Only Three Are Tormented Eternally

Mr. M said:

I do not accept your position I have to "address every tick" as literal. You are not the rule maker here. I only addressed the lake of fire as literal as that is the topic.

I already studied the word, and provided a scripture to illustrate from Acts. You are the one not addressing my post.

Click to expand...

I did address you post. Aren't you following?

Mr. M said:

I removed nothing. I show that fire in judgment is not symbolic. It IS judgment.

Click to expand...

So, were you talking past me then?

Hello is not eternal, there is only one source of eternal life and that belongs to God. All other life is an allotment, forever is the duration.

Mr. M said:

What I quoted from your post #49, I addressed in post #52. I disagree with using some Greek dictionary to define a Biblical word, when common Greek or ancient usage outside the Bible is irrelevant. It's like someone trying to tell me what logos means by citing how Greek philosophers used it. The word is used nearly 200 times, and its meaning is established in its Biblical use. Not Plato.

Not really.
John 12:
32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself.”
33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die.
Was Christ symbolically lifted up?
John 18:
31 Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.”
Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,”
32 that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spoke, signifying by what death He would die.
What is the symbolism concerning the death of Christ? This is very literal.

Acts 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
The famine was not a symbol, nor his prophecy.

Here is your "rule-making". You clearly mistranslate the word that that I show over and over to mean "signifying", and instead state "he symbolized it" for your convenience.
Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must [a]shortly take place. And He sent and signified by His angel to His servant John,
Would you care to share your translation you are using. Tree of Life?
The revelation of Yeshua the Messiah, which God gave Him to show to His servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John,
HNV?
This is the Revelation of Yeshua the Messiah, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, Yochanan,
You are the one undermining your own argument.
Your translation serves only one purpose. Yours.

Click to expand...

It seems you have no idea what I am talking about, and I have no idea what you are saying, so as I expected... although not to this level... since we aren't communicating, it's best we not argue, or talk past each other, as that only leads to animosity, anger, finger pointing, berating... etc.
Take care.

Mr. M said:

None of these is true. You refuse to admit to altering a translation to serve your own "symbolic purposes".
I am taking care. I am an outstanding communicator, and made clear that I reject your manipulations, and fully explained why. What is your agenda here? To prove the lake of fire isn't actually fire, right? So answer the question then.

Click to expand...

Mr. M, you just a moment ago showed you do not understand what I am saying.
I am talking about a whole post, and you are talking about a piece of the post that is not separate from the whole, which if ignored, is like saying, "I'll ignore that, and extract this, because I want to show what I believe about this... regardless". In other words, "Let me talk past you, and make my point, and you have to respond to me, and forget about anything you said"

What is more, I get accused of trying to make rules when I point out you have not addressed the post by extracting a piece and saying you dealt with it.
Since you cannot understand that, we are not communicating, and I am not engaging in an argument, which does not have to be, simply because the person wants to talk past me.

It's best we not continue, Mr. M, because you aren't listening to me. Either that, or you are unable to understand what I am saying.
This is not about semantic. That was never the focus of my post.
You extracted that, as if it were, and decided you would attack it, and ignore the main point... even though I repeatedly point this out, you keep focusing on that bit... as if to say, that's all I can see. I see nothing else.

So what else is there to say.
Whatever you want to say, go ahead. People can read for themselves, and they can see what happened.
The poster I was responding to, did not address the post either, but I know he is aware of what I am saying. Everyone is... although I am not sure about you Mr. M, and I am not going to accuse you.

I knew an argument would ensue, where no conclusion would be reached.
That's why I tried to bring you back to what you were ignoring. It would have prevented an argument that leads nowhere.
I'd better stop talking.
Mr. M. You take care.

One final thing Mr. M.
Because you extracted a piece of the post, you misunderstood it, because you broke it.

The part
...does not refer to this.

If you took the post as a whole, you probably would have realized, that part applied to the scriptures that preceded.
The Greek word referred to was not signified, but is, are, exists.

This is why ignoring the bulk of a post, and cutting it to extract bits, is bad practice, because the post gets taken out of its context.
What follows a statement, is not always referring to the statement.
We see that a lot in the Bible.

