--- The "confusion" is the claim being made that the soul is some sort of separate entity that exists apart from the physical body. The Genesis description of the creation of Man clearly shows that Adam did not become "a living soul" until the "breath of life" (that is the energy provided by God to make the body live) was united with the physical body.



--- The physical body goes into Scheol/Hades (the grave) and the breath returns to God.
Separated from the energy or "breath" the body ceases to function and becomes once more merely dust. There is no ethereal "soul" floating around thinking and feeling:

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."
Psalm 146:4

--- To those of us who believe the words of Sister White, her caution that "the falsehood that Satan first told Eve in Eden—the natural immortality of the soul", would be one of the two final great deceptions spread by Babylon, IS a "fearful warning"!

If everyone is eventually saved via some quasi Purgatorial sin/debt repayment plan, why don't we all just have a good time: take what we want, sleep with whomever we please, kill anybody we don't like, "eat, drink, and be merry"?

After all what's a few hundred or thousand years of indentured servitude compared to the sinless eternity that follows?

In all the endless years of forever, we will never have another opportunity to play
such dark and self indulgent games!


This is the ultimate fruit of Universalism...

I totally agree with you that the narrow way is not the 1st resurrection and the broad way = the 2nd despite 98% of the cases will end up in such way. The Bible does not make such reference. I made such an association to address the assumption that Asygo was trying to make with Mat 7 by saying the broader way = destruction that ends at Annihilation. I do agree with him(he did not say it but implies it) that those that stays in the broader way will be in the 2nd resur. and will have to go thru "destruction" but I don't believe anyone will be annihilated.

Jesus used the narrow gate in two teachings :

1)Mat 7 saying its about bearing fruits(like RichH points out in another parable).

2)Luk 13 is about being CAST OUT of the Kingdom because of the coming Judgment. And that parable had two time application : a)the near future in 70 - 135 AD when Jerusalem & many people were destroyed and those that survived were dispersed. b)At Jesus 2nd coming.

But being cast out of the Kingdom does not automatically equates to losing their salvation as we see today the Jews and the ex-Israelites can come back into the Kingdom if they repent.

Then to make things even more complicated, in both teachings of the narrow & broad gate Jesus is ONLY referring to the BELEIVERS and is not addressing the UNBELIEVERS at all. The broad road points to the fate of the UNFAITHFUL BELIEVERS who doesn't bare fruits and some(not all) will be totally cast out of the Kingdom like the Jews were.

So to conclude, Mat 7 is a very poor text to try to prove that few are saved and most are lost. It's not even talking about being saved or not, its talking about whether or not you will have to be "destroyed" or cast out to be saved. That's another assumption Asygo is making -- being destroyed does not equate not being saved.

So really basically it's talking about few among the believers will pass thru the narrow gate and will become OVERCOMERS. It's not talking about being saved or not.

Sorry dedication I don't have time to adress every thing here.
Yes the fire is said to be the law in Deut 33:2, but my understanding is the lake of fire is the execution of the sentenced, verdict, judgment that the Lord gave according to the law.

Then the word satan has to be defined and it can mean an adversary. But to be brief, the Lord has pass a judgment on the adversary, the deceiver and will be destroyed.



The type in the OT was always physical and carnal; but it always pointed to a prophetic spiritual realm. It would take time to look at a few Hebrew words and the law concerning Sodom and Gomorrah but the sulfur(brimstone) was a cleansing agent like the fire and the soap is symbolically referred to in Mal 3.

The book of revelation is clearly spoken in a symbolic language. There's no doubt about that. So for everyone to say the lake of fire is literal is an assumption and doesn't go with the context of the whole book. Nor does your assumption aligns with what the Lord made clear to us in Num 12:1-8 that he speaks to prophets in "dark speeches"(riddles- symbolic language to be solved).




Rev 20:7-10 is a time that is between the 2nd resurr. and the Great White Throne. Theirs not much detailed said there but just an outline expressed symbolically. The end result of this final war is the adversary and the false prophets(=false teachings) are cast in the lake of fire. I don't think these are actual individuals but a figure of speech to say that the adversary and false doctrines will be destroyed and be no more effecting those in the 2nd resurr. because these will be concquered by that fire that came down(=voice, or events from God that reveal the truth of God). For if the false prophets are actual people and were cast out in the lake of fire before the great White throne, then there works won't be judged with the dead that are judge then.



No. it is a different English translation of the rendering of the Hebrew word shaba'. What makes one translation better than the other? It will be the one that renders the proper meaning of the Hebrew word in context better.

For sure many English translation only renders the word shaba' as swear, but in Bible Hub 8 translation renders it as "swear allegiance" or "confess allegiance" due to the context. And I agree with that translation and that's why I quote these instead of my usual KJV quoting.

The proper meaning of shaba' is " to be complete, but used only as a denominative from H7651; to seven oneself, i.e. swear (as if by repeating a declaration seven times)."



I did and I have redone it and I don't see your interpretation valid -- every knee and every tongue means EVERY and shaba' means to pledge an oath 7 times and in this context "to swear allegiance" to me is a proper English translation since their knee is bowed down to the Lord while their tongue is shaba'ing while saying in the next verse "in the Lord have I righteousness and strenght"(Is 45:24). To say "I have righteousness and strenght in the Lord" is way more than an acknowledgement that the Lord judgment is just like our Church teaches.

I think you should also re-read the whole context.


Paul is quoting Isaiah 45 and he knows what shaba' means in this context. And I don't believe it mean what you say it means and what you would like it to mean.

There's no glory in having a group of people forced to admit that the Lord is right yet they don't want to submit to Him; but there is lots of glory if all repents and pledge allegiance to Him.

Do note that your interpretation (to admit God is just, but don't want to submit to Him) then makes that the Lord failed to bring all things in subjection to Christ. So you have a problem there with your interpretation.

I guess we both believe the verse does NOT mean what the other says it means.

Those verses do NOT mean everyone "swears allegiance".
The word "allegiance" is added, it is NOT in the original.


I know the word in the original is "shaba" H7650
and it does NOT mean to repent or give allegiance.

Just because people WANT it to mean something doesn't give them permission to add that word.


"Shaba" means
to swear, adjure, to take an oath, to tell the truth, to repeat that truth seven times.


There's nothing in that word itself, that means "repentance" or "allegiance".

People can "swear H7650" by God, or by Baal, or by their word, or by anything-- .
The Bible cautions us NOT to swear

The New Testament rendering of the term:
Matt. 5:33-35 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

In the OT to swear "shaba" H7650
can be to take any oath -- for example

Jeremiah 22:5
But if ye will not hear these words, I swear H7650 by myself, saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation.

Amos 4:2
The Lord GOD hath sworn H7650 by his holiness, that, lo, the days shall come upon you, that he will take you away with hooks


So we see the word "swear" H7650 does not mean to repent or give allegiance when it stands there by itself.

What are the people brought to acknowledge there before the white throne judgment?

They acknowledge that God is just.
They realize it was their own stupidity in choosing the illusive, thrills of sin and turning their backs on the outstretched hand of Christ the ONLY SAVIOR, that they are now on the outside facing eternal death (the second death)

Everyone will KNOW and acknowledge under oath, that GOD WAS JUST and did everything possible to save them.
No one will blame God for their eternal loss.
God's glory and honor is vindicated for eternity.

Your point is the word "allegiance" is not in the text; but the English text is a translation of shaba' and at least 8 translations rendered it that way.

My point is the context defines what shaba' means. And the context around the word shaba' is "every knee bows and every tongue swear. Surely they say "in the Lord have I righteousness and strenght".

So whether we add the word allegiance or not, the context still says that the shaba' was an allegiance type of oath. So the context disproves what you say the text says or doesn't say.


Isaiah 45 and the 3 places Paul quotes this text, none of these text says nor allude to any of what you say above. You are adding to scripture again. You are repeating teachings of men.

The context says everyone says "in the Lord I have righteousness and strenght" this is an allegiance, a wanting to follow Him, a dedication of ones life to Him, etc...

??? You must be talking about someone else because I did not say this nor allude to this concept.


??? No one mentioned Gen 2:7 nor challenged this.





The underlined and bold text above, you differ from what scripture says and even our Church.

the body goes back to dust(Ecc 12:7)
the soul(nephesh) goes to Scheol(=unseen) (Ps 16:10)
and the spirit(ruach) goes back to God (Ecc 12:7)

Our Church doesn't stress that the soul goes to Scheol, but mainly teach correctly about where the body and the spirit goes.

I still don't have a firm grip of what the breath(nashamah) in Gen 2:7 means technically. I know it is related to the soul(mind) and puts it in motion and probably keep the mind functioning also.

Do take note that this breath(nashamah, "vital breath, intellect") is not the same as the Spirit(ruach). You are confusing the two and equating it as the same. Our Church also does treat it as the same for it has not noticed that it was a total different word. So this shows that our understanding of the soul is lacking.


??? No one in this discussion said or allude to what you are trying to correct here.



