If endless conscious torments were true, is God a monster?

[Marvin Knox]

Rev.14:9-11 & 20:10 & forever & ever a deceptive translation:

Is this also a deceptive translation?

"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel 12:9

 

[ClementofA]

Is this also a deceptive translation?

"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel 12:9

Marvin,

Yes & that should be verse 2 of Dan.12.

The context suggests the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), since v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".

2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life and these to reproach for eonian repulsion." 3 The intelligent shall warn as the warning of the atmosphere, and those justifying many are as the stars for the eon and further." (Dan.12:2-3, CLV)

The Hebrew word for eonian (v.2) & eon (v.3) above is OLAM which is often used of limited durations in the OT. In verse 3 of Dan. 12 are the words "OLAM and further" showing an example of its finite duration in the very next words after Dan. 12:2. Thus, in context, the OLAM occurences in v.2 could also both be understood as being of finite duration.

Additionally, the early church accepted the following Greek OT translation of the Hebrew OT of Dan. 12:3:

καὶ οἱ συνιέντες ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι[and further]

Notice the words at the end saying KAI ETI, meaning "and further" or "and still" or "and yet" & other synonyms.

eti: "still, yet...Definition: (a) of time: still, yet, even now, (b) of degree: even, further, more, in addition." Strong's Greek: 2089. ἔτι (eti) -- still, yet

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι means "into the ages and further" as a translation of the Hebrew L'OLAM WA ED[5703, AD]

So this early church Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures agrees with the above translation (& those below) using the words "and further", "futurity", "beyond" & similarly.

3 and·the·ones-being-intelligent they-shall- warn as·warning-of the·atmosphere and·ones-leading-to-righteousness-of the·many-ones as·the·stars for·eon and·futurity (Dan. 12:3, Hebrew-English Interlinear)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan12.pdf

2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence;
3 and, they who make wise, shall shine like the shining of the expanse,—and, they who bring the many to righteousness, like the stars to times age-abiding and beyond. (Dan. 12:2-3, Rotherham)

2 And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches—to abhorrence age-during.
3 And those teaching do shine as the brightness of the expanse, and those justifying the multitude as stars to the age and for ever*. (Dan. 12:2-3, YLT)
* for "for ever" Young of YLT says substitute "age during" everywhere in Scripture: http://heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/bibles/ylt.pdf

Dan. 12:2-3 was the only Biblical reference to "life OLAM" Jesus listeners had to understand His meaning of "life aionios"(life OLAM) in Mt.25:46 & elsewhere in the New Testament.

Verse 3 speaks of those justifying "many". Who are these "many"? The same "many" of verse 2, including those who were resurrected to "shame" & "contempt"? IOW the passage affirms universalism?

God bless.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[ClementofA]

He can't show you a Scripture saying that, because there isn't one (but I think you knew that already).
What he will do is state that it is logical for God to do so.
His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
So we can just toss human logic out.

Doug,

His thoughts are revealed in Scripture. Like "love your enemies". Not roast them alive in fire forever.

This includes everyone in the universe, including the dead and demons:

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour,
and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

John speaks of "every creature" & to emphasize this again he repeats "and all that are in them":

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour,
and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

This worship (v.13) uses the same worshipful words as the redeemed of vs 9-10 use in v.12:

12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

All this being in the context of salvation - "the Lamb that was slain" (v.12 & 13).

For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

 

[Marvin Knox]

........And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour,
and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever...............John speaks of "every creature" & to emphasize this again he repeats "and all that are in them":

This includes everyone in the universe, including the dead and demons:

Exactly - even the demons.

Bending the knee to God and acknowledging that He is righteous and holy does not equate to a demon accepting Jesus Christ as his Savior and getting saved.

Neither does it equate to humans in the lake of fire eventually getting saved either.

.......Dan. 12:2-3 was the only Biblical reference to "life OLAM" Jesus listeners had to understand His meaning of "life aionios"(life OLAM) in Mt.25:46 & elsewhere in the New Testament................

In Ephesians 2:7 God talks about displaying His grace in the ages to come.