Mr. M said:

Everything you have said here is false. I have made it perfectly clear that I was never interested in your list of uses of a Greek term in verses that speak symbolically. I only quoted you from #49 in my post #52 the portion where you cited Rev 1:1, mistranslated a word, and then applied it to everything you wrote above it. I did not omit any of your post, I cited what I found needed to be addressed and corrected. Go back and look at post 52. I have gone back over 49 to 52 three times now and it is you who is not listening. Here me now, I do not care about your Greek word study. I am addressing what you are not. You mistranslated a word for your own purposes, and now refuse to address or acknowledge my concerns.This is not an argument, this is a dodge. Answer the question! Why are Satan, the Beast, and the False Prophet in torment, if not by fire? Respond to post 52 properly, instead of trying to force your post 49 on me. Will you provide your translation of Revelation 1:1? If not, then we are now in full agreement. I have nothing more to say, without animosity.

Click to expand...

Yes, I saw this in you from the start. That's why I did not want to get into anything with you.

Well, at least you are trying to listen.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Please respond to everything I say here... except this.

Mr. M said:

But I never ignored anything, as I have now stated 3 times.

Click to expand...

You did.
For one thing, you ignored all the scriptures that used a sign / symbolism, followed by IS / ARE (ἐστιν ) and the explanation / interpretation / reality of the sign.

Mr. M said:

My concern was the way you cited Rev 1:1. That is what I cited and addressed. That is what you are ignoring by falsely accusing me of ignoring your post. Do you remember me mentioning that?

Click to expand...

You just admitted that you ignored the bulk of the post and its main point, by your words... My concern was the way you cited Rev 1:1. That is what I cited and addressed, and then turned around and say I falsely accused you? Seriously? Really? Honestly?
No. That is not being honest at all.

My post was not Revelation 1:1 - 4 lines of text. It was 57 lines of text. You focused your concern on... cited and addressed 7% of a post and say you did not ignore it, then insist I address your post after I pointed out to you that you ignored the main part of the post? Really?

You do know what a post is, do you?
A post is not a sentence or two.. a paragraph... 7% of it.
You know this right?

Mr. M said:

What translation did you use when you cited Revelation 1:1? That is the only concern expressed in post#52.

Click to expand...

That was your concern?
You do know that Revelation 1:1 is not about the lake of fire, right?
I thought you said your concern was the topic - the lake of fire.

Anyway. I used the Aramaic Bible in Plain English.
You can find it on biblehub.com.

If you want to know why I used that version, I can tell you the reason also.
It retains the original Greek term, which cannot be said for many translations, which do not consider the original word usage.
For example... of 44 translations on biblehub, 26, chose not to use sign, or signify. While 18 uses sign, or signify.
I could have used any of those 18, but I somehow liked the Aramaic Bible's use of names in their almost pure form.

Mr. M said:

That is what you are clearly dodging.

Click to expand...

I'm not dodging anything.
I wanted you to address my post before running all over the place and dragging me with you.

Mr. M said:

Again, I have no interest in your Greek word study. The fact that there is symbolism in Revelation is a no-brainer. The topic is the lake of fire. Just because in one application it is described as "the second death', in regards to the three who are tormented, (there's that topic again), they also are in the lake of fire and in torment.

Click to expand...

Mr. M said:

So is the fire real? If not, why are they in torment?

Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked these questions as you did... in this order.
Why? When the first is answered undeniably, one must adjust any ideas they form in their head, to agree with the first answer.

So is the fire real?
That was the point of the post you ignored.
I prefer persons to get the answer from the scriptures for themselves.
That is why I used every scripture in Revelation, that uses the same word and format.

I gave the poster who claimed it's a literal fire the exercise. He ignored it, and didn't even respond. You ignored it, so I will do it.

Revelation 1:16
Are the stars actually literal stars
The angel answers... Revelation 1:20 - This is the mystery of the seven stars you saw in My right hand and of the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

The Bible's answer is No. The stars represent, or symbolizes the angels of the church, which Jesus directs.

Do this for all the verses I quoted.
Revelation 4:5
Are the seven torches of fire literal torches of fire?
The angel answers... The Bible's answer is No. The seven torches of fire represent, or symbolizes the seven spirits of God.

Revelation 6:5
Are the seven horns and seven eyes literal?
The angel answers... The Bible's answer is No. The seven horns and seven eyes represent, or symbolizes the seven spirits of God.

Revelation 17:9
Are the seven heads of the beast literal?
The angel answers... The Bible's answer is No. The seven heads represent, or symbolizes seven mountains or kings. {kingdoms - hence the reference to mountains).

Revelation 17:12
Are the ten horns actual literal horns?
The angel answers... The Bible's answer is No. The ten horns represent, or symbolizes ten kings.

Revelation 17:15
Are the waters literal waters?
The angel answers... The Bible's answer is No. The waters represent, or symbolizes peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.

Revelation 20:14
Finally, Is the lake of fire actually a literal lake of fire?
The angel answers... The Bible's answer is No. The lake of fire represent, or symbolizes the second death.

That is how easy it is to get Bible answers to questions. Let the Bible tell us the answer, rather than telling the Bible the answer.
I could also have saved myself some time if you had addressed the post. However, I put that behind me, and thank you for the actual questions.


Now that we have a clear undisputed answer to the first question, the second is super easy to answer.
Since the lake of fire is not literal, but symbolic of the second death... as in dead as a door nail... and we see this from the fact that death is cast into the lake of fire. (Yes inanimate objects experience death when they are destroyed, or gone.) Hades is also gone forever. Death for that as well, the torment is also not literal, but symbolizes something regarding the three mentioned in the OP.
What does torment symbolize? The angel does not tell us.

I have an understanding of what it is symbolic of, but I prefer not to say.
I won't argue on that. However, a useful scripture that sheds light on what it represents, is Jude 1:7
If you understand how those in Sodom and Gomorrah sustain the punishment of eternal fire, then you understand how the Devil, false prophet, and wild beast are tormented forever.

What we have established from the scriptures though, is the lake of fire is not literal, but symbolizes the second death, which is eternal death - gone for ever.

It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp, and fully harmonizes with all scripture.

trophy33 said:

I have heard this claim about many absurd things. Bible is being read and understood in thousands of ways.

Click to expand...

I have simply posted verses showing God's wrath. God's wrath is mentioned far more times than His love. This is not my opinion, nor my interpretation, but facts.

But people don't want to hear about God's wrath. That God hates all those who do evil. That we are all wicked.

Mr. M said:

One more time. I did not ignore anything. I read your post. I was not the least bit interested, until I got to your misquote of Revelation 1:1. If that is hard for you to understand, start a thread on your post, don't expect me to be interested in what you posted, which is off-topic. I forget, did I ask you what translation you were using for that citation?

Take your post elsewhere. I owe you no response at all. I did not ignore your post.
Read my fingers, I don't care about what you are trying to impose on me.
I have no need whatsoever to address your post. You need to address your misquote.
Has anyone else shown an interest? Have a talk with them or leave it.

Take your post, open a thread. It is easy.
So is answering a simple question. Why is the lake of fire torment for the unholy three if the fire is merely symbolic?

Click to expand...

Everything you are asking for is in the post you just ignored... and did not bother to read.

CoreyD said:

Let's take a look.
You correct me where I get these wrong.

Revelation 1:20
The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
The angel explains the symbolism of the seven stars. The seven stars symbolize the seven angels, and the seven lampstands symbolize the seven churches.



Revelation 4:5
Before the throne burned seven torches of fire. These are the seven spirits of God.
The angel explains the symbolism of the seven torches of fire. The torches of fire symbolizes the seven spirits of God.



Revelation 6:5
I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing as having been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God having been sent out into all the earth.
The angel explains the symbolism of the seven horns and seven eyes. These symbolize the seven spirits of God.



Revelation 6:8
And when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls being full of incenses, which are the prayers of the saints.
The angel explains the symbolism of the incenses. The incense symbolize the prayers of the saints.



Revelation 17:9
9 This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10 There are also seven kings.
The angel explains the symbolism of the seven heads. The seven heads symbolize seven mountains, which are really symbolic of seven kings.



Revelation 17:12
The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom
The angel explains the symbolism of the ten horns. The ten horns symbolize ten kings.



Revelation 17:15
And he says to me, "The waters that you saw where the prostitute sits are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.
The angel explains the symbolism of the waters. The waters symbolize peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.



Revelation 17:18
And the woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”
The angel explains the symbolism of the woman. She - the woman symbolize peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.



Revelation 20:14
And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
The angel explains the symbolism of the lake of fire. The lake of fire symbolizes the second death.



