Why an eternal hell? (2)

Assyrian said:

You can talk about someone's doctor after their death, their murder, or their coroner. The imagery in the phrase goes back to Isaiah 66:24 where the undying worm feeds on the cadavers of God's enemies. I am not sure how much you can safely read into it though. Perhaps it speaks of the thoroughness of God's judgement, that each corpse has its worm or worms. Or it could be saying that God judges each person individually. Or perhaps is it simply a Hebrew way of describing the corruption and decay of each corpse.

Click to expand...

Let not confuse the matter by suggesting less here than how it reads. Of course we can speak of the deceased's doctor, coroner or murderer, and when we do we associate one thing with another. Note if we said there was a sentence from a judgement on an individual requiring a murderer as part of the punishment (odd but trying to use your rebuttal) that there would be no need to have (or say THEY have) a murderer that never dies if the person being punished is no more.

There is also difference between speaking of a bunch of worms eatting garbage or a bunch dead bodies and phrasing something such that A worm or worms is associated with A particular body. The not dying part is seperate from the association, it is their worm, not just A worm.
I would think the person reading into it and concluding just immortal worms would be ignoring the personal nature of having A worm for A body.

As for God's judgement, how does that apply when we are speaking of beings that have ALREADY been judged individually by God and specifically the verse is addressing the consequences of that judgement for the INDIVIDUAL. Which again must be ignored if one is reading into it that it is just immortal worms.

dollarsbill said:

And I agree. IF we have Scriptural reason.

Click to expand...

Remember, you haven't presented a scriptural basis for that approach. Anyway I thought you were going to respond to my examples if I presented them again?

DrBubbaLove said:

Let not confuse the matter by suggesting less here than how it reads. Of course we can speak of the deceased's doctor, coroner or murderer, and when we do we associate one thing with another. Note if we said there was a sentence from a judgement on an individual requiring a murderer as part of the punishment (odd but trying to use your rebuttal) that there would be no need to have (or say THEY have) a murderer that never dies if the person being punished is no more.

Click to expand...

The problem is you are taking an obscure Hebrew phrase from a very different time and culture and trying to think up reasons that make sense to you in your time and culture. Unless the phrase is explained to us, which it isn't, we would be wise to hold our understanding of it very lightly and not try to build to much on such an unsure understanding of an obscure phrase. Why does it say worm rather than worms?

There is also difference between speaking of a bunch of worms eatting garbage or a bunch dead bodies and phrasing something such that A worm or worms is associated with A particular body. The not dying part is seperate from the association, it is their worm, not just A worm.
I would think the person reading into it and concluding just immortal worms would be ignoring the personal nature of having A worm for A body.

Click to expand...

We see a similar turn of phrase in Deut 28:28 You shall plant vineyards and dress them, but you shall neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes, for the worm shall eat them. One worm chewing its way through multiple vineyards or just a Hebraism? Did Isaiah and later Jesus echo back to this phraseology of the worm when referring to the worms of Hinnom being a picture of God's judgement? Or did they simply use the smae Hebrew turn of phrase and we should not read any more into it than that?

Check out also: Job 17:14 if I say to the pit, 'You are my father,' and to the worm, 'My mother,' or 'My sister,'
Job 24:20 The womb forgets them; the worm finds them sweet; they are no longer remembered, so wickedness is broken like a tree.'
Isaiah 51:8 For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but my righteousness will be forever, and my salvation to all generations."

As for God's judgement, how does that apply when we are speaking of beings that have ALREADY been judged individually by God and specifically the verse is addressing the consequences of that judgement for the INDIVIDUAL. Which again must be ignored if one is reading into it that it is just immortal worms.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you are saying here. Most of these passages where Jesus refers to gehenna fire or the worm don't come with a time stamp saying when it is to take place, the only one I can think of where it does is the parable of the sheep and goats, which is talking about when Christ judges the nations. The imagery of gehenna, the fire and the worm is talking about the last judgement.

Wow, This is truly amazing. I started reading at the beginning; read until one person got dizzy and bowed out. I was a might dizzy myself, so I ffwd to the last page ( I'm new here, and assumed the 'little red envelopes' meant 'hot topic'; and there were so many post...)where I find people debating worms. Now I'm not sure if I say anything that I will be off topic or not.
So I'll just say this as far as the topic is concerned...nowhere in the Scripture does it state you will be punished forever. The lake is eternal. The 'crime' is paid for.
Having said all that; I'll just say that we all will live forever, no matter what we believe. The soul that lives separate from god is subject to torment, and misery. Again, nowhere does the Scripture say that any person during any part of there eternal existence can not at any time repent.
Last and least, the very idea of eternity suggest that if god will accept you now, then he is waiting on you, and not the other way around. I must end with one of my favorite sayings...

