Hell and the Commandments "For ever and ever"?

Ya know, Moses saw a bush that was burning, and would have just passed it by until he realized it continued to burn instead of being consumed....

 

Yes, the SDA's do strive to keep the commandments, but there is some mixed fruit upon examination. Until the SDA church denounces the prophecies of Ellen White, their credibility will continue to suffer.The SDA's pride themselves on the fact that they do not follow church tradition, but they continue to follow SDA tradition which is proven errant.

 

The fact that the SDA's want to denounce the 'for ever and ever' from the eternity of hell should raise red flags in anybody's book.

'For ever and ever' is a phrase meaning perpetual, unending. To say that God will not be true to His Word and that man will be annihilated is calling God a liar. And we know that God cannot lie.

His Word is true. Man without Christ in this life will spend eternity in hell, in torment... without Christ.

 

Hell, yes (that's already been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere).

The Commandments, if you're referring to moral laws, such as the Ten Commandments, yes. They are eternal. (ceremonial and civil OT law are no longer in force or effect).

In regards to the Sabbath: Observance of the Sabbath is to rest one day in seven. It is not to rest on a specific day. This is evident in Jesus' remarks about the Sabbath being made for man, and not the other way around. Paul further comments that no one should be judged on the keeping of days, such as the Sabbath day.

 

Jonah 2:6
To the roots of the mountains I sank down;
the earth beneath barred me in forever.
But you brought my life up from the pit,
O LORD my God.

The whole notion that the "forever always means forever" has been shown to be incorrect in the other thread, through references such as the one above.

Implications that those who do not hold your (unsubstantiated) views to the contrary are calling God a liar is a tactic that, frankly, speaks for itself.

 

Jonah 2:6
To the roots of the mountains I sank down;
the earth beneath barred me in forever.
But you brought my life up from the pit,
O LORD my God.

The whole notion that the "forever always means forever" has been shown to be incorrect in the other thread, through references such as the one above.

Implications that those who do not hold your (unsubstantiated) views to the contrary are calling God a liar is a tactic that, frankly, speaks for itself. </font>[/QUOTE]context, context - Jonah was refering to the fact that it felt like he had been banished forever, but knew the faithfulness of God - verse 2 shows this clearly, for he refers to the belly of sheol which is everlasting [owlam], had closed in around him as if he was lost forever.

This passage only supports that hell is eternal, not the other way around

Jonah 2:And Jonah prayed to Jehovah his God out of the belly of the fish.
2 And he said, I cried out to Jehovah from my distress. And He answered me. Out of the belly of Sheol I cried for help, and You heard my voice.
3 For You cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the current surrounded me; all Your breakers and Your waves passed over me.
4 And I said, I am cast off from Your eyes; yet I will again look to Your holy temple.
5 Waters encompassed me, even to my soul; the depth closed around me; seaweed was clinging to my head.
6 I went down to the bases of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me forever. But You brought up my life from the pit, O Jehovah my God.
7 When my soul fainted within me, I remembered Jehovah; and my prayer came to You, to Your holy temple.

 

Jonah 2:6
To the roots of the mountains I sank down;
the earth beneath barred me in forever.
But you brought my life up from the pit,
O LORD my God.</font>[/QUOTE]Andre, let's not get off the path here. Since Hebrew is a contextual language, we need to define what owlam means in each instance determined by the context of the sentence. In the case of Dan 12:2, it means everlasting, and that is why so many translators have rendered it that way.

 

Greetings eloidalmanutha:

You raise an interesting point. Posts which actually advance the state of the debate (like yours) are always welcome. I think that I agree with you that Jonah is basically saying "it felt like forever".

You are not saying anything I would disagree with. In retrospect, it would have been more precise of me to have stated that a literal "forever means forever" generalization in respect to matters of objective fact cannot be made. So, for example, despite the use of the word "forever" in Isaiah 34, people have indeed passed through Edom. The issue of "felt experience" (what it feels like to be in a particular state) is another story altogether. I will assert the following and I suspect that you would agree with me:

When the scriptures say that an agent "X" is in a state "Y", this cannot be presumed to mean that agent "X" is objectively in that state forever. So, as you point out, Jonah was not factually in the belly of the fish forever - it only felt that way. But this is not a point I would have disagreed with. You seem to have assumed that my reading of Jonah was that "forever must mean 3 days". I agree with you, forever really means forever here, but in a "it felt like" sense, not in an "it was factually the case that" sense. Fine.

I still think you have more work to do before you claim that the text supports the "eternal torment" position. To show what you have shown is informative, specifically because we are all now explicitly aware of the distinction between the following 2 metaphorical ways that "forever" can be used:

1. Forever is used metaphorically to refer to some objective state of affairs persisting for a very long time (example: Isaiah 34)

2. Forever is used metaphorically to refer to a state of felt experience that appeared to last forever. (example: Jonah 2).

However, aren't you begging the question (assuming the very conclusion that you are trying to defend) when you seem to claim sheol is factually everlasting? In the same vein, don't you need to actively argue against a metaphorical interpretation of such texts as Revelation 20:10? What is your case that the reference to "forever" in that text is not metaphorical in either of the 2 senses I have tried to specify?

