Eternal torment is not a Bible doctrine

[BondiHarry]

so how many times in the New Testament does God need to explain eternal hell?
Matthew 25: 40-46

If God can drown an entire race (death by suffocation) and burn an entire race (not to mention 150lb hail stones) in the end days, I would not question the fact that He can and will punish for eternity.
like I said, only two greek words. Which is not the majority.


every date I have seen and proof I have seen regarding this subject has been grossly incorrect. But please give dates and examples of history that are in unison with your view. you gave several reasons for your viewpoint, but did not refute the fact that you merely use death and destruction as your positive greek evidences, and no more.

Methinks you are so wedded to the doctrines of men, nothing will change your mind about the ultimate fate of lost men. The Bible simply does NOT support this idea of eternal torment for any more than three specific entitites and I would suggest you go back to church history to see when it started to better understand its foundation. This wicked doctrine that God will punish the unforgiven with eternal torment had its roots in a church itself corrupted by evil which in order to compel men to submit to or even support its evil presented those who balked at submitting/supporting its evil with 'submit (or support) or you will be excommunicated and not forgiven your sins and God will torment you in hell with fire and brimstone day and night for all time'. Remember, the typical Christian was illiterate and did not have access to the Bible and his only access to the word of God was what was told to him by the church ... he had NO means of checking to see if what he was being told was indeed the word of God or only what the church claimed was the word of God so many men faced the dilemma of following the conscience that God gave them and balking at what they sensed was evil and risking hell and eternal torment OR doing as the church told them was God's will (like that constant refrain heard in the movie Kingdom of Heaven 'God wills it'). Well, we now have the means of reading the Bible for ourselves and I am amazed that so many false doctrines (like eternal torment in hell or once saved always saved) are embraced and defended as the word of God when a thorough reading of the Bible reveals they cannot be true.

Does God warn us about embracing the doctrines of men? YOU BET!

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men. (Isaiah 29:13)

They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. (Matthew 7:7)

These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. (Colossians 2:22)

There are of course some false beliefs and doctrines that do not impact on the salvation of a man and the nature of hell and the ultimate fate of lost men are among these as committing sin is not part of such false doctrines. There are however other false doctrines that are being embraced that do involve sins such as stealing, murder and idolatry and will reveal their supporters as being members of the Matthew 7 'Lord, Lord' crowd.

 

[Timothew]

every date I have seen and proof I have seen regarding this subject has been grossly incorrect.

You said our argument was only based on two greek words. Now you are saying that you have seen other arguments based on church history, but you disagree with them. How could you possibly disagree with arguments that you say have not been presented?

 

[Timothew]

I am leaving the hellfire torture debate. Even when undeniable proof is presented, the other says just says "noitsnot". One guy can't even concede that we have given more proof than just two greek words, when he has been directly shown that this claim is false and he himself refers to the other proof we have used. He is typical of the "Noitsnotism" group. There is no use providing biblical evidence that is just ignored.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No, you would need to read the whole passage in the NT. But you say this word has nothing to do with annihilation, as if burning something completely up has nothing to do with annihilation. What word would you use to describe chaff that has been completely burned up? And you did ask me for other proof besides death and destruction.

You said "annihilationists use two greek words to prove their theory. Thats it. no more evidence." As anyone can see, this statement is not true.

The same exact "fire" was just admitted by BondiHarry to never burn up "the three" mentioned by Saint John in his vision and Jesus speaks of a fire never quenching as in essence "their fire" in speaking of the fate of the damned.

So am unclear how to conclude it is not true that both sides of this agree there is imagery of a fire in scripture that never burns something completely up. The debate is merely whether such a fire is applied to the damned.

 

[Timothew]

The same exact "fire" was just admitted by BondiHarry to never burn up "the three" mentioned by Saint John in his vision and Jesus speaks of a fire never quenching as in essence "their fire" in speaking of the fate of the damned.

So am unclear how to conclude it is not true that both sides of this agree there is imagery of a fire in scripture that never burns something completely up. The debate is merely whether such a fire is applied to the damned.

I am leaving the hellfire torture debate.

 

[Timothew]

The same exact "fire" was just admitted by BondiHarry to never burn up "the three" mentioned by Saint John in his vision and Jesus speaks of a fire never quenching as in essence "their fire" in speaking of the fate of the damned.

So am unclear how to conclude it is not true that both sides of this agree there is imagery of a fire in scripture that never burns something completely up. The debate is merely whether such a fire is applied to the damned.

This passage was offered as proof to Gradyll that we use more than just 2 greek words to defend our position. Gradyll's refusal to even see that this debate has ranged all over the bible, philosophy and history is proof to me that to debate this with eternal tormentalists is completely useless. We could say "the sky is blue today" and they just respond "noitsnot".

If Gradyll were to admit the truth that we use more than "just two greek words" to defend our case, then I might have some hope that the other side is willing to see truth when the truth has been proven. As it stands now...it's useless.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

gradyll][/I]

every date I have seen and proof I have seen regarding this subject has been grossly incorrect
​

You said our argument was only based on two greek words. Now you are saying that you have seen other arguments based on church history, but you disagree with them. How could you possibly disagree with arguments that you say have not been presented?​

​

Gradyl was responding to someone else saying that "proof" had been given from Church History. As such claims are typically only that the Church adopted this view from Pagans, his comment is correct in that regard.
Church "History" indicates people held and defended the orthodox view of Hell long before there was anything anyone could call the Roman Catholic Church. At best one could give examples of people who disagreed with this view. Even a couple of Church Fathers could be shown declaring views opposed with what later became orthodox at at various stage of their life.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

This passage was offered as proof to Gradyll that we use more than just 2 greek words to defend our position. Gradyll's refusal to even see that this debate has ranged all over the bible, philosophy and history is proof to me that to debate this with eternal tormentalists is completely useless. We could say "the sky is blue today" and they just respond "noitsnot".

If Gradyll were to admit the truth that we use more than "just two greek words" to defend our case, then I might have some hope that the other side is willing to see truth when the truth has been proven. As it stands now...it's useless.

Unclear on the point being made.

BondiHarry has just suggested we can ignore Jesus speaking of the fire which the damned will face as irrelevent when discussing the same fire the "three" Saint John's vision has suffering in torment forever. The same fire Saint John then has all the damned facing. Jesus describes that fire the damned will as as never quenched, which is the same concept as describing a fire that will torment an individual forever and ever.
Full circle and no reason given for ignoring Jesus's reference to that aspect of the firefire as it applies to the damned should be ignored when the same fire is also referenced by Saiint John as having the same aspect in regard to the first individuals tossed into it.

The only thing we are offered is that it is "scant" evidence and irrelevant. We are not told why one should take a stand against Saint John intending to have that aspect of the lake of fire he initially describes apply to the people he has tossed there next (the damned) in light of Jesus saying something almost the same in regard to that same fire the damned will face.

And that is saying more than just the playground equivalent of "notitisnot" it is asking how that view of scriptures could possibly be lseen as ogically consistent.

 

[Timothew]

Unclear on the point being made.

That's too bad.

Gradyll claimed that annihilationists base their case on 2 greek words and nothing else. I said that's not true. Gradyll said it was true. I offered proof that we use more than just 2 greek words to prove our case. Gradyll said, no you don't, and I disagree all the proof you offer. I asked, how can you disagree with proof that you say I haven't offered? Then I quoted one of my early posts that was not based on just 2 greek words, thus proving beyond doubt that my case is not just based on 2 greek words. But proof is irrelevant to a person who doesn't want to see the truth. So I quit.
Is it clear to you now?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That's too bad.

Gradyll claimed that annihilationists base their case on 2 greek words and nothing else. I said that's not true. Gradyll said it was true. I offered proof that we use more than just 2 greek words to prove our case. Gradyll said, no you don't, and I disagree all the proof you offer. I asked, how can you disagree with proof that you say I haven't offered? Then I quoted one of my early posts that was not based on just 2 greek words, thus proving beyond doubt that my case is not just based on 2 greek words. But proof is irrelevant to a person who doesn't want to see the truth. So I quit.
Is it clear to you now?

Well that was not clear from the first post, which started with taking a snip from his response to someone else out of context.
Sorry to see you go.

 

[BondiHarry]

Unclear on the point being made.

BondiHarry has just suggested we can ignore Jesus speaking of the fire which the damned will face as irrelevent when discussing the same fire the "three" Saint John's vision has suffering in torment forever.

Not at all. God can use fire to destroy or torment or not harm at all as He wills. Just think of Daniel 3 and Shadrach, Jeshach and Abednego who were put into the fiery furnace and no harm came to them but those who threw them into the furnace perished because of the great heat of the fire in the furnace.

The same fire Saint John then has all the damned facing. Jesus describes that fire the damned will as as never quenched, which is the same concept as describing a fire that will torment an individual forever and ever.

God tells us three will suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire ... and those wicked men other than the false prophet will die.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Again, saying I deny what God says does not make that claim true, nor does it mean saying it has made some kind of rebuttal.

As Jesus clearly says the damned will face a fire that is never quenched am unclear on how that fire is not the same fire Saint John has the damned facing. There would be no point in telling us the damned face something never ending if those people He describes as facing it end. It would simply be a fire that ends them. That is not what He is quoted as saying.

Sorry if I cannot see that as irrelevent or ignore it because it is "scant" evidence. Evidence is evidence and I would think to ignore evidence in Scripture, even if I felt it was "scant" would be wrong.

 

[BondiHarry]

Again, saying I deny what God says does not make that claim true, nor does it mean saying it has made some kind of rebuttal.

Okay, so answer these questions.

The wages of sin is WHAT?
The soul that sinneth does WHAT?
We are to fear the one who can do WHAT to body and soul in hell?

And of course the answers to these questions are that the wages of sin is death, the soul that sinneth dies and we are to fear the one who can destroy body and soul in hell yet you conclude that lost men are tormented for eternity ... I'm not following your logic.

As Jesus clearly says the damned will face a fire that is never quenched am unclear on how that fire is not the same fire Saint John has the damned facing.

It is the same fire and it never will be quenched. I'm not getting how you don't understand that the lake of fire will be used both to torment the devil, the beast and the false prophet for eternity AND destroy the wicked among men. Why do you think it can't do both?

There would be no point in telling us the damned face something never ending if those people He describes as facing it end. It would simply be a fire that ends them. That is not what He is quoted as saying.

How can the devil, the beast and the false prophet be tormented for eternity in the lake of fire if it has an ending?

Sorry if I cannot see that as irrelevent or ignore it because it is "scant" evidence. Evidence is evidence and I would think to ignore evidence in Scripture, even if I felt it was "scant" would be wrong.

We consider ALL scripture that applies to a given area of discussion. You seem to have a major problem understanding that although the lake of fire is eternal it can still be used to destroy OR torment as God desires.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Okay, so answer these questions.

The wages of sin is WHAT?
The soul that sinneth does WHAT?
We are to fear the one who can do WHAT to body and soul in hell?

And of course the answers to these questions are that the wages of sin is death, the soul that sinneth dies and we are to fear the one who can destroy body and soul in hell yet you conclude that lost men are tormented for eternity ... I'm not following your logic.

The only part not be followed is that there are worst things than being annihilated, things which can also be called destruction and death does represent a sepperation from the lliving/Living. That is true in both our views. So why it would be difficult to follow that logically am not sure.

