Annihilationism ignores important Scriptures?

[Doulos Iesou]

I don't call hades , hell . gehenna as described by john the jews teach almost the same. they are universalist in their approach but they calling it purge of sin by fire. meaning much pain and until you decide it enough.im not a uu but that is what they teach. sheol can mean pit but.

Jonah was a in a pit when he cried out of the belly of sheol thou didst hear me? sheol had two levels. one for the wicked and one for the righteous. the jews called the blessed dwelling place gan eden. it wasn't under the earth nor with sheol but that can also be the case as gan eden its mention by name in the bible but by way of the oral traditions. either or.

You actually think Jonah was in Sheol, rather odd you would make a huge theological determination like there being two levels on a text like this. In v.1 it states the following, "Then Jonah prayed to the LORD his God from the belly of the fish." Is Sheol in this fish? Or was the usage of Sheol used figuratively in this instance. Hmm...

 

[Doulos Iesou]

you do release that the jews call the lxx idolatry? why?because its like this. you don't speak Hebrew. I give you bible in English. read it and walk away never to teach you the bible you have. you are left clueless. that is what the greeks asked the jews to do. they were more then willing to translate the tanach into greek provided they were allowed to teach the greeks/ Hellenistic jews what the tanach meant. thus that is why I call the lxx the niv of the tanach. if I want to know what the Hebrew says I go to it.

I agree that the LXX tells us more about what the translators believed about the Tanakh at that point in time, though it can be helpful with regards to the Greek used in the NT.

compare genesis which simply means origin in greek. to the bereshit in Hebrew which means in the beginning and they don't just teach it literally like we greek influenced men do but go into the words and renderings of what that means. ie the start of our NATION. YOU WONT get that from straight reading. the shabat and week is vital to them and to even claim we are of god.no shabat, no isreal!if one didn't know that and just read that one wouldn't see it unless the hs showed that. that isn't to say that the Lord wasn't in the lxx, he was he just used it later on.i personally find it odd given that he did that the church(protestant) doesn't use the lxx for any sources of the ot but uses the Masoretic text from the jews who did so after ad 70.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic

that said can you show me in the greek how hades means only dead with no ability to know or think?

What is the purpose of your question?

 

[Butch5]

Seems this can apply to every one...

Yes it can. I was referring to Tim doing a study of the topic himself and coming to a conclusion based on the biblical evidence

 

[reba]

Great us moderators get punch weary

 

[jasoncran]

jews don't do metaphors like we do. they just don't. but don't take it from me go to any jewish site that is Chassidic and listen. they will take a word and do things with that isn't common to day in the church'

so how long does it say the men died in the fire judgement of god for burning incense? was it quick? NOPE they yelled in misery, it can take up to five minutes or less and its not with out some massive amount of torture. so if god did things like that to the living what make you think he doesn't in the after life?

metaphors. the jews see genesis one as metaphorical and both literal. "a heavenly isreal and earth is taught from genesis one.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

jews don't do metaphors like we do. they just don't. but don't take it from me go to any jewish site that is Chassidic and listen. they will take a word and do things with that isn't common to day in the church'

so how long does it say the men died in the fire judgement of god for burning incense? was it quick? NOPE they yelled in misery, it can take up to five minutes or less and its not with out some massive amount of torture. so if god did things like that to the living what make you think he doesn't in the after life?

metaphors. the jews see genesis one as metaphorical and both literal. "a heavenly isreal and earth is taught from genesis one.

Jews don't do metaphors? Are you serious with that statement?

Let's take a classic example, the Valley of Dry Bones. Was this not a metaphor in your view? Or how about all the Apocalyptic languages within the Prophetic writings? Or how about the metaphor of the Potter and the Clay?

You speak as if you're an expert on the Hebrew mind, yet you make claims like this that are simply outlandish and easily disproven.

I will ask you again, is the belly of the fish (where it stated in v.1 that he was praying from) the belly of Sheol?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

jews don't do metaphors like we do. they just don't. but don't take it from me go to any jewish site that is Chassidic and listen. they will take a word and do things with that isn't common to day in the church'

so how long does it say the men died in the fire judgement of god for burning incense? was it quick? NOPE they yelled in misery, it can take up to five minutes or less and its not with out some massive amount of torture. so if god did things like that to the living what make you think he doesn't in the after life?

metaphors. the jews see genesis one as metaphorical and both literal. "a heavenly isreal and earth is taught from genesis one.

