Eternal life being tormented in Hell or Death, What is the wages of sin?

[TimothyW]

I have a question? Why can't the words perish and death be interpreted as meaning something different? Aren't other parts of the Bible interpreted? People going into the ministry go to seminary schools to learn how to best interpret scripture right?

Why do you WANT to reinterpret the meaning of perish and death? Would you want to change the regular definitions of these words if you didn't have a doctrine that you needed to defend? And is changing the definitions of the words in the Bible to fit the doctrine we want to hold really the best way to read the Bible? I don't think that it is. We should derive doctrine from scripture, we should not change scripture to fit the doctrine we like.

Also, even if we change the meaning of death to mean its complete opposite, eternal life; and we change the meaning of destruction to mean its complete opposite, never really destroyed; we would still have the problem of "the wicked will be no more". Do we change the meaning of that, or just take a black marker and cover it up so that we don't have a problem with our cherished doctrine?

The reason people go to seminary schools is not so that they can learn how to change what the Bible says into something they like better than what the Bible says. At least, that shouldn't be the reason people go to Seminary. The Bible has already been interpreted many times. NIV, KJV, NLT, ESV, NASB and so on. Thanatos means death. We shouldn't change the meaning of Thanatos just because it causes problems for our pet doctrine. Apollumi means "completely destroyed". It does not mean "not really destroyed at all, but kept undestroyed forever in hell being tortured alive after death". Katakaiw means "completely burned down to the ground", we can't change that to "burned, but never ever burnt up", without drastically altering the meaning that the Author intended. If we believe that the Author of Scripture is ultimately The Holy Spirit God, is it wise to alter the meaning of His Words? Who can stand up against God? Who can tell God, "You didn't really mean to say that, say this instead"?

I believe that the lost will perish and will be no more precisely because that is what I find written in God's Word. I do not believe that the lost will live forever in hell while they are dead being tortured alive forever because I can't find that written in God's Word. What is worse, eternal torture or eternal death? That question doesn't matter. What matters is what God has to say about the fate of the wicked in His Word. The Bible says "The wicked will perish, the wicked will be no more." Psalm 37:20, Psalm 37:10. (And many many other places).

 

[chessman]

I have pointed out a couple places in this thread where I think it does say quite clearly that there is eternal punishment but maybe you are still not accepting them? See the references below.
Mark 9:42-48
Matthew 25:31-46
Please bear in mind that I am not arguing with you but just trying to grow in my understanding and hopefully we both will have that same result. Right now, I think both situations are possible and I'll let God decide what is just. As for me, I believe either scenario is totally and utterly undesirable and equally as frightening.

Excellent post (in my way of thinking) in all you say except for where you accuse Tim of “not accepting them” (Mark 9:42-48 and Matt 25:31-46 that is) and earlier saying he’s “Playing on words to avoid doing what you said you would do”. I’ve not once seen where either Tim or myself are not “accepting them” nor are we “Playing on words to avoid doing what you said you would do.”

You might notice that even in that same sentence you said “I think it [Mark 9 and Matt 25] does say quite clearly that there is eternal punishment… ” We do too! We are discussing/studying what that “punishment” consists of Scripturally speaking, however. Not so much what other’s “think”.

First with respect to Matt 25, you are obviously “thinking” about what the actual punishment is (what is it literally) just as we are. So there’s no difference there. We all have our opinions and interpretations of Scipture. And I’ll be the first to admit that my “thinking” goes against the grain here. That fact alone does scare me.

