Where is the justice?????????

[brakelite2]

You're kidding, right? When Bick asked you about how you would define the word "perish", here is your response: "I accept Strong's definition, that is destroy. This for me agrees with other words used in scripture when referring to the fate of the wicked. Malachi 4:1 is a good example."

the word is "apollumi" and one of the valid definitions ACCORDING TO STRONGS is "metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell", as I said above to Bob.

Metaphorically? That is merely an opinion. The word in the Greek means literally fully destroy.

Why will you accept Strongs definition when it bolsters your case, then come off as "above all that" when you claim to "tire" of all that silly defining and referencing, then claim "bias!" when you are shown to be in error?

As I said, the whole tenor of the thread was intended as a considering of the character and nature of God. I had no mind to go into semantics and word studies. Bick asked the question, I answered.

I would be happy to discuss the un-addressed points you mention in your last post, if I can do them without putting too much "Catholicism" in them and getting the thread shut down. Let me know if you want to continue and I'll see if I can do it.

You can put as much 'Catholicism' in it as you like. But I would prefer you just used scriptures as the basis for debate. Tradition is not on a par with scripture, particualrly Greek philosophy and the teachings of Plato and Socrates et al who promoted the teaching that the church today is repeating.

 

[dadof10]

Metaphorically? That is merely an opinion.

"Metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell" is the definition Strong's SPECIFICALLY gives to Matt. 10:28 and Jas. 4:12, as I wrote to Bob above. Please look it up, all the links are there. If you won't accept it or don't want to talk about it, fine, I'll drop it.

The word in the Greek means literally fully destroy.

Not in all cases. Words have different meanings in context.

As I said, the whole tenor of the thread was intended as a considering of the character and nature of God. I had no mind to go into semantics and word studies. Bick asked the question, I answered.

By using Strong's as a valid reference.

Tradition is not on a par with scripture,

Your argument is not with me, it's with Paul, who puts Tradition exactly on par with Scripture.

particualrly Greek philosophy and the teachings of Plato and Socrates et al who promoted the teaching that the church today is repeating.

LOL...Right.

If you would like me to stick to Scripture, O.K. How would you interpret these verses?

"Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew (RSV) 25)"

The ONLY definition for eternal is never ending. If you think "eternal punishment" can end, can "eternal life"?

 

[brakelite2]

If you would like me to stick to Scripture, O.K. How would you interpret these verses?

"Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew (RSV) 25)"


The ONLY definition for eternal is never ending. If you think "eternal punishment" can end, can "eternal life"?

Your quoted scripture confirms all that I have been saying. Eternal life and eternal punishment are set forth as direct and complete opposites. They are in stark contrast with one another. One is life, and the other is death. Life is eternal because death no longer is a threat. Death is thrown into the lake of fire along with the wicked, the devil, and his angels. Life is eternal because it will never end.
Death is eternal because there is no second resurrection for the wicked. Death is forever, there will be no time ever in the future that life comes to the one dead. Death is the punishment and it is eternal.
The problem you have in understanding this concept is that you do not believe the Bible. Death to you does not mean death. Death to you means life at another address. You have bought into the teaching of the church which inherited it from Greek philosophy. The belief that man is naturally immortal and cannot die. That is a Satanic lie and is in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches. The only one who promised Adam life in disobedience was Satan. And the declaration to Eve by that great deceiver 'ye shall not surely die', was the first sermon preached on the immortality of the soul. Yet this sermon, resting solely on the authority of Satan, is echoed from Christian pulpits and is received by the majority of mankind as readily as it was received by our first parents.The divine sentence, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die". Ezek 18:20, is made to mean 'the soul that sinneth, it shall live eternally.' One cannot but wonder at the great infatuation which renders men so credulous concerning the words of Satan and so unbelieving in regard to the words of God!

If Adam and Eve had access to the tree of life after the fall, then man in his sinful state would have lived forever., and sin itself would have been immortalised. But angels guarded the way top the tree of life with a flaming sword and no member of the human family since has had access to the fruit since. therefore there is no such thing as an immortal sinner.

Behold the day cometh which shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts,that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Malachi 4:1

Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the day of thine anger: and the Lord shall swallow them up in His wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

Who (Jesus) only hath immortality dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto....1 Tim 6:16

 

[dadof10]

Your quoted scripture confirms all that I have been saying. Eternal life and eternal punishment are set forth as direct and complete opposites. They are in stark contrast with one another. One is life, and the other is death. ]

Wrong. One is life the other is PUNISHMENT. You can NOT simply superimpose the word "punishment" (kolasis) with the word "death" (thanatos). They are not synonymous. If Jesus meant death He would have said it. Now I know why you don't want to argue "the meaning of words", they obviously have no meaning to you.

You mentioned the word "punishment" exactly one time in your rant and the word "death" 13 times.

The problem you have in understanding this concept is that you do not believe the Bible.

I believe the Bible when it says "eternal punishment". I am not trying to jusify a man-made doctrine by SUBSTITUTING WORDS of the text.

Death to you does not mean death.

Yes it does. AND PUNISHMENT MEANS PUNISHMENT. Try to deal with Scripture as it is written.

 

[whitecloud]

Well, justice is going to be served upon the world. Read the Bible and look at the current situations in our world. I am not going to rationalize about statements like that. Yet, even though God is giving the Church a solid sence of victory against the kingdoms of hell and darkness, anyone can see that the world is getting more and more in a panic because the numbers are not matching up as they did years ago. The end of civilization all of a sudden is rushing upon them and it is sad if they do not have the everlasting anchor and Rock of ages by and in them.

Jesus, Gods answer to problems of the world. Always was since we have had a was. I read it in the Bible.

