Hell

[Free]

The terms 'forever and ever' are used differently in the Bible when applying to different people.

Then perhaps you can provide some examples of exactly how the phrase is used differently, without prior assumption that it is.

Samuel was told that he was to serve God in the house of the Lord 'forever'.

'Forever' or 'forever and ever'?

AGAIN..the wicked are still mortal as they suffer the wages of sin which is death. They are not given immortality as it is a gift to the righteous and not to the wicked. This is why they experience the 'second death' in Revelation.

So, you use one assumption to support another. You'll have to prove that point as well, not just assume that it is true to support your other argument.

Hence, when 'forever' applies to them, it must be

1) an unspecified period
2) finite as they do not have eternal life

You are using the single 'forever' in place of 'forever and ever', which is fallacious. Can you show where 'forever and ever' is used of people other than God (outside of Revelation)?

 

[Novice]

So let me get this straight, Free, so I can explain it to my two young boys. When the Bible says "forever", it sometimes means "their whole lives", or "for a really long, indefinite, but ultimately finite period of time."

But when the Bible says "forever and ever" it really means forever. and ever. In the way that we think that forever means. When God doesn't experience time. Or transcends all time. Or when time ends. Or when an alternate time begins, not after this time, but instead of it. Got it.

Humans in our own very limited scientific understanding know that time is not an absolute. We know that for light, time does not exist, because at the speed of light, time halts. In fact, LIGHT is the ultimate measuring stick, and what we call "time" is merely our expression of our experience of light, since we cannot be everywhere at once. It seems like this whole distinction becomes comical because we're trying to measure the height of a color, or the weight of a sound. Time is not the right question to ask about God, and "eternity" for everything else is relative, since everything else is not Eternal.

If I didn't think that the description of anything that God created being "tortured forever and ever" was either a) prophetic hyperboly, or b) an extinguishing punishment until the end of it's existence, or c) a remedial transformation which ended with it's no longer being worthy of torture, I wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning, or eat, or laugh, ever again. Forever. And ever. In the words of Max Von Sydow, "I would never stop throwing up." I'm not trying to be flip, I'm trying to imagine what I would feel if I truly believed that was always ongoing, never ending, never ceasing, for no remedial purpose. It would be like finding out my wife was sleeping with my brother. Nothing I thought I knew about her was real, and my life was a lie, and I'd lose my lunch.

Reading the Bible is like reading letters. You can KIND of get to know someone by reading their letters, but someone who actually KNOWS someone will understand the nuance, the inflection, the figures of speech, the flourishes and colloquialisms to make a point, that someone who only read their letters never would get. Every experience I have ever had with the character of our Lord speaks to me that He would never torture anything (in the simple way we understand it) without cessation or remediation. Call me crazy, call me heretical, but it feels sane and unblasphemous to say God is GOOD. Really really really Good. The very essence of Good, beyond our very best imaginings. And Good punishes, as every parent knows. But Good always has purpose for punishment. Punishment without purpose is the very definition of abuse.

My (thirty) two cents.

 

[Free]

So let me get this straight, Free, so I can explain it to my two young boys. When the Bible says "forever", it sometimes means "their whole lives", or "for a really long, indefinite, but ultimately finite period of time."

But when the Bible says "forever and ever" it really means forever. and ever. In the way that we think that forever means.

Good point. I could have made my point with just "forever," by itself. What do you know of how the writers of the Bible emphasize a point they are trying to make?

Every experience I have ever had with the character of our Lord speaks to me that He would never torture anything (in the simple way we understand it) without cessation or remediation.

So please tell me then, where have I or the Bible, according to what I am saying, that God will torture anyone for eternity?

And Good punishes, as every parent knows. But Good always has purpose for punishment. Punishment without purpose is the very definition of abuse.

And sometimes that purpose is justice. Do you consider death punishment? How about the death of a whole race or culture as in the OT? Was that purposeful for those people? Do you perfectly know and understand God's justice?

 

[SputnikBoy]

And Good punishes, as every parent knows. But Good always has purpose for punishment. Punishment without purpose is the very definition of abuse.

