Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is simple, the argument centers around a grammar rule that does not exist, implied , self evident, or otherwise.
Rodger concedes to this, but in his confusion then contradicts himself by then stating the word can never mean everlasting.
Your point of view is super to some I am sure, but by the same token anyone educated and honest will find that the word able to mean both is a superior point of view.
Phazelwood, you are completely missing the point.
Aion by its very meaning implies persistence in the face of change. It implies a constant which endures for a measure of time. It is a temporal term that has to do with the created world and the time of its existence from beginning to end. The only way aion could mean eternal of itself is if time and the created world were eternal. If you speak of the aion of god as in the life of God you are applying a temporal standard to a spiritual reality. God is aidios in that he is unchanging in himself. The only way God can be said to change is in the way he relates to his creation. That is what is meant when the term aionios is applied to him. It does not refer to his unchanging life, it refers to his relationship to creation (which is currently in a temporary state of fluctuation between life and death, which is being reconciled eventually in gradations). Once this ages have culminated into the final fulfillment of his plans for the ages, then the creation will be fully renewed and restored to atonement with the unchanging God and the aions will be done. Why cant you people understand this?
I just wanted to say, and i believe it to be obvious to any honest and educated observers of our dialogue ... That the arguments and evidences supplied by Rodger and myself have not been in any way dealt with by nay sayers, for the most part. All arguments presented thus far in contradiction to the evidences provided by me and Rodger have been logical fallacies. In particular, they have been "argumentum ad verecundiam", or appeal to authority. You never deal with the arguments we are presenting themselves but only say, Strong's or Vine's or Thayer's says this, without even understanding why they say what they do, or define the words in the way that they do. Why don't you deal with the arguments and evidences for the derivation and etymology of the words which we have presented by proving them in error? Can you? Will you even try? Have you any other explanations other than, Strong, Vine, and Thayer say so?
I think the fact that Matt Slick will not even allow URs to present their point of view on his CARM forum any more speaks volumes!
He says he once had a UR thread but its contents disturbed his peace of mind so much that he got rid of it.
Apparantly the belief that God will sustain some alive in an inescapable state of eternal suffering forever gives Matt Slick "peace of mind."
LOL......Imagine that. wow..."proven time and gain to be an error" Other hell please enlighted what are the other errors?
No authority???? Imagine a world with no authority that God placed for our good YET Christianity and the bible needs no authority?
Your thinking process is interesting. Good luck with that.
The same authorities which translate the word aion as eternal translate the word olam the same way. Examples of this translational error ...
Quote:
In Jeremiah 17:4 (KJV) "And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave the: and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for you have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever(olam)." Anyone that has done a study of the bible knows that the Lord's anger could not last forever nor would it need to. The Lord is certainly not angry today with the believers and with respect to the non-believers once they persish or are gone there would be no need to still be angry. Therefore the Lord will not be angry forever!
In Exodus 19:9 (KJV) “And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee forever (olam). And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord” In Exodus 32 and 33 you can read about where the people broke 2 if not 3 commandments by making a calf and worshiping a calf. The people did not believe Moses or God forever which the above verse states. The word forever just makes no sense and is the wrong English word.
In Exodus 21:6 (KJV) "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges, he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever(olam). and Levitucus 25:46 (KJV) "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever (olam).' Its hard to believe that slavery will last forever! But if you believe everlasting is the correct word then you are a believer in slavery forever for certain people.
In 1Ch 15:2 (KJV) "Then David said, None ought to carry the ark of God but the levites for them hath the Lord chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him forever (olam)." On the earth today you do not see the ark or the levitical priesthood. So, I can't see how one can argue these things are everlasting or last forever when we can't see them today on earth! I believe the words forever and everlasting are the wrong english words to describe the hebrew olam.
In Jonah 2:6 (KJV)"I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever (olam): yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God." Jonah was in the whales belly for 3 days and 3 nights, not forever.
Obviously the translation is wrong in these examples, and these are only a few.
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 09-22-2009 at 05:11 PM..
I do, I have said that I agree with the temporal implications of the word, I just find no convincing argument that contradicts its use as everlasting in certain contexts.
None of which threaten the teaching of scripture that Jesus will accomplish his purpose 100%.
I do, I have said that I agree with the temporal implications of the word, I just find no convincing argument that contradicts its use as everlasting in certain contexts.
None of which threaten the teaching of scripture that Jesus will accomplish his purpose 100%.
You know, i m sorry if i get a little frustrated. Im not upset, just a little incredulous about the whole conversation. It is as if people are not even reading what Roger and I are presenting. Its as if they just brush it off and then continue to make the same arguments. To me saying that aion can mean eternal is like saying century or day can mean eternal. The only way those words can mean eternal is in abstraction. If you want to understand the word aion in an abstract way, fine, but you cant tell me the word means eternal in any other way. It is a temporal designation. That is the argument. And the adjectives are as well. When referring to God they refer to his temporal relations to the world, and not as an abstraction referring to his eternal nature.
So, would you argue that a church that does not allow atheists to present their point of view to speak volumes?
A universal reconciliationist is the extreme opposite of an atheist.
Atheists would not argue using the Bible. URs do argue using the Bible.
The CARM website is supposed to be a Bible believing site.
Why does Matt not let URs argure their point of view from the Bible?
I don't know, except that he says it disturbs his peace of mind.
We URs believe the Bible teaches that sooner or later God will save all fallen creatures from everthing from which they need to be saved, inluding their stubborn will. http://www.godfire.net/eby/saviour_of_the_world.html
The above link is a great introductory series to ultimate reconciliation. J. Preston Eby does a thorough job covering many aspects of the topic. Fundamental reading for any person interested in studying universalism from a solid biblical perspective. Highly Recommended!
Apparantly, this point of view greatly disturbs Matt Slick's "peace of mind."
I'm glad I don't have to live inside his head!
No doubt I would have another breakdown like the twelve year breakdown I had 1966-78 over my inability to successfully emotianally cope with the idea that God would let anyone suffer forever.
I'm 70 years old now.
Last edited by rodgertutt; 09-22-2009 at 05:06 PM..
Reason: spelling
Why does Matt not let URs argure their point of view from the Bible?
Perhaps that is the question that should of been asked rather than forming a conclusion that does not actually prove anything concerning UR.
According to my knowledge discussion concerning UR was once allowed. He banned it due to the amount of personal attacks aimed at himself rather than from a perspective that would challenge his intepretations of scripture.
I recall reading something on a universalist forum (where exactly escapes me at the moment) where they took blame for instigating those attacks.
While I have taken issue with some of Matt's perspectives towards universalists, I defend his right to run his website however he likes and found his reasoning to ban the subject from his site to be sound.
Perhaps that is the question that should of been asked rather than forming a conclusion that does not actually prove anything concerning UR.
According to my knowledge discussion concerning UR was once allowed. He banned it due to the amount of personal attacks aimed at himself rather than from a perspective that would challenge his intepretations of scripture.
I recall reading something on a universalist forum (where exactly escapes me at the moment) where they took blame for instigating those attacks.
While I have taken issue with some of Matt's perspectives towards universalists, I defend his right to run his website however he likes and found his reasoning to ban the subject from his site to be sound.
Thank you for your explanation Phazelwood
I didn't know that before.
Perhaps that is the question that should of been asked rather than forming a conclusion that does not actually prove anything concerning UR.
According to my knowledge discussion concerning UR was once allowed. He banned it due to the amount of personal attacks aimed at himself rather than from a perspective that would challenge his intepretations of scripture.
I recall reading something on a universalist forum (where exactly escapes me at the moment) where they took blame for instigating those attacks.
While I have taken issue with some of Matt's perspectives towards universalists, I defend his right to run his website however he likes and found his reasoning to ban the subject from his site to be sound.
Its sad that someone who understands the word of reconciliation would forgo their own values and stoop to personal slander. Obviously someone who has not yet fully understood the implications of the doctrine of UR itself.
On the other had i have to say, from what i have read on that site especially in regard their arguments against UR, their supposed "scholarly" method of proving doctrine is almost completely based on logical fallacies. These people are supposed to be the "creme de la creme" of Christian thinkers? At least i have heard them classified as such. In my opinion they are overly dogmatic and steeped in orthodox tradition. In my opinion they come across as being completely illogical and make a bad example of progressive Christian theological deduction. In my opinion they tend to make Christians look stupid.
IMHO ...
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 09-22-2009 at 06:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rebuttals of present day champions of et
