The wages of sin is DEATH, not eternal torment in Hell.

[he-man]

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Immortal soul His Will for that thing, whatever it's purpose, is that it should never cease to be.

What were the wages of the laborers he hired in the vineyard? One started first thing in the morning and the last one only worked an hour but they were both paid the same wage.

Mat 20:10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius.
11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house,
12 saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.'

That goes for the ungodly, they all get the same wage, "ETERNAL DESTRUCTION"!

Mat 13:42

And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. So, WHY is Jesus saying things like "hell fire" and "cast them into a furnace of fire" is they are going to be asleep on unaware of their surroundings? This is clearly saying they gonna suffer, so why don't you believe what Jesus says?

The suffering will be knowing that they will perish forever and not stand before God or see His face.

Psa 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

Luk 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Now do you get what he says when he uses the words burn up ?
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the repository
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,

 

[Gospel Guy]

What were the wages of the laborers he hired in the vineyard? One started first thing in the morning and the last one only worked an hour but they were both paid the same wage.

Mat 20:10Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius.
11And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house,
12saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.'

That goes for the ungodly, they all get the same wage, "ETERNAL DESTRUCTION"! [/size]The suffering will be knowing that they will perish forever and not stand before God or see His face.

Psa 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

Luk 21:36Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Now do you get what he says when he uses the words burn up ?
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the repository
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

41The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,

Exactly... they gonna git burnt for all eternity.

It's sad that this was setup for satan and his angels but since God's entire kingdom operates under seedtime and harvest, those that remain in Adam having rejected living IN Christ Jesus in this life... are going to get the same thing satan is going to get which is eternal torment.

Gonna be some shocked folks who think they gonna live all in the flesh when they find out that being destroyed does not actually mean "going to sleep permanently" as God's definition of destruction in hell is quite different from seeker sensitive theologian wannabees :o

But, what the hey... it's only eternity we're talkin bout, right?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What were the wages of the laborers he hired in the vineyard? One started first thing in the morning and the last one only worked an hour but they were both paid the same wage.

The question was not does this UT belief in annihilation have the damned getting the "same wage". Of course it does because it has all the damned "ceasing to be". The question was how is that Just?

I will give u some reps as at least an attempt was made this time to respond to me rather than just repeat "God said so" even if response was to wrong question (and then again ultimately ending by saying "God said so")

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Okay, I'm sorry that I said "God's Word says that the wages of sin is death in Romans 6:23". Evidentally I should not have said that. So you believe it is not okay to say "The Word of God (or the Bible) says this or that, BUT it IS okay to say "So now you are calling Jesus Christ a liar". You have funny rules for other people. It seems like whoever believes as you do can say whatever the heck they want to anyone, but someone who believes differently from you is rude if they quote the Bible. I see the rules now, and I will obey you forever.

The original series of posts being referenced had nothing to do with quoting Bible - someone said (wrongly - as I clearly suggested in my first attempt to redirect the converstation) the "is a liar" comment. The reply to that person chided them for doing that as being wrong behavior (chiding) but then insulted and chided them back.

No one is asking anyone to be "sorry" for being able to quote the Bible or to make facetious replies/responses. I was simply pointing out that one side simply thinks any question regarding their view should be responded to with just repeating "Bible says so" "God told me" or "pick God's side" with added copious scripture quotes and think they are making a point. The result is simply a twist on playground "no, it is not" vs, "yes it is" with Scripture verses added.

I do happen to think it is rather dull to carry on that way, especially after both sides have clearly established to each other (often repetively) that neither side sees the same Scripture the way the other does. If one is incapable or does not wish to do more than repeat "God said so", "God told me" or "pick God side" to every question concerning one's belief then I do not see the point in needing to continue repeating it over and over, even if one highlights different parts or changes font highlight colors as some here are very fond of doing.
I got that the UT poster feels the Bible says so, God said so, God told them and they have "picked" God's side the first time it was said and have not doubt they meant it.

I get the UT guys believe this is true and are sincere in their beliefs. Fine, What I do not get is how it makes sense to them or how it jives with what other beliefs they may or may not hold. I do not get that because no one here on the UT side wants to engage anything beyond "God said so", "God told me" or "choose/pick God's side". And to give you reps, you have in the past done more, just not seeing in this current thread section. That is all.

 

[he-man]

Exactly... they gonna git burnt for all eternity.... are going to get the same thing satan is going to get which is eternal torment. Gonna be some shocked folks who think they gonna live all in the flesh when they find out that being destroyed does not actually mean "going to sleep permanently" as God's definition of destruction in hell is quite different from seeker sensitive theologian wannabees :o

But, what the hey... it's only eternity we're talkin bout, right?

They will be even more shocked when they no longer exist except for those who had some limited knowledge and used it to pervert the truth and will die a second death!
Jud 1:5 But I would put you in remembrance, you who once knew all things, that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, in the second place destroyed those who had not believed.

2Th 1:9 who shall pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his might,

Rev 2:11 He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies. He that overcomes shall in no wise be injured of the second death.

