What Would You Have Asked Lazarus?

[Canuckster1127]

Bart,

You said...

I believe we agreed that God created Satan and the fallen angels now known as demons correct?

I don't feel that God created "Satan the Devil." Rather that He created a perfect angel who later turned himself into Satan the Devil. In the same way, God didn't create "fallen angels." He created perfect angels who later used their free will to turn themselves into demons against God.

I also believe we agreed that Satan and his fallen angels would be in the lake of fire for eternity. Yes

On what basis do you separate fallen men who have rejected Christ and mitigate their sentence? I don't understand your question. Can you re-word it for me?

Is God Just in his pronouncement regarding Satan and the Demons? Yes

What delineates one for the other in terms of men? Sorry Bart but here too, I don't understand what you are asking.

Don

Don,

I agree with your clarification. I wasn't suggesting Satand and the fallen angles were created in that manner. They rebelled and fell.

Here's the point of my clarification.

On what basis do you delineate between God's justice in eternal torment and damnation for Lucifer and company and then suggest that God would treat fallen man differently?

I wonder if there is an unstated (to this point) motivation behind your thinking that God would not be so cruel or that he would in some manner be unloving to operate in this manner rather than simply annihilating.

To be honest, as I've stated before, I wish it weren't so in my own reckoning or understanding.

These verses indicate to me the Hell, the lake of Fire is eternal and those condemed there in eternal torment.

Mt. 25:46 "They will go away to eternal punishment."

Heb. 6:2 "… the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

Jude 7 The people of Sodom and Gomorrah serve as an example of those who suffer the "punishment of eternal fires."

Dan. 12:2 "… some to everlasting life, other to shame and everlasting contempt."

2 Th. 1:9 "…they will be punished with everlasting destruction."

Gal. 1:8 If someone preaches another gospel, he is to be "eternally condemned."

Is. 66:24 Those that rebelled against God, "Their worm will not die, nor will the fire be quenched."

Rev. 14:10-11 "And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever"

Mk. 3:29 Those who blaspheme will be guilty of an "eternal sin."

Is. 34:8-10 "Lord has a day of vengeance … it will not be quenched night or day. Its smoke will rise forever."

I think there's an element to what I've seen of your argument that is based upon some of the underlying premises of what I hope I've better clarified above for you.

How do you account for the inconsistency in treatment that you assert between humans and Lucifer and company and is it direct from the Bible or inferred by your values and philisophy in this regard?

Hope that makes better sense.

Bart

[DonCameron]

Bart,

You asked...

On what basis do you delineate between God's justice in eternal torment and damnation for Lucifer and company and then suggest that God would treat fallen man differently?

I don't feel that "God would treatment fallen man differently." My understanding is that both Lucifer (and company) and those who are not found written in the book of life will undergo exactly the same "everlasting punishment" in "the second death."

You said...

I wonder if there is an unstated motivation behind your thinking that God would not be so cruel or that he would in some manner be unloving to operate in this manner rather than simply annihilating.

First of all, I assume that you believe 100% that God has created a literal "lake of fire" somewhere in order to burn those in it with a literal fire that will cause them excruciating pain every second of every day and night forever and ever.

Now, I have admit that you are correct when you wonder if perhaps there is "an unstated motivation" on my part of not wanting to find out that what you believe is true. I realize that if what you believe is true my underlying motivation will only get in the way of coming to realize that what you believe is true.

It was interesting to hear you acknowledge that even you are not too thrilled with what you believe in this matter. You said, "To be honest, as I've stated before, I wish it weren't so in my own reckoning or understanding."

Why do you believe the above even though you wish it wasn't so? You said...

These (following) verses indicate to me the Hell, the lake of Fire is eternal and those condemned there in eternal torment.

Mt. 25:46 "They will go away to eternal punishment."

My thinking goes like this:
According to Romans 6:23 death is the punishment for sin. It seems reasonable to me that if that death lasts forever then it is an eternal punishment.

Some people I've talked to don't think of death as a punishment despite the fact that "Capital Punishment" refers to the death penalty (or punishment). Some have said, "If I thought that the only thing that would happen to me is that I would just remain dead and unconscious forever then I might as well eat, drink and be merry." I don't think they have really thought through what they are saying.

I also notice that the above verse compares "eternal punishment" with "eternal life." That makes it easy for me to conclude that the opposite of eternal life is eternal death.

In order to be consciously punished forever one would have to have everlasting life. But from what I have seen everlasting life is always presented in the Bible as a gift for the righteous - not for the unrighteous.

What about those who feel that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment"? It has always struck me when someone feels that it is cruel and unusual to put a murderer to death (which takes just a few minutes) but don't who seen anything cruel or unusual about God torturing billions of people and keeping them in excruciating pain by burning them with fire every second, every minute, every hour, every day forever and ever.

Heb. 6:2 "… the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."

I understand the "eternal judgment" to be eternal death in "the second death."

Jude 7 The people of Sodom and Gomorrah serve as an example of those who suffer the "punishment of eternal fires."
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were not tortured by that fire. They were put to death by it.


Dan. 12:2 "… some to everlasting life, other to shame and everlasting contempt."
Here again, everlasting life is only granted to the righteous.


2 Th. 1:9 "…they will be punished with everlasting destruction."
This is exactly what I understand will happen in the second death. Those who go there will be destroyed. i.e. they will be put out of existence forever.

Gal. 1:8 If someone preaches another gospel, he is to be "eternally condemned."
Those in "the second death" will be eternally condemned.

Is. 66:24 Those that rebelled against God, "Their worm will not die, nor will the fire be quenched."
I notice here that the only ones who are not dead are worms! What does this mean? My understanding is that the above is referring to the garbage dump outside Jerusalem (Gehenna) where the dead bodies of criminals were sometime thrown. Those that didn't reach the ever burning fire were consumed by worms. It was not used to torment or torture anyone but simply as a means of destroying whatever was thrown into it.

Rev. 14:10-11 "And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever"
I don't know what this is a "sign" of Rev. 1:1

Mk. 3:29 Those who blaspheme will be guilty of an "eternal sin."
Their sin and therefore their punishment will last forever.

Is. 34:8-10 "Lord has a day of vengeance … it will not be quenched night or day. Its smoke will rise forever."
I don't know what this is referring to. But it doesn't mention anything about what goes on in "hell."

You asked...
How do you account for the inconsistency in treatment that you assert between humans and Lucifer and company?"

Again Bart, I understand the treatment of all those who enter the "the second death" to be exactly the same.

When you get a chance please take a look at http://www.2001translation.com/Hell.htm

Among other things it helps to show that I'm not the only one who looks at this matter the way I do.

Don

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks for the link Don.

I'm very aware that your beliefs in this regard are not or unique.

I've studied this at varying points in my life and not too long ago it arose as an issue with regard to some articles at the demoninational seminary of the group that I was originally ordained.

Thanks again for clearing things up.

So you believe Satan and company will face annihilation as well.

That is a more consistent position than what I thought you were saying, however, I don't believe your answers to be consistent scripturally.

As to why I believe something, even though I wish it wasn's so? Because I am not guided in this matter by my wishes or feelings. I start with the Word of God and subject myself to it, based upon its authority. To do otherwise places the Word of God under my understanding which I reject.

My heart certainly would not wish hell upon anyone. God's Word trumps my wishes.

I'm on my way to a football game now so that is all I have time for.

Bart

[DonCameron]

Bart,

Here is a quote I just came across that makes sense to me...

(Quoting from HELL FIRE, A Twisted Truth Untangled, by Joe Crews) "There are two extreme views in current circulation concerning the punishment of the wicked. One is Universalism, which contends that God is too good to allow anyone to be lost. The other is the awful doctrine of endless torment which would perpetuate for all eternity a dark abyss of anguish and suffering.

Both are wrong. The truth lies in between. God will punish the wicked according to their works, but He will not immortalized evil in the process" by keeping evil men and women alive forever.

How many truly honest souls have been turned away from God because of their revulsion at this misinterpretation of His character. They cannot love someone who would ... keep evil people in endless torment with no purpose in view. ... Only a vindictive spirit of revenge could be served by such an unspeakable arrangement

We know from Scripture that God is not like that. He is a God of Love (but also a God of righteousness and judgment). The Bible tells us that pain and death will be done away with, along with the old earth and heavens.
Don

[Turgonian]

[Canuckster] said...