I believe He will display His judgment in the same way - i.e. in the ages to come.

You have selectively chosen to stress the idea of temporary punishment simply because it fits with your theology.

I choose to think of the use of same Hebrew and Greek words as having to do with many "ages" to come - ages not necessarily ending as a complete group. But each age running consecutively one after the other.

That is, in my opinion, an equally valid interpretation and one which fits better with the rest of scripture.

How ages will play out we don't know right now. Eye has not seen and all that.

But I believe that everything which happens in this age is for the purpose of displaying one or some of God's many attributes throughout the ages - all without the necessity to play out this fiasco of an age again and again - it being done once for all.

I see that studying and arguing this particular issue is one of the main issues in your life and that you have cut and pasted it more than anyone here can complete with or even desires to do.

I hope you are right about Hell not being eternal. But I don't think you are according to the scriptures taken as a whole and not selectively applied.

Almost undoubtedly you will be starting other threads which will allow you to cut and paste all of your gleaned material again and again. I'll try to resist the impulse to chime in on any of them. I'm pretty well burned out on this and obviously you are just getting started with presenting your pet doctrine.

God Bless You.

 

[Oldmantook]

RULE 3: THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION

III. The third rule of interpretation is as follows:



WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC AND FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.

Jesus in the LOF in no way makes common sense.
Common sense interpretation of"In His presence" means that each party can see the other.
If one party is in a lake, and one party is on the shore, they are still in each others presence.
That is just plain common sense.
No violation of the golden rule of hermeneutics.
Just a violation/destruction of your doctrine of Jesus being inside the LOF.

So now you finally admit Jesus is in the LOF?? i already wrote that each party can see the other. You just wrote that "common sense interpretation of in his presence means that each party can see the other.

 

[Oldmantook]

I believe all of mankind (and indeed everything else) is reconciled to God either in the Lamb or the Lion depending on their salvation status.

So exactly how does that work out in reality? Unsaved souls go to the lake of fire where they are tormented forever. They are reconciled positionally but for all practical purposes they are in reality not reconciled since they are still being punished for their sins are they not? How can you possibly claim that they too are reconciled whey they are being punished eternally?

It says that God has already "reconciled" the world to Himself not counting our sins against us. But it is still necessary that we are reconciled to Him by faith

Whatever "reconciled" means, it is obvious that people can be and are reconciled to God by God and still be lost - even for eternity as I see it.

Sorry but your definition is a contradiction in terms. Reconciliation can only be accomplished via faith. The lost are those who obviously don't have saving faith. Therefore the lost can only be reconciled to God upon saving faith. Therefore it is impossible for the lost to be "reconciled to God and still be lost."

Same response as above. He already has achieved that purposed reconciliation and it has happened for lost and saved alike.

Obviously a person can have been reconciled by God to Himself and still not be justified before Him because they lack faith in that work of Christ on their behalf.

By the way - let's be clear on one thing. I do not know exactly how these things will play out in eternity and neither does anyone else.

My only goal in suggesting things such as I am is to show that there are many ways these things could play out and they do not have to teach universal salvation as you guys suggest they do.

Likewise it is impossible for a person to be justified before God and still be unreconciled. A person is justified upon saving faith. The lost do not possess saving faith therefore they cannot be justified.

It appears that your logic is trying to fit square pegs into circles in order to support your view. I agree that God has already reconciled the world to himself. I also agree that faith is requisite for reconciliation to occur. But for you to claim or even just speculate that the lost without saving faith are reconciled yet suffer eternally to me, doesn't make sense.
"and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
In order for me to accept your premise, I would have to believe that those who end up in the LOF will be in a state of peace instead of eternal torment. I don't see any support for your notion anywhere in the entirety of Scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Don't think so.

Let's ask a few.

@Root of Jesse @Philip_B @ArmyMatt

I don't think I'm a universalist, nor is my "RC" Church. What we believe is that Jesus created one Church in Matthew 16:18-20, that His Church is universal.