 

[he-man]

Why? That word is not in Psalm 37:20 the verse I have been addressing.
Neither of these Greek words occur in Psalm 37:20, the verse I have been addressing. How are they relevant? If I wanted to it would take me about 20 seconds to look the words [SIZE=+1]δράκων, εγγύς[/SIZE] and [SIZE=+1]εγγύος[/SIZE] but you have not shown how they are relevant.

So you will not let us see your finesse with what BAG and you say about the Greek word in Koine: [FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]δράκων? [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]I guess you did not want to acknowledge the ignorance of BAG and how he was limited by dogma in his scope of words like δράκων, when the word was actually used as a symbol οf the papacy.? [/FONT][/FONT]

Okay I will do it for you: Page 205 BAG
δράκων, οντος, (Hοm. + ; LXX; Εn. 20, 7 [=seraphim]; Philο; Test. Ash. 7: 3; Sib. Or. 3, 794; lοanw. in rabb.; oft. synοn. ω. όφις [PGM 36, 183; 196], Βο11 42, 5; 103) dragon, serpent, a figurative term for the devil

(cf. ΡGM 4, 994 θεέ θεων ... κατέχων δράκοντα; 190; Ερigr. Gr. 1140b; PsSοl 2, 25) Rν 12: 3 (Damasc., Vi. Isid. 67
δράκοντας έξαισίονς κατά μέγεθος έπτακεφάλονς. Cf. the Hydra), 4, 7, 9 (όδ. ο μέγας as ΡGM 4, 2770), 13, 16f; 13: 2, 4, 11; 16: 13; 20: 2.-Lit. οn όφις 3; also PJοuοn, Le Grand Dragon: Rech de Sc rel 17, '27, 444-6; ΒarbRenz, D. oriental. Schlαngendrαche '30; JKrοll, Gott u. Hόlle '32; WFοerster, D. Βilder in Offb. 12f and 17f:
StKr 104,'32, 279-310 (οn this RSchutz, ibid. 105, '33, 456-66); ΤW II 284-6; RLehmann-Νitzsche, D. aροkal. Drache Rν 12: Ztschr. f. Εthnοlοgie 65, '33, 193-230. M-M.*

And now the real story:
δράκων basilisk, dragοn; wyνern; basilisk (from the Greek βaotλiσκος basiliskοs, a little king, in Latin Regulus) is a legendary reptile reputed tο be king οf serpents and said tο have the power οf causing death bγ a single glance.

According tο the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, the basilisk is a small snake that is sο venomous that it leaνes a wide trail οf deadly venom in its wake, and its gaze is likewise lethal.

Tο the Protestants, it was a symbol οf the papacy. It was also used in the temples οf Apollo and Diana.
(Encyclopedia Mythicα)

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]Also, since you do not know [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]the difference between the Greek words in Koine:[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]εγγύς near, close and [FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]εγγύος[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] security, a guarantee

 

[Der Alte]

I guess you did not want to acknowledge the ignorance of BAG and how he was limited by dogma in his scope of words like δράκων, when the word was actually used as a symbol οf the papacy.?

Okay I will do it for you: Page 205 BAG
δράκων, οντος, (Hοm. + ; LXX; Εn. 20, 7 [=seraphim]; Philο; Test. Ash. 7: 3; Sib. Or. 3, 794; lοanw. in rabb.; oft. synοn. ω. όφις [PGM 36, 183; 196], Βο11 42, 5; 103) dragon, serpent, a figurative term for the devil

(cf. ΡGM 4, 994 θεέ θεων ... κατέχων δράκοντα; 190; Ερigr. Gr. 1140b; PsSοl 2, 25) Rν 12: 3 (Damasc., Vi. Isid. 67
δράκοντας έξαισίονς κατά μέγεθος έπτακεφάλονς. Cf. the Hydra), 4, 7, 9 (όδ. ο μέγας as ΡGM 4, 2770), 13, 16f; 13: 2, 4, 11; 16: 13; 20: 2.-Lit. οn όφις 3; also PJοuοn, Le Grand Dragon: Rech de Sc rel 17, '27, 444-6; ΒarbRenz, D. oriental. Schlαngendrαche '30; JKrοll, Gott u. Hόlle '32; WFοerster, D. Βilder in Offb. 12f and 17f:
StKr 104,'32, 279-310 (οn this RSchutz, ibid. 105, '33, 456-66); ΤW II 284-6; RLehmann-Νitzsche, D. aροkal. Drache Rν 12: Ztschr. f. Εthnοlοgie 65, '33, 193-230. M-M.*

You are confused. BAG is not a he it is a them. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker all accredited Greek scholars. Now let us look at what you consider to be superior to this peer reviewed Greek lexicon.

And now the real story:
δράκων basilisk, dragοn; wyνern; basilisk (from the Greek βaotλiσκος basiliskοs, a little king, in Latin Regulus) is a legendary reptile reputed tο be king οf serpents and said tο have the power οf causing death bγ a single glance.

According tο the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, the basilisk is a small snake that is sο venomous that it leaνes a wide trail οf deadly venom in its wake, and its gaze is likewise lethal.

