Hello Secular Humanist, nice to meet you. Interesting name you have chosen.
I joined in 2008 - when I was a secular humanist, I have requested a change of username.
Now define destruction.
With a biblical definition found by comparing scripture itself, that is.
comparing a translational definition by said translation? Is using the ESV and the oxford dictionary not good enough? A word is a word and has a meaning. Destruction IS by definition "extinction". Whenever God says he will destroy, it means destroy. It means lots of death, carnage and blood.
"To those that...are, or will?"
Are. They are in a state of destruction even as all of us were before hearing the Gospel and being saved.
Then Isaiah 66 is a lie - dead bodies are dead bodies, the KJV calls them carcuses -there is evident confirmation that the people at the end are dead. Life has gone, they are expired. This is not the same state. Anyway, that only describes the potential end state - when someone is in a state of death - it refers to the end state. Son of Destruction [both the antichrist and Judas] means he who will bring death, it also refers to his final state - destroyed.
The translation is, in my opinion only, a little sketchy. But, this verse does speak of those that are currently under condemnation who will be completely due the wages they receive when the wrath of God is poured out.
Yes destruction!
But there is nothing in that verse that negates that man is, until receiving the life of Christ...dead.
There is a difference between dead and annihilated.
Actually, no there isnt. I am not an annihilationist, I believe that Death is as good as annihilation, but I don't believe in a spirit that gets destroyed. I believe in the physical body, and life that comes from God [which is referred to as spirit]. That is what the bible supports.
Yes...
Both, if someone is dead - unless there is a resurrection they are always dead - ergo that death shall not end. But the pain of the Lake of Fire will end.
Then we do have a problem, SH...because we read in several places where it does not, therefore you have just concluded that scripture contradicts itself.
No, we have concluded that bringing tradition into scriptural translations causes contradictions that need to be resolved. But none of this is a problem of doctrine. its like OT contradictions that are resolved by the LXX.
You seem very arrogant if I may say so.
Not at all. For they will have no power to do that which they want to do. Just like the man in prison without possibility for parole cannot do as he pleases, nor can he continue in those things which brought him to be punished.
Yes but he is alive, and thus he still exists, therefore sin exists - just as the blood of christian martyrs cries out from the ground because those who killed them have yet to be punished [the wages of sin is death, if they are alive in hell being tortured then they are not dead]
And here you make the universe...the spirit realm. The New Heaven and New Earth will not be the Lord reconstructing His abode, but man's abode.
You don't know that and neither do I! What I do no is that God's dwelling place will be with man. It says so in Revelation 21. Also I was under the impression that the third heaven was outside our universe, but in traditional view Hell is at the centre of the earth [which is actually Sheol/Hades]
Else they could not be called New if the current is not...replaced.
Why are you bringing in spirit realms? Hell is not 'spiritual', it is physical! The Lake of Fire is Gehenna, not Hades. Hades or Sheol is the closest thing to your idea of hell. Thank you KJV.
Not according to scripture:
very much according to scripture@
"In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there." Ps 37:10
"I will bring you to a dreadful end, and you shall be no more. Though you be sought for, you will never be found again, declares the Lord GOD. Ez 26:21
" His winnowing-shovel is in His hand, and He will make a thorough clearance of His threshing-floor, gathering His wheat into the storehouse, but
burning up the chaff in unquenchable fire." Matthew 3:12 [Notice burning UP, not burning, but burning UP]
"Isaiah 5:24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame "consumeth" the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel"
[definition of consume:
4. to destroy or be destroyed by burning, decomposition, etc. fire consumed the forest
3. (tr) to use up; expend my car consumes little oil]
Revelation 14:9-11
King James Version (KJV)
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Now, to be fair, I will cede the point that
and they have no rest day nor night" could be said to refer to their time on earth, it makes little difference. However, it destroys your view that the Lake of Fire is destroyed when the universe is destroyed, because it could not then be said "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever."
And with the metaphor employed here we would not think that there is not a source for the smoke, would we?"
forever and ever could be translated "Ages unto Ages [EBR]", or for an indeterminate period of time [from the definiton of the greek "Aionios"]"
When the vast sum of the bible refers to the wicked as "chaff driven away by the wind[Ps 1]" Its hard to accept a potentially shaky translation of an obscure greek word that is still under debate today. The bible has to be taken as a whole from Genesis to Revelation, not just a couple of verses.
God will destroy His abode as well?
His abode is Earth "The Dwelling place of God is with man", I don't know what he will do with the Heaven outside of the Universe. There is no sin in his abode anyway.
"
Rev 21 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.'"
Notice how it says there will be no more pain...thats a pretty categorical statement, its saying in general - no death, no pain, no crying, no mourning. Now if the wicked are all already dead- no more death thats cool. but if the wicked are burning in hell - spiritually or physically - then there is still crying, still mourning, and DEFINITELY still pain.
Now consider the context when the Lord quotes this:
Mark 9:41-48
King James Version (KJV)
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Given the temporal nature of the prophecy, a couple of things that deny annihilation should jump out at the reader.
First, it is quite clear, and opposite to the view given by annihilationists, that the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
Why would the Lord speak that which was not true? So we see a problem, all right, but it is not a problem for those that believe what is written here, spoken by the Lord Himself.
As it says in Isaiah, what difference is there? Its a quote from Isaiah, talking about the same thing. Cast into - means thrown into - Gehenna!
Its saying, "it is better two lose both your hands than to be thrown onto the rubbish heap, where you will be consumed vigorously by maggots and fire." We are viewing it from 2000 years of catholic tradition, Devils with pitchforks and other such graphic images.
Secondly, if annihilation were in view, then it would not make much difference...all receive the same punishment, right?
Of course the punishment is the same, its quality not quantity. People collected up by Angels and cast into the lake of fire. Inevitably it is up to God what happens next.
Third, the Lord says they will go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.
Well what does quench mean? Does it mean never end, no, it means satisfied. to satisfy your thirst - to quench your thirst. So basically it will be as if the fire wants more, it doesnt mean never ending - it means powerful. it means it will burn with an appetite, very powerfully and vigorously, without satisfaction. Let me put it like this, if it were a never ending fire, why doesn't it say fire that burns without end?
Annihilationists count on a caricature of both God and those that believe He means what He says to influence others into subscribing to their doctrine. And this is exactly what they do when they do not discern that what is in view here...is judgment. Fire is used metaphorically to speak of judgment, and the Lord states plainly this judgment will never end:
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Continued...
Be careful not to judge your brother as you are, after all you shall be judged by that same standard. I have already answered the "quenched" debacle. It is a fire that will never be satisfied. A better book to look on that is "the fire that consumes." As I have said, I am not an annihilationist. I am a conditionalist, I believe in the same God as you, but I have a different view on certain things. Like: I don't believe anyone is in hell right now, I don't believe anyone who dies now is in heaven - or actually ever will be, Theres absolutely no scriptural evidence on that [Rev 21]. Its better to "enter into life" Than to be cast into hell - well, by your definition - the person in hell is a thinking, living being, undergoing torment. So both are alive. Or, that person has both hands, and is thoroughly incinerated and consumed in Gehenna - dead. there, the contrast, life or death, not a living death, but death.
