Annihilationism Is Actually...Biblical

[Der Alte]

begin

I just read this. I'm confused by why you think these things are angels. For instance this rider is called "the word of God" and he has a sword coming out of his month (sword of the spirit which is the word of God, also the word of God is is sharp than a double edged sword etc . . .) and birds eat their flesh which (the birds) might be a symbol from the parable of the sower of those who hear the gospel without following it, why isn't this just a symbol for the word of God? Why aren't the other riders symbols for what they are called?

end

"If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense." "Horses,""riders,""birds" all make good sense. A sword coming from a rider's mouth does not make good sense so it must be figurative. As you have shown by quoting Heb 4:12

begin

11And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13He isclothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

end

People on horses-literal. vs. 11, Eyes a flame of fire-figurative.vs. 12 Robes dipped in blood could be literal or figurative. vs. 13. Sharp sword from his mouth-figurative vs. 15. Rod of iron-figurative, quote Ps 2:9 vs. 15. "wine press" figurative vs. 15

begin

17Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, “Come, assemble for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great.”

end

Literal, vultures and buzzards gather in groups to eat dead flesh. I saw a group of about 5 vultures eating a dead animal beside a road yesterday.

19And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.

Armies gathered to make war -literal. Horses actually exist, may be literal or "horses" could represent vehicles of war which the writer was not familiar with.

begin

20And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.21And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

end

Sword out of his mouth, figurative see Heb 4:12, above. Everything else literal.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

...
Also note the Jews consider Revelation to be Jewish apocalyptic literature (and they don't believe in hell) "but the apocalypse has become especially important to Jewish students since it has been discovered by Vischer (see bibliography) that the main apocalypse actually belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature."

end

Are you sure you want to base your understanding of Revelation on a 100 year old Jewish encyclopedia article? The letters to the 7 churches were not written to Jews but former pagan Christians they would not have had any knowledge or understanding of Jewish mythology

begin

The smoke rises forever, but that is metaphorical language also used elsewhere. See for example the parallel description in Revelation 18:18 and Revelation 19:3, the smoke of Babylon is described in both places to be rising forever even though Babylon is ultimately destroyed, and doesn't burn forever.

end

The difference is those being tormented are also said to have "no rest day or night" further emphasizing the unending nature of the torment.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name." ​

begin

The lake of fire (which this may refer to) along with Gehenna is probably a real place. (Gehenna is the place outside of Jerusalem where they burned their trash)
And the lake of fire is also probably a real place on earth near the dead sea. (see: Where Is the Lake of Fire? ) With these three concepts, none on their own characterize eternal torment.

end

Why did it take 2000 years +/- for one person to "find" the exact location of the lake of fire?
....The valley of Gehinnom was never used as a fiery dump for trash or bodies.

The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1922-56], 4:2:1030). Also a more recent author holds a similar view (Lloyd R. Bailey, "Gehenna: The Topography of Hell," Biblical Archeologist 49 [1986]: 189.
Source, Bibliotheca Sacra / July–September 1992
Scharen: Gehenna in the Synoptics Pt. 1​

Note there is no “archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, [that Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump] in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources” If Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump there should be broken pottery, tools, utensils, bones, etc. but there is no such evidence.

“Gehenna is presented as diametrically opposed to ‘life’: it is better to enter life than to go to Gehenna. . .It is common practice, both in scholarly and less technical works, to associate the description of Gehenna with the supposedly contemporary garbage dump in the valley of Hinnom. This association often leads scholars to emphasize the destructive aspects of the judgment here depicted: fire burns until the object is completely consumed. Two particular problems may be noted in connection with this approach. First, there is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery rubbish dump in this location (in any case, a thorough investigation would be appreciated). Secondly, the significant background to this passage more probably lies in Jesus’ allusion to Isaiah 66:24.”
(“The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The Reader Must Understand edited by K. Brower and M. W. Ellion, p. 223, emphasis mine)
G. R. Beasley-Murray in Jesus and the Kingdom of God:
“Ge-Hinnom (Aramaic Ge-hinnam, hence the Greek Geenna), ‘The Valley of Hinnom,’ lay south of Jerusalem, immediately outside its walls. The notion, still referred to by some commentators, that the city’s rubbish was burned in this valley, has no further basis than a statement by the Jewish scholar Kimchi (sic) made about A.D. 1200; it is not attested in any ancient source.” (p. 376n.92)
The Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna is a myth - Archaeology, Biblical History & Textual Criticism ​

begin

Genesis 19
24 Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
The reason I point this out, is that Sodom and Gomorah is said to be destroyed by eternal fire:
Jude 1
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
One way to resolve this problem of "why aren't the fires of Sodom still burning?" is to say that the fire is not actually eternal, but infact a metaphor for eternal consumption.

end

Why aren't the fires of Sodom still burning? Because John didn't say the "vengeance' or the "suffering" was eternal. The adjective aionios only modifies the word "fire." The aionios fire is no longer in Sodom, it obviously returned to God when it accomplished His purpose, just as God's eternal word does.

 

[ClementofA]

For your information.

Nineteen verses which define/describe αἰών and αἰώνιος: 1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 7:24, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, John 6:58,
John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7, Luke 1:33, Revelation 14:11, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24,

[1] 1 Timothy 1:17
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [αἰών/aion] immortal, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [αἰών/aion] and ever [αἰώνιος/aionios]. Amen.
In this verse “aion” is in apposition, see def. below, with “immortal.” “aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” means “eternal.”

Young's Literal Translation
and to the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, is honour and glory -- to the ages of the ages! Amen. (1 Tim.1:17)

The information that God is "King of the ages" is different info (not redundant info) from God being "immortal" & "invisible" & the "only wise God".

Nothing in this verse says "the ages" referred to are endless. Nothing there says the phrase "to the ages of the ages" means endless. If you are doing something up "to" a certain time (e.g. ages of the ages"), that leaves it an open question whether or not you keep doing it afterwards.

Additionally, if the ages have an end (1 Cor.10:11; Heb.9:26), then "King of the ages" cannot mean King for endless time.

1."God exists today"
2. Today "is finite"
3. Therefore God exists during finite days [years, centuries, eras, epochs, milleniums, ancient times/olam, eons & ages]
4. God is also immortal.
5. Therefore God exists both during finite days & immortally.
6. Both are true at the same time.

Therefore when Scripture speaks of One Who is both immortal and King of the ages in the same sentence (1 Tim.1:17), ages can refer to finite periods of time. Whether of finite individual ages or finite corporate ages [of at least two ages].

Thus your argument is refuted.

[2]2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;[πρόσκαιρος/proskairos] but the things which are not
seen are eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this passage “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Aionios” cannot mean “age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal
/temporary.” “Eternal” is. See Robertson below.