Tο the Protestants, it was a symbol οf the papacy. It was also used in the temples οf Apollo and Diana.
(Encyclopedia Mythic&#945

I googled Encyclopedia Mythica and drew a blank. I tried Bing and came up with one website which did not even have an entry for Drakon. This stuff you posted is no more relevant than the scribblings on a public facility wall.

Also, since you do not know the difference between the Greek words in Koine:
εγγύς near, close and εγγύος security, a guarantee

So what? It is still irrelevant to anything.

Here is the definition of drakon from LSJ Liddell, Scott, Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek. Another peer reviewed scholarly work. This and BAG is the real story.

[SIZE="+1"]δράκων [ ᾰ], οντος , o[/SIZE]( : (prob. from [SIZE="+1"]δέρκομαι, δρᾰκεῖν[/SIZE], cf. Porph. Abst. 3.8 ): — dragon, serpent, Il. 11.39 , al.; interchangeable with [SIZE="+1"]ὄφις[/SIZE], 12.202 , 208 , cf. Hes. Th. 322 , 825 , Pi. N. 1.40 , A. Th. 292 (lyr.); [SIZE="+1"]ἀετὸς καὶ δ[/SIZE]. [SIZE="+1"]πολέμια[/SIZE] Arist. HA 609a4 ; perh. a water-snake, ib. 602b25 . II the constellation Draco, Arat. 46 , al., Man. 2.69 . III a sea-fish, the great weever, Epich. 60 , Arist. HA 598a11 , Hp. Vict. 2.48 . = [SIZE="+1"]κηρύκειον[/SIZE] , prob. a wand with a serpent coiled round it, S. Fr. 700 (cf. 701 ).
2. serpent-shaped bracelet or necklace, Luc. Am. 41 .
3. a noose or crossed bandage for the ankle, Heraclas ap. Orib. 48.5.1 .
4. dragon-standard, Lib. Or. 1.144 , Them. Or. 18.219a , cf. Or. 1.2a: hence, corps of 1,000 men in the Parthian army, Luc. Hist. Conscr. 29.​

And having said all this, it is not relevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[Timothew]

The original series of posts being referenced had nothing to do with quoting Bible - someone said (wrongly - as I clearly suggested in my first attempt to redirect the converstation) the "is a liar" comment. The reply to that person chided them for doing that as being wrong behavior (chiding) but then insulted and chided them back.

No one is asking anyone to be "sorry" for being able to quote the Bible or to make facetious replies/responses. I was simply pointing out that one side simply thinks any question regarding their view should be responded to with just repeating "Bible says so" "God told me" or "pick God's side" with added copious scripture quotes and think they are making a point. The result is simply a twist on playground "no, it is not" vs, "yes it is" with Scripture verses added.

I do happen to think it is rather dull to carry on that way, especially after both sides have clearly established to each other (often repetively) that neither side sees the same Scripture the way the other does. If one is incapable or does not wish to do more than repeat "God said so", "God told me" or "pick God side" to every question concerning one's belief then I do not see the point in needing to continue repeating it over and over, even if one highlights different parts or changes font highlight colors as some here are very fond of doing.
I got that the UT poster feels the Bible says so, God said so, God told them and they have "picked" God's side the first time it was said and have not doubt they meant it.

I get the UT guys believe this is true and are sincere in their beliefs. Fine, What I do not get is how it makes sense to them or how it jives with what other beliefs they may or may not hold. I do not get that because no one here on the UT side wants to engage anything beyond "God said so", "God told me" or "choose/pick God's side". And to give you reps, you have in the past done more, just not seeing in this current thread section. That is all.

Okay, neither side should act in a non-Christian manner. I guess I was frustrated because the other side seems to think that we don't believe the Bible. And when I (or our side) was accused of actually our Lord and Savior a liar, I lost my temper. I should not have. I should have turned the other cheek. But honestly (I do try to be honest all the time), honestly I don't want to see that again. And I will try to just stick to the facts, rather than rhetoric about who is on God's side, and I expect the other side to just stick to the facts as well.

 

[he-man]

You are confused. BAG is not a he it is a them. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker all accredited Greek scholars.

Who is confused? Better look again. From the actual Book:

An Introduction to the Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Walter Bauer fourth edition 1952. The basic text for the New Testament is Eberhard Nestle edition 1952, The OT Literature is cited according to the LXX in the edition of ARahlfs 1935 [reprinted 1949].

Now let us look at what you consider to be superior to this peer reviewed Greek lexicon.
Here is the definition of drakon from LSJ Liddell, Scott, Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek. Another peer reviewed scholarly work. This and BAG is the real story. δράκων [α^], οντος, ὁ: (prob. from δέρκομαι, δρα^κεῖν, cf. Porph.Abst. 3.8):—
A.dragon, serpent, Il.11.39, al.; interchangeable with ὄφις, 12.202, 208, cf. Hes. Th.322, 825, Pi.N.1.40, A.Th.292 (lyr.); “ἀετὸς καὶ δ. πολέμια” Arist.HA609a4; perh. a water-snake, ib.602b25.
II. the constellation Draco, Arat.46, al., Man.2.69.
III. a sea-fish, the great weever, Epich.60, Arist.HA598a11, Hp.Vict.2.48.
IV. = κηρύκειον, prob. a wand with a serpent coiled round it, S.Fr.700 (cf. 701).
2. serpent-shaped bracelet or necklace, Luc.Am.41.
3. a noose or crossed bandage for the ankle, Heraclas ap.Orib.48.5.1.
4. dragon-standard, Lib.Or.1.144, Them.Or.18.219a, cf. Or. 1.2a: hence, corps of 1,000 men in the Parthian army, Luc.Hist. Conscr.29.

