Annihilationism, do the Wicked Perish?

[Carry_Your_Name]

"Death" cannot be "personalized" in the context, its a realm containing souls just as Hades and the Sea are:

Dead WAS personalized - or anthropomorphized in Revelation. Death was described as the last enemy, in John's vision he was the fourth rider - "So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him." (Rev. 6:8) In the end this enemy is defeated.

 

[Tenchi]

On hte contrary. You just tried to avoid the issue.

Nope.

No, it isn't the Bible doesn't teach that man can live apart from the Body...

Christ's parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus teaches exactly this. (Luke 16:19-31)

The souls of the martyrs beneath the altar in heaven crying out for justice teach this, too. (Revelation 6:9-11)

The appearance of Moses and Elijah with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration also suggests the survival of the soul beyond death of the body. (Matthew 17:1-8)

...so Jesus wouldn't be teaching something contrary to Scripture. He especially wouldn't be teaching Greek Philosophical idea.

Souls surviving the death of the body isn't something contrary to Scripture but taught by it. See above.

These don't prove your point.

Yes, they do. Very well, in fact.

Separation from God is a result of death, not the definition of it.

??? Here's what I concluded from the list of verses I gave you on the separation that characterizes death:

"Each of these passages in which Jesus is teaching on the punishment of hell clearly indicate separation as a feature of that punishment. So, yes, I can "prove" from Scripture that the "second death" in hell entails separation from God and is, I believe, the end, not of being, but of all well-being, as in the case of the Rich Man in Christ's parable in Luke 16."

So, where in this quotation do I write, "Separation is the definition of death"? Nowhere.

A person who dies is separated from everything, not just God.

Sounds like you're agreeing with me here...

However, If you look up the definition of death. you won't find as a definition separation from family, or friends, God. The only separation in the definition of death is separation from life.

Again, where did I make an assertion about the definition of death being separation? And again, nowhere. You're arguing against a Strawman version of my statements.

They're both days.

Yes, but you were particular about the second day being "just like the first." My point was that they weren't "just like" each other, as you claimed.

There can't be a soul without a body, thus, a person cannot live apart from the body.

This is Begging the Question. I don't grant the truth of the premise that you just assume is true in this statement, which is that the soul can't survive the death of the body. You have not at all demonstrated - to my satisfaction, at least - any such thing. So, no, there is no "thus" that you have established properly.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Yes, and? This verse doesn't say anything about what the soul is not, it doesn't limit what the soul is; it simply establishes by what means God invested Adam with a soul. It is reading into the verse what is not there to say that the "living soul" is only animating divine "breath" coupled to a physical body.

In Matthew 10:28 Jesus says,

28 "Do not fear 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.

Here, Jesus plainly implied that it is possible to kill the body without killing the soul. A man may kill the body of another, but he cannot harm his soul. Only God can kill both the body and the soul in hell. If, though, there is nothing that survives the death of the body, no soul existing beyond the body's decease, how can God kill both body and soul in hell? Obviously, Jesus knew that the soul and body were not utterly interdependent such that there could be no soul apart from the body. Instead, he implied in the verse above that the soul and body are distinct from one another.

In Acts 7:59 we read,

59 They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!"

No one reading this verse would take Stephen to be calling on the Lord to receive his "animating breath," his "life force," that would not survive the death of his body. This makes no sense, obviously. There is nothing for God to receive if there is no immaterial part of the person called Stephen that endures beyond physical death. Someone entirely unaware of the no-soul-beyond-death view of the Jehovah's Witnesses cult would certainly not understand Stephen to be asking God to receive nothing. No, a natural, straightforward reading of Stephen's prayer leads directly to the conclusion that he thought his spirit would go on at his physical death to be with God.

And so it goes, these passages (and others unmentioned) clearly denying the no-soul-beyond-death view.

Flip it around. If aion means an age, then it cannot be eternal. So, if the life is eternal that must be determined from Scripture without using the word aion.

Why should I "flip it around"? Aion in the case of Matthew 25:46 clearly does not mean merely "an age," as I explained. Since, aion and aionios both can mean eternal or everlasting, as they do when applied to God and His various divine characteristics, and there is nothing in the parallel of Matthew 25:46 that requires restricting aion to "an age," the parallel actually resting on the eternality of both life and punishment, I don't see the slightest need to do as you suggest above.

You said the Bible repeatedly affirms the life is without end. Can you show me where it repeatedly affirms this without using the word aion.

??? Why should I?

Since this is the word under discussion it can't used to prove the live is eternal.

Says who? As many expert translators of the Bible have shown, the word aion may be translated perfectly legitimately as "eternal," or "everlasting." Until you have established yourself their equal in translation and that, in fact, you understand better than they do how best to translate aion, I see no reason whatever to doubt their translation, or to accept yours.

Regarding the punishment it is eternal. Those who are thrown into the Lake of Fire will die as second time and they will be dead for eternity. That's the aionios punishment.

Nope. I've already explained why this is entirely faulty reasoning and in contradiction to the Bible.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Dead WAS personalized - or anthropomorphized in Revelation. Death was described as the last enemy, in John's vision he was the fourth rider - "So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him." (Rev. 6:8) In the end this enemy is defeated.

Yes, it was. But not in this context. Here, its a place, not a personification and therefore cannot "die" a death literally. But like Hades and the Sea, the place itself is destroyed by the fires of the lake. Not tormented. Once destroyed, "consumed" by the fire, it can "never return", hence "die the death" from which there is no "resurrection."

The "dead" in these places "Death, Hades, Sea" are emptied out = not a personification in this context.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yes, it was. But not in this context. Here, its a place, not a personification and therefore cannot "die" a death literally. But like Hades and the Sea, the place itself is destroyed by the fires of the lake. Not tormented. Once destroyed, "consumed" by the fire, it can "never return", hence "die the death" from which there is no "resurrection."

The "dead" in these places "Death, Hades, Sea" are emptied out = not a personification in this context.

Not really. "Hades" is a place, the underworld for the dead; "death" on the other hand is personified as the lord of death who held the dead captive, and here in Rev. 20:13-14 the captives are set free, and death is defeated, that's the "last enemy", not just a place.

So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”“O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” (1 Cor. 15:54-55)

 

[Alfred Persson]

Not really. "Hades" is a place, the underworld for the dead; "death" on the other hand is personified as the lord of death who held the dead captive, and here in Rev. 20:13-14 the captives are set free, and death is defeated, that's the "last enemy", not just a place.

So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”“O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” (1 Cor. 15:54-55)

Not in that context, if you personify "Death" then "Sea" also must be personified and that is impossible:

20:13 And the sea gave (up) the dead in it and death and Hades (a) gave (up) the dead in them, and they-were-judged each according-to their works.

LEXICON—a. ᾅδης (LN 1.19) (BAGD 1. p. 17): ‘Hades’ [BAGD, BNTC, EC, LN, WBC; NAB, NCV, NET, NIV, NRSV, REB, TNT], ‘hades’ [Lns], ‘the kingdom of death’ [CEV], ‘hell’ [KJV], ‘the grave’ [NLT], ‘the world of the dead’ [LN; TEV]. See this word also at 1:18 and 6:8.

QUESTION—If the sea, death, and Hades cannot be personified, how can this verse be translated?

It could be translated as: And those dead people who were in the sea and in Hades went to be judged, each according to their works [TH] -Trail, R. (2008). An Exegetical Summary of Revelation 12–22 (2nd ed., p. 191). SIL International.
The Sea, Death and Hades are all realms of the Dead in this context and not personifications as elsewhere.

I believe, perhaps no one else does, the Sea is mentioned because it is standing for the realm of Chaos, Tartarus and perhaps the Abyss had entrances to them, in the Sea. The prisons of fallen angels. Notice the Beast in Rev. 13:1 rises from "the sea" of supernatural activity just as in Daniel:

Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten (Rev. 13:1 NKJ)

2 Daniel spoke, saying, "I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea.
3 "And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. (Dan. 7:2-3 NKJ)

In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. (Isa. 27:1 KJV)

Symbolically the sea rages against the boundaries God set:

Do you not fear Me?' says the LORD.`Will you not tremble at My presence, Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea, By a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it? And though its waves toss to and fro, Yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it. (Jer. 5:22 NKJ)

Commentators wonder where Fallen angels are judged. The mention of the sea, and the absence of the sea in the New Heavens and earth, make it possible "the sea" represents the realm of fallen angels, whereas men are in Hades or the section of Hades where they are already judged worthy of the second death, those guilty of eternal sin. Its also called "the pit" in the OT, the place where the really wicked suffer.