 

[AravisCalormene]

One thing I don't understand.
In all humility, isn't it enough to know that hell is an undesirable place of misery? Why is the great and glorious Kingdom of God being put on hold whilst we engage in the edifying debate on whether the unsaved sinner will suffer eternally in hell or be utterly destroyed in hell?
Discussions like these go on... and on, and on, and on...and we wonder why the devil roams freely and unmolested throughout the world, the church, and our lives. The Soldiers of the Cross are busy doing...what? Not much.
Let us refrain from vain arguments and go to destroy the works of the devil in the unity of the Spirit of Christ.

 

[guibox]

There are many issues that the doctrine of eternal torment rises or falls on. You can interpret Matthew 24:46 and Revelation 14:10-11 anywhich way you want but the Bible cannot contradict itself and must be allowed to interpret itself.

There are 4 things the traditionalist doesn't take into consideration that are biblically proven and cannot co-exist with eternal torment:

1) The language used to support eternal torment is derived from the Hebrew language used in the
OT to support complete and total annihilation. The terms 'forever and ever'', 'day and night', 'eternal fire', 'unquenchable fire' and 'worm dieth not' are all language of destruction used to denote temporary actions with an eternal result as well as continuity and not duration.

See:
Isaiah 34:10
1 Samuel 1:21;28
Jeremiah 17:27
Isaiah 66:24

2) The Bible clearly shows that the wicked are going to be 'burnt up' 'consume away into smoke' be 'as if they had never been', 'burnt up like the chaff', 'destroyed', 'devoured'. Fire is used throughout the Bible to denote complete and utter destruction, not eternal existence.

3) Eternal life or immortality in any form is never associated with the wicked. Only the righteous have eternal life. Eternal life/immortality is a gift of God bestowed upon man when the bridge of enmity is gapped and He is made a new creature. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. The fate of the wicked is contrasted with that of the righteous. The opposite of 'eternal life' is not 'eternal life in hell'. It is 'death'. Even if you could make a case that the righteous are given immortal souls when they accept Christ, you cannot make this same case for the wicked. Instead, they remain in sin and suffer it's wages: DEATH

Dr. Lyman Abbott (1835-1922),a Congregation list pastor and editor of Christian Union and The Outlook. said it well.

"The notion that the final punishment of sin is continuance in sin and suffering is also based in part on, what seems to me, a false philosophy of man. This philosophy is that man is by nature immortal. The conviction has grown on me, that according to the teaching of both of science and Scripture, man is by nature an animal, and like all other animals mortal; that immortality belongs only to the spiritual life; and that spiritual life is possible only in communion and contact with God; that, in short, immortality was not conferred upon the race in creation whether it would or not, but is conferred in redemption, upon all those of the race who choose life and immortality through Jesus Christ our Lord."

4) The terms used to explain 'punishment', 'death' 'destroy', and 'destruction' find their meaning in their literal uses, not in a metaphorical opposite. R.F Weymouth (1822-1902) was a translator of the Greek NT in Modern Speech, and was the headmaster of Mill Hill School. Here is what he had to say on the subject:

"My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean `maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence.' To translate black as white is nothing to this."

""The use in the N.T. of such words as `death', `destruction', `fire', `perish', to describe Future Retribution, point to the likelihood of fearful anguish, followed by extinction of being, as the doom which awaits those who by persistent rejection of the Saviour prove themselves utterly, and therefore irremediably bad."

You can harp on the different meanings of 'appolumi' from Strong's all you want. The fact is, is that the above 4 things taken into consideration cannot be disputed. They MUST be disputed FIRST to assume eternal torment works. You cannot eisegetically interpret the texts with the preconceived notion that the wicked can be tormented eternally.

Number 3) alone makes the house of cards of eternal torment tumble. It cannot be disputed and the immortality of the wicked cannot be proved without working backwards and using Revelation 14:10-11 first as proof instead of exegeting the text and allowing the Bible to interpret itself.

 

[dadof10]

There are many issues that the doctrine of eternal torment rises or falls on. You can interpret Matthew 24:46 and Revelation 14:10-11 anywhich way you want but the Bible cannot contradict itself and must be allowed to interpret itself.

Usually when someone says "the Bible must be allowed to interpret itself" they really mean "my interpretation is right, why won't you accept it?". If we are simply letting Scripture interpret itself, why are you quoting two guys? Why do you need help interpreting?

Let's take your advise and start with Matt: 25,46 "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew (RSV) 25)

Pretty straight forward. It just interprets itself. The wicked will "go into eternal punishment", the righteous "into eternal Life". Never ending punishment, never ending life. There, it's interpreted.

Now Rev: 14,11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Revelation (RSV) 14)."

Simple. If the smoke of their torment goes up forever, doesn't that mean the are being tormented forever? After all, if their torment ends, the smoke from it must end too, right? Why don't we just let Scripture interpret itself, without "4 things" getting in the way and Dr. Abbot and Mr. Weymouth interfering?

You can harp on the different meanings of 'appolumi' from Strong's all you want.

So, you can bring up sources and I am to accept that you and these sources are "letting Scripture speak for itself", yet when I quote a reputable a source it's "harping"? This is amazing.

The fact is, is that the above 4 things taken into consideration cannot be disputed. They MUST be disputed FIRST to assume eternal torment works. You cannot eisegetically interpret the texts with the preconceived notion that the wicked can be tormented eternally.

I have no "preconceived notions". I'm just letting the words speak for themselves without doing backflips to try to force Scripture into my own personal theology.

 

[guibox]

Let's take your advise and start with Matt: 25,46 "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew (RSV) 25)

Pretty straight forward. It just interprets itself. The wicked will "go into eternal punishment", the righteous "into eternal Life". Never ending punishment, never ending life. There, it's interpreted..

Apparently you don't understand the concept of 'letting the bible interpret itself'. What you just did was interpret your own verse alone according to assumptive reasoning.

Let's do what I said, shall we?

'everlasting punishment' vs 'eternal life'.