 

[2tim_215]

Matthew 7:1-5(KJV) Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

James 4:11-12(KJV) Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Romans 14:1-23(KJV) Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[Doug Melven]

So now you finally admit Jesus is in the LOF?? i already wrote that each party can see the other. You just wrote that "common sense interpretation of in his presence means that each party can see the other.

Where did you get the idea that I admitted Jesus is in the LOF?
Jesus does not have to be in the LOF so those in the LOF can be in His presence.
As I said before, one can be in a lake and another outside that same lake and they can still be in each others presence.

So exactly how does that work out in reality? Unsaved souls go to the lake of fire where they are tormented forever. They are reconciled positionally but for all practical purposes they are in reality not reconciled since they are still being punished for their sins are they not? How can you possibly claim that they too are reconciled whey they are being punished eternally?

Reconciliation and justification are not the same things.
God did the reconciling through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This is the Gospel. The Gospel must be received by faith to be of any profit. Romans 1:16, Hebrews 4:2

Sorry but your definition is a contradiction in terms. Reconciliation can only be accomplished via faith. The lost are those who obviously don't have saving faith. Therefore the lost can only be reconciled to God upon saving faith. Therefore it is impossible for the lost to be "reconciled to God and still be lost."

The rest of this statement is true. What I put in bold is not in any way shape or form a reasonable conclusion.

Likewise it is impossible for a person to be justified before God and still be unreconciled. A person is justified upon saving faith. The lost do not possess saving faith therefore they cannot be justified.

Finally the truth. And the Good News is they can repent and believe.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So exactly how does that work out in reality? Unsaved souls go to the lake of fire where they are tormented forever. They are reconciled positionally but for all practical purposes they are in reality not reconciled since they are still being punished for their sins are they not? How can you possibly claim that they too are reconciled whey they are being punished eternally?

The same way the elect can be chosen before the foundation of the world by the Father to give to the Son and predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son and yet be unjustified because of their lack of faith for most of their lives even though Christ died for their sins at a point in time some 2000 years ago. The same way Christ can die for the sins of the world and many and perhaps most of the world will not be forgiven - either in this age or in the age to come.

I didn't write the book. God did. He often uses words and concepts differently than I would. So what? Mine is but to believe what He has said - reconciling difficult concepts as best I can in a systematic way - and teach accordingly.

If I don't understand something clearly because of the way God has chosen to write the book I say so. Whether I like a doctrine or not, I still do my best to believe it and act and teach accordingly after admitting that a concept is difficult to either understand or swallow.

"that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.".....

"Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ: Be reconciled to God.…" 2 Corinthians 5:19&20

I take things the way God says them. People can, apparently in God's eyes, be reconciled to Himself through the death of Christ and yet they will not be "reconciled to God" until they exercise saving faith.

Again - that's what God says and I'm just repeating it. Our logic can only go so far in understanding things from this present perspective. We should lay aside opinions such as the one you espouse and just believe God for now.

Sorry but your definition is a contradiction in terms. Reconciliation can only be accomplished via faith. The lost are those who obviously don't have saving faith. Therefore the lost can only be reconciled to God upon saving faith.

Not my definition - God's definition. Take it up with Him.

No - reconciliation from God's side can be accomplished through the work of Christ as Calvary. But, apparently from what God says, it can only be accomplished by us by faith resulting in justification.

Obviously the lost don't have saving faith - neither have they reconciled themselves to God according to the Word of God.

Therefore it is impossible for the lost to be "reconciled to God and still be lost."

Apparently not true according to the above testimony from the Word of God.

Likewise it is impossible for a person to be justified before God and still be unreconciled. A person is justified upon saving faith. The lost do not possess saving faith therefore they cannot be justified.

Again - apparently not from God's perspective - as He clearly has said.

It appears that your logic is trying to fit square pegs into circles in order to support your view. I agree that God has already reconciled the world to himself. I also agree that faith is requisite for reconciliation to occur. But for you to claim or even just speculate that the lost without saving faith are reconciled yet suffer eternally to me, doesn't make sense.

It may not make sense to us. But it is what God has taught us.

