Why an eternal hell?

[dies-l]

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

Matthew 5:30 is pretty straightforward. No distorting required.

No contradiction whatsoever. Jesus taught eternal punishment.

That's not the contradiction I was speaking of. We were talking about the meaning of fear of the Lord. Your interpretation of that phrase contradicts 1 John 4:18. That should be the first clue that your literal interpretation is flawed.

EXTREME contradiction!

Huh?

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

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.

actually only the modern translations have a codex vaticanus which is latin, the byzantine texts do not come from latin, the KJV, NKJV etc are directly from greek only.

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.

a million times, huh? I have never heard of that argument before, ever. So your saying that the greek language is actually based on an entirely separate language in time and culture (Hebrew)? I would like to further explore this allegation.

 

[Armistead14]

Yes and no, they used two tools regarding the KJV, the original languages and previous translations, some with much latin influence. Simply, why it's the original language, what is more important is not the word itself, but how the words were now defined in the 1600's. One previous bible the KJ translator considered for definition was the latin Rheims New Testament. So why it may be original greek, it doesn't mean they held to the original greek meaning in definition, they did not. As I said, to understand original greek, you must define how it was used in the period it was written in. The KJV is revised because of many mistranslation of words. Not to mention it's an Anglican bible that was rejected by early Protestants. Are revised versions better, subject to opinion.

IMO using "forever" in the KJV in lieu of "age" was a terrbile injustice to the original greek. Not to mention it's redefinition meaning non-ending time. Just think how many doctrines would change if "forever" was replaced with "age".


Your statement

"a million times, huh? I have never heard of that argument before, ever. So your saying that the greek language is actually based on an entirely separate language in time and culture (Hebrew)? I would like to further explore this allegation. "



I really don't understand. I simply stated scholars have been debating the meaning of "aion" since bibles were written. It is clear the word aion has evolved as the church evolved and it's meaning redefined, a historical study of the word proves that. So yes, my guess is it's probably been debated a million times, heck, we've probably debated in this forum alone a few thousand. Don't believe me

google it

Edit:

In reading your post again, no the greek isn't based on Hebrew, not sure what your getting at, what's that have to do with Hebrew being being translated into Greek..Septuagint.. Certainly they did a much better job of translating Hebrew into Greek, than Greek into English.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes and no, they used two tools regarding the KJV, the original languages and previous translations, some with much latin influence. Simply, why it's the original language, what is more important is not the word itself, but how the words were now defined in the 1600's. One previous bible the KJ translator considered for definition was the latin Rheims New Testament. So why it may be original greek, it doesn't mean they held to the original greek meaning in definition, they did not. As I said, to understand original greek, you must define how it was used in the period it was written in. The KJV is revised because of many mistranslation of words. Not to mention it's an Anglican bible that was rejected by early Protestants. Are revised versions better, subject to opinion.

IMO using "forever" in the KJV in lieu of "age" was a terrbile injustice to the original greek. Not to mention it's redefinition meaning non-ending time. Just think how many doctrines would change if "forever" was replaced with "age".


Your statement

"a million times, huh? I have never heard of that argument before, ever. So your saying that the greek language is actually based on an entirely separate language in time and culture (Hebrew)? I would like to further explore this allegation. "



I really don't understand. I simply stated scholars have been debating the meaning of "aion" since bibles were written. It is clear the word aion has evolved as the church evolved and it's meaning redefined, a historical study of the word proves that. So yes, my guess is it's probably been debated a million times, heck, we've probably debated in this forum alone a few thousand. Don't believe me

google it

Edit:

In reading your post again, no the greek isn't based on Hebrew, not sure what your getting at, what's that have to do with Hebrew being being translated into Greek..Septuagint.. Certainly they did a much better job of translating Hebrew into Greek, than Greek into English.

they actually have lexicons that define the word secularly and then in a religious context, are you not familiar with these tools?

here is aion from one of these types of lexicons:
3. a long space of time, an age, ἀπʼ αἰῶνος of old, for ages, Hes., N.T.; τὸν διʼ αἰῶνος χρόνον for ever, Aesch.; ἅπαντα τὸν αἰ. Lycurg.
4. a definite space of time, an era, epoch, age, period, ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος this present world, opp. to ὁ μέλλων, N.T.:—hence its usage in pl., εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας for ever, Ib.

Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (25). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

 

[Blessedj01]

Is there anything one person can do that is so horrible that they deserve an eternity of indefinite torture?

Yes, sin...which ultimately translates to coveting the throne of God, going after it willfully and seeking to dethrone and destroy the creator of the universe. If the destruction of the source of all life and all things good and the replacement of Him with something which cannot even compare (a created being) is not worthy of eternal punishment, then what is? It is an eternal crime, with eternal consequences...therefore warranting an eternal sentence.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, sin...which ultimately translates to coveting the throne of God, going after it willfully and seeking to dethrone and destroy the creator of the universe. If the destruction of the source of all life and all things good and the replacement of Him with something which cannot even compare (a created being) is not worthy of eternal punishment, then what is? It is an eternal crime, with eternal consequences...therefore warranting an eternal sentence.