I wonder if there is an unstated motivation behind your thinking that God would not be so cruel or that he would in some manner be unloving to operate in this manner rather than simply annihilating.

First of all, I assume that you believe 100% that God has created a literal "lake of fire" somewhere in order to burn those in it with a literal fire that will cause them excruciating pain every second of every day and night forever and ever.

Does that follow from anything Canuckster said? There is a host of other opinions in between.

I, for instance, believe the wicked will be punished forever, but not by literal fire -- seeing as it would be hard to combine fire, darkness, and a winepress with a literal stamping god. See here for an orthodox, non-fundamentalist view on hell.

But your use of the word 'perish' says nothing. I believe I linked to the annihilationism article (A Critical Look at Annihilationism) elsewhere; it discusses the word 'destroy', too: the Greek verb is apollumi and is also used in these contexts:

Matthew 10:6 -- 'Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.'
Matthew 12:14 -- 'But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.'
Matthew 26:8 -- 'When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked.'
Luke 15:24 -- '"For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found."'
Luke 19:10 -- '"For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."'

You see apollumi doesn't have to mean 'destroy'.
Seven times in the NT, the word aionios 'eternal' is used to describe the punishment of the wicked.

[DonCameron]

Hi Turgonian,

I had said to Bart...

I assume that you believe 100% that God has created a literal "lake of fire" somewhere in order to burn those in it with a literal fire that will cause them excruciating pain every second of every day and night forever and ever.

I haven't heard from Bart about this yet and so I still assume that this is what he believes 100%.

Seems to me that anyone who says they believe in a literal "lake of fire" that they must therefore also believe that those who are in that lake are literally being burned by that fire. I'm waiting to hear Bart's feelings on my assumption.

You said...
I believe the wicked will be punished forever, but not by literal fire -- seeing as it would be hard to combine fire, darkness, and a winepress with a literal stamping god. See here for an orthodox, non-fundamentalist view on hell.

Note: I didn't find anything to click on in order to see "an orthodox, fundamentalist view on hell."

I'll take a look a "A Critical Look at Annihilationism."

Don

[Canuckster1127]

Hi Turgonian,

I had said to Bart...

I assume that you believe 100% that God has created a literal "lake of fire" somewhere in order to burn those in it with a literal fire that will cause them excruciating pain every second of every day and night forever and ever.

I haven't heard from Bart about this yet and so I still assume that this is what he believes 100%.

Seems to me that anyone who says they believe in a literal "lake of fire" that they must therefore also believe that those who are in that lake are literally being burned by that fire. I'm waiting to hear Bart's feelings on my assumption.

You said...
I believe the wicked will be punished forever, but not by literal fire -- seeing as it would be hard to combine fire, darkness, and a winepress with a literal stamping god. See here for an orthodox, non-fundamentalist view on hell.

Note: I didn't find anything to click on in order to see "an orthodox, fundamentalist view on hell."

I'll take a look a "A Critical Look at Annihilationism."

Don

Don,

He's embedded the link on the word "here" above. Just click on it and you'll be taken to the site.

You're assuming more than the text says in attributing the position to me that you do above.

I believe the Bible teaches Hell is a place of eternal, conscious torment.

I believe "lake of fire" as used in Revelation is the best report that John can give based on what he is seeing in his vision of things to come.

Whether that matches up "scientifically" in terms of how it will actually be accomplished, is a matter for God determine. In the whole scheme of things in this interaction, I believe it's not a crucial point.

So your assumption goes further than anything I've stated, and you'll have to explain to me in any case the relevance of whatever point you're trying to make.

Thanks,

Bart

[DonCameron]

Hi Turgonian,

I read some of that article about annialationism. Here are some comments about his discussion about the "everlasting punishment" Jesus mentioned at Matthew 25:46...

Matt. 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

“Pinnock (says) that the use of this verse…gives no indication that the eternal destiny involves conscious suffering; therefore, he says, we have the 'freedom' to interpret this verse as not indicating such a thing.”

I agree with Pinnock. There is nothing in this verse that explains what the “everlasting punishment” is, or that it involves “conscious suffering.” Therefore the reader does “have the freedom to interpret this verse as not indicating conscious suffering just as one has the freedom to interpret it that it does indicate such a thing. Whenever we conclude something from a verse that it does not actually say, we are interpreting it.

My thinking is that in order to consciously suffer forever one must be alive forever — i.e. they must have eternal life. But the above verse says that only the righteous will have eternal life. Therefore I conclude that those who receive “eternal punishment” do not have eternal life. And so, whatever that eternal punishment is, it does not involve conscious suffering.

Personally I feel that the reason why someone automatically interprets “everlasting punishment” as “everlasting conscious suffering” is because this is what they already believe before they ever get to this verse. But from the way I read the Bible, what they already believe is not true and therefore they end up causing this verse to say something that it not only doesn't say, but something that is not true.

The author of the above article said, “I think it is quite plain that Pinnock here is simply trying to insert a concept into the text that is in no way implied.”

But it looks to me that this author is doing the very thing that he is accusing Pennock of doing.

Don

[Turgonian]

Matt. 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

“Pinnock (says) that the use of this verse…gives no indication that the eternal destiny involves conscious suffering; therefore, he says, we have the 'freedom' to interpret this verse as not indicating such a thing.”

I agree with Pinnock. There is nothing in this verse that explains what the “everlasting punishment” is, or that it involves “conscious suffering.” Therefore the reader does “have the freedom to interpret this verse as not indicating conscious suffering just as one has the freedom to interpret it that it does indicate such a thing. Whenever we conclude something from a verse that it does not actually say, we are interpreting it.

Oh yes. 'I'm being horribly punished, but it so happens I don't know about it.' Which interpretation is more likely?

My thinking is that in order to consciously suffer forever one must be alive forever — i.e. they must have eternal life. But the above verse says that only the righteous will have eternal life. Therefore I conclude that those who receive “eternal punishment” do not have eternal life. And so, whatever that eternal punishment is, it does not involve conscious suffering.

What are you defending? That the beings in hell do not exist? Or they do exist, but have no life? They're a bit like plants -- in the vegetative state?
If a person alive on earth can be exhorted to 'get a life', I have no problem with the idea that Hell is not really like 'life', because life is valuable and to be defended, whereas being in Hell is horrible. But I do not think there will be fire, only shame. The link was http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html.

Personally I feel that the reason why someone automatically interprets “everlasting punishment” as “everlasting conscious suffering” is because this is what they already believe before they ever get to this verse. But from the way I read the Bible, what they already believe is not true and therefore they end up causing this verse to say something that it not only doesn't say, but something that is not true.

Yes, the way you read the Bible. Might it be so that you already believe in your position before you get around to the texts?
JP Holding shows that annihilationism (i.e. the doctrine that the wicked will be destroyed and not suffer eternal punishment) has no scriptural backing; the word aionios 'eternal', used seven times, says it quite clearly.

[Byblos]

Personally I feel that the reason why someone automatically interprets “everlasting punishment” as “everlasting conscious suffering” is because this is what they already believe before they ever get to this verse. But from the way I read the Bible, what they already believe is not true and therefore they end up causing this verse to say something that it not only doesn't say, but something that is not true.

Don,

If we are to interpret scripture in such manner than everything must be explicitly stated, we render scripture rather meaningless. Some unstated things must be taken at face value. Inherent in "everlasting punishment" is everlasting suffering, and inherent in a state of suffering is a state of consciousness. The text simply does not offer an alternative 'interpretation'.

Byblos.

[DonCameron]

Byblos,

You said...

If we are to interpret scripture in such manner than everything must be explicitly stated, we render scripture rather meaningless.

Something I try to do when reading a Scripture is to distinguish the difference between (1) What the verse actually says, and (2) What I think it means.

Example: Matthew 25:46: "And those will depart into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life."

(1) What I see this verse actually saying is only (1) that there is going to be a punishment that will last forever, and (2) that the righteous will receive everlasting life. Noticing these things does not require any interpretation.

