The lake of fire - Punishment ie torture or destruction

[WIP]

Definition of car. 1 :a vehicle moving on wheels:

a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.​

The cites of Sodom and Gomorrah experienced more destruction than simply making it a heap of no longer functioning parts. And that’s the example of the destruction specifically called out by Scripture.

I'll have to reread that story as I don't recall it the same way.

 

[chessman]

Then that would lead to the idea of annihilation, would it not?

It depends on your idea of annihilation. As I said. If by annihilation you mean something other than I do, then we simply cannot use this term in a meaningful way. Nor is it necessary. I prefer the language used by the Biblical authors.

Again, I'm not interested in the mechanism, but the outcome.

Okay. Then the outcome of the lost is clearly the destruction of both their body and soul in Hell. Their outcome IS a second death. Simple. But it’s not JUST that. I think it’s of interest that this outcome occurs after their judgment (otherwise it’s not just) which occurs after their bodily resurrection (otherwise it’s not destruction of their body and soul by God). If they just simply cease to exist at their 1st death, that’s not taking into account their judgment.

I’m also interested in (as Peter and Jude were evidently) the mechanism of their destruction being God’s Eternal fire as exampled by Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction.

So after S & G were totally destroyed, they certainly ceased to exist, right?

That is my understanding of their outcome, yes. If you know of these cities existence post destruction, please share.

But it came about through fire and brimstone raining down from God after Lot was rescued from them. So, to me anyway, it’s NOT as if they “just simply ceased to exist” one night.

 

[chessman]

What I was trying to illustrate, maybe with a poor example, even though the car parts by themselves do not a car make, they have not ceased to exist and so in that sense, the car still exists, although not in whole.

I think I understand your illustration. However, what parts of the cites Sodom and Gomorrah still existed the morning after their destruction? That’s the Biblical example to use.

 

[FreeGrace]

It depends on your idea of annihilation. As I said. If by annihilation you mean something other than I do, then we simply cannot use this term in a meaningful way. Nor is it necessary. I prefer the language used by the Biblical authors.


Okay. Then the outcome of the lost is clearly the destruction of both their body and soul in Hell. Their outcome IS a second death. Simple. But it’s not JUST that. I think it’s of interest that this outcome occurs after their judgment (otherwise it’s not just) which occurs after their bodily resurrection (otherwise it’s not destruction of their body and soul by God). If they just simply cease to exist at their 1st death, that’s not taking into account their judgment.

I’m also interested in (as Peter and Jude were evidently) the mechanism of their destruction being God’s Eternal fire as exampled by Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction.


That is my understanding of their outcome, yes. If you know of these cities existence post destruction, please share.

But it came about through fire and brimstone raining down from God after Lot was rescued from them. So, to me anyway, it’s NOT as if they “just simply ceased to exist” one night.

We seem to just be going around in circles here. Please describe what is meant by "total destruction" and "annihilation". Then we can continue to discuss. Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace]

I think I understand your illustration. However, what parts of the cites Sodom and Gomorrah still existed the morning after their destruction? That’s the Biblical example to use.

Would you agree that their "total destruction" led to their ceasing to exist?

 

[chessman]

Please describe what is meant by "total destruction" and "annihilation".

1. What I mean by “total destruction” of the lost is their post resurrection, post Judgment eternal punishment consisting of the destruction of both their body and soul in Hell. The same as what Jesus meant (IMO) as described in Matt 10:28 and Luke 12:4-5

And I say to you My friends, do not fear anything from the ones killing the body, and after these things not having anything more to do. But I will show you Whom you should fear— fear the One having the authority to throw into Gehenna after the killing. Yes, I say to you, fear this One.
Luke 12:4-5 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 12:4-5&version=DLNT

And do not be fearing anything from the ones killing the body but not being able to kill the soul. But be fearing instead the One being able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Matthew 10:28 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Matthew 10:28&version=DLNT​

2. What I mean by “annihilation” of the lost, if I were to use the term, is:

the total destruction of both the body and the soul of the lost after the lost are raised, finally judged, then suffering the full wrath of God and cast into Hell

Would you agree that their "total destruction" led to their ceasing to exist?

The wrath of God raining fire and brimstone down upon these cites is what led to S&G’s total destruction. Which is why these cities no longer existed the morning after this total destruction occurred as Abraham looked down upon the flat plain.

