Annihilationism ignores important Scriptures?

[Doulos Iesou]

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 words annihilate and cease to exist, do in one sense represent my position (more so annihilate), but the word that is used in the Greek is a bit more violent and strong in it's meaning. Therefore, I prefer the term destruction, as is found in the Bible.

Those who oppose our position often use the words annihilate and cease to exist to attempt to paint a picture that what we are saying is extra-Biblical, when we actually are the one's employing Biblical language. The Wicked will experience the second death, the destruction of body and soul in Gehenna.

The word destroy is synonym for these other words, so employing them while in opposition to us does not seem like the most honest and sincere tactic.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

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.

You know what the ultimate punishment has been since the beginning of the Bible? Death. This is the same for our government.

What justice is met with the everlasting torment of human beings created in the Image of God? Does the torment of billions of people somehow satisfy God's need for vengeance? My God's anger is for but a moment, and his mercy endures forever.

 

[gr8grace3]

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")

Psalm 37:10:


For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.

1 Samuel 9:4.


And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the land of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through the land of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they found them not.

"shall not be" and "were Not" Is the same Hebrew word.

1 Samuel 9:4 provides help in how we can understand the first phrase “shall not be” in Psalm 37:10



In 1 Samuel 9:4 the phrase “they were not” means that regarding the donkeys “they were not” in that place.


The donkeys were not in Shalim. They were in another place. Those donkeys did exist. They were just in another place.

1 Samuel 9:4 shows that the first phrase “shall not be” in Psalm 37:10 can mean that after a little while, the unsaved “shall not be” in the sense that they shall not be with the believers in the new earth and new heavens. They will be in another place. There will be a final separation.


And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. Gen 5:24


Notice that God says that Enoch “was not”.


This does not mean that Enoch ceased to exist. Rather, it means that Enoch “was not” there in the earth. God took him to heaven.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Psalm 37:10:


For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.

1 Samuel 9:4.

And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the land of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through the land of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they found them not.

"shall not be" and "were Not" Is the same Hebrew word.

1 Samuel 9:4 provides help in how we can understand the first phrase “shall not be” in Psalm 37:10

In 1 Samuel 9:4 the phrase “they were not” means that regarding the donkeys “they were not” in that place.

The donkeys were not in Shalim. They were in another place. Those donkeys did exist. They were just in another place.

1 Samuel 9:4 shows that the first phrase “shall not be” in Psalm 37:10 can mean that after a little while, the unsaved “shall not be” in the sense that they shall not be with the believers in the new earth and new heavens. They will be in another place. There will be a final separation.

And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. Gen 5:24

Notice that God says that Enoch “was not”.

This does not mean that Enoch ceased to exist. Rather, it means that Enoch “was not” there in the earth. God took him to heaven.

EDITED. Words have what is called a semantic range of meaning, depending on how they are used. The Hebrew word אַ֫יִן is a Particle of Negation, so it matters what is being negated and in what way. In this case it is the "wicked" who are being negated, and given the context it would appear to entail their complete annihilation.

In v.2 it says that the wicked will "soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb." Even into v.36 where it states, "But he passed away, and behold, he was no more; though I sought him, he could not be found." (note that in v.35 it sets up v.36 as referring to the wicked and ruthless man.) Even most strongly stated in v.38 as "altogether destroyed, the future of the wicked will be cut off." Or perhaps the imagery used in v.20 that says they will, "vanish like smoke."

Your attempts to insert other meanings by appealing to other contexts without handling the existing context of that given statement is very troubling.

 

[gr8grace3]

You know what the ultimate punishment has been since the beginning of the Bible? Death. This is the same for our government.

What justice is met with the everlasting torment of human beings created in the Image of God? Does the torment of billions of people somehow satisfy God's need for vengeance? My God's anger is for but a moment, and his mercy endures forever.

What justice is met with the everlasting torment of human beings created in the Image of God? In my opinion, this is the key or the heart of the matter.My emotions agree with you. However, I think scripture explains to us what true Holiness demands if it is offended.

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

This is a further illustration of your failure to accurately handle the Biblical languages. Words have what is called a semantic range of meaning, depending on how they are used. A quote that describes exactly what is happening here.
Your attempts to insert other meanings by appealing to other contexts without handling the existing context of that given statement is very troubling. A quote that describes exactly what is happening here.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What justice is met with the everlasting torment of human beings created in the Image of God? In my opinion, this is the key or the heart of the matter.My emotions agree with you. However, I think scripture explains to us what true Holiness demands if it is offended.

This isn't just an emotional plea, it is an appeal to justice. Holiness does not demand eternal torment, where is that stated? Inability to adhere to the teachings of holiness in the OT was punished by destruction.

EDITED

 

[gr8grace3]

This is a further illustration of your failure to accurately handle the Biblical languages. Words have what is called a semantic range of meaning, depending on how they are used. The Hebrew word אַ֫יִן is a Particle of Negation, so it matters what is being negated and in what way. In this case it is the "wicked" who are being negated, and given the context it would appear to entail their complete annihilation.

