Irrelevant, anybody can concoct a present day "example" which they think proves almost anything they want it to.
Can you come up with an example of when the "there" in "There will be X" refers directly to a time or place?
These are simple rules of logic. "There will be X" NEVER tells you exactly when or where X occurs. It just doesn't. I'm sorry. I don't know how else to put it. If God said in the garden of Eden before the Fall, "I will soon be forced to send you away; you will have hard feelings," would that statement have told us exactly when, where, or for how long the hard feelings would have taken place?
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Correct, "die" not destruction, annihilation to cause to cease to exist etc. Did you even bother reading my post I said this in the introductory paragraph?
What exactly do you mean by "cease to exist"?
You're operating on the idea that the Annihilationism view is that God just waves a magic wand and all the unrighteous just vanish into thin air and their atoms just disappear. This couldn't be further from the truth. He will KILL them. Thy will DIE. People who get cast into lakes of burning sulfur DIE. They will become ashes under soles of the feet of the righteous. This is just common sense.
It is becoming painful to see how far you will venture from plain, extraordinarily simple, common-sense logic in order to prove that a loving God of justice would torture every single human who didn't love him for trillions and trillions of years with the most painful form of torture known to man.
The ONLY verse that strongly supports ECT is Revelation 20:10. All the others can EASILY be interpreted other ways if you simply OPEN YOUR MIND to simple logic.
Eternal destruction does not mean the person is forever in the process of being destroyed. It means they will be destroyed forever. You can't be forever in the process of being destroyed. That doesn't make any sense. Because then you would never actually be destroyed.
Eternal punishment does not necessarily mean the act of punishing lasts for eternity. It can just as easily mean the punishment ever ends; that it is never undone. This is common sense. But you REFUSE to accept that.
Eternal fire does not mean fire that will never go out. The bible is very clear on this. Sodom is no longer burning, despite having been burned by ETERNAL FIRE. Sodom is an example of those who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. Why is it called eternal fire? Because the work of the flame is NEVER undone. Sodom will never be rebuilt. It is still in ashes today. Everlasting shame. Eternal destruction. It's very simple and easy to understand.
When Jesus said "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth," He did NOT give us any clear indication of exactly when, where, or for how long it would take place. That is extremely easy to see. This is not rocket science. That's just not what it says. He didn't say that. 1 + 1 = 2. Not 3. I'm sorry. It's not true. The statement, "They will be cast into a fiery furnace; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth," is isn't, wasn't, and and never will be the same as saying, "They will be cast into the fiery furnace where they will weep and gnash their teeth forever." It's just not the same thing. I'm really sorry. 1 + 1 = 2. Not 3. I know you want it to be 3, but it's not.
The verse that talks about how it would be better if Judas had never been born does not say anything about him burning in hell forever. This is the same thing. It just doesn't say that. I'm sorry. 1 + 1 = 2. You can't add your own ideas to scripture. You can't take a verse that says, "It would be better for him if he had not been born," and make it say, "It would be better for him if he had never been born because now he will be tortured in hell forever." Because that is not what the text says. I'm very sorry.
The worm that God references in Isaiah is not an immortal worm that feasts on a endless supply of human flesh for all eternity while being burned by the lake of fire. That is just ridiculous. Isaiah was one of the most poetic writers of the Bible. The worm thing is imagery. He is saying that their worm dies not, and the smoke of their torment will rise forever. He is not saying that the worm literally will feast on flesh while being itself burned alive for all eternity, and that all the animals that will later dwell in said land are also completely fireproof ad won't mind the fact that their home is constantly burning, and that there are millions of humans being tortured there. He is clearly talking about eternal destruction. Death. Annihilation. Rotting corpses (oh, look - he actually mentions corpses in verse 3!). Loss of life. Eternal destruction. Everlasting shame and contempt.
He doesn't literally mean the sky will literally roll up like a scroll.
He doesn't literally mean that he has a physical sword that is somehow satisfied by heaven.
He doesn't literally mean that God has a sword that has the blood of millions of humans contained inside of it.
He doesn't literally mean that there will be an eternal plume of smoke.
He doesn't literally mean that there are immortal worms that will eat flesh for eternity.
This entire image in Isaiah 34 couldn't possibly paint a clearer picture of annihilation/death.
These verses are stand as the CORE support of ECT. But it just doesn't stand. Period. It is EXTREMELY weak. You can't use these verses to prove eternal conscious torment. You just can't.
1 + 1 = 2
Not 3.
I'm sorry.