After the sun had risen upon the earth and Lot had entered Zoar, Yahweh rained down from heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh. And he overthrew those cities and the whole plain, and the inhabitants of the cities and the vegetation of the ground. But his wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. And Abraham arose early in the morning and went to the place where he had stood before Yahweh. And he looked down upon the surface of Sodom and Gomorrah, and upon the whole surface of the land, the plain. And he saw that, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a smelting furnace. So it was, when God destroyed the cities of the plain that God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out from the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot lived.​

Genesis 19:23-29 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Genesis 19:23-29&version=LEB

What did not occur is these cities ‘just simply ceased to exist’ overnight.

 

[FreeGrace]

1. What I mean by “total destruction” of the lost is their post resurrection, post Judgment eternal punishment consisting of the destruction of both their body and soul in Hell.

I'm still puzzled by the wording of "total destruction of soul". I have no problem with total destruction of the body. So let's focus on the soul.

What does total destruction mean to you? What does it look like?

2. What I mean by “annihilation” of the lost, if I were to use the term, is:
chessman said: ↑
the total destruction of both the body and the soul of the lost after the lost are raised, finally judged, then suffering the full wrath of God and cast into Hell

So it seems "total destruction" and "annihilation" are synonymous to you. Is that accurate?

The wrath of God raining fire and brimstone down upon these cites is what led to S&G’s total destruction. Which is why these cities no longer existed the morning after this total destruction occurred as Abraham looked down upon the flat plain.

Exactly. So by "total destruction" you seem to believe that S&G ceased to exist after what God did.

Now, apply your words of "total destruction of the soul" and explain what's left of the soul after God sends them to the lake of fire.

What did not occur is these cities ‘just simply ceased to exist’ overnight.

Again, this simply puts emphasis on the mechanism of how something ceased to exist.

So I'll ask this, straight up. In the idea of "total destruction of the soul", does the soul cease to exist at some point in your view? If so, when?

Thanks.

 

[chessman]

I'm still puzzled by the wording of "total destruction of soul".

Who are you quoting here ?

What I mean by “total destruction” of the lost is their post resurrection, post Judgment eternal punishment consisting of the destruction of both their body and soul in Hell. The same as what Jesus meant (IMO) as described in Matt 10:28 and Luke 12:4-5

What does total destruction mean to you?

Asked and answered twice.

So it seems "total destruction" and "annihilation" are synonymous to you. Is that accurate?

What I said previously, at least twice, is what I believe.

Time for you to answer a question:

you seem to believe that S&G ceased to exist after what God did.

Yep.
Do you believe S&G did not cease to exist after what God did?

 

[Justicewolf]

I have often wondered about the lake of fire and what it represents.
In church history it has been eternal torture, burning those who are sinners for their sin.

I have come to think this is not supported in scripture. Torture is only mentioned in two
places the rich man and lazerus Luke 16:23 and the beast who is tortured forever. Rev 20:10

Mortal man lives a short time, yet people feel justified to condemn humans to eternal
suffering because of the failure to grasp life while on earth.

Jesus says this
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt 10:28

Is the lake of fire in the end the ultimate resolution for sinners who refuse to be healed?
The premise is man born separate from God, is a mess of motivations, focus, morals,
desires, which are all under their control. Through life a slow battle emerges of the
soul striving to prove it has value and can succeed. All the while sin is distorting and
eating away at the very fabric of the life they lead, to finally leave a husk which is no value
to anyone but be burnt up in the lake of fire.

To be born again, is to gain real life, eternal life, a beginning of something eternal that
brings everything together in the love Christ puts within us.

So sin though destructive, causing harm, is self destructive and indicates the futility of
life without the Lord, and how the desires of the flesh are just illusions, passions of the
moment, cynical grasping at rays of the sun, while denying its source.

So to torture people for eternity for this does not make sense. Now in truth the Lord will
do what the Lord will do, but we are given the word to discern what is right and just and
to know His will for fallen man.

Now those who have been hurt, who cannot forgive, who are bitter and twisted will want
revenge, to see those who caused them pain suffer terribly. But this is not Gods heart,
or anything He expresses, rather the opposite. He shows up the foolishness of mans mind
and brings in His wisdom of the cross, love sacrificing itself that people might see what love
is and gain life, abandoning the struggle of significance to gain the ultimate significance in
the Lord.