"and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

Apparently all things will be reconciled to God through Christ's sacrifice. The question seems to be whether a person sill be reconciled in Christ as a sacrificed lamb or as a glorified Lion.

As for me - I'm found seated with the Lion even now in Heaven. Others may well find themselves in Hell - in the presence of the Lamb.

In order for me to accept your premise, I would have to believe that those who end up in the LOF will be in a state of peace instead of eternal torment. I don't see any support for your notion anywhere in the entirety of Scripture.

I just laid out a way it could be so.

Again (and again) I do not claim that it is necessarily exactly the way I envision it.

But all I need do is lay out another possibility from what you claim it must be (universal salvation). In doing so - I have shown that universal salvation is not necessarily correct.

This is - in some ways - like refuting the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. They use their logic to say that if Christ died for all then all would be saved and since all will not be saved Christ must have died only for the elect.

Human logic and it seems right. But it goes too far - even if you don't believe in universal salvation.

The elect can well be enemies of God for a great portion of their lives even though Christ died for their sins some two thousand years ago. Since that is true - there is no reason to believe that the un-elect could not exist in exactly the same state for eternity.

The point is not to argue Calvinism with you (a different subject than we are pursuing here). The point is that all I have to show is a way a doctrine could be logical other than their supposed logic "proves" - and their supposed logically necessary conclusion fall flat as a necessary deduction.

IMO - the same principle holds true here with universal salvation. You guys are presenting universal salvation as the necessary conclusion of the matter and I am saying that it can well be thought of in others ways. Therefore the subject of universal salvation is either still up for debate or is perhaps even shown to be incorrect.

Long rambling post. Sorry about that.

 

[ClementofA]

One million years or two years in the fire would be a finite number of years. But they would not be nothing.

That would be like a drop of water compared to trillions X trillions X trillions of universes full of nothing but water. So, yeah, practically speaking it's nothing. Like Paul said of his sufferings, momentary & light. But for a moment. Nothing.

So there is an infinite difference between a God who will torment His creatures for eternity, & a God Who won't.

They are infinitely different in their love & in how they treat & love others.

In my view no one will be complaining for all eternity about how God mistreated them. ALL will enjoy an eternity of bliss without tears or pain. In your view how many billions will be suffering & cursing God forever?

It is hard for us to understand how a good God could create a man, place him in a garden with a tree the fruit of which would kill him, place a beautiful talking creature in the garden to tempt him to eat the fruit, punish the man for giving in, provide salvation for the man's offspring which must be accessed by faith

What's hard to understand? Volumes have been written through the past 3000 years explaining and justifying this stuff.

- then provide a Damascus road experience only for a chosen few while leaving others to flounder in their lack of faith until they die and find themselves in the fires of judgment.

But now you would have us believe that God not only passed some by with those kinds of special visits He was capable of giving them. But He now tortures the ones He failed to convince of the truth (as He did Paul for instance).

That is your make-believe story. Also it sounds like you need to do an internet search on subjects like "why doesn't God reveal himself?" and "what would happen if God showed himself" & likewise. There's a ton that has been written on that also with perfectly satisfactory explanations any normal person can understand.

The truth is that people who willfully rejected Him after receiving His light will be judged & punished for their own good. Similarly, God chastens people in this mortal life. God as the Creator of all & their Savior will miraculously raise all who died from their graves. The judgement will be for their own benefit and used in leading the unsaved to repentance and salvation.

God loving wrath's will be on those who willfully (of their own free wills) were disobedient to the light He gave them. They have no excuse. And His chastening wrath is for their own benefit, to correct them as a father disciplines his wayward child.

Having refused to write the gospel on the ceiling of those people with His finger when they reached the age of understanding - He now tortures them for a few years in the fire, preaches the gospel to them every now and then and asks if they are ready to submit to it.

See above. That again is your make-believe scenario. God has already given mankind the witnesses of creation, their consciences, the Scriptures & Christians. Then men choose to believe it or rebel.

When they will not - He leaves them in the fire for a few more years and visits them again. He does this over and over again, knowing full well that there is a "50%" chance they will submit each time He gives them the gospel.

