Hell is a real place

[John of Japan]

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.

Is a person who does not believe still in the image of God? Yes, of course he is. Then you have God annihilating His own image in your doctrine. I'll never buy that.

 

[wTanksley]

Then, #1, you do not believe in the immortality of the soul, and

OK, it's great that you're trying to carry the conversation on further, but I'm concerned that you didn't actually read what I wrote, because this does not follow from anything I said.

I did not tell you that I reject natural immortality of the soul. Perhaps later on we'll discuss that, because it is important (so again, I respect you bringing it up). It doesn't matter whether or not souls are immortal; what matters is what the punishment for sin is. Even if man's soul is naturally immortal, God can destroy it -- obviously. And to put things the other way around, even if man were naturally mortal, God could extend his life as long as He wants, even forever.

What I told you is that annihilationists believe that the penalty for sin that the unrepentant will pay is literally to die. When you speak of annihilation as our belief, you SHOULD be understanding that to mean that they will be annihilated in the sense of being killed. Instead you say things like this:

What you must then prove is that after a person is in Hell, they cease to exist.

No, we don't need to prove that they cease to exist; we need to prove that the terms used for their fate are entirely consistent with their fate being to die or to have their life completely removed; and generally not consistent with their fate being to undergo eternal torment.

You can nuance that, of course, and I'll follow along with you to some extent. I just want to end this silliness of you moving the goalposts by creating a false impression of what we believe so that we have to prove more and more.

#2, the exact meaning of words in the Bible no longer matters to you, if the exact meaning of apollumi is not the issue.

I didn't say otherwise, and I reject your false claim that it "no longer matters to" me. But I'm not going to go down that road until you show some understanding of the actual difference between your position and our positions.

 

[wTanksley]

Is a person who does not believe still in the image of God? Yes, of course he is. Then you have God annihilating His own image in your doctrine. I'll never buy that.

First: no, we don't claim that God "annihilates His own image." He destroys (kills) people who are made in His image. That doesn't harm His image; it harms the people.

Second, your argument is sentimental and leads only to pluralistic universalism. If God can't harm people because they're in His image then He couldn't torment them forever and ever either. You're imagining your argument works, but you're applying it too selectively in order to hide its weakness.

Finally, God says specifically that being in God's image is the entire reason why the civil death penalty was instituted. If it's wrong for God to kill someone made in His image, then why does God tell us to kill people made in His image in Genesis 9:6? No, it cannot be JUST wrong to kill those made in God's image.

Your argument works only because you already believe the conclusion, not because your argument has any force.

 

[wTanksley]

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.

You're choosing a translation different than all of the rigorous translations of that verse given on BibleHub -- only the NIV, NLT, and ISV agree with you, and all of those are notable for laxity in word choice (and note that they unanimously get the tense wrong). So without any disrespect for your qualifications, it's pretty clear that the professionals don't agree that "lost" is the proper gloss.

Jesus used the word several times for "lost," and Friberg gives that meaning.

The gloss "lost" is appropriate only when the context shows that the object of /apollumi/ is not affected -- when it's a subjective /apollumi/, as it was for the lost sheep, coin, and son. You don't just get to pick a meaning you personally like!

So all Paul was saying is that if Christ is not risen, we are lost in the afterlife, which does not necessarily mean annihilation.

Paul _explains_ what he meant; and it isn't "those who fell asleep in Christ are already wandering around in the afterlife." It's that they would have been dead (instead of having fallen asleep) and would never rise in the resurrection (unlike being destined to wake when Christ calls).

 

[John of Japan]

OK, it's great that you're trying to carry the conversation on further, but I'm concerned that you didn't actually read what I wrote, because this does not follow from anything I said.

I did not tell you that I reject natural immortality of the soul. Perhaps later on we'll discuss that, because it is important (so again, I respect you bringing it up). It doesn't matter whether or not souls are immortal; what matters is what the punishment for sin is. Even if man's soul is naturally immortal, God can destroy it -- obviously. And to put things the other way around, even if man were naturally mortal, God could extend his life as long as He wants, even forever.

What I told you is that annihilationists believe that the penalty for sin that the unrepentant will pay is literally to die. When you speak of annihilation as our belief, you SHOULD be understanding that to mean that they will be annihilated in the sense of being killed. Instead you say things like this:

It seems to me that you are quibbling. If you do not believe that all souls are immortal, than you do not believe in the immortality of all souls. In my book, you can't have it both ways.