An aside here briefly: My grandmother (one of the most Godly life-living and believing people I’ve ever known) used to slap my wrist with a ruler or at least give me a mean look every time I said “heck”. Her reasoning was; you might as well be saying “Hell” as say “Heck” cause you mean the same thing. You are just trying to be polite by saying “Heck” instead of “Hell”. She was right. She’d roll over in her grave if she heard me say ECT is not taught in the Bible. I fully am aware that it’s an unorthodox “thinking”. But I’m also aware the ECT is “thinking” not taught in the Bible. Correct me if I’m wrong.​

It’s been pointed out many times that Tim and I are “thinking” the definition of the literal punishment (what it is really) in Matt 25 is “death/perish/destruction” (in their everyday plain meaning). Whereas you are “thinking” a better definition for that “punishment” is not the everyday plain meaning of “death/destruction/perish” but rather that “punishment” = Eternal conscious torment. It’s also been requested several times for you to prove or show us Scripture that places your better definition of the “punishment” in Matt 25 than the one we use. Nothing’s been said there. So are you going to tell us why your definition of “the punishment” is any better than ours?

Frankly, all that’s been said is that “death” can be taking metaphorically within Scripture. Obviously it can, sure. But here, in Matt 25? Right there where it contrast “punishment” to “life”? I doubt it, seriously. Else are we to take “life” metaphorically as well?

You are right, either your “thinking” is correct or ours is. They cannot both be right. One of us is wrong and God WILL be (Is already) the final arbitrator. I desire to tell the truth about Scripture so if my view of the “punishment” in Matt 25 is incorrect, I’d so appreciate someone explaining the Scripture that shows it’s the wrong view of the punishment of Matt 25. Although I realize that none of this is applicable to any Christian anyway. We are talking about the future treatment of the unsaved. This Thread has always been about end-times treatment of humans in Hell. What is the final punishment of the wicked (ECT or death)? By its very nature it is end-times discussion/study.

Secondly toward Matt 25, I simply want to clarify here one last time. Tim/myself are NOT disagreeing with you about what “eternal” means. We are both using that plain everyday meaning for “eternal”. It’s such a common objection to our view that frankly I cannot recall if you’ve personally made it or not. But others have in this thread and people so often will “fire back” with what they perceive as their “ultimate objection/defeater” to our definition of the “punishment” that goes something like this; “See it says eternal for punishment AND eternal for life. If it means eternal for one, then it must mean eternal for both.” Something along those lines. Then they typically turn and run, never realizing that this objection is a strayman to begin with (so plainly it’s unbelievable people even use it). It’s not our view that the punishment is not eternal. But frankly, is not “life” contrasted here with “death”? Both are eternal. That’s not the contrasting distinction. But life versus death sure is!

46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”​

I know you from all your postings only, but find you to be highly logical and intelligent and fair minded within your posts. Hopefully you can see right away, that it’s true in every sense of the word that we are NOT disagreeing about the words “eternal” in Matt 25. We are NOT disagreeing over the definition of “eternal” but rather simply and specifically the definition of what the “punishment” is within these passages.
Which of these is more “accepting” of what the Matt 25 Scripture says

1) 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment [concise torment], but the righteous into eternal life.”​

OR

2) 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment [death], but the righteous into eternal life.”​

Finally with respect to Matt 25, let me illustrate it this way: If either Tim or I were posting here that Matt 25’s “punishment” was; punishment = “10 lashes a day for 1,000 years then the lost are set free”. Sure, I think there’s no Scriptural support for that “thinking”. Therefore, like you say, it’s akin to just “not accepting it” or it’s “playing on words” with what this passage (and other’s like it) are saying. I’d say the same thing myself to someone that thought the lost are tormented for a while then let loose. Though I might get Edited out or warned by a Moderator for doing so using words like that.

Or if someone said the “punishment” = “100 lashes a day for 10,000 years then the lost go free”.

Likewise, that’s “not accepting” Matt 25 either, in my opinion. It’s NOT my opinion, however. And frankly, to mention that there are other people that think this way to argue against people that DO NOT think this way is not very good evidence that we are wrong. Not that you’ve done that here but others have.

