ETERNAL TORMENT - IMAGE OR REALITY?

[John 8:32]

That is not true... It is not the only place that speaks of torment and eternity

[34] "And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. [35] "So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses." - Mat 18:34-35 NKJV

How long does it take a unrepentant sinner to suffer in order to pay off the penalty of sin without the blood of Jesus? Answer... Forever

Scripture please

[10] "he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. [11] "And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." - Rev 14:10-11 NKJV

They have no rest day or night. The smoke of their torment rises forever...

Interesting, a prophetic verse, that in this case is metaphor, completely dispels the clear statements of Christ and Paul. Mat 10:28, Rom 6:23 and many others. (One statement from Christ should be enough.)

[43] "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched-- [44] "where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.' [45] "And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched-- [46] "where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.' [47] "And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire-- [48] "where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.' - Mar 9:43-48 NKJV

Do you take this passage literally? Here are the problems with a literal interpretation of this passage (it actually begins in verse 36)...

Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

One does not have to receive Christ, all one has to do is receive a little child in Christ's name. Yes or No?

Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
Rev 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
Rev 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

The False Prophet here is really a good guy? Yes or No?

Mar 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

If all I ever do is give you a cup of cold water, my reward is secure? Yes or No?

Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Have you ever sinned? Do you have all your fingers and both hands? Yes or No?

Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Do you have all your toes and both feet? Yes or No?

Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Do you have both eyes? Yes or No?

Mar 9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

Have you been salt cured and roasted? Yes or No?

Mar 9:50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.

Does NaCl ever lose it's saltiness? Yes or No?

If you can answer yes to all these questions then you can truly take this passage literally. If not, then how do you pick and choose which parts to take literally? What are the guidelines? What you want it to say?

The fire is never quenched and their worm does not die... The Lord is trying to sway people to godliness with the warning that the fire is never quenched... If the wicked man is only consumed and anniahlated and does not experience the fire that continually burns (unquenched), then the details of the warning of unquenchable fire is unnecessary. It matters not to the unbeliever if the fire is eternal or temporary if his end result is annihilation because the practical application is the same.

The worms are immortal also?

The truth of the matter is that...

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

There is a second death from which there is no coming back...

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And the ultimate result of the Lake of Fire is that the wicked are completely burned up to ashes...

Mal 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

And both body and soul (spirit in man) is destroyed...

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

[John146]

Hmmm,

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Death here is...

G2288
θάνατος
thanatos
than'-at-os
From G2348; (properly an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively): - X deadly, (be . . .) death.

But what you say is that the word death here is not really death, it is life in another place. Christ inspired John to write that death is death.

Death is not annihilation. How many times do you have to be told that? Is physical death annihilation? No. It is the separation of the spirit from the body (James 2:26). Is being dead in sins annihilation? No. It is the separation of someone from God and from having a personal relationship with Him. Why are you using a definition for death that is never used in scripture?

[John146]

Luke 16 is a parable and is not applicable to set doctrine.

This tells us all we need to know about you and that you cannot be taken seriously. It baffles me to no end how anyone can claim that Christ's parables can't be used for doctrine. You have to be kidding me. Of course they can! Did Jesus not teach anything with His parables? Of course He did! So, how can they not be used for doctrine?

This parable is not about eternal reward or punishment, it is about the Pharisees smug belief that they only had the right to the Kingdom of God...

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

You just contradicted yourself. You're indicating here that something can be learned from the Luke 16 parable after saying it "is not applicable to set doctrine". If that was true then that would mean Jesus wasn't teaching anything at all in that Luke 16 parable.

[John 8:32]

This tells us all we need to know about you and that you cannot be taken seriously. It baffles me to no end how anyone can claim that Christ's parables can't be used for doctrine. You have to be kidding me. Of course they can! Did Jesus not teach anything with His parables? Of course He did! So, how can they not be used for doctrine?

You just contradicted yourself. You're indicating here that something can be learned from the Luke 16 parable after saying it "is not applicable to set doctrine". If that was true then that would mean Jesus wasn't teaching anything at all in that Luke 16 parable.

Are parables applicable to set doctrine?

[John 8:32]

Death is not annihilation. How many times do you have to be told that? Is physical death annihilation? No. It is the separation of the spirit from the body (James 2:26). Is being dead in sins annihilation? No. It is the separation of someone from God and from having a personal relationship with Him. Why are you using a definition for death that is never used in scripture?

Your use of James 2:26 is interesting here. Where does it say that the spirit cannot die? It says that removing the spirit in man from the body causes the body to die. Christ said that God can destroy both the body and the spirit...

