Hell is a real place

[tyndale1946]

kyredneck suggested I post this here as it was in the Humor Forum that I posted what was said and I assure him this is no joke even though he thought it was... A Rabbi in Australia was answering someone who asked him about Hell... The link below is his answer and it was taken from a Jewish website and I wasn't looking for it but just ran across it... The link is below, I won't tell you what he said I let the Rabbi speak for himself... I assured kyredneck and tell others on here... I didn't make this stuff up... Brother Glen

Do Jews Believe in Hell? - What Is the Jewish Belief on Hell?

 

[Mark Corbett]

None of the underlying Greek words for the English used in these passages, nor any other passage, supports the use of "annihilation",

Andy, Thanks for taking time to look at my blog posts. You ask to see evidence of a Greek word that means “annihilation” used in the Bible. Actually there is such evidence.

First, we must understand what is meant by “annihilation” when used to discuss the final fate of the unrighteous. We are not using the word in the way a nuclear physicist would, to refer to the complete non-existence of matter. We are using the word to mean that the whole person, body and soul, will be destroyed in such a way that there will no longer exist a person able to feel, think, or be aware of anything. Of course it is possible that ashes or dust will remain.

One place where we see a word used that means annihilation is in John 3:16

NIV John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish (apollumi) but have eternal life.

I will get to the Greek, but first let’s consider the English. If someone had a brother who was captured by the ISIS while fighting in Syria and they believed their brother was alive, they would never say, “My brother has perished.” But if their brother was blown to pieces by an IED, they would say, “My brother has perished”.

So the English word “perish” does normally mean what is meant by “annihilation”.

Now for the Greek.

The Greek word for perish is apollumi.

It turns out that apollumi was in fact used by Greek authors, including both Plato, and more importantly, Paul, to refer to annihilation.

The Greek philosopher Plato was widely read throughout the Greek speaking world for centuries after he died. In one of his works, Phaedo, Plato discussed rather extensively his thoughts and opinions about what happens to human souls after death. One of the options he discussed (but did not agree with) was the possibility that a person’s soul would entirely cease to exist, which is what we mean by annihilationism. When he described this possibility he used the word apollumi:

[from Phaedo, 70a]. They fear that when the soul leaves the body it no longer exists anywhere, and that on the day when the man dies it is destroyed (apollumi) and perishes, and when it leaves the body and departs from it, straightway it flies away and is no longer anywhere, scattering like a breath or smoke.​

This is just one example. If you want to research this, you may also find apollumi used to mean what we mean by “annihilation” in Phaedo, 80d, 86d, 91d, 95d, and 106b.

In Plato’s Republic he also uses apollumi to refer to annihilation of the human soul:

“Have you never perceived,” said I, “that our soul is immortal and never perishes (apollumi)?” (Republic, 10.608d)

Far more (way more, incredibly more) important than seeing that Plato used apollumi to mean annihilation, there is a clear example of the Apostle Paul using apollumi in the same way.

Whatever apollumi means in John 3:16, we all agree that it happens after the resurrection and judgment and that it only happens to the unrighteous. But Paul discussed a terrible hypothetical situation where Jesus did not rise from the dead (he did this to show how important the resurrection is to our faith). In this terrible hypothetical situation Paul said that there would be no resurrection for anyone if Jesus did not rise. In this terrible hypothetical situation, Paul explained that even Christians would have apollumi-ed:

ESV 1 Corinthians 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished (apollumi).

Further, Paul cannot have meant merely that the bodies of Christians were destroyed while their souls suffered for their sin, because Paul goes on to say:

ESV 1 Corinthians 15:32b If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

If there is any type of just judgment and punishment after death, it would not make sense to live only for pleasure in this world. So when Paul says that if Christ did not rise from the dead then dead Christians have perished (apollumi) he is referring to the complete destruction of body and soul. The word Paul uses to describe this “annihilation” is the very same word which the New Testament authors, including Paul, most frequently used to describe the final fate of the unrighteous!

 

[Mark Corbett]

You are correct, in that one cannot prove the "truth" of there not being an eternal Hell from just the scriptures, s basically the words used for donating time is same for both heaven and Hell, forever!

