Jump to content

DarrenJClark

Members
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About DarrenJClark

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That is a bad translation tradition.
  2. I wrote, "The highly symbolic nature of the genre warns against just taking a flat reading and there are ample reasons to think John wanted us to read this verse as teaching the destruction of the wicked. " You read torment in Rev 20:10 as a flat, literal statement, do you not? That is what I am talking about. It is what you are doing when you just cite that verse. In his massive commentary on Revelation, considered by most other scholars to be the best on Rev, Beale warns against reading seemingly literal statements in Rev literally. When I have time I will find the quote for you.
  3. Well, my post was about Daniel 12:2. I have engage you on the verses you cite to try and show you why I disagree. That does not mean I do not have verse I can cite. I have done that above in response to your other comments. Here are some of them Matt 3:12; 10:28; 13:40-42; 18:8-9; John 3:16; 2 Thess 8-10; Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:6. These are didactice passages not the apocalyptic genre that Revelation is.
  4. I did not say you only cited one verse, I was admitting that Rev 20:10 is the one verse in the Bible that has any mention of torment in he context of the final fate of the wicked. You cited other verses but none pf them have the language of eternal torment of the all the wicked you need. You are responding to an argument I did not make. I have addressed 2 Thess 1:8-9 and all your texts with reasons why I disagree and wait for you to speak to those specific arguments. Reciting the same texts without addressing my exegesis does not refute my exegesis. I am always will to explain further my exegesis.
  5. No. Christian must accept how the Bible uses its own language. I addressed the question of Luke 16, which you are now ignoring. Luke 16 is literally about the intermediate state, yet in every instance in the NT where the language of death is used of the final state of the wicked it refers to their real death. Matthew 10:28 is clear on that. Do not forget that the resurrect to judgement falls in between the intermediate and the final state so you cannot just assume that the picture of one state automatically transfers to the other state. Death in the Bible just means the loss of life. In judgement contexts is capital punishment is in view. I can explain texts like Matt 10:28 that show this to be true.
  6. My point is simply that you cannot assume one way or another. You have to argue the case first.
  7. //I pointed to Rev.20:10 regarding the eternal torment factor. // Yes you did and I gave several reasons why that verse cannot automatically be interpreted as you read it. If you just move on without addressing those points you can't just come back later as if this verse proves your point. At some point you have to address the arguments I made. //There are other verses such as Mat.25:41 which specifically puts sinners in the same punishment as the devil and his demonic host, 46 speaks of sinners // And? Matthew has already informed us that the fire in Gehenna will destroy the wicked. In Matthew 3:12; 10:28; 13:40-42; and 18:8-9 he specifically teaches that complete destruction is view. Why not let Matthew's own words guide you on what he means with this kind of imagery? Matthew's theology of judgement is another academic interest of mine. //2Thes.1:8-9 speaks of sinners paying the penalty of eternal destruction (in hell).// Paul does not mention hell but I do agree that he is speaking to the final fate of the wicked. Notice that this eternal destruction is inflicted on the wicked on that day Christ returns. See verse 10. How do you suppose that destruction can happen just on that day when he comes if it is an eternal destroying? Is it not much less of a contradiction to say they will be destroyed completely forever? 2 Thessalonians 1:10 "when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed." When you are arguing from the verse you cite make sure you include all the relevant detail. //The wording of Jn.5:29 is strongly similar to Dan.12:2.// Daniel 12:2 "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." John 5:29 "and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." Again, and? Notice that in both Daniel 12:2 and John 5:29 only the righteous receive life. The wicked do not. John has already been clear that those not believing in Christ will perish (John 3:16) and will go on to say that only believers will not die again in the next age (John 11:26). I can explain my exegesis of these verses in more depth if you wish. Suffice to say, John is saying the wicked will die, not live forever.
