What are you thoughts on Annihilation?

I think you are assuming I meant more than what I said. I never said it wasn't willed with imagery.
Much of the book is symbols, but certainly not all of it. There are 518 OT references in Revelation, and they all explain what each symbol means if it isn't explained in the book, itself. In other words, every symbol in Revelation is explained.

Anything outside of that paradigm is not a symbol.

““these who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”” (Revelation 17:14)
Does that mean the saints are symbolically with Jesus?

“The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.” (Revelation 20:5)
Does that mean the dead who came to life experienced a symbolic resurrection?

From these two examples and others...Just because one entity is identified with another does not mean it is a symbol. Many times, it is...but not every time. Sometimes associative language is used to describe rather than symbolize. Since associative language isn't consistent throughout the book, it is not a bulletproof argument that the lake of fire is a symbol for the second death. I will admit that it is a good one, but it has a few holes. I will think more about what you said.

“16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”—John 3:16

So is the animal`s spirit in darkness because of `their` sin?

Animals and all creation glorify, praise the Lord as they are what God created them. The tree reveals God`s handiwork etc etc.

Hi cv5,

I said - If as you say death is death, then how can one die twice?

I know there is a second death, however I was asking this question to someone who seemed to say there was only death.

And I think that has got lost amid the busy discussion.

(same as below, here)

... except it doesn't mean that, in these "one taken / the other left" contexts.

Hi cv5,

I said - If as you say death is death, then how can one die twice?

I know there is a second death, however I was asking this question to someone who seemed to say that death was final.

And I think that has got lost amid the busy discussion.

Now I have found the quote by ewq -

No, second death is to be dead forever which means no thought and emotion, nothing will remain alive in lake of fire. That's why it's called the second DEATH.

I see that he was saying that death is final, so I was trying to point out how then can some die twice if the first time was final. And I did it by asking that question.

No holes and my argument is bullet proof because I’m simply quoting scripture — if the angel Himself tells me what it represents I believe it! There are no holes in Rev 17 where i gave examples from. The angel says “I will EXPLAIN to you the woman and of the beast she rides…” The angel says ‘This IS that’ several times and He states the lake of fire IS the second death four times. He is obviously explaining literally what these things are.
The imagery in the Vision is not literal— what it represents IS literal.

🌹 @Marilyn
Proverbs 15:1-5 tells us how to answer those caught up in foolishness.

Sound doctrine can only be given if the Holy Spirit is leading.

This false doctrine has dug its roots deep into some souls.

It is better sometimes to not water nor feed these infestations of deciet but to just LET THE ...SON...BURN THEM UP !

Winds of doctrine causes one to become unstable and this is how the foolish are led away.

Only prayer can touch the heart of God to touch the eyes of the blind, especially if they chose blindness!

Yes, it does mean that:

left
863

863 aphiemi {af-ee'-ay-mee}

from 575 and hiemi (to send, an intens. form of eimi, to go);
TDNT - 1:509,88; v

AV - leave 52, forgive 47, suffer 14, let 8, forsake 6, let alone 6,
misc 13; 146

1) to send away
1a) to bid going away or depart
1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
1c) to let go, let alone, let be
1c1) to disregard
1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
1c21) of teachers, writers and speakers
1c3) to omit, neglect
1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
1e) to give up, keep no longer
2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3) to leave, go way from one
3a) in order to go to another place
3b) to depart from any one
3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all
mutual claims are abandoned
3d) to desert wrongfully
3e) to go away leaving something behind
3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
3i) abandon, leave destitute

"to send away"
"of a husband divorcing his wife"
"to expire"
"to disregard"
"neglect"
"keep no longer"
"to leave on dying"
"leave behind one"
"abandon, leave destitute"

That's rejection.

The first death isn't final because of the resurrection. The second death is final because there is no more resurrection after it.

Whats so ironic, Gardenias about your virtue signaling is that is all you really seem to be doing on this forum— you put forth no rational arguments for your position. The person who needs the most praying for is yourself.

Gardenias:
"Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”—John 9:41

Yes final as in not being able to receive `life,` but `dead` in their trespasses and sin, in this age and the next. `Dead` meaning their spirit is not connected to God.

John 8:36
Rom.6:18

Blessed be the name of the Lord!

No, dead as in actually dead and no part of them is alive.

"is" does not necessarily mean something is a symbol. Example:

“The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.” (Revelation 20:5)
(not a symbolic resurrection)

Sometimes "is" is used to denote a symbol. Sometimes it is not. Therefore, it does not prove your position, regarding the lake of fire as a symbol.
Agreed.

But not everything in Revelation is imagery. There is plenty of literal rendering. I have already explained how to differentiate between what is symbolic and what is not symbolic in the text.

"The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed" describes the first resurrection. I agree this is not symbolic.

"The lake of fire: this is the second death" is symbolic because a lake of fire does not describe death. Death is described often in the Bible and rarely is it about being in a lake of fire.

Symbolic imagery in literature represent something beyond the literal meaning. That's why the first resurrection is not symbolic, but the lake of fire is.