I thought you said LSJ Liddell, Scott, Jones Lexicon was Classical Greek and was to be disregarded but now you quote it to deliberately confuse people and attack the Encyclopedia Mythicα click here at > Basilisk

I guess you did not want to acknowledge the ignorance of BAG and how he was limited by dogma in his scope of words like δράκων, when the word was actually used as a symbol οf the papacy.?

Okay I will do it for you: Page 205 BAG
δράκων, οντος, (Hοm. + ; LXX; Εn. 20, 7 [=seraphim]; Philο; Test. Ash. 7: 3; Sib. Or. 3, 794; lοanw. in rabb.; oft. synοn. ω. όφις [PGM 36, 183; 196], Βο11 42, 5; 103) dragon, serpent, a figurative term for the devil

(cf. ΡGM 4, 994 θεέ θεων ... κατέχων δράκοντα; 190; Ερigr. Gr. 1140b; PsSοl 2, 25) Rν 12: 3 (Damasc., Vi. Isid. 67
δράκοντας έξαισίονς κατά μέγεθος έπτακεφάλονς. Cf. the Hydra), 4, 7, 9 (όδ. ο μέγας as ΡGM 4, 2770), 13, 16f; 13: 2, 4, 11; 16: 13; 20: 2.-Lit. οn όφις 3; also PJοuοn, Le Grand Dragon: Rech de Sc rel 17, '27, 444-6; ΒarbRenz, D. oriental. Schlαngendrαche '30; JKrοll, Gott u. Hόlle '32; WFοerster, D. Βilder in Offb. 12f and 17f:
StKr 104,'32, 279-310 (οn this RSchutz, ibid. 105, '33, 456-66); ΤW II 284-6; RLehmann-Νitzsche, D. aροkal. Drache Rν 12: Ztschr. f. Εthnοlοgie 65, '33, 193-230. M-M.*

One more time now the real story:
δράκων basilisk, dragοn; wyνern; basilisk (from the Greek βaotλiσκος basiliskοs, a little king, in Latin Regulus) is a legendary reptile reputed tο be king οf serpents and said tο have the power οf causing death bγ a single glance.

According tο the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, the basilisk is a small snake that is sο venomous that it leaνes a wide trail οf deadly venom in its wake, and its gaze is likewise lethal.

Tο the Protestants, it was a symbol οf the papacy. It was also used in the temples οf Apollo and Diana.
(Encyclopedia Mythicα)

You need to learn how to use a computer effectively and without doubting what is quoted.
To the Protestants, it was a symbol of the papacy.
Encyclopedia Mythicα click here at > Basilisk

 

[Der Alte]

Who is confused? Better look again. From the actual Book:

An Introduction to the Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Walter Bauer fourth edition 1952. The basic text for the New Testament is Eberhard Nestle edition 1952, The OT Literature is cited according to the LXX in the edition of ARahlfs 1935 [reprinted 1949].

Maybe you should use more up-to-date sources. You crack me up, you can't seem to understand, I quoted LSJ because it supported BAGD. You on the other hand tried to use it to prove the BAGD wrong. And you kept on quoting it after I told you it was classical Greek not Koine.

You object to a legitimate peer reviewed lexicon but you want to quote an anonymous article, written by an anonymous person on an anonymous website. Did you happen to see any credible verifiable, sources in that article? I didn't. Now if you were to read BAGD, for instance, you would notice several historical sources in each definition. This is cherry picking at its worst. Find something, anything, somewhere, by somebody and it is supposed to be superior to BAGD. I happen to have the 1958 edition. Despite what your introduction says the AG in BAG stands for Arndt and Gingrich. My lexicon is the BAGD. D for Walter Danker. Four noted Greek scholars compared to your one unknown blogger. Their names appear on page x of my 1958 edition of BAGD.

I thought you said LSJ Liddell, Scott, Jones Lexicon was Classical Greek and was to be disregarded but now you quote it to deliberately confuse people and attack the Encyclopedia Mythicα click here at > Basilisk

So what? Is the Encyclopedia Mythica website a peer reviewed scholarly source? The word you were asking about was drakon not basilisk! And some anonymous website does NOT prove anything about BAGD. Which was edited by four Greek scholars Walter Bauer, William Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick Danker.

I guess you did not want to acknowledge the ignorance of BAG and how he was limited by dogma in his scope of words like δράκων, when the word was actually used as a symbol οf the papacy.?

No ignorance to acknowledge. You have no credible, verifiable, historical evidence to support this. Just an anonymous website.

