Hell and the Commandments "For ever and ever"?

[Claudia_T]

Hell and the Commandments "For ever and ever"?


Ps:9:5: Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.


Ps. 111:7,8: The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.
They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.


If "For ever and ever" or "Everlasting Punshment" in the Bible when it is talking about Hell actually means to be tortured eternally then why does Psalms 9:5 say that the wicked are destroyed and that God has put out their name for ever and ever?

How can it be both ways?

Also, if those who take the Bible literally and think that "For ever and ever" in regards to Hell means eternal torment that lasts throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity, then why dont they also think the Ten Commandments and specificually the SABBATH would last "For ever and ever" since the Bible says His Commandments will stand fast For ever and ever?

Notice it says "burn up"

Mt:3:12: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


Fire never quenched is hell fire:

Mk:9:43: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched

But the Bible just said they would be "burned up"

Claudia

 

[Don]

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....

 

[Claudia_T]

I almost forgot to add something...

I was reading a little bit on the other thread about "Hell" that was shut down and someone was saying something about people's real motive in wanting to say that Hellfire is not literally "everlasting" in the burning for ever and ever sense think that way because they "LOVE SIN".

Just for the record, Seventh Day Adventists are the ones who actually believe that we are supposed to stop sinning and that the Law of God, the Ten Commandments are still applicable today and so OUR motive in not believing in Eternal Hellfire is not because we love sin.


In fact Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law, meaning dotting of an "i" or crossing of a "t". Not one letter of the Law would pass away.

Mt:5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


in Addition, Seventh Day Adventists do not feel they NEED the threat of an angry God that roasts people forever and ever in Hell to compel people to turn from their wicked ways, for Jesus said:

Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jn:14:23: Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

We believe in serving God out of love, not fear merely.

1Jn:4:19: We love him, because he first loved us.

Of course we do have to fear God and be afraid of being burned in Hell... but just not "For ever and ever" as most Christians seem to understand the term.

Now those Christians who believe everyone will be saved, that's a different story entirely.


Claudia

 

[Claudia_T]

Don,
...in that case, yes, but there are also verses about God being a "consuming fire", when it comes to the wicked.

Heb:12:29: For our God is a consuming fire.

Ps:21:9: Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

 

[Boanerges]

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.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:
Hell and the Commandments "For ever and ever"?

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.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
'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.

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.

 

[eloidalmanutha]

Originally posted by Andre:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
'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.

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.

 

[Boanerges]

Originally posted by Andre:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
'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.

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.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:
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

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?

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by Boanerges:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andre:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
'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.

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.

 

[Claudia_T]

Boanerges,

Thats just your opinion. I believe that I follow what the Bible says.

I could just as easily say you follow man's traditions if you keep the Sunday Sabbath which is nowhere in the Bible to be found.

Claudia

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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.

 

[Claudia_T]

The Punishment of Sin is Death

The final annihilation of impenitent sinners is indicated first of all by the fundamental principle laid down in both Testaments that the final punishment of sin is death: "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek 18:4, 20); "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). The punishment of sin, of course, comprises not only the first death which all experience as a result of Adam's sin, but also what the Bible calls the second death (Rev 20:14; 21:8), which is the final, irreversible death experienced by impenitent sinners. This basic principle is fundamental for understanding the nature of the final punishment because it tells us at the outset that the ultimate wages of sin is not eternal torment, but permanent death.

Death in the Bible is the cessation of life. Were it not for the fact of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:18) the death that every human being experiences would be the termination of their existence. It is the resurrection that turns death from being the final end of life into being a temporary sleep. But there is no resurrection from the second death, because those who experience it are consumed in what the Bible calls "the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14). That will be the final annihilation.

This fundamental truth was taught in the Old Testament, especially through the sacrificial system. The penalty for the gravest sin was always and only the death of the substitute victim and never a prolonged torture or imprisonment of the victim. The consummation of the sin offering typified in a dramatic way the ultimate destruction of sin and sinners.

The final disposition of sin and the destruction of sinners was revealed especially through the ritual of the Day of Atonement, which typified the execution of God's final judgment upon believers and unbelievers. The penitent Israelites who had repented of their sins were pronounced "clean before the Lord" (Lev 16:30) at the completion of the purification rites. But the impenitent Israelites who sinned defiantly against God (cf. Lev 20:1-6) and did not repent, on the Day of Atonement they were "cut off" from God's people. "For whoever is not afflicted on this same day shall be cut off from his people. And whoever does any work on this same day, that person I will destroy from among his people" (Lev 23:29-30).

The separation that occurred on the Day of Atonement between penitent and impenitent Israelites typifies the separation that will occur at the Second Advent. Jesus compared this separation to the one that takes place at harvest time between the wheat and the tares. Evildoers will be thrown "into the furnace of fire," and the "righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matt 13:42-43).

Jesus' parables and the ritual of the Day of Atonement teach the same important truth: False and genuine Christians will coexist until His coming. But at the final judgment a permanent separation occurs when sin and sinners will be eradicated forever and a new world will be established. As in the typical service of the Day of Atonement impenitent sinners were "cut off" and "destroyed," so in the antitypical fulfillment of the final judgment, sinners "shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction" (2 Thess 1:9).

 

[Johnv]

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.

 

[eloidalmanutha]

Originally posted by Andre:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:
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

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

 

[Boanerges]

Originally posted by Claudia_T:
Boanerges,

Thats just your opinion. I believe that I follow what the Bible says.

I could just as easily say you follow man's traditions if you keep the Sunday Sabbath which is nowhere in the Bible to be found.

Claudia

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.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:
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

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.

 

[partialrapture]

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: