Hell and an Agnostic Atheist

[neo-x]

Use to be as in I was until I was 11 or 12 and met someone who wasn't religious, which in turn made me think about it and decided it didn't make much sense. Hasn't made much sense to me ever since. I probably was never a Christian as some people here would refer to it, I just know at one point in my child hood I just accepted that God was a real thing, like Santa Claus, did the whole praying bit and everything. The point being, I wasn't raised as an atheist.

So you never really knew Christ. You just went and analysed the church and the teachings and perhaps Christians in general, and then it didn't makes sense to you, right?

Well, what exactly didn't make sense to you? can you perhaps list some of the things?

[cheezerrox]

*******************************************
This is why we should always go back to God's Word to check behind the source of information. This is our responsibility as "Christians".

Perhaps this info should make things more simple and less confusing-

Sheol - - The concept 'sheol' conveys is the 'the underworld'. The abode of the dead. A place:
of no return;
where there is no praise of God;
where the wicked were sent for punishment.
A place of exile from God.
The righteous are not abandoned to it.
The place of torment, commonly called hell, where devils and damned spirits are; hither the souls of the wicked go immediately upon their departure from their bodies.
Hades (Hell) - - The word 'hades' (hell) is derived from name 'Pluto' (Hades), who the ancient Romans & Greeks believed was the god of the underworld, the nether world, the realm of the dead. Therefore it conveys a 'dwelling place.'
Gehenna - - 'Gehenna' is derived from the Hebrew, 'Ge-Hinnom', the valley of Hinnom. A valley of Jerusalem that was used to dump dead animals and waste in. The heaps of refuse were then burned. It was figuratively used to designate 'a place of eternal dwelling and eternal punishment'.
We can see that the words 'gehenna, sheol, hades (hell)' meant more to the authors of the original biblical manuscripts than simply a hole in the ground called a grave. These words signified to all the writers of the manuscripts, 'a dwelling place of eternal punishment'. This was, and is, the concept they meant their readers to envision.
"And in hell (hades) he lifted up his eyes, being in torments,
and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame. "
Luke 16:23-24
Several Hebrew & Aramaic words were used to denote 'grave, sepulchre, tomb' by the authors of the original scriptural manuscripts. They are transliterated as: 'qatat, qeber, pathach, beiy, shachath, & qeburah'. The only Greek word, used by the authors of the original Bible manuscripts, to denote the grave, sepulchre, or tomb, was transliterated as, 'mnemeion'. The Hebrew words to signify 'death' were: 'maveth & muth' (the most common); occasionally used were 'mohth; tsalmaveth; & temuthah'. Several Greek words were used by the authors to signify 'death.' They were: 'thanatos & thanatoo' (the most commonly used); occasionally used were 'teleute; echo; anairesis; & anaireo'. As you can see hell, hades, gehenna, and sheol were not used to denote the grave or death.
Further scriptural evidence showing that hades(hell), gehenna, & sheol, represent
'a place' rather than just a grave-

See: http://acharlie.tripod.com/bible_study/hell_hades.html
See: Eternal Punishment
(Damnation - Condemnation)
"These, then, will be sent off to eternal punishment,
but the righteous will go to eternal life."
(Mat 25:46)

{Quote} The Bible speaks of only two destinies for mankind - Eternal Life or Eternal Punishment (Condemnation, Damnation). Christianity seems to have drifted away from the 'hell fire & brimstone' preaching that was prevalent for a long time. While it is much better to focus on God's Love; His sense of Justice, and man's reprobation, should not be overlooked, or swept under the rug. Mankind needs to know that these are its only true destinies; yet, we find many of today's Christian Preachers & Teachers failing to address the issue of Eternal Punishment. We even have whole segments of supposedly Christian Denominations, Churches, now teaching that there is no such thing as Eternal Damnation (Condemnation). Their reasoning is that since "God is love" (1 John 4:16) He could not possibly sentence someone to be punished for eternity. It is no mystery that these groups are becoming extremely popular. Their message is pleasing to hear. Just imagine, "No matter what, everyone is going to Heaven." Holy Scripture addresses this situation,
- - "The time will come when people will not listen to sound doctrine, but will follow their own desires and will collect for themselves more and more teachers who will tell them what they are itching to hear. They will turn away from listening to the truth and give their attention to legends."
(2Ti 4:3-4)
Regardless of the beliefs of some, the Bible clearly teaches Eternal Punishment (Condemnation - Damnation). On a another page, I have already established that Hell is a real place, not just symbolic of the grave. For those interested in the truth concerning God's Justice, I have listed appropriate verses below. May the Holy Spirit guide & enlighten you as you study them. {Un-Quote}

See: http://acharlie.tripod.com/bible_study/ ... hment.html#
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

American King James Version
He seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption.

Webster's Bible Translation
He seeing this before, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption.

Weymouth New Testament
with prophetic foresight he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, to the effect that He was not left forsaken in the Unseen World, nor did His body undergo decay.

In fact, the Bible teaches us more about Hell than Heaven.

Okay, for one, suggesting that we as "Christians" need to go back to God's Word, seems kind of condescending, as if anyone who doesn't accept an eternally tormenting Hell is not a Christian and doesn't trust or use the Bible. Actually silly once you realize I quoted scripture for every point I made, and you didn't refute any of them.

Anyway, looking past that, I'm very familiar with these terms and places, and I will agree with you that Hades, Gehenna, Sheol represent places and not just the grave. I thought I already made that clear. I just disagree that Hades and (the spiritual) Gehenna are the same; Hell. Quoting all of those different translations as saying Hell doesn't really do much for your argument, considering two are the King James Bible, which translates Sheol as Hell sometimes and not others, and Hades as Hell. Obviously, the first instance is being inconsistent and basing it off of one's interpretation of the meaning of the word, and the other is assuming something without good reason. Then the Weymouth translation calls it the "Unseen World." I don't see how this immediately means Hell. Can we see Heaven? Also, I can quote a bunch of Bibles that use the word Hades and not Hell, if you'd like.

ASV
he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Amplified Bible
He, foreseeing this, spoke [by foreknowledge] of the resurrection of the Christ (the Messiah) that He was not deserted [in death] and left in Hades (the state of departed spirits), nor did His body know decay or see destruction.

Darby Translation
he, seeing [it] before, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither has he been left in hades nor his flesh seen corruption.

ESV
he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Seeing this in advance, he spoke concerning the resurrection of the Messiah: He was not left in Hades, and His flesh did not experience decay.

NASB
he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.

NKJV
he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.

Young's Literal Translation
having foreseen, he did speak concerning the rising again of the Christ, that his soul was not left to hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

See? Now, if you can find scriptural support for saying that Hades and Hell are interchangeable terms for the same place, then I'll concede. But, I've yet to see such a thing. I have, however, scriptural support for saying that Hades and Sheol are words for the same place, just one's in Hebrew, and the other's in Greek. And that is that Acts 2:31 is quoting from Psalm 16:10, which, again, uses the word Sheol. This shows that to the Greeks, Sheol was known as Hades.

Now, you say that Sheol is where the wicked were sent for punishment. Could you cite a verse for that, please? Also, you say that the righteous don't go there. Well, for one, as we've already pointed out, Jesus did go there, so, that seems quite strange for the only perfect, totally righteous human being to ever live to go to Hell, or any abode reserved strictly for the wicked. But, regardless, there's also Genesis 37:35, which has Jacob making the statement that he will end up in Sheol. Surely one of the chosen patriarchs of God, whom he made many great promises to and gave many blessings, would not send Israel himself to Hell after all that? Then there's the interesting verses in Revelation, Revelation 20:13-14, where first death and Hades give up their dead to be judged, and then where death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, which is Hell. Now, if Hades is Hell, this is a very confusing event. For Hell to give up its dead to be judged again, and then to send them to a second Hell, of sorts, and then for Hell to throw itself into..itself seems absurd. This is trouble for someone who takes Hades as Hell. But, if we view Hades as the Greek equivalent of Sheol, this makes perfect sense. The dead who are in the abode of Sheol/Hades are risen up for the judgement, and then, when there is no need for death or a place for the unjudged dead anymore since Christ has already returned, they are done away with. This, and every other instance where these places are spoken of, fit incredibly well this way.

People who adhere to the belief of annihilationism don't deny that there is a very real Hell, and that judgement surely awaits the wicked, and they also don't deny the Bible. In fact, scripture is where they find their most convincing arguments. There will be judgement, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, there will be the wicked being thrown into the lake of fire, and there will be suffering. There will also be eternally standing death, destruction, and perishing that comes at the end of this for all of the wicked. I do also want to point out that we don't deny eternal punishment or eternal judgement. Is a judgement that stands forever not eternal? Is a punishment that lasts forever not eternal? Eternal destruction seems to fit it perfectly.

Anyway, I don't mean to derail the current dirrection of this thread, and I hope and pray I don't come across as short or impolite, Tiffany. I respect your view and also that you have such high esteem for God's Word and what you believe is true. I just want to make it clear that the belief I'm representing is not heretical, and that it should also be understood and respected properly as a doctrine that comes from the Bible, the same way you believe yours comes from it. I understand different beliefs are held by different people, and I hope you can understand that those of us who adhere to this aren't just doing so for the sake of being liberal or trying to make God more like we want Him to be.

For a much more thorough analysis, I suggest this site: http://hell-know.net/ . Very well-done, and at least shows that this belief holds its own against the current traditional belief.

[narnia4]

Hello again, Ken.

I see many come into discussions involving philosophy with the assumption that its all kind of arbitrary and meaningless and shouldn't have as much as weight as "real evidence". But that's about as far from the truth as you can get. You need a starting point, a basis to make conclusions. You employ philosophy as well in your life and in this conversation, its important stuff. If you overlook it, an actual discourse with understanding on both sides would be an impossible goal. You can't separate the science or "evidence" from philosophy because philosophy is the FOUNDATION of science, thought, and how you view the evidence. If you come in with a certain frame of mind or "philosophy" and don't allow it to be challenged, then absolutely nothing we could ever say could convince you and NO evidence would be enough.

So my point? My point is that philosophy is essential to this, and frankly so is an understanding of theology and your own worldview. Its true that despite this forum being called "God and Science", a lot of people here maintain an interest in science but tend to come from a more philosophical perspective. To me that's good and essential when asking questions like this. On a sidenote, I think its one reason for the apparent huge disparity in reasoning and persuasiveness when you see a heavy hitter like Craig debating scientists and people with no knowledge of philosophy. A few atheists buy in, but I can't imagine many open-minded people seriously believing that the atheists are winning these debates (and I imagine that's one reason Dawkins won't touch them). Being an expert in one field doesn't make you an expert on another or the question of God, something more of these people should realize before they embarrass themselves. Hawking again as an example, what an absolute embarrassment. Any thinking atheist should be embarrassed by his feeble attempts at philosophy while denying the value of philosophy.

I don't remember what was said in this discussion so if it hasn't been suggested. William Lane Craig uses five arguments, he uses a different approach from what I prefer but if you want the evidentialist approach. Check out his website and buy a couple books or ask a couple questions on what book would be best to buy, find the detailed outlines of his five arguments that lay alternatives and rebuttals to different objections. Its generally very good and certainly worth considering. The book Reasonable Faith is a nice place to start, although he has more recent books addressing more recent objections. But that's just one direction to go in, if you're truly interested it isn't too hard to find LOTS of resources on this. If you're really new to it, some of the Lee Strobel books ("The Case for" ones) are rather simplistic but can give you a few basic ideas on some arguments used that are flushed out to greater effect by other apologists.

[B. W.]

Anyway, looking past that, I'm very familiar with these terms and places, and I will agree with you that Hades, Gehenna, Sheol represent places and not just the grave. I thought I already made that clear. I just disagree that Hades and (the spiritual) Gehenna are the same; Hell.

Quoting all of those different translations as saying Hell doesn't really do much for your argument, considering two are the King James Bible, which translates Sheol as Hell sometimes and not others, and Hades as Hell. Obviously, the first instance is being inconsistent and basing it off of one's interpretation of the meaning of the word, and the other is assuming something without good reason. Then the Weymouth translation calls it the "Unseen World." I don't see how this immediately means Hell. Can we see Heaven? Also, I can quote a bunch of Bibles that use the word Hades and not Hell, if you'd like.

See? Now, if you can find scriptural support for saying that Hades and Hell are interchangeable terms for the same place, then I'll concede. But, I've yet to see such a thing. I have, however, scriptural support for saying that Hades and Sheol are words for the same place, just one's in Hebrew, and the other's in Greek. And that is that Acts 2:31 is quoting from Psalm 16:10, which, again, uses the word Sheol. This shows that to the Greeks, Sheol was known as Hades.

If anyone likes they can quote from Job I posted below and do his or her own Hebrew word study on each word used in text and see what connects to it…

Job 26:5-6, "The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering." ESV

People often unknowingly abuse the western scholastic approach trying to understand this subject. Abusing this method comes when ascribing the meaning of one word to only mean one thing in all cases and another word is presupposed as impossible to be used like a synonym. Doing so will cause a person to miss the richness of the biblical text on many matters. Do we use synonyms? If we do, why cannot the bible text?

Next, the ancient Middle Eastern mindset used various words interchangeably to describe things. For example, Heaven is referred to as a Kingdom of light, The Land of Uprightness, etc…

The current Hell is referred to as the Pit, Sheol, Hell, Hades, Grave, prison, a place of darkness, fire, burning wrath in our English translations of both OT and NT. As for Gehenna, this helps describes the hell of the future Lake of Fire as a smoldering/decaying maggot infested trash dump. Noticed how I used the word hell to described Gehenna? Nothing wrong with that either… or rephrasing as the Hades of Gehenna either…

AIG’s The Complete Word Studies Dictionary quoted below writes of Gehenna as used in the New Testament refers too…

In the NT Gehenna is presented always as the final place of punishment into which the wicked are cast after the last judgment. It is a place of torment both for body and soul as indicated in Mat 5:29-30, "It is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body go into Gehenna" (a.t.). The Lord Jesus did not have the living in mind here, but the dead, for it is not until after the final judgment that the wicked are cast into Gehenna.

At the resurrection, the spirit and the body are united. Both are punished in Gehenna. Gehenna as the last punishment was conceived of also as the worst. It slays both soul (the incorporeal spiritual part of man) and body (the corporeal)-not in the absolute sense of annihilation, but relatively in that it permitted a change of state that could suffer the pain and punishment of Gehenna. Thus in Mat 10:28, "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna" (a.t. [cf. Luke 12:5]).

Gehenna is conceived of as a fire (Mat 5:22; Mat 18:9); an unquenchable fire (Mark 9:45); a place where "their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48); a "furnace of fire" (Mat 13:42, Mat 13:50); "the outer darkness" (Mat 8:12; Mat 22:13; Mat 25:30); a "lake of fire" (Rev 19:20; Rev 20:10, Rev 20:14-15; Rev 21:8). Because fire is often used as an apocalyptic symbol of judgment (especially eschatological judgment) it is difficult to insist that the flames are material. Nevertheless, such a symbol clearly represents a real and painful judgment. Hades, the place of the disembodied wicked spirits, is finally cast into it (Rev 20:14).

In the NT, Hades and Gehenna seem never to be confused together. See Hades (Strongs 86), the place of the departed souls often translated "hell," but mistakenly so; ábussos (Strongs 12), abyss, bottomless pit; tartaróō (Strongs 5020), to incarcerate in eternal torment, spoken of the fallen angels.

Hope this helps you both in your discussions… and Please remember to try not to get so hung up on individual words…

Blessing!
-
-
-
P. S.

Cheezer, regarding your link, it does exactly what I stated not to do: abuses the western scholastic method of studying scriptures regarding this particular subject. Abusing this method’s comes when ascribing the meaning of one word to only mean one thing in all cases and another word is presupposed as impossible to be used like a synonym. Doing so will cause a person to miss the richness of the biblical text on many matters. Do we use synonyms? If we do, why cannot the bible text for such words as sleep, destruction, ruin, grave, death, die, hell, sheol, pit, prison, hades...???

Next read…

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

One, if eternal punishment is not eternal, nether can eternal life be eternal. You cannot get out of the grammar and syntax used in this verse. The same word eternal used twice are used in same grammar tenses binding the words meanings together as the same. Also, how can you punish something that no longer exist and call that eternal punishment? It would be peace of nothingness or sleep instead,

Punishment is the idea of eternal recompense defined as – reaping what one has sown… what was sown is sin and rebellion.

Isa 3:10-11, Say ye of the righteous, that it shall be well with him; for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. 11 Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him; for the work of his hands shall be done to him.

Pro 24:12 If you say, "Surely we did not know this," Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? NKJV

Jer 32:19 You are great in counsel and mighty in work, for your eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of men, to give everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings. NKJV

Psa 11:5 The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. 6 Upon the wicked He will rain coals; Fire and brimstone and a burning wind Shall be the portion of their cup. NKJV

Isa 57:20-21 But the wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mire and dirt. 21 There is no peace, saith my God concerning the wicked. JPS

Cheezer, do you know what sin is? Any idea? Can you give a definition and some examples?

[DannyM]

Anyway, looking past that, I'm very familiar with these terms and places, and I will agree with you that Hades, Gehenna, Sheol represent places and not just the grave. I thought I already made that clear. I just disagree that Hades and (the spiritual) Gehenna are the same; Hell.

Quoting all of those different translations as saying Hell doesn't really do much for your argument, considering two are the King James Bible, which translates Sheol as Hell sometimes and not others, and Hades as Hell. Obviously, the first instance is being inconsistent and basing it off of one's interpretation of the meaning of the word, and the other is assuming something without good reason. Then the Weymouth translation calls it the "Unseen World." I don't see how this immediately means Hell. Can we see Heaven? Also, I can quote a bunch of Bibles that use the word Hades and not Hell, if you'd like.

See? Now, if you can find scriptural support for saying that Hades and Hell are interchangeable terms for the same place, then I'll concede. But, I've yet to see such a thing. I have, however, scriptural support for saying that Hades and Sheol are words for the same place, just one's in Hebrew, and the other's in Greek. And that is that Acts 2:31 is quoting from Psalm 16:10, which, again, uses the word Sheol. This shows that to the Greeks, Sheol was known as Hades.

If anyone likes they can quote from Job I posted below and do his or her own Hebrew word study on each word used in text and see what connects to it…

Job 26:5-6, "The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering." ESV

People often unknowingly abuse the western scholastic approach trying to understand this subject. Abusing this method comes when ascribing the meaning of one word to only mean one thing in all cases and another word is presupposed as impossible to be used like a synonym. Doing so will cause a person to miss the richness of the biblical text on many matters. Do we use synonyms? If we do, why cannot the bible text?

Next, the ancient Middle Eastern mindset used various words interchangeably to describe things. For example, Heaven is referred to as a Kingdom of light, The Land of Uprightness, etc…

The current Hell is referred to as the Pit, Sheol, Hell, Hades, Grave, prison, a place of darkness, fire, burning wrath in our English translations of both OT and NT. As for Gehenna, this helps describes the hell of the future Lake of Fire as a smoldering/decaying maggot infested trash dump. Noticed how I used the word hell to described Gehenna? Nothing wrong with that either… or rephrasing as the Hades of Gehenna either…

AIG’s The Complete Word Studies Dictionary quoted below writes of Gehenna as used in the New Testament refers too…

In the NT Gehenna is presented always as the final place of punishment into which the wicked are cast after the last judgment. It is a place of torment both for body and soul as indicated in Mat 5:29-30, "It is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body go into Gehenna" (a.t.). The Lord Jesus did not have the living in mind here, but the dead, for it is not until after the final judgment that the wicked are cast into Gehenna.

At the resurrection, the spirit and the body are united. Both are punished in Gehenna. Gehenna as the last punishment was conceived of also as the worst. It slays both soul (the incorporeal spiritual part of man) and body (the corporeal)-not in the absolute sense of annihilation, but relatively in that it permitted a change of state that could suffer the pain and punishment of Gehenna. Thus in Mat 10:28, "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna" (a.t. [cf. Luke 12:5]).

Gehenna is conceived of as a fire (Mat 5:22; Mat 18:9); an unquenchable fire (Mark 9:45); a place where "their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48); a "furnace of fire" (Mat 13:42, Mat 13:50); "the outer darkness" (Mat 8:12; Mat 22:13; Mat 25:30); a "lake of fire" (Rev 19:20; Rev 20:10, Rev 20:14-15; Rev 21:8). Because fire is often used as an apocalyptic symbol of judgment (especially eschatological judgment) it is difficult to insist that the flames are material. Nevertheless, such a symbol clearly represents a real and painful judgment. Hades, the place of the disembodied wicked spirits, is finally cast into it (Rev 20:14).

In the NT, Hades and Gehenna seem never to be confused together. See Hades (Strongs 86), the place of the departed souls often translated "hell," but mistakenly so; ábussos (Strongs 12), abyss, bottomless pit; tartaróō (Strongs 5020), to incarcerate in eternal torment, spoken of the fallen angels.

Hope this helps you both in your discussions… and Please remember to try not to get so hung up on individual words…

Blessing!
-
-
-
P. S.

Cheezer, regarding your link, it does exactly what I stated not to do: abuses the western scholastic method of studying scriptures regarding this particular subject. Abusing this method’s comes when ascribing the meaning of one word to only mean one thing in all cases and another word is presupposed as impossible to be used like a synonym. Doing so will cause a person to miss the richness of the biblical text on many matters. Do we use synonyms? If we do, why cannot the bible text for such words as sleep, destruction, ruin, grave, death, die, hell, sheol, pit, prison, hades...???

Next read…

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

One, if eternal punishment is not eternal, nether can eternal life be eternal. You cannot get out of the grammar and syntax used in this verse. The same word eternal used twice are used in same grammar tenses binding the words meanings together as the same. Also, how can you punish something that no longer exist and call that eternal punishment? It would be peace of nothingness or sleep instead,

Punishment is the idea of eternal recompense defined as – reaping what one has sown… what was sown is sin and rebellion.

Isa 3:10-11, Say ye of the righteous, that it shall be well with him; for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. 11 Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him; for the work of his hands shall be done to him.

Pro 24:12 If you say, "Surely we did not know this," Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? NKJV

Jer 32:19 You are great in counsel and mighty in work, for your eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of men, to give everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings. NKJV

Psa 11:5 The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. 6 Upon the wicked He will rain coals; Fire and brimstone and a burning wind Shall be the portion of their cup. NKJV

Isa 57:20-21 But the wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mire and dirt. 21 There is no peace, saith my God concerning the wicked. JPS

Cheezer, do you know what sin is? Any idea? Can you give a definition and some examples?

Revelation 20:10

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And look who's going to the same place:

Matthew 25:41,46

41Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Following B.W., you can’t have one meaning for one and one meaning for the other. You’d need to perform some back-breaking somersaults in order to mangle the construction of this verse.

Mark 3:28-30
28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.

29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

30 He said this because they were saying, He has an evil spirit.

The objection falls apart. The text says they will never be forgiven. Looks like eternal might actually mean eternal after all...

[cheezerrox]

If anyone likes they can quote from Job I posted below and do his or her own Hebrew word study on each word used in text and see what connects to it…

Job 26:5-6, "The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering." ESV

People often unknowingly abuse the western scholastic approach trying to understand this subject. Abusing this method comes when ascribing the meaning of one word to only mean one thing in all cases and another word is presupposed as impossible to be used like a synonym. Doing so will cause a person to miss the richness of the biblical text on many matters. Do we use synonyms? If we do, why cannot the bible text?

Next, the ancient Middle Eastern mindset used various words interchangeably to describe things. For example, Heaven is referred to as a Kingdom of light, The Land of Uprightness, etc…

The current Hell is referred to as the Pit, Sheol, Hell, Hades, Grave, prison, a place of darkness, fire, burning wrath in our English translations of both OT and NT. As for Gehenna, this helps describes the hell of the future Lake of Fire as a smoldering/decaying maggot infested trash dump. Noticed how I used the word hell to described Gehenna? Nothing wrong with that either… or rephrasing as the Hades of Gehenna either…

AIG’s The Complete Word Studies Dictionary quoted below writes of Gehenna as used in the New Testament refers too…

In the NT Gehenna is presented always as the final place of punishment into which the wicked are cast after the last judgment. It is a place of torment both for body and soul as indicated in Mat 5:29-30, "It is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body go into Gehenna" (a.t.). The Lord Jesus did not have the living in mind here, but the dead, for it is not until after the final judgment that the wicked are cast into Gehenna.

At the resurrection, the spirit and the body are united. Both are punished in Gehenna. Gehenna as the last punishment was conceived of also as the worst. It slays both soul (the incorporeal spiritual part of man) and body (the corporeal)-not in the absolute sense of annihilation, but relatively in that it permitted a change of state that could suffer the pain and punishment of Gehenna. Thus in Mat 10:28, "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna" (a.t. [cf. Luke 12:5]).

Gehenna is conceived of as a fire (Mat 5:22; Mat 18:9); an unquenchable fire (Mark 9:45); a place where "their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48); a "furnace of fire" (Mat 13:42, Mat 13:50); "the outer darkness" (Mat 8:12; Mat 22:13; Mat 25:30); a "lake of fire" (Rev 19:20; Rev 20:10, Rev 20:14-15; Rev 21:8). Because fire is often used as an apocalyptic symbol of judgment (especially eschatological judgment) it is difficult to insist that the flames are material. Nevertheless, such a symbol clearly represents a real and painful judgment. Hades, the place of the disembodied wicked spirits, is finally cast into it (Rev 20:14).

In the NT, Hades and Gehenna seem never to be confused together. See Hades (Strongs 86), the place of the departed souls often translated "hell," but mistakenly so; ábussos (Strongs 12), abyss, bottomless pit; tartaróō (Strongs 5020), to incarcerate in eternal torment, spoken of the fallen angels.

Hope this helps you both in your discussions… and Please remember to try not to get so hung up on individual words…

Blessing!
-
-
-
P. S.

Cheezer, regarding your link, it does exactly what I stated not to do: abuses the western scholastic method of studying scriptures regarding this particular subject. Abusing this method’s comes when ascribing the meaning of one word to only mean one thing in all cases and another word is presupposed as impossible to be used like a synonym. Doing so will cause a person to miss the richness of the biblical text on many matters. Do we use synonyms? If we do, why cannot the bible text for such words as sleep, destruction, ruin, grave, death, die, hell, sheol, pit, prison, hades...???

Next read…

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

One, if eternal punishment is not eternal, nether can eternal life be eternal. You cannot get out of the grammar and syntax used in this verse. The same word eternal used twice are used in same grammar tenses binding the words meanings together as the same. Also, how can you punish something that no longer exist and call that eternal punishment? It would be peace of nothingness or sleep instead,

Punishment is the idea of eternal recompense defined as – reaping what one has sown… what was sown is sin and rebellion.

Isa 3:10-11, Say ye of the righteous, that it shall be well with him; for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. 11 Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him; for the work of his hands shall be done to him.

Pro 24:12 If you say, "Surely we did not know this," Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? NKJV

Jer 32:19 You are great in counsel and mighty in work, for your eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of men, to give everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings. NKJV

Psa 11:5 The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. 6 Upon the wicked He will rain coals; Fire and brimstone and a burning wind Shall be the portion of their cup. NKJV

Isa 57:20-21 But the wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mire and dirt. 21 There is no peace, saith my God concerning the wicked. JPS

Cheezer, do you know what sin is? Any idea? Can you give a definition and some examples?

Hello BW. I don't dispute that the Bible can use synonyms, but is it the same when we use specific names? The example you gave of Heaven is true, that it's given different descriptive names, but those titles are just that; descriptive. Sheol and Hades aren't descriptive, they're specific names. I agree that Hades is the place of the current dead, but can you cite a verse to describe it as a place of torment? Other than the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

I agree with most of what AIG says. Gehenna and Hades are separate, and Gehenna is a place of torment and judgement for the wicked. Those in Hades are the departed souls, but not just of the wicked, but of all. I don't agree with their interpretation of the body and soul being destroyed there; ie, that they will be eternally tormented. I don't deny that Hell will be a place of torment for the wicked, I just say that it will end in destruction.

Then, why is punishment that's effects are eternal, like death, not eternal? It is a punishment, and it lasts forever. Just because one ceases to exist, doesn't mean it's peaceful. It's just nothing. They're punishment is capital punishment. Would you say that that is not an everlasting punishment? To contrast eternal death with eternal life seems fine. Both are eternal, and opposites.

To the first verse quoted, Isaiah 3:10-11, I don't see the contradiction with the idea of eternal destruction. It certainly will be ill for the wicked. How is being judged before God, knowing that you disbelieved and lived in sin your whole life, knowing finally that you were wrong, and that you have to face judgement; having all your deeds and words judged openly by the creator and master of the universe; and being sentenced, and thrown into the lake of fire, to face suffering and eventual destruction, with no hope of redemption or forgiveness; how is that not bad?

For Proverbs 24:12 and Jeremiah 32:19, again, I don't see the contradiction with the idea of eternal destruction.

Psalm 11:5 doesn't contradict eternal destruction either. To say that the wicked will be rained on with hot coals, and having to face fire and brimstone and a burning wind doesn't mean they won't be destroyed. It does not say they will face these things continually forever and ever.

Now, Isaiah 57:20-21 I do see your point, and it is a good one, I'll admit. But, I still disagree. You still consider being judged into total death and non-existence as peace. There is no peace in non-existence; there is not anything. The wicked will perish in suffering, sorrow, and regret, and that will be their end. Then all thought and feeling will cease. Certainly there is no peace in that for them, for they don't exist to have any feeling or sense of peace or anything else.

Then, to ask me if I know what sin is, of course I do, or else I wouldn't find any need in Christ and be here among you. If you disagree with me, even strongly, I can respect that, but please don't stir up in yourself hostility, as I'm seeking to believe and accept the truth the same as you are. Now, to humor your question, yes, I know what sin is. It is a transgression of God's commandments and will; a turning away from God. Examples would be murder, stealing, lying, blaspheming the Spirit, hating your neighbor, etc. Your whole point, which I believe you meant to make by citing Proverbs 24:12 and Jeremiah 32:19 is that the wages of sin is eternal suffering. But Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death, while the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Eternal life is a gift given by God. Jesus explains this when asked by the Sadducees about the seven brothers who died with the same wife, and who will be married to her in the resurrection. Jesus says in Luke 20:34-36, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Now, I can see some seeing this as speaking of all people, since all will be resurrected at one time or another, and the title sons of God is not always a title of righteousness, as shown in Genesis 6:2 where fallen angels mate with women on Earth. But, Jesus specifically says those who are "considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead." This must speak of the first resurrection, then, right? The resurrection of the righteous. So the righteous cannot die anymore, and are made like angels. Angels, as spiritual beings, cannot die, which is why in Revelation 20:10 it says that the devil, beast, and false profit will be tormented day and night forever and ever. This is not said of the wicked people.

Now, I'm sure someone will cite Revelation 14:10-11 because of that, so I'll cover that now. This is the one passage I've found to support eternal torment, at first glance, at least. But lets look at it more in context, by looking at verses 9-11.

"Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and his image, and recieves a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever recieves the mark of his name.'"

Now, let's take some things into consideration; one, "the smoke of their torment" going up "forever and ever" doesn't really spell out eternal torment. Revelation 19:3 says that the smoke of Babylon's torment will "RISE FOREVER AND EVER," quoting directly from Isaiah 34:10. This is interesting for multiple reasons. For one, in Revelation 17:16, and 18:8, it says that Babylon will be burned up; as in consumed. As in the opposite of something that burns and is not consumed, like in Exodus 3:2 where the fire in the bush that the angel of the LORD appears to Moses in is described; "the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed." Also, don't forget Psalm 104:35, "Let sinners be consumed from the earth and let the wicked be no more."

Now, it's interesting for a second reason, which is also why I singled out those three parts of 14:9-11. It quotes from Isaiah 34. Let's look at the specific passage. Verses 9-10,

"Its streams will be turned into pitch, and its loose earth into burning sulfur, and its land will become burning pitch. It will not be quenched night or day; its smoke will go up forever. From generation to generation it will be desolate; none will pass through it forever and ever."

This is God speaking of the judgement that will come upon the kingdom of Edom. Now, for one, the similarities are noticeable right away. But, to go further, do we consider Edom to still be burning to this day? Surely we don't, even though the text states that "It will not be quenched night or day; its smoke will go up forever." Maybe it means the fire would not be quenched until it consumed what it was burning? And by its smoke going up forever, maybe it means the shame and finality of its judgement? Or, as Daniel 12:2 puts it, its "disgrace and everlasting contempt"? This seems to be meshing well together.

Second, it becomes obvious that John is echoing what the prophet Isaiah said in this passage. Being a disciple and prophet himself for many years, I'm sure John was quite familiar with the scriptures. With such similarities, and the fact that he quotes from the same passage in other portions of the book of Revelation, I think it's entirely reasonable to say he was quoting from that passage in Revelation 14:9-11.

Now, notice in Revelation, how it doesn't say the wicked will be tormented forever and ever, but that the devil, beast, and false prophet will. To understand verses 10-11, as I said earlier, you must put it in context of the verse right before it. Revelation 14:9 makes it clear that this is speaking specfically of those who worship the beast and his image, and recieve his mark. This is the angel of God saying that God's judgement will be very fierce on those who do this, and that they will have to face much, much suffering before they are consumed.

Revelation 20:10

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And look who's going to the same place:

Matthew 25:41,46

41Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Following B.W., you can’t have one meaning for one and one meaning for the other. You’d need to perform some back-breaking somersaults in order to mangle the construction of this verse.

Mark 3:28-30
28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.

29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

30 He said this because they were saying, He has an evil spirit.

The objection falls apart. The text says they will never be forgiven. Looks like eternal might actually mean eternal after all...

Hi Danny. Your point about Matthew 25:41 and 46 is understood, but as I pointed out earlier, just because they are both going to the same place, doesn't mean they will face it the same way. Revelation explains the judgement of the devil, beast, and false prophet differently than the judgement of the wicked. And as stated before, a punishment that stands eternal, is still eternal, even if it's not eternal conscious suffering.

Next, who says being destroyed is being forgiven? Who said eternal doesn't mean eternal? I'm not proposing or defending universalism. Being judged and condemned, and sentenced to an eternal death, is certainly not being forgiven, or being given a break. The punishment for sin is death. Unless you assume the standard is eternal torment, then eternal torment isn't being given a break.

[jlay]

Other than the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

This is NOT a parable. Parables don't use real people and names. Are you saying Abraham wasn't real?

[B. W.]

cheezerrox,

It comes down to defining words and how people limit means of word to mean one thing in all cases these words are used: like destruction, ruin, death, grave, eternal life etc…in the bible. It is not that easy. Matthew 25 last verse make sit plain as eternal life is eternal and living so will be the eternal punishment and living as well. The context and grammar prove this is correct as do other verses from the bible. You cannot eternally keep destroying nothing. Destruction does not mean annhilation into a non-being state. Its meaning refers to ruin and decay in various ways.

God placed eternity in the heart of people – God will not take away life – are principles clearly verified from the bible. How long would Adam and Eve lived if they had not sinned? Are the gifts and callings of God without recall or not?

Again – what is your definition of sin?
-
-
-

[cheezerrox]

This is NOT a parable. Parables don't use real people and names. Are you saying Abraham wasn't real?

Abraham's bosom is rabbinic terminology for Paradise. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that He used Abraham as a person in the story, even in a parable, because it fit the term.

cheezerrox,

It comes down to defining words and how people limit means of word to mean one thing in all cases these words are used: like destruction, ruin, death, grave, eternal life etc…in the bible. It is not that easy. Matthew 25 last verse make sit plain as eternal life is eternal and living so will be the eternal punishment and living as well. The context and grammar prove this is correct as do other verses from the bible. You cannot eternally keep destroying nothing. Destruction does not mean annhilation into a non-being state. Its meaning refers to ruin and decay in various ways.

God placed eternity in the heart of people – God will not take away life – are principles clearly verified from the bible. How long would Adam and Eve lived if they had not sinned? Are the gifts and callings of God without recall or not?

Again – what is your definition of sin?
-
-
-

I understand what you're saying, and that is a valid point. But, I don't see it as limiting meanings of words when it is only ever spoken of one way; destruction, death, etc. I agree that the last verse of Matthew 25 can be speaking of eternally conscious punishment, as can Revelation 14:10-11. But, you have to take into account everything else the Bible says about Hell, for surely the word of God doesn't contradict itself. I agree, you cannot eternally keep destroying anything. But when God destroys something, is it not entirely destroyed, for eternity?

As I said, I see your point. So if you can show me some verses that refer to Hell as a place of eternal torment, then I will honestly and whole-heartedly reconsider my position. Please know I am really taking into account your words and the words of others, I just am truly convinced of what I am defending. I am still open to whatever I can find to be justified by Scripture.

To continue, yes, God certainly has set eternity in the hearts of men. But, does that mean all men are inherently immortal? Notice how that verse does not state that God has set eternity in the spirit of men, but the heart. Well, what does that mean? I believe it is saying that God has set the longing and pursuit of immortality in all men. Surely this is true throughout history and literature, and the Bible itself. For an example, Juan Ponce de León and his search for the fountain of youth. I find the wording of that verse to be interesting, and I don't find it to support all people to be immortal by nature. In general, no one wants to die. To many life is all about leaving a legacy, and being remembered. Death is feared and hated, and while it is eternally fought against, it is the necessary end for all men; at least the first death.

To the question of how Adam and Eve would have lived if they had not sinned, I cannot say I know. Since they lived in the presence of God in the Garden of Eden, I would want to say never. But, Genesis 3:22 says "Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life forever.'" So, why would God be woried of this, if man inherently has an immortal spirit? This is possibly the same tree of life spken of in Revelation, no? Such as in Revelation 2:7 and Revelation 22:2, and specifically Revelation 22:19.

I would define sin as anything not from faith.

[B. W.]

cheezerrox,

I have given you a few verses already...

Job 26:5, "The departed spirits tremble Under the waters and their inhabitants. Job 26:6 "Naked is Sheol before Him, And Abaddon has no covering." NASB Please do your own Hebrew word search on this one.

Proverbs 9:18

Deut 32:22

Isaiah 38:18

Isaiah 14:9 and Isaiah 14:15

Ezekiel 32:18-32 another example…

Psalms 9:17

Isaiah 5:14 and Isaiah 5:15

Luke 16:23

Ezekiel 26:20

2 Peter 2:4

Isaiah 48:22. "There is no peace for the wicked," says the LORD." NASB (Please note that The NET version uses the word prosperity instead of peace but the Hebrew word does mean peace / tranquility / soundness / whole -wholeness in various ways...

An aside Note: notice the directions mentioned Proverbs 15:24 and Ecc 3:21 (note the NET version should be compared to other versions of Ecc 3:21 to gain a better insight into the text...)


Regarding immortality please read Job 33:4, "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life." NKJV

Ecc 3:14 and Rom 11:29 sets forth what principle about what God gives. Life began for us in the womb and we enter life by being born. Due to sin, the mortal part dies but the spiritual part of a person continues on just as the principle in 2 Sam 14:14 reveals (God does not take away life) and the means that a banished one can return to God is through Jesus Christ... If not, the spiritual part of a person goes downward into the current realm of hell, remaining banished. God does not take away life…he gave…



Next, cheezerrox, you stated that sin is defined as anything not from faith.

Can you explain this a bit more so I can be sure we can discuss this understanding correctly the same terms?

[jlay]

Abraham's bosom is rabbinic terminology for Paradise. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that He used Abraham as a person in the story, even in a parable, because it fit the term.

Abraham's bosom would be an appropiate term for the place for those awaiting paradise. Since Abraham is the father of faith.
Unreasonable? According to who? How about inconsistent? You are muddying the water. The term Abraham's bosom doesn't dismiss for the presence of Abraham himself in the account. The parables have a very consistent format with generic terms, such as father, son, vineyard owner, etc. Here we have real names used. This doesn't hold with ANY other of the many parables where the characters are obviously fictitous. Sorry, it doesn't jive, unless you have a hodge podge hermanuetic. Parables have a format. What is the abstract to be taken from the concrete?

[cheezerrox]

cheezerrox,

I have given you a few verses already...

Job 26:5, "The departed spirits tremble Under the waters and their inhabitants. Job 26:6 "Naked is Sheol before Him, And Abaddon has no covering." NASB Please do your own Hebrew word search on this one.

Proverbs 9:18

Deut 32:22

Isaiah 38:18

Isaiah 14:9 and Isaiah 14:15

Ezekiel 32:18-32 another example…

Psalms 9:17

Isaiah 5:14 and Isaiah 5:15

Luke 16:23

Ezekiel 26:20

2 Peter 2:4

Isaiah 48:22. "There is no peace for the wicked," says the LORD." NASB (Please note that The NET version uses the word prosperity instead of peace but the Hebrew word does mean peace / tranquility / soundness / whole -wholeness in various ways...

An aside Note: notice the directions mentioned Proverbs 15:24 and Ecc 3:21 (note the NET version should be compared to other versions of Ecc 3:21 to gain a better insight into the text...)


Regarding immortality please read Job 33:4, "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life." NKJV

Ecc 3:14 and Rom 11:29 sets forth what principle about what God gives. Life began for us in the womb and we enter life by being born. Due to sin, the mortal part dies but the spiritual part of a person continues on just as the principle in 2 Sam 14:14 reveals (God does not take away life) and the means that a banished one can return to God is through Jesus Christ... If not, the spiritual part of a person goes downward into the current realm of hell, remaining banished. God does not take away life…he gave…



Next, cheezerrox, you stated that sin is defined as anything not from faith.

Can you explain this a bit more so I can be sure we can discuss this understanding correctly the same terms?

I have answered every verse you've cited, and every argument you've made. Since you haven't done the same in any of your responses, then I assume you found my responses unsatisfactory, which is fair, but you will have to explain why for it to be valid to reject them.

But, regardless, I will go on to answer these verses as well. Job 26:5-6 does not say anything regarding eternal torment. If you take the dead trembling beneath the waters as showing that they are being tormented, then the righteous and the wicked must both be being tormented, because it speaks both of Sheol and Abbadon. Now, what is Abaddon? Depending on the context, it is either the place of destruction, or the destroyer. In Revelation 9:11 it is the destroyer; Satan. But throughout the Old Testament, Abaddon is the place of destruction. I don't see how these verses verify eternal torment. If I'm missing something, please clarify it for me.

Proverbs 9:18 also says nothing about eternal torment at all. It says the dead are the guests of the woman of folly; or in other words, those in Sheol. If the point being made is that since it is obviously only speaking of the wicked when it means the dead, that Sheol is only a place of the wicked dead, then I'd say that's not accurate. Death and the dead are commonly used by the Bible to refer to those who are wicked, and in their sins. Sheol is referred to specifically for the wicked in some instances, but it is also referred to as a place where the righteous go as well, like Joseph and Jesus. It's all about context, and in this context, it means specifically the wicked.

Deuteronomy 32:22 also, again, has nothing to say about eternal torment or the nature of Sheol. When you look at the whole verse, it is obviously hyperbole conveying the extent of God's anger. Did the fire kindled in God's anger actually, literally "consume the earth with its yield, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains"? Then why should we take it burning to the lowest part of Sheol as literal? It's meant to convey the depth and intensity of His anger at Israel.

Isaiah 38:18 does seem to make Sheol seem to be a place only for the wicked, at first glance. But, for one, then what about Genesis 37:35? Are you willing to argue that Jacob is in Hell right now? And then there's Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:31. Did Messiah Yeshua Himself go to Hell? But, even going past this, as I said before, let's look at the context of this verse. Surely death cannot praise God, for as the next verse says, "It is the living who give thanks to You, as I do today". It is just as Jesus says in Matthew 22:31-32, "'But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: "I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB (remember Genesis 37:35?)"? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.'" Notice how at the beginning, the Lord says "regarding the resurrection of the dead". I believe He has made clear the point I am trying to make. While the righteous do go to Sheol as well as the wicked, being that all go there eventually, those whom are servants of the Most High are regarded as living and not dead. Jacob indeed went to Sheol when he died, yet in Exodus 3:6 says long after he died, that He is the God of Jacob. This would also explain Proverbs 9:18 better, because usually when Sheol and the dead are referred to, it means the wicked dead, as they are not regarded as alive to the Lord, for they are forever spiritually dead. While they will be resurrected, they will then face judgement and finally, the second death. But, as stated before, context is crucial.

Isaiah 14:9 is explained as well by what I said above for Isaiah 38:18. If you look at Isaiah 14:11, it specifies that Sheol is simply the state of death that all living things face, as it states that "maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you and worms are your covering." Obviously, this is describing the state of physical death, which is something all life faces. Then, on to Isaiah 14:15, again, this is explained well by what I said for Isaiah 38:18.

Ezekiel 32:18-32 is again, referring to Sheol as specifically a place of disgrace for those who are wicked because they are not with hope. Death for them is now all that there is. Shame and contempt is all they have coming forward to them, and then finally eternal destruction. They do not belong to God. These verses do not state that strictly the wicked only go to Sheol, although it will give that impression if taken out of context of all other references to Sheol in the rest of the Bible. Again, see my response to your citing of Isaiah 38:18.

Psalm 9:17 doesn't support eternal torment or the wicked alone being the inhabitants of Sheol. If anything, it may back up the doctrine of annihilationism, as it says that "the wicked will return to Sheol." Sheol is the state of death, is it not? And to return, you must already have gone. So after the wicked die the first universal death, they will return to death through everlasting destruction.

Isaiah 5:14-15 also does not support the wicked to be the only ones who go to Hell. See all the above.

Luke 16:23 - I would say that since this is a parable, it doesn't stand as a literal example of Sheol/Hades being a place of torment. But, since this is currently being disputed, I will just say that I will remain neutral on this verse for this issue. If this is the only example that can be found to support Sheol/Hades being a place of torment, then I would say let the Bible speak for itself as a whole. Surely the Word of God does not contradict itself.

Ezekiel 26:20 does not even imply that the wicked are the only ones who go down to the pit. It simply says that Tyre will "dwell in the lower parts of the earth, like the ancient waste places," and that it "won't be inhabited." It says nothing of torment, or of it going to a place reserved solely for those who are evil.

2 Peter 2:4 is interesting, as the word translated as Hell is "tartarus," and this is the only time it is ever used in the Bible. Here is an explanation of the term from The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures:

"Tartarus" is found only in 2 Peter 2:4. It is included in the Greek verb tartaroō, and so in rendering the verb, the phrase "by throwing them into Tartarus" has been used. In the Iliad, by the ancient poet Homer, the word tartaros denotes an underground prison as far below Hades as the earth is below heaven. Those confined in it were not human souls, but the lesser gods, spirits, namely, Cronus and the other Titans who had rebelled against Zeus (Jupiter). It was the prison established by the mythological gods for the spirits whom they had driven from the celestial regions, and it was below the Hades where human souls were thought to be confined at death. In mythology tartaros was the lowest of the lower regions and a place of darkness. It enveloped all the underworld just as the heavens enveloped all that was above the earth. Therefore, in pagan Greek mythology tartaros was reputed to be a place for confining, not human souls, but Titan spirits, and a place of darkness and abasement.

The use of tartaros in such places as Job 40:20; 41:23, 24 in the Septuagint makes it plain that the word was used to signify a low place, yes, the "lowest part" of the abyss. The inspired Scriptures do not consign any human souls to tartaros but consign there only spirit creatures, namely, "the angels that sinned." Their being cast into tartaros denotes the deepest abasement for them while they are still living. This serves as punishment for their sin of rebellion against the Most High God. The apostle Peter associates darkness with their low condition, saying that God "delivered them to pits of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment." – 2 Peter 2:4.

The pagans in their mythological traditions concerning Cronus and the rebellious Titan gods presented a distorted view regarding the abasement of rebellious spirits. In contrast, Peter's use of the verb tartaroō, "cast into Tartarus", does not signify that the "angels that sinned" were cast into the pagan mythological Tartarus, but that they were abased by the Almighty God from their heavenly place and privileges and were delivered over to a condition of deepest mental darkness respecting God's bright purposes.

Also, they had only a dark outlook as to their own eventuality, which the scriptures show is everlasting destruction along with their ruler, Satan the Devil. Therefore Tartarus denotes the lowest condition of abasement for those rebellious angels. In the inspired Scriptures, Tartarus bears no relationship to Hades, which is the common grave of the human dead. The sinful angels and the dead human souls are not associated together in tartaros as a place of eternal conscious torment of creatures. Tartarus will pass away when the Supreme Judge destroys the rebellious angels presently in that condition of abasement.

Notice the last sentence of that. Therefore, for one, even if this verse is referring to Hell itself, then it only applies to angels, spiritual beings; not humans.

Isaiah 48:22 does not go against eternal destruction, unless you consider being resurrected from the dead un-expectedly by the God you always denied, only to be judged before the Most High Lord Himself and having Him go over every deed and word of yours, causing you extreme and unimaginable shame and sorrow; then, judging you not worthy to live, deserving to burn in Hell, and to be cast into the lake of fire to suffer until you die once and for all, with no hope for redemption or a second chance; then being sent there, in great pain and anguish until you are gradually and finally consumed by the flames that you deserved, without even the ability to claim that the judgement has been unjust or unfair; these being your last thoughts, feelings, and perceptions; as peace.. Peace does not come with death. You perish in a state of indescribable despair, pain, and hopelessness, and that is it. What comes next is not peace, but nothingness. Peace has to be felt to be peace. This, my friend, is most definitely not peace in any way.

Regarding Proverbs 15:24 and Ecclesiastes 3:21, they don't say that Sheol is a place only for the wicked. The path of life and righteousness surely does lead upward, and the path of wickedness down below, to Sheol. As explained earlier, death has no hold over the righteous, for God shall raise them up and bring them into His holy, wonderful presence. But death is certainly the end for the wicked. It's similar to Psalm 9:17; the wicked shall be consumed by death forever. Also, Ecclesiastes 3:21 is not necessarily something to be taken exactly literally as a face-value spiritual truth; look at Psalm 49:14-15. "As sheep they are appointed for Sheol" according to the NASB. But, this simply could be comparing them to sheep, as an metaphor, for it continues with "Death shall be their shepherd." But, the NKJV renders this verse as "Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them." Maybe it is more than simply comparing them to sheep.

Now, for Job 33:4, Ecclesiastes 3:14, and Romans 11:29, the last two verses aren't referring to what God creates or gives as a gift. Ecclesiastes 3:14 refers to what God does; His actions, not His creations. Won't heaven and earth pass away in the future? And then, Romans 11:29 is referring to "the gifts and calling of God." Now, life itself is not a gift. That may be debated by you or others; but before you do, look at Romans 6:23. "...the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." So therefore eternal life is a gift, not the life that is given to all men. And certainly, the wicked do not have the calling of God, or else they would be turned from their wicked ways. So if they do not have the gifts or calling of God, then their destruction does not have any problem with those verses.

I will agree, 2 Samuel 14:14 does seem to refute eternal destruction at first glance. But, two things. For one, it could be said that God has not made the choice to take away the life of the wicked; the wicked chose for him/herself by refusing God and doing evil. For two, if all of God's Word points to one direction, and then one verse points to another, then there must be some way to reconcile them. Surely God's Word doesn't contradict itself. And if most of God's Word is pointing in one direction, that's a pretty good indication that that's what the truth is. Also, let's look at how some translations render this verse:

NLT
All of us must die eventually. Our lives are like water spilled out on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. But God does not just sweep life away; instead, he devises ways to bring us back when we have been separated from him.

Young's Literal Translation
for we do surely die, and [are] as water which is running down to the earth, which is not gathered, and God doth not accept a person, and hath devised devices in that the outcast is not outcast by Him.

ESV
We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. But God will not take away life, and he devises means so that the banished one will not remain an outcast.

NKJV
For we will surely die and become like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away a life; but He devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him.

NIV
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But that is not what God desires; rather, he devises ways so that a banished person does not remain banished from him.

These verses make it clear that God either does not desire to take away life, or that as His response to not taking life, He devises plans and ways that the banished ones will not be expelled from Him. So, therefore, if we take it as saying that God does not take away life, then we must accept that the banished one(s)/outcast(s) will be drawn to Him eventually, which sounds like universalism. So, I don't know exactly how to take this verse, but for one, just one verse is not enough to refute an entire doctrine that's supported multiple times throughout the whole Bible, and depending on the translation, it doesn't even contradict the idea of eternal destruction.

And, to clarify my definition of sin, I have taken that from Romans 14:23. Anything not from faith is sin; as in anything against one's own conscience, or anything against the Word and will of God.

Abraham's bosom would be an appropiate term for the place for those awaiting paradise. Since Abraham is the father of faith.
Unreasonable? According to who? How about inconsistent? You are muddying the water. The term Abraham's bosom doesn't dismiss for the presence of Abraham himself in the account. The parables have a very consistent format with generic terms, such as father, son, vineyard owner, etc. Here we have real names used. This doesn't hold with ANY other of the many parables where the characters are obviously fictitous. Sorry, it doesn't jive, unless you have a hodge podge hermanuetic. Parables have a format. What is the abstract to be taken from the concrete?

These are all good points. This makes sense. But, since Jesus taught only in parables (Matthew 13:34) to those who weren't His personal disciples, and this story was being told to the Pharisees, I believe that gives some credence to this story being a parable. While it does use specific names for Lazarus and Abraham, it does use a generic term for the third person, the rich man. If this were a literal, historical story, then I feel He would say, "The rich man, Joseph of ____" and "Lazarus of ____"Also, if this story is the only example that can be used to describe Hades as a place of torment, then I think that the argument for it being such a place is quite weak. Daniel 12:2 specifies that "many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt." Thus both reward and punishment is told to come only when those who are dead are resurrected.

So, while overall I believe the evidence weighs in the direction of it being a parable, I will still agree that you have made good points. So, I will just say what I said earlier, that if this story is the only example that can be used to back up Hades being a place of torment, then I think it is a weak argument to make.

[CeT-To]

^ too...much....writing... O_o

[B. W.]

cheezerrox,

When deep in the woods, you cannot se the forest for the trees...

Your answers demonstrate what I stated earlier:

People often unknowingly abuse the western scholastic approach trying to understand this subject. Abusing this method’s comes when ascribing the meaning of one word to only mean one thing in all cases and another word is presupposed as impossible to be used like a synonym. Doing so will cause a person to miss the richness of the biblical text on many matters. Do we use synonyms? If we do, why cannot the bible text?

Next, the ancient Middle Eastern mindset used various words interchangeably to describe things. For example, Heaven is referred to as a Kingdom of light, The Land of Uprightness, etc…

Same applies with symbols and metaphors usages as well. we use these? Why cannot the bible text?

Job 26:5 "The departed spirits tremble Under the waters and their inhabitants." NASB

The writer stated – the departed spirits (dead) tremble – the word translated tremble means what?

Under great water denotes – great pressure…

Job 26:6 "Naked is Sheol before Him, And Abaddon has no covering." NASB

Denotes, nothing is hidden from God’s eyes, and Abaddon - ruin has no covering means those who tremble, whirl, shake, to fear, to dance, to writhe in pain and grief. In a place where the Hebrew pictograph denotes separation unto to ruin – hense a place designed to uncover the real being – who and what they are.

This lines up with what Jesus reveals later in Luke 16:19-31 which is based on truth. Where is God as an eternal torturer in that? What pressure did the man feel, what was being uncovered about the man?

As I said cheezerrox - When deep in the woods, you cannot se the forest for the trees...

All the passages I cited do indeed point to an eternal hell - very simple so much so that it is easy to see. You may not like it, but it is there nevertheless...

I'll post more soon but for now this will be enough...
-
-
-

[cheezerrox]

^ too...much....writing... O_o

Lol, yes, I apologize for all that and the replies before that. I try not to put more than what is necessary.

cheezerrox,

When deep in the woods, you cannot se the forest for the trees...

Your answers demonstrate what I stated earlier:

People often unknowingly abuse the western scholastic approach trying to understand this subject. Abusing this method’s comes when ascribing the meaning of one word to only mean one thing in all cases and another word is presupposed as impossible to be used like a synonym. Doing so will cause a person to miss the richness of the biblical text on many matters. Do we use synonyms? If we do, why cannot the bible text?

Next, the ancient Middle Eastern mindset used various words interchangeably to describe things. For example, Heaven is referred to as a Kingdom of light, The Land of Uprightness, etc…

Same applies with symbols and metaphors usages as well. we use these? Why cannot the bible text?

Job 26:5 "The departed spirits tremble Under the waters and their inhabitants." NASB

The writer stated – the departed spirits (dead) tremble – the word translated tremble means what?

Under great water denotes – great pressure…

Job 26:6 "Naked is Sheol before Him, And Abaddon has no covering." NASB

Denotes, nothing is hidden from God’s eyes, and Abaddon - ruin has no covering means those who tremble, whirl, shake, to fear, to dance, to writhe in pain and grief. In a place where the Hebrew pictograph denotes separation unto to ruin – hense a place designed to uncover the real being – who and what they are.

This lines up with what Jesus reveals later in Luke 16:19-31 which is based on truth. Where is God as an eternal torturer in that? What pressure did the man feel, what was being uncovered about the man?

As I said cheezerrox - When deep in the woods, you cannot se the forest for the trees...

All the passages I cited do indeed point to an eternal hell - very simple so much so that it is easy to see. You ma not like it, but it is there nevertheless...

I'll post more soon but for now this will be enough...
-
-
-

I understand what you are saying here. I'm trying not to get too caught up in the details, but I beleive that the big picture points to a place of eternal destruction and not eternal torment. Completely disregarding all this debate on the meaning of terms and places and exegesis and what-not, just look at these simple verses:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
...dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.

(notice that last sentence. Remember Revelation 14:10? It says the wicked will be tormented in the presence of the Lamb. How could they be tormented forever, then?)

Psalm 37:20
But the wicked will perish; and the enemies of the LORD will be like the glory of the pastures, they vanish - like smoke they vanish away.

Psalm 37:38
But transgressors will be altogether destroyed; the posterity of the wicked will be cut off.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants.

Revelation 21:8
But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Show me where the Bible specifies that this death/perishing/destruction is not truly death/perishing/destruction. I understand synonyms can be used, but if these words are being used as synonyms for eternal torment, there must be at least one example of Hell being eternal torment, right? If not, to say they're synonyms for something that's not in the text is absurd, because there's no scriptural support of it. Not saying there isn't, just asking you to cite examples of eternal torment being shown.

Next, if you think my answers demonstrate what you stated earlier, that is a fair objection, but only if you can back it up. I agree that synonyms can be used, but I don't know so much about using them for specific names. I answered this already in one of my earlier posts, and you ignored it. If my answer was insufficient, at least explain how. Also, what I cited from The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures says that these specific places were not used interchangeably. The different descriptive titles for heaven aren't an example of synonyms being used for specific places because these are different DESCRIPTIVE TITLES of heaven, not actual NAMES. Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Hell are not descriptive titles, but actual names used.

Your analysis of Job 26:5-6 is interesting, but I fear it is too literal. Is Sheol/Hell literally under the waters of the earth, or in the center of the earth, as some have claimed? Maybe it is poetic? Even still, even if this is literally describing the state of the departed spirits, then 1) again, the righteous must be in torment along with the wicked, for both go to Sheol, 2) how do you make sense of John 3:13, "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." 3) this still has nothing to do with the eternal state of Hell. If you see Sheol as the current Hell, you still have to agree it is the place where departed spirits await judgement, (Strange to face judgement before being judged, but regardless) no? And because of Acts 2:31, it is evident that Sheol and Hades are interchangeable, no? Well, Revelation 20:14 shows that Hades will eventually be thrown into the lake of fire along with the rest of its inhabitants. So even taking Sheol/Hades as the current Hell, even taking it as a place of torment, it doesn't prove or disprove the doctrines of eternal torment or eternal destruction. The Bible SPECIFIES that it's a separate place.

Next, what's interesting, is that in Job 26:5-6 it specifies that Sheol and Abbadon, the places of the dead and destruction, are not hidden or separate from God. Well, then whatever happened to eternal separation from Him? It cannot be both that Hell is separate from God when it has no covering before Him. Also, what about the verses that state that the dead in Sheol have no thought, and do not know anything, etc?

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.

Ecclesiastes 9:10
Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.

Psalm 6:5
For there is no mention of You in death; in Sheol who will give You thanks?

Regarding Luke 16 and the story of Lazarus and the rich man, I have already gave my reason for believing the evidence points to it being a parable. But, regardless, I will remain neutral on this issue for the sake of this debate. If you can find any other example of Sheol/Hades being a place of torment, then I will accept it. But even if you are able to prove that Sheol/Hades is a place of torment, it has no stance on Hell being eternal torment, as stated earlier in this post.

The passages you cited do not point to an eternal Hell; at least not clearly and unquestionably, because I have given a logical and reasonable answer to each and every passage and shown it fits in with the doctrine of eternal destruction. And while I may have gotten overly concerned with the details previously (I don't feel I have, but I am a very flawed individual who is inclined to pride and not admitting when I am wrong, as we all are), I have disregarded all the examining and focus on details at the beginning of this post and shown how just basic, non-poetic verses clearly refer to eternal death/destruction. Now, I would again point out that you seem to refuse to answer any of my points or citations while I answer every single one of yours, but you did say that you will post more soon, so I will refrain for now.

And to imply that I deny eternal torment simply because I "may not like it," is quite condescending and again shows how you seem to ignore all the Biblical arguements I have made; indeed, all of my arguments I have made are based on Scripture. I agree, many annihilationists simply stick with the whole "Well God wouldn't do that" argument, and that is very insufficient. While I personally feel the same and agree that eternal torment is incompatible with the God I have come to know, I do not use this as an argument for my view, as I would never dare to put my reasoning and judgement on the same level as God's. I don't decide what is fair and just. I simply believe that the Scripture all points to the doctrine of eternal destruction. Please don't make claims so as to discredit me and say that my arguments and disagreements are based on wish and feeling, when they are entirely not, which is evident since my first post in this thread. Have you not read a word I've said?