Okay I will do it for you: Page 205 BAG
δράκων, οντος, (Hοm. + ; LXX; Εn. 20, 7 [=seraphim]; Philο; Test. Ash. 7: 3; Sib. Or. 3, 794; lοanw. in rabb.; oft. synοn. ω. όφις [PGM 36, 183; 196], Βο11 42, 5; 103) dragon, serpent, a figurative term for the devil

(cf. ΡGM 4, 994 θεέ θεων ... κατέχων δράκοντα; 190; Ερigr. Gr. 1140b; PsSοl 2, 25) Rν 12: 3 (Damasc., Vi. Isid. 67δράκοντας έξαισίονς κατά μέγεθος έπτακεφάλονς. Cf. the Hydra), 4, 7, 9 (όδ. ο μέγας as ΡGM 4, 2770), 13, 16f; 13: 2, 4, 11; 16: 13; 20: 2.-Lit. οn όφις 3; also PJοuοn, Le Grand Dragon: Rech de Sc rel 17, '27, 444-6; ΒarbRenz, D. oriental. Schlαngendrαche '30; JKrοll, Gott u. Hόlle '32; WFοerster, D. Βilder in Offb. 12f and 17f:
StKr 104,'32, 279-310 (οn this RSchutz, ibid. 105, '33, 456-66); ΤW II 284-6; RLehmann-Νitzsche, D. aροkal. Drache Rν 12: Ztschr. f. Εthnοlοgie 65, '33, 193-230. M-M.*

What are you trying to prove with this? Note I have highlighted all the cited sources in this definition compared to no such sources at your anonymous website.

One more time now the real story:
δράκων basilisk, dragοn; wyνern; basilisk (from the Greek βaotλiσκος basiliskοs, a little king, in Latin Regulus) is a legendary reptile reputed tο be king οf serpents and said tο have the power οf causing death bγ a single glance.

You have no real story. The word you are supposed to be talking about is drakon, not basilisk. None of this is relevant.

According tο the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, the basilisk is a small snake that is sο venomous that it leaνes a wide trail οf deadly venom in its wake, and its gaze is likewise lethal.

Tο the Protestants, it was a symbol οf the papacy. It was also used in the temples οf Apollo and Diana.
(Encyclopedia Mythic&#945

None of this is relevant to the discussion of the word drakon. How does the writer, I will not dignify his stuff by calling him an author, know any of this? No evidence whatsoever, but some people will believe anything as long as it supports their assumptions/presuppositions.

Even if some Greek word was used as a symbol of the papacy that proves absolutely nothing about the correct meaning of the Greek word. The Greek words existed a good 1500 years before Christianity and BAGD gives us the original meaning not how the word might have been used 1500+ years later by Christians.

You need to learn how to use a computer effectively and without doubting what is quoted.
To the Protestants, it was a symbol of the papacy.
Encyclopedia Mythicα click here at > Basilisk

Why? Because I did not find an article about drakon at the anonymous website you mentioned? I don't need to learn anything about using a computer. I use credible sources. You have not provided credible evidence that anything was quoted to protestants. You need to learn how to locate, research and cite credible, verifiable, historical evidence instead of anonymous websites.

I realize that the name of the one person who wrote the article, that you think is superior to BAGD and LSJ, was given but who is he, what are his qualifications, what sources did he consult to write his article? Unknown, unknown, unknown! And that is what you want to trust. I seem to recall reading something about itching ears.

 

[he-man]

Maybe you should use more up-to-date sources. . Their names appear on page x of my 1958 edition of BAGD.

:oThat was what I quoted from, BAG 1958 edition page xi and xxvii

Is the Encyclopedia Mythica website a peer reviewed scholarly source? The word you were asking about was drakon not basilisk!

That statement simply shows your lack of a well rounded education.
δράκων basilisk, dragοn; wyνern; basilisk (from the Greek βaotλiσκος basiliskοs

None of this is relevant to the discussion of the word drakon. How does the writer,

According tο the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder

Why? Because I did not find an article about drakon at the anonymous website you mentioned?

Basilisk
References used for the Basilisk-article:

1. Encyclopedie van de Mythologie.
   van Reeth, Dr. A.
   Tirion, Baarn: 1994
   ISBN: 9051213042

The basilisk could have originated from the horned adder or hooded cobra from India. Pliny the Elder described it simply as a snake with a golden crown. By the Middle Ages, it had become a snake with the head of a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and sometimes with the head a human. In art, the basilisk symbolized the devil and the antichrist. To the Protestants, it was a symbol of the papacy.

Basilisk

 

[Der Alte]

That was what I quoted from, BAG 1958 edition page xi and xxvii. That statement simply shows your lack of a well rounded education.

If this is true whey did you not quote the forewards by the subsequent editors; Arndt, Gingrich and Danker?

δράκων basilisk, dragοn; wyνern; basilisk (from the Greek βaotλiσκος basiliskοs
According tο the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder
Basilisk

IRRELEVANT! The word you demanded several times that I look up was drakon NOT basilisk. And you can post this same nonsense until your keyboard wears out and it proves absolutely nothing about the topic of this forum. Which you seem to not know is "The wages of sin is DEATH, not eternal torment in Hell." If you want to argue about these words start a new thread.

