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.
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 Roger 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 Roger 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 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 Roger 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 Roger 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?
LOL....said the universalists LOL. My argument about that context is important and this is a context issue not translation issue was not a fallacy furthermore I have heard Jehovah Witnesses make the same arguments and the same claim. Does that mean they are right?
LOL....said the universalists LOL. My argument about that context is important and this is a context issue not translation issue was not a fallacy furthermore I have heard Jehovah Witnesses make the same arguments and the same claim. Does that mean they are right?
AIDIOS VERSUS AIONIOS
There is a Greek word that Young translates eternal and that is "aidios" as in Romans 1:20, “eternal power and Godhead.” It can mean eternal unless it is limited by a qualifying phrase.
See Young’s literal translation of the Bible.
It compares with the Hebrew word qedem in Deut. 33:27 which should read
“The eternal (qedem) God is my refuge, and underneath are the age-during (olam) arms. (see Young's literal translation)
The Hebrew word olam compares with the Greek word aionios. Both of them refer to a limited period of time.
The word aidios (not aionios) was in universal use among the Greek Jews of our Savior's day, to convey the idea of eternal duration, and was used by them to teach endless punishment. Here is the proof Chapter 3 - Origin of Endless Punishment
Jesus never allowed himself to use it in connection with punishment, nor did any of his disciples but one, and he but once, and then carefully and expressly limited its meaning. Can demonstration go further than this to show that Jesus carefully avoided the phraseology by which his contemporaries described the doctrine of endless punishment? He never adopted the language of his day on this subject.
Their language was aidios timoria, endless torment.
His language was aionion kolasin, age-lasting correction.
They described unending ruin,
He, discipline, resulting in reformation.
If Jesus had wanted to convey the idea of “eternal” He would have used aidios, which was understood to mean eternal by Jesus' contemporaries.
Regarding the most common argument that the same word for "punishment" is also used for "life" also see the following: Matthew 25:46 - “Aionian” or “Eternal”
Last edited by rodgertutt; 09-22-2009 at 04:05 PM..
Reason: spacing
I say, potato and you say potata' Your argument is why didn't Paul use a harsher more accurate word in that verse....why didn't the bible be more detailed and forthright calling homosexual a sin to actually use a proper word for gays so that we could know without a doubt homosexuality is a sin. what if...what if...what if....we can sit here forever and a day making that argument. That is not a valid argument.
I am not dimishing your belief just that particular argument because we can what if the bible to death
Jesus was pretty harsh with His words for the Pharisees but as usual, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" just like I see homosexuality a sin clear as day but someone else doesn't.
LOL....said the universalists LOL. My argument about that context is important and this is a context issue not translation issue was not a fallacy furthermore I have heard Jehovah Witnesses make the same arguments and the same claim. Does that mean they are right?
What is this? Is this an argument? The JW's believe it so im wrong? Another logical fallacy? So you first try to discredit me by laughing at me, then you try and argue that context can change the meaning of a word. I say the meaning of the word or words used dictates the context and not the other way around. In some instances a word can take on a greater/different meaning when it is used in an informal way, such as in the case of slang, but as I understand it the Koine Greek is a language of law which is not prone to such colorful syntactic usages. It is a translation issue, just as olam is mistranslated in the old testament and has been proven time and again. So many things that were olam in the old testament were translated as eternal, when we know for a fact those things are not eternal. You argument is hollow. I expected more ...
What is this? Is this an argument? The JW's believe it so im wrong? Another logical fallacy? So you first try to discredit me by laughing ant me, then you try and argue that context can change the meaning of a word. I say the meaning of the word or words used dictates the context and not the other way around. It is a translation issue, just as olam is mistranslated in the old testament and has been proven time and again. so many things that we olam in the old testament were translated as eternal, when we know for a fact those things are not eternal. You argument is hollow. I expected more ...
ummmm No...which comes first the chicken or the egg-regeneration or repentance-context or the word. no JW is not the argument. My argument about that context is important and this is a context issue not translation issue.
You want it to be a mistranslation argument and if you want that then my friend what authority do you have because I have WAYYYYYYY FAR more people to back me up than you do. I am being honest here and letting you have that it can be a context issue rather than saying, flat out that you are a heretic.
This is a contextual issue. pure and simple and may the people with the correct context win
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 Roger 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 Roger 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?
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.
ummmm...which comes first the chicken or the egg-regeneration or repentance-context or the word. no JW is not the argument. My argument about that context is important and this is a context issue not translation issue.
You want it to be a mistranslation argument and if you want that then my friend what authority do you have because I have WAYYYYYYY FAR more people to back me up than you do. I am being honest here and letting you have that it can be a context issue rather than saying, flat out that you are a heretic.
This is a contextual issue. pure and simple and may the people with the correct context win
More appeal to authority? I have never known you to be a person who argues from anything other than appeal to authority, and i have no respect for your authority which has been proven time and again to be in error. Your dogmatic traditions are as fallacious as your arguments, and you have done nothing to discredit my arguments other than appeal to authority. In a debate class you would be laughed off the stage ...
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.
More appeal to authority? I have never known you to be a person who argues from anything other than appeal to authority, and i have no respect for your authority which has been proven time and again to be in error. Your dogmatic traditions are as fallacious as your arguments, and you have done nothing to discredit my arguments other than appeal to authority. In a debate class you would be laughed off the stage ...
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.
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.
Aidios versus aionios
