No Literal Hell?

Mike,

"The intermediate state is also clear in scripture that death is 'sleep' and there is no conciousness”. This is false biblically as I have demonstrated in “Soul Sleep: A Refutation”.

You seem to confuse what happens to the body that rots in the grave and the soul/spirit that lives on after physical death for both believers and unbelievers.

John Calvin adequately summarised the biblical material when he wrote:

That man consists of a soul and a body ought to be beyond controversy. Now I understand by the term "soul" an immortal yet created essence, which is his nobler part. Sometimes it is called "spirit." For even when these terms are joined together, they differ from one another in meaning; yet when the word "spirit" is used by itself, it means the same thing as soul; as when Solomon, speaking of death, says that when "the spirit returns to God who gave it" [Eccl. 12:7]. And when Christ commended his spirit to the Father [Luke 23:46] and Stephen his to Christ [Acts 7:59] they meant only that when the soul is freed from the prison house of the body, God is its perpetual guardian. Some imagine the soul to be called "spirit" for the reason that it is breath, or a force divinely infused into bodies, but that it nevertheless is without essence; both the thing itself and all Scripture show them to be stupidly blundering in this opinion (Institutes of the Christian Religion 1960, I.15.2, p. 184, emphasis added).

Click to expand...

It is clear for the believer that he/she, at physical death, is “absent from the body and present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). As Calvin has pointed out, even the OT affirmed that at death “the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7) for both believers and unbelievers. There is no soul sleep here.

For unbelievers in hell, they are in conscious and in torment (Luke 16:23). Unbelievers are "under punishment [after death] until the day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:9).

However, I don’t think that I will persuade you, even with this biblical evidence.

Sincerely, Oz

OzSpen said:

Mike,
"The intermediate state is also clear in scripture that death is 'sleep' and there is no conciousness”. This is false biblically as I have demonstrated in “Soul Sleep: A Refutation”.
You seem to confuse what happens to the body that rots in the grave and the soul/spirit that lives on after physical death for both believers and unbelievers.
John Calvin adequately summarised the biblical material when he wrote:


It is clear for the believer that he/she, at physical death, is “absent from the body and present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). As Calvin has pointed out, even the OT affirmed that at death “the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7) for both believers and unbelievers. There is no soul sleep here.



For unbelievers in hell, they are in conscious and in torment (Luke 16:23). Unbelievers are "under punishment [after death] until the day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:9).



However, I don’t think that I will persuade you, even with this biblical evidence.



Sincerely, Oz

Click to expand...

The bible clearly states thoughts cease, why don't you believe it?

The bible teaches the resurrection of the dead, not the immortality of the soul.

Please look again and say why Psalm 146:4 and ecclesiates 9:5 are wrong?

Also, please tell me why Jesus states in John 5:28 to 29 that we are in the graves until the resurrection? Was he wrong too?

Also, what about Tyndale and Luther; they are the reformers that led the break from the Catholic church. Were they wrong too?

BTW, you misunderstand the word spirit ans spirit is the breath of God

Ecclesiastes 3:18-19

New International Version (NIV)


18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[a]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless.
Footnotes:

1. Ecclesiastes 3:19 Or spirit

Job 27:3
King James Version (KJV)


3All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils

Breath = spirit

OzSpen said:

Unbelievers are "under punishment [after death] until the day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:9).

However, I don’t think that I will persuade you, even with this biblical evidence.

Sincerely, Oz

Click to expand...

The 2 Peter verse is taken out of context, read on to verse 12,
"and like beasts these too will perish."

But I suppose you will be saying perish doesn't really mean perish, it must mean something else entirely.

Ozpen:

2 Peter 2:9

New International Version (NIV)

9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.

Judgement is on the last day as I have already poted about in Dan 12:2, John 5:28-29.

People are in the dust and graves and arise on the last day. You are mistaken.

Mikecpking said:

BTW, you misunderstand the word spirit ans spirit is the breath of God

Ecclesiastes 3:18-19

New International Version (NIV)

18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[a]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless.
Footnotes:

1. Ecclesiastes 3:19 Or spirit

Job 27:3
King James Version (KJV)

3All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils

Breath = spirit

Click to expand...

