devil in the lake of fire. Let's look at what it actually says, then move on to demonstrate what it means.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Matthew 25:41 (ESV)

From this text we learn the following:
1. That those Jesus rejected were told to depart and to go into the "eternal fire"
2. That the eternal fire was prepared for the devil and his angels.

Now, the primary description we have for the punishment being given is "eternal fire." Let's look to the only other instance where this punishment is used.

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:7 (ESV)

Jude says that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah underwent the punishment of "eternal fire," which resulted in their total destruction, not torment.

Also, are these cities still burning? Still undergoing punishment? No, so how are we to understand what "eternal fire" means. Let's look to Genesis to search for some possible clues.

Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven. Genesis 19:24 (ESV)

The Fire was from the Lord, out of heaven. This to me is the definition of "eternal fire," the fire from the Lord (he is described in Hebrews as a consuming fire) that utterly consumes.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Psalm 135:6
The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.

Hi Jeff,

How are you employing this text exactly?

Regards,
DI

 

[Butch5]

My response would be that God CAN do everything, but He doesn't and won't. Jesus Himself said unbelievers will spend eternity with the devil in the lake of fire. Matthew 25:41 (NIV)

Hi Stan,

No, Jesus didn't say eternal fire, that is how the translators have translated "aionios". However, it cannot mean eternal as it's used of things that have ended. We've had a dicsussion of this word in the Conditional Immortality thread that Doulos linked to and in the Body, Soul, Spirit, thread.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

Hi Jeff,

How are you employing this text exactly?

Regards,
DI

I just thought I'd hire it for a week and see if it holds out. ... .... .... ... relax! ... there's a thousand posters who think they have God figured out and in a tidy little box. He knows what He's doing, and He does it, and He tells His Own, and they know His voice.
I simply "employed" that text as an answer to "the question" posted "with it".

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I just thought I'd hire it for a week and see if it holds out. ... .... .... ... relax! .

lol