It's not nearly as hot down here as I heard it would be...

and, believe it or not, God can change his mind...

...the only thing stranger than wondering why reality exist, is wondering what could have taken it's place.

and, the only thing I love more than controversy, is irony

Hello, everyone. My name is Mark. Glad to be among this company.
Peace, and much love.

Assyrian said:

The problem is you are taking an obscure Hebrew phrase from a very different time and culture and trying to think up reasons that make sense to you in your time and culture. Unless the phrase is explained to us, which it isn't, we would be wise to hold our understanding of it very lightly and not try to build to much on such an unsure understanding of an obscure phrase. Why does it say worm rather than worms?

We see a similar turn of phrase in Deut 28:28 You shall plant vineyards and dress them, but you shall neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes, for the worm shall eat them. One worm chewing its way through multiple vineyards or just a Hebraism? Did Isaiah and later Jesus echo back to this phraseology of the worm when referring to the worms of Hinnom being a picture of God's judgement? Or did they simply use the smae Hebrew turn of phrase and we should not read any more into it than that?

Check out also: Job 17:14 if I say to the pit, 'You are my father,' and to the worm, 'My mother,' or 'My sister,'
Job 24:20 The womb forgets them; the worm finds them sweet; they are no longer remembered, so wickedness is broken like a tree.'
Isaiah 51:8 For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but my righteousness will be forever, and my salvation to all generations."

Not sure what you are saying here. Most of these passages where Jesus refers to gehenna fire or the worm don't come with a time stamp saying when it is to take place, the only one I can think of where it does is the parable of the sheep and goats, which is talking about when Christ judges the nations. The imagery of gehenna, the fire and the worm is talking about the last judgement.

Click to expand...

The suggestion was not mine that this was a metaphor, that was yours.

My point was simply if one is going to suggest an alternative understanding of what is clearly a repeated comparison between two opposing fates AFTER Judgement, one good and one bad; if one is going to counter by stating it could be a metaphor for something else or we can't be sure it is not something else entirely (completeness of God's Judgement) then I would think that the alternative should at least make sense.

The fates being contrasted here are clearly AFTER Judgement because one does not "enter life" (Heaven) or not (Hell) until after the final Judgement. The point is repeated; that it is better this xxxx, than to end up there (Hell) where "their worm" never dies and "the fire" is never quenched.

Now while I would agree the "worm" and "fire" need not be taken literally, but no matter what it represents it is clearly unpleasant and meant to be taken as something unpleasant. That is further inforced by restating repeatedly it would be better (in this life) to suffer some form of deprivation (with severe emphasis) than to NOT go to Heaven (not "enter life" after Judgement necessarily implied).

Why would it be better to suffer severe deprivation in this life if the point was merely that one would otherwise cease to be in the next?

The suggestion that an undying personal worm and a fire that never ends is simply (or even could be) a metaphor indicating a complete consumption does not fit with the rest of the sentence.

We can all understand given a choice everyone would want to go to Heaven. But if we were meant by these verses to understand that the opposite fate is to just be totally consumed, am unclear how choosing severe deprivation is better than just ceasing to be.

In fact given a choice I could see some opting for not experiencing deprivation of some desire in this life knowing that however short their life here is, they did what they wanted and the worse case scenario for them in the next life is they got it all wrong and just cease to be.

Assyrian said:

Not all of Jesus metaphors were pretty. Matt 23:25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence... 27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.
You need to be careful not to over apply the idea of metaphors speaking about something else. Jesus certainly wasn't talking about graves or washing up, but he was talking about the scribes and pharisees and what they are like on the inside. When he talked about hell, his warnings were still talking about the unrepentant and their eternal destiny. But the imagery he used was the valley of Hinnom, gehenna, the Jerusalem municipal dump, where all the city's rubbish and the carcasses of dead animals were either burnt in the fires that that never went out or were consumed by the worms and maggots that infested the place. The imagery is of the wicked being discarded as worthless rubbish and being destroyed by fire and worms that long outlast the refuse they consume.

Click to expand...

Yes, metaphorical imagery is used for these things, but speaking of eternal misery, anguish, and torment is still not use of metaphors from that.

DrBubbaLove said:

The suggestion was not mine that this was a metaphor, that was yours.