Now the two are being contrasted dadof10. What ever the 'punishment' is, it is OPPOSITE of eternal life. We can deduce from the language of these two that both are everlasting.

What is the punishment for the wicked who have sinned and remain in sin?

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life - Romans 6:23

Here we see the comparison again, but now we have a further explanation. Eternal life is contrasted to 'death'. The punishment for sin is not 'eternal fire and torment'. It is 'death'. Death is the cessation of life. It is the opposite of life which is a gift of God given to the righteous.

Here is further comparison.

...that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16b

Perish is a state, not a continuous action. It is the same as 'death'. It is 'death' that is everlasting. Eternal torment is not a wage of sin. Sin brings death, Christ brings life.

Now Rev: 14,11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Revelation (RSV) 14)."
Simple. If the smoke of their torment goes up forever, doesn't that mean the are being tormented forever? After all, if their torment ends, the smoke from it must end too, right?

Let's allow the bible to interpret itself shall we? Rather than impose our own views on what these terms mean, we must see how they are used in the Bible. Only then can we come to a conclusion on how these are two be interpreted.

The 'smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever' is actually used to denote a completed act. The results and proof of that act is in the smoke going up, signifying that the work has been done. It goes up and is gone forever. Notice where John got this language from.

Isaiah 34:9,10 describes the destruction of the city of Edom. An act that happened by fire (remember, the most destructive force used in the bible) and was completed. Read carefully.

And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

Edom is not burning now, neither is it's smoke continually going up. 'Not quenched day or night' is the same as 'no rest day or night' explained in Revelation 14. The 'smoke goeth up forever and ever'. No rest day or night means that from point A to point B, there is no rest. It denotes continuity not duration. The fire will do it's work uninterrupted. The smoke going up signifies the end results, the finality of the destruction.

Let's also bring up Mark 9:44 which talks about 'unquenchable fire'. Does this mean that the fire will never GO out? No. It means that it cannot be PUT out. It will do its work uniterrupted. No water, sand or foam will distinguish it. It is 'unquenchable'. It cannot be 'quenched'.

Want further proof? Let's let the scriptures interpret itself.

Here is the prophetic warning in Jeremiah 17:27 about the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians:

But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched

Notice that this fire will 'devour' and 'will not be quenched'. This fire will do its work and devour completely. Nobody will be able to put it out. A fire that cannot be quenched will leave nothing left. This is as annihilating as you can get.

Notice that this is what happens to the wicked at the end of time in Revelation 20:9:

And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them

What does 'devouring' fire do to the wicked? Again, let the scriptures explain it.
Malachi 4:1

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch

Let's look at 2nd Peter 2:6 too

if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly - ESV

The Bible interprets itself. The imagery of the NT language is derived from the OT language of complete and utter destruction, not eternal torment. Let the bible interpret itself, dad.

Why don't we just let Scripture interpret itself, without "4 things" getting in the way and Dr. Abbot and Mr. Weymouth interfering?

Simple. My four things MUST be addressed and put to rest before eternal torment can be proven. What I put forth is simply what the scriptures say clearly. You must first prove that the wicked are given immortality before you can deduce that they are able to burn forever. You cannot get around the clear language of destruction for the wicked throughout the entire bible, dadof10. Ignoring it will not make your position any truer. Rather, it is a massive hurdle that throws eternal torment into a shambles.

 

[MarkT]

Let's take your advise and start with Matt: 25,46 "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew (RSV) 25)

Pretty straight forward. It just interprets itself. The wicked will "go into eternal punishment", the righteous "into eternal Life". Never ending punishment, never ending life. There, it's interpreted..

Apparently you don't understand the concept of 'letting the bible interpret itself'. What you just did was interpret your own verse alone according to assumptive reasoning.

Let's do what I said, shall we?

'everlasting punishment' vs 'eternal life'.

Now the two are being contrasted dadof10. What ever the 'punishment' is, it is OPPOSITE of eternal life. We can deduce from the language of these two that both are everlasting.

What is the punishment for the wicked who have sinned and remain in sin?

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life - Romans 6:23

Here we see the comparison again, but now we have a further explanation. Eternal life is contrasted to 'death'. The punishment for sin is not 'eternal fire and torment'. It is 'death'. Death is the cessation of life. It is the opposite of life which is a gift of God given to the righteous.

Here is further comparison.

[quote:1f2fo0r9]...that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16b

Perish is a state, not a continuous action. It is the same as 'death'. It is 'death' that is everlasting. Eternal torment is not a wage of sin. Sin brings death, Christ brings life.

Now Rev: 14,11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Revelation (RSV) 14)."
Simple. If the smoke of their torment goes up forever, doesn't that mean the are being tormented forever? After all, if their torment ends, the smoke from it must end too, right?

Let's allow the bible to interpret itself shall we? Rather than impose our own views on what these terms mean, we must see how they are used in the Bible. Only then can we come to a conclusion on how these are two be interpreted.

The 'smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever' is actually used to denote a completed act. The results and proof of that act is in the smoke going up, signifying that the work has been done. It goes up and is gone forever. Notice where John got this language from.

Isaiah 34:9,10 describes the destruction of the city of Edom. An act that happened by fire (remember, the most destructive force used in the bible) and was completed. Read carefully.

And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

Edom is not burning now, neither is it's smoke continually going up. 'Not quenched day or night' is the same as 'no rest day or night' explained in Revelation 14. The 'smoke goeth up forever and ever'. No rest day or night means that from point A to point B, there is no rest. It denotes continuity not duration. The fire will do it's work uninterrupted. The smoke going up signifies the end results, the finality of the destruction.

Let's also bring up Mark 9:44 which talks about 'unquenchable fire'. Does this mean that the fire will never GO out? No. It means that it cannot be PUT out. It will do its work uniterrupted. No water, sand or foam will distinguish it. It is 'unquenchable'. It cannot be 'quenched'.