Actually the opposite of a "moment" can be an "age" of a "finite period":

Thesaurus results for MOMENT
Gegenteil-von.com
104 Moment Antonyms - Opposite of Moment - Page 3
Gegenteil-von.com

Also a "moment" is usually a 'short' period of time.
An "eon" or "age" can be a 'long' period of time.
And 'long' is the opposite of 'short':

http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/vocabulary-lesson-opposites2.php

[3]2 Corinthians 5:1
(1)For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] in the heavens.
In this verse “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” An “aionios” house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus “aionios” means “eternal.”

First, in this verse it says "aionios in the heavens". Scripture says the heavens which now are will pass away. So if these heavens are temporary, so also can aionios be temporary in 2 Cor.5:1.

Secondly, that the house is not dissolved for an aionion (eonian) period of time does not necessarily mean that eonian means eternal in this verse. For example if something is not dissolved for the eon of the millennial age eon, that doesn't mean the millennial eon is eternal.

continued next post

 

[ClementofA]

[4]Hebrews 7:24
(24) But this man, because he continueth ever.[αἰών/aion] hath an unchangeable [ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos] priesthood.
In this verse “aion” is in apposition with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Melchizadek cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time.
Thus “aion” means “eternal.”

Hebrews 7:24 Interlinear: and he, because of his remaining -- to the age, hath the priesthood not transient,

"hath an unchangeable priesthood] Rather, “hath his priesthood unchangeable” (sempiternum, Vulg.) or perhaps “untransmissible;” “a priesthood that doth not pass to another,” as it is rendered in the margin of our Revised Version." Hebrews 7:24 Commentaries: but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

"This may be explained either as inviolable, or which does not pass over to another. Comp. Exodus 32:8; Sir. 23:18. Usage is in favor of the former meaning, but the other falls in better with the course of thought." Vincent @ Hebrews 7:24 Commentaries: but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

Will the office of priesthood be even needed or last forever? If not, then it will cease & aion in this verse cannot refer to an endless duration.

After God becomes "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) priesthood may no longer serve any purpose. Likewise with kings (cf. 1 Tim.1:17 above).

[5]1 Peter 1:23
(23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, .[αἰών/aion]
In this verse “aion” is in apposition with “incorruptible.” The seed of God cannot be “incorruptible” and only for “a finite period” at the same time. Thus “aion” means “eternal.”

"The most ancient manuscripts omit the words, "for ever" ", i.e. they omit the Greek word aion:

1 Peter 1:23 Commentaries: for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

As do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ASV, DBY, ERV, & most at:

1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

and also this:

Greek-English Interlinear:
Index of /interlinear/1_peter

[6]1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting.[aionios]
In this verse “aionios” is in apposition with “immortality”. If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios”
means “eternal.”

Actually God can be (and is) both immortal & existing "for a finite period at the same time". For God lives both "today" and is "immortal". Today is finite, so God will be for a finite period, namely "today". Additionally, God is "immortal". So when the finite time period "today" ends, He does not end, but lives on. That God will be living "today" and also at the same time be "immortal" are two distinct and different facts, not redundant facts telling us the same thing. Likewise the fact God is both aionian (eonian) & immortal in 1 Tim.6:16 do not require they be redundant or that eonian mean eternal or endless time.

Aionios is related to time in the Scriptures, not eternity:

in expectation of life eonian, which God, Who does not lie, promises before times eonian (Titus 1:2)
Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian,(2 Tim.1:9)
Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, 26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience (Rom.16:25-26)
but we are speaking God's wisdom in a secret, wisdom which has been concealed, which God designates before - before the eons, for our glory (1 Cor.2:7)

If time ends, the "times eonian" (Titus 1:2; 2 Tim.1:9; Rom.16:25) end & eonian ends with the beginning of eternity, then in Scripture eonian can never mean endless or everlasting.

The eons had a beginning (1 Cor.2:7, etc) & may also have an end (1 Cor.10:11; Heb.9:26).

Young's Literal Translation (1 Tim.6:16)
who only is having immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no one of men did see, nor is able to see, to whom is honour and might age-during! Amen.
Concordant Literal Translation
Who alone has immortality, making His home in light inaccessible, Whom not one of mankind perceived nor can be perceiving, to Whom be honor and might eonian! Amen!
Rotherham's Emphasized Version
Who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable,—Whom no man hath seen—nor can see: unto whom, be honour and might age-abiding. Amen.
Emphatic Diaglott NT
the only one having deathlessness, light dwelling in inaccessible, whom saw no one of men, nor to see is able; to whom honor and might age-lasting; so be it.
Emphatic Diaglott (margin)
...to whom be Honor and Might aionian. Amen

The emphatic diaglott: containing the original Greek text of what is commonly styled the New Testament, (according to the recension of Dr. J. J. Griesbach,) with an interlineary word for word English translation; a new emphatic version, based on the interlineary translation, on the renderings of eminent critics, and on the various readings of the Vatican manuscript, (no. 1209, in the Vatican library; together with illustrative and explanatory foot notes, and a copious selection of references; to the whole of which is added, a valuable alphabetical appendix. By Benjamin Wilson ...
http://studybible.info/CLV/1 Timothy 6
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti6.pdf

Re Greek scholar Deissman:

"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" "

Chapter Nine

The Greek text is on p.275ff of the following url. The English translation follows.

"I adjure thee by the great God, the eternal and more than eternal and almighty, who is exalted above the exalted Gods." (p.277)

"The tablet, as is shown not only by its place of origin (the Necropolis of Adrumetum belongs to the second and third centuries, A.D.; the part in which the tablet was found is fixed in the third), but also by the character of the lettering, is to be assigned to the third century,1 that is— to determine it by a date in the history of the Greek Bible — about the time of Origen." (p.279)

https://ia800300.us.archive.org/4/items/biblestudiescon00deisuoft/biblestudiescon00deisuoft.pdf


continued next post

 

[ClementofA]

[7]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;[φθορά/fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.[αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “corruption.” “fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap life aionios, i.e. not “corruption.” Thus “aionios” means
“eternal/everlasting.”

The "corruption" is not stated to be endless, so it does not necessarily follow that the life or eonian or life eonian must be endless.

Be not decived, God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall he be reaping also, 8 for he who is sowing for his own flesh, from the flesh shall be reaping corruption, yet he who is sowing for the spirit, from the spirit shall be reaping life eonian. (Galatians 6:8; Concordant Literal Version).

Origen, the Early Church Father, speaks a number of times of after aionios (eternal) life, thereby making it finite in relation to a coming age or ages, such as, e.g.the millennial kingdom eon age. Christ also speaks of aionios life in the age to come (Mk.10:30; Lk.18:30). And Daniel 12:2 refers to olam life followed in verse 3 by "olam and beyond", thereby making olam life in this context finite.

[8]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “death” If “aionios” is only a finite period, “A finite period” is not opposite of “death.” Thus “aionios” means “eternal.”
[9]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Here “aionios” and “aion” are contrasted with not “snatch them out of my hand” In a finite period they could be snatched out, “Aionios” means “eternal.”
[10]1 John 2:17
(17) The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [αἰών/aion]
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “pass away” “aionios” cannot mean a finite period, “A finite period” is not opposite of “pass away.” Thus “aionios” means “eternal.”