It is the same fire and it never will be quenched. I'm not getting how you don't understand that the lake of fire will be used both to torment the devil, the beast and the false prophet for eternity AND destroy the wicked among men. Why do you think it can't do both?

If I had such a preconceived conviction that required me to ignore scriptural evidence to the contrary in order to support that conviction I would agree also that it must do both.

My point was I do not see how Jesus saying an element of what the damned face, the same thing Saint John says faces the "three", should be ignored just because Saint John does not repeat that element when he records seeing the damned receive the exact same fate as the "three".

How can the devil, the beast and the false prophet be tormented for eternity in the lake of fire if it has an ending?

Well that would be my point. If my punishment is to poked with a needle until dead and my executioner is said to continue poking my corpse for all eternity, why would anyone describe my punishment as a poking that never ends?

If Jesus says the damned face something whcih does not end I would think Him to speaking of something that never ends for them. He was not talking of the fate of the Devil. He did not say burns the humans who are damned up but never ends because I am putting three other indiividuals there and it never ends for those three.

Saint John indicates he saw the damned being thrown into a fire that he just indicated torments those three forever. He just painted that picture of what happens to those Judged for the opposite fate of the joy of Heaven. If he did not mean to be understood that the damned receive the same fate, why have them meeting the same end without indicating for them that it does end.

Perhaps someone forgot to tell John that it is ok to ignore scant evidence to the contrary in Scripture, even if Jesus said it would never end for the damned facing it.

We consider ALL scripture that applies to a given area of discussion. You seem to have a major problem understanding that although the lake of fire is eternal it can still be used to destroy OR torment as God desires.

I never implied God could not do as he desires. I simply asked how to see Jesus speaking of the damned, and the damned only indicating they face a fate which has a never ending aspect while claiming that aspect does not apply to the ones He speaks of.

Saying someone's worm never dies and the fire is never quenched is a pointless depcition in regards to telling someone they should be afraid of something if one believes that same thing causes that person to cease to be. Why would/should they fear the fact that whatever worm/fire represents never ends if they are no longer "around"?

It is the same as describing a punishment in this life as continuing after a person is dead, it makes no sense. I suppose the body could be preserved in such a way to stop decomp and then we could hang the person every day for eternity. But telling someone they should fear being hung to death every day for eternity seems rather pointless as they would only care about and be afraid of facing the first time. The fact it continues would be irrelevent to them. Even if it were true that was the punishment, adding the fact the hanging never ends would not be something regarding that fate that I would tell someone they should fear. It is a detail that would have no effect on them.

 

[he-man]

And of course the answers to these questions are that the wages of sin is death, the soul that sinneth dies and we are to fear the one who can destroy body and soul in hell yet you conclude that lost men are tormented for eternity ... I'm not following your logic.It is the same fire and it never will be quenched. I'm not getting how you don't understand that the lake of fire will be used both to torment the devil, the beast and the false prophet for eternity AND destroy the wicked among men. Why do you think it can't do both?

Both? That is who the wicked are, the beast of men and the accusers or false prophets, and the Priests just like they are today in most Churches.

Bishop Law (f 1789) maintained that spiritual death is an entire destruction—an annihilation of the soul, the resolution of the body into its original dust.(Theory of Religion, 7th ed. p. 339-351).

Archbishop Whately is probably to be enrolled among the modern supporters of annihilationism in England, In his work on the future state he argues the opinion fully. He says, that in the passages in which the words " death," " destruction," " eternal death," are spoken of, these words may be taken as signifying literal death, real destruction, an utter end; The "unquenchable fire" may mean that fire which utterly consumes what it is burning upon.

The " worm that"dieth not" may be that which entirely devours what it feeds upon. " Everlasting perdition" may mean that perishing from which the soul cannot be saved, but it will be final annihilating.

The passage, " The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death," thinking that there may be a "final extinction of evil and suffering by the total destruction of such as are incapable of good and happiness. If eternal death means final death—death without any revival—we can understand what is meant by death being destroyed, viz., that none henceforth are to be subjected to it" (p. 184).

