And in support of my statement above here are the first 10 of 98 occurrences of ekei in the NT, excluding the wailing and gnashing verses. All refer to a specific place.
ekei isn't the entire phrase. "Ekei estai" is translated as "there will be". In Luke 15:7; 21:23, estai alone is translated as "there will be". In Matthew 24:7, Luke 17:34; 17:35, and 2 Peter 2:1, esontai is translated as "there will be".
Luke 15:7; 13:28, Matthew 13:42; 8:12; 24:51, are the only times we have the combination of Ekei estai.
In Luke 13:28, the verse begins with the phrase, "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." It is a separate verse; it is a separate clause altogether. The ekei "there" can't
possibly refer to a specific place because no specific place has been mentioned at all!
Luke 13:28 - "And he will answer, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers.’ 28There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves are thrown out."
This isn't even talking about a fiery place, and yet still uses the phrase ekei estai. And you're trying to tell me that by some wonder of grammar the "there" must point to the fiery furnace/hell?
If you can show me a (different) verse that uses the phrase ekei estai and unquestionably by istelf refers to a place or time, then you might have proven that the weeping and gnashing of teeth occurs inside the lake of fire. Which is perfectly fine. It doesn't make a ton of sense (because weeping and gnashing of teeth is a response to anger, sorrow and bitterness (kind of like what you would feel after being judged) rather than pain), but it's perfectly fine. That doesn't conflict in the slightest with Annihilationism.
What you can't possibly do however is use this phrase to prove that the weeping and gnashing of teeth lasts forever.
We should undoubtedly be able to agree at least on this.
By annihilation I mean something more than physical “death.” If the “destruction””perishing” in the Bible means simply death why does God use a different word?
Because it is death
and destruction. A lake of burning sulfur kills
and destroys things.
The term "everlasting destruction" is only used once in the NT 1Thess 1:9. Notice "everlasting destruction" is modified “from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;” Something/someone that is destroyed cannot “be” from the presence of anything or anyone.
So ashes can't have a geographical location? Why do they need to be conscious in order to have a geographical location? Rocks exist in space. Are
they conscious?
Twice Jesus mentions a punishment that is worse than death. In
Matthew 18:6,
Matthew 26:24. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in
Hebrews 10:28-31.
First, we need to define our terms. What do you mean by "death" (Jesus didn't use the word "fate", "death", judgment", or "punishment", so you're 100% in speculation territory)? Because we are told by a verse that speaks directly to these things that claims the punishment for sin is DEATH (Romans 6:23). So please define your terms.
Among the Jews in Jesus’ time there was a belief in a place of eternal fiery punishment they called it both sheol and gehinnom. They believed that,
"The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity.” Judith xvi. 17. The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b). So when Jesus taught “hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” What do you think they understood? They believed that there was a literal hell where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched
You're treading in dangerous waters. This of course isn't an argument from silence, but it is in the same neighborhood.
I don't have a time machine. I don't know how the majority of the Jews would have interpreted it. I don't know how many Jews would have held the beliefs of the writers of your encyclopedia. I don't know how accurate your encyclopedia is. But what I do know is that Jesus was directly quoting a prophecy from Isaiah 34.
Even if by some miracle there was enough evidence to prove that the majority of the Jews at the time these words were spoken believed in ECT, you can't use the ambiguity of Jesus' words to prove anything by saying that if he meant Annihilation, he should have been more clear. You can't put on those kinds of restraints. It's bad hermeneutics. If you disagree, I can go deeper into this.
Also, "quenched" in the context of fire doesn't mean that fire will never go out, but rather that it can never be extinguished by an external force, such as a firefighter. Sodom was eternally destroyed by unquenchable, eternal fire. Does that mean the fire never went out and is still burning to this day? Of course not.
See my response immediately above. Yes there are more than 200 different figures of speech in the Bible. But one or two figures of speech does not make everything figurative..
Granted. Some things are figurative and others aren't. We have to use context clues and "common sense" to tell us whether or not we are dealing with figurative language or not. Obviously Jesus never meant that the people listening to Him were literally grains of NaCl. This is common sense. Likewise, we can use the context clues in Isaiah 34 to understand that "the smoke rises forever" and "their worm shall not die" should be taken figuratively. Because it also tells us that various mammals will later inhabit the land. Also, common sense tells us that a worm can't literally eat a person's body for all eternity (you can't take an infinite bite out of anything - it will run out.)It is thereby made clear that the land will not be burning forever, that instead, the text is speaking metaphorically.
You can't just take those two short phrases out of that chapter and just flat out ignore the rest of the chapter. You have to take it in context.