Yeshua1, You are right to note that the same word "eternal" is used to refer to both the life of the righteous and the punishment of the unrighteous as seen here:

ESV Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

But what many traditionalists have not realized is that evangelical annihilationists like myself wholeheartedly confirm that the punishment of the unrighteous is eternal. The issue is the nature of the punishment. We do not believe the punishment is eternal torment, but eternal death. They will be totally destroyed and they will miss out on Heaven forever.

This is consistent with the way the same word eternal is used here:

ESV Hebrews 6:2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

An "eternal judgment" is not a process of judgment which continue forever. There is a day of judgment. But once the judgment is carried out, it's results remain forever. After a billion years God will not change the judgment.

In the same way, "eternal punishment" is not a process of punishing which goes on forever. Like the judgment, once the punishment is carried out the consequence (being completely destroyed in body and soul, per Matthew 10:28), remains forever. After a billion years those who have died the second death will not be resurrected. They remain dead forever.

Matthew 25:46 itself points in this direction:

ESV Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Notice that "punishment" is contrasted with "life". ONLY one group will continue to live! Thus, the punishment must not consist in living eternally, even in torment. It consists in perishing (John 3:16) and being burned to ashes (2 Peter 2:6).

Does this make sense?

 

[Yeshua1]

Except that the destruct and ternal punishment never conotes end oeriod, but the eternal state of being separated from God! And how would there be a real judgement of and for sin, if the state of Hitler and a "religious: person is both snuffed out for good?

 

[Mark Corbett]

Except that the destruct and ternal punishment never conotes end oeriod, but the eternal state of being separated from God! And how would there be a real judgement of and for sin, if the state of Hitler and a "religious: person is both snuffed out for good?

Yeshua1, thanks for your thoughtful questions.

I'm not sure I understand precisely the first part of your reply. Could you explain a little more, and perhaps include some Scripture?

But I think I do understand your question about Hitler. I think you are basically asking, "How could it be fair for Hitler and an unsaved person who was far less sinful than Hitler to suffer the same fate?"

Believing in annihilationism does not mean I do not believe there will be different levels of punishment. Based on the Bible I believe there will be conscious suffering prior to, or perhaps as part of the process of, annihilation. This period of conscious suffering may vary in length and intensity depending on a person's specific sins and also considering factors like how much light they had. I trust God to weigh all these things out. Consider this passage:

Luke 12: 47 "The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.
48a But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

Like you, I feel this means that means there will be degrees of punishment. And annihilation allows for this.

But here is another observation from Luke 12:48a. If eternal conscious torment is true, than how could it be said that any sinner will receive "few blows"? In fact, all sinners would receive the equivalent of many trillions of blows, and really far worse than that.

So I believe the above passage creates no problem at all for the doctrine of annihilationism (which allows for "blows" prior to annihilation), but poses a very severe problem for the doctrine of eternal conscious torment.

 

[Yeshua1]

The concept of hell would be rooted in the question of Judgement/Justice, and we see that satan will be thrown into Lake of fire, and still be alive, so why would not all those who follow His lead not have the same destiny?

And how does the concept of an eternal hell conflict with God and His nature and his dealings with sinful humanity? Is it bad or wrong to have Hell exist forever?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1, thanks for your thoughtful questions.

I'm not sure I understand precisely the first part of your reply. Could you explain a little more, and perhaps include some Scripture?

But I think I do understand your question about Hitler. I think you are basically asking, "How could it be fair for Hitler and an unsaved person who was far less sinful than Hitler to suffer the same fate?"

Believing in annihilationism does not mean I do not believe there will be different levels of punishment. Based on the Bible I believe there will be conscious suffering prior to, or perhaps as part of the process of, annihilation. This period of conscious suffering may vary in length and intensity depending on a person's specific sins and also considering factors like how much light they had. I trust God to weigh all these things out. Consider this passage:

Luke 12: 47 "The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.
48a But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

Like you, I feel this means that means there will be degrees of punishment. And annihilation allows for this.

But here is another observation from Luke 12:48a. If eternal conscious torment is true, than how could it be said that any sinner will receive "few blows"? In fact, all sinners would receive the equivalent of many trillions of blows, and really far worse than that.

So I believe the above passage creates no problem at all for the doctrine of annihilationism (which allows for "blows" prior to annihilation), but poses a very severe problem for the doctrine of eternal conscious torment.

Jesus described the final state of evil as being etrnal torment, when people never die, so why should not we?