In v.2 it says that the wicked will "soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb." Even into v.36 where it states, "But he passed away, and behold, he was no more; though I sought him, he could not be found." (note that in v.35 it sets up v.36 as referring to the wicked and ruthless man.) Even most strongly stated in v.38 as "altogether destroyed, the future of the wicked will be cut off." Or perhaps the imagery used in v.20 that says they will, "vanish like smoke."

Your attempts to insert other meanings by appealing to other contexts without handling the existing context of that given statement is very troubling.

Lets do the context of the verses you quoted. So when is this happening? Verse 19~~In the days of Famine... So in the context, this happens at a particular time. Is it before or after the resurrection of the wicked?

This isn't just an emotional plea, it is an appeal to justice. Holiness does not demand eternal torment, where is that stated? Inability to adhere to the teachings of holiness in the OT was punished by destruction.


This is a reportable violation, you quoted my own words as your own. Repent of this falsehood.

Nor does your dishonest usage of my words apply to my statements here, I dealt with the given context of 2 Peter 3, in addition to examining the usage elsewhere. I did so to illustrate the imagery that the word conveys, while properly defining it as it is used in the context of 2 Peter 3.

If you do not apologize and edit this, it will be reported.

It is exactly what I did with 1 Sam and Gen. Look Doulos, I could throw around the "nominative","ablative","vocative","dative","conditional clauses","classes" To make it look like you have no idea what you are talking about. But you have an understanding of the original languages. However, from my studies you are pushing aside the exactness of the Greek on annihilation.
edited

 

[turnorburn]

When scripture speaks of life/destruction/punishment it is in the eternal sense for example..

II Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

When we think in terms of a person being dead/destroyed we take dead/destroyed to mean they are no longer with us they stop being but they continue on into eternity there to receive eternal life or eternal punishment/destruction..

tob

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Lets do the context of the verses you quoted. So when is this happening? Verse 19~~In the days of Famine... So in the context, this happens at a particular time. Is it before or after the resurrection of the wicked?

You don't get it, David isn't alluding to some kind of specific drought that takes place in the future. He is setting up a series of contrasts, as is common in the Wisdom literature, between the Righteous and Wicked.

This is not some kind of random prophecy, people shouldn't be expecting some kind of great drought that will starve the unrighteous...

I also notice that you didn't deal with any of the other verses that were mentioned which disprove your failed exegesis of the passage.

It is exactly what I did with 1 Sam and Gen.

It was exactly NOT, what I did as you did not handle the context of Psalm 37:10 at ALL. I actually spoke in detail on the context of 2 Peter 3. Please try to be honest.

Look Doulos, I could throw around the "nominative","ablative","vocative","dative","conditional clauses","classes" To make it look like you have no idea what you are talking about.

You mean you could actually supply what I asked for? Nor would throwing around any of those words make it look like I have no idea what I am talking about, because I have actually studied Koine Greek.

EDITED

( and frankly you are relying on it to "look" intellectual)

It was actually you in post #92 who first brought up the Greek, in my OP I did not appeal to it at all, and only appealed to it once earlier in the thread on post #17 to demonstrate a common usage within the gospels.

If I was "relying on it to 'look' intellectual," wouldn't my primary argument in this thread contain loads of it? The fact of the matter is we are only discussing the Greek because you brought it up per post #92. When I asked you for clarification, namely what principle in Greek grammar are you referring to, I get crickets. Please don't assume my intentions, edited

However, from my studies you are pushing aside the exactness of the Greek on annihilation.

In all my time discussing this, you are the only one to bring up this "issue," even when I have listened to other scholars debating the issue. The "exactness" of the Greek is not as you suppose, but has been infused with your presupposition on what qualifies as punishment.

edited



Regards,
DI

 

[Doulos Iesou]

When we think in terms of a person being dead/destroyed we take dead/destroyed to mean they are no longer with us they stop being but they continue on into eternity there to receive eternal life or eternal punishment/destruction..

If in the context it is referring to being destroyed physically here on Earth then I agree with you. However, our disagreement arises when texts about the final punishment speak about death and destruction.

 

[gr8grace3]

You don't get it, David isn't alluding to some kind of specific drought that takes place in the future. He is setting up a series of contrasts, as is common in the Wisdom literature, between the Righteous and Wicked.

This is not some kind of random prophecy, people shouldn't be expecting some kind of great drought that will starve the unrighteous...

I also notice that you didn't deal with any of the other verses that were mentioned which disprove your failed exegesis of the passage.


It was exactly NOT, what I did as you did not handle the context of Psalm 37:10 at ALL. I actually spoke in detail on the context of 2 Peter 3. Please try to be honest.


You mean you could actually supply what I asked for? Nor would throwing around any of those words make it look like I have no idea what I am talking about, because I have actually studied Koine Greek.


Your disingenuous sarcasm is noted, for someone who accuses me of being offensive.. you should remove the log from your own eye.


It was actually you in post #92 who first brought up the Greek, in my OP I did not appeal to it at all, and only appealed to it once earlier in the thread on post #17 to demonstrate a common usage within the gospels.