The soul of a saved person and the soul of a lost person are the same. When a person is born again, that does not change the essential nature of the soul. One is either a lost soul or a saved soul. It is illogical then to speak of immortal souls and non-immortal souls. You can use terms like "natural immortality of the soul" if you wish, but I don't buy any difference. A soul is a soul is a soul.

No, we don't need to prove that they cease to exist; we need to prove that the terms used for their fate are entirely consistent with their fate being to die or to have their life completely removed; and generally not consistent with their fate being to undergo eternal torment.

You can nuance that, of course, and I'll follow along with you to some extent. I just want to end this silliness of you moving the goalposts by creating a false impression of what we believe so that we have to prove more and more.

Either you believe that souls are immortal or you don't. As far as I am concerned, yes, an annihilationist needs to prove that a person, a soul, ceases to exist, or his argument doesn't exist.

Sure, call that unconnected with your doctrine if you wish. Call it silly if you wish. That doesn't change the facts, in my view.

I didn't say otherwise, and I reject your false claim that it "no longer matters to" me. But I'm not going to go down that road until you show some understanding of the actual difference between your position and our positions.

What's to understand? To me it's quite simple.

Your position is that certain souls cease to exist. Mine is that they don't.

 

[John of Japan]

First: no, we don't claim that God "annihilates His own image." He destroys (kills) people who are made in His image. That doesn't harm His image; it harms the people.

Second, your argument is sentimental and leads only to pluralistic universalism. If God can't harm people because they're in His image then He couldn't torment them forever and ever either. You're imagining your argument works, but you're applying it too selectively in order to hide its weakness.

Oh, wow. Accuse me of a sentimental argument that "leads only to pluralistic universalism." It's always easiest to attack a person's argument rather than disprove it.

I stick to my guns. God will not annihilate his image in humans. This is not a new argument. It's an old one and a good one.

Finally, God says specifically that being in God's image is the entire reason why the civil death penalty was instituted. If it's wrong for God to kill someone made in His image, then why does God tell us to kill people made in His image in Genesis 9:6? No, it cannot be JUST wrong to kill those made in God's image.

Your argument works only because you already believe the conclusion, not because your argument has any force.

This is a non-sequiter. I said nothing about murder. I am applying the image of God argument to annihilation, not murder or capital punishment. The argument is based on the nature of God Himself. When God accomplishes or creates something it is eternal. Eccl. 3:14--"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him."

 

[John of Japan]

You're choosing a translation different than all of the rigorous translations of that verse given on BibleHub -- only the NIV, NLT, and ISV agree with you, and all of those are notable for laxity in word choice (and note that they unanimously get the tense wrong). So without any disrespect for your qualifications, it's pretty clear that the professionals don't agree that "lost" is the proper gloss.

Actually, I am a professional. I teach Greek professionally, am a Bible translator professionally, and have other professional qualifications in this area which I will not list here. This week I'll be presenting my work at a Bible translation conference. So you can trust me in this area. But don't try this at home, kids.

 

[wTanksley]

It seems to me that you are quibbling. If you do not believe that all souls are immortal, than you do not believe in the immortality of all souls. In my book, you can't have it both ways.

I don't. What I am doing is informing you that you are misrepresenting our position by pretending that we believe God says sinners will be metaphysically annihilated. I'm not discussing whether or not souls are intrinsically immortal, except to agree that it's a very important conversation to have, AFTER we finish the part about you building a strawman of what we believe.

As far as I am concerned, yes, an annihilationist needs to prove that a person, a soul, ceases to exist, or his argument doesn't exist.

I don't know you, so your little philosophical rules about what "an annihilationist" must do carry no weight for me. My concern is to understand what the Bible says about the fate of the righteous and the wicked -- not about what rules my opponent has fabricated.

Sure, call that unconnected with your doctrine if you wish. Call it silly if you wish. That doesn't change the facts, in my view.

It's unconnected with my doctrine, and unspeakably silly of you. And it has nothing to do with the fact that God has decreed -- and even pagans know it -- that all who sin deserve to die.

So the question is: do you care more about what the Bible teaches, or about this unique little game with its rule set you've made up and presented to me?

What's to understand? To me it's quite simple. Your position is that certain souls cease to exist. Mine is that they don't.

