CIR,
you said;
"There is and I gave it to you.
You want a few others?"
No, there's not. No, you didn't. No, you can't give me any others?
Secondly for there to be "others", implies there was at least one, which there hasn't.
What you gave me is a verse referring to the second coming. Let's take a look, this time in context, shall we?
2Thes. 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.
So, why is it that you are maintaining that this speaks of the ultimate fate of the wicked when the Bible clearly teaches that such a moment actually occurs over a thousand years following His second coming?
Did you not know the the ultimate fate of the wicked is after the millennium, at the Bema Seat, in the second death?
The fate of the wicked at the second coming, (which is what you referenced), is "destruction" as the scripture you quoted says. Therefore, it could be called the "first death", hence the obvious nature of why their second "destruction"( athousand years later) is called the "second death".
You obviously are having some problems distinguishing between the English words eternal, everlasting, forever, etc... And the original intent of the Greek and Hebrew words that they came from.The original words did not apply such rigidity to their definitions as you are doing. They could mean literally an eternity, or they could mean a simple duration of time. It was all determined in the context.
I find it quite curious that you would be so rigid with your one-way definition of these words, especially in light of the fact that the English language allows for the same EXACT FLEXIBILITY!
If I said; "God will reign forever.", you could understand that, right?
If I said; "That movie lasted forever.", you could understand that also, right?
So, since the Hebrew and Greek lexicons clearly define these words as having figurative applications as well as literal, and the same goes for their English counterparts, where are you getting your 100% literal ideas from? The scripture doesn't teach these words were used 100% literal, matter of fact I can show you over fifty examples of when they were clearly figurative.Here are a few prime examples.
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of ETERNAL fire.
Is Sodom and Gomorrha still burning today?
Of course not.
_____
1Sam. 1:22 But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, [I will not go up] until the child be weaned, and [then] I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide FOR EVER.
Is Samuel still abiding at the temple?
No, matter of fact Hannah clarifies what she meant by this a few verses later.
1Sam. 1:28 Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; AS LONG AS HE LIVETH he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshipped the LORD there.She was simply using this term figuratively, as you and I do today.
_____
Jon. 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars [was] about me FOR EVER: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.
Was Jonah really in the belly of the great fish forever?
Again, we see figurative usage.
Jon. 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Mat. 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
______
Then of course, we have the larger context to apply. That is, everything the Bible teaches on the subject as a whole. This is where you should have got your first clue.
You see, both "eternal separatism" and "eternal tormentism" is faced with the problem that they teach a concept that is in glaring opposition to one of the most basic Biblical of principals! That is, blood must be shed to atone for sin(Lev. 17:11, Heb. 9:22)!!
The glory in this being; as part of the children of God we can accept Christ' blood on our behalf! Amen!!
Thus allowing our penalty to be payed in full.
Ahhh... but what if you deny Christ and don't accept His sacrifice? Well, the wages of sin is death! And blood MUST BE paid for their sin. Which leaves them with the sad burden of paying with their own blood and death.
Christ died for our sins!
He is not eternally separated from God, nor is He eternally tormented. Therefore, if you believe one of those is the penalty, and you believe that Christ paid your penalty, then you must believe those things are happening to Christ for a literal eternity.
If you don't accept that, then you have the HUGE problem of your own doctrine conflicting with itself. Did He pay the penalty or didn't He?
There are many more levels which such doctrines are completely opposite of scriptural teaching and logic, but I think you get the picture.
Keep studying, you'll get there.....