  8. //I appeal to the new testament texts as does the apostle Paul or other writers of the epistles... // No. The NT authors appeal to the OT, so much so that it has become a specialized field of study in NT research. There is even a massive commentary on the use of the OT by the NT edited by D. A. Carson now available. By comparison the NT authors barely quote each other. // because we are all living under the new covenant of God through Jesus Christ and not under the old covenant as if there was no new covenant.// We know about the new covenant by examining how the NT authors use he OT to develop their theology not just by the mere fact they do appeal to the OT. I am not denying anything you are saying here. //The new testament explains more accurately through greater revelation than that of the old. But perhaps you prefer to avoid what's in the new because it doesn't agree with your premise.// The thing is, when you look at how the NT authors do use the OT when speaking of the final fate of the wicked it is always taking up language and imagery speaking to complete destruction and they always use this imagery to speak of utter destruction. You never get them changing this language so it means eternal conscious torment, ever. Check it out for yourself in verses like Matthew 3:12; 13:40-42; John 3:14-16; 2 Thess 1:9; Jude 7; 2 Peter 2:5-6; Rev 14:11; c.f. Rev 19:3. This is an academic interest of mine. I research and write on it, which involves reading a lot of material on the topic and exegeting all the relevant texts. How much research have you done on the topic?
  9. The Hebrew word for abhorrence literally only appears elsewhere in Danial 12:2. It does not appear in Job. "Concerning Is.66:24.. The worm shall not die and the fire not be quenched because both feed on those who rebelled while they were alive on the earth. Though physically alive they were spiritually dead by choice and without God in the world." That is flat out wrong. The worms and fire literally consume corpses. Trying to claim, this is a reference to the living is special pleading. Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh. " They are literally corpses. "Thus their punishment is torment in Hell without God, sharing in the punishment of satan and all of his demons.. who remain in Hell eternally." Since your premise is wrong then your conclusion has no grounding. Your argument falls over. Besides, even if your premise was true you would still have a non sequitur. The conclusion of eternal conscious punishment is not necessarily true just because sinners might be physically alive while spiritually dead. The conclusion does not follow the premise.
  10. In Ephesians 2:1 Paul is using the concept of death to metaphorically speak of the unreceptiveness of sinners to God because of their transgressions and sins. Just like a corpse cannot respond to the living so also the dead cannot respond to God. That is why they are made alive in Christ (Eph 2:5) and brought close to God (v13). Luke 16 is literally set in Hades (mistakenly translated as Hell in some translations) and therefore is concerned with the intermediate state. The last judgment literally is concerned with the final state of sinners. Go to passages like Matthew 3:12: 10:28; and, 13:40-42 and you will see this final state is their death and destruction.
  11. I never denied the punishment is everlasting. Being dead forever is everlasting death. If capital punishment is the final punishment, and it is not reversed it is literally everlasting punishment. You are correct, the contempt from the living is upon those who got their just recompense from God. That is my point. Everlasting contempt is not something you necessarily feel, Un the context of Is 66:24 it describes the disposition of the living towards the dead.
  12. Daniel 12:2, Col 2:14-15, and 1 Cor 2:8 do not speak to demons or to eternal shame. That is all you bringing that to the text.
  13. "The verses in Revelations say otherwise." No. The verses in Revelation do not say otherwise. The single verse you have that has eternal torment in Revelation 20:10 and that directly speaks to only three individuals. There is a lot of debate over whether they even are individual sentient beings with many arguing they represent human institutions. You should settle that question first. Then you have to infer that all other humans suffer torment when thrown into the lake of fire when John specifically says this is their second death. You have to make a bit of a jump there. In an interpretive section of Revelation we are told the Beast's fate is one of destruction (Rev 17:8). So while you admittedly have this one verse (but no other at all in the Bible) that mentions eternal torment you do not have a prooftext that has all you need in a didactic passage. The highly symbolic nature of the genre warns against just taking a flat reading and there are ample reasons to think John wanted us to read this verse as teaching the destruction of the wicked. "Hell wouldn't be much to shun if it was only oblivion. .. what salvation would there be from that? Why would God launch a huge campaign in sending His own son to deliver mankind from that sort of end? The word Hell being synonymous with punishment was not by accident or someone's mere overactive imagination." Who says? These are just bald assertions. What matters is what the Bible actually teaches.
  14. And people complain we conditionalists read the OT through the lens of the NT. That is exactly what you do here. Having to appeal to other texts shows you can't quite explain from Daniel 12:2 how it supports the idea of eternal conscious punishment in hell.
  15. You could not discuss hell if you want to ignore those verses that teach something about hell. Maybe God made a mistake when he included that teaching (sarcasm intended).
×
×
  • Create New...