With this text, you are bringing some confusion as you are implying that the word ruach is the same breath word in Gen 2:7. It is not. In Gen 2:7 the breath is nashamah and not ruach.


Well, you brought a "fearful warning" for nothing as no-one has brought any confusion yet besides you.

I see you haven't answered any of the question I ask you. Since you started to enlighten us by defining what was the soul -- could you please answer my question below so I can understand what you understand. But since you have confused nashamah with ruach; you probably don't know any more than I.

To claim that "sheba" means "an oath of allegiance" is what constitutes the "teaching of men" for it is not in the text.
The Word "sheba" does mean "an oath" to swear, adjure, to tell the truth, to repeat that truth seven times.

But it's purely the addition of men that this is an oath of allegiance and proof that all repent and pledge allegiance to God.



Even if some translations have added that word, "allegiance" it's still not there in the original text.

The Bible is perfectly clear that those who do not accept Christ in this life will not be given a second life in which to make that decision.



Are you sure?

In the passage God has proclaimed that every knee will bow and every tongue will swear...
To kneel and to swear does involve complete recognition of the sovereignty, justice and power of the One to whom they bow -- that's true enough. It does not follow, however that this is a picture of universal repentance or of salvation.

There is a sharp juxtaposition in the following verse.

"Only in the LORD, it is said of me, is righteousness and strength; even to him shall men come; and all those who were incensed against him shall be disappointed." HNV

"“They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.’
Men will come to Him,
And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame. NASB

"They will say of me, ‘In the LORD alone are deliverance and strength.’ ” All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame.


The enemies of Jehovah are inflamed; enraged; angry, their attitude is not one of loving worship, they are active in indignation against the very ONE Whose glory and justice they can't help but honor and acknowledge.

But you did say:

Yes -- "the soul that sinneth it shall die" Ezk 18:4
Notice in the above text it specifies that it is the SOUL that must die, not the body.


This was given in response to the question concerning this verse:
Matt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it.

What does destruction at the end of the road mean?


ProdigalOne answer was not contrary to any Adventist teaching.
The church (and scripture) has always taught that when a person dies, he ceases to exist. The body infused with God's breath of life is a living soul. When the breath of life departs, the whole person is DEAD.

As far as identifying "ruwach" spirit and "neshamah" spirit and soul, these words are at times used interchangeably, thus not making it logical to classify them in separate boxes. (That would be for another thread)
We do know that God gives the "breath of life" that quickens the body into a living soul.

When that "breath of life" is gone, the person is dead.
What returns to God? God's life giving breath, but I also believe an exact transcript of the person's "soul" their character, thought patterns and individuality also returns to God -- sort of like a computer disk with the full digitized details what that person was. (Though God would have far superior methods than computer disks) At the resurrection all that information is restored into the resurrected new body-- we will be who we were before the first death. The soul is not an identity of it's own -- it has no life apart from the body, but God will have an exact transcript of the "soul" of every individual.

BUT I must clarify -- what I said about the "soul" earlier is NOT exactly what you were saying at all.

I was saying that if this destruction at the end of the wide road means, as you wrote, that the soul is destroyed (but the body stays alive) then the ability to think, reason, choose, have emotions, etc. would be destroyed. The soul is the "essence" of the individual, thus if his soul is destroyed, his very personhood would be destroyed.
What would be left, if the soul was destroyed but the body still alive? Just some mindless, emotionless robots bowing before the throne.

Thus that text in Matthew cannot be explained as the transformation that takes place in a repentant person's heart and mind when he/she comes to Christ. The soul is NOT destroyed by sanctification. It is transformed, not destroyed.

The text in Matthew has a clear juxtaposition.

Strait gate and narrow path LEADS TO EVERLASTING LIFE.
Wide gate and broad road LEADS TO DESTRUCTION.

Everlasting life is one destination at the end of one road.
Destruction (not re-education), is the destination at the end of the other road.

Elle, I have answered each of your questions and a previous poster has nicely clarified the points you did not understand. (thank-you for your wisdom Dedication, you are a great blessing! :-)

My understanding of the nature of the soul came from my first encounter with the Seventh Day Adventist Church at a Daniel/Revelation seminar in the early eighties. A brilliant Egyptian evangelist led several hundred of us, step by step, through each of the Church doctrines. The beauty and simplicity of the Bible was shown so wonderfully that the scripture twisting confusion taught by so many other denominations was made plain: exposed as the cursed wine of Babylon.

Sadly, in thread after thread, I see this same confusion being sown.


Elle, if you cannot understand the simple straight truth then I fear that you have been blinded by that confusion.