He knows that there is no real mathematical chance that they will not believe in Christ given enough time in the fires.

This is His method of convincing billions of people that the gospel is true when He could well have appeared in a bright light and given them the gospel every year or so while they lived their lives here on earth for 70 or 80 years?????

More of the same. See above. They had the "bright light" of Jesus performing countless miracles. How did that work out? Did everyone fall down & worship Him? How about with Israel in Moses' time & all the wonders they saw? Satan, in the book of Job, appears before God. Does that "bright light" experience convert him?

Evidently people don't need such an appearance for them to believe, since today there are millions, or billions, of believers already. So what is your point? The "bright light" of the sun & stars as well as God's multifariously varied magnificent & awesome creation already appears to His created beings constantly. They already have evidence of God. And He said those who seek Him will find Him. So sinful rebellious enlightened men are without excuse.

Clean up the picture above a little if you must. I'm still not buying your version.

I'll take the one where God requires faith in His Word while living this physical life in order to be saved because it was a lack of faith in His Word which caused our horrible fall to judgment in the first place.

I'll take the one where each and everything that happens in creation (bar none) is an example of some facet of God's nature to be displayed for eternity to creatures only God knows about.

The corrective purpose He wishes to visit on those who may be tempted to rebel in the ages to come perhaps?

We haven't been told enough to know for sure how He will use it. We only know that whatever He does (by and for and in His Word) will accomplish exactly what He sent the Word forth to accomplish.

It's not an enjoyable truth to contemplate. But it is indeed scriptural.

You understand incorrectly IMO. But then we've been over that before.

You are just whistling through a graveyard. Your God is as much a monster as mine would be if I chose to judge Him while only seeing Him through a foggy glass. I don't choose to do that and neither should you.

There is an infinite difference between a God who will torment His creatures for eternity, & a God Who won't.

To illustrate the difference, it would be like a drop of water compared to trillions X trillions X trillions of universes full of nothing but water.

"What kind of God would call billions of people into being, knowing that was the unimaginably horrible outcome? The words callous, selfish, and unloving came to mind for me. Speaking of love..."

George MacDonald Saved My Life - George MacDonald Quotes - User Rated Quotes


"If God doesn't save all, is it because He can't or doesn't want to?"
"I don't believe in the good news of endless torments."
"...it doesn't say what most evangelizers of hopelessness want it to say in that regard either."
"It is false, he maintained, to translate that phrase as "everlasting punishment," introducing into the New Testament the concept found in the Islamic Quran that God is going to torture the wicked forever."
"...non-Christians are punished forever for not receiving grace, which doesn't seem very graceful to me."

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[Der Alte]

. . . Additionally, the early church accepted the following Greek OT translation of the Hebrew OT of Dan. 12:3:
καὶ οἱ συνιέντες ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι[and further]
Notice the words at the end saying KAI ETI, meaning "and further" or "and still" or "and yet" & other synonyms.
eti: "still, yet...Definition: (a) of time: still, yet, even now, (b) of degree: even, further, more, in addition." Strong's Greek: 2089. ἔτι (eti) -- still, yet . . .

Assumes that the early church had a choice and chose to accept ἔτι/eti over some other word and accepted your definition of the word "eti."

 

[ClementofA]

Assumes that the early church had a choice and chose to accept ἔτι/eti over some other word and accepted your definition of the word "eti."

Compare Strongs definition i posted.

 

[Der Alte]

Compare Strongs definition i posted.