Mike,

These are your presuppositions. Let's look at Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6—"The dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun."

Verses 3 and 6 of Eccl. 9 give the context. This is a view from life "under the sun." It's a very human perspective.

Those who are living, know that they will die and so are able to arrange things (hopefully) before they die. That is not so for those who have died. The Preacher of Ecclesiastes is not giving a statement on what happens to all human beings at death. He is giving a perspective from "under the sun" (from how he sees it while in this world).
From the perspective of life "under the sun,"

• • The dead don't know anything now;
  • They have no chance for more reward;
  • The love, hatred and envy they had when living "under the sun" have gone – they are perished;
  • And the obvious: the dead can no longer be engaged (i.e. they cannot have a portion) with anything on the earth.

To push these two verses to make them negate life after death, is not satisfactory, particularly in light of Eccl. 12:7, "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit [Hebrew, ruach; pneuma in Greek LXX) returns to God who gave it." God's Word Translation reads, "Then the dust of mortals goes back to the ground as it was before, and the breath of life goes back to God who gave it." The CEV translates as, "and the life-giving breath returns to God," but gives a footnote for breath as, "or, spirit." Is it "spirit" or "breath" that returns to God at death? The NRSV translates, "and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath returns to God who gave it." The Roman Catholic New American Bible translates it, "The dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God who gave it." These are the only major Bible translations that I have located that translate "breath" instead of "spirit." Even the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1961/1981/1984) translates it as, "Then the dust returns to the earth and the spirit itself returns to the [true] God who gave it."

Hebrew scholar, F. Delitzsch, comments on Eccl. 12:7, "The body returns to the dust from which it was taken, Gen. iii. 19, to the dust of its original material, Ps. civ. 29; and the spirit goes back to the God of its origin, to whom it belongs" (n.d., p. 425). It is true that "ruach" can mean either "breath" (Job 41:21) or "spirit" (Eccl. 12:7), thus making the context the decider. Because the context is talking about death, "spirit" seems the more logical translation, as is confirmed by all of the major Bible translations.

The God of truth cannot speak with a contradictory message such as that promoted by soul sleep proponents that the dead know nothing (Eccl. 9:5) and they are in the presence of the God of all knowledge (Eccl. 12:7).

How do we reconcile Eccl. 3:19 and Eccl. 12:7. Eccl. 3:19 states: "For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity." We need to remember that this book is a description of life from the human perspective of "under the sun."

It is true that human beings are similar to animals in that both have breath and both die. Neither animals nor people can determine when that last breath will leave the body. So, from a human perspective, there is a close resemblance of what happens at death to animals and people. The physical phenomena look identical. We need to understand that the context from Eccl. 3:18 is, "I said in my heart with regard to the children of man." This human perspective is an inference from what is observed in viewing what happens to human beings and animals at death. It is only the language of this world that at death, what happens to animals and people looks the same – their breath leaves them.

However, it would be an error to explain Eccl. 3:19 without the knowledge of Eccl. 12:7.

Therefore, the explanation given here makes sense in context and agrees with the rest of Scripture that Eccl. 12:7 refers to the human spirit which returns to God at death. Of course, physically, the breath leaves the body.

Sincerely, Oz

OzSpen said:

Mike,

These are your presuppositions. Let's look at Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6—"The dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun."

Verses 3 and 6 of Eccl. 9 give the context. This is a view from life "under the sun." It's a very human perspective.

Those who are living, know that they will die and so are able to arrange things (hopefully) before they die. That is not so for those who have died. The Preacher of Ecclesiastes is not giving a statement on what happens to all human beings at death. He is giving a perspective from "under the sun" (from how he sees it while in this world).
From the perspective of life "under the sun,"

• • The dead don't know anything now;
  • They have no chance for more reward;
  • The love, hatred and envy they had when living "under the sun" have gone – they are perished;
  • And the obvious: the dead can no longer be engaged (i.e. they cannot have a portion) with anything on the earth.