If you'd like, I can create a new thread on whether or not the Jews did metaphors in a way we could understand, such as the one used in Jonah 2.

 

[jasoncran]

I agree that the LXX tells us more about what the translators believed about the Tanakh at that point in time, though it can be helpful with regards to the Greek used in the NT.

actually it doesn't. the Hebrews didn't translate the tanach literally into greek. they said they could but it wouldn't easily understood so they did a thought process. again why does the modern church not use the lxx for the tanach if its good for the nt?

What is the purpose of your question?

because jesus said things to a greek influenced land(while the jews rejected rome they weren't that immune) and said where is there weeping and waling and gnashing of teeth. why would jesus dust use a metaphor and that simply meant death or some place where they don't suffer.

and this is the nail for you.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

if those weren't in the flood kindly tell me how a man or woman could have survived the flood and also be alive in a prison? simply put sheol correctly was views as a judgement area where it also functioned as a purgatory.

If you'd like, I can create a new thread on whether or not the Jews did metaphors in a way we could understand, such as the one used in Jonah 2.

I have done part of the kaddish, this was around when jesus was teaching. in fact that parable used for hell is really about that. the jews still teach that if a man sinned he could to a lowest level and not be returning from the fires.

Im a jew, I can ask my family about the idea of sheol. or go to chabad.org. they contradict themselves on purgatory as some say its temporary others permanent but in any case both say theres is a type of punishment.

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380844/jewish/Straight-Path-to-Heaven-123.htm

similar to what jesus did to the souls in prison as he cant go into sheol.

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1585659/jewish/Daily-Zohar-Haazinu-Day-3.htm

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1548993/jewish/Daily-Zohar-Korach-Day-4.htm

now then do I think they get it right fully? no but as you can see its not just a metaphor. they take things and words like that. they explain their views in each of these. I simply read them to get it. its that easy. no bias. why would the jews teach that the YHWH is torturing the souls in sheol and gehenna if they didn't understand their own words? simply put they don't have that bias. with the bible one cane make it say what one wants. if I don't want the bible to say jesus was born of a virgin I can twist the bible to say that. see the new world translation for that.

I used to not believe in neither the trinity nor hell.

 

[jasoncran]

Jews don't do metaphors? Are you serious with that statement?

Let's take a classic example, the Valley of Dry Bones. Was this not a metaphor in your view? Or how about all the Apocalyptic languages within the Prophetic writings? Or how about the metaphor of the Potter and the Clay?

You speak as if you're an expert on the Hebrew mind, yet you make claims like this that are simply outlandish and easily disproven.

I will ask you again, is the belly of the fish (where it stated in v.1 that he was praying from) the belly of Sheol?

the valley of bones did happen. did Elijah speak to the ? the potter and the clay is an example of what is called emshell. a type of parable and the Hebrew word for it.

now in the belly of fish? that is sheol in that sheol can per jewish thought be above ground. a place of torment. he was neither did nor alive, could he eat? sleep? drink water in that fish? NO and yet he didn't die. nor could he not just stop movement of his bowels. he had to hear the fish eat and see it and also he could talk, he was aware.

oddly some metaphor you believe , that it has no torture. he was aware and alert and yet also not alive. describing a type of sheol.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Introduction

Recently, I was reading through the latest thread on this matter and was continually seeing the charge that Annihilationism (or as we prefer, Conditional Immortality) ignores important texts from Scripture and that we all need to study more.

I will refute that notion here by addressing the primary texts which we supposedly "ignore."
Argument #1 l Eternal Life and Eternal Punishment

Here is the text most commonly used to attempt to refute our position:
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[1]

The logic goes like this for those of the Traditional view, the word eternal means the same thing both times it is said. The reward lasts forever as does the punishment.

This is something which at no time we have ever denied, and will agree that the punishment endures for an eternity and indeed lasts forever. What this text does not necessarily infer is what the punishment IS, just that it is permanent. In v.41 of the same chapter it describes the nature of the punishment as "eternal fire."