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

[John 8:32]

This tells us all we need to know about you and that you cannot be taken seriously. It baffles me to no end how anyone can claim that Christ's parables can't be used for doctrine. You have to be kidding me. Of course they can! Did Jesus not teach anything with His parables? Of course He did! So, how can they not be used for doctrine?

You just contradicted yourself. You're indicating here that something can be learned from the Luke 16 parable after saying it "is not applicable to set doctrine". If that was true then that would mean Jesus wasn't teaching anything at all in that Luke 16 parable.

I shall ask again, should we set doctrine from parables?

[John146]

Are parables applicable to set doctrine?

Of course they are, as I already indicated.

I shall ask again, should we set doctrine from parables?

Sure, why not? If we can understand them then why can't we "set doctrine from" them?

[John 8:32]

Of course they are, as I already indicated.

Luk 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
Luk 18:2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
Luk 18:3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.
Luk 18:4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;
Luk 18:5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.
Luk 18:6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.
Luk 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

So God is an unjust judge?

[John146]

Your use of James 2:26 is interesting here. Where does it say that the spirit cannot die?

Where did I say I was referencing James 2:26 to prove that the spirit cannot die? I didn't. I referenced that verse to show that physical death is not annihilation but rather the separation of the spirit from the body. When someone physically dies their spirit separates from their body and goes to be with the Lord.

It says that removing the spirit in man from the body causes the body to die.

Right. Is the body annihilated when it dies? No. Why are you unable to discern that the word death is not a synonym for annihilation? Can you acknowledge that physical death is not annihilation? Can you acknowledge that being dead in sins has nothing to do with annihilation? Why do you act as if the words death and destroy can only mean annihilation?

Christ said that God can destroy both the body and the spirit...

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

I already discussed this verse and showed that the word "destroy" does not have to mean annihilate since it never means that in any other verse in which it is used (I'm referring to the Greek word it's translated from).

[John146]

Luk 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
Luk 18:2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:
Luk 18:3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.
Luk 18:4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;
Luk 18:5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.
Luk 18:6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.
Luk 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

So God is an unjust judge?

Now I can see why you try to claim that we can't "set doctrine from parables". Because you misinterpret them and don't understand them. That verse (verse 6) is not referring to God as being the unjust judge. Read the verses that precede that verse carefully. In that verse He was not speaking of God, He was speaking of a judge "which feared not God, neither regarded man" (verse 2).

What Jesus was pointing out in that parable is that even an unjust judge who doesn't fear God or regard man will have mercy on a person eventually and do what is just if they ask for mercy and justice. So, how much more should we trust that God will have mercy and bring justice even if it isn't right away? For you to think Jesus was saying the unjust judge represented God is unbelievable to me. Why would Jesus have told a parable that misrepresented God's character? He would never have done that!

[John 8:32]

Now I can see why you try to claim that we can't "set doctrine from parables". Because you misinterpret them and don't understand them. That verse (verse 6) is not referring to God as being the unjust judge. Read the verses that precede that verse carefully. In that verse He was not speaking of God, He was speaking of a judge "which feared not God, neither regarded man" (verse 2).

What Jesus was pointing out in that parable is that even an unjust judge who doesn't fear God or regard man will have mercy on a person eventually and do what is just if they ask for mercy and justice. So, how much more should we trust that God will have mercy and bring justice even if it isn't right away? For you to think Jesus was saying the unjust judge represented God is unbelievable to me. Why would Jesus have told a parable that misrepresented God's character? He would never have done that!

So we cannot take it literally? Yet you want to take Luke 16 as literal concerning heaven and hell. It is a parable, which is not to be taken word for word as literal. Of course God is not an unjust judge, but shall we take the parable in Luke 16 as literal?

Why don't you list the rules and guidelines you use to determine when to take literally and when to take metaphorically and allegorically? There must be some rhyme or reason to it.

[John 8:32]

For you to think Jesus was saying the unjust judge represented God is unbelievable to me. Why would Jesus have told a parable that misrepresented God's character? He would never have done that!

He would never have misrepresented God's character. I agree. So the part about the unjust judge is not about God's character, but the part about an everburning hell in Luke 16 is the truth? Hmmm, you seem to interpret parables very arbitrarily.

[The Beginner]

Scripture please

I posted the scripture... Matt 18:34-35...

Or do you believe that the penalty and consequences of sin can be eventually rectified without the blood of Jesus?

Interesting, a prophetic verse, that in this case is metaphor, completely dispels the clear statements of Christ and Paul. Mat 10:28, Rom 6:23 and many others.

Thats because your mis interpreting Matt 10:28 and Rom 6:28

(One statement from Christ should be enough.)

Who do you think was the Person who gave John the Revelation?

[1] The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants... - Rev 1:1 NKJV

Does Christ teachings in the gospel trump Christ teachings in the book of Revelation in your opinion?

