Originally Posted by
Tigger45
And to reiterate when the bible uses the term death it's always talking about a separation.
Death Means Separation
Lets start with the strange theory that death doesnt really mean death, but separation. For example, consider Pauls unmistakable statement in this previously viewed passage:
ROMANS 6:23
For the wages of sin is death (
thanatos)
, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
As weve already seen in Chapter One, death here is translated from the Greek word
thanatos which simply means death (Strong 35) the absence of life or opposite of life, hence, the cessation of conscious existence. The Greek scholar E.W. Bullinger states that
thanatos refers to The natural end of life (207). Although this is simple to understand and commonly understood, adherents of the eternal torment theory explain that death in this passage does not really mean death but rather separation from God. When you press them for details as to exactly what they mean by separation from God, it turns out that what they really mean is never-ending conscious life in fiery torment. Do you see the obvious problem with this theory? Under the guise of interpretation they would have us believe that death actually means the
exact opposite of what it really is! Since the wages of sin to them is not really death at all, but immortal life in conscious torment, their definition of death means something entirely opposite to literal death! If this is not a blatant example of subtracting from Gods Word and adding to it, I dont know what is. This religious theory must be rejected for a number of obvious reasons:
1.) If we take eternal life literally, we must also take death literally. God clearly declares in Romans 6:23 above, as well as numerous other passages, that the wages of sin is death and that eternal life is a gift to those in right-standing with him. So death is promised as a punishment for ungodly sinners and life is promised as a gift for the righteous. In such a context as this, every law of language and common sense agrees that if we take the promise of life literally we must also take the punishment of death literally. If one is literal then both are literal. If there is to be no real death for sinners there will be no real life for saints (McFarland 25, 27).
Adherents of eternal torment can insist that death only means separation all they want, but the simple fact is that the opposite of life is death. What word could better describe the end of life than death? The only way a person can accept the view of eternal torture is to believe that death does not mean death, that die does not mean die, that destroy does not mean destroy, that perish does not mean perish and that destruction does not mean destruction.
2.) Physical death is death of the body. While most Christians believe the soul (mind and spirit) survives the body, we cannot ignore the biblical fact that the body without the spirit is
dead (James 2:26). The body is not itself separated; it is dead. It no longer has life in it because death is the opposite of life. Death means death, its not complicated.
Thanatos, the Greek word translated as death in Romans 6:23 above, is used most often simply in reference to this death, the first death. For example:
ACTS 23:29
I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him (Paul)
that deserved death (
thanatos)
or imprisonment.
The Roman commander speaking in this text is merely attesting that Paul committed no crime worthy of execution or imprisonment.
Thanatos here simply refers to physical execution the cessation of physical life. When a person is executed his/her conscious life expires, at least as far as physical life is concerned. Believe it or not, adherents of eternal torture suggest that death refers to separation even in this context. Their theory is that death here would refer to separation of the inner being (mind and spirit) from the outer being (body) (Dake 619). According to this theory the Roman commander really meant to say, There was no charge against Paul that deserved separation of the inner being from the outer being or imprisonment. Did the Roman commander really mean to say this when he used the word
thanatos? Of course not, the very idea is ludicrous. The use of
thanatos here refers to literal physical death, the expiration of conscious life in the body. This is how James 2:26 above defines physical death: the body without the spirit is
dead, that is, void of conscious life. Whether or not a persons consciousness exists on a spiritual plane after physical death is a separate issue (touched on in Appendix B and thoroughly examined in Part II, the latter not included in this edition).
3.) The same biblical words used in reference to the second death are also used in reference to the death of animals. In his popular lexicon (a dictionary of biblical words), W.E Vine admits that
thanatos death is indeed the opposite of life, but then completely contradicts this statement by stating that it never denotes non-existence (Vine 149). With all due respect, Mr. Vine would do well to forsake his sectarian bias and honestly dig a little deeper in his biblical studies as the scriptures blatantly disagree with this statement. Consider that the equivalent Hebrew word for death,
maveth (mawveth), is used in reference to the death of animals in the Old Testament:
ECCLESIASTES 3:19
Mans fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies (
maveth)
so dies (
maveth)
the other.
ECCLESIASTES 10:1
As dead (
maveth)
flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.
Would anyone ludicrously argue that the equivalent Hebrew word for death in these texts refers to separation or eternal conscious torment? Of course not. Animals and flies which experience death (
thanatos/maveth) literally die their life ceases. They of course leave behind a dead, decaying shell, but their conscious life expires. Thats what death is. Its plain and simple. This completely disproves Vines unscholarly theory as animals definitely cease to exist when they die, that is, their conscious life expires.
If death (
thanatos/maveth) literally means death when used in reference to animals, why would its definition mysteriously change to something completely different actually opposite when applied to human beings? It doesnt, but adherents of the eternal torment theory are forced to interpret the bible in this bizarre manner because of their unbiblical theology (their reasoning is: If people have an immortal soul, and hence can never actually die, then death cant really mean death when used in reference to people).
4.) Numerous other biblical words besides thanatosdescribe the second death in strict terms of death and destruction. As weve plainly seen throughout this study,
thanatos is supported by many other Hebrew and Greek words which are variously translated as die, death, destruction, destroy and perish in reference to the fate of those cast into the lake of fire. As we have also seen in chapters Two, Three and Four these words are, in turn, backed up by numerous crystal clear
examples of literal destruction. In light of these facts, even
if thanatos had a secondary definition of separation which it doesnt it still would not refer to separation in reference to the second death of human beings.
5.) If the fate of ungodly sinners is to be some sort of life or existence in undying separation from God in utter misery and torment, God would have certainly expressed this somewhere in the bible. He could have easily chosen words to describe damnation in explicit terms of separation, existence in torment or perpetual life in misery, but He did not do this. Instead, as weve clearly seen, He consistently chose words that have for their general, usual or basic meaning die, death, destruction, destroy, perish, consume and burn up. God couldnt possibly use a better choice of words to describe literal death. He also made sure to back up all these unmistakable words with a multitude of easy-to-understand examples of literal death and incineration.
Consider also that if
thanatos really means separation then why should English bible translators even bother translating
thanatos as death at all (which they all unanimously do)? Why not rather universally translate it as separation? Wouldnt doing such simplify matters and spare us all a lot of confusion? The obvious reason bible translators do not do this is because
thanatos literally means death, the opposite of life, and therefore non-existence or, we could say, the state of non-being. Death is not a different form of life; it is the opposite of life. Thus the first death, which is physical death, refers
at least to non-existence in the physical realm; and the second death which entails the everlasting destruction of soul and body refers to absolute non-existence with no hope of resurrection.
6.) Death and separation are two completely different words in Hebrew and Greek, just as they are in English; these words have different meanings. The Hebrew
badal (baw-dal) and the Greek
chorizo (kho-ridzo) are two Old and New Testament words for separation (see, for example, Isaiah 59:2 and Romans 8:35,39). If the wages of sin is not really death, but separation, then God would have used these Hebrew and Greek words to describe the ultimate wages of sin. For example, Romans 6:23 would read, For the wages of sin is separation (
chorizo) and Ezekiel 18:4 would read, The soul who sins will separate (
badal). But does the bible teach this anywhere? No, the wages of sin is
death and the soul who sins will
die (NASB).
The bottom line is that the second death is consistently described in terms of literal death and utter destruction in the bible, not separation. Weve seen this throughout our study.
7.) As already briefly stated,
to suggest that death means something entirely opposite of its actual definition is nothing more than a blatant case of subtracting from God's Word and adding to it. In this specific case adherents of eternal torment subtract the word death (
thanatos) from the numerous passages which describe the wages of sin strictly in terms of literal death, and supplant it with eternal life in separation from God a definition that is, once again, completely opposite to the actual definition of death. This practice is all done under the noble mask of interpretation, but notice how the bible strictly condemns this practice:
DEUTERONOMY 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
PROVERBS 30:5-6
Every word of God is flawless;
(6) Do not add to his words or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
REVELATION 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. (19) And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
As you can plainly see, its a grave offense in Gods eyes to subtract from his Word and add to it something else. As it states in the Proverb text above: the God-breathed scriptures are
flawless. Theres simply
no reason to make any changes. But adherents of the eternal torment view are guilty of this very transgression in regards to the bibles repeated declaration that the wages of sin is death.
8.) The scriptural arguments above are certainly proof enough that death simply means death in the bible not separation, but a comparison of New Testament words for death, perish, destruction, etc. to other well-known Greek writings of the same general period offers additional support.
For example, Plato argued that the human soul is immortal and can never die or cease to exist. What Greek words did Plato use to express this denial? He used the exact Greek words that Paul used to describe the everlasting destruction of unbelievers in the New Testament: Plato taught that the human soul would not die (
apothnesko), Paul taught that it could die (e.g. Romans 8:13); Plato taught that the human soul would never experience death (
thanatos), Paul taught that it could experience death (e.g. James 5:20); Plato taught that the human soul would not suffer destruction (
apoleia and
olethros), Paul taught that it could suffer destruction (e.g. 2Peter 3:7 and 2Thessalonians 1:9).
Plato used these various Greek words to describe absolute extinction of being, not separation of being. Since Paul used these very same words to describe the eternal fate of those who reject Gods message of reconciliation in Christ, we must conclude that he too was referring to absolute extinction of being (Constable 42).
Furthermore, there were people in Pauls era who adhered to universal extinction, that is, they believed that when people died they simply ceased to exist, with no hope of resurrection for either the righteous or unrighteous. The Epicureans were Greeks who advocated this view and the Sadducees were Jews who supported it. What words did these sects use to express their belief in absolute extinction of conscious life? Why, the very same Greek words used in the New Testament to describe the everlasting destruction of the ungodly (Constable 48).
So, death simply meant death in uninspired writings the cessation of life just as it does in the biblical scriptures.
In light of these eight reasons, we have no recourse but to take God at his Word and conclude that the second death will be a literal death utter, awful, complete and final. The religious theory that death means separation must be categorically rejected.
Dispelling the myth of eternal torment biblically
And that's OK....because we never were twins to begin with...God would be bored if we were. 