Want further proof? Let's let the scriptures interpret itself.

Here is the prophetic warning in Jeremiah 17:27 about the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians:

But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched

Notice that this fire will 'devour' and 'will not be quenched'. This fire will do its work and devour completely. Nobody will be able to put it out. A fire that cannot be quenched will leave nothing left. This is as annihilating as you can get.

Notice that this is what happens to the wicked at the end of time in Revelation 20:9:

And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them

What does 'devouring' fire do to the wicked? Again, let the scriptures explain it.
Malachi 4:1

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch

Let's look at 2nd Peter 2:6 too

if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly - ESV

The Bible interprets itself. The imagery of the NT language is derived from the OT language of complete and utter destruction, not eternal torment. Let the bible interpret itself, dad.

Why don't we just let Scripture interpret itself, without "4 things" getting in the way and Dr. Abbot and Mr. Weymouth interfering?

Simple. My four things MUST be addressed and put to rest before eternal torment can be proven. What I put forth is simply what the scriptures say clearly. You must first prove that the wicked are given immortality before you can deduce that they are able to burn forever. You cannot get around the clear language of destruction for the wicked throughout the entire bible, dadof10. Ignoring it will not make your position any truer. Rather, it is a massive hurdle that throws eternal torment into a shambles.[/quote:1f2fo0r9]

Not so, otherwise Jesus would not have said, 'there they will weep and gnash their teeth'. The word, 'there' suggests a place. The hell of fire is a place where they will weep and gnash their teeth. And he said, 'better' to lose a member than that your whole body be thrown into hell. The comparison here is not life and death; to say life is better than death, but to say that being half blind in this world is better than being fully sighted in hell. Again this suggests hell is a place. Indeed it is called, 'the lake' of fire. Jesus said, 'whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.' Mt. 18:6 Is death by drowning worse than death by fire? Of course not. Death is death. So we can't say death is better than death, and therefore, we can not associate death with the hell of fire. Being thrown into the hell of fire is worse than death.

If death is destroyed in the lake of fire, it follows then that the destruction of the wicked will be eternal. 'There', their worm will not die. Again we see the lake of fire is a place. And so this destruction will go on forever. It's not once and forever. The punishment is forever.

For the smoke to go up forever, the fire can not die out.

 

[MarkT]

And all of you are choosing to ignore my questions that impinge on the character of God. If you can equate eternal torment with God's character of love, mercy, grace, justice etc then the God you worship is not the God of the Bible. I repeat, why is it that we rightly condemn man for torture, but claim when God does it it is righteous?

What are you doing when you say you are defending God's character? Does God's character need defending? Are you not judging God? You're supposed to love God with all your heart, not only if he behaves like you think he should. All he has to do is do what he said he will do, and you will be condemned by your own words. At least there is a danger of it.

We're not dealing with any hypotheticals. Jesus said no one can come to him unless the Father draws him, and he will not lose any the Father gives him. If this is true, then we can not consider hypothetical 12 year olds to test God. We leave the judgment to God. What if Abraham had said, 'God wouldn't ask me to sacrifice my son'? Did Abraham judge God? Did he act according to his own judgment and disobey? No. Some would say God would not curse man for one man's (Adam's) transgression. What if Noah had said, 'God would not destroy the innocent with the wicked. Any god who would do that would be the worst monster.' Did Noah judge God? No. He followed the instructions to build an ark.

 

[guibox]

Not so, otherwise Jesus would not have said, 'there they will weep and gnash their teeth'. The word, 'there' suggests a place. The hell of fire is a place where they will weep and gnash their teeth. And he said, 'better' to lose a member than that your whole body be thrown into hell. The comparison here is not life and death; to say life is better than death, but to say that being half blind in this world is better than being fully sighted in hell. Again this suggests hell is a place. Indeed it is called, 'the lake' of fire. Jesus said, 'whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.' Mt. 18:6 Is death by drowning worse than death by fire? Of course not. Death is death. So we can't say death is better than death, and therefore, we can not associate death with the hell of fire. Being thrown into the hell of fire is worse than death..

Perhaps you should really read through my posts that are completely taken from the bible and explain them without again reiterating that which I have already explained away. First you must prove that the wicked receive immortality before you can interpret highly symbolic biblical texts that use metaphorical language elsewhere in the bible to denote complete annihilation as proof that the wicked are tormented eternally. You must study the bible exegetically using all the evidence, Mark T. The nature of the sinner, the usage of the original literal language, the context it is put in, the usage of the language throughout the rest of the scripture, and how the Hebrews and early Christians understood the terms are all important to interpreting the scriptures. Taking one or two verses and taking them literally according to the King James English is not proper bible study when there are alternatives that easily explain them.

I never said hell wasn't a place or that there wouldn't be torment. However, for God to truly be victorious over sin and institute a universe where 'there will be no more suffering, pain or crying, and no more tears', an eternally burning hell where sin and sinners still exist can only serve to ruin the perfect universe from day one. All God's enemies are to be destroyed. A new heaven and new earth cannot be made when vistiges of the old with all it's corruption and sin still remain.

If death is destroyed in the lake of fire, it follows then that the destruction of the wicked will be eternal. 'There', their worm will not die. Again we see the lake of fire is a place. And so this destruction will go on forever. It's not once and forever. The punishment is forever.

For the smoke to go up forever, the fire can not die out.

The Bible says that the lake of fire is the second death, and that the 'last enemy to be destroyed is death'. The lake of fire brings on the second death and after that, God has truly put 'all enemies as his footstool'. It is absolutely nonsensical to say that the lake of fire destroys an existential concept and then because of it, institutes eternal conscious torment. You are imputing assumptive notions that cannot be proven by the rest of scripture, and are CONTRADICTED by the rest of scripture.

Look closely at how I've used the Bible to explain itself to show you how the language is used.

It seems to me that people just want to hang on to their cherished believes regardless of how badly a light they put God in. The weight of the evidence is highly in favor or annihilation, even so that leading evangelical scholars are supporting it after a lifetime of believing eternal torment )John Stott, Philip Edgecombe Hughes, John W. Wenham, Michael Green). Even certain scholars who believe in eternal torment say that biblical arguments for annihilation cannot be easily dismissed.

Even if the evidence were 50/50 (and that is being incredibly generous to eternal torment's support), why would anyone insist on choosing a view that makes God a vindictive, unmerciful and unloving God to create hell, KNOWING that billions would be consigned to it, and that He created it for no other purpose but to torment those He came to die for? No redemption. No reformative purpose. Just pain, pain and pain for trillions and trillions of years for 70+ years of sin? It boggles the mind and moral conscience.

 

[brakelite2]

And all of you are choosing to ignore my questions that impinge on the character of God. If you can equate eternal torment with God's character of love, mercy, grace, justice etc then the God you worship is not the God of the Bible. I repeat, why is it that we rightly condemn man for torture, but claim when God does it it is righteous?

What are you doing when you say you are defending God's character? Does God's character need defending? Are you not judging God? You're supposed to love God with all your heart, not only if he behaves like you think he should. All he has to do is do what he said he will do, and you will be condemned by your own words. At least there is a danger of it.

We're not dealing with any hypotheticals. Jesus said no one can come to him unless the Father draws him, and he will not lose any the Father gives him. If this is true, then we can not consider hypothetical 12 year olds to test God. We leave the judgment to God. What if Abraham had said, 'God wouldn't ask me to sacrifice my son'? Did Abraham judge God? Did he act according to his own judgment and disobey? No. Some would say God would not curse man for one man's (Adam's) transgression. What if Noah had said, 'God would not destroy the innocent with the wicked. Any god who would do that would be the worst monster.' Did Noah judge God? No. He followed the instructions to build an ark.

No, I am not judging God. He has revealed His character to us in Jesus. "All who have seen Me have seen the Father" He said. So which particular aspect of the character of Jesus , the ones I listed above, are in harmony with the doctrine of eternal torment?
Another aspect is this. John said "He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the Son hath not life." Now that is as clear as day. He that hath not the Son hath death. Complete opposites. So, where does the life come from that must be present if one is to live forever in torment, if it doesn't come from the Son?

 

[stranger]

brakelite2

No, I am not judging God. He has revealed His character to us in Jesus. "All who have seen Me have seen the Father" He said. So which particular aspect of the character of Jesus , the ones I listed above, are in harmony with the doctrine of eternal torment?
Another aspect is this. John said "He that hath the Son hath life, he that hath not the Son hath not life." Now that is as clear as day. He that hath not the Son hath death. Complete opposites. So, where does the life come from that must be present if one is to live forever in torment, if it doesn't come from the Son?

Hi brakelite2,

Since all life originates from God, without making God the author of evil, the fallen nature of angels (demons) as well as man's fallen nature suffered corruption from something that was pure, holy, just and good. I guess that as created beings there was that inbuilt capability or capacity to become corrupted by nature.

If we consider that Satan and the demonic realm - I don't think time is an issue for them so that they are already in eternity 'without repentance'. That they should be eventually restrained from causing havoc and discord necessitates an enclosed system for them - call it hell. Since life after the resurrection becomes spiritual - I don't think time is an issue. Ultimately hell has to do with God's purposes, the consensus that hell is eternal always has its detractors.

 

[MarkT]

Let's take your advise and start with Matt: 25,46 "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew (RSV) 25)

Pretty straight forward. It just interprets itself. The wicked will "go into eternal punishment", the righteous "into eternal Life". Never ending punishment, never ending life. There, it's interpreted..

Apparently you don't understand the concept of 'letting the bible interpret itself'. What you just did was interpret your own verse alone according to assumptive reasoning.

Let's do what I said, shall we?

'everlasting punishment' vs 'eternal life'.

Now the two are being contrasted dadof10. What ever the 'punishment' is, it is OPPOSITE of eternal life. We can deduce from the language of these two that both are everlasting.

Nope. Eternal punishment is not the opposite of eternal life. You're making punishment and life opposites. Of course death is the opposite of life. Then you are substituting death for punishment.

What is the punishment for the wicked who have sinned and remain in sin?

[quote:33vkevlm]For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life - Romans 6:23

Here we see the comparison again, but now we have a further explanation. Eternal life is contrasted to 'death'. The punishment for sin is not 'eternal fire and torment'. It is 'death'. Death is the cessation of life. It is the opposite of life which is a gift of God given to the righteous. [/quote:33vkevlm]

Again not true. You're just picking out two words; death and life. But Paul isn't talking about the eternal punishment. He is talking about sin, death, and eternal life. He is talking about the physical body when he says, 'the wages of sin is death.' He often refers to 'this body of sin', and 'sinful flesh'. So when he talks about the wages of sin being death, he is talking about this life; the life we all have in our mortal bodies.

It follows from what he said, - 'death spread to all men because all men sinned' Ro. 5:12 It follows that the wages of sin is death. But when he talks about eternal life, he is not talking about this world where we all die because we all sin. He is talking about the kingdom of God. And he is not talking about life in the physical body.

He says, 'the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. When he says in Christ Jesus our Lord, he is not refering to the mortal body. In fact, he says, 'in Christ Jesus our Lord.' In the immortal body of our Lord, we are free, and we do not die.

So the contrast is this world to the kingdom of God.

Here is further comparison.

[quote:33vkevlm]...that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16b

Perish is a state, not a continuous action. It is the same as 'death'. It is 'death' that is everlasting. Eternal torment is not a wage of sin. Sin brings death, Christ brings life.[/quote:33vkevlm]

In this world they die. Jesus said, 'do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul'. Man can kill the body but he cannot kill the soul. And Jesus preached to the spirits in prison. So we know that even though the dead might not be with us in the body, they have not perished. In other words, the souls of the righteous are resting in Christ, and the souls of the wicked are being kept in the bottomless Pit until the day of judgment. The soul is not killed. The wicked await the destruction of the soul. They have no life in them as we know it. They have no body. Still they exist as spirits in prison.

Jesus said, 'Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.' The second death is not death as we know it where the body returns to dust. The whole body and soul is destroyed in the lake of fire. And to perish in hell is not like death which is once. The punishmeht of the wicked is everlasting. Why the resurrection? Why judgment? The wicked would just laugh at being raised to die. If they are now in Hades, in torment in the furnace of fire, awaiting judgment, they would welcome annihilation.

 

[MarkT]

Now Rev: 14,11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Revelation (RSV) 14)."
Simple. If the smoke of their torment goes up forever, doesn't that mean the are being tormented forever? After all, if their torment ends, the smoke from it must end too, right?

Let's allow the bible to interpret itself shall we? Rather than impose our own views on what these terms mean, we must see how they are used in the Bible. Only then can we come to a conclusion on how these are two be interpreted.

The 'smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever' is actually used to denote a completed act. The results and proof of that act is in the smoke going up, signifying that the work has been done. It goes up and is gone forever. Notice where John got this language from.

Isaiah 34:9,10 describes the destruction of the city of Edom. An act that happened by fire (remember, the most destructive force used in the bible) and was completed. Read carefully.

No it doesn't. You don't understand the prophets. Isaiah is talking about the day of vengence. It hasn't happened yet.

And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

Edom is not burning now, neither is it's smoke continually going up. 'Not quenched day or night' is the same as 'no rest day or night' explained in Revelation 14. The 'smoke goeth up forever and ever'. No rest day or night means that from point A to point B, there is no rest. It denotes continuity not duration. The fire will do it's work uninterrupted. The smoke going up signifies the end results, the finality of the destruction.

That's because it hasn't happened yet. But I can't say for sure who the descendants of Essau are.

Let's also bring up Mark 9:44 which talks about 'unquenchable fire'. Does this mean that the fire will never GO out? No. It means that it cannot be PUT out. It will do its work uniterrupted. No water, sand or foam will distinguish it. It is 'unquenchable'. It cannot be 'quenched'.

Then you're saying it will go out? But Jesus said, 'where the fire is not quenched'. 'where the fire is not quenched' describes hell. It's saying the fire never goes out in this place.

Perhaps because there is no water.

Want further proof? Let's let the scriptures interpret itself.

Here is the prophetic warning in Jeremiah 17:27 about the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians:

But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched

Notice that this fire will 'devour' and 'will not be quenched'. This fire will do its work and devour completely. Nobody will be able to put it out. A fire that cannot be quenched will leave nothing left. This is as annihilating as you can get.

Again, you don't understand the prophets. In his anger, the LORD said a fire would be kindled. Jesus fulfilled that prophecy. Everything that the LORD said he would do was fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Notice that this is what happens to the wicked at the end of time in Revelation 20:9:

And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them

Again this is prophetic. It hasn't happened yet.

What does 'devouring' fire do to the wicked? Again, let the scriptures explain it.
Malachi 4:1

[quote:2pnsn17t]For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch

[/quote:2pnsn17t]

Yep.

Let's look at 2nd Peter 2:6 too

if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly - ESV

You have to read the whole thing. God made them an example to those who were to be ungodly. That's true today. The ungodly often argue against the example of what God did to Sodom. He turned the cities to ashes and he rescued righteous Lot. Peter says, 'then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.' So that is what Peter is saying. The men of Sodom, for example, are in the furnace, under punishment, until the day of judgment. The cities they built are extinct.

 

[dadof10]

Apparently you don't understand the concept of 'letting the bible interpret itself'. What you just did was interpret your own verse alone according to assumptive reasoning.

I completely understand the concept of 'letting the bible interpret itself', I just don't think it's valid. You simply take the verse in question, do a search of the words, ASSUME that the verses with the same words in them are somehow interelated, post those that agree with you as the ONLY way to see the verses because they validate your preconceived ideas. That's about it. I don't think 'letting the bible interpret itself' is a valid form of scholarship because those that claim to do it eventually wind up using outside sources (as you did in your first post) then simply end in private interpretation (as you are doing here). There is nothing critical or new about this illogical method.

Now the two are being contrasted dadof10. What ever the 'punishment' is, it is OPPOSITE of eternal life. We can deduce from the language of these two that both are everlasting.

Where do you get this from? Why do you think these two words must be the opposite? What did you accuse me of above....That's right, "assumptive reasoning". Aren't you assuming Jesus meant to polarize these two words? He is simply stating a fact, and He meant what He said, "eternal punishment" for those who do evil, eternal life for those who do good.

What is the punishment for the wicked who have sinned and remain in sin?

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life - Romans 6:23

Here we see the comparison again, but now we have a further explanation. Eternal life is contrasted to 'death'. The punishment for sin is not 'eternal fire and torment'. It is 'death'. Death is the cessation of life. It is the opposite of life which is a gift of God given to the righteous.

More assumptions. First you're assuming that the verse in Romans can be compared to the verse in Matt., that BOTH the Authors are attempting to convey the same ideas. Secondly, and this is the main point, that the word death means "the cessation of life" in both places. While that is one of it's meanings, there are others, many others. From Strong's:

1) the death of the body

a) that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended

b) with the implied idea of future misery in hell
1) the power of death

c) since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin

2) metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,

a) the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell

3) the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell

4) in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell

I know you don't agree with these other definitions because they don't bolster your preconceived dogma, but Thayer's is accepted as reliable and accurate by most of Christendom, both Catholic and Protestant.

Here is further comparison.

[quote:bjzodsyi]...that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16b

Perish is a state, not a continuous action. It is the same as 'death'. It is 'death' that is everlasting. Eternal torment is not a wage of sin. Sin brings death, Christ brings life.[/quote:bjzodsyi]

More assumptions. More private interpretation.

The 'smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever' is actually used to denote a completed act. The results and proof of that act is in the smoke going up, signifying that the work has been done. It goes up and is gone forever.

Nice try. The verb "goes up" or "ascendeth up" (KJV) is "anabiano" which is in the PRESENT TENSE, active voice, indicitive mood, which means that the action (going up) IS really happening, not "denoting a completed act".

Notice where John got this language from.

Isaiah 34:9,10 describes the destruction of the city of Edom. An act that happened by fire (remember, the most destructive force used in the bible) and was completed. Read carefully.

And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

Again, because John uses the same words does NOT mean he "got this language" directly from Isaiah. Even if he did, this does not mean John meant that the torment ended, simply because the fire eventually went out in Edom. You are still assuming way too much with no proof.

'Not quenched day or night' is the same as 'no rest day or night' explained in Revelation 14.

The same? More assumptions.

The 'smoke goeth up forever and ever'. No rest day or night means that from point A to point B, there is no rest. It denotes continuity not duration. The fire will do it's work uninterrupted. The smoke going up signifies the end results, the finality of the destruction.

As I said above, the words "goes up" are in the present tense. "Goes up for ever and ever" simply means what it says, no further twisting is needed.

This is all I have time for now, I can't respond to all your errors. The bottom line is that the words "death", "destruction", "perish", etc. do NOT simply have one meaning, yours.

 

[guibox]

Nope. Eternal punishment is not the opposite of eternal life. You're making punishment and life opposites. Of course death is the opposite of life. Then you are substituting death for punishment.

The comparison is very simple if you read the context. The wages of sin is death...BUT (in other words..a second alternative), the gift of God is eternal life. If the two are not being compared for the wicked and the righteous, then the statement is redundant. We see elsewhere that this same comparison is used in other ways as in Matthew 25:46, John 5:28-29 and John 3:16. It is ludicrous to think that eternal life is being compared to three different things that have no similar applicability. This is a gross abuse of hermeneutics.

Again not true. You're just picking out two words; death and life. But Paul isn't talking about the eternal punishment. He is talking about sin, death, and eternal life. He is talking about the physical body when he says, 'the wages of sin is death.' He often refers to 'this body of sin', and 'sinful flesh'. So when he talks about the wages of sin being death, he is talking about this life; the life we all have in our mortal bodies.

To say this applies to only our physical death makes no sense. The gift of eternal life is opposite that of death. Whether righteous or wicked, all will die once (unless Christ comes back first). The gift of God for the righteous is to show our eternal destiny, not our physical one. Those who are free from sin will not experience the death wages of sin. If this is in fact speaking of our physical death, then the point is mute. Second, the wicked who do not accept Christ would still experience the wages of sin which is death. Yet, we see that they are resurrected at the end of time and did not remain dead. Hence, this verse is speaking of the two opposite destinies, not our physical death.

In this world they die. Jesus said, 'do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul'. Man can kill the body but he cannot kill the soul. And Jesus preached to the spirits in prison. So we know that even though the dead might not be with us in the body, they have not perished. In other words, the souls of the righteous are resting in Christ, and the souls of the wicked are being kept in the bottomless Pit until the day of judgment. The soul is not killed. The wicked await the destruction of the soul. They have no life in them as we know it. They have no body. Still they exist as spirits in prison.

Your explanation hinges on assumptions that cannot be supported by the Bible.

1) That Christ preached to the 'spirits' in prison means that Christ went in spirit form after His physical death. Look closely at the text again

2) That the wicked have immortal souls to be kept alive. This is nowhere supported in the Bible and the language doesn't support it one iota.

3) That the 'spirit' is the 'soul'. Again, the biblical language doesn't support your interpretation of these terms

And that the fact that God CAN kill the soul, means that it is not immortal inherently.

The second death is not death as we know it where the body returns to dust. The whole body and soul is destroyed in the lake of fire. And to perish in hell is not like death which is once. The punishmeht of the wicked is everlasting. Why the resurrection? Why judgment? The wicked would just laugh at being raised to die. If they are now in Hades, in torment in the furnace of fire, awaiting judgment, they would welcome annihilation.

The second death is called the 'second' because it follows the first. If the second is nothing like the first, then it is not 'death' and shouldn't be called the 'second' but something entirely different. Notice the admonishment 'Blessed is he who takes part in the first resurrection, as such the second death has no power over him'. Notice the comparison of 'resurrection' to 'death having no power'. When we are resurrected immortal, 'death has no sting' 'O grave where is they victory?' (1 Cor 15).

The second death has no power because the righteous are immortal, the cannot die.

Death is death. To make it mean 'conscious eternal torment' is absolutely ludicrous especially when it is clearly contrasted to 'eternal life'.

 

[guibox]

I completely understand the concept of 'letting the bible interpret itself', I just don't think it's valid. You simply take the verse in question, do a search of the words, ASSUME that the verses with the same words in them are somehow interelated, post those that agree with you as the ONLY way to see the verses because they validate your preconceived ideas.

My friend, the comparisons are obvious. Take it up with the Bible writers, not myself. When the language used by John is identical to that of the OT, you cannot simply ignore it for an isolated interpretation as you seem to be doing with Revelation 14. You accuse me of preconceived ideas simply because I refer you back to numerous passages that explain language used? And yet you simply read Rev 14 as it at face value and tell me that it is exactly what it says it is??

Who has the preconcieved ideas, dad? It isn't me, that's for sure.