 

[John of Japan]

Andy, Thanks for taking time to look at my blog posts. You ask to see evidence of a Greek word that means “annihilation” used in the Bible. Actually there is such evidence.

First, we must understand what is meant by “annihilation” when used to discuss the final fate of the unrighteous. We are not using the word in the way a nuclear physicist would, to refer to the complete non-existence of matter. We are using the word to mean that the whole person, body and soul, will be destroyed in such a way that there will no longer exist a person able to feel, think, or be aware of anything. Of course it is possible that ashes or dust will remain.

One place where we see a word used that means annihilation is in John 3:16

NIV John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish (apollumi) but have eternal life.

I will get to the Greek, but first let’s consider the English. If someone had a brother who was captured by the ISIS while fighting in Syria and they believed their brother was alive, they would never say, “My brother has perished.” But if their brother was blown to pieces by an IED, they would say, “My brother has perished”.

So the English word “perish” does normally mean what is meant by “annihilation”.

The English is irrelevant to the Greek. They are two different languages, spoken 2000 years apart. To pretend the English words mentioned here have the same range of meaning as the Greek words is a huge linguistic mistake.

Now for the Greek.

The Greek word for perish is apollumi.

It turns out that apollumi was in fact used by Greek authors, including both Plato, and more importantly, Paul, to refer to annihilation.

The Greek philosopher Plato was widely read throughout the Greek speaking world for centuries after he died. In one of his works, Phaedo, Plato discussed rather extensively his thoughts and opinions about what happens to human souls after death. One of the options he discussed (but did not agree with) was the possibility that a person’s soul would entirely cease to exist, which is what we mean by annihilationism. When he described this possibility he used the word apollumi:

[from Phaedo, 70a]. They fear that when the soul leaves the body it no longer exists anywhere, and that on the day when the man dies it is destroyed (apollumi) and perishes, and when it leaves the body and departs from it, straightway it flies away and is no longer anywhere, scattering like a breath or smoke.​

This is just one example. If you want to research this, you may also find apollumi used to mean what we mean by “annihilation” in Phaedo, 80d, 86d, 91d, 95d, and 106b.

In Plato’s Republic he also uses apollumi to refer to annihilation of the human soul:

“Have you never perceived,” said I, “that our soul is immortal and never perishes (apollumi)?” (Republic, 10.608d)

Far more (way more, incredibly more) important than seeing that Plato used apollumi to mean annihilation, there is a clear example of the Apostle Paul using apollumi in the same way.

This is another linguistic error, sometimes made by those with little or no actual training in NT Koine Greek. Simply because Plato used the word in a sense of annihilation (if he actually did) does not mean that the NT meaning is the same. Plato wrote in classical Greek, which was quite different from Koine Greek. Meanings were different, some verb forms were different, etc. Again, they were different languages.

I have much experience with classical and modern Japanese. Quite often modern Japanese cannot understand something written in classical Japanese. The same is true with Greek. Simply because one can read NT Greek does not mean the meanings are the same as in classical Greek.

Whatever apollumi means in John 3:16, we all agree that it happens after the resurrection and judgment and that it only happens to the unrighteous. But Paul discussed a terrible hypothetical situation where Jesus did not rise from the dead (he did this to show how important the resurrection is to our faith). In this terrible hypothetical situation Paul said that there would be no resurrection for anyone if Jesus did not rise. In this terrible hypothetical situation, Paul explained that even Christians would have apollumi-ed:

ESV 1 Corinthians 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished (apollumi).

Further, Paul cannot have meant merely that the bodies of Christians were destroyed while their souls suffered for their sin, because Paul goes on to say:

ESV 1 Corinthians 15:32b If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

If there is any type of just judgment and punishment after death, it would not make sense to live only for pleasure in this world. So when Paul says that if Christ did not rise from the dead then dead Christians have perished (apollumi) he is referring to the complete destruction of body and soul. The word Paul uses to describe this “annihilation” is the very same word which the New Testament authors, including Paul, most frequently used to describe the final fate of the unrighteous!