This event prefigures what happens on Judgment Day. The resurrection also applies to the fallen angels, both in the Abyss and Tartarus = "the sea". The "spirits of demons" are imprisoned in unclean abominable flesh, then cast into the lake of Fire which was created for Satan and his angels.

32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them.
33 Then the demons went out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the lake and drowned. (Lk. 8:32-33 NKJ)

In the Greek its implied they had no control of the swine as they were compelled to drown themselves in what symbolizes the "lake of fire".

 

[Butch5]

You said we were going to be like Adam, picking fruit from the same tree .remember ?
We won't be naked and afraid will we ?

Gen 2:25
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

I didn't say we'd be like Adam.i said Adam had access to eternal life via the Tree of Life. Then I posted showing that that access will be restored.

I also gave the creation of man showing that after Godretrieves His breath the body returns to the dust and there is nothing left to live on.

Jesus was raised in the same body that went into the tomb.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Not in that context, if you personify "Death" then "Sea" also must be personified and that is impossible:

20:13 And the sea gave (up) the dead in it and death and Hades (a) gave (up) the dead in them, and they-were-judged each according-to their works.

LEXICON—a. ᾅδης (LN 1.19) (BAGD 1. p. 17): ‘Hades’ [BAGD, BNTC, EC, LN, WBC; NAB, NCV, NET, NIV, NRSV, REB, TNT], ‘hades’ [Lns], ‘the kingdom of death’ [CEV], ‘hell’ [KJV], ‘the grave’ [NLT], ‘the world of the dead’ [LN; TEV]. See this word also at 1:18 and 6:8.

QUESTION—If the sea, death, and Hades cannot be personified, how can this verse be translated?

It could be translated as: And those dead people who were in the sea and in Hades went to be judged, each according to their works [TH] -Trail, R. (2008). An Exegetical Summary of Revelation 12–22 (2nd ed., p. 191). SIL International.
The Sea, Death and Hades are all realms of the Dead in this context and not personifications as elsewhere.

I believe, perhaps no one else does, the Sea is mentioned because it is standing for the realm of Chaos, Tartarus and perhaps the Abyss had entrances to them, in the Sea. The prisons of fallen angels. Notice the Beast in Rev. 13:1 rises from "the sea" of supernatural activity just as in Daniel:

Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten (Rev. 13:1 NKJ)

2 Daniel spoke, saying, "I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea.
3 "And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. (Dan. 7:2-3 NKJ)

In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. (Isa. 27:1 KJV)

Symbolically the sea rages against the boundaries God set:

Do you not fear Me?' says the LORD.`Will you not tremble at My presence, Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea, By a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it? And though its waves toss to and fro, Yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it. (Jer. 5:22 NKJ)

Commentators wonder where Fallen angels are judged. The mention of the sea, and the absence of the sea in the New Heavens and earth, make it possible "the sea" represents the realm of fallen angels, whereas men are in Hades or the section of Hades where they are already judged worthy of the second death, those guilty of eternal sin. Its also called "the pit" in the OT, the place where the really wicked suffer.

This event prefigures what happens on Judgment Day. The resurrection also applies to the fallen angels, both in the Abyss and Tartarus = "the sea". The "spirits of demons" are imprisoned in unclean abominable flesh, then cast into the lake of Fire which was created for Satan and his angels.

32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them.
33 Then the demons went out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the lake and drowned. (Lk. 8:32-33 NKJ)

In the Greek its implied they had no control of the swine as they were compelled to drown themselves in what symbolizes the "lake of fire".

Man, why is this a big deal? What's the matter if death is personified here, since it was definitely personified in other places in the bible? And since Hades is already a place, why does death have to be a place also? Wouldn't that be a little redundant? If Hades is the underworld and Death as the lord of the underworld, wouldn't that make more sense? Speaking of context, you have to think of the whole book as the context, not just these few verses. The way I see it, the broad context trumps the narrow context.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Man, why is this a big deal? What's the matter if death is personified here, since it was definitely personified in other places in the bible? And since Hades is already a place, why does death have to be a place also? Wouldn't that be a little redundant? If Hades is the underworld and Death as the lord of the underworld, wouldn't that make more sense? Speaking of context, you have to think of the whole book as the context, not just these few verses. The way I see it, the broad context trumps the narrow context.

This context is not about a Satanic figure named "Death" as in Revelation 6:8 riding a horse with Hades swallowing up all Death killed.

John isn't describing Death as a "lord of the underworld" losing his prisoners, he lists three places the dead rise from. Most commentators conclude John is saying all the dead, regardless where they died, are being raised.

This is Judgment Day, and the dead are rising from these three places.

13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Rev. 20:13-14 NKJ)

If Death is the "lord of Hades" why not say that in the text? That idea just isn't in the verse:

BUT I agree the assumption it is "redundant" has led to some personifying it as you do.

But that is an assumption, unproved. John listed three places, he had a reason to do so. I don't agree it was to signify all the human dead will rise, I believe he refers to three places where different dead are held:

The Sea which covered the entrance to Tartarus/Abyss where fallen angels were; Hades where most human dead are; Death where the irredeemably wicked are, which was called "the PIT" or "destruction" in the OT to signify there was no redemption possible.

Your interpretation is not impossible, and some commentaries likely agree with it. You could cite the fact only Death and Hades are tossed into the Lake of Fire, not "the sea". But as the sea vanishes in the New heavens and earth, its implied it also "won't return" which is essentially what the "second death" means, the "death from which there is no resurrection".

There seems to be some "spatial overlap" between Gehenna, Lake of Fire, Abyss, Tartarus. All technically are in the "unseen realm" aka, Hades. That could explain why "the sea" isn't tossed into the lake, because evil dead actually came out of Tartarus etc. whose entrances were "under the sea" and "Hades" (the unseen realm) therefore includes those other places.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This context is not about a Satanic figure named "Death" as in Revelation 6:8 riding a horse with Hades swallowing up all Death killed.

John isn't describing Death as a "lord of the underworld" losing his prisoners, he lists three places the dead rise from. Most commentators conclude John is saying all the dead, regardless where they died, are being raised.

This is Judgment Day, and the dead are rising from these three places.

13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (Rev. 20:13-14 NKJ)

If Death is the "lord of Hades" why not say that in the text? That idea just isn't in the verse:

BUT I agree the assumption it is "redundant" has led to some personifying it as you do.

But that is an assumption, unproved. John listed three places, he had a reason to do so. I don't agree it was to signify all the human dead will rise, I believe he refers to three places where different dead are held:

The Sea which covered the entrance to Tartarus/Abyss where fallen angels were; Hades where most human dead are; Death where the irredeemably wicked are, which was called "the PIT" or "destruction" in the OT to signify there was no redemption possible.

Your interpretation is not impossible, and some commentaries likely agree with it. You could cite the fact only Death and Hades are tossed into the Lake of Fire, not "the sea". But as the sea vanishes in the New heavens and earth, its implied it also "won't return" which is essentially what the "second death" means, the "death from which there is no resurrection".

There seems to be some "spatial overlap" between Gehenna, Lake of Fire, Abyss, Tartarus. All technically are in the "unseen realm" aka, Hades. That could explain why "the sea" isn't tossed into the lake, because evil dead actually came out of Tartarus etc. whose entrances were "under the sea" and "Hades" (the unseen realm) therefore includes those other places.

Isn't the sea symbolizing all the gentile nations? There's no need to speculate, it's all explained. Throughout the whole bible, sea often symbolizes instability and danger, whereas earth symbolizes stability and safety. When you read about the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee, the sea becomes blood, and the Beast rising from the Sea, it all alludes to this prophetic meaning. I'm not really assuming anything, you know, I'm just using the Scripture to interpret the Scripture.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Isn't the sea symbolizing all the gentile nations? There's no need to speculate, it's all explained. Throughout the whole bible, sea often symbolizes instability and danger, whereas earth symbolizes stability and safety. When you read about the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee, the sea becomes blood, and the Beast rising from the Sea, it all alludes to this prophetic meaning. I'm not really assuming anything, you know, I'm just using the Scripture to interpret the Scripture.

I agree the Sea is symbolic. Its representing a realm of the dead. We disagree on Revelation 13:1, I don't interpret the "sea" as gentile nations, I interpret it as the "sea of spiritism" because John alludes to Daniel when he says he stood on the sand of the sea. In Daniel's dream he would be "on the sand of the sea" also:

2 Daniel spoke, saying, "I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea.
3 "And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. (Dan. 7:2-3 NKJ)

Winds of heaven could symbolize "spirits of heaven", recall Satan and angels are still in a section of heaven according to Rev. 12:7-12 and Eph. 6:12.

