Originally posted by DHK:
I hardly bothered to read the rest of your rationalization and verses taken out of context Bob. It does say tormented as you deny. It does say day and night. It does say forever and forever which is an abvious synonym for eternal. You are denying the Scriptures. Words have meanings If you want to take words out of different parts of Scripture and twist their meanings to try to fit their meanings into this passage that is your perogative. Peter calls that "wresting the Scriptures to your own destruction," which is literally what you are doing.
The above comment was made by DHK in response to Bob in relation to the text Revelation 20:10 which reads: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
Please consider the following texts (rendered in the NASB) in which the Hebrew word owlam (which I think we all agree has "everlasting" as its basic defintion) appears in the original Hebrew:
Jonah 1:
17 Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Jonah 2:
6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me
for ever (owlam or olam): yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.
Is it not clear that this is an example of "owlam" not really meaning forever, since Jonah was really only in the fish for 3 days?.
Also consider:
1 Samuel 1:22
But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord, and there
abide for ever (owlam or olam).
1 Samual 1:28 Therefore also I have lent him to the Lord;
as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord. And he worshipped the Lord there.
Hannah seems to specify what she means by the term “forever” when she says in verse 28, “as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord.”
How do these texts not seriously damage the argument that "forever means forever"?
The proponent of the "eternal torment" position cannot, without some further argument, simply claim that "forever means forever" given that we have Biblical precedent for its use in a way that clearly does not mean forever.
To DHK and Boanerges: I believe that I have read everything you both have written (but I could have missed something and / or forgotten). Clearly, you would not simply ignore the implications of these texts where owlam does not mean forever. Have I missed your explanation for such texts?