I Have a Question About Hell and Eternity

What would man have to fear if he were to be reduced to ashes?

That is where your theory (and that is all that it is is theory) Bob leads.

Where is the punishment for sin if they cease to exist?


The rich man in hell was not being consumed. On the contrary, he was only in torments. Why would he not cry out that he was being consumed instead of saying in torment?

Why would he want to warn his brothers of coming to that awful place of torment? The brothers apparently thought the same foolish thoughts you do... that even if they go to hell, they will somehow burn to ashes or nothingness and there will be no more pain or suffering.

The rich man's cry for someone to warn his brethren is enough to show the severity of going to that place of eternal torment.

 

I always know someone has a weak or losing argument when they resort to taking quotes out of context or misquoting people. If you would have quoted the entire quote it is clear that Spiros Zodhiates states that in Matthew 10:28 destroy is eternal. Here is the entire quote.


As per Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible
edited by Spiros Zodhiates, TH.D

Lexical Aids To The New Testament

622. Apollumi; or apolluo, from the inten. apo (575) and olluo, to destroy. In the N.T. to kill, destroy, wether temorarily (Mt. 2:13; 27:20; Mk 11:18; Jn 10:10) or eternally (Mt. 10:28; 18:14); in the mid. and pass., to be destroyed, perish, wether temporarily (Mt. 26:52, cf 9:17; Heb. 1:11; Mk. 4:38; Lk. 11:51; 15:17); or eternally (Jn. 3:15, 16; 10:28; Rom. 2:12; 1Cor. 1:18); to lose (LK. 15:4; Mt. 10:39; 16:25); in the pass, and mid., to be lost(Mt. 15:24; 18:11; Lk. 15:4, 6, 24). The part. noun ho apolluion, the destroyer or the destroying one (Rev. 9:11). Deriv: ollumi, to ruin or destroy, lose; apoleia (684), lost; Apolluon (623), the Destroyer.

 

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear [b]those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Christ argues that we should not fear with wicked men plan to do – and in fact DO – to the saints. “Kill the body” since in those things they are not able to “kill” the soul. Rather fear what God plans to do – and in fact WILL do in the fiery hell to come – to “destroy BOTH body AND soul” IN fiery hell -- doing that which sinful men CAN NOT do to their fellow man. He does not merely say – “fear Him who could choose to destroy BOTH body and soul if he should ever be inclined to do such a thing” – rather He states it in the affirmative saying WHERE and when he will do it “IN fiery hell”

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

It is kinda funny when you have to go to the extreme of representing me as authoring scripture in those cases where IT flatly contradicts man-made traditions held dearly by others.



As for WHY men would FEAR being burned alive - working that one out is left as an exercise for the reader. Seems like a simple enough point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Matt 10:28 “destroy both BODY AND SOUL” in fiery hell –

Apollumi – “Destroy “

1. to destroy
   1. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
   2. render useless
   3. to kill
   4. to declare that one must be put to death
   5. metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
   6. to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2. to destroy
   1. to lose

NAS (93) - bring, 1; destroy, 17; destroyed, 9; dying, 1; end, 1; killed, 1; lose, 10; loses, 7; lost, 14; much, 1; passed away, 1; perish, 14; perishable, 1; perished, 4; perishes, 1; perishing, 6; put to death, 1; ruined, 3;

Obviously we see no "eternal destroying" going on here..

Matt 2:13
13Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him."

Matt 12
14But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

Obviously we see no "eternal destroying" going on here in Matthew's use of the term in the cases above..

Mark 3:6
The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

John 10:10
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

 

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear [b]those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Christ argues that we should not fear with wicked men plan to do – and in fact DO – to the saints. “Kill the body” since in those things they are not able to “kill” the soul. Rather fear what God plans to do – and in fact WILL do in the fiery hell to come – to “destroy BOTH body AND soul” IN fiery hell -- doing that which sinful men CAN NOT do to their fellow man. He does not merely say – “fear Him who could choose to destroy BOTH body and soul if he should ever be inclined to do such a thing” – rather He states it in the affirmative saying WHERE and when he will do it “IN fiery hell”

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

 

This verse shows the reality of hell and the eternal torment therein. It also proves that the account of the rich man and Lazarus was in fact, not a parable as you claim it is.

When one sees the reality of hell and its eternal torments, one realizes that the word destroy in Matthew 10 cannot mean to reduce to ashes.

"they have no rest day nor night"...

The rich man had no rest from the torments of the flame. He could not be brought anything to relieve him of the flame that parched his throat and caused his tongue to swell.

No rest whatsoever and that lines up perfectly with Revelation 14:11.

 

bOBrYAN:

"Your example of Moses and the burning bush was the perfect illustration for fire that neither consumes nor destroys. Stick with it - it is the perfect contradiction of Jude and Matt 10 and Matt 25."

GE:

Don't you mean, '...it is the perfect opposite of Jude and Matt 10 and Matt 25'?

I feel if God will finish the work He has started in the saved, He will also finish the work He has begun upon the wicked. But again, we are not told to preach hell; we are told to preach Salvation. If for God it may be possible to destroy with fire that never ends, then He is justified in His judgments. If He meant to destroy by annihilation, then so be it: Glory to His justice!