Neither of us (Tim or myself) are saying that’s what the punishment equals, That somehow people eventually get “saved” cause we think it’s more loving of God or something like that. I am “accepting” that the punishment is in fact death. In fact, the last death (2nd death). That second death that’s way more fearful even than the first. And that DOES occur in Hell (sorry grandma). But can you believe there’s people that have posted than they think Tim and myself don’t believe in Hell? Are they serious? Do they not read what we’ve been saying? Frankly, it makes the ECT arguments look so much weaker to say that I don’t believe in Hell. I know I shouldn’t feel that way (since it’s just one or two people that say this and they are obviously not listening to what’s being said) but it’s only a natural reaction.
In no way shape or form do I think it’s “poof, that’s it” either. That it’s painless to the point of being something that’s desirable (another lame argument that’s been thrown back at us). I’m sure it will be painful. Painful to the very soul of our being, in fact.

I’m frankly unsure what’s a more permanent, final, everlasting, eternal, “forever and ever” punishment than a second death will be. I’m not diminishing the meaning behind the words eternal OR punishment. But if I had any evidence to diminish “death” grammatically (like showed Matthew meant for us to understand “Death” metaphorically or something) within Matt 25, sure I suppose the argument could be made for that.
But nobody has. Would you care to? Please consider the same metaphorical meaning for “eternal life” in the same analysis, however.
Mark 9 next:

 

[chessman]

With respect to Mark 9: Frankly, I’m confused. What is it exactly that we disagree on here?

“It is better for you [saved people] to enter life lame than [unsaved people] with two feet to be thrown into hell .”​

See where Mark says “enter life”? Do you think he means to say both the saved and the unsaved both have an eternal life already or rather that the saved actually “enter life” and the lost do not?

Is it again “life” that is being contrasted with death (the second one) or is it something else? When you or I insert a meaning (our thinking) into what it literally means to be “thrown into Hell” where do one get that meaning from really?

Frankly, it seems to me it is like your (thinking) is:

1) It is better for you to enter life lame than … to be thrown into hell [Eternally consciously tormented]. (Which I can only image comes from Rev 20:10 since that’s the only place in the entire Bible that says ECT, or anything like that, which is why it’s a critical passage).​

Or do you insert the thinking found within the over 50 Scriptures posted that’s frankly more on topic than the timeframe (or persons) being discussed in Rev 20:10? It would go something like:

2) It is better for you to enter life lame than … to be thrown into hell [experience the 2nd Death of both Body and Soul]. (which comes from Matt 10:28, John 3:16, Rom 6:23, etc., etc. x50)​

Which is exactly why Rev 20:10 is so highly critical to understand correctly. Again, as far as I know it’s the ONLY place in the Bible that uses a phrase anything remotely like ECT (and I’ve looked/studied for it a bunch, but willing to be shown otherwise, begging for it ):
Revelation 20:10 (ESV) and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Sure, I’d say that basically that phrase (they will be tormented day and night forever and ever = ECT. I do NOT deny this). But (and it’s so highly critical) is it describing the “punishment” of humans post judgment or not? Can (or should we) insert this meaning into Mark 9 or not? That’s the fundamental question here (after all this discussion).

1) Is it (the vision) even describing post resurrection and post judgment “punishment”? Answer is NO, unquestionably! Whether you buy the point that all of Rev is apocalyptic language or not (which I do) doesn’t even matter here. Even if it were “just a vision” clearly within the vision, it’s a pre-resurrection and pre-judgment event. Not until you get to Rev 20:14 (a later time in John’s vision) do we find the “punishment” described. Guess what it says; “This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Sounds just like Matt 10:28 to me!

2) Is it (the Rev 20:10 definition for “punishment” even talking about humans or rather is it talking about demons? Unbelievably, some people think this question isn’t important or that it’s off topic. Anyway, I say it’s clearly both demons plus Satan himself. See point 1, just for one reason that’s true (if human, they miss out on the Judgment). But also because of many, many reasons I’ve already discussed. Though it’s true that other people “think” they are humans. Fine. I have no idea how those people reconcile their “humanness” with the fact that The Prophet and The Beast remain in the Lake of Fire and miss out on the actual Judgment that comes later in the vision. I’ve asked many different people and they have ZERO good answers.