Here we see, in harmony with the words of John, in Revelation 1:1 - The Revelation of Yeshua The Messiah, which God gave to him, to show his Servants what had been given to soon occur, and he symbolized it when he sent by his Angel to his Servant Yohannan, the angel uses symbolism, or signs (to signify) to convey the message, and along the way, the angel explains some of the symbolism.
The same Greek word is used in all the places you see red.

If you remove any one of those ticks... Just one, you remove all, and in so doing, you would

1. contradict the angel
2. discard the angel's interpretation, in favor of your own
3. take every symbol used as literal... from the lampstands, to the horns, the beast, and the woman and the waters she sits on.

If anyone does that, I would say to them, 'go ahead if that is your desire... make the lake of fire literal, and ignore everything else. However, bear in mind what you are actually doing, and the consequences that will follow.'

Signified
Usage: The Greek verb "sémainó" is used to convey the act of indicating or making something known, often through signs or symbols. In the New Testament, it is frequently used in contexts where a deeper or hidden meaning is revealed, often through divine or prophetic communication. It implies a form of communication that goes beyond mere words, often involving symbolic or metaphorical language.

Click to expand...

Revelation 20 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

This is literal
And so is 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Just because some things are symbolic in the book of revelation, does not mean all are.

The Greek word gehenna, translated "hell" in the KJV, is found twelve times in the scriptures, eleven of them from the lips of Jesus, with ten of those as threats of being "cast into", "destroyed", or "damned". This is not a symboliv language.

The word “hell,” coming from the Greek word Ge’enna speaks of what the book of revelation calls this “lake of fire” where people are punished and tormented forever.

I think we sort of comfortably distance ourselves from that reality. Certainly in general, in the church, it is looked over, passed by, ignored. There are those who claim to be preachers who don’t ever talk about hell, wouldn’t talk about hell, avoid it at all costs, when the truth of the matter is it ought to be the first thing that we talk about when we talk about the gospel. This is about salvation from hell.

The Greek word Ge’enna which is a word that comes from the Valley of Hinnom. The Valley of Hinnom, just east of Jerusalem and a little bit south – is the place in ancient times where the city dump was, and it was a never-extinguished burning fire. And it became the metaphor for the lake of fire, for hell. You threw whatever was useless into the trash, into the fire.

Soul forever ruined for usefulness to God, having a spoiled, marred image is thrown into the everlasting trash heap, the burning fires of Ge’enna or hell. That’s what those words are talking about, not annihilation. You cannot make that case from Scripture.

In Matthew chapter 26 Jesus is talking about Judas, and He says, “The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him” – He says this at the upper room communion with his disciples – “The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to the man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” Why would He say that? “It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” Why? Because of the consequences that are about to come to him. It wouldn’t matter if he was going to be annihilated, if he was going to be exterminated. Hell is eternal, conscious punishment. There is no way around this.

Matthew 25:45
“These, will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Both words “eternal” are identical. They are the same in the original language.

So, if hell isn’t eternal, then guess what? Neither is heaven. Those will go away into eternal punishment. The righteous will go into eternal life. If there is eternal life, then there is eternal punishment. Get rid of hell and you have to get rid of heaven as being forever. Was our Lord wrong about this? Are the critics right? Are the deniers of hell right, and the Lord is wrong?

Did Jesus mean to teach annihilation and somehow goof it up and teach the opposite? Is that what was going on here? He meant to teach annihilation and He just messed it up? Nonsense.

Mr. M said:

Claiming something is more important because it appears more
often in a book is illogical.

Click to expand...

Where did I say that because something is mentioned more times, it was more important?

I was simply making a case that God is angry at us for our sins, and if we are not in Christ, His wrath remains on us.

The fact remains that the wrath of God is spoken of something like 600 times directly or indirectly in the Old Testament alone.

No prophet starts with message that God loves you, but that God is angry, repent, turn from your evil.

The point that I'm making is, Christians on this sub forum downplay sin and the horrible cpnsequences of it.

Unless one is saved, sinners will suffer God's just wrath for eternity.

If we preach love love love and do not tell people about the horrible consueqences of sin, they will feel like they do not need a Saviour.

Mr. M said:

You can threaten people with eternal damnation all you want.

Click to expand...

Who is threatening people with eternal damnation? It's not a threat, but a reality.

If a doctor tells you, you need a surgery or you will die in a month, is hr threatening you? No, he is telling you the reality and tells you, you need a surgery in order to be saved.

