Conditional Immortality is Biblical

Thanks for a good debate. I'll be addressing the Pro's final critiques, and then wrapping up this debate with an overall summary. HellEven though the Pro never brought these critiques up the round after I made these arguments, I will address these issues nonetheless. Just to summarize: first, the Pro argued that the Greek terms I cited actually reference a variety of terms, and therefore can't be grouped under the general translation of "hell". Second, the Pro argued that many of the verses I've presented have been misinterpreted since some only mention eternal fire instead of external survival.If we look back to round 3, we can see that I originally introduced these verses to demonstrate the connection between the Bible and its Greek influences. This was in response to the disagreement between Christian beliefs and the biblical vacuum, where I was arguing that the very source of Christian beliefs had Greek influences. Now then, the Pro seems to recognize this point, and even highlights the fact that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. What we have to see here is simple: any notion of Hell and eternal damnation isn't just from "Natural Immortality" becoming a common presupposition. These concepts of Hell were present within both Greek culture and the Biblical references to eternal damnation. Furthermore, recognize that I never claimed that these terms all translated into "Hell". In fact, I gave direct translations which included "eternal fires" and "lower regions". Specifically, these translations are refering to aspects of Hell, and therefore describe the concept as opposed to simply refering to Hell as a location. Granted, as the Pro claims, some of the verses I cited only reference eternal fires. Others, however, make reference to the eternal nature of those who are sent there: Revelation 14:11 refers to "no rest day or night" for those who've sinned; Acts 2:27 refers to the abandoning of one's soul to Hades; 2 Peter 2:4 refers to "chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment". These verses describe aspects of a Hell that are consistent with eternal damnation: abandoning a soul vs. destroying it; casting a soul to chains to be kept until the judgment; giving a soul no rest day or not. None of these verses allow for a soul to simply "die" as Conditional Immortality suggests.SocratesThe pro only offered one final critique on Socrates' third argument (the necessary constant presence of a soul) by arguing that Conditional Immortality means a soul survives physical death, and then can die. This is the first time such a distinction is being made. The Pro never distinguished between the soul surviving physical death, or simply dying with the body in the opening rounds. Furthermore, the Pro doesn't offer any support for this distinction. Finally, this interpretation of Conditional Immortality still fails to escape the illogical inconsistencies of Socrates' other arguments that the Pro stops critiquing. My final summary will address the importance of this point.Final SummaryWhat we have here is a concept of a "conditionally immortal soul" that fails to overcome the illogical inconsistencies of a mortal soul. I've shown where the influence of Greek thought and belief has impacted both the Bible and Christian beliefs, and how the notion of a mortal soul raises many problematic issues. A constant, immortal soul is required to accept the eternal salvation people who accept Christian mandates will gain. A constant, immortal soul is necessary to give and preseve the life of one's identity and very existence - the same identity/existence that is carried over into this eternal salvation. Once again, thanks for a good debate!