finite SINNING punished with INFINITE torture?

[/quote]
And here we have the "Christmas Tree" effect again. :tonofbricks:

Your eisigesis is astounding.
You fail to take into consideration both context and difference in authors.
John was a simple fisherman. He wrote in a very simple fashion. Consider the gospel of John, probably the easiest book in the Bible to read. It is the most published and most read book of the Bible. The most famous verse is contained therein--John 3:16. John writes very literally. He writes what he sees.

On the other hand Isaiah was one of the most educated men of his time--highly educated. Much of his book is written in a poetical fashion. The literary style of his book involves many figurative expressions, some of which are difficult to understand unless a deeper study of the Bible is done.

In the very same chapter of the Isaiah, only a couple of verses down, we read:

Isaiah 34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

But what does this verse mean, and are you willing to take everything that he says here literally? Here is what Jamieson, Faucett and Brown say about this verse in its literal sense:

Here is the question one must answer:
Did the Jews at that time believe in superstitions--elegantly dressed females that carried children by night, or is this a figure of speech that has a more sensible meaning? It is obvious that Isaiah was speaking both poetically and figuratively. So you take a piece of poetry and try to use that to assert your theology of annihilation into it. You try to twist the meaning of forever and ever from a piece of poetry where the expression is used figuratively, just like in the Psalms where David describes God as One who will hide us under his wings. Will you also assert that God is a being that has wings??? Ridiculous!!
Bob, you have taken your logic and theology to the absurd.

 

I would think this same argument could be used about the book of Revelation and its author's use of references to "forever".

Please be specific: why should we assume a poetical reading of Isaiah 34 and not a poetical reading of the material in Revelation about the eternality of torment?

 

Show me where John was writing poetry. He wasn't. He was writing: what he saw, recording what was said to him, and being as literal as possible. He was transported into heaven. In the limited vocabulary that he had he was describing to us heavenly scenes or scenes that would be future events.

I have had the experience of going to third world countries, where some of the people that live in nothing but mud huts and have never been to a city, and then try to describe to them many of the amenities or luxuries that we enjoy in this nation. It is inconceivable and incomprehensible to them. Something as basic to us as a shopping mall that has escalators (moving stairs) or elevators between floors is hard to comprehend. Define music played on cd player caused by laser beams of light hitting the surface of a disk--as if they would understand any of the aforementioned terms.
You live in Canada, I think. I live in northern Canada and we often see the aurora borealis (northern lights). Try explaining that to even someone who lives in the southern part of America who has never seen them before, let alone those living in a third world nation.

John had a limited vocabulary and described in the best way that he could what he saw. But that does not change the meaning of the word eternal, everlasting, forever. We all understand the meaning of those very simple and basic terms. John used them in his gospel of John. Check there to find out their meanings.

 

He was writing: what he saw, recording what was said to him, and being as literal as possible. He was transported into heaven. In the limited vocabulary that he had he was describing to us heavenly scenes or scenes that would be future events.

AMEN:: DHK
Also, John clarifies what conversation Jesus says in John 4:26 Very clearly--"Jesus said to her, I who speak to you am HE!! Amen.
Bye

 

In the book of Isaiah, reference is made to the smoke of Edom rising forever:

It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever

This is, of course, powerful evidence that one cannot always assume that forever literally means neverending. The reason: Edom was in fact destroyed and we all know that smoke is not today rising from Edom. So this demonstrates that "forever does not always mean forever" - the passage above from Isaiah cannot be taken literally.

In Revelation 14, note the close parallelism to the Isaiah text:

And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image

Since we know that the Isaiah reference to forever is "poetic" or non-literal, we have every reason to believe that the Revelation text is also poetical and that the eternality of the torment described in the Revelation text is not to be taken literally. It is difficult to imagine how someone who believes in the coherence and the harmony of the Scriptures would not notice the obvious parallel between the Revelation text and the Isaiah text. It seems to me that the most reasonable conclusion to draw is that similar "poetic" licence has been taken in Rev as was obviously taken in Isaiah - since we know for a fact that Edom was indeed destroyed and that smoke does not presently rising from Edom. As Bob has already pointed out:

The Isaiah reference to "forever" cannot be a literal eternity. The Revelation text obviously has copied this poetic use of "forever" - this conclusion is driven home forcefully by the fact that these texts are almost identical.

And I think Bob is right in the above post. Smoke going up in the air where it is visible to all can easily be understand as a metaphor for a "warning" and describing it as rising forever is easily understood as "a warning for a long period of time", not really forever. Either way, the Isaiah text establishes that "forever" is used in a non-literal way.

The fact that virtually the same phraseology is used in Revelation 14 leads naturally to the conclusion that literal eternal torment is not being described in the Revelation text.

Just as eternally rising smoke from a factually destroyed Edom is a sign of some sort to the peoples of the world, so is eternally rising smoke from the lake of fire a sign of the destruction of those who have been cast into it, not a sign of their eternal preservation in torment.

 

I am really surprised that you would try and make this argument (unless you mean something else by "poetry" than I do). My point was that Revelation is so chock full of poetic and non-literal imagery, one cannot swing a dead cat without hitting highly non-literal terminology.

Just to name a few, we have:

lampstands
seven stars held in the hand
sword out of the mouth
keys to hades
face shines like the sun
references to soiled clothes as an obvious metaphor for sin
people made pillars in the temple of God
Lion of the tribe of Judah
Jesus as the lamb
the harlot
etc. etc.

The point is that the use of such non-literal imagery at least opens to the door to an interpretation that to the effect that the unredeemed are not really tormented for a never-ending duration. And the parallels between the Isaiah 34 usage and the Rev 14 usage make such a non-literal usage almost certain.

Add to this, the rather clear teaching of 2 Peter 2:6 understood in the light of Jude 7 - "eternal fire" reduces things to to ashes, it does not preserve them forever.

I would say that is the annihilationist who recognizes the Biblical harmony of such text combinations as the following:

Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6
Isaiah 34:9-10 and Rev 14:11

There is indeed harmony in the Scriptures and I have little doubt that the parallelisms between such texts were put there to qualify and clarify each other.

 

Ed, you sure do have a way with your posts brother, Thats what i was thinking!

 

I have asked the following question before but it has gone unanswered. I would ask that each person who believes that the unredeemed are tormented forever, please answer this question:

As per 2 Peter 2:6, how does the reduction of the physical towns of S&G to ashes serve as an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly, if the ungodly are in fact never reduced to ashes, but instead preserved in a perpetual state of burning?

Personally, I do not see how it possibly could be an example. The reason: the destruction of S&G fire is a proccess that terminates in ashes. If the unredeemed are not reduced to ashes, how can the S&G story truly be an example of a process of punishment that does not likewise come to an end. If event "A" is to be an example of a future event "B", one can hardly say this is so if A comes to an end and B goes on forever. This would simply make A and B too dissimilar.

 

Jude 1:7 (KJV) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. {strange: Gr. other}

Bob, if you go over to where Sodom and Gomorrah (the cities) once were, you will not see an everlasting fire burning.

Sodom and Gomorrah (the wicked people) are (present tense) set forth as an example (clear warning), in suffering (present tense) the vengeance of eternal fire.

Bob,
Whether you want to believe it or not does not make it any less a fact that those inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are indeed still feeling that eternal fire.

Nearly 2,000 years after the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were burned to ashes, Jude the brother of Jesus was informing the reader of his epistle that the inhabitants were still burning.

Several pictures of that area can be found at this site:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

Not one of those pictures show a fire still burning, yet Jude tells us it still is and that the inhabitants are suffering (present tense). I believe Jude and reject the false doctrine of annihilation.

 

I think you are gaining mistaking the way the word "are" is used in this text.

What is happening in the present tense is the "setting forth" of S&G as an example, not the suffering of the people of S&G. I think the very last line of your post is based on incorrectly assuming that what is happening in the present is the suffering of people of S&G" rather whan the text clearly shows - it is the "setting forth as an example" that is happening in the present.

We all see that the word "suffering" is also rendered in the present tense. But consider the following:

"My friends Fred and Joe are set forth as examples of not taking care of their health, both suffering heart attacks in their 40s"

The specific use of the present tense does not establish that Fred and Joe are suffering heart attacks right now.

I doubt any student of how language is used would agree that Jude is saying that the people of S&G are burning today, at least not based on the present tense argument you provide.

 

The verse clearly says 'are suffering', not 'did suffer'. The suffering is present tense.

 

Not a valid argument. Besides the KJV text you supplied most definitely does not say "are suffering" - please reread it, the phrase "are suffering" is simply not there.

Maybe you did not have time to read my edit.

If I say "My friends Fred and Joe are set forth as examples of those who do not take care of themselves, both suffering heart attacks", this does not mean that I am saying they are suffering heart attacks in the present. The heart attacks could be happening in the present, but they also could have happened in the past. This "present tense" argument does not work.

 

Suffering is not past tense. It is present tense. The word 'are' whether put there for clarity or not does nothing to take away from the fact that the inhabitants are still suffering.

suffered - past tense
suffering - present tense.
Suffering is a present tense verb. Whenever the suffix 'ing' is added to a verb, it describes what is happening at present.

He is swimming; she is climbing; they are reading.

The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are suffering.


Jude used the present tense. The suffering that the inhabitants felt on that dreadful day is an ongoing process and will continue throughout eternity.

 

This is a demonstrably incorrect argument. I will repeat what should be obvious to all and then let HBSMN have the last word.

The use of the present tense is simply and obviously not an argument that the people of S&G are presently suffering. Consider the use of the present tense of verbs in the following sentences and decide for yourselves whether the action represented by the verb is necessarily presently underway:

1. Joe is set forth as an example of someone in bad physical condition, suffering exhaustion during a walk up only three flights of stairs.

2. Jane is set forth as an example of an adventurous person, moving from New York to Shangai;

3. The people of New York are set forth as an example of perserverence, refusing to let crime intimidate them.

All these actions could be happening in the present or they could have come to completion in the past. The resolution of the ambiguity lies in the application of further knowledge - the present tense argument accomplishes nothing at all in respect to establishing that these actions are currently underway.

So let's not waste each other's time on arguments that are clearly unworkable.

 

Matthew Henry on Jude 7: