What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Conditional Immortality

Doulos Iesou said:
Kolasis does not mean torment, I went over this in Post #245. If there is an exegetical foundation for it denoting torment then we can discuss that. What I see however is people inserting their doctrine of eternal conscious torment into the meaning of the word, rather than the word actually having that connotation innately.

See here:
Click to expand...

See post # 268
Strong's does quite nicely in the definition of 'kolasis', wouldn't you say?
Some of us [me] just have to do with simpler things like Strong's if at all possible. :)
 
Chopper said:
Thanks old Buddy, I agree, I'm going to examine each word of this one right off.
Click to expand...

Hi Chopper,

I would suggest that the passage from Rev 14 is not relevant to the issue as those who are being tormented are alive on the earth in their bodies. This is not speaking of being in hell or the lake of fire. The grammar doesn't allow for that interpretation but also take note that the saints are there. "Here is the patience of the saints," surly the saints aren't in hell or the lake of fire. The ones suffering are the ones who are worshiping the beast.
 
Doulos Iesou said:
Hi Chopper,

I am not contending for a different meaning to basanismos, what I am contending against is the overall interpretation of this passage. Particularly whether or not it is meant to be taken literally or figuratively.

This passage I addressed in Post #7.
Click to expand...
Thank you DI, I remember that post. I guess this is what is confusing for most, whether to take the Scriptures literally or figuratively. So are you saying that the Revelation verses are to be taken figuratively? Boy, I don't know. I'm literalistic in most of the Bible Text. This looks to me like a literal statement. I just don't know the laws of when to take something that looks literal and call it something else. I have found that a literal view of Scripture is the safest, unless it's obvious that it is not.
 
Deborah13 said:
See post # 268
Strong's does quite nicely in the definition of 'kolasis', wouldn't you say?
Some of us [me] just have to do with simpler things like Strong's if at all possible. :)
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing Deb. For the average person who is not fluid in Hebrew and Greek, Strongs is the best we can ask for and over the years I've found it accurate. I really don't think I'm ready to throw it out. Wow, confusing.:confused2
 
Chopper said:
Thank you DI, I remember that post. I guess this is what is confusing for most, whether to take the Scriptures literally or figuratively. So are you saying that the Revelation verses are to be taken figuratively? Boy, I don't know. I'm literalistic in most of the Bible Text. This looks to me like a literal statement. I just don't know the laws of when to take something that looks literal and call it something else. I have found that a literal view of Scripture is the safest, unless it's obvious that it is not.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying we take it figuratively because it suits my interpretation, or based upon principle. Rather, we take it figuratively 1) because of the type of literature this is, and 2) because of the way this language is used throughout the literature.

Extrapolations.
1) The type of literature is Apocalyptic which is not a rigidly literal type of literature as some try to read it in our western society, but rather is spoken largely in metaphorical and figurative terms. Just read Daniel or Revelation and this is plain to see.
2) The examples of Isaiah 34 and the torment of the whore of babylon

Your desire to interpret it literally I believe is a general response within fundamentalism against liberalism to interpret the Bible literally in almost all cases, I think we can err if we move too strongly in both directions. I don't want the safe interpretation, I want the correct one and I think through proper hermenuetics and exegesis we can get there.
 
DRS81 said:
Annihilationism is false and classified under cult beliefs. Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians believe that nonsense.
Click to expand...
It is not a cult belief..

This is the Bible Study section, please take your divisive rhetoric elsewhere, it has no use or purpose here.
 
DRS81 said:
I apologize for interrupting, but I'm confused. These denominations aren't false?
Click to expand...
Two of them are, the other isn't necessarily but that's besides the point. You were attempting to "poison the well," which is a form of genetic fallacy. It is where one argues that something is wrong because this person or group agrees with it, and because they do it therefore is wrong.

It is irrelevant that they believe that, the only true way to determine the truthfulness of the doctrine is to search the Scriptures which is what we have been doing here.

Attempts like yours only prove to be extremely divisive.
 
Doulos Iesou said:
Two of them are, the other isn't necessarily but that's besides the point.
Click to expand...

I think that's the point entirely.

Doulos Iesou said:
It is irrelevant that they believe that, the only true way to determine the truthfulness of the doctrine is to search the Scriptures which is what we have been doing here.
Click to expand...

I would think it's very relevant what they believe. If they're false which you have admitted also, then wouldn't they take scriptures out of context, add and subtract from them as they please?
 
Doulos Iesou said:
Question for you, in the English language, what is the definition of the word destroy?
Click to expand...

I looked at several dictionaries and it said to put an end to existence, to ruin someone emotionally or spiritually or to defeat someone utterly. I would say that I most often hear it used to describe something that is damaged to a point where it doesn't function the way it used to, but still exist in some way. I see that the main definition of destroy is to put an end to existence. Still I can see that being used figuratively, especially when there are other verses that use words figuratively.
 
I did a search in the Scriptures for the word "torment". What I found was simply amazing. There is only "One", that's right only one passage that speaks of death and torment. Every other passage that speaks of torment speaks of people who are alive. The one passage is in Luke 16 in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In the parable the rich man is said to be dead and in torment. However, he is said to be in Hades, not the lake of fire where those who hold ECT say the wicked are cast.

Do you realize what that means? The ECT doctrine is built on a single passage of Scripture. There is passage after passage after passage that says the dead, are no more, are destroyed, vanish away, are as they had never been, and so on. There is "one" passage that speaks of one dead man who suffered torment and it was in Hades, the grave, not the lake of fire. How does a doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment exist with one passage that doesn't even fit with what the ECT's believe?
 
Butch5 said:
I did a search in the Scriptures for the word "torment". What I found was simply amazing. There is only "One", that's right only one passage that speaks of death and torment. Every other passage that speaks of torment speaks of people who are alive. The one passage is in Luke 16 in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In the parable the rich man is said to be dead and in torment. However, he is said to be in Hades, not the lake of fire where those who hold ECT say the wicked are cast.

Do you realize what that means? The ECT doctrine is built on a single passage of Scripture. There is passage after passage after passage that says the dead, are no more, are destroyed, vanish away, are as they had never been, and so on. There is "one" passage that speaks of one dead man who suffered torment and it was in Hades, the grave, not the lake of fire. How does a doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment exist with one passage that doesn't even fit with what the ECT's believe?
Click to expand...

Luke 16 this is the Greek word for 'grief or sorrow' that type of torment.
G3600 - is the verb form of the word so we need to look at the noun it comes from.
G3601 - consuming grief, pain, sorrow
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3601&t=KJV

I don't think this really helps. But then again people who think this story is proof of physical torment, it does pretty much debunk that I think.
 
What does Jesus mean when He says "the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever and they have no rest day nor night" as we see here in..

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

tob
 
Whoa guys slow down this is the Bible Study Forum ... not a personal battle ground... The name calling type posts are being deleted...

I only delete 2 . The 2 here on this last page , removing them all will make the thread goofy... In doing so the thread is given a break ... a short lived break .. Please respect the rules you have agreed to ....

Over the years we have had many threads on this topic . Seems for some reason we can not discuss the topic we fight about it...

Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.



 
Last edited:
Butch5 said:
Hi Agua,

I agree with your conclusion that the fate of the wicked is permanent destruction, but, I don't see how we can define "aionios" as eternal anywhere. I think if we do that we create a conflict with other passages of Scripture. Let me explain, if we say that in Mathew "aionios" (which is the adjective form of aion) means eternal and we say that "aionion" is a limited period of time that came to an end in Ex 28:42-43, we're essentially said the word means eternal and not eternal. If the word means eternal and not eternal how do we determine where it means eternal and where it doesn't mean eternal? You see I think this is how theology drives the interpretation. If it can mean eternal and not eternal then we can pick where we want to say it means eternal based on what we believe. If I believe in ECT then I can say that Rev 20:10 says the beast, the false prophet and the Devil will be tormented for eternity, however, if I believe in CI and translate it as a period of time and say that it will end. I believe that word "aion" is translated correctly as an age. I don't understand why the translators would change the meaning of the word simply because it's used as an adjective.

To address Mathew 25 specifically, I do think the punishment is eternal because it's contrasted with those going into the Kingdom and Scripture tells us that the kingdom will have no end. The phrase, "will have no end" means eternal. The life that is given to the believer is eternal, not because it's called aionios life, but rather because Jesus said that sons of the resurrection die no more.

35 "But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;
36 "nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
(Luk 20:35-36 NKJ)

"Nor can they die anymore", that is eternal life.

It's a fine line that I'm trying to draw here but I think it is a very important one if we are going to grasp the Scriptures correctly. Let me reiterate that while I say I don't believe that "aionios" can rightly be defined as eternal that doesn't mean that an "aionios" time can't be eternal. Does that make sense? Aionios time is unspecified, as such it can refer to any period of time, it just isn't specified. If we define aionios as eternity then we have just given it a meaning of definite time, eternity. If it means eternity then it can't mean a month or a year or 10 years, it has to mean eternity. If that is the case then we have to do as the English translators have done and say that the ordinances in the Mosaic Law are eternal ordinances. If we do that then we must conclude that the Old Covenant is still in effect and will be for eternity. We must also conclude that Paul was mistaken when he said that the Mosaic Law had come to an end. Jesus said that He had come to complete the Law, one must conclude that this is not the case either.

I don't see any reason that aionios should be translated as eternal, it's not necessary to do so to show that believers have eternal life. And, by doing so they create a situation where an incorrect reading is read back into other passages. I believe this is the case with Rev 20:10. Since translators have defined aionios as eternal because it speaks of the age to come, the word eternal is then read back into verses like Rev 20:10 and then we have doctrines like ECT come into being because eternity is read back into aionios.

Does that make sense? It's a little difficult to explain it all in a post.
Click to expand...

Yeah it makes sense Butch but I'm still trying to settle it in my mind. Basically aionios is an unspecified time period but depending on the context, or the adverb used with it, it may mean eternal ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top