The only instance we have where people are actually punished with eternal fire is Sodom and Gomorrah, as seen here.
"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."[2]

Notice that they experienced the punishment of "eternal fire," the very punishment promised to those who reject Christ. This punishment in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah was a complete obliteration, it did not involve any kind of torturing, and whatever suffering they experienced was as a result of that all engulfing flame.

Why should the punishment of eternal fire mean one thing in one instance and a completely different thing in another instance?

Argument #2 l Smoke of Their Torment

Here is the next text:
"And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”[3]

If we simply look at the message at face value we can glean the following.
1. Those who take the mark will experience God's wrath.
2. They will be tormented with fire and sulfur.
3. The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever.
4. They have not rest day or not.

What this truly does look like upon first inspection, it certainly does seem to support the view of Eternal Conscious Torment. However, with every instance of exegesis it is important for us to recognize the TYPE of literature this is written in. In this case, this is Apocalyptic literature and often employs symbolic and figurative language.

Is there perhaps another instance in Scripture where this exact style is used? Indeed there is:
"And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch,
and her soil into sulfur;
her land shall become burning pitch.
Night and day it shall not be quenched;
its smoke shall go up forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
none shall pass through it forever and ever."[4]

This is apocalyptic language in the book of Isaiah, where it is describing the destruction of Edom. Now let's do the same exercise here as we did with Revelation, what can we learn at face value.

1. The streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch and soil into sulfur.
2. The land shall become a burning pitch.
3. It will not be quenched, either night or day, it's smoke will go up forever.
4. It shall lie waste and impassable forever.

Now, were any of these things true for Edom? No, today there is a highway that passes through ancient Edom. There is also no smoke continually rising from Edom, nor burning pitch. Neither does it lie waste, and it's streams are of water.

Is this a false prophecy then? Or does it rather demonstrate the foolishness of attempting to try to paint so literally, clearly figurative language. Notice how the same kind of language is employed:

1. Fire and Sulfur are both used.
2. The expression of it continuing night and day is used.
3. The very same phrase of the smoke going up forever and ever is used.

The similarities are apparent, and the fact that it is of the same genre of literature should reveal quite a bit to us. That the expressive and figurative language detailing God's judgement, is meant to convey permanence of destruction rather than conveying the literal interpretation of continuance of judgement. The nation of Edom was destroyed, as will be those who are not in the Lamb's book of life.

Argument #3 l Hell Was a Burning Garbage Dump

Another popular argument is that Jesus' usage of the word "Gehenna" (hell) denoted the fiery imagery of the garbage dump southwest of the city in the Valley of Hinnom. However, there is no evidence for this.

"The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier in-tertestamental or the later rabbinic sources."[5]

The word Gehenna, which was a transliteration of the Hebrew word which meant Valley of Hinnom, was a place where children were sacrificed to Moloch. It is later prophesied that it would become known as the "Valley of Slaughter,"[6] and would become the site of the future slaughter of the wicked.[7]

In no ways does this support to the exclusion of other views, the traditional view of Eternal Conscious Torment.

Conclusion

Simply put, the eternal conscious torment view is not only emotionally untenable and an affront to the character and goodness of God. It is also not the best interpretation for these texts, and it is best understood to be representative of the punishment that was promised throughout Scripture. Death and Destruction.

Regards,
DI

[1] Matthew 25:46 (ESV)
[2] Jude 7 (ESV)
[3] Revelation 14:9-11
[4] Isaiah 34:9-10
[5] Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols.
[6] Jeremiah 19:6
[7] Isaiah 66:24

The substance of my argument still has gone unaddressed. Any takers?

 

[gr8grace3]

Argument #1: Eternal punishment.....Is being presented to us as a process of punishment that is complete when you are annihilated. And the completion of that process is eternal.

Eternal life.....Is it a process of life that comes to a completion at some point in time?
Doulos Iesou........,Where are you getting this idea of "process," the Greek word αἰώνιον functions as an attributive adjective and modifies κόλασιν, in order to clarify in this case the type or duration of the punishment. It could be seen as 1) the punishment that happens in the age to come, and 2) the duration of that punishment.