Jesus said to 'go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing them and commanding them to do all things that I have commanded you.' This is our commission; this is why we are here in this world: to be ministers of reconciliation with a message of reconciliation to God, that sinners might be saved. We talk about that, being saved.

What are we talking about? What is it we want people saved from? That is the compelling question. The answer to that question, as far as Scripture is concerned, is a simple answer. We want to see people saved from eternal punishment – eternal punishment, punishment that never ends. Conscious existence, conscious life in a body resurrected and suited for everlasting punishment. The Bible speaks of that as occurring in a place that we know as hell

I think we sort of comfortably distance ourselves from that reality. Certainly in general, in the church, it is looked over, passed by, ignored. There are those who claim to be preachers who don’t ever talk about hell, wouldn’t talk about hell, avoid it at all costs, when the truth of the matter is it ought to be the first thing that we talk about when we talk about the gospel. This is about salvation from hell.

Christ did not come to save us from hell only, but from God's wrath also.

We live in a world where sin is freely exploited. Sin is so much a part of our culture that every imaginable sin is acceptable except pedophilia. You don’t find that outrage over adultery; you don’t find that outrage over homosexuality; you don’t find that outrage over lying, cheating, stealing, etcetera. Murder is still unacceptable unless the person doesn’t deserve to live. The murder of a child is still an outrage.

But we are very used to sinning, and we’re very comfortable with sin. And consequently, society has very few consequences that it places on people for sin. So, when people grow up in a world where things that once were defined as sin are no longer defined as sin, and behaviors have no consequence in the society where, for example, when junior comes home at the age of 12 and announces to his mother that he’s a homosexual, she becomes a homosexual advocate. Absolutely no consequences to that kind of immoral behavior.

And the truth of the matter is, then, if the culture imposes no consequences, and the family imposes no consequences, the society places no stigma on people for the kind of behaviors that are sinful behaviors, people get so used to sinning without consequences that when you introduce the idea that they will pay in full forever for every sin, that is just alien to their thinking. People sin without immediate consequences, and to try to convince them that there are somehow, down the road, decades from now, if they live, deferred consequences is a hard sell.

For example, you might want to try to convince someone of Romans 2 which says that “you are storing up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” You’re not getting away with anything. No act of fornication, no act of adultery, no sin in the mind, no sin in the behavior, no sin with the lips, no lie, no deception, no cheating – you’re not going to get away with any of it; you’re just accumulating iniquities, all of which will be confronted and judged. You’re storing up wrath. You’re going to need to have a large storehouse to contain all the wrath that’s going to break upon your head. That is a very difficult thing to convince people about who are so used to sinning. And at the same time, they’re so used to getting away with it. They’re not only used – can I say? – to getting away with it in the culture and in the world, but professing Christians are used to getting away with it in the so-called church. Churches are – so-called churches are very, very reluctant to confront sin, very reluctant to do the discipline that the Bible talks about doing, to tech people the consequence of sin. Parents are very reluctant to create significant consequences for the sins of their children, which may be the most important thing, apart from the gospel, that your child ever learns, that sin has immense and painful consequences.

We need to tell people that every unforgiven sin, every sin committed by every person who rejects Jesus Christ will be justly punished by God forever in a place called hell. This is not new; this is what the Bible has said. You can go back to Moses; you can go back to the Pentateuch, the first section of books in the Bible. In Deuteronomy 32:22, it reads this way in the Authorized Version, “A fire is kindled,” says God, “in My anger, and burns to the lowest part of hell.” The 1611 King James Version made it clear, even that early, that the anger of God reached into hell. Our Lord’s first New Testament sermon was a sermon on hell. Jesus is a hellfire preacher.

I hear people say, “Well, I don’t want to talk about hell; that’s very negative.”

Jesus was a hellfire preacher. Matthew 5 - His first sermon as laid out in the New Testament – verse 22 of chapter 5 of Matthew, “I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.” Here is Jesus, arriving in Jerusalem, and beginning His – the first part of His ministry, then going up to Galilee and finishing off His ministry. And wherever He went, He was a preacher of hell. The Sermon on the Mount happens to be given on a hillside in Galilee. He speaks of the fiery hell as if He assumed that everybody knew about it. He doesn’t have to give them a definition or a description. It was a very well-known part of their biblical understanding.

The same sermon, verse 29, “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; it’s better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” Verse 30, “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut if off and throw it from you; Better to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”