When you burn something, doesn’t it simply change form?

H. Buis comments on how adherents of literal everlasting destruction place great emphasis on the fact that the figure of “fire” is used in the Bible to describe the second death, “and fire, they point out, always destroys… But the fact is that when you burn something it is not annihilated, it simply changes form” (Buis 125). I guess what Mr. Buis is trying to say is that when, say, a log is burned up, it technically isn’t wiped out from existence, it turns to smoke vapors and ashes. While this is true, the simple fact is that the log itself is destroyed¾it no longer exists. The smoke vapors and ashes are merely the remains of the log. The same is true when God “destroys both soul and body in hell (Gehenna).” In regards to the body, when it is destroyed the...

Read More

What about the unquenchable fire in Mark 9:48?

First of all, we need to realize that Jesus is quoting verbatim Isaiah 66:24 in this passage so please read, Why rarely cited Isaiah 66:24 is a key for a more complete understanding of this scripture. Proper hermeneutics demands that we interpret scripture with scripture. If Jesus is quoting Isaiah, shouldn’t we read Isaiah too? Obviously Jesus would not disagree with Isaiah. Was Isaiah talking about the soul? Clearly he was not. Second of all, if God throws something into eternal fire, who says that what is thrown in, is eternal also? Inter-Varsity Press author John R. Stott rightly concludes: “…it would seem strange…if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed…it is difficult to imagine a perpetually...

Read More

Examples of Everlasting Destruction in the Bible

Examples of Everlasting Destruction in the Bible

      Here we shall look at prominent biblical examples of literal everlasting destruction that back-up the numerous passages which blatantly state that unrighteous people will be destroyed in the lake of fire and not suffer never-ending roasting torment, such as Matthew 10:28, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and 2 Peter 3:7.   The Example of Gehenna: “Hell”   Let’s start with the very word “hell” itself. There is only one biblical word translated as “hell” which refers to the lake of fire and is therefore relevant to the final disposition of ungodly people: Gehenna (GEH-en-nah). Gehenna is the Greek form of the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom, which literally means “the Valley of Hinnom.” The Hinnom Valley, also referred to as Topheth (TOH-feth), which means “a place to be...

Read More

The Bible and Hell: Supposed Proof Texts for Eternal Torture

The Bible and Hell: Supposed Proof Texts for Eternal Torture

          Since the Bible doesn’t teach that unredeemed people possess immortality or that they will suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire, the only way adherents of these beliefs can defend their position is by milking a small number of passages for details that the entire rest of the Bible refutes. This chapter is devoted to honestly examining these passages. Ironically, as you shall see, a close examination of these texts actually gives further support for literal everlasting destruction.   Daniel 12:2: “Shame and Everlasting Contempt”   Our first supposed proof text for eternal torture is this passage from Daniel: DANIEL 12:2-3 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting...

Read More

14 Reasons why the Traditional View of Hell Is Untrue

14 Reasons why the Traditional View of Hell Is Untrue

14 Reasons why the Traditional view of hell is untrue. Scripture says that God has put His standards in man’s conscience and calls us to reason together with Him (Isaiah 1:18). So does the Traditional view of the lost, as eternal conscious torment, fit the bill? Does it pass test of scripture? Assuredly it does not. C.S. Lewis wrote, “There is no doctrine I would more willingly remove from Christianity than (hell), if it lay in my power,” (C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, London: Geoffrey Bles, 1940, p. 118). C.S. Lewis recognized the moral repulsion he faced when looking at the Traditional view. “We are told that it is a detestable doctrine and indeed, I too detest it from the bottom of my heart” (ibid. p. 118).  Why don’t...

Read More