But if I try to conclude anything beyond these clearly stated facts, then that will require interpretation on my part. I try to make sure that whatever interpretation I make doesn't contradict other Scriptures that don't require interpretations.

Take for example Matthew 25:46. I have taken note of what you said about this verse...

"Inherent in "everlasting punishment" is everlasting suffering, and inherent in a state of suffering is a state of consciousness."

Since this verse doesn't actually say what you have said, it means that what you are saying is your interpretation of what it says. This doesn't mean that what you are saying is wrong. It just means that you are presenting your interpretation of what it says and not what it actually says.

My experience is that sometimes we live with an interpretation for so long that we may not notice that it is just an interpretation rather than a clearly stated fact. I wonder if perhaps you have not noticed the difference between what Matthew 25:46 actually says and what you think it means.

How do I interpret Matthew 25:46? One of the other verses that influences my interpretation is Romans 6:23 which says, "For the wages sin pays if death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life."

Without any interpretation I notice that it simply says (1) that "the wages sin pays is death," and (2) that 'God gives the gift of everlasting life.'

I notice that the alternative to "everlasting life" is simply "death." When I then look at Matthew 25:46 this statement of fact leads me to interpret "everlasting punishment" as a death that lasts forever.

I use what Paul said in Romans 6:3 as a fact to help me interpret what Jesus meant in Matthew 25:46.

Don

[DonCameron]

Byblos,

You said...

Might it be so that you already believe in your position before you get around to the texts?

I'm afraid that you are probably correct!

I think it possible that we may all be guilty of doing this to a greater or lesser degree. It is very hard not to be influenced by what we already believe.

If what we already believe is true then that lessens the chance of making a mistake with those Scriptures that require an interpretation.

Don

[Byblos]

Byblos,

You said...

If we are to interpret scripture in such manner than everything must be explicitly stated, we render scripture rather meaningless.

Something I try to do when reading a Scripture is to distinguish the difference between (1) What the verse actually says, and (2) What I think it means.

Example: Matthew 25:46: "And those will depart into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life."

(1) What I see this verse actually saying is only (1) that there is going to be a punishment that will last forever, and (2) that the righteous will receive everlasting life. Noticing these things does not require any interpretation.

But if I try to conclude anything beyond these clearly stated facts, then that will require interpretation on my part. I try to make sure that whatever interpretation I make doesn't contradict other Scriptures that don't require interpretations.

Take for example Matthew 25:46. I have taken note of what you said about this verse...

"Inherent in "everlasting punishment" is everlasting suffering, and inherent in a state of suffering is a state of consciousness."

Since this verse doesn't actually say what you have said, it means that what you are saying is your interpretation of what it says. This doesn't mean that what you are saying is wrong. It just means that you are presenting your interpretation of what it says and not what it actually says.

But it most certainly does say that. The text cannot be more emphatic than eternal punishment. The stretch is when you try to define 'punishment' as anything that precludes conscious suffering, and 'eternal' as anything but that.

My experience is that sometimes we live with an interpretation for so long that we may not notice that it is just an interpretation rather than a clearly stated fact.

I couldn't agree more. I would also add that sometimes we need to practice what we preach.

I wonder if perhaps you have not noticed the difference between what Matthew 25:46 actually says and what you think it means.

Like I said ...

How do I interpret Matthew 25:46? One of the other verses that influences my interpretation is Romans 6:23 which says, "For the wages sin pays if death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life."

Without any interpretation I notice that it simply says (1) that "the wages sin pays is death," and (2) that 'God gives the gift of everlasting life.'

I notice that the alternative to "everlasting life" is simply "death." When I then look at Matthew 25:46 this statement of fact leads me to interpret "everlasting punishment" as a death that lasts forever.

I use what Paul said in Romans 6:3 as a fact to help me interpret what Jesus meant in Matthew 25:46.

Don

"one can exist and not be punished; but no one can be punished and not exist. Annihilation means the obliteration of existence and anything that pertains to existence, such as punishment. Annihilation avoids punishment, rather than encountering it."

There are also many scriptural references to the varying degrees of punishment (Luke 12:47-48; Hebrews 10:29 to name a couple).

47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

How do sinners not exist yet suffer varying degrees of punishment?

[DonCameron]

Byblos,

In my previous letter I was trying to make the point that we need to be careful to see the difference between what a verse actually says (first), and then what we think it means (second). We need to do this so we will be aware when we are simply accepting what a verse says (without any interpretation), and when we are interpreting what it means.

From my experience, not everyone always notices the difference. I feel that your letter in response to my above letter presents a perfect example of not noticing the difference between what Matthew 25:46 actually says and what you feel that verse means.

It would seem that you have lived with your interpretation of what "eternal punishment" means for so long that you are unable to notice that that verse does not actually say what you insist that it does in fact say.

Although the verse only says "eternal punishment," what you seem to see is as if it says "conscious eternal punishment." Note your statement where you said...

Matthew 25:46 most certainly does say (what I have said). The text cannot be more emphatic than eternal punishment. The stretch is when you try to define 'punishment' as anything that precludes conscious suffering, and 'eternal' as anything but that.

Although Jesus didn't even come close to saying anything about "conscious suffering," that's what you see him saying.

A point I was trying to make was, even if that's what "eternal punishment" really means, that's not what this verse actually says. Concluding that "eternal punishment" means "conscious suffering" is an interpretation of what "eternal punishment" means. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that that interpretation is wrong. Only that it is an interpretation of what Jesus said rather than something he actually said.

I don't claim to understand the psychology of all this, but I wonder if deep down in your mind somewhere you have decided that someone cannot be punished if they are dead and therefore unaware that they are being punished.

If this is your thinking, what about "capital punishment." It is still called "punishment" even though the one being punished is not aware of his punishment after he is executed. I've never heard anyone reason, "Well capital punishment is not punishment because after they are executed they are not aware that they have been punished.

My thinking goes like this: If a criminal who was put to death and remained dead for one week, how long did his punishment last? Answer: 1 week. What if he was dead for one year, how long did his punishment last? Answer: 1 year. What if he remained dead forever, how long would his punishment last? Answer: His punishment of death would last forever. In his case it would be an "everlasting punishment."

As for me and Matthew 25:46, what I see Jesus actually saying is only that there is going to be an "everlasting punishment." That's what he actually said.

But then, based upon what I feel is explained elsewhere in the Bible (like Romans 6:23 and Rev. 20:15), I realize that I am interpreting that "everlasting punishment" to mean everlasting death in the second death.

And so I realize that my belief about "the everlasting punishment" is not based on what Jesus actually said in Matthew 25:46. It is based on my interpretation of what he said in this verse.

In the same way, your belief about "the everlasting punishment" in this verse is not based upon what Jesus actually said. It is based on your interpretation of what he said.

Although you and I (and everyone else) should be able to agree on what Jesus actually said - i.e. "everlasting punishment" - we are having a difficult time agreeing on our interpretations of what he meant.

Don

[Canuckster1127]

Don,

I think the problem is that there is a preponderance of verses that indicate that hell is like a fire and eternal in nature. Again these are some of them.

The fine distinctions you have to make to explain away all these, combined with the fact that Hell as a place of suffering emphasized in Christ's teachings requires some rather tortured hermeneutics on your part to avoid.

What do you feel the consequences of your position being wrong in this matter would be?

Of the verses below, I'd especially be interested in your explanation of Rev 14. Looks pretty clear there to me.

Upon the wicked He will rain snares; Fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup. (Psalms 11:6)

You will make them as a fiery oven in the time of your anger; The LORD will swallow them up in His wrath, And fire will devour them. (Psalms 21:9)

For behold, the LORD will come in fire And His chariots like the whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire. (Isaiah 66:15)

For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many. (Isaiah 66:16)

"And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Matthew 3:12)

"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 7:19)

"Therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. (Matthew 13:40)

"The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:41-42)

"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels shall come forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:49-50)

"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. (Matthew 18:8)

"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; (Matthew 25:41)

"And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, (Mark 9:43)

"And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. (Mark 9:47-48)

"And His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (Luke 3:17)

"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6)

And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell. (James 3:6)

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. (Jude 1:7)

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 brimstone 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; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:10-11)

And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. (Revelation 19:20)

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Revelation 20:10)

And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:14-15)