References used for the Basilisk-article:

Encyclopedie van de Mythologie.
van Reeth, Dr. A.
Tirion, Baarn: 1994
ISBN: 9051213042

Where did you get this information? It is not listed at your link? It is not credible, verifiable, historical evidence and which you have never read. Do you have any historical evidence, in English, that is readily available to people in this country?

The basilisk could have originated from the horned adder or hooded cobra from India. Pliny the Elder described it simply as a snake with a golden crown. By the Middle Ages, it had become a snake with the head of a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and sometimes with the head a human.

Which is totally irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Again this is not the word you demanded several times that I look up which, since you have forgotten, was drakon.

In art, the basilisk symbolized the devil and the antichrist. To the Protestants, it was a symbol of the papacy.

So what? What some group or other used as a symbol of something 1500+ years AD is irrelevant to the definition of the Greek word. There were no protestants until the 1500s. BAGD defined the word drakon as the Greeks used it beginning about 400 BC. What part of this do you not understand? Let me use your rationale. In the 1860s the cross was used as a symbol by KKK. Does that mean that Jesus was crucified on a KKK symbol?

 

[he-man]

IRRELEVANT! The word you demanded several times that I look up was drakon NOT basilisk. Where did you get this information? BAGD defined the word drakon as the Greeks used it beginning about 400 BC. What part of this do you not understand?

:o That is exactly my point! BAG was so under the influence of Dogma that he was unlearned of the mythology. I guess Bag did not know any Hebrew, do you?In Hebrew it is called Tzeph'a and Tziph'oni.

The frequent mention of the basilisk in sacred as well as in profane writings.
II. The etymology of the word. The kings of the brute creation —their names.
III. A list of similar words with different meanings.
IV. Different names of the basilisk.

The very frequent mention of the basilisk in sacred as well as profane writings demands some account of the word. Thus Isaiah, chap. xi. v. 8, has "The sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den."

Megalotheander's Bible has, " He shall put his hand on the hole of the basilisk." In the same prophet, chap. xiv. 29, we read, forth a cockatrice." Similarly, Luther's Bible has the words, " From the root of the serpent shall a basilisk come."

Again, chap. lix. 5, "They hatch cockatrice' eggs." In Theander, again, we find, "They hatch basilisk's eggs." Compare Jeremiah, chap. viii. 17, and Proverbs, chap,
xxiii. 32.

The term basilisk was not unknown to the most ancient writers of heathendom, a fact which becomes clear from an inspection of the works of Pliny, Solinus, Lucan, Dioscoris, Galen, and others.

We have first of all to touch on the etymology of the word. The term basilisk arose in Greece, came into constant use in Latium, and remained among the Teutonic peoples. "Basilisk" is a diminutive from "basileus"(king), which is so termed from the king being the "basis" of the nation.

This extremely poisonous serpent, therefore, gets its name of basilisk, or regulus,
John Eusebius, a Jesuit, born at Nuremberg, and who became Professor of Physiology in the Academy of Madrid, is the author quoted. The passage occurs in the sixth book of his Hhtor'ia Natur. folio 102.

We proceed to give a list of different meanings of the word. The trochilus or regulus (in Greek Βασιλισκος).

In Hebrew it is called Tzeph'a and Tziph'oni. These words are translated by Buxtorfius, in his lexicon, into regulus, basiliskus, and hoemorrhois, the most venomous of all the serpent tribe.

In ancient Greek, it is called the basilisk, as we have mentioned above. In Latin it bears the names of regulus, deadly reptile, &c. The Egyptians placed it among their hieroglyphics when they wished to indicate a man of evil tongue, they drew the picture of a basilisk.
Eusebius (Hist. Nat., Bk. iv., chap. 29,fo. 120).

The fictions which Pliny, who in his writings is more celebrated for style than for accuracy of Statement (Nat. Hist. Bk. 8, cap. 21), and ΑΕlian tell us of, are of the same nature.
On tbe Basilisk BY GEORGE CASPARD KIRCHMAYER.
Myths of ancient science on the basilisk, University of Toronto

 

[Der Alte]

That is exactly my point! BAG was so under the influence of Dogma that he was unlearned of the mythology. I guess Bag did not know any Hebrew, do you?In Hebrew it is called Tzeph'a and Tziph'oni.

Exactly my foot! There is someone here who is so under the influence of dogma that he can only see error where there is none. I guess the secular scholars who compiled the LSJ were also under this so-called influence they didn't mention any of the so-called mythology either. The Hebrew? So what? This does not prove anything about anything.

Let me illustrate how ridiculous your argument is. The Greek word for cross is stavros. The KKK used a cross symbol. The Greek scholars who compiled the lexicon erred because they didn't mention the KKK in the definition.

The frequent mention of the basilisk in sacred as well as in profane writings.
II. The etymology of the word. The kings of the brute creation —their names.
III. A list of similar words with different meanings.
IV. Different names of the basilisk.

The very frequent mention of the basilisk in sacred as well as profane writings demands some account of the word. Thus Isaiah, chap. xi. v. 8, has "The sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den."[Irrelevant!]

Megalotheander's Bible has, " He shall put his hand on the hole of the basilisk." In the same prophet, chap. xiv. 29, we read, forth a cockatrice." Similarly, Luther's Bible has the words, " From the root of the serpent shall a basilisk come." [Irrelevant!]

Again, chap. lix. 5, "They hatch cockatrice' eggs." In Theander, again, we find, "They hatch basilisk's eggs." Compare Jeremiah, chap. viii. 17, and Proverbs, chap,
xxiii. 32. [Irrelevant!]

The term basilisk was not unknown to the most ancient writers of heathendom, a fact which becomes clear from an inspection of the works of Pliny, Solinus, Lucan, Dioscoris, Galen, and others.[Irrelevant!]

We have first of all to touch on the etymology of the word. The term basilisk arose in Greece, came into constant use in Latium, and remained among the Teutonic peoples. "Basilisk" is a diminutive from "basileus"(king), which is so termed from the king being the "basis" of the nation.[Irrelevant!]

This extremely poisonous serpent, therefore, gets its name of basilisk, or regulus, John Eusebius, a Jesuit, born at Nuremberg, and who became Professor of Physiology in the Academy of Madrid, is the author quoted. The passage occurs in the sixth book of his Hhtor'ia Natur. folio 102. [Irrelevant!]

We proceed to give a list of different meanings of the word. The trochilus or regulus (in Greek Βασιλισκο&#962.[Irrelevant!]

In Hebrew it is called Tzeph'a and Tziph'oni. These words are translated by Buxtorfius, in his lexicon, into regulus, basiliskus, and hoemorrhois, the most venomous of all the serpent tribe.[Irrelevant!]

In ancient Greek, it is called the basilisk, as we have mentioned above. In Latin it bears the names of regulus, deadly reptile, &c. The Egyptians placed it among their hieroglyphics when they wished to indicate a man of evil tongue, they drew the picture of a basilisk.
Eusebius (Hist. Nat., Bk. iv., chap. 29,fo. 120). [Irrelevant!]

The fictions which Pliny, who in his writings is more celebrated for style than for accuracy of Statement (Nat. Hist. Bk. 8, cap. 21), and ΑΕlian tell us of, are of the same nature. [Irrelevant!]
On tbe Basilisk BY GEORGE CASPARD KIRCHMAYER.
Myths of ancient science on the basilisk, University of Toronto

Everything you have said is irrelevant to this topic or anything other topic. Why is it you cannot remember or understand that the word you demanded several times that I define for you was drakon, NOT Basilisk.

All this rambling about basilisk is a waste of time. It means absolutely nothing. Neither the word drakon nor basilisk has appeared in any scripture which has been presented in this thread or any other thread that I am aware of.

You have not proved anything relevant about either drakon or basilisk. If you have a problem with BAGD contact the publisher. I'm sure they will set you straight. Since you are so fixated on this word why don't you start a thread about it.

 

[he-man]

The Hebrew? So what? This does not prove anything about anything.

צפע nm. viper (snake) , basilisk
Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' [H6848 צפע nm. viper (snake) basilisk ]
den.

Neither the word drakon nor basilisk has appeared in any scripture which has been presented in this thread or any other thread that I am aware of.

Then you do not know Hebrew: in all which the Revised Version renders the Hebrew tziph'oni by "basilisk"). In Proverbs 23:32 the Hebrew tzeph'a is rendered both in the Authorized Version and the Revised Version by "adder;" margin of Revised Version "basilisk," and of Authorized Version "cockatrice."
Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897

Encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Cockatrice


COCKATRICE kok'-a-tris, kok'-a-tris (tsepha`; tsph`oni; Septuagint, basiliskos, "basilisk" (which see), and aspis, "asp" (see ADDER; ASP; SERPENT))

Jer 8:17 For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, [H6848 צפע nm. viper (snake) , basilisk ] among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD.

You have not proved anything relevant about either drakon or basilisk.

Megalotheander’s Bible has, “He shall put his hand on the hole of the basilisk. ”

bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/creationism/​CREATIONISM/creation%20
www.archive.org/stream/​unnaturalhistor00schogoog​/unnaturalhistor00

Luther's Bible has the words, " From the root of the serpent shall a basilisk come."

 

[he-man]

Exactly my foot! The Hebrew? So what? This does not prove anything about anything. Let me illustrate how ridiculous your argument is. Neither the word drakon nor basilisk has appeared in any scripture which has been presented in this thread or any other thread that I am aware of.

Let me illustrate from your own Jewish Encyclopedia that you love to quote about hell and see how terribly ridiculous your argument is.

COCKATRICE – See Basilisk.
BASILISK – ...The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice."

The Septuagint... SERPENT – ...et al.), perhaps identical with the Egyptian cobra (Naja haje), which is found in southern Palestine, and is frequently kept by snake-charmers; (3) "ẓefa'" (A. V. "cockatrice," R. V. "basilisk ...LXX. "asp"; Isa. xiv. 29);

(4) "ẓif'oni" (adder, basilisk, cockatrice; Isa. xi. 8, lix. 5, et al.), perhaps the large viper (Duboia xanthina); it is identified also, by some, with the cat-snake (EGGS – ...Biblical Data: The Old Testament refers to eggs of birds (Deut. xxii. 6) and of vipers (Isa. lix. 5, A. V., "cockatrice"), and to the well-known fact that...