To push these two verses to make them negate life after death, is not satisfactory, particularly in light of Eccl. 12:7, "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit [Hebrew, ruach; pneuma in Greek LXX) returns to God who gave it." God's Word Translation reads, "Then the dust of mortals goes back to the ground as it was before, and the breath of life goes back to God who gave it." The CEV translates as, "and the life-giving breath returns to God," but gives a footnote for breath as, "or, spirit." Is it "spirit" or "breath" that returns to God at death? The NRSV translates, "and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath returns to God who gave it." The Roman Catholic New American Bible translates it, "The dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God who gave it." These are the only major Bible translations that I have located that translate "breath" instead of "spirit." Even the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1961/1981/1984) translates it as, "Then the dust returns to the earth and the spirit itself returns to the [true] God who gave it."

Hebrew scholar, F. Delitzsch, comments on Eccl. 12:7, "The body returns to the dust from which it was taken, Gen. iii. 19, to the dust of its original material, Ps. civ. 29; and the spirit goes back to the God of its origin, to whom it belongs" (n.d., p. 425). It is true that "ruach" can mean either "breath" (Job 41:21) or "spirit" (Eccl. 12:7), thus making the context the decider. Because the context is talking about death, "spirit" seems the more logical translation, as is confirmed by all of the major Bible translations.

The God of truth cannot speak with a contradictory message such as that promoted by soul sleep proponents that the dead know nothing (Eccl. 9:5) and they are in the presence of the God of all knowledge (Eccl. 12:7).

How do we reconcile Eccl. 3:19 and Eccl. 12:7. Eccl. 3:19 states: "For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity." We need to remember that this book is a description of life from the human perspective of "under the sun."

It is true that human beings are similar to animals in that both have breath and both die. Neither animals nor people can determine when that last breath will leave the body. So, from a human perspective, there is a close resemblance of what happens at death to animals and people. The physical phenomena look identical. We need to understand that the context from Eccl. 3:18 is, "I said in my heart with regard to the children of man." This human perspective is an inference from what is observed in viewing what happens to human beings and animals at death. It is only the language of this world that at death, what happens to animals and people looks the same – their breath leaves them.

However, it would be an error to explain Eccl. 3:19 without the knowledge of Eccl. 12:7.

Therefore, the explanation given here makes sense in context and agrees with the rest of Scripture that Eccl. 12:7 refers to the human spirit which returns to God at death. Of course, physically, the breath leaves the body.

Sincerely, Oz

Click to expand...

Then how do you explain Gen 2:7?

Genesis 2:7 (King James Version)


7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Dust plus breath of life is a soul. Not 'spirit' = 'soul'

Second, you miss Psalm 146:4 which clearly states thoughts perish a death:

Psalm 146:4 (King James Version)


4His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Death is a complete undoing of Gen 2:7

You will not find 'souls in heaven', 'immortal soul', eternal soul' anywhere in the bible.

Mikecpking said:

The bible clearly states thoughts cease, why don't you believe it?

The bible teaches the resurrection of the dead, not the immortality of the soul.

Click to expand...

Mikecpking said:

Please look again and say why Psalm 146:4 and ecclesiates 9:5 are wrong?

Also, please tell me why Jesus states in John 5:28 to 29 that we are in the graves until the resurrection? Was he wrong too?

Also, what about Tyndale and Luther; they are the reformers that led the break from the Catholic church. Were they wrong too?

Click to expand...

Mike,

The early church regarded your view as not being the truth.
Writing his Ecclesiastical History in the fourth-century, Eusebius of Caesarea, Palestine (ca. AD 265-339) [Cairns 1954/1981, p. 143] wrote of the third century,

About the same time (as when Origen was 60-years-old) others arose in Arabia, putting forward a doctrine foreign to the truth. They said that during the present time the human soul dies and perishes with the body, but that at the time of the resurrection they will be renewed together. And at that time also a synod of considerable size assembled, and Origen, being again invited thither, spoke publicly on the question with such effect that the opinions of those who had formerly fallen were changed (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 6.37).

Click to expand...