I therefore see more substance to the lake of fire being what we know fire to be, the destruction
of the thing that is thrown into it. I am seeking to grow and discern more clearly, and would
not want to dishonour my King, so value any insights you might wish to bring

Sheol, the grave, death and removal from God's presence, was what was in the Hebrew scriptures. I've read articles that assert the pit of fire and brimstone and eternal suffering was interjected later and not originally in Jesus' teaching being he was a member of the temple, a Jew , who would have known of Sheol as a child.

 

[FreeGrace]

I said this:
"I'm still puzzled by the wording of "total destruction of soul"."

Who are you quoting here ?

Your words.

Time for you to answer a question:

Do you believe S&G did not cease to exist after what God did?

The cities were no more, after what God did. In my world, that's annihilation. Or ceasing to exist. I don't consider atoms, molecules, etc after an act of annihilation to mean that what was annihilated still exists.

What I'm still wondering about is your view about what "total destruction of the soul" actually means. Is there anything left of such a soul?

 

[chessman]

I'll have to reread that story as I don't recall it the same way.

Here’s my opinion and more important why I believe it to be this way:

A city (to be a city) has physical stuff (buildings, city centers, homes, shops, etc.) and it has human life (occupants with morals, hopefully Godly morals but not always) living within it.

And Abraham arose early in the morning and went to the place where he had stood before Yahweh. And he looked down upon the surface of Sodom and Gomorrah, and upon the whole surface of the land, the plain. And he saw that, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a smelting furnace. So it was, when God destroyed the cities of the plain that God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out from the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot lived.​

Genesis 19:27-29 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Genesis 19:27-29&version=LEB

When Abraham went up to a height (in Hebron) where he could look down upon theses cites built on the plains around the Jordan below, what he saw was “the surface of the land”, not an abandoned town. The physical stuff (buildings, homes, etc.) were “destroyed”. Gone (turned to salt literally), not simply ruined or just abandoned. But GONE! He could see nothing but the surface of the land itself and the smoke from it’s former physical stuff rising. And we learn why later. All the physical stuff was now “salt left by fire”.

‘All its land is brimstone and salt left by fire, none of its land will be sown, and it will not make plants sprout out and it will not grow any vegetation; it is as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Adman and Zeboiim, which Yahweh overturned in his anger and in his wrath.’ And all the nations will say, ‘ Why has Yahweh done such a thing to this land? What caused the fierceness of this great anger?’​

Deuteronomy 29:23-24 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Deuteronomy 29:23-24&version=LEB

Not only was the physical city “destroyed”, but so was it’s life (it’s non-physical, conscious stuff living inside) and the very potential for new life. It could not even support living plants, much less living conscious humans with morals and reasoning abilities.

S&G was “totally destroyed” physically and non-physically. Both it’s body and soul (so-to-speak) were very literally “totally destroyed”

Thus, it serves as an example of what awaits the lost in Hell according to Jesus, Peter and Jude (IMO with supporting Scriptures).

 

[chessman]

Your words.

I never said “total destruction of the soul”. I said “total destruction of the lost”. Both body and soul. When you put quotations around a phrase, it should be accurate or it’s a misquote.

The cities were no more, after what God did. In my world, that's annihilation. Or ceasing to exist. I don't consider atoms, molecules, etc after an act of annihilation to mean that what was annihilated still exists.

I agree. So if the soul is destroyed, does it still exist?

What I'm still wondering about is your view about what "total destruction of the soul" actually means. Is there anything left of such a soul?

Not if what Jesus says about the destruction of the soul in Matt 10:28 occurs.

What I'm still wondering about is your view about what "total destruction of the soul" actually means. Is there anything left of such a soul?

Because there was no life left in S&G after it’s destruction, my view is no there is nothing left.

 

[FreeGrace]

I never said “total destruction of the soul”. I said “total destruction of the lost”. Both body and soul. When you put quotations around a phrase, it should be accurate or it’s a misquote.

There was no misquote. As you've noted here. You did mention "total destruction" of the soul. I don't care about the body. We all know our human bodies won't last. But the soul?

So if the soul is destroyed, does it still exist?

That's what I've been trying to understand about your view.

So I asked:
"What I'm still wondering about is your view about what "total destruction of the soul" actually means. Is there anything left of such a soul?"

Not if what Jesus says about the destruction of the soul in Matt 10:28 occurs.

How is different than the view of annihilation of the soul of unbelievers? That their souls will cease to exist.

Because there was no life left in S&G after it’s destruction, my view is no there is nothing left.

So you're not discerning that the Bible can use apolllumi in a literal sense in one verse and in a figurative use in another then?

Do you realize that if there is total annihilation of one's soul, there is no real punishment, torment, etc?

So, if that is true, why would any unbeliever fear death or what lies beyond death?

If one ceases to exist consciously, there is nothing to experience.

The Bible does teach that the second death is a place of punishment and torment. Jesus even used S&G as examples of those for whom it will be "more bearable" than for those in certain cities of Jesus' time "on THAT day". Matt 10:15, 11:22, 24. Luke 10:12, 14.

Obviously a reference to the day of judgment, where unbelievers will be sentenced to their eternal condition. If there isn't going to be any conscious soul, how can it be "more bearable" for some than for others? Makes no sense.

So, actually, 'total destruction' of the soul, or annihilationism gives comfort to the atheists and unbelievers. Certainly a false comfort, for when they end up in the lake of fire for eternity.

Another thing: if a soul ceases to exist, the whole idea of time or eternity is meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[chessman]

There was no misquote.

You are mistaken. Back-quote it or refer to the post # were I used that phrase (other than to point out that I DID NOT.

You did mention "total destruction" of the soul.

I mentioned that I’d never said that phrase.
I said “total destruction of the lost”. There’s a difference.

So you're not discerning that the Bible can use apolllumi in a literal sense in one verse and in a figurative use in another then?

Also an incorrect claim

It is true as you pointed out that the word apóllymi is translated
as “ruin” in certain contexts and when speaking about objects, not persons. However, destruction really is the primary meaning (and exclusive use when dealing with people).

There are numerous problems with this view that apóllymi is being used figuratively in Matt 10:28 besides the fact that it’s one reference in one verse. The destruction that occurs to the lost’s body also occurs to the lost’s soul.

1. There’s nothing figurative about the killing of the body. Why think the destruction of the soul is figurative when the killing (1st death) is obviously not figurative???

2. Is Jesus saying the lost are only figuratively going to Hell???

3. Why would Jesus say to not fear the literal 1st death but to not fear a figurative 2nd death???

4. apóllymi is never used figuratively when used of a person.

5. etc.

Do you realize that if there is total annihilation of one's soul, there is no real punishment, torment, etc?

No. Capital punishment is well capital.

why would any unbeliever fear death or what lies beyond death?

Because the destruction of one’s body and soul is fearful.

The Bible does teach that the second death is a place of punishment and torment. Jesus even used S&G as examples of those for whom it will be "more bearable" than for those in certain cities of Jesus' time "on THAT day". Matt 10:15, 11:22, 24. Luke 10:12, 14.

The second death is not a “place”, it’s the interpretation given by Scripture of the raised and judged wick being cast into the The Lake of Fire from within John’s vision.

The Judgment day is a day.
S&G’s destruction occurred in less than a night. Lot’s wife simply looked back and became a pillar of salt.

It is easily viewed as more bearable what occurred to the inhabitants of S&G than a whole day of Judgment upon the lost.

But the question for you is, did the bodies of the inhabitants of S&G bear their destruction ??? No.
So if their bodies did not bear God’s wrath in S&G’s night (and it’s said to be more bearable than Hell) how could the lost’s bodies or souls for that matter bear God’s full wrath?

 

[FreeGrace]

You are mistaken. Back-quote it or refer to the post # were I used that phrase (other than to point out that I DID NOT.

Here's the comment, from post #106 - "1. What I mean by “total destruction” of the lost is their post resurrection, post Judgment eternal punishment consisting of the destruction of both their body and soul in Hell. The same as what Jesus meant (IMO) as described in Matt 10:28 and Luke 12:"

I mentioned that I’d never said that phrase.
I said “total destruction of the lost”. There’s a difference.

In the red phrase you mentioned destruction that includes both body AND SOUL. Are you now claiming that this destruction of body and soul in Hell is somehow different that "total destruction of the lost"??? How does that work?

