Is hell eternal?

[Andre]

Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:
ahhhhh .......... I see - it makes no difference if the word for eternal is "owlam" in Hebrew which means everlasting/eternal/forever - which was categorically rejected because the choice was made not to accept it. based on what criteria? bias? translator ignorance [scholars with linguistical degrees]? compared to your credentials?

the weight of debate is with you, not me. I take the Word for what God says based on historical and linguistical premise/pre-requisite/God preserved, clearly stated translation. That is my position is this "debate". You are taking His Word, redefining it against the norm, without cause, other than for the "sake of argument". In the end God will have the "final answer"

Must we go down this road again? Well if we must, we must. Let's address "owlam" As the careful reader will see, I have, in many of my posts, basically conceded that "owlam" does indeed mean eternal. Check the posts if you wish.

Here is a reposting of material from an earlier post of mine:

"Now consider phrases like "eternal home" (the latter as per Eccl 12). In this phrase, 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."

At the risk of seeming snotty, the above is an example of where I have clearly shown the plausiblity of a position that allow "owlam" to mean eternal, yet which is consistent with interpreting a text in a manner that harmonizes with a non "eternal torment" position.

Attack this argument of mine if you wish. Vague and clearly question-begging claims like "I take the Word for what God says based on historical and linguistical premise/pre-requisite/God preserved, clearly stated translation" are not really helpful. As for my "credentials", I will happily allow the content of my arguments to speak for themselves.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Jesus szid, "Destroy this temple (His body) and I will raise it up again after 3 days"

They destroyed His body. Beat it beyond recognition. Nailed it to the cross and Jesus, just before dying, commended His Spirit back into the Father's hands. And after 3 days (on the first day of the week) Jesus was seen alive again just as He had foretold.

Although the body was destroyed, it still existed.

Even though man who rejects God's Word ends up in the lake of fire where his body and soul is both killed and destroyed, it will still exist. I will be in torment both day and night as the Bible says it will.

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

To blatantly twist God's Holy Word to say that hell is not eternal, that man who rejects God's precious Son will not spend eternity in hell 'where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched', is an out and out lie. God will be true to His Holy Word.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
To blatantly twist God's Holy Word to say that hell is not eternal, that man who rejects God's precious Son will not spend eternity in hell 'where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched', is an out and out lie. God will be true to His Holy Word.

Oh, I see. We are liars. Well, why didn't someone tell me this before? Silly me, wasting all that time trying to carefully analyse, understand, and possibly critique the positions of others. If I had only known I was lying, I could have saved so much time.

I am not really interested in rhetoric and non-argument. Such material does not contribute to learning. Yay learning! I am all ears to hear a case for "eternal torment". Bring it on, and leave the name calling aside, I prithee.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

I would say if one picked up God's Word and studied it instead of just reading it, one would find that Hell is eternal, man who is cast into hell will burn there forever in torment, and that to deny these two facts that Jesus spoke of Himself (so it must be true because Jesus never lied)is to deny Christ Himself.

Those who profess to know Christ but deny even one of the truths that He speaks in His Word, do not know Him at all.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Amen, Diggin!

 

[Johnv]

Someone said it before. Hell must be eternal. After all, this thread certainly is!!!

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Someone said it before. Hell must be eternal. After all, this thread certainly is!!!

Hello JohnV:
Assuming that you have read a reasonable fraction of these posts, what do you think of the Biblical case for or against an eternal Hell?

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
Those who profess to know Christ but deny even one of the truths that He speaks in His Word, do not know Him at all.

Why must things always come down to this? Surely, you must see that resorting to this kind of tactic has no place in a serious discussion. I am a human being and I fully understand how these dismissive jabs give a sense of satisfaction to the author. But surely, you must see how it brings disrepute on your position. If your position is so sound, why not make a case, instead of suggesting that people who do not share your view do not know Christ?

 

[eloidalmanutha]

posted by Andre:
Here is a reposting of material from an earlier post of mine:

"Now consider phrases like "eternal home" (the latter as per Eccl 12). In this phrase, 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."

