This is a passage where the Bible uses symbolic language and where more than one understanding can be obtained, but "interpretation belongs to god."
Thus I'll just say, in defense of the WTS' position which is also my own, that the lake of fire is a "symbolic" place is because "death" and "hades", two symbolic abstract concepts are also thrown into the lake of fire. I think that's an interesting point. How is an abstract destroyed in a literal place.
Furthermore, the lake of fire is called the "second death" specifically. That is understood because for the majority of mankind who will be resurrected after the millennium for judgment day, there is a potential for a "second death". The resurrection will be of both the righteous and the unrighteous. The unrighteous will be judged and then undergo a "second death". Death in the Bible is a state of total unconsciuosness. Thus if the lake of fire, though described as a place of eternal torment forever and ever is also called the "second death" then one can attribute a symbolic meaning to the eternal torment from the standpoint of the Bible writer.
Another aspect of this to consider with respect to the fire and torment being symbolic is that we all know what happens when you burn something up. This sounds like a lake of lava. But if you throw someone in a lake of lava they eventually burn completely up. So how is it that this lake of fire simply torments you forever and never destroys you? And how is it a second "death" if you're still alive?
Thus, the the lake of fire is a symbolic place that addresses those who have been condemned forever by God, missing out on life, the torment and torture could be considered as eternal since they will not return from that place, unlike Hades, the grave, where all persons will return from after dying, to either get eternal life or be condemned to eternal death, condemned forever, which is colorfully described as eternal torment in fire.
So I think there is a basis to believe the fire an torment are spiritually symbolic and not literal as does the WTS. But, of course, I acknowledge that this scriptrue and the one parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus showing the Rich Man after dying in firey torment certain by the symbolism suggests there is a literal place of eternal torment. But since the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus when fulfilled deals with a time when the Rich Man is simply condemned but still active, firey torment again makes the fire symbolic of spiritual rejection and condemnation.
Finally, the Jews had a concept of Gehenna because of the literal fires kept burning for their trash and dead bodies outside the city. The significant aspect of that was that the fires were kept burning continually and were never put out. So there is another aspect of this connected to the symbolism of Gehenna, a final place of condemnation for evildoers where the fire consumes and is never put out, again, simply lending itself to the idea of a FINAL, everlasting judgment.
As far as Judas being better off not having been born. This might have to do with the concept that no name is better than a bad name in the grand scheme of things. Thus perhaps the shame and total horror of what he did compared to what was possible, in contrast, is worse than had he never existed at all. For instance, if you had a choice of not ever being born, or living to one day kill your own wife and three small children in some mad rage and then yourself being executed in the electric chair, which would you prefer. Is it better that you live to kill your own family and die in shame or better that you never live at all? I think most persons would prefer never being born to living to kill an innocent human being.
Just my 2 cents (I know it looks like 7.5 cents, but....-smile)