Why? Strong's is not a lexicon, it is only a concordance which shows where a word was used and how it was translated in the KJV. Why use Strong's when you have the most up to date edition of BDAG? Cherry picking much? Deliberately finding something, anything which supports your UR assumptions/presuppositions.
Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions.
Online Bible FAQ
Q:The Online Bible Strongs is not the same as my Exhaustive Strongs Concordance. Why is that?
A: We used the Strong's system but the actual Greek and Hebrew to implement the numbers. By doing this we corrected about 15000 errors in the Strong's concordance.
http://www.onlinebible.net/faqs.html
Rebuilding Strong’s time-honored concordance from the ground up, biblical research experts John Kohlenberger and James Swanson have achieved unprecedented accuracy and clarity. Longstanding errors have been corrected. Omissions filled in. Word studies simplified. Thoroughness and ease of use have been united and maximized.
Zondervan
Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, The: 21st Century Edition

 

[Sammy-San]

Amongst the believing community, we can endlessly debate whether or not God is a monster according to the teaching of eternal torment. If this teaching be true, then the gospel message is for all practical purposes not the good news at all, as for most people it is ultimately very bad news since most of humankind ends up in the lake of fire where their punishment is torment for eternity.

We punish criminals and sentence them to the penitentiary - Medieval Latin penitentiaria - "place of penitence." We sentence criminals to correctional facilities hoping that they will be rehabilitated. Yet ironically, the sentence for most humans after death is eternal punishment without any hope of redemption. God's wrath is no doubt fulfilled in the lake of fire where Rev 14:10 states "he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." However one must ask based on God's attributes why is it that Jesus is present in the lake of fire while souls are being tormented? Is it because Jesus delights in seeing people in torment? Is it because as a righteous judge, Jesus stands in the presence of those whom he sentenced? Wouldn't that be like adding salt to a wound? Or, it it because since God is love, Jesus has compassion even on those whom are being tormented. Which picture of Jesus fits your overall view of God?

The picture of God that we evangelize the unsaved with is fear-based. If you don't believe/trust in Jesus as you Savior, you will die and end up in the fires of hell forever. How does that notion square with Ps 30:5? "For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime; weeping may stay for the night, but rejoicing comes in the morning."

No matter which view you subscribe to, there is no doubt that some people reject the gospel because the gospel that is preached is based on the fear of eternal punishment - if not for themselves but for their loved ones. I personally know of one woman whose son is a pastor and a friend of mine. She is a Buddhist and she cannot bring herself to become a Christian because that would then entail that all of her ancestors including her parents and grandparents who have died are being endlessly tormented in the fires of hell. That is the Christian proposition that she cannot bear to accept.

This is like an American trying to read an encyclopedia in Japonic writing-it makes no sense.

 

[Marvin Knox]

That would be like a drop of water compared to trillions X trillions X trillions of universes full of nothing but water. So, yeah, practically speaking it's nothing. Like Paul said of his sufferings, momentary & light. But for a moment. Nothing.

What a silly thing to say IMO. Of course everything in God’s finite creation pales the light of infinity.

But put your hand on the stove for a minute and then tell me it was nothing.

So there is an infinite difference between a God who will torment His creatures for eternity, & a God Who won't.
They are infinitely different in their love & in how they treat & love others.

The difference is His infinite holiness as compared to our offense against it. What God requires of us for our offense is His call to make since we cannot begin to understand the offense to such a God.

You are judging God by human standards. You cannot. His ways are not our ways.

What’s more you really are unwise to judge Him at all – something you seem eager to do.

In my view no one will be complaining for all eternity about how God mistreated them. …………..In your view how many billions will be suffering & cursing God forever?

It is the same in my view and God’s view as well. Every knee will bow to Him and acknowledge that His ways are right.

I have no idea how many people will be saved and how many will be lost. But none will be cursing God forever. They will undoubtedly be lamenting their sins against Him but they will not be cursing Him. They will, in all likelihoods be observing His holy nature and wishing they could be with Him if they had not sinned against His infinite holiness and then compounded it by rejecting His grace..

What's hard to understand? Volumes have been written through the past 3000 years explaining and justifying this stuff. …….. That is your make-believe story. Also it sounds like you need to do an internet search on subjects like "why doesn't God reveal himself?" and "what would happen if God showed himself" & likewise. There's a ton that has been written on that also with perfectly satisfactory explanations any normal person can understand.

Those volumes have failed to adequately explain the reasons God does some of the things He does.