Free: And sometimes that purpose is justice. Do you consider death punishment? How about the death of a whole race or culture as in the OT? Was that purposeful for those people? Do you perfectly know and understand God's justice?

Sputnik: And this is where the belief in 'eternal punishMENT comes unstuck. Death eternal sure IS punishment enough. Wanting MORE than that (rubbing one's nose in their sins) is a human trait. God, we need to understand, is NOT human.

I realize that this has been said over and over again but it's a point that bears merit. An infinite period of punishment for finite crimes (sins) would NEVER be seen as just punishment by the saved.

 

[Novice]

I thought the verses that prompted the whole "forever" discussion (vs. age of the ages) were Revelation 14:11 and Revelation 20:10.

 

[guibox]

[quote="Free] quoted by guibox: AGAIN..the wicked are still mortal as they suffer the wages of sin which is death. They are not given immortality as it is a gift to the righteous and not to the wicked. This is why they experience the 'second death' in Revelation. [/quote]
So, you use one assumption to support another. You'll have to prove that point as well, not just assume that it is true to support your other argument.)[/quote]

I have made this quite plain in other areas. You have ignored clear evidence to believe what you want

[quote="Free]Can you show where 'forever and ever' is used of people other than God (outside of Revelation)?[/quote]

It is assumption that there is a difference between 'forever' and 'forever and ever' in the bible. I do not have my Concordance with me but I will take a look at the nature of the words used in both instances. However I would direct you to Isaiah 34:10 which Revelation 14 and 20 borrow their language from. The destruction of Edom already occured and the language used is temporal

 

[Free]

Sputnik: And this is where the belief in 'eternal punishMENT comes unstuck. Death eternal sure IS punishment enough. Wanting MORE than that (rubbing one's nose in their sins) is a human trait. God, we need to understand, is NOT human.

I am not so sure eternal punishment becomes stuck here as I don't think you really have an argument. Death is not and cannot be punishment. Death eternal would be...merely death, the cessation of existence. Those who would be eternally dead wouldn't know punishment from pleasure.

Do you agree with Novice that punishment has a purpose? If so, how can being annihilated even be considered punishment?

I realize that this has been said over and over again but it's a point that bears merit. An infinite period of punishment for finite crimes (sins) would NEVER be seen as just punishment by the saved.

How is this a point that bears merit? How do you, or anyone else, know what those who will saved are going to think concerning eternal punishment?

You are assuimng 1) that your current idea of justice is correct, 2) that all who are saved are going to share your current idea of justice, and 3) that your idea of justice won't change after you stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

I thought the verses that prompted the whole "forever" discussion (vs. age of the ages) were Revelation 14:11 and Revelation 20:10.

Are you implying that the verses I gave aren't relevant to the discussion? I am unclear as to what your point is.

I have made this quite plain in other areas. You have ignored clear evidence to believe what you want

So is that how it is? Your "clear evidence" is right and my "clear evidence" is wrong. I'm the one ignoring "clear evidence" and you're not? Couldn't it be because I have found your arguments and support greatly lacking and have found no reason to change my current belief?

It is assumption that there is a difference between 'forever' and 'forever and ever' in the bible. I do not have my Concordance with me but I will take a look at the nature of the words used in both instances.

There is a difference, as the Greek shows. Do you not think that "of the age(s)" and "the ages of the ages" are different?

The destruction of Edom already occured and the language used is temporal

Which part of the verse, A or B?

 

[Vic C.]

I'm so sorry Scott; I just now saw this. : :wink:

Based solely on the words themselves Vic, I'm really puzzled as how you took them to mean a finite period of time.

I explained this in my post right below yours, not even knowing you asked. :-D

My first thoughts were of the "King of the ages" (Revelation 15:3). King of all time or King of the finite number of ages? Jude 1:25 implies the ages aren't finite and subject to God's authority.

I don't see any references to 'ages' in either verse. Don't see it in the KJ, NKJ, or my LITV. They say King of the saints. Even the NASB says, King of the Nations.