Where do you get this from? Why do you think these two words must be the opposite? What did you accuse me of above....That's right, "assumptive reasoning". Aren't you assuming Jesus meant to polarize these two words? He is simply stating a fact, and He meant what He said, "eternal punishment" for those who do evil, eternal life for those who do good.

So what is the wages of sin if not the punishment for the wicked? Are you telling me that John 3:16, Matthew 25:46 and John 5:28-29 are all comparing eternal life to different things and not the same?

Come on, dad. What method of bible study are you following?

If you sin, you die, you face punishment. If you don't, if you accept Christ, if you are righteous, you receive eternal life. Eternal life is the opposite of death, punishment, destruction, perishing and destroy.

Secondly, and this is the main point, that the word death means "the cessation of life" in both places. While that is one of it's meanings, there are others, many others. From Strong's:

1) the death of the body

a) that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended

b) with the implied idea of future misery in hell
1) the power of death

c) since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin

2) metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,

a) the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell

3) the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell

4) in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell

I know you don't agree with these other definitions because they don't bolster your preconceived dogma, but Thayer's is accepted as reliable and accurate by most of Christendom, both Catholic and Protestant.

I disagree with them because they are flat out wrong. Nowhere can you glean 'miserable state of wicked in hell' and 'separation of the soul from the body' from 'thanatos'. Nowhere in the bible can a 'soul/body' separation be supported.

For the record, I use Young's Analytical Concordance and nowhere does it support any of Strong's usage of the term 'thanatos'. It is gross assumption read into the term. Nowhere are the terms 'psuche', pneuma' as being separated from the 'sarx' implied in the interpretation of 'thanatos'.

Nice try. The verb "goes up" or "ascendeth up" (KJV) is "anabiano" which is in the PRESENT TENSE, active voice, indicitive mood, which means that the action (going up) IS really happening, not "denoting a completed act".

Really? Where do you get a present tense action involved from the meaning of 'to go or come up'? It is merely explaining an action anabiano is also used in John 3:13; Ephesians 4:8-10 and Acts 2:34 to describe past events. Even if what I was saying wasn't so, the verse refers to the smoke ascending aionios, 'forever' doesn't mean 'eternally' but 'age lasting'.

Smoke as is used in the bible is to show a completed act, not eternal duration. When something is smoking, it means the after effect of the fire, not the continual burning of it. Again, see the destruction of Edom.

Again, because John uses the same words does NOT mean he "got this language" directly from Isaiah. Even if he did, this does not mean John meant that the torment ended, simply because the fire eventually went out in Edom. You are still assuming way too much with no proof.

The proof is in the language friend. Nowhere are the wicked immortal. You can choose to assume that and insist that Revelation 14 means the complete opposite of the same language used elsewhere to denote annihilation, or you can see what was meant as metaphorical language used throughout the bible to mean the same thing. That's like saying that the OT says 'The sky is blue' but in the NT, we are going to assume that 'blue' means 'red'. So when the OT says, 'The sky is blue', what it really means is 'The sky is red'

Who is assuming too much?

'Not quenched day or night' is the same as 'no rest day or night' explained in Revelation 14.

The same? More assumptions.

How so?? To not be quenched in its very basic meaning means 'to not be PUT out'. It is assumption to say that it will never GO out. Again, you ignored it's literal usage in Jeremiah 17:27. The fires of Jerusalem could not be put out. It did it's work uninterrupted. The gates of Jerusalem are not burning now. While it was burning it was unquenchable. No one can put it out. That's what unquenchable fire means, dad. How can mortal, wicked bodies be burned eternally. Better yet, how can disembodied souls be burned eternally?

This is all I have time for now, I can't respond to all your errors. The bottom line is that the words "death", "destruction", "perish", etc. do NOT simply have one meaning, yours.

[/quote]

When they are used in relation to the wicked they do in fact have that meaning. Let's look at 'appolumi' for example.

'appolumi' means 'to loose, loose away, destroy'.

You insist that the meaning of the fate of the wicked will be 'to loose away'. This makes no sense especially when the literal meaning 'destroy' is used in Acts 5:37, Mark 4:38 (do you think that the disciples on the raging see were worried that they would be 'ruined' or 'loosed away'?) The figurative meaning is to be interpreted by it's literal meaning. You want to take it out of it's literal context and make some sort of opposite metaphor with no linguistic or contextual reason for doing so except to support assumptions that the Bible doesn't make.

 

[Vic C.]

I completely understand the concept of 'letting the bible interpret itself', I just don't think it's valid. You simply take the verse in question, do a search of the words, ASSUME that the verses with the same words in them are somehow interelated, post those that agree with you as the ONLY way to see the verses because they validate your preconceived ideas.

My friend, the comparisons are obvious. Take it up with the Bible writers, not myself. When the language used by John is identical to that of the OT, you cannot simply ignore it for an isolated interpretation as you seem to be doing with Revelation 14. You accuse me of preconceived ideas simply because I refer you back to numerous passages that explain language used? And yet you simply read Rev 14 as it at face value and tell me that it is exactly what it says it is??...

I need to interject because something said here is directly related to something I read last night.

http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/ ... 42,00.html

It's a bit long but well worth the time. It has to do with properly interpreting scripture. It deals primarily with understanding apocalyptic literature, but relates so well with understanding Scripture in general. It stresses the importance of not reading "into" the text any preconceived beliefs. It confirms the belief that scripture does interpret scripture and that the Bibles does indeed interpret itself.

It stresses one more very important concept and that is; take the time to understand what the writers were trying to tell their immediate audience. No way should we always assume what it meant to a first century reader is what it means to a 20th. or 21st. century person. Many times it's impossible to bridge the 2,000 year gap without "going back in time".

Excerpt from first paragraph of link:

That is, instead of reading what is there, in its context, what the words say in the original languages and culture, we read in our theological ideas, frameworks, and presumptions, and thus totality miss what God is actually saying to us!