Literal and Innerrant Are Not the Same Thing - Part II

Hello everyone. In a previous post titled "Literal and Inerrant Are Not the Same Thing," I pointed out how absurd the Bible becomes if we take every word absolutely literally (which is okay, because...inerrant and literal are not the same thing). There, I focused largely on the Old Testament, so here, I'll focus on the New Testament.

Neither Conditionalists Nor Traditionalists (Nor Universalists) Can Claim That They Rely on the "Plain Meaning" of Scripture

(Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission).

I am an annihilationist. I believe that the Bible teaches that the unsaved will be destroyed at the end of time, not subject to eternal torment as Christians have traditionally believed (though I do have some of the early church on my side).

One thing that comes up way too often is the claim that annihilationists have to twist clear passages of scripture, and have to rely on way to complex interpretations while traditionalists can take what the scripture says at face value, and therefore they are right.

I should note that annihilationists also make the claim that they are the ones who rely on the simple and apparent meanings of scripture (though they tend to emphasize it a lot less). Edward Fudge, in his otherwise very apt and helpful review of Robert Morey's Death and the Afterlife, does this. Ultimately, however...