The truth is that people who willfully rejected Him after receiving His light will be judged & punished for their own good….. They have no excuse. And His chastening wrath is for their own benefit, to correct them as a father disciplines his wayward child

No – They will be punished for God’s justice (as He sees fit to apply it).

God loving wrath's will be on those who willfully (of their own free wills) were disobedient to the light He gave them..

Of course everyone deserves His wrath. No one is arguing otherwise.

See above. That again is your make-believe scenario. God has already given mankind the witnesses of creation, their consciences, the Scriptures & Christians. Then men choose to believe it or rebel.

Everyone agrees about that.

More of the same. See above. They had the "bright light" of Jesus performing countless miracles. How did that work out? Did everyone fall down & worship Him? How about with Israel in Moses' time & all the wonders they saw? Satan, in the book of Job, appears before God. Does that "bright light" experience convert him?

No - not always. I have the book to read just as you do by the way.

The point is that some of them did “work out”. If there is a chance that they would work out for anyone – it is only fair (humanly speaking) that God give them that chance before resorting to periods of torture to bring them to repentance. Besides – do you really think that confession and supposed repentance won by torture would be from the heart?

If you water board me enough I’ll say and do anything to escape more of it. How much more so the fires of Hell?

Evidently people don't need such an appearance for them to believe, since today there are millions, or billions, of believers already. So what is your point? The "bright light" of the sun & stars as well as God's multifariously varied magnificent & awesome creation already appears to His created beings constantly. They already have evidence of God. And He said those who seek Him will find Him. So sinful rebellious enlightened men are without excuse.

Why do you keep repeating what everyone already agrees about?

My “point” was and is that if Paul got a special visit on the road to Damascus it seems fair (again humanly speaking) that God give the same to Adolf Hitler before resorting to the fires of Hell to bring him around.

There is an infinite difference between a God who will torment His creatures for eternity, & a God Who won't.

Yes – one is infinity more holy than the other and therefore more offended by the sins of His creatures than the less holy one.

"What kind of God would call billions of people into being, knowing that was the unimaginably horrible outcome? The words callous, selfish, and unloving came to mind for me.

I thought you understood it all.

Substitute the Holocaust or other earthly calamities such as the tower that fell on certain people that Jesus talked about for Hell and ask the same question.

Maybe your exhaustive search of the internet has given you all the answers. But I doubt it.

"It is false, he maintained, to translate that phrase as "everlasting punishment," introducing into the New Testament the concept found in the Islamic Quran that God is going to torture the wicked forever."

That’s just silly. The Quran came hundreds of years after the New Testament was completed.

"...non-Christians are punished forever for not receiving grace, which doesn't seem very graceful to me."

Me either. But it does seem that it is just punishment for sinners if His holiness is really infinite though..

Let’s give this up shall we?

You’re beginning to sound a lot like those arguing against predestination or election. When your proof texts fail to refute it – you resort to the old “fairness” argument and begin to judge a God whom you say would be less than loving if those doctrines were true.

Now that you have resorted to merely emotional arguments for universal salvation – we have nothing much more to talk about.

 

[devin553344]

What do you mean "has a term"? Are you denying that the punishment of the wicked is not "eternal, endless"?

I don't think the punishment is eternal. No I guess not. I believe in repentance and forgiveness.

 

[ClementofA]

Why? Strong's is not a lexicon,

The New Strongs contains entries from Vine's lexicon.

 

[Der Alte]

The New Strongs contains entries from Vine's lexicon.

Vines's was first published in 1939, BDAG, the electronic version I bought today, 2000. Why consult a reference that is 78 years old when you have BDAG? I think that is called cherry picking. Looking high and low for a source which supports one's assumptions/presuppositions.

 

[ClementofA]

Vines's was first published in 1939, BDAG, the electronic version I bought today, 2000. Why consult a reference that is 78 years old when you have BDAG? I think that is called cherry picking. Looking high and low for a source which supports one's assumptions/presuppositions.

I'm under no obligation to post the full entries of every lexicon, dictionary, wordbook & the like that exists when i make a comment on a word. Who does that? Certainly not you. Thus far all you've provided is bluster with nothing to oppose what i posted.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf