There is no Scripture indicating an eternal duration over which a person's time in hell will stretch? Well, what about this one?:
Matthew 25:46
46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
This verse is an example of what is known as a parallelism. This is important to note:
"What is particularly determinative here is the fact that the
duration of punishment for the wicked forms a parallel with
the duration of life for the righteous: the adjective "aionios"
is used to describe both the length of punishment for the
wicked and the length of eternal life for the righteous. One
cannot limit the duration of punishment for the wicked with-
out at the same time limiting the duration of eternal life for
the redeemed. It would do violence to the parallel to give it
an unlimited signification in the case of eternal life, but a
limited one when applied to the punishment of the wicked."
(From: "Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses" - Ron Rhodes)
Well, first, I am not a JW; I am a Sola Scriptura Bible believing Christian who believes in the Trinity, who believes that Jesus is God, and who believes that we are saved by Christ's death and resurrection. So I would appreciate it if you do not insult me by giving me a quoted apologetics source that is for JW's (When I am the farthest thing from being a JW). My belief in "hell" is no way like their belief in "hell." They believe in full head on soul sleep. I do not find that position to be biblical in the slightest. I believe there is a literal placed called "hell" and that the wicked are concious there. Yes, I do believe it is very likely that there are periods of long sleep there, but I also believe the wicked are awake at times within Hades, as well (of which we see in the story of Lazarus and the Rich-man). Also, Catholics believe in the Trinity. Does that mean you are Catholic? So truth is not always determined by guilt by association, my friend.
The key to understanding Matthew 25:46 is 2 Thessalonians 1:9.
For what is the "everlasting punishment" that is being described in Matthew 25:46?
2 Thessalonians says that it is "everlasting destruction" and not "ongoing never ending living torture in flames." If I destroy something, that means it is no longer that same thing that it once was. If I destroy a piece of paper (with fire), it is no more. That paper has faced "everlasting destruction" by being brought to ashes. The Scriptures talk about how the wicked will be like ashes.
aiki said:
Why do you ignore the preposition "in" when you analyze the state of the Rich Man in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man? In Luke 16:19-31 we read:
23 And being IN torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented IN this flame.'
Your awkward soldier analogy notwithstanding, "in" does not mean "nearby" or "over there." "In" means "in."
I'm not sure why this is important. "This" does not modify the preposition "in." That is, it does not change the meaning of "in." If I say, "I am in this lake," I quite obviously do not mean I am "near" the lake, or that the lake is "in front of me." I mean, quite obviously, that I am in the lake, submersed in some measure within or inside of it. And the use of "this" does not change the sense of the preposition "in" but only serves as an adjective (or maybe an adverb?) modifying or referring to the noun "lake." The same is true of the words "this" and "in" of the Rich Man in the parable.
In the KJV, verse 23 is saying the richman is IN torments. This is a verb. Other translations say he is tormented. He is being tormented is what verse 23 is saying. You can point to another translation that says he was tormented in Hades, but it still does not change anything. Hades can refer to the name of the place and not the flames itself.
As for Luke 16:24:
Again, the KJV was written in 1600's English (Which is not exactly like Modern English); On top of that, the KJV has influenced Modern Translations, as well.
But even still, I can say to my wife, "I am happy in this relationship" with me referring to her in being in front of me." I can point to a fire and say, I am uncomfortable in this fire here." and be grammatically correct in saying that. For the words "in this" is in reference to my pointing to what I am talking about.
Free Dictionary defines the word "in" as:
Now, surely a person's fist did not go inside a person's face here.
So something does not have to be inside something when we talk about the word "in."
Isaiah 57:6 talks about taking comfort "in these" in reference to a particular things. Surely the things that Isaiah is talking about is not in reference to being inside him or something that he is inside of like a house. He is referring to exterior things involving certain objects. He is pointing verbally in reference to something.
aiki said:
You sure appear to be discounting the fact that the Rich Man was tormented in flames...
So you believe it is possible for a man to carry on a normal conversation with others while being tied to a log and lowered into a giant roaring campfire? Surely that is not rational.
aiki said:
How does it necessarily follow that if God is fair and just no one will be tormented in hell for thousands of years?
Bob's family entered a country of a dictator. His family got caught lying by this dictator. The dictator then decides to torture Bob's family alive in the most painful way possible for their lying for the rest of their lives.
Yeah, it is sort of like that.
The punishement needs to fit the crime.
It is not complicated.
Just because God is holy and just and eternal does not change the severity of the crimes done against Him. Committing a sin against a popular leader of a country never involves unending horrible torture as being something that is justifiable.
God is into fair justice.
For Luke 12:47-48 says,
47 "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not
himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many
stripes.
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."
aiki said:
Why do you assume the Rich Man's spiritual form worked exactly as his physical body did? If his spirit survived the death of his physical body, why could it not survive and endure the flames of hell? And why do you assume the flames of eternal hell are exactly like the flames in your fireplace? For one thing, the flames of hell will never go out. Light a fire in your fireplace, though, and eventually the flames will dwindle down and die. It seems to me, then, that trying to understand eternal, spiritual realities via temporal, physical ones is going to quickly lead you astray. Why wasn't the Rich Man in such unbearable agony in the flames of hell that he couldn't even think of conversing with Abraham? As you say, this would be the case if he were alive in his physical body and burning. But this is to make an eternal, spiritual reality directly parallel to our temporal, physical one. They aren't the same, however - as the conduct of the Rich Man in the parable reveals.
Jesus illustrated spiritual truth by way of real world examples. If we could not trust Jesus's parables or real world examples so as to talk about spiritual truth, then there is no consistent way in which God operates that is logical and orderly when we look at the rest of Scripture. We could not trust His parables totally because they may not be a parallel of the real world with the spiritual things (Because the spirit world does not contrast the physical world like you say). The thing is that I would need a specific verse telling me that this is the case (in what you say is true). I would need a verse saying or implying to me that the spirit world does not mirror the physical world in some way. Why? Because the Canaanite woman said to Jesus that even the dogs can eat the crumbs from the master's table. She used a real world example to speak of a spiritual truth.
In addition, we see the city of New Jerusalem come down from out of Heaven and land on the New Earth. This is a spiritual city that is coming down upon an Earthly place. This suggests that the difference between the spirit world and the physical world is not all that much different (as you suggest).
aiki said:
Why didn't the Rich Man beg Abraham for buckets of water? Perhaps he recognized that his torment in hell was well-deserved and so could bring himself to ask only for the smallest relief from it. This seems very likely to me...
This seems highly unlikely because if he was truly in pain by these flames, he would not be able to communicate normally with Abraham. It also seems highly unlikely that he would ask for a little amount of water to cool his tongue when his whole body was suffering so much. He is there because he is selfish. His greed for water would compell him to ask for lots of water. He was after all a Rich-man. It also would be silly non-sense to try and sell someone on giving you a little bit of water when they know that that you know that you needs lots of water instead. Surely the Rich-man should obviously know that he could not fool Abraham in such a way. He was asking for a little water because he was in a very hot place (With the flames nearby him).
aiki said:
But words like "destroy," "death," "die" and "destruction" are not always - or even often - meant in Scripture to be synonymous with "annihilation." If "death," for instance, meant "annihilation" how could there then be a second death a person suffers in hell?
The second death is the Lake of Fire according to Revelation 21:8. This happens after a person is in hell.
aiki said:
We see also in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus that the flames of the Rich Man's torment did not consume him. His "destruction" in hell did not entail his annihilation.
Selah.
Well, first, "hell" is not the same place as the "Lake of Fire." They are two different places. Second, logic of the parallel between the real world and the spirit world has to go ignored in order to place an ECT viewpoint upon the story of the Rich-man. The only strength in the ECT argument here is with the word "in" within Luke 16:24. But as the Dictionary, the Bible, and real life communication shows us, this can easily be a scenario of the Rich-man pointing to the flame and referring to how he is tormented by it's great heat. All the other facts or bread crumbs in this story also support this view instead of the ECT viewpoint.
...