The Sea can symbolize "unruly gentiles" and you might say it fits Rev. 20:13, but as I already shared with you what I think it "signifies" (Rev. 1:1) you can see why I don't agree with your take on it.

Not saying your interpretation is impossible, if I looked I'm sure some commentaries agree. I think my interpretation fits the details better.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I agree the Sea is symbolic. Its representing a realm of the dead. We disagree on Revelation 13:1, I don't interpret the "sea" as gentile nations, I interpret it as the "sea of spiritism" because John alludes to Daniel when he says he stood on the sand of the sea. In Daniel's dream he would be "on the sand of the sea" also:

2 Daniel spoke, saying, "I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea.
3 "And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. (Dan. 7:2-3 NKJ)

Winds of heaven could symbolize "spirits of heaven", recall Satan and angels are still in a section of heaven according to Rev. 12:7-12 and Eph. 6:12.

The Sea can symbolize "unruly gentiles" and you might say it fits Rev. 20:13, but as I already shared with you what I think it "signifies" (Rev. 1:1) you can see why I don't agree with your take on it.

Not saying your interpretation is impossible, if I looked I'm sure some commentaries agree. I think my interpretation fits the details better.

No, the sea represents all gentile nations. "Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues." (Rev. 17:15) The only difference between you and me is that I believe this applies to many other references of sea, flood and waters, you don't. It becomes a realm of the dead because up to a third of all mankind are dead.

"So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind." (Rev. 9:15)
"By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed—by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths."(Rev. 9:18)

 

[Alfred Persson]

No, the sea represents all gentile nations. "Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues." (Rev. 17:15) The only difference between you and me is that I believe this applies to many other references of sea, flood and waters, you don't. It becomes a realm of the dead because up to a third of all mankind are dead.

"So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind." (Rev. 9:15)
"By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed—by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths."(Rev. 9:18)

Your principle is "if a symbol is explained as xyz in one text, its that in every text."

If I show "sea" appears in Revelation not meaning "all gentile nations" your principle is wrong:

"Sea" cannot symbolize "all gentile nations" in these texts:

And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. (Rev. 8:9 NKJ)

Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore. (Rev. 18:21 NKJ)

And why would John write:

The GENTILE NATIONS gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

The "Walking Dead" is a TV show.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Your principle is "if a symbol is explained as xyz in one text, its that in every text."

If I show "sea" appears in Revelation not meaning "all gentile nations" your principle is wrong:

"Sea" cannot symbolize "all gentile nations" in these texts:

And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. (Rev. 8:9 NKJ)

Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore. (Rev. 18:21 NKJ)

And why would John write:

The GENTILE NATIONS gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.

The "Walking Dead" is a TV show.

Why can't sea symbolize all gentile nations in those texts? There's no evidence against that, "third of the sea becomes blood" and "the sea gives up its dead" all perfectly correspond to "third of mankind are dead," maybe those are God's way to visualize this huge depopulation for John to see. I just don't understand why you're so adamant on such a minor detail and why it matters so much to you. Since it's already clearly explained in 17:15, why the hustle to guess anything else? What's the point of making "sea" and "death" into a second and a third Hades?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Why can't sea symbolize all gentile nations in those texts? There's no evidence against that, "third of the sea becomes blood" and "the sea gives up its dead" all perfectly correspond to "third of mankind are dead," maybe those are God's way to visualize this huge depopulation for John to see. I just don't understand why you're so adamant on such a minor detail and why it matters so much to you. Since it's already clearly explained in 17:15, why the hustle to guess anything else? What's the point of making "sea" and "death" into a second and a third Hades?

Context. When testing if Greek or Hebrew, or symbols mean what is claimed for it, there is a simple test everyone can do. Use the claimed meaning instead of the word or symbol, and read the verse. If it makes better sense in context, then perhaps it does convey the suggested meaning:

These verses no longer make sense if "all gentile nations" [=sea] :

And a third of the living creatures in "all gentile nations" [=sea] died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. (Rev. 8:9 NKJ)

Judgment shifts from human beings to punish "living creatures" in the "gentile nations"? Who are these living creatures and what do "ships" have to do with them? Clearly, the verse becomes unintelligible once "sea" is interpreted to mean all gentile nations".


Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into "all gentile nations" [=sea] , saying, "Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore. (Rev. 18:21 NKJ)

How is it the gentile nations are not harmed by a "great city" raining down upon them like a stone from heaven? Does the context say this is how "all the gentile nations" meet their doom? No. Babylon, the Mother of harlots of the religion of all the gentile nations is being destroyed, cast into "the sea", not a group of people. Therefore, "sea" in this verse does not mean "all gentile nations".

I could ask you, "why the hustle to guess anything else?" than what it is in the verse. Why do you have a problem with the plain reading of the Bible, instead overlaying upon the text a meaning not found in the context?

Lets not get personal. You have your opinion, I have mine.

The benefit of mine is its what the Bible says. If John meant "all the gentile nations" when he wrote "sea", he would have said so, either stating it directly or showing "sea" is symbolic in the context, and not as he does, a literal sea.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The benefit of mine is it’s what the Bible says. If John meant "all the gentile nations" when he wrote "sea", he would have said so, either stating it directly or showing "sea" is symbolic in the context, and not as he does, a literal sea.

The angel explained it to John as such, that settles it. I think at least we can agree that Revelation is written in symbolic language, why must you take this one bit so literally? Why is the sea the Beast rises from is all gentile nations, then suddenly in the next chapter it must be literal sea or another Hades? And keep in mind that in the original Greek there was no chapters or verses, it makes no sense to me that the definition of 17:15 can’t be applied to all mentions of sea after that. And this symbolism is nothing new, it’s not just here, it’s in the Old Testament prophecy too, Daniel saw four beasts rising from the same sea.

I believe in context too, I believe in the whole context of the book of Revelation. This may sound crazy to you, but before I dive in the texts and lines of a book, I’d like to study a little bit about this book’s summary, it’s author and the historical background, then that becomes the lens, through which I read the whole book, and Revelation is no exception.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into "all gentile nations" [=sea] , saying, "Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore. (Rev. 18:21 NKJ)

How is it the gentile nations are not harmed by a "great city" raining down upon them like a stone from heaven? Does the context say this is how "all the gentile nations" meet their doom? No. Babylon, the Mother of harlots of the religion of all the gentile nations is being destroyed, cast into "the sea", not a group of people. Therefore, "sea" in this verse does not mean "all gentile nations".

In the previous judgements of seals, trumpets and bowls the gentile nations are already squashed with up to a third of all mankind dead, and you’re claiming they’re “not harmed”? That stone the angel throws at Babylon the Great is another version of king Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the great Babylonian statue, in the end it was smashed by a stone “cut without hand”, that’s Jesus’s second coming. That Babylonian statue represents all gentile nations, from ancient Babylon to the ten kings. You don’t get it because that’s a specific reference.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The angel explained it to John as such, that settles it. I think at least we can agree that Revelation is written in symbolic language, why must you take this one bit so literally? Why is the sea the Beast rises from is all gentile nations, then suddenly in the next chapter it must be literal sea or another Hades? And keep in mind that in the original Greek there was no chapters or verses, it makes no sense to me that the definition of 17:15 can’t be applied to all mentions of sea after that. And this symbolism is nothing new, it’s not just here, it’s in the Old Testament prophecy too, Daniel saw four beasts rising from the same sea.

I believe in context too, I believe in the whole context of the book of Revelation. This may sound crazy to you, but before I dive in the texts and lines of a book, I’d like to study a little bit about this book’s summary, it’s author and the historical background, then that becomes the lens, through which I read the whole book, and Revelation is no exception.

I am unique among Bible commentators, I get into details. You can go anywhere and read generalized ideas about the future, about the Antichrist. No one dares give him a proper name, or discuss the precise area of the world he is from. I do.

My exposition of Bible prophecy will be either "proved or disproved", very soon.

Because I am like the fictional "Sherlock Holmes" focusing on tiny details, I speak as I do. If I got "fuzzy" with the context, I would speak like every one else...always be vague, always leave wiggle room...


What the Bible reveals about the End Time IN DETAIL:

End Time Timeline of Events in the Last Days | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

When the First Seal is opened (Rev. 6:2) the First Half of End-Time "Week" of 7 Years (= 84 months; 2,520 days) begins: A disclaimer: I am a Cessationist, a believer in the sufficiency of Scripture (sola scriptura). Not one word of this is "thus saith the Lord prophecy". I pray its correct so...

endtimenews.net

The Antichrist His Names Titles and Descriptions | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

The Antichrist will appear in the guise of Christ, to oppose Christ. Paul called him the "Son of Destruction" which implies a Jewish-Christian miracle worker evangelist. His name is Adonikam and he will rise from obscurity near the ancient city of Antioch, modern Turkey. He is from ancient...

endtimenews.net

The Two Phases of Antichrist: Man of Sin and Son of Destruction | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

The Two Phases of The Antichrist: Man of Sin and Son of Destruction Give no belief to false words: because there will first be a falling away from the faith, and the revelation of the man of sin (266 ἁμαρτία hamartia), the son of destruction (684 ἀπώλεια apoleia), (2 Thess. 2:3 BBE) "Man of sin"

endtimenews.net

 

[Consecrated Life]

Why would Jesus be comparing the fate of eternal sleep in the presence of nothingness, as being the absolute worst tragic fate that can happen to a person after enjoying a long life of unimaginable wealth. pleasure , & luxurious living , and enjoying every sin they desire with their untold wealth ?
I know young & old people today who would jump at the chance to win a billion dollar lottery in exchange for accepting that when their life on earth is over they will be unconscious forever .
They would call that a sweet deal .
Why does Jesus characterize such a deal as the worst thing that can ever happen to a person , when so many would love that deal ?

Mat 16:26
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I am unique among Bible commentators, I get into details. You can go anywhere and read generalized ideas about the future, about the Antichrist. No one dares give him a proper name, or discuss the precise area of the world he is from. I do.

My exposition of Bible prophecy will be either "proved or disproved", very soon.

Because I am like the fictional "Sherlock Holmes" focusing on tiny details, I speak as I do. If I got "fuzzy" with the context, I would speak like every one else...always be vague, always leave wiggle room...


What the Bible reveals about the End Time IN DETAIL:

End Time Timeline of Events in the Last Days | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

When the First Seal is opened (Rev. 6:2) the First Half of End-Time "Week" of 7 Years (= 84 months; 2,520 days) begins: A disclaimer: I am a Cessationist, a believer in the sufficiency of Scripture (sola scriptura). Not one word of this is "thus saith the Lord prophecy". I pray its correct so...

endtimenews.net

The Antichrist His Names Titles and Descriptions | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

The Antichrist will appear in the guise of Christ, to oppose Christ. Paul called him the "Son of Destruction" which implies a Jewish-Christian miracle worker evangelist. His name is Adonikam and he will rise from obscurity near the ancient city of Antioch, modern Turkey. He is from ancient...

endtimenews.net

The Two Phases of Antichrist: Man of Sin and Son of Destruction | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

The Two Phases of The Antichrist: Man of Sin and Son of Destruction Give no belief to false words: because there will first be a falling away from the faith, and the revelation of the man of sin (266 ἁμαρτία hamartia), the son of destruction (684 ἀπώλεια apoleia), (2 Thess. 2:3 BBE) "Man of sin"

endtimenews.net

I like reading fictions too, especially Shakespeare and its modern adaptations. But when it comes down to the Bible, you better give up your unique opinion and yield to sound teaching, lean not on your own understanding but God’s wisdom. Pride is the deadliest sin, after all.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I like reading fictions too, especially Shakespeare and its modern adaptations. But when it comes down to the Bible, you better give up your unique opinion and yield to sound teaching, lean not on your own understanding but God’s wisdom. Pride is the deadliest sin, after all.

Thought we were having a friendly conversation. I backed up everything with scripture, and unlike many professional (well paid) "babblers" claiming "thus saith the lord", my exegesis is already beginning to be seen in news. The two horned lamb, Britain and America are becoming the dual world power prophesied to unite under a "false prophet".

Everyday it seems America doesn't drop bombs on anyone, without Britain at her side.

Britain and America in Prophecy | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

Britain and America in prophecy Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. (Rev. 13:11 NKJ) John alludes to the book of Daniel in Revelation 13:1-2, the "beast-Empire" rises 'from the sea of spiritism' just like in Daniel (Isa.

endtimenews.net

Star Wars in Daniel | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

Star Wars in Daniel It grew so big it reached the army (06635 צָבָא tsaba’) of heaven, and it brought about the fall of some of the army (06635 צָבָא tsaba’) and some of the stars (03556 כּוֹכָב kowkab) to the ground, where it trampled them. (Dan. 8:10 NET) And I, Daniel, fainted and was

endtimenews.net