That pesky little NIV goes and uses "ages" where not too many other translations seem to be using it but uses 'forever and ever' where some use 'age' or 'ages'. :

Finally, Isaiah 45:17 really dispells any doubt that the ages are not infinite. As the verse ends in 'to ages everlasting'.

I agree. That's what we are saying. The ages are not infinite. Again though, for the record, I find no reference to 'ages'. NIV seems to be in the minority here.

 

[Vic C.]

Ok, after reviewing the last couple of pages, I am seeing we are getting dangerously close to debating with the same attitudes that plagued the UR debates. So for the meantime, I am taking a back seat to this discussion. If my questions and understanding of a some verses are the cause of this, I truely apologize. 8-)

Peace,
Vic

 

[Scott]

I explained this in my post right below yours, not even knowing you asked.

So, I don't expect we will know for certain when "ages of the ages" means an indefinate period or undetermined period(s) or an eternity. I guess it all depends on context.

Ok, but correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you used to be a big proponent of the KJV. You obviously hold the opinion that 'ages of the ages' is finite, I'm wondering what led you to that conclusion. I'm just not seeing it. If I was reading from the context however, I would be led to think that the mention of 'day and night' is puting an emphasis on it being ceaseless.

I agree. That's what we are saying. The ages are not infinite.

I think you misunderstood what I meant (or I didn't say it clearly : ), the ages are infinite and I'll even use the KJV this time in support instead of the NIV.

Lets take the same verse in Isaiah 45:17, and now we'll jump over to Ephesians 3:21 and compare. Notice the similarities?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Sputnik: And this is where the belief in 'eternal punishMENT comes unstuck. Death eternal sure IS punishment enough. Wanting MORE than that (rubbing one's nose in their sins) is a human trait. God, we need to understand, is NOT human.

Free: I am not so sure eternal punishment becomes stuck here as I don't think you really have an argument. Death is not and cannot be punishment. Death eternal would be...merely death, the cessation of existence. Those who would be eternally dead wouldn't know punishment from pleasure.

Sputnik: We perhaps need to bear in mind that 'the unrighteous' might not be 'criminals' as such but merely people who never accepted Jesus. Here is a bit of rhetoric ...imagine the kind old lady down the street. Neighbors who have known her for years would say that she seems to have lived a sinless life. She's always given to help others, always had a smile and a kind word for everyone, always been there when needed. But, she has no time for Jesus. You've tried talking to her about Him but she is just not interested. Is she deserving of everlasting punishment? Well, according to popular theory, that's what awaits her.

Free: Do you agree with Novice that punishment has a purpose? If so, how can being annihilated even be considered punishment?

Sputnik: We still sentence people to death. Admittedly, these dire consequences usually come after that person has served a number of years in prison. But, they still die. Except in extreme circumstances, punishment is seen to have a purpose. Often, it's hard to know what that purpose is; however, one's paying a penalty for having 'sinned' is ultimately intended anyway for that person to see the error of their ways. I realize how questionable all of this ideology is.

I realize that this has been said over and over again but it's a point that bears merit. An infinite period of punishment for finite crimes (sins) would NEVER be seen as just punishment by the saved.

Free: How is this a point that bears merit? How do you, or anyone else, know what those who will saved are going to think concerning eternal punishment?

Sputnik: I believe that one's questioning a punishment in hell that goes on and on into eons for one's 80-some years of 'sinning' on earth certainly DOES bear merit. It's not only unjust but also illogical. Surely it's even illogical and unjust from a divine perspective.

Free: You are assuimng 1) that your current idea of justice is correct, 2) that all who are saved are going to share your current idea of justice, and 3) that your idea of justice won't change after you stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Sputnik: True. But, right now anyway, we can only debate these issues from a human perspective. Perhaps it might be better if we didn't debate such issues to begin with. There are so many things that we just don't know. From a Bible perspective, however, I think we CAN pretty well figure out what hell and eternal torment are all about. Most, if not all, of the scriptural references pertaining to this issue are illustrative, figurative, cultural, or symbolic in nature.

