Annihilationism

[expos4ever]

The problem with this argument is the NT was not written in our time and it was not written in English. The NT writers did not use the English words "annihilation,""perish" or "destroy" so it is irrelevant how modern readers understand those English words.

Strawman. I provided the argument about 21st centrury English usage to make the general point that cultural/linguistic context matters, and then I fully acknowledged that what really matters is how the relevant words were used in the culture in which the relevant Bible texts were written. I then clearly conceded that I was not qualified to answer that question, although I did offer my speculation (and clearly identified it as speculation).

 

[Der Alte]

Can you please cite your source, and specifically can you cite an authoritative source that supports your assertion that the primary meaning is "away" in the physical distance sense upon which depends your claim that "Something/someone which no longer exists cannot be away from anything"

That was from Strong's, but here is the definition from Thayer and Bauer, arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon.

G575 ἀπό apo
Thayer Definition:
1) of separation
1a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place, i.e. of departing, of fleeing,
1b) of separation of a part from the whole
1b1) where of a whole some part is taken
1c) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
1d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
1d1) physical, of distance of place
1d2) temporal, of distance of time
2) of origin
2a) of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken
2b) of origin of a cause
BAG ἀπό ( Hom. +; inscr. , pap. , LXX , Philo , Joseph. , Test. 12 Patr. ) prep. w. gen. (see the lit. on ajnav, beg ., also for ajpov : KDieterich, IndogF 24, ’09, 93-158). Basic mng. separation from someone or someth. , fr. which the other mngs. have developed. In the NT it has encroached on the domain of Att. ejk, uJpov, parav, and the gen. of separation; cf. Mlt. 102; 246; Mlt.-Turner 258 f.
I. Of place, exclusively, from, away from.
1. w. all verbs denoting motion, esp. those compounded w. ajpov, ajpavgesqai, ajpallavssesqai, ajpelauvnein, ajpevrcesqai, avpoluvesqai, ajpoplana`sqai, ajpocwrei`n, ajpocwrivzesqai ; but also
w. diasth`nai, dievrcesqai, ejkdhmei`n, ejkkinei`n, ejkplei`n, ejkporeuvesqai, ejxevrcesqai, ejxwqei`n, metabaivnein, metativqesqai, nosfivzein, paragivnesqai, plana`sqai, poreuvesqai, uJpavgein, uJpostrevfein, feuvgein ; s. the entries in question.
Link to:BAG Greek Lexicon online
Note: The full definition is a few pages long so I have only listed the primary meaning.​

I found one definition that did not identify a "primary" meaning, but provided the following definition among others:
of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
Clearly, this particular definition does not sustain StanJ's argument that "away from" cannot work with annihilation.

We got a little problem here you asked for my source but you have not idenitified your source. Your response is known as cherry-picking. Find a source which appears to support your argument and ignore everything that does not. The primary meaning of a word is the first one listed. The problem is the definition you posted does not help you.
....."separation of one thing from another." In 2 Thessalonians 1:9 there is no "one thing" to be separated from God. Someone who is annihilated no longer exists that person is no longer a thing but nothing. Nothing cannot be separated from something.

 

[hedrick]

This is a wild leap of logic that I can't follow. Please explain your reasoning vs. unsupported assertions?

Look at the text. 21:9 is pretty clearly a new vision. An angel comes and carries him away “in the spirit.” So when does the old one end? 6-8 is addressed to us, the reader, so it is not part of the future vision. So it seems reasonable to take “write this” as ending the vision.

 

[expos4ever]

That was from Strong's, but here is the definition from Thayer and Bauer, arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon......

I used the same source and identified meaning 1c.

We got a little problem here you asked for my source but you have not idenitified your source. This is known as cherry-picking.

Addressed above.

The primary meaning of a word is the first one listed.

Assuming this is true, it is almost completely irrelevant precisely because context (local and broad) is the stronger determinant of what meaning we ascribe to a word. And I maintain that the overall context of scripture is such that we are justified in taking "apo" in this text from Thessalonians in a sense that does not entail physical separation of an existing "soul". Let's be clear about something; Unlike StanJ I am not appealing solely to one of several definitions of "apo" to make my case; I acknowledge there is a meaning that has this "away from in a physical sense". But since there are other definitions available, I can legitimately counter StanJ's claim that the "definition effectively seals the deal".

Someone who is annihilated no longer exists that person no longer a thing but nothing. Nothing cannot be separated from something.

There are examples where "apo" is used in a sense that does not imply "physical away-ness". Here is one (Romans 6:7)

for he who has died is freed from sin.

 

[Colter]

I happen to agree with you, but, if I understand you correctly, you basically use this belief to cast doubt on the inerrancy of scripture. Well, a number of us have been arguing that the scriptures do not even teach eternal torment in the first place. Your reasons for rejecting the full authority of the Bible are no doubt best known to you. However, I submit you cannot really use the "The Bible cannot be authoritative since it teaches eternal torment" argument to bolster your position.

I've never believed in the inerrancy of the scripture, only God, the Living Word, is inerrant. Inerrancy is a creation of the priest class who produced the writings to begin with. The kind of people who were capable of rejecting the Son of God were certainly capable of writings an exaggerated, self important, chosen people version of their own history wherein the atrocities they committed were sanctioned by God! The fault lies with us humans making a fetish or idol out of words and histories without making allowance for the limitations of man. A tragic example of what I'm talking about is the case of the Jews strict adherence to the scripture based expectations of a Jewish Messiah based on their Bible.



As for the debate between Annihilationism and Hell, eternal torment, a lake of fire etc., both can be found in the writings of the holy men of past ages. Just like the scripture says other conflicting things about the same events in other areas, one can find support for both eternal Hell/torment and eternal death in the Bible.

 

[StanJ]

Here is the argument again; please deal with it this time:

Asked and answered.

 

[StanJ]

Unclear. Let's review. You stated:


I replied with:


How, and please be precise, does your statement immediately above respond to the fact that, at least in respect to me, you have incorrectly claimed the annihilationist believes that "a man is destroyed 100% at death"?

First of all you've screwed up the quoting here and second just look up the definition of the word annihilationist.

 

[StanJ]

Ok, let's look at the first item of evidence you provide to the effect that "Perish and death only ever relate to the body not the spirit".

Revelation 20:10:

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and [f]brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever

Where do the words "perish" or "death", or any of their cognates appears in this text? I agree this is a challenging text for the annihilationist, but I do not see how this text supports your claim that the very concepts of perish and death are limited in application to the body and do not apply to the spirit.

What did Jesus say in Matthew 25:41 & 46?

 

[StanJ]

Indeed, but not the point - StanJ erroneously claimed that annihilationists believe that the person is totally destroyed at death.


Agree, but I have addressed this in detail. You (and others) appear to be arguing thus:

1. The concept of "apolummi" is often used in a sense in which the thing that is "apolummi-ed" is not annihilated;
2. This is powerful evidence that when "apolummi" is applied to the human person, annihilation is not intended.

Here is the problem: I can easily counter-argue that when people talk about "X being destroyed" they really mean "the essential feature or attribute of X is lost". How could it be otherwise? It seems absurd to suggest that "X" perished and yet the central, defining, quintessential feature of X lives merrily on!

Obviously this is the case with perishing food or sundered wineskins:

1. Perished food entirely loses its essential feature - its food value;
2. A torn / cracked wineskin entirely loses its essential feature - its ability to store liquid.

Obviously, neither the food nor the wineskin is annihilated!

Now to the human person. What is the most essential feature of the human person, the thing that would be lost if that person is "destroyed" or "perishes"?

Well, perhaps that is perhaps a hard question to answer. But of one thing we can be sure - it seems manifestly incoherent to apply the concept of "destroy" or "perish" to a human person, in the context of their physical death, and to imagine that their rich inner life of mental experience is not at least part of what perishes (in the sense of being lost).

That would be like saying "My computer died/perished, yet it continues to process data".
.

And this would be circular reasoning, it starts and ends at a predetermined point based on your positional bias.

 

[expos4ever]

Asked and answered.

No. You did not answer - you simply questioned my competence/methods and at no time actually dealt with the details for my argument. Here it is again:

The fact that this text allows the interpretation you confer to it does not mean that other interpretations are not available as we;;. To be non-existent certainly seems like being "away from" the presence of the Lord to me. Besides, the Greek word that is translated as "away from" is "apo", and that word does not always have the "away" implication that I believe your argument rests on. Sometimes it is translated simply as "from".

The point is that I suggest your argument get most of its force from the implication that the lost are banished awayfrom the presence of God; indeed that is at least suggestive that they are in another place. However, as stated, the word "apo" is not always translated with the "away" bit thrown in; sometimes it is just "from". And without the "away", I see no reason to pick between your interpretation and the view that, as annihilated persons, these people are indeed 'absent' from God's presence.

 

[expos4ever]

First of all you've screwed up the quoting here and second just look up the definition of the word annihilationist.

Your statement was this:

According to annihilationists, a man is destroyed 100% at death.

All I am saying is that while I believe the lost are ultimately annihilated, I do not believe they are annihilated at death. That is my position, regardless of what a dictionary has to say about the term "annihilationist".

 

[expos4ever]

Just like the scripture says other conflicting things about the same events in other areas, one can find support for both eternal Hell/torment and eternal death in the Bible.

Well, that is what are debating.

 

[expos4ever]

What did Jesus say in Matthew 25:41 & 46?

All right, we have to do this the hard way.

Here is what you originally posted:

Perish and death only ever relate to the body not the spirit. Rev 20:10 clearly shows this to be factual, as does Matthew 25:41 and Jude :13

I have already shown that Revelation 20:10 does not even mention "death" or "perishing.

And the same is true of Matthew 25:41 and 46.

And the same for the Jude text.

None of these texts support your assertion that "Perish and death only ever relate to the body not the spirit."

 

[expos4ever]

Deleted own post.

 

[expos4ever]

And this would be circular reasoning, it starts and ends at a predetermined point based on your positional bias.

It is not circular reasoning.

While I have indeed made an assumption, I did not use that assumption in a circular manner. My assumption was that when people use the concept of "perish" or "destroy" they intend to communicate that the essential or most important feature of the things that perishes, or is destroyed, is lost or eliminated. If I had used this assumption in an argument that purported to show that "when people use the concept of "perish" or "destroy" to communicate that the essential or most important feature of the things that perishes, or is destroyed, is lost or eliminated", that would be circular reasoning - to assume the very thing one is trying to make a case for.

I did not do this; instead I showed that if my assumption is correct, to then assert that a perishing human retains consciousness after death strongly violates that assumption. Granted, the whole argument rests on an assumption. But that does not make it a specifically circular argument.

 

[Der Alte]

Look at the text. 21:9 is pretty clearly a new vision. An angel comes and carries him away “in the spirit.” So when does the old one end? 6-8 is addressed to us, the reader, so it is not part of the future vision. So it seems reasonable to take “write this” as ending the vision.

I agree Revelation 21:8 is not part of the scenario which begins in vs. 9 it is part of the preceding. Verse 8, is before vs. 9 but after vs. 4.

Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: [Γράψον/graphon] for these words are true and faithful. ​

.

John Gill Commentary on the Whole Bible ​

Rev 21:5 And he said unto me, write; what John had seen, and Christ had said, and was about to say; and particularly what concerned the renewing of all things, the whole being a matter of moment, and worth noting and taking down in writing, that it might be on record for saints to read, and receive comfort and advantage from; and to denote the certainty of it, as well as to show that it was a clear point, and to be known, whereas, when it was otherwise, he was bid not to write; see Rev_1:11.

Γράψον is an Aorist, Active, Imperative​

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translation​

 

[Der Alte]

I used the same source and identified meaning 1c.
Addressed above.
Assuming this is true, it is almost completely irrelevant precisely because context (local and broad) is the stronger determinant of what meaning we ascribe to a word. And I maintain that the overall context of scripture is such that we are justified in taking "apo" in this text from Thessalonians in a sense that does not entail physical separation of an existing "soul".

It is not enough to say "the overall context of scripture is such that we are justified in taking 'apo' in this text from Thessalonians in a sense that does not entail physical separation of an existing 'soul'" you must demonstrate how that is true.

Let's be clear about something; Unlike StanJ I am not appealing solely to one of several definitions of "apo" to make my case; I acknowledge there is a meaning that has this "away from in a physical sense". But since there are other definitions available, I can legitimately counter StanJ's claim that the "definition effectively seals the deal".
There are examples where "apo" is used in a sense that does not imply "physical away-ness". Here is one (Romans 6:7)
for he who has died is freed from sin.

Remember how we were discussing "context" above? The context here is NOT physical death but being "dead to sin" yet physically alive.

Rom 6:7-11
(7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.
(8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
(9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
(10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
(11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.​

 

[Colter]

Well, that is what are debating.

People get their ideas of Hell from a common reading of the Bible. Its ok not believe it, but have the courage to acknowledge it's there. Its when we act as if there has been a misunderstanding for thousands of years by billions of people that things go off the rails.

 

[StanJ]

All right, we have to do this the hard way.
Here is what you originally posted:
I have already shown that Revelation 20:10 does not even mention "death" or "perishing.
And the same is true of Matthew 25:41 and 46.
And the same for the Jude text.
None of these texts support your assertion that "Perish and death only ever relate to the body not the spirit."

So then Jesus must have been telling the truth in Matthew 25:46 when he said they will endure Eternal punishment, and therefore won't be destroyed as you have continually asserted in the past on this thread. So what made you change your mind?

 

[StanJ]

People get their ideas of Hell from a common reading of the Bible. Its ok not believe it, but have the courage to acknowledge it's there. Its when we act as if there has been a misunderstanding for thousands of years by billions of people that things go off the rails.

Is that the same kind of Courage that Satan used to say he was better than God?