Why an eternal hell?

[dies-l]

The false prophet would be included in "unredeemed".

That, my brother, is a red herring. The false prophet may be unredeemed, but not all unredeemed people are the false prophet.

Revelation 14:9-11 (NASB)
9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

So the criteria is worshiping the beast. Simple exegesis would tell us that this is very different from the "eternal punishment" that Jesus was referring to in Matthew 25, for which the criteria is not caring for the poor. It would appear that the biblical doctrine of hell is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

 

[dollarsbill]

That, my brother, is a red herring. The false prophet may be unredeemed, but not all unredeemed people are the false prophet.

Actually it is a false prophet. A human.

So the criteria is worshiping the beast. Simple exegesis would tell us that this is very different from the "eternal punishment" that Jesus was referring to in Matthew 25, for which the criteria is not caring for the poor. It would appear that the biblical doctrine of hell is more complicated than you are making it out to be.

The reasons don't matter. It's eternal punishment that matters. I.E. FOREVER.

 

[dies-l]

Proverbs 9:10 (NASB)
10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

What has that verse got to do with fearing Hell? It is about having proper respect, reverence, and trust in God, not about fearing that if you screw up you'll go to hell someday.

 

[Armistead14]

Better according to whom?

the original greek scriptures.

 

[dollarsbill]

the original greek scriptures.

Why ignore our English Bibles that clearly teach eternal punishment?

 

[dies-l]

So we should ignore the warnings in the Bible???

Hebrews 10:31 (NASB)
31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Another red herring. Saying one thing and then citing a Scripture that in no way supports what you are saying does not a solid argument make. The verse you cite provides nothing about fear of punishment.

But, here is one that does: "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." 1 John 4:18.

 

[dies-l]

Why ignore our English Bibles that clearly teach eternal punishment?

Perhaps because the Bible wasn't written in English. All we have are translations, which provide approximations of the meaning of the original text, but the precise meanings are gleaned only in the original language. Since most of us are not fluent in biblical Greek and Hebrew, we live with what we have, which is MUCH better than nothing at all (and some translations are certainly better than others).

 

[dollarsbill]

Another red herring. Saying one thing and then citing a Scripture that in no way supports what you are saying does not a solid argument make. The verse you cite provides nothing about fear of punishment.

Are you SERIOUS!!!!!!

Hebrews 10:31 (NASB)
31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

But, here is one that does: "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." 1 John 4:18.

Guess you missed this COMMAND.

1 Peter 2:17 (NASB)
17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

 

[dollarsbill]

Perhaps because the Bible wasn't written in English. All we have are translations, which provide approximations of the meaning of the original text, but the precise meanings are gleaned only in the original language. Since most of us are not fluent in biblical Greek and Hebrew, we live with what we have, which is MUCH better than nothing at all (and some translations are certainly better than others).

There are many self professed Greek experts who disagree with God. Our English Bibles agree with eternal punishment.

 

[dies-l]

Actually it is a false prophet. A human.

I understood you the first time. But, two problems: (1) that is a presumption that is not gleaned from the text, a valid presumption, but a presumption nonetheless -- not something on which a wise person is going to base an idea as important as this one, (2) The false prophet, assuming he is human, is certainly not all unredeemed people, and since we are not talking about the fate of one or two specific people, but rather the entire "unsaved" human race, the verse is irrelevant.

The reasons don't matter. It's eternal punishment that matters. I.E. FOREVER.

As you well know, I do believe in eternal punishment. Being dead and never coming back to life is an eternal punishment. This is what the Bible says happens to sinners who are not redeemed.

Sure, a couple of verses in Revelation mention a different fate for the false prophet, the beast, the devil, and those who worship the beast. But, for the purposes of this discussion (what is the fate of unredeemed sinners, this is largely irrelevant). It only goes to to show that the issue is more complicated than either of us are acknowledging -- that there is a fate worse than death for the beast and those who worship him. Since the Revelation is largely apocalyptic, it would require a large dose of speculation to figure out who that refers to. So, I err on the side of the more simple question: what does the Bible say about the unredeemed sinner? And, the answer is that he will die.

 

[dollarsbill]

I understood you the first time. But, two problems: (1) that is a presumption that is not gleaned from the text, a valid presumption, but a presumption nonetheless -- not something on which a wise person is going to base an idea as important as this one, (2) The false prophet, assuming he is human, is certainly not all unredeemed people, and since we are not talking about the fate of one or two specific people, but rather the entire "unsaved" human race, the verse is irrelevant.

You just agreed that God does indeed torment forever in fire. I don't understand your point beyond that.

As you well know, I do believe in eternal punishment. Being dead and never coming back to life is an eternal punishment. This is what the Bible says happens to sinners who are not redeemed.

Eternal punishment cannot exist on those who do not exist.