 

[Free]

But, she has no time for Jesus. You've tried talking to her about Him but she is just not interested. Is she deserving of everlasting punishment? Well, according to popular theory, that's what awaits her.

Yes, that is what she deserves. But what do you define "punishment" as? I suspect that you, along with others who agree with your position, believe that punishment is God torturing people for eternity. But I think that a fair reading of Scripture shows otherwise.

I believe that one's questioning a punishment in hell that goes on and on into eons for one's 80-some years of 'sinning' on earth certainly DOES bear merit. It's not only unjust but also illogical. Surely it's even illogical and unjust from a divine perspective.

But you seem to forget that it isn't sinning per se that gets one into hell, it's rejecting the infinite God. This isn't about stealing a few chocolate bars, swearing, or watching dirty movies, but otherwise being "clean". It's rejecting the very purpose for which one was made.

Perhaps it might be better if we didn't debate such issues to begin with. There are so many things that we just don't know.

Agreed.

From a Bible perspective, however, I think we CAN pretty well figure out what hell and eternal torment are all about. Most, if not all, of the scriptural references pertaining to this issue are illustrative, figurative, cultural, or symbolic in nature.

Disagree. I think that a plain reading of Scripture strongly supports the notion that hell is a real place and that punishment occurs there.

 

[SputnikBoy]

WHATEVER hell might be, Free, what say that we make sure we don't finish up there?

 

[Vic C.]

WHATEVER hell might be, Free, what say that we make sure we don't finish up there?

I blame Dante for this vision of Hell we have. :


Scott, I will try and answer your post to me via a PM later.

Peace,
Vic

 

[Cameron]

It's nice to see the that peple have choosen the two correct reponses.

The Lake of Fire is the Outer Darkness because the place is separated from God's Glory. It is God's Glory that deterines what is light or dark. All the blazing suns of all the glalaxies in the universe plus the Lake of Fire are pitch black compared to God's wonderful Glory!

 

[Bick]

Hell?

To all: The whole idea of punishment in Hell started by the belief in the pagan philosophy that man has an immortal soul, that upon death, will go immediately to a place of delight (heaven) or a place of torment (hell).

I appeal to my fellow believers: Study the Whole Scriptures using as
accurate and literal a translation as possible. Such as: Young's Literal Translation, Rotherham's Translation, or the Concordant Literal New Testament.

You will find that MAN DOES NOT HAVE AN IMMORTAL SOUL!

Gen. 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." AV

An immortal soul was not joined to the prepared body. Man became a LIVING SOUL WHEN THE BREATH OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE WAS BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS.

From Young's Concordance: Soul is "nephesh" in Hebrew, and "psuche" in Greek.

SOUL could be said to be the consciousness, the feelings, the desires, produced by the breath of life vitalizing the body.

Many times man is called a "soul" in the Scriptures: AV
Gen.12:5 "Abram took his wife.....and the souls they had gotten in
Haran."
Gen. 46:26 "..all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt."
Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and
the same day there were added.....about three thousand souls" , etc.

The soul can be killed, destroyed, die or be dead:
Josh. 10:28 "And that day Joshua took Makkedah and smote it with
the sword and the king thereof.....and all the souls therein."
Lev. 23:30 "And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that
same soul will I destroy from among his people", etc.

Since the soul is a person's consciousness, his being etc, when he dies everything ceases. His soul is said to disappear or go the unseen, the grave: Sheol (Heb.), Hades (Grk.).

Now, getting to my understanding of hell: if Gehenna is called hell, so be it. But, as was pointed out on this link, Gehenna was a literal place during Jesus earthly ministry; a place where the rubbish, the waste of the city of Jerusalem was kept burning, where maggots were eating unburned flesh, or waste. Jesus warned against unrighteous living, not keeping the laws of Israel, etc, for if found guilty by the Sanhedrin, the highest governing council in Jerusalem, they could be sentenced to Gehenna. Normally, this would mean the guilty would be stoned to death and their body cast into the fires of Gehenna.

Also, while the lake of fire and sulfur is not called "hell", to many that is what it is. And, horrible as it is, those cast into it die. And since they have lived, at least once, this is THE SECOND DEATH.

God bless, Bick

 

[McQuacks]

I think the story of Lazarus that Jesus tells is a good one, in Luke 16...I apologize if that has already been cited. While it doesn't speak of eternal punishment, Jesus does use it to tell that there is life after death, and a place of punishment and a place of paradise.
To better understand the story of Lazarus, Hell, "Hades" and "Sheol," I recommend this page: http://www.layhands.com/DidJesusGoToHell.htm Speaks of the existence of Hell now and the future existence that Revelations speaks about. Very good link in my opinion.
Also this one: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/helwords.html
It's important to understand the background of hell in discussions like this.

I also like Daniel 12:2-3. The "everlasting" here literally means (according to BlueLetterBible): "1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
a) ancient time, long time (of past)
b) (of future)
1) for ever, always
2) continuous existence, perpetual
3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity.

In regards to the immortality of the soul, Jesus telling the theif that "today" you will be with my in paradise is a good one, which literally means according to BlueLetter: "1) this (very) day), or 2) what has happened today."
Here "breath" and "spirit" are not the same things: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last." (Luke 23:46).
Also Ecclesiastes 12:7 and 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, another one of my favorites.
-McQ 8-)

 

[guibox]

I think the story of Lazarus that Jesus tells is a good one, in Luke 16...I apologize if that has already been cited. While it doesn't speak of eternal punishment, Jesus does use it to tell that there is life after death, and a place of punishment and a place of paradise.
To better understand the story of Lazarus, Hell, "Hades" and "Sheol," I recommend this page: http://www.layhands.com/DidJesusGoToHell.htm Speaks of the existence of Hell now and the future existence that Revelations speaks about. Very good link in my opinion.
Also this one: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/helwords.html
It's important to understand the background of hell in discussions like this.

Yes, it is important to study the background. If you do you will find that all references to 'punishment' 'torment' and 'eternal fire' speak not of consequences at death but the judgment at the end of the age. Luke 16 is the ONLY scripture in the entire bible that speaks of 'torment' at death. This is the term 'Hades' or the Greek equivalent of 'Sheol'. However, if you study the usage of the terms in the Bible, NONE of them mean ' a place of torment at death'. You will not find such a translation of 'Sheol' in the OT or the other 10 usages of 'Hades' in the NT.

Nevermind the rest of the unscriptural concepts of 'Abraham's Bosom', a great gulf between paradise and hell'.

In regards to the immortality of the soul, Jesus telling the theif that "today" you will be with my in paradise is a good one, which literally means according to BlueLetter: "1) this (very) day), or 2) what has happened today."
Here "breath" and "spirit" are not the same things: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last." (Luke 23:46).
Also Ecclesiastes 12:7 and 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, another one of my favorites.
-McQ 8-)

First of all, the problem with your interpretation is that Christ didn't go to heaven at death, that the thief asked Christ to 'remember him when you COME into your kingdom' speaking of the second coming, and that the Greek didn't have any punctuation. The comma should have come after today. In so doing, the rest of the scripture isn't contradicted and it shows Jesus using a common phrase used throughout the bible 'I say unto you today' 'Verily I say today'..Jesus used this phrase throughout the NT and this is no different. In other words, Jesus was assuring the thief that his salvation was assured and that Jesus would 'remember' him, not take him away at death.

Second, the bible does compare teh 'spirit' with the 'breath'. it is called parallelism. Look at how Luke 23:46 reiterates the thought of Job 27:3

"All the while my BREATH is in me, and the SPIRIT of God is in my nostrils'

This 'spirit' that is commended to God, that 'goes back to God who gave it' is nothing more than the 'life breath' (ruach in Hebrew) and not some immortal soul

Genesis 2:7

"And God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH of life, and man BECAME a living soul (person or living being)

The biggest fundamental problem with the concept of hell is the misunderstanding of what the 'soul' and 'spirit' is.

