• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

There is no Hell (Moved)

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,143
EST
✟1,122,833.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Bullinger isn't the all time exclusive authority on the subject. The story of The Rich Man and Lazarus isn't that much different than the story of The Prodigal Son in the way it's laid out. Also I don't think it's a coincidence that the two stories told in Luke 16 start out with "There was a certain rich man".
“There was a certain rich man" Luke 16:1
“There was a certain rich man" Luke 16:1
9
Bullinger is the expert unless you can come up with another scholar who has put in the work he has.
There is a big glaring difference between the two narratives. All the unquestioned parables are anonymous; a certain man, a certain widow, a certain shepherd etc. and anonymous places.
In Lazarus and the rich man, two people are identified by name, Lazarus, otherwise unknown, and Abraham, a specific historical person. whom the rich man addresses as "Father Abraham."
It happens in a specific place, "hades." Since it is not identified as a parable, if Abraham was not in that place and did not say what Jesus claimed, then Jesus was lying.
 
Upvote 0

ozso

Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
27,741
15,113
PNW
✟968,499.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Bullinger is the expert unless you can come up with another scholar who has put in the work he has.
There is a big glaring difference between the two narratives. All the unquestioned parables are anonymous; a certain man, a certain widow, a certain shepherd etc. and anonymous places.
In Lazarus and the rich man, two people are identified by name, Lazarus, otherwise unknown, and Abraham, a specific historical person. whom the rich man addresses as "Father Abraham."
It happens in a specific place, "hades." Since it is not identified as a parable, if Abraham was not in that place and did not say what Jesus claimed, then Jesus was lying.
I also don't think it's a coincidence that Eleazar (Lazarus) was Abraham's heir. I think it's likely that those who go on about names being used in the story are oblivious to that connection.

And it happens in two specific places, Hades and Abraham's bosom. If we take the story literally, then all good people who die go into Abraham's bosom, which can also be translated as Abraham's pocket? And is Abraham in charge of Paradise? Is Paradise located inside Abraham's bosom or pocket?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,143
EST
✟1,122,833.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I also don't think it's a coincidence that Eleazar (Lazarus) was Abraham's heir. I think it's likely that those who go on about names being used in the story are oblivious to that connection.
And it happens in two specific places, Hades and Abraham's bosom. If we take the story literally, then all the good people who die go into Abraham's bosom, which can also be translated as Abraham's pocket? And is Abraham in charge of Paradise? Is Paradise located inside Abraham's bosom or pocket?
I have answered you on this once already. Abraham's bosom is not a place, it is a position. At a dinner or a banquet, the position of honor was at the right or in front of the host.
In Bible times they did not sit in chairs at a waist high tables. The tables were about a foot high and diners reclined on their left elbow with their feet extended away from the table. That is how the woman was able to wash Jesus' feet with her tears. A woman did not crawl around under a table at the feet of strange men.
In the bosom is the position immediately in front of the host.
Had you actually studied this I would not have to tell you.

 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,846
8,377
Dallas
✟1,087,745.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As I recall you're partial to the early church and EO, so I'd say to explore what they have to say about it. In my avatar Jesus has thrown down the gates of hell and is standing on them while the devil/hades/death is hogtied below him and there's broken chains and locks strewn about. This is referred to as the harrowing or obliteration of hell.

Well seeing that the EOC doesn’t advocate universalism I’d predict that this is a depiction of the narrow path that leads to life.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,685
11,534
Space Mountain!
✟1,362,572.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Lazarus is a given name and surname. It is derived from the Hebrew אלעזר, Elʿāzār (Eleazar) meaning "God has helped"".
Lazarus (name) - Wikipedia

But Abram said, “Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” Genesis 15:2


I enjoyed that video by Steve Gregg. It had some good food for thought. Thanks for positing it, MMXX!
 