The SDA prophetess, Ellen White, calls on the Christian martyr, William Tyndale, to support her doctrine of soul sleep, with this statement:

I confess openly, that I am not persuaded that they be already in the full glory that Christ is in, or the elect angels of God are in. Neither is it any article of my faith; for if it were so, I see not but then the preaching of the resurrection of the flesh were a thing in vain (William Tyndale 1534, Preface to New Testament, cited in White 1950/1971, p. 479)

Click to expand...

Robert Morey notes that

"during the pre-Reformation period, there seems to be some indication that both Wycliffe and Tyndale taught the doctrine of soul sleep as the answer to the Catholic teachings of purgatory and masses for the dead" (1984, p. 200).

Click to expand...

Also, Ellen White claims Martin Luther for a soul sleep ally when Luther stated:

Another place proving that the dead have no . . . feeling. There is, said he, no duty, no science, no knowledge, no wisdom there. Solomon judgeth that the dead are asleep, and feel nothing at all. For the dead lie there, accounting neither days nor years, but when they are awaked, they shall seem to have slept scarce one minute (Luther's exposition on Ecclesiastes, cited in White 1950/1971, p. 481).

Click to expand...

However, later in life Luther, in his commentary on Genesis, showed a change of view:

"When after this poor life, we shall join the choirs of the angels, we shall worship God in perfect holiness" and "in the interim [between death and resurrection], the soul does not sleep but is awake and enjoys the vision of angels and of God, and has converse with him."

Click to expand...

In Luther's comments on Gen. 35:18, he stated that when Rachel died, she "was received into the glory of heaven" (cited in Morey 1984, p. 201).

Your calling on Luther for support of soul sleep doesn't work because his commentary on Genesis refutes it.

Sincerely, Oz

OzSpen said:

Mike,

The early church regarded your view as not being the truth.
Writing his Ecclesiastical History in the fourth-century, Eusebius of Caesarea, Palestine (ca. AD 265-339) [Cairns 1954/1981, p. 143] wrote of the third century,



The SDA prophetess, Ellen White, calls on the Christian martyr, William Tyndale, to support her doctrine of soul sleep, with this statement:

Robert Morey notes that

Also, Ellen White claims Martin Luther for a soul sleep ally when Luther stated:
However, later in life Luther, in his commentary on Genesis, showed a change of view:

In Luther's comments on Gen. 35:18, he stated that when Rachel died, she "was received into the glory of heaven" (cited in Morey 1984, p. 201).

Your calling on Luther for support of soul sleep doesn't work because his commentary on Genesis refutes it.

Sincerely, Oz

Click to expand...

Hi Ozpen,
Who is Ellen White?

What I staing is the notion that 'soul' survives bodily death is not biblical.

'Soul' in the bible is translated from the Hebrew word 'nephesh'. And the 'nephesh' dies.

Judges 16:30
Numbers 23:10
Ezekiel 18:4

The Hebrews never had any notion that souls floated off somewhere.

So biblically, the notion of 'soul sleep' is a nonsense as the life goes at death.

Read the last 4 paragraphs

Welcome to the Sites of Dr. Tory Hoff

Oz, what about Tyndale's quote?
Do you disagree with Tyndale merely because EG White happens to agree with him? Or do you also place Tyndale outside of orthodoxy?

Timothew said:

The 2 Peter verse is taken out of context, read on to verse 12,
"and like beasts these too will perish."

But I suppose you will be saying perish doesn't really mean perish, it must mean something else entirely.

Click to expand...

Timothew,

2 Peter 2:9 must be read in the context of the verses that precede it. My interpretation is correct. See: "The Certainty of Deliverance and Destruction (2 Peter 2:3b-10a)"

We also need to understand that the "hell" that an unbeliever experiences at death is that of tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) and not the final "hell" of gehenna at the final judgment.

By the way, one of the belts I wear around my waste is perished, but it has not been annihilated. It is still in existence. Perish in the NT does not mean annihilation - extinction from existence.

Sincerely, Oz

Timothew said:

Oz, what about Tyndale's quote?

I confess openly, that I am not persuaded that they be already in the full glory that Christ is in, or the elect angels of God are in. Neither is it any article of my faith; for if it were so, I see not but then the preaching of the resurrection of the flesh were a thing in vain (William Tyndale 1534, Preface to New Testament, cited in White 1950/1971, p. 479)
​

Do you disagree with Tyndale merely because EG White happens to agree with him? Or do you also place Tyndale outside of orthodoxy?