At the risk of seeming snotty, the above is an example of where I have clearly shown the plausiblity of a position that allow "owlam" to mean eternal, yet which is consistent with interpreting a text in a manner that harmonizes with a non "eternal torment" position.

Attack this argument of mine if you wish. Vague and clearly question-begging claims like "I take the Word for what God says based on historical and linguistical premise/pre-requisite/God preserved, clearly stated translation" are not really helpful. As for my "credentials", I will happily allow the content of my arguments to speak for themselves. [/QB]

wow, I must be really blonde or have the "s" word written across my forehead but how can you interpret eternal as eternal for owlam but still jump on the non-eternal torment wagon when the same word is used? just because the adjective is describing a different word? must be the "new english" as compared to the "new math" and it doesn't make sense either

so if eternal is used to describe God and Heaven it means owlam - everlasting, without end, but if we attach it to hell it suddenly changes meaning? Makes understanding scripture a mockery of Jesus' statement that He spoke everything out in the open with nothing hidden, don't cha think?

I was once on the agnostic fast track - it dumped me smack dab in the middle of the broad path that leads to destruction, so I sort have these flashbacks when you say "manner that harmonizes with" and it means the exact opposite of the intended definition. Have a nice trip

your quote:
"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 bet you really liked biology, as in disecting
I think God described it best, I will go with that - you know, the one in Revelation 22?

Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of its street, and of the river, from here and from there, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each yielding its fruit according to one month. And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3 And every curse will no longer be; but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His servants will serve Him.
4 And they will see His face, and His name will be in their foreheads.
5 And there will be no night there. And they need no lamp, or light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light. And they will reign forever and ever.

 

[eloidalmanutha]

Originally posted by Andre:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
Someone said it before. Hell must be eternal. After all, this thread certainly is!!!

Hello JohnV:
Assuming that you have read a reasonable fraction of these posts, what do you think of the Biblical case for or against an eternal Hell? </font>[/QUOTE]you really DO have a sense of humor

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:
wow, I must be really blonde or have the "s" word written across my forehead but how can you interpret eternal as eternal for owlam but still jump on the non-eternal torment wagon when the same word is used? just because the adjective is describing a different word? must be the "new english" as compared to the "new math" and it doesn't make sense either

so if eternal is used to describe God and Heaven it means owlam - everlasting, without end, but if we attach it to hell it suddenly changes meaning? Makes understanding scripture a mockery of Jesus' statement that He spoke everything out in the open with nothing hidden, don't cha think?

Greetings eloidalmanutha:

This not "new english". I will try again. I admit there are some subtleties which I may have overlooked.

Consider the phase "eternal life". Since "life" is reasonably seen to be descriptive of a set of actions and experiences, eternal life means those actions and experiences will continue forever. I suspect all parties in this debate will agree.

Same deal with a phrase like "eternal torment" - if such a phrase appears in the scriptures it favours your position, because it is hard to interpret torment without connotations of felt experiences of the one tormented. Even then, one has to look at the global picture -what do other texts say about the dead. And many suggest they are destroyed, they perish, etc.

By contrast, consider the phrase "eternal home". People who have no belief in life after death use this expression to represent the permanence of the state of non-existence of the dead rather than a never-ending conscious existence. The state lasts forever - it is not reversed, but the state does not need to entail conscious experience.

"Eternal" can qualify any of a number of things, not all of which imply continued conscious existence. If entity "X" is eternally in some state "Y", one can perfectly well infer an intended meaning that the state lasts forever. However, the state "Y" may not necessarily carry connotations of conscious existence.

In short, the redeemed can experience life that lasts eternally - the state of being alive lasts forever and, in this case, the state necessarily entails conscious existence. On the other hand, the lost remain in their state eternally as well. But the very state that they are in (non-existence), by its very nature, does not include conscious experiences.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:
I think God described it best, I will go with that - you know, the one in Revelation 22?

Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of its street, and of the river, from here and from there, was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve fruits, each yielding its fruit according to one month. And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3 And every curse will no longer be; but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His servants will serve Him.
4 And they will see His face, and His name will be in their foreheads.
5 And there will be no night there. And they need no lamp, or light of the sun; for the Lord God gives them light. And they will reign forever and ever.

Do you not see the irony here? This text suggests eternal existence for the redeemed but leaves the fate of the lost untouched. One cannot just assume they suffer a fate of eternal conscious torment just because the saved have eternal life.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob asks --

#1. What would the primary intended readers of Matt 10 have accepted as “in this life” the wicked ARE able to “Destroy the body” to “Kill the body”. Would they not think of it as “really kill the body” or would they see themselves in “ever-living-physical bodies” that the wicked NOT able to kill much less destroy??

Answer: They would obviously accept that their earthly bodies ARE killed, tormented and even destroyed in this life!! Destroyed as in “killed and turned into ashes”

#2. Would the first order primary audience have concluded that to DESTROY the body goes beyond just KILLING it and leaving it in tact as a corpse? Would they conclude that DESTORY means to not only kill – but ALSO to destroy the remains of the body!?? Indeed they would!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Jude
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.

They are “destroyed” – reduced to ashes by that “eternal fire” from God sent as ‘judgment” as the “punishment” of eternal fire..

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

Peter forgot so say "Destroy does NOT mean reduced to ashes - it means no more meaningful joy of the city of Sodom".

How curious.
</font>[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:

Dear Bob,

You have a very curious mind.

I have been told that.

Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:

And I don't want to sound like I am attacking you, really, but you are not making any sense. What difference does it make how someone dies?

#1. I am simply pointing out that in all these attempts to "redefine destroy" away from its obvious meaning - the fact that Peter already confirmed the obvious definition (as in his quote above) has been overlooked.

#2. I am pointing out that the wooden link people have been trying to establish between "eternan or everlasting" fire never actually fully destroying or consuming anything -- and the eternal nature of God - has been debunked in the case of Jude 7 where it is in fact "eternal fire" that consumes the cities of "Sodom and Gomorrah". Just when people wanted to say "eternal fire on the PEOPLE of Sodom not the city" in an attempt to suppose that in some dark invisible corner those people are being tormented by that eternal fire.

By pointing out that it is explicitly the CITIES THEMSELVES that were destroyed "according to the text" it now becomes a fact that can be tested as to WHAT IT MEANS to undergo that "punishment of eternal fire". We don't need to imagine or speculate the results - we can SEE THEM!

Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:

when the body is dead, it's kaput, fini, wasted, done

Indeed - not only can we be KILLED in this life but the body in this life is also DESTROYED.

God says "It returns to dust" and indeed it does!! Not just "deprived of joy and preseved as a living body for all of eternity" the way you have attempted to redefine "Destroy".

Then in Matt 10 God argues that the wicked ARE able to KILL - to completely DESTROY the body of the saints - but not the soul.

And THEN - God tells us WHERE they are BOTH destroyed.

There it is - no smoke screen.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Andre:
...what do you think of the Biblical case for or against an eternal Hell?

I posted my answer at the very beginning of this thread. Granted, that was some 3 or 4 thousand posts up...

In short, Hell is eternal, methinks. For details, feel to visit the first page of this thread for a more verbose answer.

 

[eloidalmanutha]

Andre wrote:
This not "new english". I will try again. I admit there are some subtleties which I may have overlooked.

Consider the phase "eternal life". Since "life" is reasonably seen to be descriptive of a set of actions and experiences, eternal life means those actions and experiences will continue forever. I suspect all parties in this debate will agree.

eloidalmanutha:
sort of agree, I think we may have a different conception as to " eternal life means those actions and experiences will continue forever". I believe they may have bearing on our eternal existence, but I am not sure they will "continue" as we would conceive of it in this realm. I think it's in all in the mind of God and we just get to wait and see or shall I say "anticipate"

Andre wrote:
Same deal with a phrase like "eternal torment" - if such a phrase appears in the scriptures it favours your position, because it is hard to interpret torment without connotations of felt experiences of the one tormented. Even then, one has to look at the global picture -what do other texts say about the dead. And many suggest they are destroyed, they perish, etc.

eloidalmanutha:
ahhh - and there is where the rubber hits the road. I cannot, will not accept what "other texts" have to say about the dead. They are simply not credible afaik. Perhaps that makes me close-minded - and I gladly go there unhindered and unafraid As I said previously, been down the gnostic path, not gonna happen no more, no way, jose . . .

Andre wrote:
By contrast, consider the phrase "eternal home". People who have no belief in life after death use this expression to represent the permanence of the state of non-existence of the dead rather than a never-ending conscious existence. The state lasts forever - it is not reversed, but the state does not need to entail conscious experience.

"Eternal" can qualify any of a number of things, not all of which imply continued conscious existence. If entity "X" is eternally in some state "Y", one can perfectly well infer an intended meaning that the state lasts forever. However, the state "Y" may not necessarily carry connotations of conscious existence.

In short, the redeemed can experience life that lasts eternally - the state of being alive lasts forever and, in this case, the state necessarily entails conscious existence. On the other hand, the lost remain in their state eternally as well. But the very state that they are in (non-existence), by its very nature, does not include conscious experiences.

eloidalmanutha:
For myself, there is no other explanation other than what Scripture has to say. The rich man knew who he was, who Lazarus was, why he was in torment, why Lazarus had it best, and that he wanted his brothers prevented from going where he was. He was tormented and wanted relief. Now I would say that was a pretty conscious guy. Lazarus also knew exactly where he was. As Paul said, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I take that literally and joyfully

I also take Jude literally, that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are in hell and in torment at this exact momento.

Andre wrote:
Do you not see the irony here? This text suggests eternal existence for the redeemed but leaves the fate of the lost untouched. One cannot just assume they suffer a fate of eternal conscious torment just because the saved have eternal life.

eloidalmanutha:
no irony at all. Rev 10 says exactly what the damned are doing - to be tormented requires consciousness - the word means to be harassed. There is no point for God to continue to "explain" hell. God's purpose for mankind is for His enjoyment and pleasure and gives us a beautiful picture to look forward to, if one loves Him with all of their heart. If one is hell bent, that needs no further embellishment.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

As I have said in an earlier posts. It is not so much my view that people have to agree on, but the Bible's view.

 

[eloidalmanutha]

posted by BobRyan:

#1. I am simply pointing out that in all these attempts to "redefine destroy" away from its obvious meaning - the fact that Peter already confirmed the obvious definition (as in his quote above) has been overlooked.

#2. I am pointing out that the wooden link people have been trying to establish between "eternan or everlasting" fire never actually fully destroying or consuming anything -- and the eternal nature of God - has been debunked in the case of Jude 7 where it is in fact "eternal fire" that consumes the cities of "Sodom and Gomorrah". Just when people wanted to say "eternal fire on the PEOPLE of Sodom not the city" in an attempt to suppose that in some dark invisible corner those people are being tormented by that eternal fire.

By pointing out that it is explicitly the CITIES THEMSELVES that were destroyed "according to the text" it now becomes a fact that can be tested as to WHAT IT MEANS to undergo that "punishment of eternal fire". We don't need to imagine or speculate the results - we can SEE THEM!

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

when the body is dead, it's kaput, fini, wasted, done

Indeed - not only can we be KILLED in this life but the body in this life is also DESTROYED.

God says "It returns to dust" and indeed it does!! Not just "deprived of joy and preseved as a living body for all of eternity" the way you have attempted to redefine "Destroy".

Then in Matt 10 God argues that the wicked ARE able to KILL - to completely DESTROY the body of the saints - but not the soul.

And THEN - God tells us WHERE they are BOTH destroyed.

There it is - no smoke screen.

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Dear Bob,

I think we are at an impasse. I suspect that you do not believe in an "after life" because of your insistence of "destroy the body" in this realm as if that is an important point. It is not. In the scheme of life, this body houses the Holy Spirit - if one is redeemed, but there is nothing inherrently "holy" about our earthly bodies. They are made from dust and will return as such, until Jesus returns and we are changed in a twinkling of an eye.

You also do not appear to see that there is no point to eternal damnation for cities. It is a "given" that Jude and Peter are referring to the people. The cities did not commit gross acts before God, the people did. God just simply chose to destroy the cities the same time He destroyed the people - as in their existence on earth. They are now in hell, just like the rich man, in torment and will only have a very short "reprieve" called "The White Throne Judgment", after which they will return to the Lake of Fire for an eternity of torment - or as Rev 20 calls it - the second death. You are splitting hairs where none exist.

As to your "destroy both body and soul in hell" - of course they are both destroyed in hell if they are not saved. Destroy is loss, torment, not annihilation. You really need to check up on the Biblical definition of destroy - strong's might be a good place to start

If one is saved and the body is destroyed on earth, that person/soul lives eternally, first without the body and then after judgment with a new incorruptable body for all eternity. Makes perfect sense to me, sorry it is such a puzzle for you

 

[eloidalmanutha]

correction on my last post

we are made incorruptable at the appearance of Jesus, not after judgment [oops ]

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:
I think we are at an impasse.

You may be right - you seem to have a hard time with these texts of scripture -

In Matt 10 we see The same concept of Kill and “Destroy” applied in the real world to real saints really being killed by real wicked people is applied to BOTH the body and the soul in hell fire in Christ’s warning .

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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.

In Matt 10 Christ goes from the idea of “Kill” to the even MORE complete idea of “Kill and destroy” in the sequence above. This progression is seen clearly as Luke relates the same teaching below.

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!

Jude
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.

They are “destroyed” – reduced to ashes by that “eternal fire” from God sent as ‘judgment” as the “punishment” of eternal fire..

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

</font>[/QUOTE]You also seem to have difficulty with this exegeitcal review of Matt 10 asking about the primary audience and the fact that "destroy" is being used to describe what God does to BOTH Body AND soul in hell fire the way the wicked today can destroy JUST the body (the way Peter says DESTROY is to REDUCE TO ASHES)

Question for the exegetical review –

#1. What would the primary intended readers of Matt 10 have accepted as “in this life” the wicked ARE able to “Destroy the body” to “Kill the body”. Would they not think of it as “really kill the body” or would they see themselves in “ever-living-physical bodies” that the wicked NOT able to kill much less destroy??

Answer: They would obviously accept that their earthly bodies ARE killed, tormented and even destroyed in this life!! Destroyed as in “killed and turned into ashes”

#2. Would the first order primary audience have concluded that to DESTROY the body goes beyond just KILLING it and leaving it in tact as a corpse? Would they conclude that DESTORY means to not only kill – but ALSO to destroy the remains of the body!?? Indeed they would!

Bottom line is that if you could bring yourself to embrace the texts above and to answer these two very direct questions - we would move ahead - I am sure of it.

Originally posted by eloidalmanutha:
I suspect that you do not believe in an "after life" because of your insistence of "destroy the body" in this realm as if that is an important point.

Wrong. I believe as Peter states that our focus should be set COMPLETELY on that future event of Christ's return.

I believe our ONLY comfort regarding the dEAD in Christ is what Paul stated in 1Thess 4 "THEREFORE comfort one another with these words" and there we see the subject of the rapture.

I believe Christ was CORRECT when He pointed us in John 14:1-3 at HIS RETURN as being the point when HE "receives US to Himself"!!

But - we digress from the topic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As to your "destroy both body and soul in hell" - of course they are both destroyed in hell if they are not saved. Destroy is loss, torment, not annihilation. You really need to check up on the Biblical definition of destroy - strong's might be a good place to start

You say "destroy means to CONTINUE to function and CONTINUE to LIVE FOREVER but in loss and in torment"

By contrast Peter defines destory as "reduce to ashes" -- to which you simply say "oh no it is not".

As was already pointed out - when the wicked destroy the body of the righteous (referenced in Matt 10) they DO NOT "cause it to CONTINUE to function and LIVE FOREVER but in LOSS and in torment".

Your definition contradicts Matt 10 the words of Christ and it contradicts Peter

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

You simply need to come to the text and accept it.

Your definition contradicts Christ in Matt 10 and Peter in 2Peter 2.

In Christ,

Bob