Upvote 0

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
439
288
Vancouver
✟64,928.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception 2,000 years ago (give or take). ... Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek-speaking scholars—translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible (EOB), quoted above and below—to know the correct translation of the Greek in the NT?

Who is better qualified than a native Greek-speaking scholar? Well, for starters, someone who can fluently read and understand the original Koine Greek of the canonical New Testament texts, which is notably different from ancient (patristic) Greek, never mind modern Greek. Another relevant and crucial qualification is familiarity with the historical, cultural, and theological context in which those texts are situated, both narrowly and broadly—especially where they cite the Septuagint (Jewish Hellenistic Greek).

So, yeah, being a native Greek-speaking scholar doesn't magically qualify someone to translate the New Testament. I mean, it helps, but lots of people are better qualified.


The native Greek-speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated "aionios" in Matt 25:46 as "eternal," not "age."

Okay. I don't know what your point is, but okay.


In the EOB, the Greek word "kolasis" is translated "punishment" in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18. ... Also, according to the EOB Greek scholars, "kolasis" means "punishment," not "death."

Okay, sure. But (again) so what? Did I say something contrary to this? Or was that just regurgitated copypasta and not relevant to anything I said?


Some badly informed folks claim "kolasis" really means "prune" or "correction."

Bully for them? I've never made that claim, so I don't know what your point is here. I'm really tempted to think this was just copypasta.


It is understood that modern Greek differs from Koine Greek, but I am confident that the native Greek-speaking EOB scholars, supported by 2,000 years (give or take) of uninterrupted Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete Greek words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly.

The faith is strong with this one (although possibly misplaced).
 
Upvote 0

ozso

Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
27,741
15,113
PNW
✟968,499.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Who is better qualified than a native Greek-speaking scholar? Well, for starters, someone who can fluently read and understand the original Koine Greek of the canonical New Testament texts, which is notably different from ancient (patristic) Greek, never mind modern Greek. Another relevant and crucial qualification is familiarity with the historical, cultural, and theological context in which those texts are situated, both narrowly and broadly—especially where they cite the Septuagint (Jewish Hellenistic Greek).

So, yeah, being a native Greek-speaking scholar doesn't magically qualify someone to translate the New Testament. I mean, it helps, but lots of people are better qualified.




Okay. I don't know what your point is, but okay.




Okay, sure. But (again) so what? Did I say something contrary to this? Or was that just regurgitated copypasta and not relevant to anything I said?




Bully for them? I've never made that claim, so I don't know what your point is here. I'm really tempted to think this was just copypasta.




The faith is strong with this one (although possibly misplaced).
Der Alte made a copy of what you're replying to years ago, and uses it as a one size fits all default reply. So that's why a lot of it isn't germane to what you posted.
 
Upvote 0

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
439
288
Vancouver
✟64,928.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I'm not saying it does. What it does say is that its eternal.

What is eternal, Maria? That's the question before us. @Emun said that "only the book of Revelation speaks of a place of eternal torment" (here), to which you replied with Matt 25:46. Why did you bring up that passage? Since it was a response to what Emun said, I thought you were offering an example of a book other than Revelation that speaks of eternal conscious torment. Hence, my question to you: "How does this prove eternal conscious torment?" (It doesn't.)

The punishment is eternal, yes, but what is the punishment? Eternal conscious torment? This text doesn't say that. So, perhaps Emun is correct?


How we define "kolasis" makes a difference. It can be anywhere from censure to actual physical pain. Who knows?

Fundamental to defining "punishment" is how we understand the holy wrath of God in judgment against sin (e.g., Deut 32:22). Theology matters. Consistent throughout the witness of Scripture, from the OT to the NT, is the pattern of God being provoked by evil, his fierce anger being poured out and spent until the evil is consumed or destroyed. A crucially important factor of God's wrath, seen nowhere else more clearly than on the cross, is that it can be satisfied. His fierce anger against sin is not endless and out of control.

John Stott, in his profound masterpiece The Cross of Christ, described the matter more clearly than I ever could, so I will quote him in full here:

If a fire was easy to kindle during the Palestinian dry season, it was equally difficult to put out. So it is with God's anger. Once righteously aroused, he "did not turn away from the heat of his fierce anger, which burned against Judah." Once kindled, it was not readily "quenched" (2 Kings 23:26; 22:17; 2 Chron 34:25; Jer 21:12). Instead, when Yahweh's anger "burned" against people, it "consumed" them. That is to say, as fire leads to destruction, so Yahweh's anger leads to judgment. For Yahweh is "a consuming fire" (Deut 4:24, quoted in Heb 12:29; Num 11:1; Deut 6:15; Ps 59:13; Isa 10:17; 30:27; Lam 2:3; Ezek 22:31; Zeph 1:18). The fire of his anger was "quenched," and so "subsided" or "ceased," only when the judgment was complete (e.g., Josh 7:26; Ezek 5:13; 16:42; 21:17) ...

The imagery of fire endorses what is taught by the vocabulary of provocation. There is something in God's essential moral being which is "provoked" by evil, and which is "ignited" by it, proceeding to "burn" until the evil is "consumed."

Thirdly, there is the language of satisfaction itself. A cluster of words seems to affirm the truth that God must be himself, that what is inside him must come out, and that the demands of his own nature and character must be met by appropriate action on his part. The chief word is kalah, which is used particularly by Ezekiel in relation to God's anger. It means "to be complete, at an end, finished, accomplished, spent." It occurs in a variety of contexts in the Old Testament, nearly always to indicate the "end" of something, either because it has been destroyed or because it has been finished in some other way. Time, work, and life all have an end. Tears are exhausted by weeping, water used up, and grass dried up in drought, and our physical strength is spent. So through Ezekiel Yahweh warns Judah that he is about to "accomplish" (AV), "satisfy" (RSV), or "spend" (NIV) his anger "upon" or "against" them (Ezek 5:13; 6:12; 7:8; 13:15; 20:8, 21). They have refused to listen to him and have persisted in their idolatry. So, now, at last, "the time has come, the day is near ... I am about to pour out my wrath on you and spend my anger against you" (Ezek 7:7-8). It is significant that the "pouring out" and the "spending" go together, for what is poured out cannot be gathered again and what is spent is finished. The same two images are coupled in Lamentations 4:11, "The LORD has given full vent (kalah) to his wrath; he has poured out his fierce anger." Indeed, only when Yahweh's wrath is "spent" does it "cease." The same concept of inner necessity is implied by these verbs. What exists within Yahweh must be expressed, and what is expressed must be completely "spent" or "satisfied."​

Imagine the new heavens and new earth being perpetually marred by a corner of evil where sinners exist forever and God's wrath is never, ever satisfied for all eternity, where judgment is never complete.

Now imagine the new heavens and new earth forever cleansed of all sin, which was utterly consumed by God's unquenchable wrath, where there is no crying or pain in any corner of creation, where Christ vanquishes evil so fully and completely "that God may be all in all."

Which theological picture of God is most faithful to the overall witness of Scripture?

"But in the book of Revelation," one might begin to say, before realizing that he was about to prove Emun's point.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
439
288
Vancouver
✟64,928.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Quite frankly outside of Revelation, I don't see those verses ruling out annihilation at the final judgment.

Just quickly chiming in to point out that, for me, it's not about finding scriptures that rule out annihilation, but rather scriptures that rule in eternal conscious torment. Are there any outside of Revelation? It's an interesting question @Emun highlighted.


While I don't necessarily believe in [annihilation] myself, I do believe it can't be easily dismissed.

Same here (although I definitely believe in conditional immortality).
 
Upvote 0

ozso

Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
27,741
15,113
PNW
✟968,499.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Just quickly chiming in to point out that, for me, it's not about finding scriptures that rule out annihilation, but rather scriptures that rule in eternal conscious torment. Are there any outside of Revelation? It's an interesting question @Emun highlighted.




Same here (although I definitely believe in conditional immortality).
Well you know how it is, take anything about fire and or punishment and correlate it to Revelation to all mean eternal conscious torment.

I think conditional immortality is a decidedly better term. And more accurate in this view, considering eternal life is supposed to be a gift.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,143
EST
✟1,122,833.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Who is better qualified than a native Greek-speaking scholar? Well, for starters, someone who can fluently read and understand the original Koine Greek of the canonical New Testament texts, which is notably different from ancient (patristic) Greek, never mind modern Greek. Another relevant and crucial qualification is familiarity with the historical, cultural, and theological context in which those texts are situated, both narrowly and broadly—especially where they cite the Septuagint (Jewish Hellenistic Greek).

So, yeah, being a native Greek-speaking scholar doesn't magically qualify someone to translate the New Testament. I mean, it helps, but lots of people are better qualified.




Okay. I don't know what your point is, but okay.




Okay, sure. But (again) so what? Did I say something contrary to this? Or was that just regurgitated copypasta and not relevant to anything I said?




Bully for them? I've never made that claim, so I don't know what your point is here. I'm really tempted to think this was just copypasta.




The faith is strong with this one (although possibly misplaced).
Since you insulted me by referring to my post as "regurgitated copypasta," we're done here. Bye.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
11,158
9,202
65
Martinez
✟1,143,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is eternal, Maria? That's the question before us. @Emun said that "only the book of Revelation speaks of a place of eternal torment" (here), to which you replied with Matt 25:46. Why did you bring up that passage? Since it was a response to what Emun said, I thought you were offering an example of a book other than Revelation that speaks of eternal conscious torment. Hence, my question to you: "How does this prove eternal conscious torment?" (It doesn't.)

The punishment is eternal, yes, but what is the punishment? Eternal conscious torment? This text doesn't say that. So, perhaps Emun is correct?




Fundamental to defining "punishment" is how we understand the holy wrath of God in judgment against sin (e.g., Deut 32:22). Theology matters. Consistent throughout the witness of Scripture, from the OT to the NT, is the pattern of God being provoked by evil, his fierce anger being poured out and spent until the evil is consumed or destroyed. A crucially important factor of God's wrath, seen nowhere else more clearly than on the cross, is that it can be satisfied. His fierce anger against sin is not endless and out of control.

John Stott, in his profound masterpiece The Cross of Christ, described the matter more clearly than I ever could, so I will quote him in full here:

If a fire was easy to kindle during the Palestinian dry season, it was equally difficult to put out. So it is with God's anger. Once righteously aroused, he "did not turn away from the heat of his fierce anger, which burned against Judah." Once kindled, it was not readily "quenched" (2 Kings 23:26; 22:17; 2 Chron 34:25; Jer 21:12). Instead, when Yahweh's anger "burned" against people, it "consumed" them. That is to say, as fire leads to destruction, so Yahweh's anger leads to judgment. For Yahweh is "a consuming fire" (Deut 4:24, quoted in Heb 12:29; Num 11:1; Deut 6:15; Ps 59:13; Isa 10:17; 30:27; Lam 2:3; Ezek 22:31; Zeph 1:18). The fire of his anger was "quenched," and so "subsided" or "ceased," only when the judgment was complete (e.g., Josh 7:26; Ezek 5:13; 16:42; 21:17) ...​
The imagery of fire endorses what is taught by the vocabulary of provocation. There is something in God's essential moral being which is "provoked" by evil, and which is "ignited" by it, proceeding to "burn" until the evil is "consumed."​
Thirdly, there is the language of satisfaction itself. A cluster of words seems to affirm the truth that God must be himself, that what is inside him must come out, and that the demands of his own nature and character must be met by appropriate action on his part. The chief word is kalah, which is used particularly by Ezekiel in relation to God's anger. It means "to be complete, at an end, finished, accomplished, spent." It occurs in a variety of contexts in the Old Testament, nearly always to indicate the "end" of something, either because it has been destroyed or because it has been finished in some other way. Time, work, and life all have an end. Tears are exhausted by weeping, water used up, and grass dried up in drought, and our physical strength is spent. So through Ezekiel Yahweh warns Judah that he is about to "accomplish" (AV), "satisfy" (RSV), or "spend" (NIV) his anger "upon" or "against" them (Ezek 5:13; 6:12; 7:8; 13:15; 20:8, 21). They have refused to listen to him and have persisted in their idolatry. So, now, at last, "the time has come, the day is near ... I am about to pour out my wrath on you and spend my anger against you" (Ezek 7:7-8). It is significant that the "pouring out" and the "spending" go together, for what is poured out cannot be gathered again and what is spent is finished. The same two images are coupled in Lamentations 4:11, "The LORD has given full vent (kalah) to his wrath; he has poured out his fierce anger." Indeed, only when Yahweh's wrath is "spent" does it "cease." The same concept of inner necessity is implied by these verbs. What exists within Yahweh must be expressed, and what is expressed must be completely "spent" or "satisfied."​

Imagine the new heavens and new earth being perpetually marred by a corner of evil where sinners exist forever and God's wrath is never, ever satisfied for all eternity, where judgment is never complete.

Now imagine the new heavens and new earth forever cleansed of all sin, which was utterly consumed by God's unquenchable wrath, where there is no crying or pain in any corner of creation, where Christ vanquishes evil so fully and completely "that God may be all in all."

Which theological picture of God is most faithful to the overall witness of Scripture?

"But in the book of Revelation," one might begin to say, before realizing that he was about to prove Emun's point.
What is eternal condemnation? The opposite of eternal life. They are both used to describe an afterlife condition experienced forever. I guess someone threw in "conscience " but that is not in scripture.
Blessings.
BTW , I have no firm view on this.

EDIT
This is the correct scriptural reading. Everlasting vs eternal.

Matthew 25:46​

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ozso

Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
27,741
15,113
PNW
✟968,499.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What is eternal condemnation? The opposite of eternal life. They are both used to describe an afterlife condition experienced forever. I guess someone threw in "conscience " but that is not in scripture.
Blessings.
BTW , I have no firm view on this.

EDIT
This is the correct scriptural reading. Everlasting vs eternal.

Matthew 25:46​

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Isn't death, as in ceasing to exist, the opposite of life?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,143
EST
✟1,122,833.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Revelation 20:13 The sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead, and each one was judged according to his deeds. 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 was found whose name was not written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The question is: what does this mean: "The Second Death"? Too much of the teaching of "Hell" comes from Dante's trilogy books and not actually from the Bible. There is no question that God is a God of absolute, perfect, precise Justice.
You got everything exactly backwards. The Bible passages on Hell were not copied from 14th century Dante'. Dante's scribbling was perjured from the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
439
288
Vancouver
✟64,928.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
What is eternal condemnation?

I don't know. That term is brand new to this conversation. It is not quoted from Scripture, my posts, or the excerpt from Stott.

What is eternal punishment? That's the question. Its contrast with eternal life seems to indicate that whatever it is the two are coeval (being described as eternal), but the punishment is never identified here. I guess it's possible to argue that it is a "condition" that one "experiences" forever, although I can't fathom how that argument would work exegetically. Since this passage itself doesn't tell us, we would have to make an inference by looking at relevant data elsewhere in Scripture, allowing perspicuous material to limit ambiguous material. For example, if conditional immortality is true, that's going to limit how we interpret kolasis.


[Eternal punishment is] the opposite of eternal life.

If eternal life is everlasting existence, what is its opposite?

Here is another way of looking at it: If the first death is spiritual separation from God, then couldn't the second death be metaphysical separation from God? Death in spiritual terms is eventually followed by death in metaphysical terms, and nothing exists apart from God (autonomously), for only God is self-existent.


