Looks like you completely missed the most important part, which is the original meaning of the Greek word:
perish G622
ἀπόλλυμι apóllymi, ap-ol'-loo-mee; from G575 and the base of G3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:—destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.
Even here (emboldened), you can see that the Greek word carries additional connotations that don't fit with Timotheos's exclusive use.
I came upon my children one day, back when they were 10 to 12 years old, perhaps, arguing about something rather unimportant (to me, anyway), but essentially they had both selected some point to argue that was different, but not in opposition to, the other's point. To settle them down and help them to understand the problem with their conversation, I described something I decided to call the Door vs. Window debate.
It goes something like this:
Arguer 1: That is a door (and he points to a door).
Arguer 2: No, that is a window (and he points to a window).
Arguer 1: No, as I said, That is a door (no need to point now, so he doesn't).
Arguer 2: You are not listening to me, I said, That is a window.
(continue, ad infinitum)
Now, both of these two arguers were correct. And both were incorrect. They were correct that the thing they were pointing to was indeed the name they called it. But they were wrong when they made it into an argument by saying "No" or other qualification at the beginning of their statement. I guess it's a form of the Red Herring fallacy, or misdirection, but the Red Herring is usually a misdirection that is intentional, so I'm not sure the description is completely apt.
So let me translate our recent exchange into the Door vs Window style:
Timotheos: "Death" means complete loss of life.
Derf: No, "death" sometimes means something might happen later.
T: No, as I said, "death" means complete loss of life.
D: You are not listening to me, "death" sometimes means something might happen later.
(continue, ad nauseum)
I would like to suggest that I don't disagree with Timotheus--that "death" means complete loss of life. And I think he would agree with me--that "death" does not preclude future events with that person.
So I acknowledge my wrongful part in this Door vs Window debate. And I want to make sure I get to the bottom of the issue of the OP and understand both sides of the debate as well as discuss it in better form.
Timotheos has presented ample evidence that the wicked die, perish, are destroyed.
Our experience with life is also that all people die, and we have no contact (Freelight excepted, I suppose
) with them, so it's hard to get good information about what's going on with them, if anything.
When the bible talks about the wicked "perishing", is it talking about the same thing that we have experience with--people dying? Or not? Or maybe sometimes it's the same thing?
If you say "Yes, it's the same thing", then how can Jesus say "whosoever believes in me shall not perish", when we know that those who have believed in Him throughout history have indeed died?
If you say "No, it's not the same thing", then is that act of "perishing" really referring to the final state of the wicked, or is it only the initial state of "death". If it is the final state, then the descriptions in the bible are confusing, because there are multiple ways to "perish" besides being thrown in the lake of fire, yet Revelation seems to indicate that
all those that don't enter into life are indeed thrown into the lake of fire.
So I think we would have to say that the word "perish" is sometimes the same as "to die" and sometimes it is more than "to die". A good example is spelled out pretty well in Wikipedia's article on
the Tower of Siloam :
Twice in this brief passage, Jesus declared, "...unless you repent, you too will all perish." Jesus' clear focus is on the need for everyone to "repent" of their sins before God. His answer cannot mean that all unrepentant people will die deservedly. Neither can it mean that people can escape physical death by repenting of their sins since eventually every living person dies. So perish here is something more than just to die a physical death.
The word "perish" in the New Testament very often refers to a terrible judgment following one's physical death. Since Jesus connects it directly to sin and says it can be escaped by repentance, "perish" here most logically refers to the final judgment. For example, in John 3:16 Jesus says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Perishing is the biblical alternative to having everlasting life. Perishing is what happens to those who don't have eternal life. The same principle appears in John 10:28 where Jesus says, "I give them eternal life, and they shall not perish for ever."
So Wikipedia, at least, thinks that Jesus equivocated on the word "perish", as He applied it to both the immediate death of the people under the tower that fell and then reapplied it to those that don't repent.
The point is, that if perish means something more than to die a physical death, then it is not always proper to assume the 2 are equivalent. The "second death" must be more than the first death.
Also, if the wicked are destroyed, and it means the same thing as "to die", then everyone must be "destroyed", right? And then why does the bible focus on the destruction of the wicked?
