B. W. wrote: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.
jlay wrote: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.