You were asked by AndyMartin to give lexical evidence. You have not done so, so I will. My favorite lexicon, the "Anlex" of the Fribergs (accessed through BibleWorks), has this definition:

"(1) active ruin, destroy; (a) of persons destroy, kill, bring to ruin (MT 2.13); (b) with an impersonal object destroy, bring to nothing (1C 1.19); (c) of a reward lose, be deprived of (MT 10.42 ), opposite thre,w (maintain, keep); (2) middle be ruined, be destroyed (second perfect active as middle); (a) of persons die, perish, lose one's life (MT 8.25); (b) of things be lost, be ruined (MT 9.17); (c) of transitory things pass away, cease to exist, perish (1P 1.7) "

Note that the word often simply means to die, such as when Herod sought to kill the baby Jesus in Matt. 2:13. Herod had no power to cause Jesus to cease to exist, so in that case the word means specifically "to kill."

For your examples to be correct illustrations of annihilationism, you would have to prove clearly from the context, that Paul meant annihilation. You have not done that. In your example from 1 Cor. 15:32, you are mistaken in that Paul's statement makes perfect sense in a non-annihilation meaning. For example, one could say that if everyone goes to Heaven and there is no Hell, let us "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" (simply die physically, then all go to Heaven.).

 

[Yeshua1]

The English is irrelevant to the Greek. They are two different languages, spoken 2000 years apart. To pretend the English words mentioned here have the same range of meaning as the Greek words is a huge linguistic mistake.

This is another linguistic error, sometimes made by those with little or no actual training in NT Koine Greek. Simply because Plato used the word in a sense of annihilation (if he actually did) does not mean that the NT meaning is the same. Plato wrote in classical Greek, which was quite different from Koine Greek. Meanings were different, some verb forms were different, etc. Again, they were different languages.

I have much experience with classical and modern Japanese. Quite often modern Japanese cannot understand something written in classical Japanese. The same is true with Greek. Simply because one can read NT Greek does not mean the meanings are the same as in classical Greek.

You were asked by AndyMartin to give lexical evidence. You have not done so, so I will. My favorite lexicon, the "Anlex" of the Fribergs (accessed through BibleWorks), has this definition:

"(1) active ruin, destroy; (a) of persons destroy, kill, bring to ruin (MT 2.13); (b) with an impersonal object destroy, bring to nothing (1C 1.19); (c) of a reward lose, be deprived of (MT 10.42 ), opposite thre,w (maintain, keep); (2) middle be ruined, be destroyed (second perfect active as middle); (a) of persons die, perish, lose one's life (MT 8.25); (b) of things be lost, be ruined (MT 9.17); (c) of transitory things pass away, cease to exist, perish (1P 1.7) "

Note that the word often simply means to die, such as when Herod sought to kill the baby Jesus in Matt. 2:13. Herod had no power to cause Jesus to cease to exist, so in that case the word means specifically "to kill."

For your examples to be correct illustrations of annihilationism, you would have to prove clearly from the context, that Paul meant annihilation. You have not done that. In your example from 1 Cor. 15:32, you are mistaken in that Paul's statement makes perfect sense in a non-annihilation meaning. For example, one could say that if everyone goes to Heaven and there is no Hell, let us "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" (simply die physically, then all go to Heaven.).

Ruin and destruction in the Greek usuage does not refer to what we would think it means in english, as the authors related that back to sinners being set apart and cut off from God as being their ultimate ruin, as the second death refers to being enernally spiritually dead, as in cut off from God, not dead period!

 

[John of Japan]

I will get to the Greek, but first let’s consider the English. If someone had a brother who was captured by the ISIS while fighting in Syria and they believed their brother was alive, they would never say, “My brother has perished.” But if their brother was blown to pieces by an IED, they would say, “My brother has perished”.

So the English word “perish” does normally mean what is meant by “annihilation”.

​

​

As I said, the English is irrelevant in considering the Greek meaning. However, today a while ago I was reading The Assassin, by Clive Cussler & Justin Scott. On p. 207 it says, "Th beginnings of a raggad cheer died on their lips as each and every man considered how close they had come to annihilation." So even in English "annihilation" can mean simply die, and that indeed is often the meaning of apollumi in Greek.

 

[Mark Corbett]

The English is irrelevant to the Greek. They are two different languages, spoken 2000 years apart. To pretend the English words mentioned here have the same range of meaning as the Greek words is a huge linguistic mistake.

John, of course you are right to say that words in different languages do not have the same range of meanings. But that does not mean the meaning of words in our English translations of the Bible is irrelevant to a discussion of doctrine. To the extent that the translators did a good job, they will have chosen English words which have a range of meaning which includes the meaning of the original Greek word in its context.