I completely agree with the above. "eternal" modifies "punishment." It does NOT modify "the completion" of the punishment.With this well written explanation above, I will ask again:

In which Greek grammar does it specify that any time aionios is paired with a noun, it signifies a process that has a completion?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Argument #1: Eternal punishment.....Is being presented to us as a process of punishment that is complete when you are annihilated. And the completion of that process is eternal.

Eternal life.....Is it a process of life that comes to a completion at some point in time?

The term "eternal life" is more so qualitative in meaning, while it does mean "everlasting life," it would be more appropriate to speak to the life pertaining to the age to come. Eternal Life is possessed by the believer in his life here on Earth, where he enjoys through Christ the quality of life pertaining to the age to come. A kind of "already not yet" aspect of that bit of theology.

I completely agree with the above. "eternal" modifies "punishment." It does NOT modify "the completion" of the punishment.

Only Universalists assume that it has a completion, we do not. The punishment that lasts forever is their destruction, it endures unto the ages. You assume that someone's destruction perhaps represents a punishment that has come to completion. This is not so, as the person is cut off from the eternal blessings of the New Creation, thus having perpetual and eternal consequences to that commuted sentence.

In which Greek grammar does it specify that any time aionios is paired with a noun, it signifies a process that has a completion?

"In which Greek grammar..."

Grammatically speaking from an English perspective, this question makes no sense.

 

[gr8grace3]

The term "eternal life" is more so qualitative in meaning, while it does mean "everlasting life," it would be more appropriate to speak to the life pertaining to the age to come. Eternal Life is possessed by the believer in his life here on Earth, where he enjoys through Christ the quality of life pertaining to the age to come. A kind of "already not yet" aspect of that bit of theology.


Only Universalists assume that it has a completion, we do not. The punishment that lasts forever is their destruction, it endures unto the ages. You assume that someone's destruction perhaps represents a punishment that has come to completion. This is not so, as the person is cut off from the eternal blessings of the New Creation, thus having perpetual and eternal consequences to that commuted sentence.


"In which Greek grammar..."

Grammatically speaking from an English perspective, this question makes no sense.

From the Greek perspective I cannot intellectually, academically or biblically turn "eternal Punishment" into "The punishment that lasts forever is their annihilation or ceasing to exist." Strictly speaking from the Greek, it cannot be done.

 

[gr8grace3]

2 Pet 3 has a few instances in the Greek where one could make a case for annihilation, a Strong case for that matter. However, It is not the human that is described as "annihilated" it is the earth and heavens.
2 Peter 3:6,9-12 "the world at that time was destroyed (Gr: apollumi), being flooded with water. ... The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish (Gr: apollumi)but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed (Gr: LOU) with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed (Gr: LOU) in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed (Gr: LOU) by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!"

1. Notice that 2 Pe 3 describes BOTH the "perishing (apollumi) of men" and "destruction (LOU) of creation".
2. Two different words are used. Notice that "apollumi" is used to destruction of men and that LOU is used to describe the annihilation of the earth!
3. But even better notice that the flood perished "apollumi" the earth in the time of Noah and a different Greek word is used for the annihilation "LOU" of the earth by fire!
4. "apollumi" describes not the annihilation, but "making lost" both men in hell and the earth at the flood and "LOU" describes the annihilation of the earth.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

From the Greek perspective I cannot intellectually, academically or biblically turn "eternal Punishment" into "The punishment that lasts forever is their annihilation or ceasing to exist." Strictly speaking from the Greek, it cannot be done.

Academically? Tell me, what principles in Greek grammar exclude the possibility of the eternal punishment being an everlasting destruction? Your argument is not with the Greek, there is nothing in the Greek that excludes it. It is utterly within your assumption that some one who ceases to exist has completed their punishment.

You keep alluding to a supposed "Greek perspective," but have not sufficiently justified any of your remarks in any way whatsoever. Please speak directly to what principles in Greek grammar you are alluding to so that we can discuss it.

If someone is destroyed, and there is no return from this destruction and are cut off from the blessings of the New creation, does this not by definition last forever?