Yes, absurd strawmen are often quite simple. I notice, too, that after building your absurd strawman of my position you've claimed your position to be everything except that. That's convenient.

 

[Mark Corbett]

John of Japan.

I like to remind myself when I’m discussing/debating a topic with someone, that while the topic may be very important, so is the person. So I hope you won’t mind if I take a mini-break from our discussion about the final fate of the unrighteous (which is important) to ask just a little about you.

You chose “John of Japan” for your username. And you mentioned (I think I remember) studying Japanese. Perhaps we have something in common. Not specifically Japan or Japanese. I’ve never been to Japan except to transit through airports on my way from or to Indonesia. And I don’t speak Japanese.

I lived for some years in another Asian nation, namely Indonesia. I studied Indonesian and even have a M.Hum in Indonesian. Far more importantly, I have a deep love for the Indonesian people. And I long to see the gospel spread among them. This is specifically true of one Indonesian people group, namely the Bugis people. There are around 5 million Bugis people and tragically we estimate that they are less than 1/10th of 1% Christian. How I long for many more Bugis people to be saved, including some whom I count as friends.

And while on this forum my username is simply my name, for my Skype account I chose the name “theBugisMan”.

So, if you don’t mind, I would love to hear you share a little about your heart and involvement with Japan and its people. Occasionally the Lord has laid Japan on my own heart and I have prayed for the spread of the gospel there.

And I do intend to get back to the topic of this thread, and hope this slight “diversion” is not a violation of discussion board etiquette. Grace and Peace, Mark.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't. What I am doing is informing you that you are misrepresenting our position by pretending that we believe God says sinners will be metaphysically annihilated. I'm not discussing whether or not souls are intrinsically immortal, except to agree that it's a very important conversation to have, AFTER we finish the part about you building a strawman of what we believe.

That annihilationists believe in a metaphysical annihilation is exactly what I've read in various sources. So now that you've said I'm wrong, please tell me why I am wrong. If you do not believe in metaphysical annihilation, what does it mean to you to be an annihilationist?

As for the rest of your post, it's full of insulting language and accusations, so I'll ignore it. I believe that so far I've shown respect to you personally, if not your position, so it's unfortunate you won't do the same for me.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan.

I like to remind myself when I’m discussing/debating a topic with someone, that while the topic may be very important, so is the person. So I hope you won’t mind if I take a mini-break from our discussion about the final fate of the unrighteous (which is important) to ask just a little about you.

You chose “John of Japan” for your username. And you mentioned (I think I remember) studying Japanese. Perhaps we have something in common. Not specifically Japan or Japanese. I’ve never been to Japan except to transit through airports on my way from or to Indonesia. And I don’t speak Japanese.

I appreciate your graciousness. My wife and I were missionaries for 33 years in Japan. I did evangelism, church planting, teaching at Bible institutes, and am still the lead translator on a new Japanese NT. Of course I still love Japan and continue to serve to a certain extent as I work to finish our translation, and to help one of my men finish a one year diploma in our Bible institute.

Three years ago God called us back to the US to academia, and I now teach ancient languages and Bible (and whatever else they ask) at a small Bible college. The neat thing is that I get to teach with my son the PhD, whose office is two doors down.

I lived for some years in another Asian nation, namely Indonesia. I studied Indonesian and even have a M.Hum in Indonesian. Far more importantly, I have a deep love for the Indonesian people. And I long to see the gospel spread among them. This is specifically true of one Indonesian people group, namely the Bugis people. There are around 5 million Bugis people and tragically we estimate that they are less than 1/10th of 1% Christian. How I long for many more Bugis people to be saved, including some whom I count as friends.

I have a heart for such people groups. There are still so many people groups all over the world with little or no Gospel, no written language, and no one to reach them. I am privileged to be a translation consultant to a barely started Bible translation work among such a people group in Africa.

And while on this forum my username is simply my name, for my Skype account I chose the name “theBugisMan”.

So, if you don’t mind, I would love to hear you share a little about your heart and involvement with Japan and its people. Occasionally the Lord has laid Japan on my own heart and I have prayed for the spread of the gospel there.

And I do intend to get back to the topic of this thread, and hope this slight “diversion” is not a violation of discussion board etiquette. Grace and Peace, Mark.

Nice to meet you.