Do you take this passage literally? Here are the problems with a literal interpretation of this passage (it actually begins in verse 36)...

Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

One does not have to receive Christ, all one has to do is receive a little child in Christ's name. Yes or No?

You must think that I'm a moron and didn't pass 2nd grade grammar...

Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
Rev 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
Rev 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

The False Prophet here is really a good guy? Yes or No?

Wow... you know, I always thought the false prophet was a good guy, but I guess I just couldn't get pass the fact that he is called "FALSE"... Or maybe it was because he spoke like the devil (dragon). OR maybe it was because he "Deceives" those who dwell on the earth... Honestly, I don't even know why you would use this as a valid argument. There is nothing in Revelation 13 that would indicate he might be a good guy. By the way... "great wonders" does not mean "good wonders". It just means extravagant or extraordinary. In other words they have the ability to capture the amazement of the people...

Mar 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

If all I ever do is give you a cup of cold water, my reward is secure? Yes or No?

Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Have you ever sinned? Do you have all your fingers and both hands? Yes or No?

No I cut them off. I type with my nose...

Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Do you have all your toes and both feet? Yes or No?

No, my pinky toe kept causing me to sin... so it had to go!

Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Do you have both eyes? Yes or No?

No, I do bibleforums through brail...

Mar 9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

Have you been salt cured and roasted? Yes or No?

Twice... Not fun...

Mar 9:50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.

Does NaCl ever lose it's saltiness? Yes or No?

If you can answer yes to all these questions then you can truly take this passage literally. If not, then how do you pick and choose which parts to take literally? What are the guidelines? What you want it to say?

Here is the problem, your accusation is that those who take a literal approach to scriptures have no regard for basic grammar. A literal approach does not necessary turn a blind eye to figures of speech, metaphors and symbolism. However, it also doesn't seek to make the entirety of the passage simply symbolic because there are symbols present.

Can I give a short modern example?

"Last week I ran a marathon and now this week my feet are killing me. In fact, I feel like I have daggers stabbing the bottom of my feet..."

Now, are my feet actually killing me? Am I going to die because of my foot pain? Do I really have daggers in my feet?... no, its an exaggeration and a metaphor. But does that mean the marathon is not literal or that I don't have foot pain? No.

The bible is full of actual and literal events and prophecies that have exaggerations, metaphors and symbols in them but that does not make the main points symbolic...

In other words, when we see a lake of fire that the devil will be tormented in forever and ever... You might debate if it is a real lake with fish in it, but whatever it is, it last forever and the devil is in it and he is tormented for a time period called forever and ever...

The worms are immortal also?

You not debating honestly here... Your looking for the point that I either didn't develop or wasn't making the primary issue and then you seek to make it the main issue in order to prove the invalid nature of my case... Why not just stick to the actual questions or the primary case that is being presented. I was not wanting to talk about eternal worms nor was I seeking to argue their meaning. If you would like to talk about eternal worms, let men know.. If not, the unquenchable fire and its significants to the unbeliever was the topic... feel free to comment on that

The truth of the matter is that...

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

There is a second death from which there is no coming back...

No, the truth is there is a continuation in the LOF. "They shall have no rest day or night". You are changing the meaning to say, in essence "they shall eventually have rest once annihilated"...

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And the ultimate result of the Lake of Fire is that the wicked are completely burned up to ashes...

Mal 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

Mal 4 is not about the after life. Do you believe glorified saints are going to stand upon the annilated unbelievers ashes in the next age?

And both body and soul (spirit in man) is destroyed...

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Destroy does not mean annihilated here nor anywhere else in the NT.

[Vanderhoven7]

He would never have misrepresented God's character. I agree. So the part about the unjust judge is not about God's character, but the part about an everburning hell in Luke 16 is the truth? Hmmm, you seem to interpret parables very arbitrarily.

Luke 16 taken literally is not about an ever-burning hell. It's about a 6000 year old burning hell that no one, from Adam to Malachi knew about. God told Adam he'd turn to dust, but He didn't tell him or anyone else what the real sentence entailed. There are allegedly billions of people who have never heard the gospel burning in this underground worm-infested torture chamber begging for drops of water, as we speak. I wonder why God, who is love, just didn't decide that the wages of sin would be death...you know, cessation of life, instead of death where one goes on existing for ever.

Now my real point is this. Luke 16:19-31 is literal stuff...fictitious, but literal, non-the-less. How do I know. Because the Pharisees and the people who trusted them, literally believed in this place. The Pharisees were hellfire preachers. Jesus preached hellfire right back at them...only they were the ones that ended up in their own fictitious version of the afterlife....and for no other reason than they had a great and prosperous life. You see, Jesus turned the Pharisees' own story(not the Bible's) around to bite them in front of the masses.