 

[Free]

First of all, the problem with your interpretation is that Christ didn't go to heaven at death, that the thief asked Christ to 'remember him when you COME into your kingdom' speaking of the second coming, and that the Greek didn't have any punctuation. The comma should have come after today. In so doing, the rest of the scripture isn't contradicted and it shows Jesus using a common phrase used throughout the bible 'I say unto you today' 'Verily I say today'..Jesus used this phrase throughout the NT and this is no different.

A couple of problems.

First, you admit there was no punctuation in the Greek, yet seem to know where it should be placed, where the emphasis is. Are you a Greek scholar by any chance or do you have other preconceived notions for putting the comma after today?

Second, perhaps you are using a different version, but I cannot find another instance of Jesus saying "I say unto you today." He certainly states "I say unto you" many times, but not with "today". The reason is pretty simple, he was speaking that day so the use of "today" would be stating the obvious. So in the account of the thief on the cross, was the thief unaware that Jesus was speaking that day? Did the thief not know that it was today? It really makes very little sense to place the comma where you do.

Third, you are assuming that by "paradise" the thief meant heaven, when that is not necessarily so.

The biggest fundamental problem with the concept of hell is the misunderstanding of what the 'soul' and 'spirit' is.

And you continually ignore the several nuances of the meaning of "soul" as it is used throughout the entire Bible. It certainly means more than just "living being," although that is one of its meanings.

 

[SputnikBoy]

First of all, the problem with your interpretation is that Christ didn't go to heaven at death, that the thief asked Christ to 'remember him when you COME into your kingdom' speaking of the second coming, and that the Greek didn't have any punctuation. The comma should have come after today. In so doing, the rest of the scripture isn't contradicted and it shows Jesus using a common phrase used throughout the bible 'I say unto you today' 'Verily I say today'..Jesus used this phrase throughout the NT and this is no different.

Free: A couple of problems.

First, you admit there was no punctuation in the Greek, yet seem to know where it should be placed, where the emphasis is. Are you a Greek scholar by any chance or do you have other preconceived notions for putting the comma after today?

Sputnik: I'm sure that guibox can speak for himself but I'd like to put in my 'dime's worth' as well.

While I'm sure that the 'comma in the wrong place' idea is perhaps seen by most as being a tad 'flimsy', Jesus could not have meant 'today' in our traditional understanding of that scripture. The facts are that neither Jesus nor the thief went to paradise that day anyway. Jesus told Mary three days later that He had not yet ascended to His father in heaven. The thief had his legs broken and was removed from his cross because he was not yet dead as the new day (the Sabbath) approached.

So, either Jesus was mistaken (?) or, just maybe, the comma IS in the wrong place. Then again, there may be a third option to the meaning of Jesus' statement to the thief. 'Today you will be with me in paradise' need not necessarily mean anything other than 'Today (as of today) you will be with me in paradise (your salvation has been assured).'

Free: Second, perhaps you are using a different version, but I cannot find another instance of Jesus saying "I say unto you today." He certainly states "I say unto you" many times, but not with "today". The reason is pretty simple, he was speaking that day so the use of "today" would be stating the obvious. So in the account of the thief on the cross, was the thief unaware that Jesus was speaking that day? Did the thief not know that it was today? It really makes very little sense to place the comma where you do.

Sputnik: Could be. But the usage of 'today' as meaning 'I will see you in heaven in two or three hours time' makes LESS sense. There were not many hours of the day left when Jesus made that statement. Remember, the day ended at sundown which would have occurred three hours or so after Jesus died. We are not told when the thief died but we can logically conclude that he was still alive after the arrival of the new day.

Free: Third, you are assuming that by "paradise" the thief meant heaven, when that is not necessarily so.

Sputnik: The word 'paradise' is synonymous with 'heaven' the three times that it's mentioned in the scriptures. See Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 12:4; and Revelation 2:7. Check out the Greek 'paradeisos'. It's referred to as 'a park, an Eden, a place of future happiness'. Revelation 2:7 refers to its location as being 'the midst of God'. So, I don't think there's any doubt that paradise is indeed heaven. Where else but heaven did you have in mind, Free?