Annihilationism

[StanJ]

Notice that Jesus uses one Greek word(apokteino) for what man can do and another Greek word (apollumi)for what God does at the end of time in hell. If the Greek words were the same, then annihilationists would have a possible argument.
Notice that Luke 12 indicates that God can kill the body, then afterward cast into hell. Hell never means the grave. According to annihilationists, a man is destroyed 100% at death. This verse proves otherwise!
2 Thess 1:9 And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
(the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in 2 Thess 1:9)
Although the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in this verse, notice that hell is explained as being "away from God's presence and glory". This proves that hell is a banishment not an annihilation.

1. Heaven is "not of this creation": Hebrews 9:11,24
2. God's future kingdom is "not of this world or realm": John 18:36
3. Physical universe will be destroyed: 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 20:11
4. "Things seen are temporary, but things not seen are eternal": 2 Cor 4:18
5. "The first things have passed away": Revelation 21:4
6. Created things will be removed: Hebrews 12:25-27
7. No longer any sea, night, sun or moon: Revelation 21:1,23; 22:5
8. Heaven is in the very presence of the Father: John 13:36-14:6
9. We hope to "enter within the veil" where God dwells: Heb 6:19-20;10:19-20
10. We are earthbound guests with a heavenly destination: 1 Pe 1:17; Heb 13:14

 

[expos4ever]

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

I certainly don't believe this; I believe the lost are eventually destroyed.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . According to annihilationists, a man is destroyed 100% at death. This verse proves otherwise! . . .

I certainly don't believe this; I believe the lost are eventually destroyed.

Whether instantaneously or "eventually" the end result is the same the lost are supposedly destroyed.

While reading examples of apolummi in the NT.I found a very interesting occurrence. In this verse apolummi is synonymous with regnumi, i.e. break, wreck or crack.

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, [ῥήγνυμι/regnumi] and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish:[ἀπόλλυμι/apolummi] but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
ῥήγνυμι, ῥήσσω rhēgnumi rhēssō hrayg'-noo-mee, hrace'-so​

Both are prolonged forms of ῥήκω rhēko (which appears only in certain forms, and is itself probably a strengthened form of ἄγνυμι agnumi (see in G2608)); to “break”, “wreck” or “crack”, that is, (especially) to sunder (by separation of the parts; ...figuratively to give vent to joyful emotions: - break (forth), burst, rend, tear
.
ἀπόλλυμι apollumi ap-ol'-loo-mee
From G575 and the base of G3639; to destroy fully (reflexively to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively: - destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

 

[expos4ever]

2 Thess 1:9 And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power
(the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in 2 Thess 1:9)
Although the word "apollumi" is NOT USED in this verse, notice that hell is explained as being "away from God's presence and glory". This proves that hell is a banishment not an annihilation.

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

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

 

[Der Alte]

The fact that this text allows the interpretation you confer to it does not mean that other interpretations are not available as we;;. To be non-existent certainly seems like being "away from" the presence of the Lord to me. Besides, the Greek word that is translated as "away from" is "apo", and that word does not always have the "away" implication that I believe your argument rests on. Sometimes it is translated simply as "from".
The point is that I suggest your argument get most of its force from the implication that the lost are banished away from the presence of God; indeed that is at least suggestive that they are in another place. However, as stated, the word "apo" is not always translated with the "away" bit thrown in; sometimes it is just "from". And without the "away", I see no reason to pick between your interpretation and the view that, as annihilated persons, these people are indeed 'absent' from God's presence.

It appears that the primary meaning of apo is "away." Something/someone which no longer exists cannot be away from anything.

G575 ἀπό apo apo'
A primary particle; “off”, that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.​

 

[StanJ]

I certainly don't believe this; I believe the lost are eventually destroyed.

Yes but you accept the wrong connotation if the English rather than the proper connotation if the Greek.

 

[StanJ]

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

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

Actually that is not the fact, that is your opinion based on faulty reasoning or lack of really understanding what the Greek says. What you clearly do is eisegete scripture instead of exegeting it, as you demonstrate in this argument. Words of like not always and are available are words used to equivocate and deflect from the true meaning. This is not a contest to try to make your dogma be seen in scripture, it's a matter of properly exegeting scripture to see what it says. No is no annihilation.

 

[hedrick]

I think arguments over the meaning of destruction are beside the point. When we speak of something being destroyed, it doesn't necessarily vanish. We do, after all, have conservation of matter. So if a house is destroyed there's normally remains, e.g. ash. But it's no longer a usable house. I don't think you can show that the various NT metaphors necessarily indicate complete annihilation. Spirits and spiritual bodies may not be subject to conservation of matter, and thus it may not make sense to think of the sort of remains we see of things destroyed in this world. Hence my initial understanding is annihilation. But that's kind of beside the point. Destroying someone in the second life should not leave them as functioning resurrected beings. God could certainly continue to do something with the remains. After all, some of the OT prophecies to which the NT alludes show worms eating the dead bodies. But that's not the kind of eternal torment people are thinking of.

Personally, I don't think continuing existence of smoking remains is consistent with Rev 21:4. But others have other understandings.

 

[Der Alte]

I think arguments over the meaning of destruction are beside the point. When we speak of something being destroyed, it doesn't necessarily vanish. We do, after all, have conservation of matter. So if a house is destroyed there's normally remains, e.g. ash. But it's no longer a usable house. I don't think you can show that the various NT metaphors necessarily indicate complete annihilation. Spirits and spiritual bodies may not be subject to conservation of matter, and thus it may not make sense to think of the sort of remains we see of things destroyed in this world. Hence my initial understanding is annihilation. But that's kind of beside the point. Destroying someone in the second life should not leave them as functioning resurrected beings. God could certainly continue to do something with the remains. After all, some of the OT prophecies to which the NT alludes show worms eating the dead bodies. But that's not the kind of eternal torment people are thinking of.
Personally, I don't think continuing existence of smoking remains is consistent with Rev 21:4. But others have other understandings.

Rev 21:4 says "there shall be no more death."

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. ​

But after that Rev 21:8 says there is, not was, a second death.

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. ​

 

[mnorian]

Mod Hat On
This thread has been cleaned-up.

To not Flame fellow members.
Talk to the post and not the poster.
Or this thread may be permanently closed.
Thank you.
Mod Hat off. ​

 

[Timothew]

Mod Hat On
This thread has been cleaned-up.

To not Flame fellow members.
Talk to the post and not the poster.
Or this thread may be permanently closed.
Thank you.
Mod Hat off. ​

Thank you. Please understand that there are some here who would be happy if this thread were permanently closed. They may try to cause trouble hoping the thread and the discussion just goes away. Please don't let them do that.

 

[hedrick]

Rev 21:4 says "there shall be no more death."

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. ​

But after that Rev 21:8 says there is, not was, a second death.

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. ​

But between those two, the vision ends. In 5 the author is told "write this." So the future of 8 isn't the same as the future of 4. Indeed unless there are two lakes, we know it's not, because 8 is referring to the lake from Rev 20, which is earlier than 21:4. A new vision starts in 21:10 and goes through 22:7. But the writing between the two visions, and in the epilog, isn't part of the timeframe of the visions. It's addressed to the readers in the present.

 

[expos4ever]

Actually that is not the fact, that is your opinion based on faulty reasoning or lack of really understanding what the Greek says. What you clearly do is eisegete scripture instead of exegeting it, as you demonstrate in this argument. Words of like not always and are available are words used to equivocate and deflect from the true meaning. This is not a contest to try to make your dogma be seen in scripture, it's a matter of properly exegeting scripture to see what it says. No is no annihilation.

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

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

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

 

[expos4ever]

Thank you. Please understand that there are some here who would be happy if this thread were permanently closed. They may try to cause trouble hoping the thread and the discussion just goes away. Please don't let them do that.

I agree. As a veteran of forums, I have seen the following pattern recur:

1. A poster (or posters) find themselves in a position where their view has been effectively challenged by others;

2. The poster responds to these legitimate counterarguments with evasion and / or insult (see post 657 for an absolutely textbook example of this);

3. Those offering the valid counterarguments may well respond in kind to the insults;

4. Either way, the moderators are forced to close the thread.

The overall picture is clear: if a poster finds him or herself in an indefensible position, they can carpet-bomb with insults, get the thread closed, and thereby get off the hook.

Closing the thread only encourages this.

To those defending the annihilation position: we need to keep our noses clean and resist the urge to "fire back". If we indeed stoop to the flaming (and I have perhaps done this in the past myself), we only serve the interests of those who want the thread to go away so as to avoid having to deal with the weakness of their position.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes but you accept the wrong connotation if the English rather than the proper connotation if the Greek.

Unclear. Let's review. You stated:

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

I replied with:

Yes but you accept the wrong connotation if the English rather than the proper connotation if the Greek.

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

 

[expos4ever]

It appears that the primary meaning of apo is "away." Something/someone which no longer exists cannot be away from anything.

G575 ἀπό apo apo'
A primary particle; “off”, that is, away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): - (X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.​

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

I found one definition that did not identify a "primary" meaning, but provided the following definition among others:

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

Clearly, this particular definition does not sustain StanJ's argument that "away from" cannot work with annihilation.

 

[expos4ever]

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

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

Revelation 20:10:

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

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

 

[Der Alte]

But between those two, the vision ends. In 5 the author is told "write this." So the future of 8 isn't the same as the future of 4. Indeed unless there are two lakes, we know it's not, because 8 is referring to the lake from Rev 20, which is earlier than 21:4. A new vision starts in 21:10 and goes through 22:7. But the writing between the two visions, and in the epilog, isn't part of the timeframe of the visions. It's addressed to the readers in the present.

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

 

[expos4ever]

Whether instantaneously or "eventually" the end result is the same the lost are supposedly destroyed.

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

While reading examples of apolummi in the NT.I found a very interesting occurrence. In this verse apolummi is synonymous with regnumi, i.e. break, wreck or crack.

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, [ῥήγνυμι/regnumi] and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish:[ἀπόλλυμι/apolummi] but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
ῥήγνυμι, ῥήσσω rhēgnumi rhēssō hrayg'-noo-mee, hrace'-so​

Both are prolonged forms of ῥήκω rhēko (which appears only in certain forms, and is itself probably a strengthened form of ἄγνυμι agnumi (see in G2608)); to “break”, “wreck” or “crack”, that is, (especially) to sunder (by separation of the parts; ...figuratively to give vent to joyful emotions: - break (forth), burst, rend, tear

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, neither the food nor the wineskin is annihilated!

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

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

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

 

[expos4ever]

God is good, just and moral. An eternal torture God is an eternally evil deity.

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