John 10:28 is a repeat of the same verse addressed below at verse #15 on your list of 19 verses (actually only 18, & just 17 that have aion/ios in them).

In John 6:58 death is not contrasted with aionios, but with live. Aionios is not the opposite of death.

And the world is passing by, and its desire, yet he who is doing the will of God is remaining for the eon. (1 Jn.2:17, CLV) and the world doth pass away, and the desire of it, and he who is doing the will of God, he doth remain -- to the age. (YLT)

For the eon or age here can certainly refer to a finite eon such as the millennial age eon kingdom of Christ, or also the eon of the second death (lake of fire) until death is abolished (1 Cor.15:26) & God becomes "all in all" (v.28), even all who were ever in Adam (v.22).

[11]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [ολιγον/oligon] will himself restore you
and make you strong, firm and steadfast.
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “little while” “aionios” cannot mean a finite period, A “finite period” is not opposite of “little while.” Thus “aionios” means “eternal.”

Actually aion (and therefore aionios) can be the opposite of a "little while". See previous comments above re 2 Cor.4:17-18 & "moment".

[12]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [ἀφθαρσία/apftharsia] he will give eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.
In this verse “aion” is in apposition with “immortality.” If “aion” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can
seek for “eternity” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus “aion” means “eternal.”

Those who "in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality" will be given "aionios life". Aionios (eonian) life is the special reward for those who believe. They get life in the eonian period called the 1000 years in Revelation, i.e. the millennial age eon. Unbelievers will not get eonian life in the age to come. As we see in 1 Tim.4:9-11, God is the Saviour of all men, but specially of them that believe. For believers get the special gift of grace of eonian life. Others will lose out on that & be punished. But even they shall be eventually saved (Rom.5:18-19; Rev.5:13; 1 Cor.15:22-28; etc).

[13]Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom there shall be no end.[τελος/τελος]
In this verse “aionios” is paired with “without end.” “aionios” cannot be paired with “without end” if it means only “ages” a finite period. “Aionios” means eternal.

Luke 1:33 Interlinear: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages; and of his reign there shall be no end.'
Luke επειδηπερ INASMUCH AS πολλοι MANY επεχειρησαν HAVE TAKEN IN HAND αναταξασθαι TO ARRANGE IN ORDER διηγησιν NARRATION περι ABOUT των THES πραγματων DEEDS πεπληροφορημενων THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO FULLNESS εν AMONG ημιν US
Luke επειδηπερ FORASMUCH AS πολλοι MANY επεχειρησαν TOOK IN HAND αναταξασθαι TO DRAW UP διηγησιν A NARRATION περι CONCERNING των THE πεπληροφορημενων WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY BELIEVED εν AMONG ημιν US πραγματων MATTERS,

Darby Bible Translation
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end.

This is what it actually literally says:

Luk 1:33 and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation. (CLV)

It is about reigning over the house of Jacob and the time limit is "for the eons."

Here is the full verse with context:

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David,
Luk 1:33 His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. (here is the second half of the verse you allude to And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation."

Christ eventually hands over the kingdom to His God and Father (1 Cor.15:24-28) and quits reigning (1 Cor.15:25). So His reign "for the eons" over the house of Jacob (Lk.1:33) is not forever, but finite. Therefore the phrase "for the eons" in Lk.1:33 is of finite duration & the translation "forever" is wrong, misleading & deceptive.


continued here:

What Does Aionios Mean? (part 2, It is wrong to define aionios based on aion)
how do people who believe in eternal torture in fire

 

[ClementofA]

According to your method of interpretation black can be made white, and good can be made evil, depending on a whim. You have taken a verse out of context in Lamentations to prove that Hell is not eternal torment in the Lake of Fire.

So let's look at this verse and see in what context it was said. Jeremiah is lamenting for his people and how they have brought God's judgment upon themselves. But then he goes on to say -- by Divine inspiration -- For the Lord will not cast off for ever: But though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies....

But what is the context?

Let us [the people of Judah since "Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude" Lam 1:3] search and try our ways, and turn again to the LORD. Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens. We have transgressed and have rebelled: thou hast not pardoned. Thou hast covered with anger, and persecuted us: thou hast slain, thou hast not pitied...

We know from the history of Judah that God did bring back a remnant to Jerusalem and Judah. They re-established the city, rebuilt the temple, and restored OT worship. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with eternal Hell.

Evidently you ommited the more immediate context for something out beyond left field that has nothing to do with the batter's box, the batter, pitcher or umpire:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?

 

[Der Alte]

...
Origen, the Early Church Father, speaks a number of times of after aionios (eternal) life, thereby making it finite in relation to a coming age or ages, such as, e.g.the millennial kingdom eon age. ....

This is a blatant deliberately false statement. I have proved it to you more than once. I purchased Origen's "Commentary on John," from Logos, just to verify this statement. If Origen has spoken "a number of time of after aionios [eternal] life." please show me 2 or 3 of his references? If you ever get this right I might disprove more of your arguments.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

"hath an unchangeable priesthood] Rather, “hath his priesthood unchangeable” (sempiternum, Vulg.) or perhaps “untransmissible;” “a priesthood that doth not pass to another,” as it is rendered in the margin of our Revised Version."
"This may be explained either as inviolable, or which does not pass over to another. Comp. Exodus 32:8; Sir. 23:18. Usage is in favor of the former meaning, but the other falls in better with the course of thought." Vincent
Will the office of priesthood be even needed or last forever? If not, then it will cease & aion in this verse cannot refer to an endless duration.

end

Cherry picked out-of-context bits and pieces. Here is what you omitted.

Barne's Notes on the Bible
But this man - Greek "But he" - referring to Christ.
Because he continueth ever - Greek "Because he remains forever." The idea is because he does not die, but ever lives, he has an unchanging priesthood. There is no necessity that he should yield it to others, as was the case with the Jewish priests because they were mortal. The reason in their case, why it passed to others, was not that they did not perform the office well, but that they were mortal, and could not continue to hold it. But this reason could not operate in the case of the Lord Jesus, and therefore his priesthood would be permanent.
Matthew Henry
But the High Priest of our profession holds his office by the power of endless life in himself; not only to keep himself alive, but to give spiritual and eternal life to all who rely upon his sacrifice and intercession.
Elliot
The former ordinance related to a race, and the individuals were ever passing away; since His life is “indissoluble” (Hebrews 7:16), none can trespass on His right and invade His priesthood. The rendering of the margin, “that passeth not from one to another,” expresses nearly the same thought; but it is very doubtful whether the Greek will bear this meaning.
Jamieson, Faussett, Brown
Therefore no earthly so-called apostolic succession of priests are His vicegerents. The Jewish priests had successors in office, because "they could not continue by reason of death." But this Man, because He liveth ever, hath no successor in office, not even Peter (1Pe 5:1).
Gill
hath an unchangeable priesthood; which will never be antiquated, and give place to another; nor does it, or ever will it pass from him to another, for it is needless, seeing he lives, and no other is sufficient for it; and it would be injustice to pass it to another; the glory of it is due to him; and this is matter of comfort to the saints, that he sits a priest upon his throne, and that his priesthood always continues.
Meyers
Hebrews 7:24. The other, on the other hand, because (not “by the fact that,” de Wette, Bisping) He abides unto eternity, has His priesthood as an unchangeable one.​

No, none, zero of the scholars at this link support your argument!

