And what happened? Did they immediately die? Adam lived 930 years and then died, but the very moment he ate of the fruit, he was spiritually separated from God. That is what is meant by spiritual death. Physical death is separation of body and soul; spiritual death is separation of soul from God.
Where did he say that?
And, yet, you did not address my main argument against this assertion.
Something to consider, taken from an article in The Apologetics Study Bible, written by J. P. Moreland, and titled "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?":
"Does the Bible teach that the unsaved will suffer in hell for only a time and then be annihilated? Some argue from Scripture that the flames in hell are literal and point out the flames destroy whatever they burn. Further, they claim that infinitely long punishment is disproportionate to a finite life of sin. Thus extinction is morally preferable to everlasting punishment.
The scriptural argument is weak. Clear texts whose explicit intent is to teach the extent of the afterlife overtly compare the everlasting conscious life of the saved and the unsaved (
Dn 12:2;
Mt 25:41,
46). Moreover, the flames in hell are most likely figures of speech for judgment (cp.
Heb 12:29;
2 Th 1:8). Otherwise, contradictions about hell are apparent (for example, it is dark despite being filled with flames).
The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation. That becomes evident from the following consideration.
Regarding the end of life, sanctity-of-life advocates reject active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), while the quality-of-life advocates embrace it. In the sanctity-of-life view, one gets one's value, not from the quality of one's life, but from the sheer fact that one exists in God's image. The quality-of-life advocates see the value of human life in its quality; life is not inherently valuable. Thus the sanctity-of-life position has a higher, not a lower, moral regard for the dignity of human life.
The traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of the sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life ethical standpoints. After all, the grounds that God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not receive salvation, and if God will not extinguish one made in His image because He values life, then God's alternative is quarantine, and hell is certainly that. Thus the tradition view, being a sanctity-of-life and not a quality-of-life position, is morally superior to annihilationism." (p. 1292)
If God does or decrees something, it is always just and never evil, even if you don't like it.
You are believing a cherry-picked definition that doesn't take into account all that the Bible says on the matter, as I pointed out. Besides, I believe I pointed out already that your definition doesn't fit with the lake of fire. The dead are first resurrected and judged, then Death, physical death, is thrown into the lake of fire, along with any whose names aren't found written in the book of life. Along with Rev 20:10, the case is strongest that unbelievers will be alive and conscious for eternity in hell.
Also, you still haven't responded to my questions, although I have asked them a few times. Based on Luke 12:45-48, when do those punishments occur? Do all get the same punishment or is God just and gives different punishments based on offenses?