 

[dies-l]

Yes, sin...which ultimately translates to coveting the throne of God, going after it willfully and seeking to dethrone and destroy the creator of the universe. If the destruction of the source of all life and all things good and the replacement of Him with something which cannot even compare (a created being) is not worthy of eternal punishment, then what is? It is an eternal crime, with eternal consequences...therefore warranting an eternal sentence.

And you find this reasoning in Scripture where?

 

[dollarsbill]

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.

So you're saying you're more expert than those who translated our English Bibles? Hmmm

 

[dollarsbill]

Matthew 5:30 is pretty straightforward. No distorting required.

So stop distorting. Jesus didn't say chopping off body parts will save anyone.

That's not the contradiction I was speaking of. We were talking about the meaning of fear of the Lord. Your interpretation of that phrase contradicts 1 John 4:18. That should be the first clue that your literal interpretation is flawed.

The meaning of the fear of the Lord:

Philippians 2:12 (NASB)
12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;

 

[dies-l]

So stop distorting. Jesus didn't say chopping off body parts will save anyone.

You're not doing well at this literal interpretation thing. You have misquoted me; I never said that Jesus said that salvation comes from cutting off one's hands. And, you are ignoring the plain meaning of what Jesus said: "And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Please show me how you can interpret this literally without coming to the conclusion that Jesus wants us to cut off our hands when they cause us to stumble.

If you are going to claim that the literal interpretation is always the most reasonable unless there is a VERY good reason to deviate, please explain the above passage and why you would deviate from the literal interpretation (and remember self-preservation is not a VERY good reason to ignore Scripture).

The meaning of the fear of the Lord:

Philippians 2:12 (NASB)
12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;

That is not a definition; that is another verse that uses the word fear. Nothing in that verse undermines that idea that "fear of the Lord" refers to awe and reverence. And, there is absolutely nothing in that verse that suggests that fear of hell is our primary motive for following Jesus.

 

[dollarsbill]

You're not doing well at this literal interpretation thing.

I NEVER said the verse is meant as literal. Stop twisting what I said.

You have misquoted me; I never said that Jesus said that salvation comes from cutting off one's hands. And, you are ignoring the plain meaning of what Jesus said: "And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Please show me how you can interpret this literally without coming to the conclusion that Jesus wants us to cut off our hands when they cause us to stumble.

It is NOT literal. Clear enough?

If you are going to claim that the literal interpretation is always the most reasonable unless there is a VERY good reason to deviate, please explain the above passage and why you would deviate from the literal interpretation (and remember self-preservation is not a VERY good reason to ignore Scripture).

In this verse it is VERY good reason to deviate from literal.

That is not a definition; that is another verse that uses the word fear. Nothing in that verse undermines that idea that "fear of the Lord" refers to awe and reverence. And, there is absolutely nothing in that verse that suggests that fear of hell is our primary motive for following Jesus.

You are trying to correct our English Bibles. What gives you the right? Fear is the word.

 

[dies-l]

I NEVER said the verse is meant as literal. Stop twisting what I said.



It is NOT literal. Clear enough?

You did say that you go with the literal meaning unless there is a VERY good reason not to. What is you VERY good reason in this case? How is it a better reason than accepting the fact that "fear of the Lord" is well understood to be a Jewish idiom referring to deep awe and reverence and is not a reference to hell.

In this verse it is VERY good reason to deviate from literal.

What is your VERY good reason?!?!? Self preservation? The literal interpretation makes you feel squeamish?

You are trying to correct our English Bibles. What gives you the right? Fear is the word.

No, I am not trying to correct anything. I am interpreting an idiom according to the known usage of that idiom. Just like you would not assume that "raining cats and dogs" means that cats and dogs are falling from the sky, I am not going to assume that "fear of the Lord" means fear of going to Hell.

 

[dollarsbill]

You did say that you go with the literal meaning unless there is a VERY good reason not to. What is you VERY good reason in this case?

Very good reason is that cutting off body parts won't save us.

How is it a better reason than accepting the fact that "fear of the Lord" is well understood to be a Jewish idiom referring to deep awe and reverence and is not a reference to hell.

The fear of the Lord is literal throughout the Bible.

What is your VERY good reason?!?!? Self preservation? The literal interpretation makes you feel squeamish?

Because it's Bible, OT and NT.

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

Do you know what TERRIFYING means?

No, I am not trying to correct anything. I am interpreting an idiom according to the known usage of that idiom. Just like you would not assume that "raining cats and dogs" means that cats and dogs are falling from the sky, I am not going to assume that "fear of the Lord" means fear of going to Hell.