Click to expand...

Timothew,

Tyndale was in error when he made that statement as it is not supported by the comprehensive biblical material.

In his later years, Luther also realised his mistake and concluded with a biblical view of what happens at death.

Oz

Timothew said:

Is the view of everyone's natural immortality biblical? Or are we only immortal if we are resurrected into immortality by Jesus Christ?

Click to expand...

Everyone is resurrected, the righteous in Christ will be resurrected before the Great Tribulation and then we who are still alive will be "caught up" with them (harpazo; rapturo). The wicked who have not believed in the name of Christ will be resurrected afterward, to stand at the Great White Throne (Revelation 20:11-15).

Satan will be thrown alive into the Lake of Fire where the beast and false prophet have been for the past 1000 years while Christ has reigned, and "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10). You may say, "Well, that's only talking about those three," but the lost will still be resurrected, all of them, so they have to receive new bodies as many of their old bodies have decayed by now. Why give them a new body if it's just going to be destroyed after the Judgment?

Our Lord Yeshua said, "These will go away into ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46).

OzSpen said:

Timothew,

2 Peter 2:9 must be read in the context of the verses that precede it. My interpretation is correct. See: "The Certainty of Deliverance and Destruction (2 Peter 2:3b-10a)"

We also need to understand that the "hell" that an unbeliever experiences at death is that of tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) and not the final "hell" of gehenna at the final judgment.

By the way, one of the belts I wear around my waste is perished, but it has not been annihilated. It is still in existence. Perish in the NT does not mean annihilation - extinction from existence.

Sincerely, Oz

Click to expand...

Oz, I urge you to reread 2 Peter 2 in it's entirety. You are mistaken, I'm not saying this to be difficult or mean. Your interpretation is incorrect.

"bringing swift destruction on themselves"
"their destruction is not sleeping"
"did not spare the ancient world" (but drowned them in Noah's Flood)
"condemnned Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly"
"like beasts they too will perish"

In fact, the only person tormented in this entire chapter is Righteous Lot! And He was saved from destruction.

Now, describe your belt. Has its "life" ended? Is it dead? What does that have to do with people who live and die and are resurrected to eternal life or eternal destruction?

OzSpen said:

Timothew,

Tyndale was in error when he made that statement as it is not supported by the comprehensive biblical material.

In his later years, Luther also realised his mistake and concluded with a biblical view of what happens at death.

Oz

Click to expand...

On what do you base your opinion that Tyndale was in error?

It seems you are very close to denying the resurrection.

Timothew said:

On what do you base your opinion that Tyndale was in error?

It seems you are very close to denying the resurrection.

Click to expand...

I base it on the Bible, not Tyndale, Ellen White, JWs, etc.

Oz

Mikecpking said:

Hi Ozpen,
Who is Ellen White?

What I staing is the notion that 'soul' survives bodily death is not biblical.

'Soul' in the bible is translated from the Hebrew word 'nephesh'. And the 'nephesh' dies.

Judges 16:30
Numbers 23:10
Ezekiel 18:4

The Hebrews never had any notion that souls floated off somewhere.

Click to expand...

Mike,

You must be joking that you don't know of Ellen G. White, one of the founders of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

In the OT, two Hebrew words are used on this topic. nephesh is one of them, ruach is the other. I have never ever stated that "souls floated off somewhere". That's your imposition on my posts.

Oz

OzSpen said:

I base it on the Bible, not Tyndale, Ellen White, JWs, etc.

Oz

Click to expand...

I was too. Who is Ellen White?

OzSpen said:

Mike,

You must be joking that you don't know of Ellen G. White, one of the founders of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

In the OT, two Hebrew words are used on this topic. nephesh is one of them, ruach is the other. I have never ever stated that "souls floated off somewhere". That's your imposition on my posts.

Oz

Click to expand...

But that is what you were implying by misquoting 2 cor 5:8.

Soul is only translated from Nephesh, never ruach.