If I was "relying on it to 'look' intellectual," wouldn't my primary argument in this thread contain loads of it? The fact of the matter is we are only discussing the Greek because you brought it up per post #92. When I asked you for clarification, namely what principle in Greek grammar are you referring to, I get crickets. Please don't assume my intentions, it's very insulting. Especially when the facts don't line up with your supposed theory on our discussion of the Greek.


In all my time discussing this, you are the only one to bring up this "issue," even when I have listened to other scholars debating the issue. The "exactness" of the Greek is not as you suppose, but has been infused with your presupposition on what qualifies as punishment.


I'm being offensive?

You took my words, and didn't quote them and tried to apply them to my own statements, which is plagiarism and was used as a way to try and paint me as a hypocrite. Rather than an honest approach of trying to demonstrate that my own statement might apply to previous argument, while properly using the quote function. To which you did not apologize, and the very fact that you refused to apologize, but when back to change it demonstrates that you realize it was a reportable offense.

You also assumed that throwing around words involved with Greek Grammar would, "make it look like have no idea what [I am] talking about. Also offensive.

In addition to that claimed that I was only using the Greek to make myself look intelligent, which implies that 1) I don't know what I am talking about regarding the Greek (which is false) and 2) that I am not being genuine in this discussion on the Greek. This also very offensive.

The only thing I have said that perhaps was offensive was, "This is a further illustration of your failure to accurately handle the Biblical languages." This was not an empty assertion, but was backed up with evidence from the text which proved your error. It wasn't personal, unlike your naked assertions against me which have no grounding in the discussion whatsoever, but appear to be employed simply to offend. I apologize for that statement if it did offend you, it was my intention only to call out the error in the substance of what you were saying.

My previous comments in regards to the plagiarized twisting of my words, were stating simple facts. It was a dishonest example of your misapplying my own words, without using the quote function, in an attempt to demonstrate that I was somehow being a hypocrite, without understanding the distinction between our two statements. If it is an offense to call out something that is dishonest a falsehood, then it is merely because you do not want to face your blatant offense.

I will not simply claim that someone is being offensive without demonstrating that it is so, I have demonstrated such here and I suggest you follow your own advice.

To conclude, I would like to say that I have every desire and intention to speak on the issue and ignore addressing personalities. I only did so in response to your violation, but if you are willing to repent and apologize for the offense and stick to discussing the issue, I would be interested in continuing the discussion. If not, then it has been fun. I don't want to see this thread I started closed on account of this however.

Regards,
DI

God Bless my friend.

 

[gr8grace3]

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

On to argument #2......So edom is literal and all the rest is not? If Edom is Annihilated or ceased from existence, how can it have roads or streams that still run with water? How can we even "see" "ancient Edom" if EVERYTHING has been annihilated?

 

[turnorburn]

Doulos said:

If in the context it is referring to being destroyed physically here on Earth then I agree with you. However, our disagreement arises when texts about the final punishment speak about death and destruction.

Then your disagreement isn't with me its with the one that lives eternally..

II Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

tob

 

[Doulos Iesou]

On to argument #2......So edom is literal and all the rest is not?

It's an oracle of judgement concerning Edom, so it would be appropriate to apply the words to Edom.

If Edom is Annihilated or ceased from existence, how can it have roads or streams that still run with water? How can we even "see" "ancient Edom" if EVERYTHING has been annihilated?

It's not the land that was annihilated, it was the nation. There is no record of any kind referring to Edom's continued existence after 667 BC, which Obadiah speaks about Edom's destruction as a result of their plundering Jerusalem with Nebuchadnezzar II.

It was a prophecy about the total and complete destruction of the nation of Edom (not the land) which came true.

This strongly supports my interpretation and view.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos said:

Then your disagreement isn't with me its with the one that lives eternally..

II Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

tob

No, my disagreement is with you regarding what our Lord has said. And indeed there is only one who lives eteranlly, and that is God.

 

[turnorburn]

That's right and we were created in His image..

tob

 

[reba]

Goodness does this topic bring out the best of His kids.... Time to cool off guys.... it is to late to clean this up tonite.. closed til tomorrow

 

[reba]

I set here reading words that show much education much study. What a shame to see the discussion turn to the average forum spit wad throwing brawl. You guys are blessed i expected better....

Luk_12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

 

[Historicist]

For the wages of sin is eternal torture death. Romans 6:23

 

[TimothyW]

I don't believe that those of us who agree with the doctrine of annihilationism have ignored any Scripture.

It is from reading the Scriptures that I came to believe that the lost will be destroyed and will not receive the gift of eternal life.
John 3:16 is the most quoted verse in the Bible. It exactly spells out what Annihilationists believe. Either a person has eternal life in Christ or they perish. As Historicist said, Romans 6:23 says exactly what we say

For the wages of sin is eternal torture death. Romans 6:23

There are hundreds of Scripture Passages that confirm that those who reject God will perish, and only those who put their faith in God will have eternal life. This is the message of the Bible.