 

Jonah 2:6
To the roots of the mountains I sank down;
the earth beneath barred me in forever.
But you brought my life up from the pit,
O LORD my God.</font>[/QUOTE]Andre, let's not get off the path here. Since Hebrew is a contextual language, we need to define what owlam means in each instance determined by the context of the sentence. In the case of Dan 12:2, it means everlasting, and that is why so many translators have rendered it that way. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not understand your point. As per the other thread, I have supported the view that, in the specific context of Daniel 12:2, forever means everlasting. And I further argued that such a reading still does not mandate a situation where the unredeemed undergo eternal torment. As you yourself point out, we need to determine the meaning of "owlam" in the context of each usage.

 

The sabbath was a day of rest given to the israelites. It was not for anyone else according to scripture. Now, if you are not an israelite, you are not told to keep the sabbath. But, if you do keep the sabbath, you had better keep it to a tee. If you are guilty of one point of the law, you are guilty of all.

 

SFC, the Ten Commandments as a whole were not for Israelites only. They were moral laws, and moral laws were meant for all, and for all time. OT civil and ceremonial laws, however, were for the Israelites only, and are no longer in effect.

It's true that a specific sabbath day was given as a day of rest to the Israelites. However, our bodies are designed to require a day of rest once a week, minimum. It pleases God for us to take one day in seven to rest, and out of respect for our creator, we should do so. Jesus most certainly did not abolish this, neither did Paul or anyone else in the NT.

 

Greetings eloidalmanutha:

You raise an interesting point. Posts which actually advance the state of the debate (like yours) are always welcome. I think that I agree with you that Jonah is basically saying "it felt like forever".

You are not saying anything I would disagree with. In retrospect, it would have been more precise of me to have stated that a literal "forever means forever" generalization in respect to matters of objective fact cannot be made. So, for example, despite the use of the word "forever" in Isaiah 34, people have indeed passed through Edom. The issue of "felt experience" (what it feels like to be in a particular state) is another story altogether. I will assert the following and I suspect that you would agree with me:

When the scriptures say that an agent "X" is in a state "Y", this cannot be presumed to mean that agent "X" is objectively in that state forever. So, as you point out, Jonah was not factually in the belly of the fish forever - it only felt that way. But this is not a point I would have disagreed with. You seem to have assumed that my reading of Jonah was that "forever must mean 3 days". I agree with you, forever really means forever here, but in a "it felt like" sense, not in an "it was factually the case that" sense. Fine.

I still think you have more work to do before you claim that the text supports the "eternal torment" position. To show what you have shown is informative, specifically because we are all now explicitly aware of the distinction between the following 2 metaphorical ways that "forever" can be used:

1. Forever is used metaphorically to refer to some objective state of affairs persisting for a very long time (example: Isaiah 34)

2. Forever is used metaphorically to refer to a state of felt experience that appeared to last forever. (example: Jonah 2).

However, aren't you begging the question (assuming the very conclusion that you are trying to defend) when you seem to claim sheol is factually everlasting? In the same vein, don't you need to actively argue against a metaphorical interpretation of such texts as Revelation 20:10? What is your case that the reference to "forever" in that text is not metaphorical in either of the 2 senses I have tried to specify? </font>[/QUOTE]my first clue is because Jonah 2:2 equates being in the belly of the whale to sheol, which Jonah states later in that passage as an everlasting position - which is confirmed various times over throughout the Bible. I am curious as to why you think that this example is metaphorical and why every instance the words eternal, everlasting, and forever and ever when referring to hell are only to be seen as metaphorical. It seems a whole lot of people in the Bible are seeing "metaphorical" - maybe they had a meeting to decide that they all wanted to use the same metaphorism, including Jesus conspiracy happy aren't we

secondly, why must I prove that Rev 10:20 is not a metaphor when we have at least a dozen scripts that only confirm what it says. In this instance the Bible gives us a point blank truth and people still cannot grasp the surface text

 

I am not implying that you do not follow what the Bible says. Just as many mainstream Christian "teachers" have prophesied falsely (many continue to do so), so has Ellen White. We are told in Scripture no to fear them (listen to them). In the OT they were stoned, as God knew that false prophets would lead the people down a path of destruction.The SDA church needs to confront this evident problem.

 

Regarding your first paragraph: I want to repeat some things I have already said about how I am approaching this. In this regard, I want to draw a distinction between a "plausibility case" for the annihilation and a "positive-evidence" case. To this point, I have (for the most part) focused on making a "plausbility case". Such a case focuses on refuting arguments against the annihilation position. Even if I am successful in this, all it shows is that there is no compelling evidence against the annihilation position. I still need to provide reasons (evidence) why this position (a plausible one, it seems to me) has better evidential support than than the "eternal torment" position, which I have never said was not plausible. This all about the technicalities of fair argument - a "plausibility" argument is not one that "proves the case" but rather shows that there is no compelling contrary evidence. So, in short, I have "not yet begun to fight" in respect to taking a plausible positoin and trying to argue that there is evidence in its favour.

Regarding your second paragraph: In the same way, you would not simply accept a claim from me that a metaphorical reading of Revelation 20:10 is required, you surely cannot expect me to "take your word on it" that this material is to be taken literallty. Yet this is what you are doing - you are begging the question, by simply claiming the existence of some unspecified "scripts". What scripts?

I am concerned that some our "disagreements" are not so much about the subject matter, but rather about the nature of rational debate. I will repeat - positive claims (such as "forever means forever in rev 20:10) need to be supported by evidence that is not just a question-begging re-assertion of one's thesis.

 

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: