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.
The parts of the Bible that conflict with UR theology are "incorrectly translated".
It is really sad that some must change the Word of God to fit one's theology.
Mr5150, why do you keep attributing every disagreement I have with a translation to UR theology?
I could attribute every disagreement you have with me to Satan worship but that would not be right to do so. Get it?
This has nothing to do with UR theology. What God actually said should be important to everyone of any different belief, don't you think?
Other eminent translators did not translate aion nor aionion as eternal and they did not believe in UR theology. So please quit with the baseless accusations. It makes you look, well, immature.
It is really sad that some must change the Word of God to fit one's theology.
What did you expect, when it was translated from a set language into one that is ever changing or revolving?
"A swinging or sliding barrier that has closed the entrance of the Kingdom of Heaven for the vast majority."
How you define something, gives it all the meaning it has for you; but that doesn't make it correct.
Just research the English language over the last four hundred years, that should tell you a few things.
Mr5150, why do you keep attributing every disagreement I have with a translation to UR theology?
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were the guy who is a Universalist, who calls incorrect, any rendering of certain Greek phrases which counter UR theology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
What did you expect, when it was translated from a set language into one that is ever changing or revolving?
"A swinging or sliding barrier that has closed the entrance of the Kingdom of Heaven for the vast majority."
How you define something, gives it all the meaning it has for you; but that doesn't make it correct. Just research the English language over the last four hundred years, that should tell you a few things.
If you have a mind to comprehend.
When I see 30 (so to speak) well regarded translations that all render a particular word (in context) as Eternal I tend to say OK, must be so. When I see two or three obscure or lesser known translations render eternal as age or eon, I question why the translator did that.
Romans 16:26
yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience
Romans 16:26 is not saying God is eternal, it is saying He is eonian (coming from the Greek word aionion or aionios).
Just because God is called eonian does not mean He is not eternal.
God is also said to be immortal. Being immortal means to live forever, but that is not what eonian means.
Romans 16:26
yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience
Romans 16:26 is not saying God is eternal, it is saying He is eonian (coming from the Greek word aionion or aionios).
Just because God is called eonian does not mean He is not eternal.
God is also said to be immortal. Being immortal means to live forever, but that is not what eonian means.
So i'll ask you the same question... where in the bible does it say God is eternal?
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Mr5150, why do you keep attributing every disagreement I have with a translation to UR theology?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were the guy who is a Universalist, who calls incorrect, any rendering of certain Greek phrases which counter UR theology
.
I'm not a Universalist. I am a believer in Christ who happens to also actually believe 1 Timothy 2:4-6 at face value. I realize that is rather novel to actually believe God, but, well, someone has to believe Him.
But really dear Mr5151, if I were Baptist and believed like you, would you accuse me of trying to further my theology if I disagreed with how a word such as aion and aionion was translated?
The OP asked if Romans 16:26 proved if God is eternal. I am allowed to answer that question without someone accusing me of trying to further UR theology, am I not?
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.