 

[Mark Corbett]

I appreciate your graciousness. My wife and I were missionaries for 33 years in Japan. I did evangelism, church planting, teaching at Bible institutes, and am still the lead translator on a new Japanese NT. Of course I still love Japan and continue to serve to a certain extent as I work to finish our translation, and to help one of my men finish a one year diploma in our Bible institute.

Three years ago God called us back to the US to academia, and I now teach ancient languages and Bible (and whatever else they ask) at a small Bible college. The neat thing is that I get to teach with my son the PhD, whose office is two doors down.
I have a heart for such people groups. There are still so many people groups all over the world with little or no Gospel, no written language, and no one to reach them. I am privileged to be a translation consultant to a barely started Bible translation work among such a people group in Africa.
Nice to meet you.

I pray that the Lord will bless the new Japanese translation of the NT and use it to get His Word into the hearts and minds and lives of many people who speak Japanese. May He also bless your teaching and use your students far and wide to spread His love and truth. And may that people group in Africa be blessed with His Word in their language!

And now I look forward, Lord willing, to returning to our discussion about the final fate of the unrighteous. I'll try to post some comments related to that sometime today.

 

[Mark Corbett]

For you to prove annihilationism from apollumi, you must prove that it without doubt refers to the death of the soul in the NT.

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.

You see something which those who do not do word studies in Greek are likely to miss. Namely, when used in the context of what one person does to another person, apollumi very consistently means “to kill”. And when used passively to refer to what happens to a person, it very consistently means “to die, to perish”. There does seem to be an additional nuance of meaning in that the death described by apollumi seems to be often a violent one.

Now, when someone is physically killed on earth, the part of them which is dead is the body. And their body can no longer feel or think anything. We know that whatever God does to the unrighteous at the judgment, it will be done to both their body and soul.

Apollumi is used a number of times to refer to the final fate of the unrighteous. Here are two examples in addition to John 3:16 and Matthew 10:28, which we are already discussing:

1. Luke 13:2-5

ESV Luke 13:2 And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."


BGT Luke 13:2 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· δοκεῖτε ὅτι οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι οὗτοι ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Γαλιλαίους ἐγένοντο, ὅτι ταῦτα πεπόνθασιν; 3 οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε πάντες ὁμοίως ἀπολεῖσθε. 4 ἢ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ δεκαοκτὼ ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἔπεσεν ὁ πύργος ἐν τῷ Σιλωὰμ καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτούς, δοκεῖτε ὅτι αὐτοὶ ὀφειλέται ἐγένοντο παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ἰερουσαλήμ; 5 οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε πάντες ὡσαύτως ἀπολεῖσθε.

In this passage, Jesus warns that if people do not repent, they will perish (apollumi). This cannot simply mean that they will physically die in this age, for repenting does not keep us from physically dying in this age. Notice that the fate of the unrepentant is compared to the fate of people who were slaughtered by Pilate or who had a tower fall on them. All this fits the basic meaning of apollumi, which is to be killed, albeit by a violent death which may include temporary suffering.

Why would Jesus describe the results of not repenting in this way, if in fact the results of not repenting were to be kept alive in a state of torment eternally? Again, not repenting has no effect one way on the other that we all die physically in this age.

2. Hebrews 10:39

ESV Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

BGT Hebrews 10:39 ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἀλλὰ πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς.

In this verse, the alternative to preserving one’s soul is to be destroyed (apollumi).

You have asked for evidence that apollumi refers to causing a soul to perish. Since it clearly refers to causing bodies to perish when used of bodies, why should we expect it to mean something different when applied to souls?

And what is the alternative? Where is there evidence that apollumi can mean “to torment”, or passively, “to be tormented”. I’ve looked at all the uses of apollumi in the NT, and many examples outside it, and I cannot think of one place where the context indicates “to torment” is the meaning. Are you aware of any such examples? So why choose a meaning (to torment) for apollumi which has no examples to support it, over a meaning which has many examples (to kill, to cause to perish)?

In terms of meanings such as “to lose” or “to ruin”, these meanings are not found when apollumi refers to what one personal agent intentionally does to another person. Can you find any examples like that? I honestly cannot, and I’ve looked at this topic repeatedly.

There is yet a lot of evidence, but this is enough I think for one comment. Let’s keep talking!

Have you read the Counterpoints 4 views book?

Yes, in fact I've read both the both the first edition from 1996, and the second edition (with new contributors for the views) in 2016. Thanks for pointing out this resource.

 

[Yeshua1]

First: no, we don't claim that God "annihilates His own image." He destroys (kills) people who are made in His image. That doesn't harm His image; it harms the people.

Second, your argument is sentimental and leads only to pluralistic universalism. If God can't harm people because they're in His image then He couldn't torment them forever and ever either. You're imagining your argument works, but you're applying it too selectively in order to hide its weakness.

Finally, God says specifically that being in God's image is the entire reason why the civil death penalty was instituted. If it's wrong for God to kill someone made in His image, then why does God tell us to kill people made in His image in Genesis 9:6? No, it cannot be JUST wrong to kill those made in God's image.

Your argument works only because you already believe the conclusion, not because your argument has any force.

Jesus death and resurrected purchased though doe all the resurrection of the body, but some unto eternal life with God, the rest eternally separated from God!

 

[Yeshua1]

You see something which those who do not do word studies in Greek are likely to miss. Namely, when used in the context of what one person does to another person, apollumi very consistently means “to kill”. And when used passively to refer to what happens to a person, it very consistently means “to die, to perish”. There does seem to be an additional nuance of meaning in that the death described by apollumi seems to be often a violent one.

Now, when someone is physically killed on earth, the part of them which is dead is the body. And their body can no longer feel or think anything. We know that whatever God does to the unrighteous at the judgment, it will be done to both their body and soul.

Apollumi is used a number of times to refer to the final fate of the unrighteous. Here are two examples in addition to John 3:16 and Matthew 10:28, which we are already discussing:

1. Luke 13:2-5

ESV Luke 13:2 And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."


BGT Luke 13:2 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· δοκεῖτε ὅτι οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι οὗτοι ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Γαλιλαίους ἐγένοντο, ὅτι ταῦτα πεπόνθασιν; 3 οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε πάντες ὁμοίως ἀπολεῖσθε. 4 ἢ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ δεκαοκτὼ ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἔπεσεν ὁ πύργος ἐν τῷ Σιλωὰμ καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτούς, δοκεῖτε ὅτι αὐτοὶ ὀφειλέται ἐγένοντο παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ἰερουσαλήμ; 5 οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε πάντες ὡσαύτως ἀπολεῖσθε.

In this passage, Jesus warns that if people do not repent, they will perish (apollumi). This cannot simply mean that they will physically die in this age, for repenting does not keep us from physically dying in this age. Notice that the fate of the unrepentant is compared to the fate of people who were slaughtered by Pilate or who had a tower fall on them. All this fits the basic meaning of apollumi, which is to be killed, albeit by a violent death which may include temporary suffering.

Why would Jesus describe the results of not repenting in this way, if in fact the results of not repenting were to be kept alive in a state of torment eternally? Again, not repenting has no effect one way on the other that we all die physically in this age.

2. Hebrews 10:39

ESV Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

BGT Hebrews 10:39 ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἀλλὰ πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς.

In this verse, the alternative to preserving one’s soul is to be destroyed (apollumi).

You have asked for evidence that apollumi refers to causing a soul to perish. Since it clearly refers to causing bodies to perish when used of bodies, why should we expect it to mean something different when applied to souls?

And what is the alternative? Where is there evidence that apollumi can mean “to torment”, or passively, “to be tormented”. I’ve looked at all the uses of apollumi in the NT, and many examples outside it, and I cannot think of one place where the context indicates “to torment” is the meaning. Are you aware of any such examples? So why choose a meaning (to torment) for apollumi which has no examples to support it, over a meaning which has many examples (to kill, to cause to perish)?

In terms of meanings such as “to lose” or “to ruin”, these meanings are not found when apollumi refers to what one personal agent intentionally does to another person. Can you find any examples like that? I honestly cannot, and I’ve looked at this topic repeatedly.

There is yet a lot of evidence, but this is enough I think for one comment. Let’s keep talking!




Yes, in fact I've read both the both the first edition from 1996, and the second edition (with new contributors for the views) in 2016. Thanks for pointing out this resource.

Again, we cannot read back into the scriptures apart from the hebrew and the greek understandings, and the terms used by the Apostles were denoting that one would be ruined and destroyed not in the sense that we would see it, as ceasing to exist, but as now existing apart from God, which would be eternal ruin!