In order to establish that the literary form of a work is satire, or more particularly, a parody, there must be clear evidence that:


a. A common or "well known story line is being imitated".


b. irony is employed; that the story’s outcome is changed such
that there is clear “incongruity between the actual result
of a sequence of events and the expected result”


c. the unexpected results "highlight human stupidity" or corruption.


d. "a comic end is served", the purpose of which is to cause listeners
"to detach sympathies from certain people (groups), to judge their
actions and to see the absurdity in their behavior.."

The Rich Man and Lazarus account satisfies these criteria and fits the mold of parody rather nicely.


EDIT: For anyone who is not sure what a parody is: think of the movie "Galaxy Quest"

[John 8:32]

Thats because your mis interpreting Matt 10:28 and Rom 6:28

I am? Why I didn't know that, I thought I was just reading it and believing what it said without having to cook up an interpretation as to why destroy does not mean destroy and death acutally means life in another place.

Who do you think was the Person who gave John the Revelation?

[1] The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants... - Rev 1:1 NKJV

Does Christ teachings in the gospel trump Christ teachings in the book of Revelation in your opinion?

Exactly my point, they agree exactly. Same with Paul's writings, Christ inspired those also and they agree with Christ and John.

You must think that I'm a moron and didn't pass 2nd grade grammar...

Actually, I think you are an intelligent human being made in the image of God that happens to disagree with me.

Wow... you know, I always thought the false prophet was a good guy, but I guess I just couldn't get pass the fact that he is called "FALSE"... Or maybe it was because he spoke like the devil (dragon). OR maybe it was because he "Deceives" those who dwell on the earth... Honestly, I don't even know why you would use this as a valid argument. There is nothing in Revelation 13 that would indicate he might be a good guy. By the way... "great wonders" does not mean "good wonders". It just means extravagant or extraordinary. In other words they have the ability to capture the amazement of the people...

The exact point of it. Just because someone does great wonders and claims to do them in Christ's name does not mean he is of Christ. Luke 9:39 is not the only criteria here. It must be considered with the rest of Christ's teachings to arrive at the truth. If one just reads Luke 9:39, one would think that if a person does wonders in Christ's name, he must be of Christ, but add...

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

And we can see there is more to it. After all...

Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

No I cut them off. I type with my nose...


No, my pinky toe kept causing me to sin... so it had to go!



No, I do bibleforums through brail...



Twice... Not fun...



Here is the problem, your accusation is that those who take a literal approach to scriptures have no regard for basic grammar. A literal approach does not necessary turn a blind eye to figures of speech, metaphors and symbolism. However, it also doesn't seek to make the entirety of the passage simply symbolic because there are symbols present.

Can I give a short modern example?

"Last week I ran a marathon and now this week my feet are killing me. In fact, I feel like I have daggers stabbing the bottom of my feet..."

Now, are my feet actually killing me? Am I going to die because of my foot pain? Do I really have daggers in my feet?... no, its an exaggeration and a metaphor. But does that mean the marathon is not literal or that I don't have foot pain? No.

The bible is full of actual and literal events and prophecies that have exaggerations, metaphors and symbols in them but that does not make the main points symbolic...

In other words, when we see a lake of fire that the devil will be tormented in forever and ever... You might debate if it is a real lake with fish in it, but whatever it is, it last forever and the devil is in it and he is tormented for a time period called forever and ever...

My point exactly about parables, they were not given to explain truth and establish doctrine, Jesus says so in His own words...

Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

This is why I say one cannot set doctrine based on parables. Christ's intent with parables is not to make things clear and plain.

You not debating honestly here... Your looking for the point that I either didn't develop or wasn't making the primary issue and then you seek to make it the main issue in order to prove the invalid nature of my case... Why not just stick to the actual questions or the primary case that is being presented. I was not wanting to talk about eternal worms nor was I seeking to argue their meaning. If you would like to talk about eternal worms, let men know.. If not, the unquenchable fire and its significants to the unbeliever was the topic... feel free to comment on that

Sure I am being honest here, if I take that passage literally, then the worms are immortal. The passage is not meant for literal consumption.

No, the truth is there is a continuation in the LOF. "They shall have no rest day or night". You are changing the meaning to say, in essence "they shall eventually have rest once annihilated"...

Not rest, that is for the saints...

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

The wicked cease to exist.

Mal 4 is not about the after life. Do you believe glorified saints are going to stand upon the annilated unbelievers ashes in the next age?

Where do you think they will be and what does Mal 4 mean then?

Destroy does not mean annihilated here nor anywhere else in the NT.

If it does not mean annihilation, what does destroy mean?