There are numerous problems with this view that apóllymi is being used figuratively in Matt 10:28 besides the fact that it’s one reference in one verse. The destruction that occurs to the lost’s body also occurs to the lost’s soul.

If true, then your view is annihilation.

1. There’s nothing figurative about the killing of the body. Why think the destruction of the soul is figurative when the killing (1st death) is obviously not figurative???

Gee, you kill me! lol Was that literal?

2. Is Jesus saying the lost are only figuratively going to Hell???

No. But the destruction of their soul isn't literal. Or there's no real punishment or torment in the lake of fire.

3. Why would Jesus say to not fear the literal 1st death but to not fear a figurative 2nd death???

The reason should be obvious. If He was speaking literally, then there's no reason to fear this 2nd death? Why would there be? If one ceases to exist, how is that suffering? The Bible speaks of the lake of fire as suffering.

The second death is not a “place”, it’s the interpretation given by Scripture of the raised and judged wick being cast into the The Lake of Fire from within John’s vision.

Scripture disagrees. Rev 21:8 - But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

The second death is clearly a place; also called the lake of fire.

The Judgment day is a day.

It occurs on a day.

S&G’s destruction occurred in less than a night. Lot’s wife simply looked back and became a pillar of salt.

The point?

It is easily viewed as more bearable what occurred to the inhabitants of S&G than a whole day of Judgment upon the lost.

This misses the point. It will be more bearable for inhabitants of S&G on Judgment day than those living concurrently in Jesus' time. If one simply ceases to exist, it's not "more or less bearable". It's nothing. Ceasing to exist is nothing. No feelings, no sufferings, etc.

But the question for you is, did the bodies of the inhabitants of S&G bear their destruction ??? No.

Of course they did. They burned up just like everything else around them.

So if their bodies did not bear God’s wrath in S&G’s night (and it’s said to be more bearable than Hell) how could the lost’s bodies or souls for that matter bear God’s full wrath?

Again, this misses the point. It's not the suffering of the inhabitants and cities of S&G when God destroyed them that is being compared in the phrase "more bearable". It's what's going to occur on Judgment Day, which is still future, where all unbelievers will be judged according to their works, which is the basis for just how bearable the lake of fire will be. Which is for all eternity. Rev 20:10

 

[chessman]

In the red phrase you mentioned destruction that includes both body AND SOUL

Which is why it’s total. Destruction of the body is NOT total destruction. Destruction of the soul is NOT total destruction (nor have I said it was). Destruction of both the body AND the soul is what I said was total destruction.

Gee, you kill me! lol Was that literal?

No. Nor is saying it something to be feared. Proving my point that what Jesus said was literal. Else, nothing to fear.

But the destruction of their soul isn't literal.

Can’t be. At least not if Luke agrees with Matthew and what you said earlier (that being thrown into Hell is literal). Look at how Luke recorded the conversation. He doesn’t even mention destruction of the body and soul. Being thrown into Hell = destruction of the body and soul (Biblically speaking). Which is literal.

And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul, but instead be afraid of the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.​

Matthew 10:28 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Matthew 10:28&version=LEB

But I will show you whom you should fear: fear the one who has authority, after the killing, to throw you into hell! Yes, I tell you, fear this one!​

Luke 12:5 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 12:5&version=LEB

The reason should be obvious. If He was speaking literally, then there's no reason to fear this 2nd death?

There’s every reason to fear the 2nd death, if it’s literal. There’s no reason to fear the 2nd death, if it’s figurative.

There’s every reason to fear being thrown into Hell, if it’s literal. There’s no reason to fear being thrown into Hell, if it’s figurative.

There’s every reason to fear the destruction of the body and soul, if it’s literal. There’s no reason to fear the destruction of the body and soull, if it’s figurative.

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

Why is the Lamb and the Angels there?

"and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb"

 

[chessman]

I separated this out because it deserves it’s own discussion.

Scripture disagrees. Rev 21:8 - But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

The second death is clearly a place; also called the lake of fire.

Scripture doesn’t say that the 2nd death is a “place”. You have, without any evidence or reasoning for this view. Is the first “death” a “place” on your view? Or is Hades/Sheol the place where the dead go into?