3) If either point 1 or 2 above is true (plus many more I could make about it), it's a terrible thing to insert the Rev 20:10 meaning into the meaning of "being thrown into hell" with respect to Mark 9. Since Mark 9 is talking about humans's post judment punishment. Rev 20:10 is NOT! But it's so common, I find it extraordinary.

So anyway (after all that, if anybody is still reading this long post) that’s how I understand Matt 25, Mark 9 and Rev 20.

Sorry Grandma, I love you. See you soon.

 

[TimothyW]

Good posts!

Grandma may have disagreed with what you and I are saying, but I'm certain that Grandma wants us to have an accurate understanding of Scripture, even if that means we will disagree with her.
(And don't forget those incredible cookies Grandma used to make!)

 

[chessman]

People going into the ministry go to seminary schools to learn how to best interpret scripture right?

For what it's worth (not much, I suppose really) I have an opinion, observation and suggestion here about this whole subject.

If you don't believe it, then simply don't teach it. Leave it as an open issue for you.

If it’s on your mind heavy; study it, listen and evaluate both sides of the argument and look at all the relative Scriptures for yourself. Don't just take anybody's word for it (professor or not).

But once you start stating your position dogmatically (ECT over death), you really need to have the Scriptures studied and ready to back up what you are saying and be totally sold out on what they say. It’s a terrible thing, for example, to accuse someone of twisting a Scripture to teach a second death (over ECT) then come to find out, you’ve not really settled the issue in your own mind Scripturally one way or the other.

Also, you mentioned sermons where “the pastor compared the word ‘perish’ to how salt that loses its saltiness but never actually disappears.” Are you suggesting that’s a proper way to understand “perish” in say John 3:16?

I’m curious. What Scripture(s) were used in this sermon, if you recall? It’s a phrase I’ve heard elsewhere mentioned, since it sounds kind-of like “loosing your saltiness” could mean “losing your salvation”. And I suppose it does kind of sound possible. The problem is that when I studied every occurrence of “salt” in the Bible. I could not find a single verse that used “salt” that was truly teaching that “loosing ones saltiness” meant “loosing ones salvation”. Nor did this phrase mean something like to “perish but never actually disappear”.

What I found was that it was Jesus basically telling his disciples/apostles to never stop preaching the gospel and/or don’t water down the message of the gospel. That’s what Jesus meant by “don’t loose your saltiness”. I have no idea how it could be used to redefine what it means to “perish”.

But maybe I missed a passage or something.

 

[jeff77]

Vry

Why do you WANT to reinterpret the meaning of perish and death? Would you want to change the regular definitions of these words if you didn't have a doctrine that you needed to defend? And is changing the definitions of the words in the Bible to fit the doctrine we want to hold really the best way to read the Bible? I don't think that it is. We should derive doctrine from scripture, we should not change scripture to fit the doctrine we like.

Also, even if we change the meaning of death to mean its complete opposite, eternal life; and we change the meaning of destruction to mean its complete opposite, never really destroyed; we would still have the problem of "the wicked will be no more". Do we change the meaning of that, or just take a black marker and cover it up so that we don't have a problem with our cherished doctrine?

The reason people go to seminary schools is not so that they can learn how to change what the Bible says into something they like better than what the Bible says. At least, that shouldn't be the reason people go to Seminary. The Bible has already been interpreted many times. NIV, KJV, NLT, ESV, NASB and so on. Thanatos means death. We shouldn't change the meaning of Thanatos just because it causes problems for our pet doctrine. Apollumi means "completely destroyed". It does not mean "not really destroyed at all, but kept undestroyed forever in hell being tortured alive after death". Katakaiw means "completely burned down to the ground", we can't change that to "burned, but never ever burnt up", without drastically altering the meaning that the Author intended. If we believe that the Author of Scripture is ultimately The Holy Spirit God, is it wise to alter the meaning of His Words? Who can stand up against God? Who can tell God, "You didn't really mean to say that, say this instead"?