My point was simply if one is going to suggest an alternative understanding of what is clearly a repeated comparison between two opposing fates AFTER Judgement, one good and one bad; if one is going to counter by stating it could be a metaphor for something else or we can't be sure it is not something else entirely (completeness of God's Judgement) then I would think that the alternative should at least make sense.

Click to expand...

What exactly doesn't make sense? (Unless it's what you go on to describe in the rest of the post.)

The fates being contrasted here are clearly AFTER Judgement because one does not "enter life" (Heaven) or not (Hell) until after the final Judgement. The point is repeated; that it is better this xxxx, than to end up there (Hell) where "their worm" never dies and "the fire" is never quenched.

Now while I would agree the "worm" and "fire" need not be taken literally, but no matter what it represents it is clearly unpleasant and meant to be taken as something unpleasant.

Click to expand...

Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66:44 where it is carcasses that are thrown in the rubbish dump. The point is not the unpleasantness but the shame and ignominy of your corpse be disposed of that way. You find the same idea in Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

That is further inforced by restating repeatedly it would be better (in this life) to suffer some form of deprivation (with severe emphasis) than to NOT go to Heaven (not "enter life" after Judgement necessarily implied). Why would it be better to suffer severe deprivation in this life if the point was merely that one would otherwise cease to be in the next?

Click to expand...

Not just ceasing to exist but having your life, your very being, judged as worthless and thrown on the rubbish dump. Worse still you lose out on entering into life in heaven.

The suggestion that an undying personal worm and a fire that never ends is simply (or even could be) a metaphor indicating a complete consumption does not fit with the rest of the sentence.

Click to expand...

You need to be more specific. I don't know what you think doesn't fit.

We can all understand given a choice everyone would want to go to Heaven. But if we were meant by these verses to understand that the opposite fate is to just be totally consumed, am unclear how choosing severe deprivation is better than just ceasing to be.

Click to expand...

People want their life to have meaning and worth. Choosing to live for yourself and live a life of self indulgence mean your life won't have had any meaning or worth. For us as Christians and for the Jews Jesus was speaking to who were followers of God, shouldn't we be motivated by an eternity in fellowship with God that Jesus is holding out to us here too?

In fact given a choice I could see some opting for not experiencing deprivation of some desire in this life knowing that however short their life here is, they did what they wanted and the worse case scenario for them in the next life is they got it all wrong and just cease to be.

Click to expand...

That is a problem with simple annihilationism, people who prey on the misery of others seem to be getting off lightly. The bible does speak of punishment too as Jesus described in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Peter seems to be saying this is before the final judgement. 2Pet 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgement. But if people choose to ignore God's call to love him and love our neighbours as ourselves, and instead live their lives satisfying their basic animal instincts, why shouldn't they ultimately be treated as animals who live the same way? 2Pet 2:12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction (or utterly perish in their own corruption AV).

Fred V B said:

Yes, metaphorical imagery is used for these things, but speaking of eternal misery, anguish, and torment is still not use of metaphors from that.

Click to expand...

You'd probably need to pick a passage for us to look at.

Assyrian said:

What exactly doesn't make sense? (Unless it's what you go on to describe in the rest of the post.)

Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66:44 where it is carcasses that are thrown in the rubbish dump. The point is not the unpleasantness but the shame and ignominy of your corpse be disposed of that way. You find the same idea in Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Not just ceasing to exist but having your life, your very being, judged as worthless and thrown on the rubbish dump. Worse still you lose out on entering into life in heaven.

You need to be more specific. I don't know what you think doesn't fit.

People want their life to have meaning and worth. Choosing to live for yourself and live a life of self indulgence mean your life won't have had any meaning or worth. For us as Christians and for the Jews Jesus was speaking to who were followers of God, shouldn't we be motivated by an eternity in fellowship with God that Jesus is holding out to us here too?

That is a problem with simple annihilationism, people who prey on the misery of others seem to be getting off lightly. The bible does speak of punishment too as Jesus described in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Peter seems to be saying this is before the final judgement. 2Pet 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgement. But if people choose to ignore God's call to love him and love our neighbours as ourselves, and instead live their lives satisfying their basic animal instincts, why shouldn't they ultimately be treated as animals who live the same way? 2Pet 2:12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction (or utterly perish in their own corruption AV).

Click to expand...

Let me just throw something into this, before anyone goes too far down the road to...?
KJV: 2Peter2:The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust UNTO THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT 'TO BE PUNISHED'; is quite a bit different than keeping the righteous under punishment. How can anyone expect to have a discussion when they use two different Bibles?
Punishment is looked at as something bad??? God punishes us out of love, the same way we punish our children in hopes they don't harm themselves.