After God becomes "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) priesthood may no longer serve any purpose. Likewise with kings (cf. 1 Tim.1:17 above)....

As I said none of the sources support your speculation about the "the priesthood may no longer serve a purpose." Perhaps you should base your objections on what scripture actually says not what you think might/might not happen.

 

[Der Alte]

...begin

Darby Bible Translation
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end.
This is what it actually literally says:
Luk 1:33 and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation. (CLV)
It is about reigning over the house of Jacob and the time limit is "for the eons."
Here is the full verse with context:
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David,
Luk 1:33 His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. (here is the second half of the verse you allude to And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation."

end

Just because some "scholar" says something is "literal" that doesn't make it so. Unless you have graduate study in Greek you have no way of determining what is or is not literal. What is apparent literal to you is anything which supports your UR assumptions/presuppositions. Here is the definition of telos the word which your cherry picked sources translated "consummation.""Consummation" only occurs once in section ① tenth line from the bottom. It refers to fulfilled prophecy.

τέλος, ους, τό (Hom.+)
① a point of time marking the end of a duration, end, termination, cessation (Nicol. Dam.: 90 Fgm. 130 §139 Jac. τέλος τ. Βίου Καίσαρος; TestAbr A 1 p. 78, 5 [Stone p. 4] τῆς ζωῆς; Maximus Tyr. 13, 9d ἀπιστίας) τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος Lk 1:33. μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων Hb 7:3. τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου the end of the fading (splendor) 2 Cor 3:13. τέλος νόμου Χριστός Ro 10:4 (perh. 3 below). πάντων τὸ τέλος ἤγγικεν the end of all things is near 1 Pt 4:7. τὸ τ. Ἰερουσαλήμ GPt 7:25. τὸ τέλος κυρίου Js 5:11 is oft. (fr. Augustine to ABischoff, ZNW 7, 1906, 274–79) incorrectly taken to mean the end=the death (this is what τέλος means e.g. TestAbr A 4, p. 81, 14 [Stone p. 10]; Appian, Syr. 64 §342, Bell. Civ. 1, 107 §501; 3, 98 §408; Arrian, Anab. 3, 22, 2; 7, 24, 1) of the Lord Jesus (s. 3 below). τ̣ὸ̣ [τέλο]ς (or τ̣ε̣[λο]ς) τῶν φαινο[με]νων (Till’s rdg. of Ox 1081, 29f after the Coptic SJCh 90, 6, in place of τ̣ὸ̣ [φῶ]ς τῶν φαινο[μέ]νων) the end of the things that are apparent. τέλος ἔχειν have an end, be at an end (X., An. 6, 5, 2; Pla., Phdr. 241d, Rep. 3, 392c; Diod S 14, 18, 8; 16, 91, 2) Mk 3:26 (opp. στῆναι). The possibility of repenting ἔχει τέλος is at an end Hv 2, 2, 5. Of the consummation that comes to prophecies when they are fulfilled (Xenophon Eph. 5, 1, 13; Jos., Ant. 2, 73; 4, 125; 10, 35; SibOr 3, 211): revelations Hv 3, 3, 2. So perh. τὸ περὶ ἐμοῦ τέλος ἔχει the references (in the Scriptures) to me are being fulfilled Lk 22:37; also prob. is my life’s work is at an end (cp. Diod S 20, 95, 1 τέλος ἔχειν of siege-machines, the construction of which entailed a great deal of hard work: be completed; Plut., Mor. 615e; Jos., Vi. 154).
② the last part of a process, close, conclusion, esp. of the last things, the final act in the cosmic drama (Sb 8422, 10 [7 B.C.] τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τέλος; TestAbr A 13 p. 92, 19 [Stone p. 32] τῆς κρίσεως ἐκείνης τὸ τέλος; ApcEsdr 3:13 ἐγγύς ἐστιν τὸ τέλος; Iren., 1, 10, 3 [Harv. I 96, 8] περὶ τοῦ τ. καὶ τῶν μέλλόντων)
ⓐ Mt 24:6, 14; Mk 13:7; Lk 21:9; PtK 2 p. 13, 22. Perh. 1 Cor 15:24, if ἔσται is to be supplied w. εἶτα τὸ τέλος then the end will come (so JHéring, RHPR 12, ’33, 300–320; s. below, bα and 4). ἔχει τέλος the end is here Hv 3, 8, 9. On τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων 1 Cor 10:11 s. αἰών 2b and 5 below; also MBogle, ET 67, ’56, 246f: τ.=‘mystery’.—PVolz, D. Eschatologie d. jüd. Gemeinde im ntl. Zeitalter ’34; Bousset, Rel.3 202–301; EHaupt, Die eschatol. Aussagen Jesu in den synopt. Evangelien 1895; HSharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future acc. to the Synopt. Gospels 1909; FSpitta, Die grosse eschatol. Rede Jesu: StKr 82, 1909, 348–401; EvDobschütz, The Eschatology of the Gospels 1910, Zur Eschatol. der Ev.: StKr 84, 1911, 1–20; PCorssen, Das apokalypt. Flugblatt in der synopt. überl.: Wochenschr. für klass. Philol. 32, 1915, nos. 30f; 33f; DVölter, Die eschat. Rede Jesu: SchTZ 32, 1915, 180–202; KWeiss (s. τελέω 1); JWeiss, Das Urchristent. 1917, 60–98; JJeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender 1930; WKümmel, Die Eschatologie der Ev.: ThBl 15, ’36, 225–41, Verheissg. u. Erfüllg. ’45; CCadoux, The Historic Mission of Jesus ’41 (eschat. of the synoptics); HPreisker, Das Ethos des Urchristentums ’49; AStrobel, Untersuchungen zum eschat. Verzögerungsproblem, ’61. Billerb. IV 799–976. S. also ἀνάστασις 2b, end.—In contrast to ἀρχή: B 1:6ab; IEph 14:1ab; IMg 13:1. Of God Rv 1:8 v.l.; 21:6; 22:13 (Ar. 4, 2; Just., D. 7, 2; Mel., P. 105, 113f; s. also ἀρχή 2).
ⓑ adverbial expressions
α. adv. acc. τὸ τέλος finally (Pla. et al.; BGU 1024 VII, 23; B-D-F §160; s. Rob. 486–88; Theoph. Ant. 1, 14 [p. 92, 8].—The customary use in this case is τέλος without the art.: ViAm 1 [p. 81, 11 Sch.]) 1 Pt 3:8. εἶτα τὸ τέλος 1 Cor 15:24 is classed here by Hofmann2; FBurkitt, JTS 17, 1916, 384f; KBarth, Die Auferstehung der Toten2 1926, 96 (s. 2a above and 4 below).
β. to the end, to the last: ἄχρι τέλους Hb 6:11; Rv 2:26; ἕως τέλους (Da 6:27 Theod.; JosAs 12:3) 1 Cor 1:8; 2 Cor 1:13 (here, too, it means to the end=until the parousia [Windisch, Sickenberger, NRSV] rather than ‘fully’ [Ltzm., Hdb.; RSV ’46]); Hs 9, 27, 3; μέχρι τέλους (Phocylides [VI B.C.] 17 Diehl3 ἐξ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τέλους; Chariton 4, 7, 8; Appian, Mithrid. 112 §550; Polyaenus 4, 6, 11; POxy 416, 3; PTebt 420, 18; Wsd 16:5; 19:1; Jos., Vi. 406) Hb 3:6 v.l., 14; Dg 10:7. S. also εἰς τέλος (γ below).
γ. εἰς τέλος in the end, finally (Hdt. 3, 40 et al.; PTebt 38, 11 [113 B.C.]; 49, 12; Gen 46:4; GrBar 13:2; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 18, 2) Lk 18:5. σωθῆναι 2 Cl 19:3.—To the end, until the end (Epict. 1, 7, 17; Jos., Ant. 19, 96; JosAs 23:5) Mt 10:22; 24:13; Mk 13:13; IEph 14:2; IRo 10:3.—Forever, through all eternity (Dionys. Hal. 13, 88, 3; Ps 9:19; 76:9; 1 Ch 28:9; Da 3:34) ἔφθασεν ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος 1 Th 2:16 (s. also below and cp. TestLevi 6:11, concerning which there is a variety of opinion). εἰς τέλος ἀπολέσαι τὴν ζωήν lose one’s life forever Hs 8, 8, 5b.—Decisively, extremely, fully, altogether (Polyb. 1, 20, 7; 10; 12, 27, 3 and oft.; Diod S 18, 57, 1 ταπεινωθέντες εἰς τ.=ruined utterly; Lucian, Philop. 14; Appian, Bell. Mithr. 44 §174; OGI 90, 12 [II B.C.]; PTebt 38, 11 [II B.C.]; 49, 11; 793 [s. οὖς 1]; Josh 8:24; 2 Ch 12:12; Ps 73:1; Job 6:9; PsSol 1:1; TestAbr A 13 p. 92, 23 [Stone p. 32]; ApcMos 19; Jos., Vi. 24; Just., A I, 44, 12; Diodorus on Ps 51:7: MPG 33, 1589b εἰς τέλος τουτέστι παντελῶς) 1 Th 2:16 (forever is also prob.; s. above); B 4:7; 10:5; 19:11. ἱλαρὰ εἰς τέλος ἦν she was quite cheerful Hv 3, 10, 5. Cp. 3, 7, 2; m 12, 2, 3; Hs 6, 2, 3; 8, 6, 4; 8, 8, 2; 5a; 8, 9, 3; 9, 14, 2.—For εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς J 13:1 s. εἰς 3.
δ. ἐν τέλει at the end (opp. πρὸ αἰώνων) IMg 6:1.
③ the goal toward which a movement is being directed, end, goal, outcome (Dio Chrys. 67 [17], 3; Epict. 1, 30, 4; 3, 24, 7; Maximus Tyr. 20, 3b; Jos., Ant. 9, 73; TestAsh 1:3; ἡ θεία παίδευσις καὶ εἰσαγωγὴν ἔχει καὶ προκοπὴν καὶ τ. Did., Gen. 69, 9) Mt 26:58. τὸ τέλος κυρίου the outcome which the Lord brought about in the case of Job’s trials Js 5:11 (Diod S 20, 13, 3 τὸ δαιμόνιον τοῖς ὑπερηφάνως διαλογιζομένοις τὸ τέλος τῶν κατελπισθέντων εἰς τοὐναντίον μετατίθησιν=the divinity, in the case of the arrogant, turns the outcome of what they hoped for to the opposite.—On Js 5:11 s. 1 above). τὸ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη the instruction has love as its aim 1 Ti 1:5 (Ἐπίκουρος … λέγων τὸ τ. τῆς σοφίας εἶναι ἡδονήν Hippol., Ref. 1, 22, 4. τ.=‘goal’ or ‘purpose’: Epict. 1, 20, 15; 4, 8, 12; Diog. L. 2, 87; Just., D. 2, 6). Perh. this is the place for Ro 10:4, in the sense that Christ is the goal and the termination of the law at the same time, somewhat in the sense of Gal 3:24f (schol. on Pla., Leg. 625d τέλος τῶν νόμων=goal of the laws; Plut., Mor. 780e δίκη … νόμου τέλος ἐστί; FFlückiger, TZ 11, ’55, 153–57; difft. RJewett, Int 39, ’85, 341–56, Christ as goal but without repudiation of the law; cp. SBechtler, CBQ 56, ’94, 288–308); s. 1.—Esp. also of the final goal toward which pers. and things are striving, of the outcome or destiny which awaits them in accordance w. their nature (TestAsh 6:4; Philo, Exs. 162, Virt. 182; Just., A II, 3, 7; Ath., R. 24 p. 77, 19; Aelian, VH 3, 43; Alciphron 4, 7, 8; Procop. Soph., Ep. 154; τὸ τ. ὁρόμου Orig., C. Cels. 7, 52, 6) τὸ τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος … τὸ τέλος ζωὴν αἰώνιον Ro 6:21f. Cp. 2 Cor 11:15; Phil 3:19 (HKoester, NTS 8, ’61/62, 325f): perh. a play on a mystery term; 1 Pt 4:17 (cp. 2 Macc 7:30–38); Hb 6:8. κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως 1 Pt 1:9. τέλος τὰ πράγματα ἔχει all things have a goal or final destiny (i.e. death or life) IMg 5:1 (τέλος ἔχειν as Plut., Mor. 382e; Polyaenus 4, 2, 11 τέλος οὐκ ἔσχεν ἡ πρᾶξις=did not reach its goal; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 181, Ant. 17, 185.—Ael. Aristid. 52 p. 597 D.: τὸ τέλος πάντων πραγμάτων). εἰς τέλος εἶναι be at = reach the goal IRo 1:1 (εἰς for ἐν; s. εἰς 1aδ).
④ last in a series, rest, remainder (Aristot. De Gen. Anim. 1, 18 p. 725b, 8; Is 19:15. Of a military formation Arrian, Tact. 10, 5; 18, 4), if τὸ τέλος 1 Cor 15:24 is to be taken, w. JWeiss and Ltzm., of a third and last group (τάγμα 1b; s. 2a and 2bα above).
⑤ revenue obligation, (indirect) tax, toll-tax, customs duties (X., Pla. et al.; ins, pap; 1 Macc 10:31; 11:35; Jos., Ant. 12, 141) ἀποδιδόναι τὸ τέλος Ro 13:7b; cp. a (w. φόρος as Appian, Sicil. 2, 6, Bell. Civ. 2, 13 §47; Vi. Aesopi W 92; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 10, 22. Pl. w. εἰσφοραί Theoph. Ant. 1, 10 [p. 80, 19]). λαμβάνειν τέλη ἀπό τινος Mt 17:25 (w. κῆνσος; Just., A I, 27, 2).—τὰ τέλη τ. αἰώνων 1 Cor 10:11 is transl. the (spiritual) revenues of the ages by ASouter (Pocket Lex. of the NT 1916, s.v. τέλος) and PMacpherson, ET 55, ’43/44, 222 (s. 2a above).—GDelling, TW VIII, 50–88: τέλος and related words, also ZNW 55, ’64, 26–42=Studien zum NT, ’70, 17–31.—B. 802; 979. Schmidt, Syn. IV 496–523. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 998–999). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

 

[Der Alte]

...
"The most ancient manuscripts omit the words, "for ever" ", i.e. they omit the Greek word aion:
1 Peter 1:23 Commentaries: for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
As do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ASV, DBY, ERV, & most at:
1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God....

I have answered this specious argument before. While the word aion does not occur in some mss of 1 Pet 1:23. It does occur in vs. 25 where it does modify "word."' My argument stands unrefuted.

1 Peter 1:23
(23) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God.
1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[αἰών/aion] " And this is the word that was preached to you.​

In verse 23 “word of God” is paired with “imperishable.” In verse 25 the word of God “endures εις τον αιωνα unto eternity. ” Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity.”

 

[1 John 4:1]

"If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense." "Horses,""riders,""birds" all make good sense. A sword coming from a rider's mouth does not make good sense so it must be figurative. As you have shown by quoting Heb 4:12

People on horses-literal. vs. 11, Eyes a flame of fire-figurative.vs. 12 Robes dipped in blood could be literal or figurative. vs. 13. Sharp sword from his mouth-figurative vs. 15. Rod of iron-figurative, quote Ps 2:9 vs. 15. "wine press" figurative vs. 15

Literal, vultures and buzzards gather in groups to eat dead flesh. I saw a group of about 5 vultures eating a dead animal beside a road yesterday.

Armies gathered to make war -literal. Horses actually exist, may be literal or "horses" could represent vehicles of war which the writer was not familiar with.

Sword out of his mouth, figurative see Heb 4:12, above. Everything else literal.

""If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense." "Horses,""riders,""birds" all make good sense. A sword coming from a rider's mouth does not make good sense so it must be figurative. As you have shown by quoting Heb 4:12"
By your logic the parable of the sower Matthew 13:4 would have to be taken literally because all the things in it make good sense. Also swords coming out of people's mouths does make good sense: By the Sword: The Science of Sword-Swallowing It's the fact that these things are used as symbols elsewhere and the nature of the writing in revelation that we can tell it is figurative. If you try to take it literally you have so many issues, for instance what rider would be arrogant enough to name himself "the word of God?" and why aren't the allegiances of these riders described if they are indeed in a literal army? Why would a sword coming out of the mouth be killing people if it is the word of God? "out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations" You can't have it both ways, if the sword isn't literal then the stuff it does has to be non-literal as well, (including many of the things it interacts with) it's not literally striking the nations and the people that are dead from it in the next few verses (presumably) are not literally being eaten by birds (again see the parable of the sower or other places where the imagery of birds is used) Revelation is using militaristic imagery to describe spiritual warfare.

...

Are you sure you want to base your understanding of Revelation on a 100 year old Jewish encyclopedia article? The letters to the 7 churches were not written to Jews but former pagan Christians they would not have had any knowledge or understanding of Jewish mythology

The difference is those being tormented are also said to have "no rest day or night" further emphasizing the unending nature of the torment.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name." ​

Why did it take 2000 years +/- for one person to "find" the exact location of the lake of fire?
....The valley of Gehinnom was never used as a fiery dump for trash or bodies.

The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1922-56], 4:2:1030). Also a more recent author holds a similar view (Lloyd R. Bailey, "Gehenna: The Topography of Hell," Biblical Archeologist 49 [1986]: 189.
Source, Bibliotheca Sacra / July–September 1992
Scharen: Gehenna in the Synoptics Pt. 1​

Note there is no “archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, [that Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump] in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources” If Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump there should be broken pottery, tools, utensils, bones, etc. but there is no such evidence.

“Gehenna is presented as diametrically opposed to ‘life’: it is better to enter life than to go to Gehenna. . .It is common practice, both in scholarly and less technical works, to associate the description of Gehenna with the supposedly contemporary garbage dump in the valley of Hinnom. This association often leads scholars to emphasize the destructive aspects of the judgment here depicted: fire burns until the object is completely consumed. Two particular problems may be noted in connection with this approach. First, there is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery rubbish dump in this location (in any case, a thorough investigation would be appreciated). Secondly, the significant background to this passage more probably lies in Jesus’ allusion to Isaiah 66:24.”
(“The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The Reader Must Understand edited by K. Brower and M. W. Ellion, p. 223, emphasis mine)
G. R. Beasley-Murray in Jesus and the Kingdom of God:
“Ge-Hinnom (Aramaic Ge-hinnam, hence the Greek Geenna), ‘The Valley of Hinnom,’ lay south of Jerusalem, immediately outside its walls. The notion, still referred to by some commentators, that the city’s rubbish was burned in this valley, has no further basis than a statement by the Jewish scholar Kimchi (sic) made about A.D. 1200; it is not attested in any ancient source.” (p. 376n.92)
The Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna is a myth - Archaeology, Biblical History & Textual Criticism ​

Why aren't the fires of Sodom still burning? Because John didn't say the "vengeance' or the "suffering" was eternal. The adjective aionios only modifies the word "fire." The aionios fire is no longer in Sodom, it obviously returned to God when it accomplished His purpose, just as God's eternal word does.

The things about Gehenna you shared are very interesting thanks. However I believe that Gehenna still symbolizes destruction. If you can show that this article is inaccurate I would be most interested: Gehenna - Wikipedia
"There is evidence however that the southwest shoulder of this valley (Ketef Hinnom) was a burial location with numerous burial chambers that were reused by generations of families from as early as the seventh until the fifth century BC. The use of this area for tombs continued into the first centuries BC and AD. By 70 AD, the area was not only a burial site but also a place for cremation of the dead with the arrival of the Tenth Roman Legion, who were the only group known to practice cremation in this region.[26]

In time it became deemed to be accursed and an image of the place of destruction in Jewish folklore.[27][28]"

I have no prejudice against Jewish scholars or old encyclopedia articles. If you have information that contradicts that article please present your sources.

As for Rev 14:11 I can have no rest day and night yet this doesn't have to be forever. In addition the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah are never said to have returned back to God. How could spiritual fire burn a physical city? Also to take this literally you would have to take the following verse in Isaiah about the judgement of Edom literally which also says "night or day" You can't just ignore all these other verses and still claim these things are forever:

Isaiah 34
9Its streams shall be turned into pitch,
And its dust into brimstone;
Its land shall become burning pitch.
10 It shall not be quenched night or day;
Its smoke shall ascend forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
No one shall pass through it forever and ever.

​

Right after this in Rev 14:16-17 there's someone siting on a cloud that reaps the earth with a sickle. Is that literal too?

 

[Der Alte]

""If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense." "Horses,""riders,""birds" all make good sense. A sword coming from a rider's mouth does not make good sense so it must be figurative. As you have shown by quoting Heb 4:12"
By your logic the parable of the sower Matthew 13:4 would have to be taken literally because all the things in it make good sense.

Before cherry picking verses trying to prove me wrong perhaps you should first read the complete context. The parable is introduced as a parable. Others are explained afterward.

Also swords coming out of people's mouths does make good sense: By the Sword: The Science of Sword-Swallowing

Are you serious? Revelation is not talking about circus performers. And I have never seen a circus performer spew out a flaming sword.

It's the fact that these things are used as symbols elsewhere and the nature of the writing in revelation that we can tell it is figurative. If you try to take it literally you have so many issues, for instance what rider would be arrogant enough to name himself "the word of God?"

Saying something is a fact does not make it so. Another proof text which you didn't check the context. The rider on the white did not name himself.

Revelation 19:11-13
(11) I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war.
(12) His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.
(13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.​

Who is the one sitting on the white horse?

Revelation 17:14
(14) They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."​

and why aren't the allegiances of these riders described if they are indeed in a literal army? Why would a sword coming out of the mouth be killing people if it is the word of God? "out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations" You can't have it both ways, if the sword isn't literal then the stuff it interacts with has to be non-literal as well, it's not literally striking the nations and the people that are dead from it in the next few verses (presumably) are not literally being eaten by birds (again see the parable of the sower or other places where the imagery of birds is used)

I have already debunked your sower argument. For the rest "If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense." The presence of one figure of speech in a passage does not make everything else figurative.

The things about Gehenna you shared are very interesting thanks. However I believe that Gehenna still symbolizes destruction. If you can show that this article is inaccurate I would be most interested: Gehenna - Wikipedia
"There is evidence however that the southwest shoulder of this valley (Ketef Hinnom) was a burial location with numerous burial chambers that were reused by generations of families from as early as the seventh until the fifth century BC. The use of this area for tombs continued into the first centuries BC and AD. By 70 AD, the area was not only a burial site but also a place for cremation of the dead with the arrival of the Tenth Roman Legion, who were the only group known to practice cremation in this region.[26]
In time it became deemed to be accursed and an image of the place of destruction in Jewish folklore.[27][28]"
I have no prejudice against Jewish scholars or old encyclopedia articles. If you have information that contradicts that article please present your sources.

Seriously, wiki? Wiki is about as reliable as the scribbles on a public facility wall. Every page has [edit] links. Anybody can add, delete or change anything without review. I have done it a few times to show it is possible.

As for Rev 14:11 I can have no rest day and night yet this doesn't have to be forever. In addition the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah are never said to have returned back to God. Also to take this literally you would have to take the following verse in Isaiah about the judgement of Edom literally which also says "night or day" You can't just ignore all these other verses and still claim these things are forever:

Isaiah 34
9Its streams shall be turned into pitch,
And its dust into brimstone;
Its land shall become burning pitch.
10 It shall not be quenched night or day;
Its smoke shall ascend forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
No one shall pass through it forever and ever.​

​

The difference is Isaiah does not mention anything happening to people. The smoke may be ascending forever and I believe that area is still desolate.

Right after this in Rev 14:16-17 there's someone siting on a cloud that reaps the earth with a sickle. Is that literal too?

You should read the context of your proof texts before you post. The one on the cloud is an angel. I don't know what powers or capabilities an angel has.

 

[Micah888]

@DeaconDean However, since we are supposed to love God (without needing to be rewarded by him) then maybe being scared of hell would distract from developing that unconditional love.

1. Children of God are never scared of Hell, so they can focus on loving God and others.

2. All the unsaved are destined for Hell unless they repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. So not only should they be scared of Hell, they should obey the Gospel so that they too do not have to think about Hell.

3. No matter all the nonsense that is being preached and taught today, a careful and sober reading of the New Testament, and particularly the words of Christ, should make it clear to every human being that (1) God and Christ HATE sin, (2) God will judge sinners, and (3) all those who are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire. And that is why we have the Gospel.

 

[1 John 4:1]

@Der Alter
I think you realize that you could still tell it was a parable even if it didn't say it was. (stop assuming I'm not checking the context) Also how would the people he tells the parable to realize it is a parable if it makes logical sense? It tells us it is a parable but it doesn't say he tells them.

I was asking you if you had sources that would contradict that wiki article. There's a lot of bad sources out there, wikipedia of course can be unreliable but it usually isn't because it has a lot of different editors that catch things. Take for example one of the top science journals reviewed it: https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a I see now that you've also used the Jewish Encyclopedia in your arguments in your first post on this thread. Were you meaning to be pejorative when you referred to it as a 100 year old Jewish encyclopedia?

Anyways here's some evidence you might find interesting: (EDIT: from Jer 7)
31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
32 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place.

EDIT: Also check out Jeremiah 19. It might help you not get so annoyed if you didn't just assume the people you are arguing with are being as stupid as you think they are.

 

[1 John 4:1]

"Saying something is a fact does not make it so. Another proof text which you didn't check the context. The rider on the white did not name himself.
Revelation 19:11-13
(11) I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war.
(12) His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.
(13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Who is the one sitting on the white horse?
Revelation 17:14
(14) They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."

My point is the name isn't literal. (it also wouldn't make sense if his parents named him that) It's what his character or authority is known as: "the name of a person literally was identified with that person's life, reputation, character, and even spiritual destiny." Introduction to the Hebrew Names and Titles of God The lamb also can't be the word of God and the lamb at the same time literally.

 

[Der Alte]

I think you realize that you could still tell it was a parable even if it didn't say it was. (stop assuming I'm not checking the context) Also how would the people he tells the parable to realize it is a parable if it makes logical sense? It tells us it is a parable but it doesn't say he tells them.

Irrelevant whether Jesus told His audience when He was using a parable. But I think they did not know.