The English word "perish" does not mean "to exist in a state of torment". If the translators of our English Bibles did a good job in choosing to use "perish" in John 3:16, than that is evidence against the doctrine of eternal torment and in favor of the doctrine of annihilation.

My purpose in beginning with the English was not to settle the matter based on the English translation. It was simply to show that when I claim that John 3:16 (and many other verses) teach annihilation, I do not have to base this on a meaning in Greek which is hidden to the readers of English translations. I'm simply claiming that the Greek means the same thing as the English.

No English Bible translation is perfect, but we are blessed with excellent translations, and I believe that the average reader of the Bible in English can confidently study the Bible in English and learn doctrine from it even if they don't know Greek.

However, I go on to discuss the Greek because, like you, I fully realize that the original language is the final authority, not a translation.

This is another linguistic error, sometimes made by those with little or no actual training in NT Koine Greek. Simply because Plato used the word in a sense of annihilation (if he actually did) does not mean that the NT meaning is the same. Plato wrote in classical Greek, which was quite different from Koine Greek. Meanings were different, some verb forms were different, etc. Again, they were different languages.

I have much experience with classical and modern Japanese. Quite often modern Japanese cannot understand something written in classical Japanese. The same is true with Greek. Simply because one can read NT Greek does not mean the meanings are the same as in classical Greek.

It is certainly true that all languages change over time. KJV English is different from today's English. In some cases the meanings of words change such that we no longer understand the original meaning. However, many words maintain their meanings. If someone wants to see this, just open up a KJV Bible. While some words will have different meanings, many other words still mean the same thing. The same is true in a comparison of classical Greek and Koine Greek.

Does this mean Plato's use of apollumi is irrelevant? No. Plato was widely read and followed and discussed for centuries, including during the period the NT was written. So when Plato discusses the possibility of souls ceasing to exist, and repeatedly uses apollumi to describe this, it is not irrelevant. Nevertheless, I admit that Plato's use of apollumi does not settle the matter. It is a piece of evidence that leans in favor of annihilationism, but it is not conclusive, partly for the very reason that you mentioned. That is why I clearly and explicitly stated that Paul's own usage was far more important.

You were asked by AndyMartin to give lexical evidence. You have not done so, so I will. My favorite lexicon, the "Anlex" of the Fribergs (accessed through BibleWorks), has this definition:

"(1) active ruin, destroy; (a) of persons destroy, kill, bring to ruin (MT 2.13); (b) with an impersonal object destroy, bring to nothing (1C 1.19); (c) of a reward lose, be deprived of (MT 10.42 ), opposite thre,w (maintain, keep); (2) middle be ruined, be destroyed (second perfect active as middle); (a) of persons die, perish, lose one's life (MT 8.25); (b) of things be lost, be ruined (MT 9.17); (c) of transitory things pass away, cease to exist, perish (1P 1.7) "

Note that the word often simply means to die, such as when Herod sought to kill the baby Jesus in Matt. 2:13. Herod had no power to cause Jesus to cease to exist, so in that case the word means specifically "to kill."

I agree that the Friberg lexicon is an excellent resource. Two notes. First, even excellent lexicons can have a theological bias. Second, the lexical entry you quote provides little support to your position. The only evidence given for the meaning "ruin" is Matthew 2:13, which reads:

NIV Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill (apollumi) him."

Herod was not planning to capture the baby, keep him alive, and torment him. Herod was planning to simply kill the baby. Now it is true that Herod could only kill the body. Herod's plans did not and could not affect the soul, one way or the other. But the body, which is what Herod would kill, would no longer be thinking or feeling anything after it was apollumi-ed if Herod succeeded. Later Matthew points out that while people can only kill bodies, God can destroy (apollumi) both body and soul:

NIV Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

For your examples to be correct illustrations of annihilationism, you would have to prove clearly from the context, that Paul meant annihilation. You have not done that. In your example from 1 Cor. 15:32, you are mistaken in that Paul's statement makes perfect sense in a non-annihilation meaning. For example, one could say that if everyone goes to Heaven and there is no Hell, let us "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" (simply die physically, then all go to Heaven.).

This last point is the most important by far because it deals with Paul's own use of apollumi in the Bible.

You claim that Paul's theoretical statement of what would happen to Christians if Christ was not resurrected can make sense with a non-annihilation meaning. The alternative meaning you give is to say that everyone goes to Heaven and there is no Hell. I honestly think that if you read the passage again you will see that your meaning does not fit. The verse which actually contains apollumi is as follows:

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost (apollumi).

Do you really think Paul meant that if Christ was not raised from the dead than everyone will go to Heaven?

Look at the verse before it:

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Paul is not saying that if Christ was not raised from the dead everyone, including Christians, would go to Heaven. He is saying that everyone would perish.

So, the evidence is quite strong that in 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul uses apollumi in the same way which Plato used it when discussing the possibility that people would completely cease to exist after death. In other words, when used to discuss the final fate of people, apollumi does in fact mean annihilation.

John, I honestly appreciate your careful analysis of this issue. I hope you will continue to research this topic. There is still a lot more evidence to consider. And I'm willing to continue to discuss it as the Lord leads. Grace and Peace, Mark

 

[wTanksley]

So even in English "annihilation" can mean simply die, and that indeed is often the meaning of apollumi in Greek.

Just to clarify, let me add that this is what annihilationists like myself mean when we call ourselves annihilationist. We do NOT mean we think all particles of the wicked will be metaphysically removed from existence; we mean that they will permanently be killed, that they will die, and their remains will be left to decay and/or burn.

People who attempt to answer us by saying that /apollumi/ need not mean destruction in its strongest sense are missing our point entirely. We don't think the wages of sin is matter/antimatter conversion to energy; we think it's death.

I'm not trying here to present a persuasive case; I'm only pointing out that your arguments are attacking a position we do not hold. Your position is that the consciousness of the wicked extends forever in time in order to allow them to experience punishment forever; our position is that their conscious experience comes to an end when they are killed by God in the Day of Judgment, making the utter deprivation of life their punishment.

 

[John of Japan]

Just to clarify, let me add that this is what annihilationists like myself mean when we call ourselves annihilationist. We do NOT mean we think all particles of the wicked will be metaphysically removed from existence; we mean that they will permanently be killed, that they will die, and their remains will be left to decay and/or burn.

People who attempt to answer us by saying that /apollumi/ need not mean destruction in its strongest sense are missing our point entirely. We don't think the wages of sin is matter/antimatter conversion to energy; we think it's death.

I'm not trying here to present a persuasive case; I'm only pointing out that your arguments are attacking a position we do not hold. Your position is that the consciousness of the wicked extends forever in time in order to allow them to experience punishment forever; our position is that their conscious experience comes to an end when they are killed by God in the Day of Judgment, making the utter deprivation of life their punishment.

Then, #1, you do not believe in the immortality of the soul, and
#2, the exact meaning of words in the Bible no longer matters to you, if the exact meaning of apollumi is not the issue.

 

[John of Japan]

John, of course you are right to say that words in different languages do not have the same range of meanings. But that does not mean the meaning of words in our English translations of the Bible is irrelevant to a discussion of doctrine. To the extent that the translators did a good job, they will have chosen English words which have a range of meaning which includes the meaning of the original Greek word in its context.

The English word "perish" does not mean "to exist in a state of torment". If the translators of our English Bibles did a good job in choosing to use "perish" in John 3:16, than that is evidence against the doctrine of eternal torment and in favor of the doctrine of annihilation.

My purpose in beginning with the English was not to settle the matter based on the English translation. It was simply to show that when I claim that John 3:16 (and many other verses) teach annihilation, I do not have to base this on a meaning in Greek which is hidden to the readers of English translations. I'm simply claiming that the Greek means the same thing as the English.

No English Bible translation is perfect, but we are blessed with excellent translations, and I believe that the average reader of the Bible in English can confidently study the Bible in English and learn doctrine from it even if they don't know Greek.

Then you are conducting a "bait and switch" maneuver in your argumentation. First you throw the English out there, planting the seeds of English meaning in people's minds, then you go on to the Greek, in this case at least, without any warning such as, "By the way, now I'm going to study the Greek word, but there is no semantic connection between the English and Greek meanings." Do you really think that is honest debating?

I'll see if I can answer the rest of your post later.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Then, #1, you do not believe in the immortality of the soul, and
#2, the exact meaning of words in the Bible no longer matters to you, if the exact meaning of apollumi is not the issue.

John, wrt to your point #1, There is a good reason that the doctrine of annihilationism also goes by the name Conditional Immortality. You are correct in saying that annihilationists do not believe in the immortality of the soul, if by that you mean the unconditional immortality of all souls, regardless of whether they accept Christ or not. We believe that eternal life/immortality is a gift given by God's grace only to those made righteous in Christ. We are confident that this is the consistent teaching of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

Regarding point #2, I have reread WTanksley's post several times and I simply cannot find where wrote anything that would lead you to believe he does not care about the exact meaning of apollumi. In fact, he wrote to clarify and specify what annihilationists believe the exact meaning to be when apollumi is used in the context of describing the final fate of the unrighteous. I really feel that accusing WTanksely of not caring about the exact meaning of words in the Bible is an unfair personal attack and I can see no reason for such an attack in what he wrote.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Then you are conducting a "bait and switch" maneuver in your argumentation. First you throw the English out there, planting the seeds of English meaning in people's minds, then you go on to the Greek, in this case at least, without any warning such as, "By the way, now I'm going to study the Greek word, but there is no semantic connection between the English and Greek meanings." Do you really think that is honest debating?

I'll see if I can answer the rest of your post later.

There is nothing wrong with discussing the meaning of a word/verse in English before going on to discuss the meaning in Greek. In fact, doing so is helpful. You seem to assume I had bad or tricky motives for doing so. I did not.

 

[John of Japan]

There is nothing wrong with discussing the meaning of a word/verse in English before going on to discuss the meaning in Greek. In fact, doing so is helpful. You seem to assume I had bad or tricky motives for doing so. I did not.

I did not question your motive, but your method. I stand by what I wrote. Don't present English meanings and then jump to Greek meanings as if they were the same. You wrote in your post, "I will get to the Greek, but first let’s consider the English." To me that was presenting the English as if it had something to do with the meaning of the Greek. I suggest you be more careful in the future if you do not wish to be misunderstood.

 

[John of Japan]

John, wrt to your point #1, There is a good reason that the doctrine of annihilationism also goes by the name Conditional Immortality. You are correct in saying that annihilationists do not believe in the immortality of the soul, if by that you mean the unconditional immortality of all souls, regardless of whether they accept Christ or not. We believe that eternal life/immortality is a gift given by God's grace only to those made righteous in Christ. We are confident that this is the consistent teaching of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

It does not matter how you phrase it. If an annihilationist does not believe in the immortality of all souls, he ergo does not believe in the immortality of the soul.

Regarding point #2, I have reread WTanksley's post several times and I simply cannot find where wrote anything that would lead you to believe he does not care about the exact meaning of apollumi. In fact, he wrote to clarify and specify what annihilationists believe the exact meaning to be when apollumi is used in the context of describing the final fate of the unrighteous. I really feel that accusing WTanksely of not caring about the exact meaning of words in the Bible is an unfair personal attack and I can see no reason for such an attack in what he wrote.

WTanksley wrote, "People who attempt to answer us by saying that /apollumi/ need not mean destruction in its strongest sense are missing our point entirely." How is this not arguing against determining the semantics of apollumi as being of primary importance? But I'll wait for his answer on that.

 

[Mark Corbett]

It does not matter how you phrase it. If an annihilationist does not believe in the immortality of all souls, he ergo does not believe in the immortality of the soul.

It is certainly possible to believe in the immorality of some souls, but not all souls. I believe that immortality is given as a gift by God's grace to those who have believed in Jesus Christ. It is not given to those who do not believe.

 

[John of Japan]

It is certainly true that all languages change over time. KJV English is different from today's English. In some cases the meanings of words change such that we no longer understand the original meaning. However, many words maintain their meanings. If someone wants to see this, just open up a KJV Bible. While some words will have different meanings, many other words still mean the same thing. The same is true in a comparison of classical Greek and Koine Greek.

Does this mean Plato's use of apollumi is irrelevant? No. Plato was widely read and followed and discussed for centuries, including during the period the NT was written. So when Plato discusses the possibility of souls ceasing to exist, and repeatedly uses apollumi to describe this, it is not irrelevant. Nevertheless, I admit that Plato's use of apollumi does not settle the matter. It is a piece of evidence that leans in favor of annihilationism, but it is not conclusive, partly for the very reason that you mentioned. That is why I clearly and explicitly stated that Paul's own usage was far more important.

