Is hell eternal?

Notice also in vs 5 - instead of limiting the example to "one old man who dies" - it is "For mankind goes to his Eternal home" 12:5. Directly contradicting the notion that this does not deal with all mankind and does not deal with the subject of our eternal destiny and does not deal with the subject of death and exactly what happens.

Notice again vs 6-7 - where the priority of God in the believer's life is again called into view

Recall from Genesis – (God formed man of the DUST of the earth Gen 2:7). And God Himself states "For You are Dust and to Dust you shall return". Gen 3:19 And God "is not speaking as a human" nor is He just talking about one "old man".

The spirit that returns "to God who gave it" is applicable to the "all mankind" context of vs 5.

This is open acknowledgement of God as the source of life AND of God's role in preserving our being - after death. Hardly a "human-only-view".

 

There is no question but what the sprit of "mankind" goes back to "God who gave it" at death.

How does that help those who insist that for most of mankind -their spirit is sent to hell??

There is no question but that in going back to God who Gave and then to be subject to either the "First resurrection and the glorious eternity that follows" or the "second resurrection and the Lake of Fire - SECOND DEATH that follows" the permenant and final state of all is now set at death.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Regarding Ecclesiastes 12:5 and the word "owlam". i am in no position to debate that this does not mean "eternal" and, further, that "eternal" means "everlasting" as per one of your (Boanerges) earlier posts. And I will not appeal to any arguments that the word is being used metaphorically (as in when people say to each other "I will love you forever). So let's say the word means literally "everlasting".

The problem is that this is not sufficient to warrant a conclusion of everlasting conscious existence for the unredeemed. Again, I wonder whether we are not realizing that the same text can be consistent with two (or more) radically different views about the fate of the unredeemed.

A believer in annihilation (like me) could (as I think Bob is saying) argue as follows: The word "eternal" in Ecc 12:5 qualifies the noun "home". It is at least plausible that the word "home" is to be construed as a destination or end state rather than as some kind of place of continued existence. Sure, the word "home" can mean a place where one "lives" - such a construal would support the view I understand Boanerges to be supporting.

However, it can also mean an "end state" or a destination. Insofar as "home" is where one winds up at the end of some journey, one can at least consider that it is being used in this sense here - the point being the word does not necessarily carry connotations of "continued conscious existence". As I think Bob is saying, one can legitimately claim that the intended meaning is that a certain "end state" is attained, and that this state is permanent - it lasts forever. This end state could well be "death" for the unbeliever and eternal conscious awareness for the believer. There is nothing that rules out such an interpretation. Nor is the opposite interpretation ruled out - namely that the unrepentent do indeed experience eternal conscious existence in Hell.

Perhaps I am on shaky ground on my thoughts about interpreting "home" as an "end state" rather than as "place where conscious beings reside". Maybe someone can shed more light. But please, do simply claimthat my interpretation of "home" is implausible - give me reasons to so think.

My main point in this post is to not actively defend the annihilationist position, but to make an argument that there is more than 1 way to interpret Eccl 12:5 even if one accepts that "owlam" means everlasting. The conclusion one draws would seem to depend on an "interpretive framework that one brings to the text.

 

This question goes "unnanswered" of course - as do all questions to Boanerges from me so far:

How "predictable"

Which obviously shows the final and "eternal" nature of their ultimate end.

I guess that is the part that I keep talking about when I say "final and eternal". I am convinced your case would improve considerably if you actually read the posts and replied to them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Exactly.

And though one may not want to agree with that solution it does no good at all to pretend that the solution was not offered.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I guess that is the part that I keep talking about when I say "final and eternal".


I am convinced your case would improve considerably if you actually read the posts and replied to them.

In Christ,

Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading can be a challenge at times -- just keep trying you will get it figured out soon I just know it.

Hint: Try paying attention to the details in the posts.

I guess it is easier for you to read what you wrote than to read the responses to what you have written and then cary the discussion to the next step.

I realize that can be a challenge and you seem to be struggling with it. I will wait.

Interesting game - but it failed exactly where I showed it to fail.

Though God is eternal He is not still on the Cross.

Though the fire the burned Soddom is said to be eternal in Jude - it is not "Still burning".

The final disposition of sinners is "both body AND soul DESTROYED in the fires of hell" Matt 10:28.