Sure, a couple of verses in Revelation mention a different fate for the false prophet, the beast, the devil, and those who worship the beast. But, for the purposes of this discussion (what is the fate of unredeemed sinners, this is largely irrelevant). It only goes to to show that the issue is more complicated than either of us are acknowledging -- that there is a fate worse than death for the beast and those who worship him. Since the Revelation is largely apocalyptic, it would require a large dose of speculation to figure out who that refers to. So, I err on the side of the more simple question: what does the Bible say about the unredeemed sinner? And, the answer is that he will die.

Extinction is not punishment. That would be reward for the wicked.

 

[dies-l]

Are you SERIOUS!!!!!!

Hebrews 10:31 (NASB)
31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Guess you missed this COMMAND.

1 Peter 2:17 (NASB)
17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Either John was wrong or your interpretation of the "fear of God". Given those choices, I'll put my dollarsbills on John being right.

This especially considering that the "fear of God" is an idiom with a specific meaning that is not what you seem to thing it is:

"fear is an awe and reverence of the divine Being, joined with love to him, trust in him, and a desire to serve and worship him in a right manner; no sooner is a man converted, but presently there is in him a fear of offending God, from a principle of love to him; for not a slavish but a filial fear is here intended;"

Proverbs 9:10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

 

[dies-l]

You just agreed that God does indeed torment forever in fire. I don't understand your point beyond that.

Seriously?!? I have no problem believing Satan and his demons will be tormented in hell forever. If you think that that constitutes agreement with your position, more power to ya, but I think I disagree.

Eternal punishment cannot exist on those who do not exist.

Extinction is not punishment. That would be reward for the wicked.

Please provide some basis in logic or Scripture for that assertion, because it is simply absurd. Extinction is perhaps the worst punishment imaginable to many people.

 

[dollarsbill]

Either John was wrong or your interpretation of the "fear of God". Given those choices, I'll put my dollarsbills on John being right.

Since the Bible teaches the fear of God I'll stick with it. I don't have to interpret anything.

This especially considering that the "fear of God" is an idiom with a specific meaning that is not what you seem to thing it is:

God means what He says, FEAR GOD. No "idiom".

"fear is an awe and reverence of the divine Being, joined with love to him, trust in him, and a desire to serve and worship him in a right manner; no sooner is a man converted, but presently there is in him a fear of offending God, from a principle of love to him; for not a slavish but a filial fear is here intended;"

Scripture please.

Proverbs 9:10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

 

[dies-l]

Since the Bible teaches the fear of God I'll stick with it. I don't have to interpret anything.

God means what He says, FEAR GOD. No "idiom".

So, I will take it that you have chopped off hand as Jesus instructed in Matthew 5?!?!? After all, it's what Jesus CLEARLY taught!

You might consider taking a hermeneutics course. First, you need to know that any reading of Scripture requires interpretation; choosing to read a text in its most literal sense is an act of interpretation, one which is often, but not always appropriate. Second, any competent student of hermeneutics would know that one of the biggest possible sources of misunderstanding comes when we translate idiomatic phrases from another language. If someone were to tell you that it is "raining cats and dogs", I doubt you would look out the window, realize that the only thing falling from the sky is water, and retort, "you liar! It is only raining water!". You need to also realize that English is not the only language that uses such expressions, and the ancient Hebrew and Greek are among those languages that do.

And, it is important to realize here that a strictly literal interpretation of "the fear of the Lord" results in an internal contradiction within Scripture. So, either there must be some deviation from literal interpretation or the Bible contradicts itself. I believe the former; I hope that you are not claiming the latter.

Scripture please.

It comes from a commetary, which is cited in the link provided. You seem to want to view English translations as superior to claims about the meaning of the original Greek, presumably because you trust the translators over some guy on the internet. I cited Gill's commentary, so that the meaning of the phrase (very rarely does Scripture explicitly define its use of words) is not left to merely mine or your opinion. The link provided is the cite, but in case you missed it: http://bible.cc/proverbs/9-10.htm

 

[dollarsbill]

So, I will take it that you have chopped off hand as Jesus instructed in Matthew 5?!?!? After all, it's what Jesus CLEARLY taught!

He also taught the unquenchable fire and the firey hell.

You might consider taking a hermeneutics course. First, you need to know that any reading of Scripture requires interpretation; choosing to read a text in its most literal sense is an act of interpretation, one which is often, but not always appropriate. Second, any competent student of hermeneutics would know that one of the biggest possible sources of misunderstanding comes when we translate idiomatic phrases from another language. If someone were to tell you that it is "raining cats and dogs", I doubt you would look out the window, realize that the only thing falling from the sky is water, and retort, "you liar! It is only raining water!". You need to also realize that English is not the only language that uses such expressions, and the ancient Hebrew and Greek are among those languages that do.

And, it is important to realize here that a strictly literal interpretation of "the fear of the Lord" results in an internal contradiction within Scripture. So, either there must be some deviation from literal interpretation or the Bible contradicts itself. I believe the former; I hope that you are not claiming the latter.

I'll go with literal unless there is VERY good reason not to.

It comes from a commetary, which is cited in the link provided. You seem to want to view English translations as superior to claims about the meaning of the original Greek, presumably because you trust the translators over some guy on the internet. I cited Gill's commentary, so that the meaning of the phrase (very rarely does Scripture explicitly define its use of words) is not left to merely mine or your opinion. The link provided is the cite, but in case you missed it: Proverbs 9:10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

I will accept our English Bibles that are quite consistent compared to the self professed Greek experts.

 

[OzSpen]

Better according to whom?

Oz

 

[dies-l]

He also taught the unquenchable fire and the firey hell.

I haven't denied that. But, you seem to be denying that he taught that you should cut off your hands if they ever cause you to sin.

I'll go with literal unless there is VERY good reason not to.

If you don't consider an irreconcilable contradiction with Scripture a good reason to second guess your interpretation of that passage, I don't know what will. I don't know how to convince someone who will ignore solid exegesis in favor of a doctrine that makes him feel good in believing that his enemies will be tormented forever.

I will accept our English Bibles that are quite consistent compared to the self professed Greek experts.

As do I. But, where a given expression is commonly understood to be an idiomatic phrase and where reading it any differently results in irreconcilable contradictions within Scripture, I am am going to interpret it according to well accepted exegetical standards, not my own opinion of what I think it means (however obvious it might seem to me).

 

[dollarsbill]

I haven't denied that. But, you seem to be denying that he taught that you should cut off your hands if they ever cause you to sin.

You are distorting what Jesus taught. He did not teach any such thing.

If you don't consider an irreconcilable contradiction with Scripture a good reason to second guess your interpretation of that passage, I don't know what will. I don't know how to convince someone who will ignore solid exegesis in favor of a doctrine that makes him feel good in believing that his enemies will be tormented forever.

No contradiction whatsoever. Jesus taught eternal punishment.

As do I. But, where a given expression is commonly understood to be an idiomatic phrase and where reading it any differently results in irreconcilable contradictions within Scripture, I am am going to interpret it according to well accepted exegetical standards, not my own opinion of what I think it means (however obvious it might seem to me).

EXTREME contradiction!

 

[Armistead14]

Why ignore our English Bibles that clearly teach eternal punishment?

Because our English Bibles came from Latin translation that came from the Greek. To understand the words you must define them to how they were used when they were written, not how we define words today.

It's been debated a million times, but the word "forever" comes from the Greek word "aion" which comes from the Hebrew word "olam." Olam used in the OT simply meant into the future or over the horizon. Notice how your English word "forever" is used in the OT.

Sodom's fiery judgment is "eternal" (Jude 7), that is--until--God "will restore the fortunes of Sodom" (Ez.16:53‑55); ​

Ammon is to become a "wasteland forever" and "rise no more" (Zeph. 2:9, Jer. 25:27) that is‑until‑‑the Lord will "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" (Jer. 49:6);​

An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever", that is‑‑until‑‑the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3):​

Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting", that is‑‑until‑‑they "were shattered" Hab. 3:6);​

God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah "forever," that is--until-‑the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6,10; 1: 17);​

In all the above, forever never meant non ending time.

However, olam was somewhat redefined in the greek, aion could be used to denote an age or endless time. I explained this in the other thread regarding hell.

The greeks had a very common word that denoted severe punishment
"timoria." They also had a common word that denoted endlessness, "aidios"

Before Christ, the Pharisees of the day, already influenced by pagan concepts on hell, already were teaching a place of nonending torture and regarded the penalty of sin as torment without end, and they stated the doctrine in unambiguous terms. They called it "eirgmos aidios "(eternal imprisonment) and timorion adialeipton (endless torment), while our Lord called the punishment of sin "aionion kolasin" (age-long chastisement).

We see the difference between Christ and the self-righteous Pharisees. As I referred in my above post, Christ never used the common language the Pharisees used, but why wouldn't he have used "timorion" which did mean punishment and "aidios" non ending time, the people would have no doubt and it would match the non-ending punishment taught by the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were wrong, but they did use proper wording to explain their belief in non ending punishment and it was understood by all the people. Why would Christ use totally different wording, just to confuse everyone?

From the 5th century B.C. to the 5th century A.D. aion simply meant an age, perhaps as short as a lifetine. Aion as meaning eternal didn't even start creeping in to some of the lexicons until the 8th century, and even then it wasn't a dogma but just the evolution of the language since the Church was mostly Latinized by then. It really wasn't until the 15th and 16th centuries that aion dogmatically came into the lexicons to express all durations of time from brief to endless, so again you must refer to how the word was used in the period it was used connecting to the subject matter.