Bringing Plato into the argument and then assuming Paul et al followed Plato's meaning is not theology, it is speculation. However, I'll answer your point. Note the following.

Plato, in your quote, was talking about the death/annihilation of the soul. The Bible has a similar statement about the soul dying in Ez. 18:20--"The soul that sinneth, it shall die." In that case, the LXX has apothnesko, not applumi. In other words, your comparison to Plato is invalid, since he is specifically speaking of the death of the soul, not physical death. The NT on the other hand (including Paul), usually uses appolumi for physical death, never for the death of the soul (with the sole exception of the Matt. verse, which I will get to). For you to prove annihilationism from apollumi, you must prove that it without doubt refers to the death of the soul in the NT.

I agree that the Friberg lexicon is an excellent resource. Two notes. First, even excellent lexicons can have a theological bias. Second, the lexical entry you quote provides little support to your position. The only evidence given for the meaning "ruin" is Matthew 2:13, which reads:

NIV Matthew 2:13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill (apollumi) him."

Herod was not planning to capture the baby, keep him alive, and torment him. Herod was planning to simply kill the baby. Now it is true that Herod could only kill the body. Herod's plans did not and could not affect the soul, one way or the other. But the body, which is what Herod would kill, would no longer be thinking or feeling anything after it was apollumi-ed if Herod succeeded. Later Matthew points out that while people can only kill bodies, God can destroy (apollumi) both body and soul:

You misread the lexical entry. Friberg was saying that appolumi means to kill physically, as it clearly does in Matt. 2:13. Over and over again it has the plain meaning of killing or dying physically. In Matthew alone we have that meaning in 8:25, 10:39, 12:14, 16:25, 21:41, 22:7, 26:52. So I would say the core meaning of the word is to kill or be killed.

NIV Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

This is the only verse you've given so far that I will admit you have a point. However, this meaning must have nothing to do with the Plato meaning, unless you are suggesting that a Galilean fisherman read and understood and referred to Plato, which I think is a ridiculous idea.

At any rate, note that in Matt. 10:28, the body and soul are already in Hell (Gehenna), meaning that yes, a person can go to Hell. What you must then prove is that after a person is in Hell, they cease to exist. And you must do it by other texts, since you ought to agree that it is dangerous to teach a doctrine from one text. But even if we stick to Matt. 10:28, the traditional, orthodox view is that Hell is eternal death. With that view it is quite easy to interpret Matt. 10:28 without straying into annihilationism.

This last point is the most important by far because it deals with Paul's own use of apollumi in the Bible.

You claim that Paul's theoretical statement of what would happen to Christians if Christ was not resurrected can make sense with a non-annihilation meaning. The alternative meaning you give is to say that everyone goes to Heaven and there is no Hell. I honestly think that if you read the passage again you will see that your meaning does not fit. The verse which actually contains apollumi is as follows:

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost (apollumi).
Do you really think Paul meant that if Christ was not raised from the dead than everyone will go to Heaven?

Look at the verse before it:

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

You misunderstood my point, which was simply that such an interpretation was possible, not that I held to such an interpretation.

Paul is not saying that if Christ was not raised from the dead everyone, including Christians, would go to Heaven. He is saying that everyone would perish.

Paul was not saying that all would perish if Christ did not rise, he was saying all would be lost. That is a different matter entirely. Jesus used the word several times for "lost," and Friberg gives that meaning. So all Paul was saying is that if Christ is not risen, we are lost in the afterlife, which does not necessarily mean annihilation.

So, the evidence is quite strong that in 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul uses apollumi in the same way which Plato used it when discussing the possibility that people would completely cease to exist after death. In other words, when used to discuss the final fate of people, apollumi does in fact mean annihilation.

I disagree, as seen above. And by once again bringing Plato into the picture, you are again suggesting that Paul followed Plato in his semantics, for which there is not a shred of evidence.

I'll say it again, classical Greek and Koine Greek are two different dialects, if not two different languages. I would never allow my koine Greek students to use Liddell/Scott. In fact, if you compare the LS meanings to koine lexicons, you get a quite different range of meanings.

John, I honestly appreciate your careful analysis of this issue. I hope you will continue to research this topic. There is still a lot more evidence to consider. And I'm willing to continue to discuss it as the Lord leads. Grace and Peace, Mark

Glad to interact. Have you read the Counterpoints 4 views book?