 

[gr8grace3]

Academically? Tell me, what principles in Greek grammar exclude the possibility of the eternal punishment being an everlasting destruction? Your argument is not with the Greek, there is nothing in the Greek that excludes it. It is utterly within your assumption that some one who ceases to exist has completed their punishment.

You keep alluding to a supposed "Greek perspective," but have not sufficiently justified any of your remarks in any way whatsoever. Please speak directly to what principles in Greek grammar you are alluding to so that we can discuss it.

If someone is destroyed, and there is no return from this destruction and are cut off from the blessings of the New creation, does this not by definition last forever?

I am not following you. You Did it for me.....

Doulos Iesou........,Where are you getting this idea of "process," the Greek word αἰώνιον functions as an attributive adjective and modifies κόλασιν, in order to clarify in this case the type or duration of the punishment. It could be seen as 1) the punishment that happens in the age to come, and 2) the duration of that punishment.

I cannot make "eternal Punishment" mean "annihilation or cease to exist." By its very nature "punishment" needs a subject, If one ceases to exist it is no longer punishment.

From your greek perspective that is posted above, I cannot conclude "eternal Punishment" is "ceasing from existence."

 

[Doulos Iesou]

2 Pet 3 has a few instances in the Greek where one could make a case for annihilation, a Strong case for that matter. However, It is not the human that is described as "annihilated" it is the earth and heavens.
2 Peter 3:6,9-12 "the world at that time was destroyed (Gr: apollumi), being flooded with water. ... The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish (Gr: apollumi)but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed (Gr: LOU) with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed (Gr: LOU) in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed (Gr: LOU) by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!"

1. Notice that 2 Pe 3 describes BOTH the "perishing (apollumi) of men" and "destruction (LOU) of creation".
2. Two different words are used. Notice that "apollumi" is used to destruction of men and that LOU is used to describe the annihilation of the earth!
3. But even better notice that the flood perished "apollumi" the earth in the time of Noah and a different Greek word is used for the annihilation "LOU" of the earth by fire!
4. "apollumi" describes not the annihilation, but "making lost" both men in hell and the earth at the flood and "LOU" describes the annihilation of the earth.

Well let's take a closer look at these words, since you ascribe definitions without providing a sufficient basis for doing so.

The Greek word λύω is most properly understood as to loosen to untie any person or thing that is fastened.[1] Here is an example of this usage.

"And he preached, saying, “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie."[2]

The word "untie," is here representing this most basic and primary definition of the word. All other uses denote a similar imagery.

A usage that more closely relates 2 Peter 3 can be found in acts.

But the ship struck a sandbar and ran aground. The bow stuck fast and would not move, and the stern was broken to pieces by the pounding of the surf.[3]

I used the NIV for this last verse as I think it portrays the imagery of the term the best. The stern of the ship was destroyed of course, but the imagery conveyed by this word is the violent breaking apart of the stern.

The usage therefore in 2 Peter 3 is not denoting the "annihilation" of creation, but rather the violent breaking up that will take place.

Now does the word ἀπόλλυμι denote the idea of "making lost" in 2 Peter 3? Let's see.

It is worth mentioning that in all of the English translations (which are performed by Greek scholars far more advanced than myself and g8grace3), none of them translate the word ἀπόλλυμι as "making lost," but rather used the words "destroyed" and "perish."

Both of these words in the English are very different from the word lost.

per·ish(p

r

sh)
v. per·ished, per·ish·ing, per·ish·es
v.intr.
1. To die or be destroyed, especially in a violent or untimely manner[4]

de·stroy(d

-stroi

)
v. de·stroyed, de·stroy·ing, de·stroys
v.tr.
1. To ruin completely; spoil:
2. To tear down or break up; demolish.
3. To do away with; put an end to:
4. To kill:[5]

The primary definition for the word is simply "to destroy," and for that definition to be overturned there would have to be sufficient warrant from the context. As the context is referring to the fiery destruction of the Earth and it's inhabitants, it seems rather absurd to translate the word "lost," when this is a text clearly referring to God's wish that the wicked repent and not be destroyed along with the impending judgement that is to come, and that coincides with his coming. You're making this text about the final punishment, which it is not about at all. It is about God's patience to endure the wicked, so that more will come to repentance prior to the Day of the Lord, where the Earth and all that is within in are consumed by fire.