Matthew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.​

I was asking you if you had sources that would contradict that wiki article. There's a lot of bad sources out there, wikipedia of course can be unreliable but it usually isn't because it has a lot of different editors that catch things. Take for example one of the top science journals reviewed it: https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a

And I said why should I? You didn't post anything which disproved my sources. As for wiki I said that I have posted things on wiki to show that it can be done. Something could be posted there which might not be reviewed for some time.

I see now that you've also used the Jewish Encyclopedia in your arguments in your first post on this thread. Were you meaning to be pejorative when you referred to it as a 100 year old Jewish encyclopedia?

Context again. Why did I say what I did? While I consider the Jewish Encyclopedia reliable when referring to historical Jewish beliefs and practices. I do not consider them to be knowledgeable about the NT.

Anyways here's some evidence you might find interesting: (EDIT: from Jer 7)
31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.
32 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. I was addressing the myth that the valley of Hinnom was used for a dump where trash and bodies were burned continuously. Jer 7;31ff. was a one time occurrence and would not provide the evidence that hundreds of years of burning trash and dead bodies would.

EDIT: Also check out Jeremiah 19. It might help you not get so annoyed if you didn't just assume the people you are arguing with are being as stupid as you think they are

.

Your posts did not indicate that you knew the context. Jer 19 does not contradict my post.

 

[Der Alte]

... My point is the name isn't literal. (it also wouldn't make sense if his parents named him that) It's what his character or authority is known as: "the name of a person literally was identified with that person's life, reputation, character, and even spiritual destiny." Introduction to the Hebrew Names and Titles of God The lamb also can't be the word of God and the lamb at the same time literally.

Jesus was called "the Lamb of God" long before John wrote Rev. The lamb can be "the word of God" and lamb as the same time in the same way Jesus was Himself and the lamb of God at the same time.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!​

 

[Viren]

One verse was used merely to illustrate the fundamental doctrine. There is a whole body of verses which can be put together to confirm that the Bible teaches eternal damnation for the unsaved in the Lake of Fire.

Pointing to humans returning to dust is only a half-truth. Souls and spirits are immaterial and imperishable (not *immortal* which only applies to bodies). But it would seem that you wish to ignore the soul and spirit and their eternal destinies.

As to apollumi, it has been explained very clearly in the concordances and lexicons, and it means much more than annihilation --

1. metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell

If everyone already has eternal life what's the point of being born again?

 

[Micah888]

If everyone already has eternal life what's the point of being born again?

You may be confusing "imperishable soul" with eternal life. Souls and spirits cannot be annihilated, but they can either be in the eternal presence of God and Christ (eternal life) or they can be in the eternal torments in Hell, separated from God eternally (the second death).

 

[1 John 4:1]

"Irrelevant whether Jesus told His audience when He was using a parable. But I think they did not know."
I think it is relevant since it shows how you can understand a parable with things in it that make logical sense. I don't think the line is as clear as you would like. (circus performers obey logic as does everything physical by the way there are videos of people swallowing flaming swords if you care to look despite the fact that the sword in Revelation isn't described as flaming) and I think they did know because this was a common form of parable (again the idea that the symbols are used before and this follows a theme):

"Also, by introducing four types of seed, Yeshua employed a common Rabbinic tactic
used to describe different types of disciples. In the Mishnah Pirket Avot 5:18, it reads:
There are four kinds of qualities of those who sit at the feet of the sages: they are
like a sponge, a funnel, a strainer, or a sieve. A sponge soaks up everything; a
funnel takes it in at one end and lets it out at the other; a strainer lets the wine pass
through but retains the lees; a sieve lets out the bran and retains the fine flour.”"
Understanding Yeshua's parables from a Hebrew Perspective also see the talmud passage here: Pirkei Avot 5:15

Matthew 13:13 could also just mean that they didn't understand the parable not that they didn't think it was a parable. However, I believe you have the context backwards for that verse, parables were used to get at peoples hearts essentially reveal not conceal Isaiah 6:8-13 Isaiah 6 Brenton Septuagint Translation Notice that Jesus is quoting the Septuagint (which agrees more with older documents like the dead sea scrolls) here:

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’
(Matthew 13 NKJV)

9Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive.
10For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
(Isaiah 6 Brenton Septuagint)

9 And He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 “Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.”
(Isaiah 6 NKJV)

"And I said why should I?"
You don't have to do anything for me on this forum I said "I would be most interested" if you could show that the article was inaccurate. I'm trying to learn things but it seems by this statement you are more interested in debate. I won't rely on wikipedia but if I have nothing else on a particular topic I tend to go with it:

"A recent essay by American historian Roy Rosenzweig examined the effects of Wikipedia on historical writing and its credibility as a reliable source. He compared entries in Wikipedia with more well-regarded resources and surprisingly he found a similar error rate! While Wikipedia’s anonymous, open-source system may cause concern about vandalism and misinformation, his tests have found that serious mistakes are not only much less common than one might expect, but are typically corrected within a matter of hours." Can you trust the historical accuracy of Wikipedia? - Technology news for museums - Canada.ca

"Context again. Why did I say what I did?"
That's why I asked if you were being pejorative. I still don't know why you included the comment about it being 100 years old though.

"While I consider the Jewish Encyclopedia reliable when referring to historical Jewish beliefs and practices. I do not consider them to be knowledgeable about the NT. "
I consider them reliable on Jewish apocalyptic literature which they see in the book of revelation I don't think they need to be knowledgeable about the NT to recognize their own literature and themes.

"Your posts did not indicate that you knew the context. Jer 19 does not contradict my post."
I said "here's some evidence you might find interesting" I think it's evidence that if this happened in history (and it was a hugely significant event of destruction) that they might still associate this valley with destruction and slaughter. (since they called it "the valley of slaughter"

"You should read the context of your proof texts before you post. The one on the cloud is an angel. I don't know what powers or capabilities an angel has."
I did actually read the immediate context but it doesn't look like you did. It didn't say the one with a sickle in the verses I referred to was an angel just "like the Son of man" Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 14:14-17 - New King James Version

This is metaphorical language that goes back to language associated with the kingdom of heaven and the harvest.

"The difference is Isaiah does not mention anything happening to people. The smoke may be ascending forever and I believe that area is still desolate."
There are differences between almost all verses, the relevant things are the phrases you are saying mean forever. People had to pass through to see that it was desolate. If we take revelation literally there will be a new heavens a new earth so the burning pitch and smoke and desolation cannot be there forever in the new perfection.

"The lamb can be "the word of God" and lamb as the same time in the same way Jesus was Himself and the lamb of God at the same time."
I mean I understand that it literally says he was the word in John and the word became flesh but this isn't a literal usage of "word" look at the usages it has: 3056 - Search the Apostolic Bible Polyglot

"
Before cherry picking verses trying to prove me wrong perhaps you should first read the complete context.
. . .
Are you serious?
. . .
Seriously, wiki?
" (and much other snarkiness)

Anyways, I'm not going to put up with the condescending way you are acting towards me and your behavior of combing through my posts for insignificant things you can twist and sneer at so I'm not going to respond to you anymore.