I believe that the lost will perish and will be no more precisely because that is what I find written in God's Word. I do not believe that the lost will live forever in hell while they are dead being tortured alive forever because I can't find that written in God's Word. What is worse, eternal torture or eternal death? That question doesn't matter. What matters is what God has to say about the fate of the wicked in His Word. The Bible says "The wicked will perish, the wicked will be no more." Psalm 37:20, Psalm 37:10. (And many many other places).

Very good point. I don't know why I'm trying to reinterpret it? I guess I was always taught ECT and it's hard to change the way I see it but I'm trying. I just want the truth like anybody else and you are right there is a lot of scripture that is very clear. I still have questions? Somebody mentioned that ECT became an accepted doctrine during a certain time period? I can't remember if it was the Reformation of the Church or what exactly, but does anybody know what was taught before this time period? Was the non-ECT a widely held view?

 

[jeff77]

For what it's worth (not much, I suppose really) I have an opinion, observation and suggestion here about this whole subject.

If you don't believe it, then simply don't teach it. Leave it as an open issue for you.

If it’s on your mind heavy; study it, listen and evaluate both sides of the argument and look at all the relative Scriptures for yourself. Don't just take anybody's word for it (professor or not).

But once you start stating your position dogmatically (ECT over death), you really need to have the Scriptures studied and ready to back up what you are saying and be totally sold out on what they say. It’s a terrible thing, for example, to accuse someone of twisting a Scripture to teach a second death (over ECT) then come to find out, you’ve not really settled the issue in your own mind Scripturally one way or the other.

Also, you mentioned sermons where “the pastor compared the word ‘perish’ to how salt that loses its saltiness but never actually disappears.” Are you suggesting that’s a proper way to understand “perish” in say John 3:16?

I’m curious. What Scripture(s) were used in this sermon, if you recall? It’s a phrase I’ve heard elsewhere mentioned, since it sounds kind-of like “loosing your saltiness” could mean “losing your salvation”. And I suppose it does kind of sound possible. The problem is that when I studied every occurrence of “salt” in the Bible. I could not find a single verse that used “salt” that was truly teaching that “loosing ones saltiness” meant “loosing ones salvation”. Nor did this phrase mean something like to “perish but never actually disappear”.

What I found was that it was Jesus basically telling his disciples/apostles to never stop preaching the gospel and/or don’t water down the message of the gospel. That’s what Jesus meant by “don’t loose your saltiness”. I have no idea how it could be used to redefine what it means to “perish”.

But maybe I missed a passage or something.

Thanks Chessman I am trying to listen to both sides. I wouldn't be asking questions if I didn't have doubts. I think I was mistaken about the sermon I heard. Sorry I am seriously not trying to twist anybody's words either.

 

[chessman]

Somebody mentioned that ECT became an accepted doctrine during a certain time period? I can't remember if it was the Reformation of the Church or what exactly, but does anybody know what was taught before this time period? Was the non-ECT a widely held view?

you mean the ones that lived to talk about it?

Just a little factious (and facetious) there. My understanding is that it's always been against the grain so to speak. Always in the minority, yet there non the less held by some.

 

[WIP]

First, I have not accused anyone of anything, at least not by my intention. I was merely suggesting possibility.

With regard to Mark 9, you stopped short of the verses that I think are relevant. I've bold printed the part that I think bears study. The question that comes to my mind is what is "their worm?" Could that imply their soul perhaps?
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

If their worm, or fowl soul, dieth not and the fire is not quenched, that would seem to support an eternal torment to me.

TimothyW challenged us to find just one verse that indicates the unsaved would be tortured forever and he would believe it. I believe in my heart that Mathew 15:45-46 does exactly that because I don't see how one can be punished forever without experiencing it. That's just what I believe. Here are those verses again for reference.
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[dadof10]

Hebrews 9:27
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
... Except The Beast and The False Prophet cause i forgot to bring them back from The Lake of Fire and now most websites think they are humans.