Here’s my reasons for why “the second death” is not a place but rather a thing (a noun describing the result of an action) and I’ll await any contrary evidence you present. Who knows, you could be right and I could be wrong. Or vice-versa.:

1. They are consigned “in” to the place called here The Lake of Fire and brimstone (which seems obvious enough a vision of Hell/Gehenna not to mention S&G) with the result or the interpretation of that consignment being their death, the 2nd (body and soul this time). Their second death IS the consequence of their consignment there, “in” the place visioned by John as The Lake of Fire. As the 1st death consigns the lost to Hades, the 2nd death consigns the lost to the Lake of Fire. (Which is more fearful, less bearable

(I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh.) For just as you presented your members as slaves to immorality and lawlessness, leading to lawlessness, ... For the end of those things is death. For the compensation due sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Romans 6:19,21,23 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Romans 6:19,21,23&version=LEB

Death is a compensation (a thing) not a place. All throughout the Bible. Nowhere is “death” a place.

2.John saw a place (the Lake of Fire) in his vision in addition to another “place” called the new Jerusalem. He did not see a place called death. In fact, he specifically calls death a “thing”, not a person or a place/location. Nouns are classified as either person/place/thing. John specifically says a thing.

And he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will not exist any longer, and mourning or wailing or pain will not exist any longer. The former things have passed away.”​

Revelation 21:4 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Revelation 21:4&version=LEB

John here in Rev 21 (not me or you) places “death” in the same noun category as tears, mourning, wailing and pain, which are NOT places. [this alone should be enough evidence to show that the 2nd death is NOT a place]. Convinced yet???


3. Remember the discussion on the gender, case and mood of the article “this” in the following verse???

For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God;​

Ephesians 2:8 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Ephesians 2:8&version=LEB

Because the relative pronoun “this” is neuter it refers back to the matching gender verb or phrase (saved through faith). Same principle as holds for Rev 21:8

But as for the cowards and unbelievers and detestable persons and murderers and sexually immoral people and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their share is in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.​

Revelation 21:8 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Revelation 21:8&version=LEB

“Which is” in Rev 21:8 relates “death” to burning fire and sulfur, not the lake (the place) via matching genders/grammar. Like it or not, it’s just the fact. Convinced yet???

4. Many (but not all) of John’s visions throughout Rev are directly interpreted by either the angel or Jesus himself. Rev 21:8b is just such a case where the interpretation of his vision is directly stated:

Things seen by John within his vision in Revelation that are directly interpreted by the angel and/or by The Son of Man:

 

[FreeGrace]

Which is why it’s total. Destruction of the body is NOT total destruction. Destruction of the soul is NOT total destruction (nor have I said it was). Destruction of both the body AND the soul is what I said was total destruction.

Basically, destruction of both body and soul means that each one is destroyed. That's total destruction of each one. You can't get around that. And such a view is annihilation.

No. Nor is saying it something to be feared. Proving my point that what Jesus said was literal. Else, nothing to fear.

If soul destruction was literal, there would be nothing to fear. Can nothingingness suffer? No.

I said: "But the destruction of their soul isn't literal."
Can’t be. [/QUOTE]
Then no one suffers after the GWT judgment. Totally against the teaching of Rev 20:10-15.

There’s every reason to fear the 2nd death, if it’s literal.

Please explain what's to fear is one ceases to exist.

There’s no reason to fear the 2nd death, if it’s figurative.

An eternity of suffering is "no reason" to fear it??? Are you kidding???

There’s every reason to fear being thrown into Hell, if it’s literal.

Sure. Because there is suffering. But if one ceases to exist (literal destruction), then there's nothing to fear.

There’s no reason to fear being thrown into Hell, if it’s figurative.

Being thrown into the lake of fire is literal, obviously. Where there will be suffering forever and ever.

How can "forever and ever" mean anything if one ceases to exist?

How can there be any suffering if one ceases to exist?

There’s every reason to fear the destruction of the body and soul, if it’s literal.

By your own description, destruction means ceasing to exist. What's to fear if one ceases to exist?

 

[FreeGrace]

Why is the Lamb and the Angels there?

"and shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb"

Thank you, kiwidan, for reminding me of what I read this morning during my devotions, from Rev 14:10-11
10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.
11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”

If the soul of an unbeliever is destroyed (ceases to exist), then how are the statements "smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever" and "there will be no rest day or night" relevant?

I don't believe chessman will have any answers for these questions.