 

Yet DHK still needs answer my question, that if hell and its fire are without end in the sense of 'everlasting', then what about its past? What would hell be there for while there had been no sin - or before Adam's transgression? Or were the hell fires first litt up when the first damned person died - probably Cain?

 

Yes - perfect opposite -- perfect contradiction to what we find in those NT texts.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Speaking of Rev 14:10 and 11.

Yes - it shows it to be the REAL torment by REAL "fire and brimstone" that is called the "second death" in Rev 20 and is sometimes also called "fiery hell" as in Matt 10:28 where we see that it "DESTROYS" BOTH body and soul.

No question about the REALITY of it.

It does nothing of the kind. Rev 14 does not address any parable as you seem to think it does. It makes no reference to Lazarus or the "rich man". It is not intended to be bent around so that it say "oh yes and by the way - that story about Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16 turns out to be literal... yes that is right Lazarus and all other dead saints are literally sitting in Abraham's lap and the rich man and all other dead wicked in hell are literally praying to the dead (Abraham) seeking their sovereign intercession on behalf of the living".

There is no possible way to bend Rev 14 in that direction.

The fact that while alive they have no rest and are tormented - for days and nights DOES NOT mean that they never are "reduced to ashes" as God says in His word.

It just means that "it takes time" for that to happen.

Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear [b]those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/b]

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

In Christ,

Bob

 

There are many Bible scholars that would go with those who reject the Bible teaching on the destruction of BOTH body and soul in fiery hell and claim that in fact eternal fire is not actually able to consume its victims.

BUT there are NOT as many that would ALSO go to the wild extreme of calling Luke 16 literal history - rather they admit that Luke 16 is a parable.

 

Is it any wonder then - that when your OWN Bible scholars will not leap off that cliff with you in Luke 16 -- that I certainly won't do it either??!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

The fact that Matthew Henry called the account of Lazarus and the rich man a parable does not make it a parable.

Nowhere in Scripture does the Lord Jesus Christ call it a parable. As a matter of fact, Jesus never names names in the parables He speaks throughout the Gospels yet in the account of the rich man and Lazarus He clearly does.

There is absolutely no indication in the Word of God that it is a parable and to say it is is adding to God's Word.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus lines up perfectly with Revelation 14:11.

 

Here is the highlighted part of his quote you keep missing:

622. Apollumi; or apolluo, from the inten. apo (575) and olluo, to destroy. In the N.T. to kill, destroy, wether temorarily (Mt. 2:13; 27:20; Mk 11:18; Jn 10:10) or eternally (Mt. 10:28; 18:14);

 

It is exceedingly clear that if one reads into the text the idea of annihilation every time Scripture speaks of ‘destroying’ as BR’s presupposition suggests, there is no end to the wild notions that come into play. There is not the least shred of Scriptural evidence to support any such figment of BR’s presupposition in regard to God 'annihilating' the wicked. Scriptural evidence clearly refutes any such notion.

 

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also to those on the left, Go from me, cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Sometime prior to the fall of Adam, did Lucifer and one third of the angels of heaven rebel against God. They were cast out of Heaven. At that time (we would suppose) God created both Hell and the Lake of Fire. There is no time in eternity. God is not held to time restraints as we are. He sees the end from the beginning.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

Agreed - but the fact that Abraham is in charge of all dead saints in that parable and that the dead are being prayed to on behalf of the living and the historic elements Matthew Henry brings out about why Christ is using those terms with the rebellious Jewish leaders - argues for the Parable classification.

Obviously.

BTW - the parable in Judges about the trees electing a king IS STILL a parable even though various kinds of plants are mentioned by name.

Simply making stuff up about when something can not be a parable like "names" is not exegesis - not even remotely.

My point is that these people DO agree with your view that hell is always burning the same people year after year -- but they can not follow you in your wild leap off the cliff that claims Luk 16 is not a parable.

These are YOUR own bible scholars - those that agree with YOU that can not endorse such Bible-contradicting ideas about Luke 16...

And still you have no inclination to back off that man-made tradition even a little??

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have shown a number of examples were DESTROY can not possibly mean the wild ludicrous "forever burning but not consuming" idea that some have suggested here. An example "where neither moth nor rust does DESTROY" -- was already given.

But SPECIFICALLY in the case of everlasting fire - we have the example given in Jude 7, in 2Peter 2 that that kind of fire DOES DESTROY by "reducing to ashes"...

It is the unpleasant task of a few on this thread to try and "believe it is not true no matter what the Bible says to the contrary". I think they should be encouraged that you are joining them in that monumental task. I don't envy you in taking it on -- your work is cut out for you that is for sure.

Lot's of luck on that one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Matt 25 is about the FUTURE event of the great white throne judgment in Rev 20 where all the wicked AND the devil AND his angels are tossed into the Lake of fire.

Matt 25 shows what God will say to the wicked in that future time -- after the 1000 years -- AT the second death - AT the lake of fire just as Rev 20 describes it.

The Lake of fire seen in Rev 20 is AFTER the 1000 years - not before it.

the Lake of fire ignited AFTER the 1000 years is called "the second death".

No sense in just making stuff up - -when the Bible has spelled all this out for you sir.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The Bible does not say when the LOF is "ignited" nor does it say when it originated. There is no sense in making things up, is there?
"It was prepared (past tense) ....
But we don't know when it was prepared.