And Whately concludes this scriptural argument by this sentence : " On the whole, therefore, I think we are not warranted in concluding, as some have done positively concerning the question, as to make it a point of Christian faith to interpret figuratively the 'death and destruction' spoken of in the Scriptures as the doom of the condemned, and to insist on the belief that they are to be left alive forevermore."

The revival of annihilationism in this country seems to have begun with the publication of Six Sermons on the Question "Are the wicked immortal?" by George Storrs, answered by Prof. Post, in the New Englander, Feb. and May, 1856. One of the most respectable advocates of the doctrine, and a very modafter the last judgment. When Christ shall come to erate one, is Dr. McCulloh, of Baltimore, in his Ariabe glorified in his saints then shall the wicked be destroyed. Everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, the wicked will be utterly destroyed by a dreadful visitation of Almighty wrath. The ablest work produced on the side of destruction is Hudson, Debt and Grace, as related to the Doctrine of a Future State (Boston, 1857, 12mo).

This work "denies that the natural immortality of the soul is ever expressed or even implied in the Bible, On the contrary, life and immortality are brought in fulness by the Redeemer to the redeemed alone ; while all others are not only naturally mortal, soul and body, at death, but, after that mortal suspension of positive existence, are raised at the final resurrection and cast into the lake of fire as the second death.

It denies that endless conscious suffering is ever affirmed to be the nature of future penalty ; but affirms that the penalty consists in privation, and in its perpetuity consists of the eternity of future punishment. The class of Scripture terms by which eternal misery is usually understood to be designated, such as condemnation, damnation, perdition, destruction, the writer understands to mean of such terms as death, destruction, etc. express the painful and penal consignment of the entire nature to the disorganization and complete nonexistence from which it sprung" (Meth. Quar. Rev.Jan. 1858, p. 149).

 

[dollarsbill]

No, you would need to read the whole passage in the NT. But you say this word has nothing to do with annihilation, as if burning something completely up has nothing to do with annihilation. What word would you use to describe chaff that has been completely burned up?

None of these say "burned up".

Matthew 13:30 (ASV)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:30 (AMP)
30 Let them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will say to the reapers, Gather the darnel first and bind it in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my granary.

Matthew 13:30 (NIV)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"

Matthew 13:30 (NKJV)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn." ' "

Matthew 13:30 (NRSV)
30 Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Matthew 13:30 (YLT)
30 suffer both to grow together till the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the darnel, and bind it in bundles, to burn it, and the wheat gather up into my storehouse.'

Matthew 13:30 (BBE)
30 Let them come up together till the getting in of the grain; and then I will say to the workers, Take up first the evil plants, and put them together for burning: but put the grain into my store-house.

Matthew 13:30 (Darby)
30 Suffer both to grow together unto the harvest, and in time of the harvest I will say to the harvestmen, Gather first the darnel, and bind it into bundles to burn it; but the wheat bring together into my granary.

Matthew 13:30 (ESV)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Matthew 13:30 (GW)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. When the grain is cut, I will tell the workers to gather the weeds first and tie them in bundles to be burned. But I'll have them bring the wheat into my barn.'”

Matthew 13:30 (HCSB)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At harvest time I’ll tell the reapers: Gather the weeds first and tie them in bundles to burn them, but store the wheat in my barn.’”

Matthew 13:30 (NLT)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds, tie them into bundles, and burn them, and to put the wheat in the barn.’”

Matthew 13:30 (TLB)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and I will tell the reapers to sort out the thistles and burn them, and put the wheat in the barn.’ "

Matthew 13:30 (MontgomeryNT)
30 "Let both grow together until harvest, and at harvest-time I will tell the reapers to first gather the tares and tie them in bundles for burning, but to bring all the wheat into my store house.’"