BASILISK: (Redirected from COCKATRICE.)
The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice."
The Septuagint uses the word βασιλίσκον in Isa. lix. 5 for "ef'eh," and in Ps. xci. 13 for "peten." In all these places some variety of serpent is evidently meant, but the ancient versions do not indicate which.

The rendering "basilisk"—so also Jerome and the Syriac Version—is correct in so far as that the Hebrew word likewise appears to designate some fabulous creature, though it is not known which was the particular kind of serpent that suggested the fanciful notions of the ancients. According to some, the Hebrew "ẓefa'" is the same species as "shefifon" (Gen. xlix. 17), the horned adder or cerastes, a very poisonous viper found in Arabia, in the Sinaitic peninsula.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4437-cockatrice

 

[Der Alte]

That is exactly my point! BAG was so under the influence of Dogma that he was unlearned of the mythology. I guess Bag did not know any Hebrew, do you?In Hebrew it is called Tzeph'a and Tziph'oni.

The frequent mention of the basilisk in sacred as well as in profane writings.
II. The etymology of the word. The kings of the brute creation —their names.
III. A list of similar words with different meanings.
IV. Different names of the basilisk.

[SIZE="+1"][* * * Unsupported mythological legends and tales omitted * * * ][/SIZE]

On tbe Basilisk BY GEORGE CASPARD KIRCHMAYER.
Myths of ancient science on the basilisk, University of Toronto

The actual source of this convoluted undocumented pseudo-information is "Un-natural History: Or, Myths of Ancient Science; Being a Collection of Curious Tracts on the Basilisk, Unicorn, Phoenix, Behemoth Or Leviathan, Dragon, Giant Spider, Tarantula, Chameleons, Satyrs, Homines Caudati,[tailed men] and Shining Lilies of Palestine. Georg Kasper Kirchmayer, Hermann Grube, Martinus Schoock, Edinburg, 1886. And is about as cogent and relevant to these discussions as a comic book. Only 150 of these books were printed.

Read all about Unicorns, Phoenixes, Satyrs, etc. at this link.

Un-natural History: Or, Myths of Ancient Science; Being a Collection of ... - Georg Kasper Kirchmayer, Hermann Grube, Martinus Schoock - Google Books

 

[he-man]

The actual source of this convoluted undocumented pseudo-information is "Un-natural History: Or, Myths of Ancient Science; Being a Collection of Curious Tracts on the Basilisk,

:o Unsupported? I now know for sure that you do not know HEBREW.
Here it is from your own Jewish Encyclopedia that you love to quote about hell and see how uninformed your argument is.

COCKATRICE – See Basilisk.
BASILISK – ...The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice."

The Septuagint... SERPENT – ...et al.), perhaps identical with the Egyptian cobra (Naja haje), which is found in southern Palestine, and is frequently kept by snake-charmers; (3) "ẓefa'" (A. V. "cockatrice," R. V. "basilisk ...LXX. "asp"; Isa. xiv. 29);

(4) "ẓif'oni" (adder, basilisk, cockatrice; Isa. xi. 8, lix. 5, et al.), perhaps the large viper (Duboia xanthina); it is identified also, by some, with the cat-snake (EGGS – ...Biblical Data: The Old Testament refers to eggs of birds (Deut. xxii. 6) and of vipers (Isa. lix. 5, A. V., "cockatrice"), and to the well-known fact that...

BASILISK: (Redirected from COCKATRICE.)
The translation in the Revised Version of the Hebrew "ẓefa'" and "ẓif'oni" (Isa. xi. 8, xiv. 29, lix. 5; Jer. viii. 17; Prov. xxiii. 32), for which the Authorized Version has "cockatrice."
The Septuagint uses the word βασιλίσκον in Isa. lix. 5 for "ef'eh," and in Ps. xci. 13 for "peten." In all these places some variety of serpent is evidently meant, but the ancient versions do not indicate which.

The rendering "basilisk"—so also Jerome and the Syriac Version—is correct in so far as that the Hebrew word likewise appears to designate some fabulous creature, though it is not known which was the particular kind of serpent that suggested the fanciful notions of the ancients. According to some, the Hebrew "ẓefa'" is the same species as "shefifon" (Gen. xlix. 17), the horned adder or cerastes, a very poisonous viper found in Arabia, in the Sinaitic peninsula.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4437-cockatrice

 

[Gospel Guy]

Read all about Unicorns, Phoenixes, Satyrs, etc. at this link.http://books.google.com/books?id=u3...Cg#v=onepage&q=the basilisk in sacred&f=false

WHO in their right mind would be interested in reading about satan's fantasies???

 

[Der Alte]

WHO in their right mind would be interested in reading about satan's fantasies???

Another member posted a 150+ year old "Encyclopedia of Mythology" as a credible source for the meaning of some words in both testaments. I was being facetious. If that mythology book was a valid source for the meaning of Biblical words then we might as well read about phoenixes, satyrs, etc. which are all in that book, as well. Of course the other member was cherry picking trying to find something, anything, somewhere, by somebody as long as it seemed to support his false beliefs.