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.
Show me one word in any language that can mean two opposite things and I'll believe you.
I didn't miss your point, but what you were doing was defining a word wrongly in order to make it sound bad in a worship song... completely ridiculous argument if you ask me.
Even though Christ lives forever, the passage doesn't have to say that. That is what I was saying was illogical. It says Christ is alive in a certain time span, namely for the rest of it. To say the word means forever simply because that is true is incorrect. Also, the sentence is able to say that Christ lives for a certain time period without denying that he lives forever as well, so your principle is illogical on that level as well.
Quote:
Show me one word in any language that can mean two opposite things and I'll believe you.
A current example would be "BAD". There is the normal meaning and the slang meaning of "good" (sometimes pronounced baad for emphasis).
Left: To remain vs. to have gone (Of all who came, only Fred's left. [Does it mean he's the only one who still remains or that he's the first to depart? Not to mention turn to the left.
Sick: unpleasant (A sick joke) vs. wonderful (Slang: That sportscar is really sick!)
Skin: to cover with a skin vs. to remove outer covering or skin
BOLT: a) to secure in place b) to dart away
DUST: a) remove material from b) spread material on
TRIP: a) to stumble b) to move gracefully, not to mention when someone uses the word and say you tripping, lets go on a trip. So, we see this word has multiple meanings.
Last edited by Miss Shawn_2828; 02-05-2010 at 02:24 AM..
I adhere to the guys that translated the concordant version. Though I still stand on what I said, that if you can find one word that means two opposite things in any language, then I'll drop the argument. Just something like this:
fiot:
1. sharp
2. dull
I also explained how that verse doesn't contradict if it isn't translated as forever.
Is this suppose to be a hard thing to find?
overlook means "to watch over carefully" or "to fail to notice
give out- to produce, or distribute vs to stop producing; cease functioning
Still splitting hairs, I see. Guys and gals, the problem of Hell is really not that complicated. Take the bulk of what Jesus taught and the way he acted, if he was the Word, the Expression of God, you get a very clear picture of a deity who doesn't hurt people, but loves unconditionally, and never gives up on us.
As with any ancient text for which we do not have the originals, but many generations of copies, you have to weigh each part by the textual and contextual evidence. There are only a small number of verses which place "Hades" on Jesus' lips. These verses completely contradict every thing else he is quoted as saying. So you can insist that he was quoted accurately in these Hell passages, sure, but then you have to reinterpret or reject all the rest to make them conform.
Or you can accept that these are adulterations, pure and simple.
By the way, I explain all of this and a lot more in my book Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell, (for anyone interested, you can get a free ecopy of Did Jesus Believe in Hell?, one of the most compelling chapters in my book at www.thereisnohell.com).
I read your book, at least partly, some things are very interesting, e.g. the Babylonian/ancient Hebrew view of sheol as the common realm of all souls.
On the other hand you say that parts of bible teach everlasting punishment, though you insist it are interpolations, I dispute this, none of the canonical writings teach everlasting torment in my conviction.
as for the various meanings of aiónios, Jesus, if He had wanted to teach endless punishment, could have chosen unambiguous words, such as eternal/everlasting (aidios) instead of aeonian, endless (ateleutêtos), vengeance (timória) instead of corrective punishment (kolasis), hell (tartaros) instead of valley of Hinnom (geenna) ...
Still splitting hairs, I see. Guys and gals, the problem of Hell is really not that complicated.
You're right: It isn't. The Bible is clearly against the idea that all will be saved. The passages I brought up in the OP--Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Matthew 26:24 clearly show that not all will be saved. Matthew 26:24 plainly teaches not only that Judas would not be saved but also that he faced a horrific fate.
The Bible is clear on the subject. The real question is whether we are willing to submit to it or will harden our hearts against the truth.
Quote:
Take the bulk of what Jesus taught and the way he acted, if he was the Word, the Expression of God, you get a very clear picture of a deity who doesn't hurt people, but loves unconditionally, and never gives up on us.
As I've pointed out in other threads, this amounts to idolatry. Yes, God is love. Yes, love is one of the divine attributes, and I'm glad for it. Yet God has revealed so much more about himself in the Bible than merely love. To cling to his love while ignoring his holiness, justice and wrath is to reject the revelation of himself and to fashion a god that suits your own understanding and liking.
I know that you don't respond to dialogue on this board and seem to want only to promote your book (and I'm not judging you on that since you've made it obvious), but I urge you to repent of your rejection of the truth.