I think you missed my point. I didn't think I would have to PROVE the false prophet was a human when I came into this discussion. I thought maybe the beast, but not the false prophet. On the websites I read, it seemed a universal idea within Protestantism as a whole, that the false prophet was a human. That's why I don't have any proof that he is a human, I didn't think I needed any. On the other hand, you have no proof he is a demon either, so I guess we are in the same boat on this topic, PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

On the other, other hand, I have read much of this thread, and yours (and Tim's) definition of "eternal punishment" as death, because "death is eternal punishment" is subjectively circular and demonstrates that you start out with a premise and fit everything in Scripture into this box, no matter how silly it seems. There is only one way to interpret verses such as "the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2Thes. 1:9). This verse shows how the word "destruction" does not have to mean annihilation, especially within the discussion of the afterlife, and that part of the "punishment" is exclusion from the Beatific Vision, which assumes both consciousnesses and eternity, because the Beatific Vision is ETERNAL. .

2 Thes. 1:9 Gives new meaning to your interpretation of: "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." (Matt. 10:28) The word here is "apollymi" and the word in 2Thes. is "olethros". Both mean "destroy" but, in 2Thes. the word "eternal" is joined to it and means never ending.

Also, here is Paul describing what can only be the false prophet:

"And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming. The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2Thes. 2:8-12)

Here, Paul says the false prophet will be destroyed, yet we know he (whether a demon or a human) is eternally tormented along with the beast and Satan.

Do you think it's at least possible that there is punishment in the afterlife that is never ending for humans, as Scripture CLEARLY says? Do you still think the word "destroy" has to mean "annihilate", or can it mean, like Paul says in 2Thes., "eternal punishment"?

 

[chessman]

First, I have not accused anyone of anything, at least not by my intention. I was merely suggesting possibility.

With regard to Mark 9, you stopped short of the verses that I think are relevant. I've bold printed the part that I think bears study. The question that comes to my mind is what is "their worm?" Could that imply their soul perhaps?
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

If their worm, or fowl soul, dieth not and the fire is not quenched, that would seem to support an eternal torment to me.

TimothyW challenged us to find just one verse that indicates the unsaved would be tortured forever and he would believe it. I believe in my heart that Mathew 15:45-46 does exactly that because I don't see how one can be punished forever without experiencing it. That's just what I believe. Here are those verses again for reference.
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Okay. Thanks for the direct answer. First, I do see your point. I suppose it’s possible that either phrase means an eternally tormented soul. It’s not wacko or anything. I do get it, because I thought the same thing for 35 years. Even heard it preached from the pulpit. I honestly want to know what the phrase there really meant to the 1st century Jewish (or gentile for that matter) readers. Maybe they thought that’s what it meant, maybe not.

With respect to Mark 9:

48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’’
Here’s the thoughts/study that I’ve done (for what it’s worth):

1. Just basically and frankly, if God wanted to communicate eternal conscious torment of the lost in Hell, don’t you think He could have said it a little plainer (and what seems contradictory to passages elsewhere that we’ve posted) than by using these phrases? But that’s fine, it’s not a conclusive argument one way or the other, I suppose.

2. It seems to me, one needs to pick a method. Either be literal to what it says or see if it’s a figure of speech used in that day/culture. Like when we say “what’s up” or something like that. Where not asking what’s in the sky and everybody knows that. Maybe it’s a phrase they used in this way?

By the way. My teenager got her first car a couple of years ago. I told her to go to WalMart and have the “tires rotated”. She looked at me like I was crazy and said, “Don’t they rotate as you drive down the road?” Technically she’s right and I’m wrong. I thought it was rather funny.​

3. So if these phrases are just taken literally (which by the way seems like more what you are doing than I am); So what? A worm never dies (and eats flesh forever) and a fire is not quenched (never gets put out). We’re not talking about worms or fires, however. We’re talking about people. Quite obviously neither you nor I think that’s what these phrases mean (i.e. their literal meaning). But as I said. Pick one method. Take it literally or use the definition found in other literature familiar to these 1st Century readers that explains these phrases much better than a guess at what it means (like my daughter’s guess). But DON’T mix and match methods (some of it is literal and some of it is figurative).

4. Looking for a figure of speech in Scripture, I’ve Looked at every instance of “worm” in the Bible. So I didn’t miss any that might use a slightly different phrase or something. Only 22 occurrences (most not applicable) . But here’s some that are, I think:

a. Isaiah 66:24 “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
b. Acts 12:23 Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.
c. Isaiah 51:8 For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but my righteousness will be forever, and my salvation to all generations.”​

Now, you tell me. Does “their worn does not die” sound more like a figure of speech that means “death” or one that means something like ECT? Is it truer evidence to replace the “punishment” in “eternal punishment” with death or ECT? Or do you just have some image in your mind of worms eating dead bodies forever with a perpetual flesh machine re-producing their flesh for it to munch on? I say that, because that’s what I used to think. What is the real evidence in this phrase for ECT though, honestly?

5. Same approach for “unquenchable fire” or just “fire”. Very quickly you find what this "figure of speech" really means.

a. It’s there in Is 66:24 as well for their “dead bodies”.
b. Exodus 24:17 Now the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel.
c. Matthew 3:12/Luke 3:17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” [the chaff is totally consumed]
d. Genesis 13:10 And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar. (This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) then
Genesis 19:24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.
Luke 17:29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—
e. Jude 1:7 (ESV) 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.​

f. Etc. etc. I could go on and on with this “figure of speech”.

So again, does this figure of speech sound more like death/destruction or ECT? Or does one have a mixture of literal fire and smoke in their mind that burns forever?

And the idea that Sodom still “smokes” is ridiculous, at least to me.

So anyway, that’s the way I see Mark 9 as actually teaching destruction of the body/soul versus ECT and why I’m at least not intentionally twisting the Biblical message in saying that’s what I believe. Nor is it just a "personal interpretation". That’s why I don’t go around teaching ECT. Especially if this passage is the BEST teaching for it. Cause it ain't that good.

But I get that it’s the most common teaching.

 

[WIP]

Thank you. I will give it further study.

 

[chessman]

I believe in my heart that Mathew 15:45-46 does exactly that because I don't see how one can be punished forever without experiencing it. That's just what I believe. Here are those verses again for reference.
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I think you meant Matt 25:45-46, right? Not Matt 15.

I’ve been told (though I’m no expert) that the Greek is much like English is this respect. It’s translated eternal punishment (not eternal punishing) for a reason. The tense of the word requires it. But I’m no expert. I just read it as it’s translated. Which says everlasting punishment, not everlasting punishing (which is the way you are translating it).

And again, the issue is what this punishment consists of doesn't it. Not the fact that it says "eternal". We BOTH agree that it's eternal.

 

[chessman]

That's why I don't have any proof that he is a human, I didn't think I needed any. ...

is subjectively circular and demonstrates that you start out with a premise and fit everything in Scripture into this box, no matter how silly it seems.

 

[TimothyW]

First, I have not accused anyone of anything, at least not by my intention. I was merely suggesting possibility.

With regard to Mark 9, you stopped short of the verses that I think are relevant. I've bold printed the part that I think bears study. The question that comes to my mind is what is "their worm?" Could that imply their soul perhaps?
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

If their worm, or fowl soul, dieth not and the fire is not quenched, that would seem to support an eternal torment to me.

TimothyW challenged us to find just one verse that indicates the unsaved would be tortured forever and he would believe it. I believe in my heart that Mathew 15:45-46 does exactly that because I don't see how one can be punished forever without experiencing it. That's just what I believe. Here are those verses again for reference.
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matt 25:46 simply does not say that the punishment is eternal torment. If it said that, I would believe it. You believe the punishment is eternal torment. It is begging the question to assume that the eternal punishment is eternal torment and then say Matt 25:46 proves that the eternal punishment is eternal torment. I could just as well say "since Matt 25:46 says eternal punishment, and I believe eternal punishment is death, Matt 25:46 proves that the eternal punishment is death. You would be right to object, just as I object when you do it.

 

[TimothyW]

I think you missed my point. I didn't think I would have to PROVE the false prophet was a human when I came into this discussion. I thought maybe the beast, but not the false prophet. On the websites I read, it seemed a universal idea within Protestantism as a whole, that the false prophet was a human. That's why I don't have any proof that he is a human, I didn't think I needed any. On the other hand, you have no proof he is a demon either, so I guess we are in the same boat on this topic, PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

On the other, other hand, I have read much of this thread, and yours (and Tim's) definition of "eternal punishment" as death, because "death is eternal punishment" is subjectively circular and demonstrates that you start out with a premise and fit everything in Scripture into this box, no matter how silly it seems. There is only one way to interpret verses such as "the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2Thes. 1:9). This verse shows how the word "destruction" does not have to mean annihilation, especially within the discussion of the afterlife, and that part of the "punishment" is exclusion from the Beatific Vision, which assumes both consciousnesses and eternity, because the Beatific Vision is ETERNAL. .

2 Thes. 1:9 Gives new meaning to your interpretation of: "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." (Matt. 10:28) The word here is "apollymi" and the word in 2Thes. is "olethros". Both mean "destroy" but, in 2Thes. the word "eternal" is joined to it and means never ending.

Also, here is Paul describing what can only be the false prophet:

"And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming. The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2Thes. 2:8-12)

Here, Paul says the false prophet will be destroyed, yet we know he (whether a demon or a human) is eternally tormented along with the beast and Satan.

Do you think it's at least possible that there is punishment in the afterlife that is never ending for humans, as Scripture CLEARLY says? Do you still think the word "destroy" has to mean "annihilate", or can it mean, like Paul says in 2Thes., "eternal punishment"?

We have already shown you that scripture does not "clearly" show that there is conscious torment forever in the afterlife. But scripture does clearly state that the wicked will perish and will be no more and the wages of sin is death. Don't you think that it is possible that the scriptures mean what they say? What does John 3:16 say in your Bible? It's unbelievable to me that you can use a passage that says the lawless one will be destroyed to prove that the lawless one will NOT be destroyed. And the scripture says that those who are deceived perish, but somehow you are using to prove that those who are deceived will Not Perish.

Sorry, but I believe what the Bible says.

 

[WIP]

We BOTH agree that it's eternal.

Of this we most definitely agree! And on that note, I will withdraw from this discussion. Thank you for sharing.

 

[WIP]

Sorry, but I believe what the Bible says.

Putting my moderator hat back on now. I would add caution with a statement like this as it strongly suggests that you are claiming those that disagree with you do not, which would be a violation of our ToS. Please keep this in mind going forward.

 

[dadof10]

We have already shown you that scripture does not "clearly" show that there is conscious torment forever in the afterlife. But scripture does clearly state that the wicked will perish and will be no more and the wages of sin is death. Don't you think that it is possible that the scriptures mean what they say? What does John 3:16 say in your Bible?

And "we" have shown that Scripture does not teach annihilationism.

It's unbelievable to me that you can use a passage that says the lawless one will be destroyed to prove that the lawless one will NOT be destroyed. And the scripture says that those who are deceived perish, but somehow you are using to prove that those who are deceived will Not Perish.

Are you only reading half of what I post? The "lawless one" is no doubt the false prophet spoken of in revelation. The false prophet is NOT annihilated, even though Paul uses the word "destroy" in 2Thes. He is put in the lake of fire for eternity. You agree with that, right? So, you can see Biblically, that the word "destroy" does not ALWAYS mean annihilate, or cease to exist. This was my point to Chessman.

So, when Jesus says "...DESTROY both body and soul in Gehenna", it's possible He means "destroy" like Paul does, to torment eternally. There is a Biblical reason for what "we" have been saying.

Sorry, but I believe what the Bible says.

So do I. Imagine that...

 

[TimothyW]

Dadoften, you never answered. What does John 3:16 say in your Bible?

I'm not the bad guy here. Please stop being like this.