I guess someone threw in "conscious" but that is not in scripture.

Directly, no, but they'll tell you that it's implied (cf. weeping and gnashing of teeth).


I have no firm view on this.

Same here. I'm still exploring the issues. What I'm practically settled on, though, is conditional immortality. The Bible seems really, really clear on that.


This is the correct scriptural reading (everlasting vs eternal): "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matt 25:46).

I have several translations of the Bible, and the King James Version (incl. NKJV) is alone in translating it that way, so I would hesitate to call that the "correct" reading. If everybody else is translating it as "eternal," there might be a good reason.


Yes, but I am speaking of the second death.

If there is a second death, there is a first death. What is the nature of the first death?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: ozso
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,143
EST
✟1,122,833.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
comparison, figure, parable, proverb.
From paraballo; a similitude ("parable"), i.e. (symbolic) fictitious narrative (of common life conveying a moral), apothegm or adage -- comparison, figure, parable, proverb.
Strong’s Concordance and Dictionary
One thing that many believers do concerning the handling of Greek words is use Strong’s Concordance’s Dictionary to translate Greek words – this is not only a fundamental error, but can lead to devastating conclusions regarding the misunderstanding of many Greek words.
Language Roots
This is because Strong’s dictionary is not specific to any particular word within any particular passage, it is generic based only upon Greek roots, and cannot be used in word studies of any Greek words found in the Greek New Testament.
It is in understanding that the Koiné (“common”) Greek language uses many cognates (see Footnote #1) which in spite of utilizing the same root words, derive diverse meanings based upon the grammar; especially verbs concerning their tense, voice, and mood.
Therefore, a manageable concordance could only be based upon the root words, but as James Strong says himself in his preface, his dictionary was never meant for Word study. ***
 
Upvote 0

ozso

Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
27,741
15,113
PNW
✟968,499.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes but I am speaking of the second death.
I know. The second death takes place after physical death. Which I figure is the first death. Unless the word "death" is being used metaphorically. But if so, would that also mean "life" and "everlasting life" is being used metaphorically as well?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,143
EST
✟1,122,833.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I know. The second death takes place after physical death. Which I figure is the first death. Unless the word "death" is being used metaphorically. But if so, would that also mean "life" and "everlasting life" is being used metaphorically as well?
The lake of fire [LOF] is called the "second death" twice, Rev 20:14 and Rev 21:8. But no one or nothing is thrown into the LOF then they or it dies. I believe that the LOF and second death are used interchangeably. The LOF is the second death and the second death is the LOF. Whatever the second death is it ain't life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JulieB67

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2020
2,093
903
57
Ohio US
✟206,985.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have read the end of the book that ain't what it says.
But you keep forgetting this is still a Revelation that is being given to us. This is still future.
No more death, all things new but 4 vss. later,
Revelation 21:8
(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.If there is no more death after vs. 4 then the 8 groups of sinners thrown into the LOF, vs. 8, do not die.
He's just reiterating what will happen at judgement day.

shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

f there is no more death after vs. 4 then the 8 groups of sinners thrown into the LOF, vs. 8, do not die.
Revelation
Again, these sinners are thrown in at judgement day.

If we go by your understanding than this verse in this same chapter wouldn't make sense.


Revelation 21:7 "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

According to you since there is no more death after those verses than everyone that's saved will have already overcometh by then as well. Only that isn't what's stated. We see that it states "He that overcometh shall" meaning this is still a Revelation being given to us of "what will happen". Are there still people trying to overcome after Judgement day since verse this verse takes place after chapter 20? Of course not. Simply meaning no one has overcometh yet. And no one has died the second death yet. We have to read that in that manner.

Revelation 21:7 "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

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."


Again, no one has overcometh yet just as 21:7 states and no one has died the second death as verse 8 states -

Again, verses 7 and 8 are reiterating what "will happen" at judgement day.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0