I read your book, at least partly, some things are very interesting, e.g. the Babylonian/ancient Hebrew view of sheol as the common realm of all souls.
On the other hand you say that parts of bible teach everlasting punishment, though you insist it are interpolations, I dispute this, none of the canonical writings teach everlasting torment in my conviction.
as for the various meanings of aiónios, Jesus, if He had wanted to teach endless punishment, could have chosen unambiguous words, such as eternal/everlasting (aidios) instead of aeonian, endless (ateleutêtos), vengeance (timória) instead of corrective punishment (kolasis), hell (tartaros) instead of valley of Hinnom (geenna) ...
for some reason He didn't
Why would the biblical writers and Jesus have had to do so? It has already been shown on this thread that both aiwnios and EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN can, and do, mean eternal.
You do realize, of course, that I could make the same argument against the idea of remedial punishment? In Matthew 25:46, when Jesus used the phrase "eternal punishment," if he meant only remedial punishment, then why use the word κόλασιν? He could have used the word for chastisement/discipline that is used in Hebrews 12: παιδεία. Here are the English instances in that chapter (vv. 5-11):
"and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons,
"MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD,
NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES." It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?
For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.
11All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness."
All the boldfaced words above use that Greek word, which clearly means chastisement for the purpose of remediation. Why wasn't that word used in Matthew 25:46 instead of KOLASIN?
A current example would be "BAD". There is the normal meaning and the slang meaning of "good" (sometimes pronounced baad for emphasis).
Left: To remain vs. to have gone (Of all who came, only Fred's left. [Does it mean he's the only one who still remains or that he's the first to depart? Not to mention turn to the left.
Sick: unpleasant (A sick joke) vs. wonderful (Slang: That sportscar is really sick!)
Skin: to cover with a skin vs. to remove outer covering or skin
BOLT: a) to secure in place b) to dart away
DUST: a) remove material from b) spread material on
TRIP: a) to stumble b) to move gracefully, not to mention when someone uses the word and say you tripping, lets go on a trip. So, we see this word has multiple meanings.
Thank you for posting these, Miss Shawn. They're all excellent examples.
You do realize, of course, that I could make the same argument against the idea of remedial punishment? In Matthew 25:46, when Jesus used the phrase "eternal punishment," if he meant only remedial punishment, then why use the word κόλασιν? He could have used the word for chastisement/discipline that is used in Hebrews 12: παιδεία. Here are the English instances in that chapter (vv. 5-11):
it is after all a punishment, though remedial, paideia might be to lenient in this context.
Why would the biblical writers and Jesus have had to do so? It has already been shown on this thread that both aiwnios and EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN can, and do, mean eternal.
it is still merely your assumption that these words denote endlessness, please read my exhaustive examination on this subject, for "layout reasons" I decided to make it a pdf-file, you find it here:
it is after all a punishment, though remedial, paideia might be to lenient in this context.
"might be too lenient"?
Quote:
it is still merely your assumption that these words denote endlessness,
An assumption is asserting something without any basis in facts, to take as granted for true. That cannot be fairly said about the conclusion I have come to. I've shown--not assumed, but shown--how the words can, and do, mean eternal. The real question is whether they have those meanings in the contexts in which they appear.
But even apart from all this linguistic talk, the passages about Judas and the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit show that not all will be saved. The objections and alternate interpretations have been tenuous at best. Universalism is not taught in Scripture, and it never entered the mind of God. Not all will be saved.
Quote:
please read my exhaustive examination on this subject, for "layout reasons" I decided to make it a pdf-file, you find it here:
if you insist I'll post it here, you find the first part already on page 9 in this thread
I saw it and didn't respond to it because I felt it didn't accomplish much. It was a lot of information, and you're to be commended for assembling that information, but it seems to focus entirely (or mostly) on how John of Damascus used the word. In fact, your report is ambiguous. Here's a quote to show what I mean:
Quote:
It seems John of Damascus understands with æon an age of any possible length up to
infinity, - proaiwnioV might be rendered pre æonian, before the æon, thus the æon is
something in time, with beginning and end, that God is called æonian he seems to
understand that God belongs to His creation, the æon – it doesn't seem that he
understands aiwnioV to mean eternal; he uses aidios when he means "eternal", and
further employs ateleutêtos, aperantos and apeiros, all these words mean endless.
Further, æonian life and æonian punishment prove that the æon to come is
endless (ateleuthtoV). For time will not be counted by days and nights even
after the resurrection, but there will rather be one day with no evening,
wherein the Sun of Justice will shine brightly on the just, but for the sinful
there will be night profound and endless (aperantoV).
This is very interesting, John of Damascus seems to assume that the æonian life is
endless, therefore the æon to come has to be endless, as æon means age, æonian can
probably only mean endless, when applied to an endless (ateleuthtoV) æon.
Then you go on to say:
Quote:
Once again, his use of aiwn indicates that he understands thereby merely an age, now if this age is by assumption endless; but by assumption only, the Bible does not imply this in my opinion; only then means aiwnioV, pertaining to the everlasting aiwn, endless.
So here we are, back to the same old, burning question: The word is used by a certain author to mean eternal, but then you say "No, it doesn't mean that in the Bible." Back to the old drawing board. So, the relevant question is whether the word means "eternal" and the phrase means "to the ages of the ages" in the Biblical texts in which they appear. It has been shown contextually that this is, in fact, the case.
Quite frankly, I don't see how you can ignore the definition for EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN that appears in lexicons. On what basis do you reject these definitions? Do you really want me to believe that the lexicon authors were that biased to deliberately give the wrong definition? If you say it wasn't due to bias but by a mistake, are you expecting me then to believe that they were all deluded in the same manner? I'm not saying that they were infallible, of course, but I do find it a stretch to casually brush away the meaning given in multiple scholarly lexicons. I take them more seriously than that.
paideia seems to mean the correction/education of children, this expression seems to week when spoken about eschatological jugdment, which universalism does not deny.
Quote:
Do you really want me to believe that the lexicon authors were that biased to deliberately give the wrong definition?
which lexicons, theological ones? - I will look for examples in Strong's, how untrustworthy they are.
I have given you the definition from an Eastern Orthodox work, should they not know their own doxology?
[LEFT]
Quote:
[For the æons of æons,] this literal translation from the Greek corresponds with the Latin "in sæcula sæculorum" [into ages of ages]. Thereby is not meant the "eternity" (aidiotêtos, æternitas) as infinite, unfading time that only applies to the triune God Himself; but the sum of all finite and fading periods of time. The translation "from eternity to eternity" [the English "forever and ever"] or in "all eternity" is at least misleading. Theologically more of relevance is, that by this use of "eternity", it's no longer possible to conceive that God's "eternity" is of different kind then the "fullness of times", given as gift to the creatures.
which part of this definition does indicate infinity to you? - What about Hebrew idiom? - you read my summary.[/LEFT]
it is not easy to find ancient sources concerning the term ages of ages, neither Augustine nor John of Damascus define it as eternity, though both taught endless punishment, Eusebius seems to speak also of "all ages of ages" - I have written about this also in my summary. All sources of later date (though already John of Damascus is quite a late author of a time where the church was already corrupted) might be corrupted by Roman Catholic influence which survived the reformation even in protestantism and are not trustworthy.
paideia seems to mean the correction/education of children, this expression seems to week when spoken about eschatological jugdment, which universalism does not deny.
Yes, it refers to children, but I cannot see how you could have overlooked the clear use of the word to refer to God's chastisement of his children. That has nothing to do with physical age. It's the word used to speak of remedial discipline, the actions God takes that we might share in his holiness. Therefore, since its meaning clearly extends beyond the mere discipline of children and to the chastisement of human beings for partaking in God's holiness, it could very well have been used in Matthew 25. But it wasn't.
Quote:
which lexicons, theological ones? - I will look for examples in Strong's, how untrustworthy they are.
Actually, it's the word aiwnios that appears in different lexicons. The longer phrase EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN is a different matter. My mistake.
Here are four sources that define aiwnios as "eternal":
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich.
The Student's Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament, Warren C. Trenchard
The UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader's Edition.
Basics of Biblical Greek, William D. Mounce
But in addition to all that, and just as important, the word and phrase need to be understood in their context. As long as anyone stubbornly refuses to consider how the author intended to use the word or phrase, no progress can be made. I am not saying that you have been doing this, but I'm pointing it out because it's important.
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.
So, the relevant question is whether the word means "eternal" and the phrase means "to the ages of the ages" in the Biblical texts in which they appear. It has been shown contextually that this is, in fact, the case. 