And why would God allowing for eternal Hell be wrong again?

 

[Mark Corbett]

Is a person who does not believe still in the image of God? Yes, of course he is. Then you have God annihilating His own image in your doctrine. I'll never buy that.

I certainly agree that people are made in God’s image. This is taught in several places including Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 9:6. However, I do not agree that people made in God’s image will not be destroyed by God. Here are several reasons:

1. The Bible never says that God will not destroy people because they are made in His image. In fact, the Bible says that God will destroy unsaved people (Matthew 10:28). Your argument seems to be based more on a feeling that people made in God’s image could never be destroyed than on any scripture.

2. The image of God as seen in people will exist forever in a vast multitude of redeemed people. Unlike now, we will reflect God’s image without distortion.

3. The image of God in unrighteous people is severely distorted by sin. For those who are saved this distortion is corrected, partly in this life, and completely when we are glorified. But for the unrighteous the distortion remains as long as they do. Now imagine that twenty photographs (images) were taken of a person, but 15 of them were severely distorted so that they made the person look bad. Would it be wrong to destroy the distorted images? The Bible says that the unrighteous will be destroyed, and I can’t see why that is unreasonable.

4. What is your alternative? You believe that the image of God (what remains of it in the unrighteous) will be tormented forever? How is that better? I don’t see how distorted images of God being tormented forever is an improvement over them simply being burned to ashes (and being burned to ashes is precisely what the Bible says will happen, see 2 Peter 2:6).

 

[Yeshua1]

I certainly agree that people are made in God’s image. This is taught in several places including Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 9:6. However, I do not agree that people made in God’s image will not be destroyed by God. Here are several reasons:

1. The Bible never says that God will not destroy people because they are made in His image. In fact, the Bible says that God will destroy unsaved people (Matthew 10:28). Your argument seems to be based more on a feeling that people made in God’s image could never be destroyed than on any scripture.

2. The image of God as seen in people will exist forever in a vast multitude of redeemed people. Unlike now, we will reflect God’s image without distortion.

3. The image of God in unrighteous people is severely distorted by sin. For those who are saved this distortion is corrected, partly in this life, and completely when we are glorified. But for the unrighteous the distortion remains as long as they do. Now imagine that twenty photographs (images) were taken of a person, but 15 of them were severely distorted so that they made the person look bad. Would it be wrong to destroy the distorted images? The Bible says that the unrighteous will be destroyed, and I can’t see why that is unreasonable.

4. What is your alternative? You believe that the image of God (what remains of it in the unrighteous) will be tormented forever? How is that better? I don’t see how distorted images of God being tormented forever is an improvement over them simply being burned to ashes (and being burned to ashes is precisely what the Bible says will happen, see 2 Peter 2:6).

God has purchased even for the lost resurrected bodies to last forever, as God sees it netter to be in Hell for eternity but alive than just getting snuffed out!

 

[John of Japan]

I pray that the Lord will bless the new Japanese translation of the NT and use it to get His Word into the hearts and minds and lives of many people who speak Japanese. May He also bless your teaching and use your students far and wide to spread His love and truth. And may that people group in Africa be blessed with His Word in their language!

Thank you. 86,000 copies of our "John & Romans" is being distributed in Japan as we write here (a pilot version). We hope to finalize the NT this year. A student of mine is the linguist for the African version, but he's still in seminary, so it will take a while to get that on track. I may fly over next year to teach Greek to Africans.

And now I look forward, Lord willing, to returning to our discussion about the final fate of the unrighteous. I'll try to post some comments related to that sometime today.

I don't know when I'll be able to get back to the discussion. I'm in FL for a martial arts seminar and to preach for a friend, flying back out shortly. Tomorrow I prepare, and then Wed. to Fri. is the translation seminar. In the meantime, looks like you are doing your best to present your side. God bless.

 

[Mark Corbett]

God has purchased even for the lost resurrected bodies to last forever, as God sees it netter to be in Hell for eternity but alive than just getting snuffed out!

Yeshua, Where does the Bible say that God purchased resurrected bodies for the lost that will last forever. Yes, the lost are resurrect, but only to face judgment. There is no verse anywhere that teaches that the lost will live forever. In fact, the Bible specifically says that they will die a second time:

ESV Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."