Assyrian,
It is not just a reference to Isaiah, it is a connection. But Isaiah does not use it as a contrast like Jesus did as quoted in Mark comparing two opposing fates and specifically pointing out that severe deprivation would be better in this life than experiencing one of those fates.

And I do get why some annihilationists would want to see some form of suffering before "poof". However again, something with an end would never be as dreaded (or be better to have severe deprivation in this life than to face) compared to something which does not end. Since the reference being made (whether one believes the implication or not) is to something unending - what one makes of that should at least make sense.

And since it was mentioned, it would be difficult to make the connection with Isaiah in any form of annihilationist view as Isaiah has reference to what I called the bad fate as being/becoming something that is abhorant to the rest of mankind. Difficult for a thing which is "no more" to be abhorant. The language of Isaiah sounds similar to Lewis's depiction of "what remains" of a human meeting that end.

jelboss366 said:

... 2Pet 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgement...

Click to expand...

Let me just throw something into this, before anyone goes too far down the road to...?
KJV: 2Peter2:The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust UNTO THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT 'TO BE PUNISHED'; is quite a bit different than keeping the righteous under punishment. How can anyone expect to have a discussion when they use two different Bibles?
Punishment is looked at as something bad??? God punishes us out of love, the same way we punish our children in hopes they don't harm themselves.

Click to expand...

I think you may have misread it. While God does discipline his children, Peter is talking about the unrighteous being punished.

DrBubbaLove said:

Assyrian,
It is not just a reference to Isaiah, it is a connection. But Isaiah does not use it as a contrast like Jesus did as quoted in Mark comparing two opposing fates and specifically pointing out that severe deprivation would be better in this life than experiencing one of those fates.

Click to expand...

Not sure your point here, sorry.

And I do get why some annihilationists would want to see some form of suffering before "poof". However again, something with an end would never be as dreaded (or be better to have severe deprivation in this life than to face) compared to something which does not end. Since the reference being made (whether one believes the implication or not) is to something unending - what one makes of that should at least make sense.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say the suffering or the people would be everlasting, so I don't see any reason to read that into the passage. You have already agreed the fire and the worm may not be literal, which would mean their immortality is also part of the metaphor. Couldn't it be mean their destruction is everlasting? Or it could simply be hyperbole.

I think a key verse here is Abraham's plea for Sodom, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" Gen 18:25. The problem is we can read it two ways, if God decrees everlasting torment then it must be just. But it also mean that is everlasting torment isn't just, then that is not what the just judge will do and the doctrine of everlasting punishment has misunderstood what scripture says.

And since it was mentioned, it would be difficult to make the connection with Isaiah in any form of annihilationist view as Isaiah has reference to what I called the bad fate as being/becoming something that is abhorant to the rest of mankind. Difficult for a thing which is "no more" to be abhorant. The language of Isaiah sounds similar to Lewis's depiction of "what remains" of a human meeting that end.

Click to expand...

Remember in Isaiah the it was the cadavers that were abhorrent. I do like Lewis's Great Divorce and the idea that repentance is possible even in hell. It isn't in the bible, I just wouldn't put it past God.

Fred V B said:

Yes, metaphorical imagery is used for these things, but speaking of eternal misery, anguish, and torment is still not use of metaphors from that.

Click to expand...

Assyrian said:

You'd probably need to pick a passage for us to look at.

Click to expand...

Matthew 24:51 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 20&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-31053d 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

To answer the original question from the beginning of this topic the answer is quite simple. It all hinges on understanding the nature of God. God in not only loving he is also holy and just. God’s holiness demands righteousness and Gods righteousness demand justice. Hell was originally created to punish Satan and his followers or fallen angels. The crime or sin was PRIDE which led to the act of rebellion to overthrow God and take over his kingdom. The penalty for that was spiritual death. I say spiritual because all of God’s created beings are eternal beings, that is once created they live forever. Man was also one of God’s created beings only human in nature, made in the image according to the likeness of God himself. (Genesis 1:26-27) Because man’s crime or sin was identical to Satans’ and because God is fair and just, the same penalty given to Satan and his followers was required for mankind. But because God also loves, he sent his only son to die and pay the penalty for mankind’s sin. God’s only requirement for this forgiveness is that mankind repent of his sin and believe by faith in what Christ did for them on the cross. For without repentance and faith mankind cannot please God.

Fred V B said:

Matthew 24:51 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Click to expand...

It certainly shows dismay at their fate, but does it say the gnashing will continue forever?

Revelation 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Click to expand...

