Is hell eternal?

[BobRyan]

Eccl 12
1 Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near when you will say, "I have no delight in them";
2 before the sun and the light, the moon and the stars are darkened, and clouds return after the rain;
3 in the day that the watchmen of the house tremble, and mighty men stoop, the grinding ones stand idle because they are few, and those who look through windows grow dim;
4 and the doors on the street are shut as the sound of the grinding mill is low, and one will arise at the sound of the bird, and all the daughters of song will sing softly.
5 Furthermore, men are afraid of a high place and of terrors on the road; the almond tree blossoms, the grasshopper drags himself along, and the caperberry is ineffective. For man (mankind) goes to his eternal home while mourners go about in the street.

Notice also in vs 5 - instead of limiting the example to "one old man who dies" - it is "For mankind goes to his Eternal home" 12:5. Directly contradicting the notion that this does not deal with all mankind and does not deal with the subject of our eternal destiny and does not deal with the subject of death and exactly what happens.

Eccl 12

6 Remember Him before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the well is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed;
7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

Notice again vs 6-7 - where the priority of God in the believer's life is again called into view

Eccl 12
Remember Him before the silver cord is broken...THEN the DUST will RETURN to the Earth and the spirit will Return to God who Gave it"

Recall from Genesis – (God formed man of the DUST of the earth Gen 2:7). And God Himself states "For You are Dust and to Dust you shall return". Gen 3:19 And God "is not speaking as a human" nor is He just talking about one "old man".

The spirit that returns "to God who gave it" is applicable to the "all mankind" context of vs 5.

This is open acknowledgement of God as the source of life AND of God's role in preserving our being - after death. Hardly a "human-only-view".

 

[BobRyan]

There is no question but what the sprit of "mankind" goes back to "God who gave it" at death.

How does that help those who insist that for most of mankind -their spirit is sent to hell??

There is no question but that in going back to God who Gave and then to be subject to either the "First resurrection and the glorious eternity that follows" or the "second resurrection and the Lake of Fire - SECOND DEATH that follows" the permenant and final state of all is now set at death.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Boanerges]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
There is no question but what the sprit of "mankind" goes back to "God who gave it" at death.

How does that help those who insist that for most of mankind -their spirit is sent to hell??

There is no question but that in going back to God who Gave and then to be subject to either the "First resurrection and the glorious eternity that follows" or the "second resurrection and the Lake of Fire - SECOND DEATH that follows" the permenant and final state of all is now set at death.

In Christ,

Bob

in a word Bob....OWLAM.....need to address it This is because it once again appears in the Hebrew text of Ecc 12:5, and is translated as ETERNAL.

 

[Andre]

Regarding Ecclesiastes 12:5 and the word "owlam". i am in no position to debate that this does not mean "eternal" and, further, that "eternal" means "everlasting" as per one of your (Boanerges) earlier posts. And I will not appeal to any arguments that the word is being used metaphorically (as in when people say to each other "I will love you forever). So let's say the word means literally "everlasting".

The problem is that this is not sufficient to warrant a conclusion of everlasting conscious existence for the unredeemed. Again, I wonder whether we are not realizing that the same text can be consistent with two (or more) radically different views about the fate of the unredeemed.

A believer in annihilation (like me) could (as I think Bob is saying) argue as follows: The word "eternal" in Ecc 12:5 qualifies the noun "home". It is at least plausible that the word "home" is to be construed as a destination or end state rather than as some kind of place of continued existence. Sure, the word "home" can mean a place where one "lives" - such a construal would support the view I understand Boanerges to be supporting.

However, it can also mean an "end state" or a destination. Insofar as "home" is where one winds up at the end of some journey, one can at least consider that it is being used in this sense here - the point being the word does not necessarily carry connotations of "continued conscious existence". As I think Bob is saying, one can legitimately claim that the intended meaning is that a certain "end state" is attained, and that this state is permanent - it lasts forever. This end state could well be "death" for the unbeliever and eternal conscious awareness for the believer. There is nothing that rules out such an interpretation. Nor is the opposite interpretation ruled out - namely that the unrepentent do indeed experience eternal conscious existence in Hell.

Perhaps I am on shaky ground on my thoughts about interpreting "home" as an "end state" rather than as "place where conscious beings reside". Maybe someone can shed more light. But please, do simply claimthat my interpretation of "home" is implausible - give me reasons to so think.

My main point in this post is to not actively defend the annihilationist position, but to make an argument that there is more than 1 way to interpret Eccl 12:5 even if one accepts that "owlam" means everlasting. The conclusion one draws would seem to depend on an "interpretive framework that one brings to the text.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
There is no question but what the sprit of "mankind" goes back to "God who gave it" at death.

