An article that states that ET is proved!

[B_T]

http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm

OK, most of the arguments are already discussed here. However, it's worth seeing ;)

[auggybendoggy]

classic and weak.

They simply cannot connect that God's love NEVER fails and God always gets what he wants.  Now unless this person is a devout strict calvinist then I understand the view.  However if they are not, then explain how God gets what he wants most and torments people (cutting to pieces) not just burning.  If they can explain that then I'll give em some credit.

Aug

[martincisneros]

 :mrflo: :goodone: In fleeting moments that I've doubted UR over the years I could have come up with better arguments, that though equally absurd would at least be based on the exact words of the Scriptures themselves rather than bad translation and a bad tradition of interpretation.  Though equally absurd, here's a better one in some ways:

Revelation 5:13?  Who are those under the earth?  Are we to interpret that as "Hell?"  And if we are, then why are they still there even while praising and worshipping?

That's easily, easily answered, but an ETer with a foundation in bad theology to start with would probably consider that a very profound refutation of UR rather than the noose around the neck of their bad theology because they don't understand how the anointing works and builds and builds and builds to a great climax.  Someone with just a year or two in Charismatic circles could probably successfully answer that if they're not married to ET as more foundational to reality than the Blood of Christ that was given for the life/divinity of the world :laugh2:

[Craig]

This guy is really good in refuting SDA belief systems, but fails to defend perpetual hell. I have used his reasonings when it came to annihilation, he is just not able to properly distinguish how long eternal fire burns.

Let us look at 'tormented day and night.' phrase.

Revelation 20:10
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

This is what it actually says, "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be distressed [basanizō] a day [hēmera] and a night, for an age and an age (aion aion.)]"

Now, people will say there is not 'a' in front of day so it doesn't mean a single day. But the truth is hēmera is translated as "a day" in numerious places like Luke 2:44, Luke 12:46, Luke 17:4, Acts 17:31, etc. to represent...the day, used of the natural day, or the interval between sunrise and sunset, as distinguished from and contrasted with the night, such as daytime. So putting 'a' before 'day' to have 'a day', is not mistranslating Revelation 20:10. In order to affirm this understanding, so no man would be mistaken, it is repeated as an age and an age. Two ages, a day and a night, is how long Scripture say they will be tormented. A far cry from perpetuality.

Now let us not stop there, let us look at the word "tormented" which is 'basanizō' which actually means distressed, which is short for "affected with suffering." On the surface, it seems they are being tormented, but it is not in the Nature of God, who is Love, to cause suffering if it is not without a postive outcome even though at the time they are suffering what is just for the penalty of wrong. So read the Scripture again and realize what is causing the suffering in which they are affected... ...notice it is Fire and Brimstone. Another meaning to 'basanizō' is to "test the purity", a process which is used in refining and purifying metals. Brimstone symbolic of purification, and fire symbolic of purification, cause distress to the metals for the purpose of purification. So what we read here is that the they are thrown into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where they are distressed by the purification process for a day and a night, an age and age.

There will be people say that this was reaching for a conclusion. However, since the Greek is translated the way I just presented it, it is not a reach. The only reason we have the current translation of the same Greek is because we have a presumption that hell is perpetual, so the translators chose to translated in a way to keep it that way.

I know this sounds like an argument from bad translation, and it is difficult to present this to traditionalist, who believes in the genetic fallacy concerning what they were taught was truthful and accurate in the first place.