To jump to a conclusion that this is about people being "made lost" in hell, is so out of left field I don't know where to start.


[1] THAYER'S GREEK LEXICON, Electronic Database.
[2] Mark 1:7 (ESV)
[3] Acts 27:41 (NIV)
[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perish
[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/destroy

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I am not following you. You Did it for me.....

Doulos Iesou........,Where are you getting this idea of "process," the Greek word αἰώνιον functions as an attributive adjective and modifies κόλασιν, in order to clarify in this case the type or duration of the punishment. It could be seen as 1) the punishment that happens in the age to come, and 2) the duration of that punishment.

I cannot make "eternal Punishment" mean "annihilation or cease to exist." By its very nature "punishment" needs a subject, If one ceases to exist it is no longer punishment.

From your greek perspective that is posted above, I cannot conclude "eternal Punishment" is "ceasing from existence."

I always find it interesting how you guys represent our position using different words than we do. I believe the eternal punishment is one that one that lasts forever, it has no end. This is by undergoing the punishment that is eternal fire, which we know consumes utterly so that the person is completely destroyed, as was the case with Sodom and Gomorrah. The punishment on that person, their destruction lasts forever, they do not return.

Again, this highlights the difference where you believe a person who is destroyed has had their punishment cease. This is an assumption on your part, which has nothing to do with the Greek.

 

[gr8grace3]

I always find it interesting how you guys represent our position using different words than we do. I believe the eternal punishment is one that one that lasts forever, it has no end. This is by undergoing the punishment that is eternal fire, which we know consumes utterly so that the person is completely destroyed, as was the case with Sodom and Gomorrah. The punishment on that person, their destruction lasts forever, they do not return.

Again, this highlights the difference where you believe a person who is destroyed has had their punishment cease. This is an assumption on your part, which has nothing to do with the Greek.

You should understand that the logical conclusion of the argument you raise looks like annihilation or ceasing to exist. It is the same way with Calvinism, they intellectually bombard one with hrs and hrs of "intellectualism" and when one draws the logical conclusion of ," Well, then God destined/created some for hell." They will say," Now I didn't say that!!" However, the end result is just that in their theology, no matter how skilled they are with "words."

I am Saying, what you put up on this screen says "annihilation or cease to exist" I am Just telling you what I conclude when I read what you type on this thread.

Why not use annihilation or cease to exist? Why is it so bad? I WISH I could believe that. Every fiber of my being(the flesh) wishes it was that easy for the wicked. My Spirit tells me otherwise.

 

[TimothyW]

You should understand that the logical conclusion of the argument you raise looks like annihilation or ceasing to exist. It is the same way with Calvinism, they intellectually bombard one with hrs and hrs of "intellectualism" and when one draws the logical conclusion of ," Well, then God destined/created some for hell." They will say," Now I didn't say that!!" However, the end result is just that in their theology, no matter how skilled they are with "words."

I am Saying, what you put up on this screen says "annihilation or cease to exist" I am Just telling you what I conclude when I read what you type on this thread.

Why not use annihilation or cease to exist? Why is it so bad? I WISH I could believe that. Every fiber of my being(the flesh) wishes it was that easy for the wicked. My Spirit tells me otherwise.

The Bible says that the wicked will cease to exist. Read it for yourself. Psalm 37:10 - "In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there."
According to the Bible, the wicked will be no more, they will cease to exist. Whosoever believes in Him will not perish, (John 3:16) the others will perish. The wages of sin is death. The Bible is clear, why is there even a debate? The road is wide that leads to destruction. At the end of the wide road is destruction, not eternal conscious torment with no destruction. Why do people say that being completely DESTROYED is "getting off easy"? Being destroyed isn't getting away with anything, it is being destroyed instead of being alive forever.

The Bible says that the wicked perish. There is no reason to believe that the wicked do not perish but instead live forever in Hell being tormented.
(for some reason, people who believe in this doctrine object when I call being set on fire and not allowed to die "torture")