Matthew 13:30 (KJV)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:30 (MaceNT)
30 up the wheat with them. let both grow together till the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will thus direct the reapers, first of all gather the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: then lodge the wheat in my barn.

Matthew 13:30 (WesleyNT)
30 Suffer both to grow together till the harvest; and at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the darnel, and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:30 (WEY)
30 Leave both to grow together until the harvest, and at harvest-time I will direct the reapers, Collect the darnel first, and make it up into bundles to burn it, but bring all the wheat into my barn.' "

 

[dollarsbill]

The wages of sin is WHAT?

Spiritual death, physical death and 'the second death'. They will still be alive after the second death. So then, death does not mean cease to exist.

 

[Timothew]

None of these say "burned up".

Matthew 13:30 (ASV)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:30 (AMP)
30 Let them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will say to the reapers, Gather the darnel first and bind it in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my granary.

Matthew 13:30 (NIV)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"

Matthew 13:30 (NKJV)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn." ' "

Matthew 13:30 (NRSV)
30 Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Matthew 13:30 (YLT)
30 suffer both to grow together till the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the darnel, and bind it in bundles, to burn it, and the wheat gather up into my storehouse.'

Matthew 13:30 (BBE)
30 Let them come up together till the getting in of the grain; and then I will say to the workers, Take up first the evil plants, and put them together for burning: but put the grain into my store-house.

Matthew 13:30 (Darby)
30 Suffer both to grow together unto the harvest, and in time of the harvest I will say to the harvestmen, Gather first the darnel, and bind it into bundles to burn it; but the wheat bring together into my granary.

Matthew 13:30 (ESV)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Matthew 13:30 (GW)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. When the grain is cut, I will tell the workers to gather the weeds first and tie them in bundles to be burned. But I'll have them bring the wheat into my barn.'”

Matthew 13:30 (HCSB)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At harvest time I’ll tell the reapers: Gather the weeds first and tie them in bundles to burn them, but store the wheat in my barn.’”

Matthew 13:30 (NLT)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds, tie them into bundles, and burn them, and to put the wheat in the barn.’”

Matthew 13:30 (TLB)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and I will tell the reapers to sort out the thistles and burn them, and put the wheat in the barn.’ "

Matthew 13:30 (MontgomeryNT)
30 "Let both grow together until harvest, and at harvest-time I will tell the reapers to first gather the tares and tie them in bundles for burning, but to bring all the wheat into my store house.’"

Matthew 13:30 (KJV)
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:30 (MaceNT)
30 up the wheat with them. let both grow together till the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will thus direct the reapers, first of all gather the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: then lodge the wheat in my barn.

Matthew 13:30 (WesleyNT)
30 Suffer both to grow together till the harvest; and at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the darnel, and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:30 (WEY)
30 Leave both to grow together until the harvest, and at harvest-time I will direct the reapers, Collect the darnel first, and make it up into bundles to burn it, but bring all the wheat into my barn.' "

I disagree with this post for the following reasons
Matthew 13:30
Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn". NASB

αφετε συναυξανεσθαι αμφοτερα μεχρι του θερισμου και εν τω καιρω του θερισμου ερω τοις θερισταις συλλεξατε πρωτον τα ζιζανια και δησατε αυτα εις δεσμας προς το κατακαυσαι αυτα τον δε σιτον συναγαγετε εις την αποθηκην μου

Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned (κατακαυσα&#953 then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn. NIV

katakaió: to burn up​

Original Word: κατακαίω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: katakaió
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ak-ah'-ee-o)
Short Definition: I burn up, consume entirely
Definition: I burn up, consume entirely.

 

[johnkw]

Again, YOUR personal translation does not overrule our MANY consistent English Bibles.

I don't have a personal translation.

I think the Greek should overrule the consistent English Bibles, no matter how many there are.

 

[dollarsbill]

I don't have a personal translation.

I think the Greek should overrule the consistent English Bibles, no matter how many there are.

Contradiction.