How does that help those who insist that for most of mankind -their spirit is sent to hell??

This question goes "unnanswered" of course - as do all questions to Boanerges from me so far:

How "predictable"

Bob said

There is no question but that in going back to God who Gave and then to be subject to either the "First resurrection and the glorious eternity that follows" or the "second resurrection and the Lake of Fire - SECOND DEATH that follows" the permenant and final state of all is now set at death.

Which obviously shows the final and "eternal" nature of their ultimate end.

Originally posted by Boanerges:

in a word Bob....OWLAM.....need to address it

I guess that is the part that I keep talking about when I say "final and eternal". I am convinced your case would improve considerably if you actually read the posts and replied to them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

However, it can also mean an "end state" or a destination. Insofar as "home" is where one winds up at the end of some journey, one can at least consider that it is being used in this sense here - the point being the word does not necessarily carry connotations of "continued conscious existence". As I think Bob is saying, one can legitimately claim that the intended meaning is that a certain "end state" is attained, and that this state is permanent - it lasts forever.

Exactly.

And though one may not want to agree with that solution it does no good at all to pretend that the solution was not offered.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Boanerges]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
There is no question but what the sprit of "mankind" goes back to "God who gave it" at death.

How does that help those who insist that for most of mankind -their spirit is sent to hell??

This question goes "unnanswered" of course - as do all questions to Boanerges from me so far:

How "predictable"

Bob said

There is no question but that in going back to God who Gave and then to be subject to either the "First resurrection and the glorious eternity that follows" or the "second resurrection and the Lake of Fire - SECOND DEATH that follows" the permenant and final state of all is now set at death.

Which obviously shows the final and "eternal" nature of their ultimate end.

Originally posted by Boanerges:

in a word Bob....OWLAM.....need to address it

I guess that is the part that I keep talking about when I say "final and eternal". I am convinced your case would improve considerably if you actually read the posts and replied to them.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Too much spam Bob. My eyes are getting glassy :-O remember my original points.If hell isn't eternal, then neither is eternal life or the Eternal God.Same word Bob....owlam...

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by Boanerges:

If hell isn't eternal, then neither is eternal life or the Eternal God.Same word Bob....owlam...

You need to provide an actual case for this assertion that "if hell isn't eternal, then neither is eternal life or the Eternal God". And to be specific, this case cannot fall apart if premisses on which it rest can be shown to unsupported or worse, incorrect. The fact that the same word, owlam, is used to qualify both heaven and hell is simply not strong enough. And I will attempt to show why in the following:

The following assumes that "owlam" does indeed always mean "everlasting" (permanent, without end, etc). I think that there are reasons to doubt this assumption and I hope to deal with this in a follow-up post.

Consider the phrase "eternal life". What can this possibly mean? I think it can only mean that the state "life", which "owlam" (eternal) qualifies, is everlasting and without end. And what does the term "life" mean. Well, it certainly has very strong strong implications of "conscious existence". So I suspect that both "sides" in this debate will agree that "eternal life" means being in a state of conscious existence that never ends, i.e. is eternal or everlasting. I suspect all parties will agree with this.

Now consider phrases like "eternal home" (the latter as per Eccl 12). In this phrases, one has to be aware of exactly what meaning we ascribe to the noun "home" that is qualified by "eternal" (owlam). As I said in my previous post, a construal that does not involve "conscious existence" is indeed possible. "Home" is often used as a reference to an end state or "desination". On such an interpretation of "home", the word "eternal" simply means that this state is permanent.

I assert that you have assumed that words like "home" must carry connotations of conscious existence. This assumption needs to be justified, especially given the seeming plausibility of interpretations of "home" that do not require conscious existence.

Your arguments need to be more "complex" in the sense that they need to recognize the interplay between the adjective "eternal" and any nouns that it qualifies. "Eternal life" strongly suggests perpetual conscious existence, while an eternal home is far less clear. It couldinvolve notions of conscious existence, but it equally well might not.

The overall point being the "its the same word" argument is overly simplistic even if we grant that "owlam" means forever. In order for the argument to work, one would need to show that noun that it qualifies cannot be interpreted in any way except one that carries connotations of "conscious existence".

 

[BobRyan]

I guess that is the part that I keep talking about when I say "final and eternal".


I am convinced your case would improve considerably if you actually read the posts and replied to them.

In Christ,

Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boanerges
My eyes are getting glassy

Reading can be a challenge at times -- just keep trying you will get it figured out soon I just know it.

Hint: Try paying attention to the details in the posts.

:-O remember my original points.

I guess it is easier for you to read what you wrote than to read the responses to what you have written and then cary the discussion to the next step.

I realize that can be a challenge and you seem to be struggling with it. I will wait.

If hell isn't eternal, then neither is eternal life or the Eternal God. Same word Bob

Interesting game - but it failed exactly where I showed it to fail.

Though God is eternal He is not still on the Cross.

Though the fire the burned Soddom is said to be eternal in Jude - it is not "Still burning".

The final disposition of sinners is "both body AND soul DESTROYED in the fires of hell" Matt 10:28.

You seem to think you have a way to "trick God" out of that.

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 12
4 ""I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.
5 ""But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

Luke 14
26"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

"Detroyed" both Body AND Soul in hell fire. How final! How "eternal" is that utter and complete destruction Eh?

(A bit more reading for the glassy eyes)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jude
6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Boanerges keeps claiming that God is not eternal if things like the etneral fire that burned Sodom does not leave Sodom IN TACT and STILL burning (without actually destroying the city) to this very day.

That argument is just not working for you Boanerges. Lets pick up the pace a bit and move it on to the next stage by responding to the points made against it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Boanerges]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Jude
6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Boanerges keeps claiming that God is not eternal if things like the etneral fire that burned Sodom does not leave Sodom IN TACT and STILL burning (without actually destroying the city) to this very day.

That argument is just not working for you Boanerges. Lets pick up the pace a bit and move it on to the next stage by responding to the points made against it.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Well Bob, it works for Hebrew scholars. And even Greek scholars agree that in Daniel 12:2, that it means eternal in both cases, as well as the Jewish translators of the LXX who chose the Greek eqivalent of the Hebrew owlam that is translated by modern translators as everlasting/eternal. The only people that it doesn't work for are JW's and SDA's.Maybe that is why the JW's came up with their own "translation" of the Bible, and the SDA's made the attempt (Clear Word), but it fizzled out. Oh well....you can't please everyone.

As a refresher Bob, here is how the Jewish translators render it from the Hebrew owlam, remembering that they are not part of the Christian agenda:

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence.

[ February 04, 2006, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Boanerges ]

 

[BobRyan]

JWS and SDAs did not write Jude 7.

JWS and SDAs can not be blamed for your attempt to ignore the use of the "eternal" attribute in places like Jude 7 to things we know as having ended.

I suppose you could "try to blame others" for where your own argument has failed here - but I don't see it working for you.

Here is that example of "Eternal" that totally breaks the assumptions you were stringing together.

Jude
6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

In the case of Daniel 12 the "Everlasting" nature of the "abhorrence" is literally true and literally as long as the "Everlasting life" since it is the saints that are "Abhorring" the lake of fire and the fact of the literal torment of their own precious loved ones as well as the awful consequences of sin -- for all eternity.

Even Johnathan Edwards was very clear on the fact that the saints SEE the screaming torment of their precious loved ones as they are "tormented IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb AND of His holy ones" Rev 14:10.

The Abhorance is everlasting for the saints as they abhore this final awful event.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Boanerges]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
JWS and SDAs did not write Jude 7.

JWS and SDAs can not be blamed for your attempt to ignore the use of the "eternal" attribute in places like Jude 7 to things we know as having ended.

I suppose you could "try to blame others" for where your own argument has failed here - but I don't see it working for you.

Here is that example of "Eternal" that totally breaks the assumptions you were stringing together.

Jude
6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

I am talking Hebrew Bob, and you want to keep talking Greek.You have to reconcile it in the Old Testament first, before you can try it in the New Testament. Did you ever ask a rabbi if they believe hell is eternal Bob? Get back to me on it...

In the case of Daniel 12 the "Everlasting" nature of the "abhorrence" is literally true and literally as long as the "Everlasting life" since it is the saints that are "Abhorring" the lake of fire and the fact of the literal torment of their own precious loved ones as well as the awful consequences of sin -- for all eternity.

Even Johnathan Edwards was very clear on the fact that the saints SEE the screaming torment of their precious loved ones as they are "tormented IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb AND of His holy ones" Rev 14:10.

The Abhorance is everlasting for the saints as they abhore this final awful event.

One small problem Bob, that I demonstrated at the beginning of the thread. Let's let Scripture interpret Scripture:


Revelations 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

So if all former things are passed away, and the Saints will not have memory of those former things, to abhor those who have gone to hell, then who will? It must be self abhorrence, therefore there can not be any annihilation. Plain and simple, hell is eternal.(owlam)

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Amen, Boanerges!

 

[Boanerges]

Bob stated:

Though the fire the burned Soddom is said to be eternal in Jude - it is not "Still burning".

We can't see heaven, so I quess that is not eternal either then?How about the Holy Spirit or God? Seen them lately? His ways are not our ways Bob. Don't let your natural eyes fool you. Read the Word Bob....and the word is OWLAM :-O which all scholars have translated as everlasting or eternal in the context of Daniel 12:2.(JW "scholars" are excluded)

 

[Boanerges]

Bob Ryan:

In the case of Daniel 12 the "Everlasting" nature of the "abhorrence" is literally true and literally as long as the "Everlasting life" since it is the saints that are "Abhorring" the lake of fire and the fact of the literal torment of their own precious loved ones as well as the awful consequences of sin -- for all eternity.

Even Johnathan Edwards was very clear on the fact that the saints SEE the screaming torment of their precious loved ones as they are "tormented IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb AND of His holy ones" Rev 14:10.

The Abhorance is everlasting for the saints as they abhore this final awful event.


You know Bob, your understanding of God's justice is a little skewed. You say that hell can't be eternal, because a loving God wouldn't do such a thing, and then you say that the same loving God is going to make the saved suffer by watching their loved ones be tormented,leaving them scarred with those memories forever while the wicked only get a quick annihilation.You need to re-read the book Bob.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

there are many things on this earth that we 'cannot see'. One, for instance, is the garden of Eden. There is no account of it being removed from the earth. Yet, man cannot find it. We know two of the rivers that flow from it are found in Iraq. From that info alone, one would think we could find it, but we apparently are blinded to it and to the 'angel in the way', as Balaam's was blinded to the angel.

Is hell real? Jesus spoke of it and warned of it in the gospels.

Is hell eternal? Revelation tells us it burns day and night forever and ever.

Is God's Word true? Praise the Lord, it is! And His Word abideth ever!

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Revelation 14:10 does not actually say the saints will see the suffering.

Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

It is in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb, I believe just as Lazarus was comforted in Abraham's bosom, the saints will also be comforted in heaven.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by Boanerges:
One small problem Bob, that I demonstrated at the beginning of the thread. Let's let Scripture interpret Scripture:

Revelations 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

So if all former things are passed away, and the Saints will not have memory of those former things, to abhor those who have gone to hell, then who will? It must be self abhorrence, therefore there can not be any annihilation. Plain and simple, hell is eternal.(owlam)

Two possible objections come to mind. This post will deal with the first.

Certainly, it would seem that someone must be "doing the abhorring" and that someone certainly seems to be doing it forever. Boanerges argues that this must be self-abhorrence, since presumably the saints will not have memory of those former things. Could it possibly be God himself who is doing the abhorring? If this is actually what it is meant, while it does not mesh with Bob's argument, it leaves the annihilationist perspective unscathed. Boanerges, can you justify your claim that this must be self-abhorrence, remembering that your Revelation 21:4 argument, if corrects, only eliminates "the saints" as those who abhor but leaves God as a possible source of the abhorrence.

In defence of the proposition that it is God "doing the abhorring", I suggest that it might not even be sensible to assert that "the saints" have the "moral high ground" from which to do the abhorring in the first place - in other words (and here I am deviating from Bob's position, even though I believe he holds the same conclusion that I do) only God is in a position where He can legitimately exercise contempt. I am going with NASB translation of "contempt" instead of "abhorrence".

I do not know the original Hebrew word that gets translated as "contempt". The way we use contempt today has strong connotations of believing oneself to be in a morally superiour position than the one we hold in contempt. Contempt has a flavour of "judgement" that is absent from words like abhorrence. Anyway, since "the risen saints" are no longer capable of sinning (I hope I am on firm ground with this), they certainly cannot be the ones showing contempt. Why? Because as sinners justified by grace, they know that their salvation is unmerited, hence they cannot really look at the lost with contempt, pity perhaps, but not contempt.

I suggest that the above is at least some kind of an argument against the assertion that the saints are the ones looking on the lost with contempt. It would seem that God is the only one who has the "right" to show contempt for the lost. To the extent that this argument is plausible, it rescues the annihilationist position from the implications of Daniel 12:2, as interpreted in light of Rev 21:4.

This is all a little complicated, but I remind readers that Boanerges' specific argument about Rev 21:4 is that this text rules out the "saints" as the ones doing the "abhorring". Fair enough. But God could be the one doing the abhorring, and, stealing a thought from Bob, He could be eternally abhorring the annihilation of the unredeemed.

 

[Boanerges]

Does anyone really believe that God wants to sit around and remember the deeds of the wicked after they have been judged for the final time? Below is a demonstration of how he treats the Saints:

Hebrews 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Hebrews 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Psalms 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, [so] far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Isaiah 43:25 I, [even] I, [am] he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

In my personal opinion, hell will be a place of full realization of the hurt one has caused and the damage that was done by their actions. At that time of realization, people will abhor themselves, but they will not have the option of remedy. God will be busy communing with the Saints for eternity. Keep in mind that God didn't really condemn anyone to hell. It was His wish that not one would be lost. They freely made the choice to go there.