You seem to think you have a way to "trick God" out of that.

"Detroyed" both Body AND Soul in hell fire. How final! How "eternal" is that utter and complete destruction Eh?

(A bit more reading for the glassy eyes)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Boanerges keeps claiming that God is not eternal if things like the etneral fire that burned Sodom does not leave Sodom IN TACT and STILL burning (without actually destroying the city) to this very day.

That argument is just not working for you Boanerges. Lets pick up the pace a bit and move it on to the next stage by responding to the points made against it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

JWS and SDAs did not write Jude 7.

JWS and SDAs can not be blamed for your attempt to ignore the use of the "eternal" attribute in places like Jude 7 to things we know as having ended.

I suppose you could "try to blame others" for where your own argument has failed here - but I don't see it working for you.

Here is that example of "Eternal" that totally breaks the assumptions you were stringing together.

In the case of Daniel 12 the "Everlasting" nature of the "abhorrence" is literally true and literally as long as the "Everlasting life" since it is the saints that are "Abhorring" the lake of fire and the fact of the literal torment of their own precious loved ones as well as the awful consequences of sin -- for all eternity.

Even Johnathan Edwards was very clear on the fact that the saints SEE the screaming torment of their precious loved ones as they are "tormented IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb AND of His holy ones" Rev 14:10.

The Abhorance is everlasting for the saints as they abhore this final awful event.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Amen, Boanerges!

 

there are many things on this earth that we 'cannot see'. One, for instance, is the garden of Eden. There is no account of it being removed from the earth. Yet, man cannot find it. We know two of the rivers that flow from it are found in Iraq. From that info alone, one would think we could find it, but we apparently are blinded to it and to the 'angel in the way', as Balaam's was blinded to the angel.

Is hell real? Jesus spoke of it and warned of it in the gospels.

Is hell eternal? Revelation tells us it burns day and night forever and ever.

Is God's Word true? Praise the Lord, it is! And His Word abideth ever!

 

Revelation 14:10 does not actually say the saints will see the suffering.

Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

It is in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb, I believe just as Lazarus was comforted in Abraham's bosom, the saints will also be comforted in heaven.

 

Two possible objections come to mind. This post will deal with the first.

Certainly, it would seem that someone must be "doing the abhorring" and that someone certainly seems to be doing it forever. Boanerges argues that this must be self-abhorrence, since presumably the saints will not have memory of those former things. Could it possibly be God himself who is doing the abhorring? If this is actually what it is meant, while it does not mesh with Bob's argument, it leaves the annihilationist perspective unscathed. Boanerges, can you justify your claim that this must be self-abhorrence, remembering that your Revelation 21:4 argument, if corrects, only eliminates "the saints" as those who abhor but leaves God as a possible source of the abhorrence.

In defence of the proposition that it is God "doing the abhorring", I suggest that it might not even be sensible to assert that "the saints" have the "moral high ground" from which to do the abhorring in the first place - in other words (and here I am deviating from Bob's position, even though I believe he holds the same conclusion that I do) only God is in a position where He can legitimately exercise contempt. I am going with NASB translation of "contempt" instead of "abhorrence".

I do not know the original Hebrew word that gets translated as "contempt". The way we use contempt today has strong connotations of believing oneself to be in a morally superiour position than the one we hold in contempt. Contempt has a flavour of "judgement" that is absent from words like abhorrence. Anyway, since "the risen saints" are no longer capable of sinning (I hope I am on firm ground with this), they certainly cannot be the ones showing contempt. Why? Because as sinners justified by grace, they know that their salvation is unmerited, hence they cannot really look at the lost with contempt, pity perhaps, but not contempt.

I suggest that the above is at least some kind of an argument against the assertion that the saints are the ones looking on the lost with contempt. It would seem that God is the only one who has the "right" to show contempt for the lost. To the extent that this argument is plausible, it rescues the annihilationist position from the implications of Daniel 12:2, as interpreted in light of Rev 21:4.

This is all a little complicated, but I remind readers that Boanerges' specific argument about Rev 21:4 is that this text rules out the "saints" as the ones doing the "abhorring". Fair enough. But God could be the one doing the abhorring, and, stealing a thought from Bob, He could be eternally abhorring the annihilation of the unredeemed.