Now that's the strongest case you've made yet.

 

[dies-l]

Very good reason is that cutting off body parts won't save us.

But, a literal interpretation would suggest that not doing so can damn a person.

The fear of the Lord is literal throughout the Bible.

Because it's Bible, OT and NT.

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

Do you know what TERRIFYING means?

I know what it means. I fail to see how that means we should be afraid of punishment, especially when we are told expressly that there is no reason to fear.

Now that's the strongest case you've made yet.

Yet, it's the same case I have been making all along.

 

[dollarsbill]

But, a literal interpretation would suggest that not doing so can damn a person.

You can't be serious!

I know what it means. I fail to see how that means we should be afraid of punishment, especially when we are told expressly that there is no reason to fear.

I'm sure they didn't understand it either. I pray that you will.

Yet, it's the same case I have been making all along.

Yep, unBiblical.

 

[dies-l]

You can't be serious!

I am just applying a literal method of interpretation as you have advocated throughout this thread. I think it clearly points to the reason that literalism should not be our default position, but you seem more interested in denying the plain language of the text than in using it to question your chosen approach to Bible interpretation.

I'm sure they didn't understand it either. I pray that you will.

I have no idea who "they" refers to, but let me rephrase. There is absolutely nothing in the verses that you cited that even hints that we should believe out of fear of punishment. That idea is starkly rebuked by 1 John 4 (which I can't help but notice that you have been avoiding like the plague).

Yep, unBiblical.

If you can't argue your position with logic, reason, Scripture, or exegesis, the generic "unbiblical" always works nicely.

But, hey, if you want to live your life in fear of going to Hell, by all means go for it. I am not going to join you, because I have the assurance of God's perfect love, which casts out all fear. I pray that some day you will abandon your view of a monstrous God who is looking for opportunities to torture his enemies and someday embrace the God of love who casts out all fear and desperately yearns for the salvation of humankind and whose heart breaks for every person who chooses death over life.

 

[seeingeyes]

Nothing in that verse undermines that idea that "fear of the Lord" refers to awe and reverence.

I don't think there's any need to nitpick the word 'fear'. What could be more terrifying than walking in the footsteps of Jesus?

The trouble comes when we fear hell more than we fear the Lord.

 

[dies-l]

I don't think there's any need to nitpick the word 'fear'. What could be more terrifying than walking in the footsteps of Jesus?

The trouble comes when we fear hell more than we fear the Lord.

It's not about nitpicking. It is about two very divergent views of God:

(1) God as an all powerful monster to be feared as a child would fear a violent and abusive father. (the view that db is espousing)

and

(2) God as an ever loving Father who is willing to sacrifice his own Son to rescue mankind from the clutches of death, even as we continue to bring it on ourselves. (the view that I hold to, and which is taught all throughout Scripture).

The former compels obedience out of fear of punishment. The latter inspires obedience out of love and devotion. I don't know which of these conceptions of God you hold to, but it is clear that this is not matter of nitpicking or semantics. This discussion goes to the very heart of who God is.

That said, I agree completely with your last sentence, assuming that you have a proper biblical understanding of what fear of the Lord is.

 

[seeingeyes]

It's not about nitpicking. It is about two very divergent views of God:

I see where you are coming from. I just consider it a question of 'picking our battles', so to speak.

'Fear of the Lord' (where fear means terrifying) is not contrary to 'God is love' because love is terrifying. It means giving ourselves up for others on purpose. Someone who does that is way scarier than someone who just wants to kill you, because he ain't even afraid to die.

And that's the God we follow. He ain't even afraid to die.

 

[Armistead14]

they actually have lexicons that define the word secularly and then in a religious context, are you not familiar with these tools?

here is aion from one of these types of lexicons:
3. a long space of time, an age, ἀπʼ αἰῶνος of old, for ages, Hes., N.T.; τὸν διʼ αἰῶνος χρόνον for ever, Aesch.; ἅπαντα τὸν αἰ. Lycurg.
4. a definite space of time, an era, epoch, age, period, ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος this present world, opp. to ὁ μέλλων, N.T.:—hence its usage in pl., εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας for ever, Ib.

Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (25). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Again, I'm not sure of your point, are you saying aion means one thing when used secularly and has another meaning when used in scripture?
That would be a gross error, so I hope not.

I do admit aion is used in the greek many to express both for an age and sometimes for everlasting, so we must understand it's use regarding subject matter to know the difference.

As I stated, lexicons evolved regarding aion.

Until we understand God is working in the ages, not two worlds, life and afterlife, we will follow improper doctrines, such as eternal torture.

In the English Bibles, aion is most often translated as "forever" or "world", resulting in doctrines that don't agree with the original intent of the word.