A problem with the everlasting torment interpretation of this verse is that it contradicts what we read in about the devil in Ezekiel 28, assuming the anointed Cherub from Eden the garden of God v13 whose fall Ezekiel describes, is the same as 'that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan' we read about in Rev 20. Because in Ezekiel the fallen angel is to suffer annihilation Ezek 28:17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor... 19 All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever. Maybe the problem is with our understanding of the phrase in Revelation 20:10 eis tous aiwnas twn aiwnwn translated as for ever and ever. The literal translation is to the ages of the ages (Young's). If the phrase was really talking about when (in the ages to come) rather than how long (for ever) then the contradiction between Ezekiel and Revelation disappears. The torment of the devil the beast and the false prophet in the ages of ages culminates in their complete destruction and they shall be no more forever.

Assyrian said:

A problem with the everlasting torment interpretation of this verse is that it contradicts what we read in about the devil in Ezekiel 28, assuming the anointed Cherub from Eden the garden of God v13 whose fall Ezekiel describes, is the same as 'that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan' we read about in Rev 20. Because in Ezekiel the fallen angel is to suffer annihilation Ezek 28:17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor... 19 All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever. Maybe the problem is with our understanding of the phrase in Revelation 20:10 eis tous aiwnas twn aiwnwn translated as for ever and ever. The literal translation is to the ages of the ages (Young's). If the phrase was really talking about when (in the ages to come) rather than how long (for ever) then the contradiction between Ezekiel and Revelation disappears. The torment of the devil the beast and the false prophet in the ages of ages culminates in their complete destruction and they shall be no more forever.

Click to expand...

Our understanding of what is to come at least does not determine our salvation. I can think of this, I will have to see sometimes that I discuss things with other believers who determine their doctrines from imagery from the old testament over what is revealed from Christ and what is in the new testament. But I take the warnings seriously, without going beyond it to think of things in it that go outside of the truest justice.

Fred V B said:

Our understanding of what is to come at least does not determine our salvation. I can think of this, I will have to see sometimes that I discuss things with other believers who determine their doctrines from imagery from the old testament over what is revealed from Christ and what is in the new testament. But I take the warnings seriously, without going beyond it to think of things in it that go outside of the truest justice.

Click to expand...

I agree we need to take the warnings seriously even if we not understand how it will all be worked out. I wonder about the way you contrast OT imagery with the NT. Certainly we see things revealed in the NT that were only described in imagery in the Old. But it isn't as if the NT abandons metaphors and imagery. One of the OT prophecies about Jesus is that he would come speaking in parables. Jesus may have shown us the literal fulfilment of the suffering servant prophecies, but he still described the kingdom of God and life in the Spirit in stories and metaphors. Just as in the OT, revelations about the future are still given in prophetic imagery that grows out of OT imagery. If you want to understand the Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation) we need to understand OT and Jewish apocalyptic literature which is the literary genre the Apocalypse is written in. The Book of Revelation is packed full of symbolic imagery, John has details in his visions explained to him by an angel, just as OT prophets had the symbols in their visions explained too. Rev 17:7 But the angel said to me, "Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her... Zech 4:4 And I said to the angel who talked with me, "What are these, my lord?" 5 Then the angel who talked with me answered and said to me... Dan 7:16 I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of the things.

Assyrian said:

I think you may have misread it. While God does discipline his children, Peter is talking about the unrighteous being punished.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't misread anything. Your quote says somebody is going to be punished until, doesn't matter who. KJV says reserved unto, or until if you want it that way, but reserving someone until, and punishing them until are too different to not address. God will have no part of punishing someone before they've even been judged, which what your version says. This is something people should always look for in these discussions.

jelboss366 said:

No, I didn't misread anything. Your quote says somebody is going to be punished until, doesn't matter who. KJV says reserved unto, or until if you want it that way, but reserving someone until, and punishing them until are too different to not address. God will have no part of punishing someone before they've even been judged, which what your version says. This is something people should always look for in these discussions.

Click to expand...

The reason modern translations go with kept under punishment is because it is the simple straight forward translation of the Greek. It is what Jesus describes too in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

Luke 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side...28 for I have five brothers--so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' This punishment was while his brotherswere still alive, long before the last judgement. I think the problem is you miss out the very first part of the verse 2Pet 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to... We call it the last judgement, but it isn't the only judgement in the bible.

Assyrian said:

Remember, you haven't presented a scriptural basis for that approach. Anyway I thought you were going to respond to my examples if I presented them again?

Click to expand...

I don't have to present a 'scriptural basis' to believe the Scriptures.