What is the 2nd Death? (Annihilationsim vs. Eternal Torment)

GUANO

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2013
739
324
40
Los Angeles
✟32,324.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I agree with the concept although I drop the whole idea of the soul as a separate entity. Genesis states that spirit+body=soul. You are a soul, you don't have a soul. Integration of the soul as a separate being isn't compatible with annihilationism unless you're trying to include the doctrine that there is consciousness after death, in which case it's hard to argue for annihilationism.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Butch5
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree with the concept although I drop the whole idea of the soul as a separate entity. Genesis states that spirit+body=soul. You are a soul, you don't have a soul. Integration of the soul as a separate being isn't compatible with annihilationism unless you're trying to include the doctrine that there is consciousness after death, in which case it's hard to argue for annihilationism.

I agree!
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You've got it backwards. People do use hyperbole just as you suggested. However, the don't do it in reverse. When something is quick we don't say it took an eternity. Eternity is used as hyperbole of finite periods. Finite periods are not used of eternity. If someone wants to say, I want to live for eternity, they don't say I want to live for years, they say eternity.
There are quite a few figures of speech in the Scriptures, but finite periods of time are not used as hyperbole for eternity.

You are arguing with a straw man. I never said or implied that "finite periods are [] used of eternity." or "finite periods of time are [] used as hyperbole for eternity." That is the argument of people who say aion/aionios does not mean eternity/eternal. If aion means a finite period then your argument means that it can't be used to refer to eternal.
I'ts already been proven. Jesus and Paul both said that the Law ended, yet the translators indicate that those statutes will go on forever. These two oppose each other. One has to be wrong. I'm arguing that Jesus and Paul are right and the translators are wrong.
Wrong neither Jesus nor Paul said the law ended. Jesus said not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled.
This shows what I said. You're using human reasoning to make your argument. They are not grammatical. Your argument was based on the phrase "not destroyed". I pointed out that "not destroyed" is not the definition of aion. I've also pointed out that an "age" can incorporate the concept of eternity, however, the concept of eternity cannot incorporate a finite period of time, an age. An age is an undefined period of time. What is eternity? It is an undefined period of time. However, we cannot say that an age is an unending period of time because it is clearly used in the scriptures of periods of time that ended
This is all human reasoning. I did not say "not destroyed" is the definition of aion. I suggest you read my posts and address what I say not your strawman arguments.
The word "aion" was used in the Greek Old Testament to translate the Hebrew word "olam." The definition of olam is, to the horizon. It's what can be seen or we could say for the foreseeable future. It doesn't indicate an unending period of time as it is usually translated in English. The concept of olam is what should be understood by aion as it was used to translate olam.
Is that site inspired? What are the Hebrew qualification of the person(s) who maintains that site. You are misquoting your link. It does not say "olam is to the horizon" it says "beyond the horizon." Here is the definition of olam from one of, if not, the most highly accredited Hebrew lexicon available.
III עולם. n.m. long duration, antiquity, futurity — 1. of past time: a. ancient time: ymy olam days of old; am olam, ancient people; hrbwt olam, old waste places; ptkhy olam, ancient gates; mn (m)olam, from of old, of the fathers, the prophets, the ancient bhm olam: nplym, long in them. b. mty olam , the long dead. c. of God, molam : former acts; as redeemer; of love, judgment, dominion; long silence; his wisdom personif.; his existence. d. of things: gba’wt olam, ancient hills. e. pl. a’wlmym shnwt, years of ancient times;a’lmym, in olden times. 2. a. indef. futurity, c. prep.for ever, always (sts. = during the lifetime); a’bd a’wlm, slave for ever; a’bd lolam, serve for ever; g’alt olam, redemption at any time; hrt olam, ever pregnant (womb); klmt olam of persecutors of Jeremiah; shlwy olam, alway at ease; (yhyh) yhy lolam, may the king live always; so of the pious; other phr.; olam ‘ashyrh, I will sing for ever (as long as I live); other emotions and activities continuous throught life. b. = continuous existence, (1) of things: the earth; other phr., heavens and contents, ruined cities, ruined lands; la’d a’d olam, for a witness for ever, in a book; (2) of nations: (Babylon loqu.); yshb lolam, of Judah; (3) families; the dynasty of Saul; house of Eli; (4) national relations: ‘aybt olam, continual enmity; of exclusion from a’d olam, qhl ylam; various relations; khrpt olam, perpetual reproach, of dynasty of David, families. c. of divine existence: hy holam; hy ‘anky lolam; ‘alhy olam; ‘al olm; of divine name, zh shmy lolam; blessing and praise of it; of YHWH himself; attributes, ‘ahbh; reign; presence in Zion; his salvation; zra’t olam, everlasting arms. d. of God’s covenant: bryt olam, everlasting covenant; covenant with Noah, ld r t olam 5; God remembers it; will not break it, lolam. e. of God’s laws; temple to bear God’s name, a’d olam; consecrated; its ceremonies; Levit. priesthood; Aaronic priesthood. f. of God’s promises: his word, yqwm lolam; promised dynasty of David; of holy land; given lolam, inherited lolam; dwelt in a’d olam; other blessings; Jerus. to abide lolam . g. of relations between God and his people, lolam. h. of Messianic dynasty and king: (l)olam; having divine throne; name endures; established; God blesses him; of his reign. i. = indefinite, unending future: live hwby’aym hlolam yhyw lolam, the prophets, can they live for ever?; c. neg. never. j. after death. k. = age (duration) of the world: a’t h’alm ntn blbm, the age of the world he hath set, etc. 1. pl. intens. everlastingness, eternity. m. special phr.: m(h)olam (w)a’d (h)olam (mn) from everlasting to everlasting, of yolam; khsd yolam; benedictions; the land given; wa’d olam ma’th, from now and for ever (i.e. as long as one lives); of people’s hope in God; dynasty of David; of God’s acts, words, etc.; v. further I. a’d.
Whitaker, R., Brown, F., Driver, S. (. R., & Briggs, C. A. (. A. 1997, c1906. The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament : From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, based on the lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius, 1833. Edited by Richard Whitaker (Princeton Theological Seminary). Text provided by Princeton Theological Seminary. (electronic ed.) . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor WA.
Here is how olam is translated in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation.
JPS Exo 15:18
(18) The LORD shall reign for ever [עולם/olam] and ever.[עד/ad]
JPS Psa 10:16
(16) The LORD is King for ever [עולם/olam] and ever;[עד/ad] the nations are perished out of His land.
JPS Psa 48:14
(14) (48:15) For such is God, our God, for ever [עולם/olam] and ever[עד/ad]; He will guide us eternally.
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Nonsense. God is either finite or He is eternal, He cannot be both. God exists today, which is finite, but He is eternal.

1."God exists today"
2. Today "is finite"
3. Therefore God exists during finite days [years, centuries, eras, epochs, milleniums, ancient times/olam, eons & ages]
4. God is also immortal.
5. Therefore God exists both during finite days & immortally.
6. Both are true at the same time.

Therefore when Scripture speaks of One Who is both immortal and King of the ages in the same sentence (1 Tim.1:17), ages can refer to finite periods of time. Whether of finite individual ages or finite corporate ages [of at least two ages].

Thus your argument is refuted. Likewise where you make the same type of fallacious argument in most of the 8 aion/ios verses that you posted.

And, as shown from Scripture earlier (post #'s 130 & 131 etc) in this thread, multiple ages can come to an end.

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism
https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Noxot

anarchist personalist
Supporter
Aug 6, 2007
8,191
2,450
37
dallas, texas
Visit site
✟231,339.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
God does not inspire things like you think he does because God inspires things according to their capacity to receive him. how does one measure how God inspires something? why do people think God is bounded to human limitations and to the rules of cause and effect?
 
Upvote 0

Ron Gurley

What U See is What U Get!
Supporter
Sep 22, 2015
4,000
1,029
Baton Rouge, LA
Visit site
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
See my post # 133 for the THREE SEPARATE PARTS of MAN: Body/Soul combo + SPIRIT. It is the IMMORTAL SPIRIT which is judged to spend eternity in 1 of 2 spiritual realms:
1. Heavenly realms
2. "Lake of Fire"

After the "death" of the Body/Soul combo, all spirits are judged by God:

Hebrews 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men (Body/Soul combo) die once and after this comes judgment,(of immortal SPIRITS)
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's not irrelevant. You quote them like what they say ends the discussion. They are humans and just a capable of making a mistake or being subject to bias and anyone else.
Evidently you don't know what BDAG is or how it came about. If you think anything I quote is incorrect then you must prove it, not just make the assumption.
You ask if I read Greek and then assume that I don't. You don't know to what extent I know Greek. You also don't know to what extent I've studied the Scriptures. You're just making assumptions.
You have not stated or shown any qualifications in Greek or Hebrew, nor have you quoted a credible source. An anonymous website does not qualify as a credible source.
Do you know how lexicons are made? Do you know how translators determine what a word means? I assume anything, I'll let you answer for yourself. If you do know the answers please elaborate.
Since you assume that the lexicons that I quote are probably wrong then you apparently do not know how the translators determined what the words mean. All credible lexicons show how they determined the meaning in the definitions. Here for example the definition of aionios from BAGD. The sources in the first paragraph are highlighted in blue.

αἰώνιος, ον, ( iva Pla ., Tim. 38 B ; Jer 39:40 ; Ezk 37:26 ; 2 Th 2:16 ; Hb 9:12 ; as v.l. Ac 13:48 ; 2 Pt 1:11 ; Bl-D. §59, 2; Mlt.-H. 157), on eternal (since Hyperid. 6, 27; Pla. ; inscr. , pap. , LXX ; Ps.-Phoc. 112; Test. 12 Patr. ; standing epithet for princely, esp. imperial power: Dit., Or. Index VIII; BGU 176; 303; 309; Sb 7517, 5 [211/2 AD ] kuvrio" aij. ; al. in pap. ; Jos. , Ant. 7, 352).
1. without beginning crovnoi" aij. long ages ago Ro 16:25 ; pro; crovnwn aij. before time began 2 Ti 1:9 ; Tit 1:2 (on crovno" aij. cf. Dit., Or. 248, 54; 383, 10).
2. without beginning or end; of God (Ps.- Pla. , Tim. Locr. 96c qeo;n t. aijwvnion ; Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. 894 aij. k. ajqavnato" ; Gen 21:33 ; Is 26:4 ; 40:28 ; Bar 4:8 al .; Philo , Plant. 8; 74; Sib. Or. , fgm. 3, 17 and 4; PGM 1, 309; 13, 280) Ro 16:26 ; of the Holy Spirit in Christ Hb 9:14 . qrovno" aij. 1 Cl 65:2 ( cf. 1 Macc 2:57 ).
3. without end ( Diod. S. 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 dovxa aij . everlasting fame; in Diod. S. 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their aij. oi[khsi" ; Arrian , Peripl. 1, 4 ej" mnhvmhn aij. ; Jos.
, Bell. 4, 461 aij. cavri" =a gracious gift for all future time; Dit., Or. 383, 10 [I BC ] eij" crovnon aij .; ECEOwen, oi\ko" aij. : JTS 38, ’37, 248-50) of the next life skhnai; aij. Lk 16:9 ( cf. En. 39, 5). oijkiva , contrasted w. the oijkiva ejpivgeio" , of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1 . diaqhvkh (Gen 9:16 ; 17:7 ; Lev 24:8 ; 2 Km 23:5 al .) Hb 13:20 . eujaggevlion Rv 14:6 ; kravto" in a doxolog. formula (= eij" tou;" aijw`na" ) 1 Ti 6:16 . paravklhsi" 2 Th 2:16 . luvtrwsi" Hb 9:12 . klhronomiva (Esth 4:17 m) vs. 15; aij. ajpevcein tinav ( opp. pro;" w{ran ) keep someone forever Phlm 15 ( cf. Job 40:28 ). Very often of God’s judgment ( Diod. S. 4, 63, 4 dia; th;n ajsevbeian ejn a{/dou diatelei`n timwriva" aijwnivou tugcavnonta ; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40 ; Da 12:2 ; Ps 76:6 ; 4 Macc 9:9 ; 13:15 ) kovlasi" aij. ( Test. Reub. 5:5) Mt 25:46 ; 2 Cl 6:7; krivma aij. Hb 6:2 ; qavnato" B 20:1. o[leqron (4 Macc 10:15 ) 2 Th 1:9 . pu`r (4 Macc 12:12 .— Sib. Or. 8, 401 fw`" aij .) Mt 18:8 ; 25:41 ; Jd 7 ; Dg 10:7 ( IQS 2, 8). aJnavrthma Mk 3:29 ( v.l. krivsew" and aJmartiva" ). On the other hand of eternal life ( Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d qeou` zwh; aij. ; Diod. S. 8, 15, 3 life meta; to;n qavnaton lasts eij" a{panta aijw`na ; Da 12:2 ; 4 Macc 15:3 ; PsSol 3, 12; Philo , Fuga 78; Jos. , Bell. 1, 650; Sib. Or. 2, 336) in the Kingdom of God: zwh; aij. Mt 19:16 , 29 ; 25:46 ; Mk 10:17 , 30 ; Lk 10:25 ; 18:18 , 30 ; Ac 13:46 , 48 ; Ro 2:7 ; 5:21 al .; J 3:15 f , 36 ; 4:14 , 36 al .; 1J 1:2 ; 2:25 al. — D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also basileiva aij. 2 Pt 1:11 ( cf. Da 4:3 ; 7:27 ; Philo , Somn. 2, 285; Dit., Or. 569, 24 uJpe;r th`" aijwnivou kai; ajfqavrtou basileiva" uJmw`n ; Dssm. B 279 f , BS 363). Of the glory in the next life dovxa aij. 2 Ti 2:10 ( cf. Wsd 10:14 ; Jos. , Ant. 15,
376.— Sib. Or. 8, 410). aijwvnion bavro" dovxh" 2 Cor 4:17 ; swthriva aij. (Is 45:17 ; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9 ; short ending of Mk. Of heavenly glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses ta; mh; blepovmena aijwvnia 2 Cor 4:18 .— carav IPhld inscr .; doxavzesqai aijwnivw/ e[rgw/ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186-201. M-M.

http://lareopage.free.fr/a&g/a/a-Index.html
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I started this new thread in response to a post on a thread I started yesterday here:

Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationism, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

There are two reasons I started a new thread:
1. As you can see, my response is too long to make a good comment.
2. The interpretation of Revelation is both complex and important, and I thought it might be worth having a thread narrowly focused on this.

I used to believe pretty much the same as you explain in your opening post...........

The near death experience account of Dr. George Ritchie got me out of what I now feel was a pretty serious false doctrine......"soul sleep."

Dr. George Ritchie, near-death .com:
His Experience of the "Receiving Station"

Jesus then takes Ritchie to another realm and is shown a kind of "receiving station" where spirits would arrive in a deep hypnotic sleep because of a particular religious belief they held to be true. Here there were "angels" trying to arouse them and help them realize, "God is truly a God of the living and that they did not have to lie around sleeping until Gabriel or someone came along blowing on a horn." These are the spirits of people who believe they must sleep in their grave until the second coming of Christ (i.e., soul sleep.)


The being of light of NDE fame, G-d or Satan?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
893
744
59
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟172,170.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I used to believe pretty much the same as you explain in your opening post...........

The near death experience account of Dr. George Ritchie got me out of what I now feel was a pretty serious false doctrine......"soul sleep."

I don't believe in soul sleep, either, at least not in the way I understand that term. The way I understand soul sleep is that it refers to a belief that all people will essentially be "asleep", unconscious and unaware of anything, in between the time they die and the time their bodies are resurrected. This "in between" period is often called "the intermediate state".

The Bible gives only a small amount of information about the intermediate state. For believers, I think these verses are relevant:

NIV Philippians 1:23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far;

NIV 2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

So, in one way we agree. Yet, I don't agree that "soul sleep" is in itself a "pretty serious false doctrine". I believe it is a minor point of doctrine which good, godly, Bible believing, Jesus serving, gospel spreading, true Christians can disagree on and yet still work and worship together.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DennisTate
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I don't believe in soul sleep, either, at least not in the way I understand that term. The way I understand soul sleep is that it refers to a belief that all people will essentially be "asleep", unconscious and unaware of anything, in between the time they die and the time their bodies are resurrected. This "in between" period is often called "the intermediate state".

The Bible gives only a small amount of information about the intermediate state. For believers, I think these verses are relevant:

NIV Philippians 1:23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far;

NIV 2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

So, in one way we agree. Yet, I don't agree that "soul sleep" is in itself a "pretty serious false doctrine". I believe it is a minor point of doctrine which good, godly, Bible believing, Jesus serving, gospel spreading, true Christians can disagree on and yet still work and worship together.


Very well said.........
we can definitely work together with people who at this time still misunderstand what the Bible really means by comparing death to a sleep?!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1."God exists today"
2. Today "is finite"
3. Therefore God exists during finite days [years, centuries, eras, epochs, milleniums, ancient times/olam, eons & ages]
4. God is also immortal.
5. Therefore God exists both during finite days & immortally.
6. Both are true at the same time.
Therefore when Scripture speaks of One Who is both immortal and King of the ages in the same sentence (1 Tim.1:17), ages can refer to finite periods of time. Whether of finite individual ages or finite corporate ages [of at least two ages].
Thus your argument is refuted. Likewise where you make the same type of fallacious argument in most of the 8 aion/ios verses that you posted.
And, as shown from Scripture earlier (post #'s 130 & 131 etc) in this thread, multiple ages can come to an end
.
NET 1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the eternal [αιωνων/aionion] king,22 immortal, invisible, the only23 God, be honor and glory forever and ever!24[εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων/eis tous aionas ton aionon]Amen.
Translator notes; 22tn Or more literally, “king of the ages.”
23tc Most later witnesses (Í2 D1 Hc Y 1881 Ï) have “wise” (sovfw/, swfw) here (thus, “the only wise God”), while the earlier and better witnesses (Í* A D* F G H* 33 1739 lat co) lack this adjective. Although it could be argued that the longer reading is harder since it does not as emphatically affirm monotheism, it is more likely that scribes borrowed sovfw/ from Rom 16:27 where movnw/ sovfw/ qew'/ (monw sofw qew, “the only wise God”) is textually solid.
24tn Grk “unto the ages of the ages,” an emphatic way of speaking about eternity in Greek.
NET senior editor Dr. Dan Wallace who has taught graduate level Greek for 30+ years.
ISV 1Ti 1:17
(17) Now to the King Eternal—the immortal, invisible, and only God—be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen.
ASV 1Ti 1:17
(17) Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
ISV 1Ti 1:17
(17) Now to the King Eternal—the immortal, invisible, and only God—be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen.
NIV 1Ti 1:17
(17) Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
NIrV 1Ti 1:17
(17) The eternal King will never die. He can't be seen. He is the only God. Give him honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
====
Here is a an example of the figure of speech epizeuxis, repetition of a word for emphasis the word uperbolyn. The sentence structure is virtually identical to 1 Tim 1;17
2 Cor 4:17
(17) For our light affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and more exceedingly [καθ υπερβολην εις υπερβολην/kath uperbolyn eis uperbolyn] an eternal weight of glory;

====
Epizeuxis: or, Duplication The Repetition of the Same Word in the Same Sense When the word is repeated in close and immediate succession, no other word or words coming between, it is called GEMINATIO , pronounced Gem-i-n ´-tio , which means a doubling, duplication, a re-doubling . It is also called ITERATIO ( It´-er- -ti-o ), iteration; CONDUPLICATIO ( con-d -pli-ca´-tio ), conduplication , or full doubling . When the words do not immediately succeed each other, but are separated by one or more intervening words, the figure is then called EPIZEUXIS , pronounced Ep´-i-zeux´-is epi ), upon , and ( zeugnumi ), to yoke , or join closely together . The intervening words thus form the yoke which joins the repeated words. page 200ff
E.W. Bullinger Figures of Speech in the Bible
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Now there is a logical fallacy an argument from silence. I must be wrong because you don't know of any source which disagrees with me. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

No such argument was stated saying you "must be wrong", though what are the odds that you are right when you cannot produce a single lexicon, church father, commentator or any other source supporting your view? We've both read many of these sources over several decades & i've never seen your argument presented by anyone, even in many forum debates re the words aion & aionion. Lexicons disagree with your view. And if you were aware of any source supporting your view, you'ld have posted it. All of this evidence combined together speaks volumes. In a court of law it would be a slam dunk. Your chance of winning would be like winning a 50 million dollar lottery.

Who agrees with you that when Scripture repeatedly speaks of the "end of the age" (e.g. Mt. 24:3) it is not a literal use of aion and is being used as hyperbole (an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally) like references to Herod being a fox or Peter a stone? No lexicon, church father, commentator or forum poster in the past 2000 years has been cited in support of your theory. Except you, yourself & you. It is Der Alter against the world & history of 2000 years. Does anyone agree with your ridiculous theory?

The Scriptural references to the "end of the age"[aion] prove that aion literally is used of, & can mean, a finite period of time that ends, an age, eon, a duration of time, an epoch. As i defined the word (and lexicons agree):

"Aion literally means age, eon. It refers to a duration of time, often an epoch."

Which you said was wrong.

When some duration of time has an "end" it is not endless, but finite. So when aion is in apposition to "end", it is therefore opposed to being endless & cannot mean eternal.

So your view that olam & aion & aionios mean eternal everywhere in the Scriptures (except when used in hyperbole) is proven to be wrong.

Those words often literally refer to, mean & are defined as a finite duration of time, whether of an age, eon, epoch, lifetime, etc. Both lexicons and Scriptural usage concur.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BARNEY BRIGHT

Active Member
Oct 17, 2016
103
12
67
macon ga.
✟17,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
RE: POST#28 Q: ..."I have never found a scripture in the Bible that say we have "souls"..."

Let's do some spiritual math!

God created Man in His own SPIRITUAL Image, Likeness (Genesis 1:26)

God has no BODY.(sarx) God has no SOUL.(psyche)

God is SPIRIT. (worship Him in SPIRIT and in TRUTH) John 4:24

Man has a Body/Soul combo which is mortal.
AND Man has a SPIRIT which is immortal.

Soul and SPIRIT are separate and different. SPIRIT "communes" with Soul.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 ...MAN'S 3 "PARTS"

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your 1. SPIRIT (pneuma) and 2. SOUL (psyche) and 3. BODY (sarx/soma) be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12 (ALL NASB)
For the "word of God" is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword,
and piercing as far as the division of SOUL(PSYCHE) and SPIRIT(PNEUMA),
of both joints and marrow (BODY/SARX-SOMA),
and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the "heart".

of the heart...GREEK 2588...kardia...denotes the (INTERACTIVE) center of all physical and spiritual life b. of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence
c. of the will and character (CONSCIENCE?)

1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Or do you not know that your BODY (/SOUL combo) is a "temple"(house?) of (God) the Holy Spirit who is IN you, whom you have from God (the Father_, and that you are not your own?
For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Ecclesiastes 12...Remember God in Your Youth: AT DEATH, SPIRIT returns to God
Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth,
before the evil days come and the years draw near when you will say,
"I have no delight in them";...
For man goes to his ETERNAL (spiritual) home while mourners go about in the street....
7 then the dust (Body/Soul combo) will return to the earth as it was, (Genesis 2:7)
and the SPIRIT (breath of life) will return to God who gave it. (Genesis 1:26)
8 "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "all is vanity!

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God the Lord,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it (Body/Soul combo)
And SPIRIT to those who walk in it,

Zechariah 12:1 ...Thus declares the Lord
who stretches out the heavens,
lays the foundation of the earth, and
forms the SPIRIT of man within him,


THUS: ManKIND is divided into 3 parts:


1. SPIRIT = (~God conscience/ spiritual GOD Image = pneuma),

2. SOUL = (~psyche / personality / God CHARACTER~ Likeness = psyche) and

3. BODY = (~man's machine, controlled by brain bucket/CNS = sarx/SOMA)

The SOUL of Mankind (male and female) is also a DYNAMIC REACTION of its 3 parts:

1. MIND...the process of intellect...stored knowledge...its function is "thinking" / "reasoning"

2. WILL...your decision maker...your computer-reactor...your balancer

3. EMOTIONS...how you "feel"...natural reactions / intuitive responses

The Body of Man has its 5 senses / sensors (maybe 6?) to interact with environment....Biology 101

The Soul of Man is the "snowflake" individual personality which starts with some genetic predispositions and is generally developed in and around the brain "bucket" and CNS electrical conductions...Psychology 101

The Spirit of Man searches for its Creator,..Bible 101
At the time of salvation, the battle begins:
OLD MAN: BODY / SOUL against God ...
VERSUS.
NEW MAN: BODY / SOUL / CHANGED SPIRIT + Indwelling God The Holy SPIRIT.

Jewish tradition (?) believed that you:
1. KNOW in your "heart"...Spirit / conscience
2. FEEL in your "gut"...emotions
3. DECIDE in your "head"/brain...mind




It is my belief that when the Bible is talking of being created in his image it is talking about power,free will,justice,etc.the greatest image being love.

on the topic of Spirit the bible shows us that the spirit that is in man is the same spirit that is in animals (ecclesiastes 3:19) and i don't believe that animals go to heaven when they die.So i don't believe we have consciousness that continues to exist after we die and goes to heaven or hell (fire & torment place).
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

You are arguing with a straw man. I never said or implied that "finite periods are [] used of eternity." or "finite periods of time are [] used as hyperbole for eternity." That is the argument of people who say aion/aionios does not mean eternity/eternal. If aion means a finite period then your argument means that it can't be used to refer to eternal.


I didn't say you did. You opposed destroyed and not destroyed in an argument to attempt to prove that aion means eternal.

Wrong neither Jesus nor Paul said the law ended. Jesus said not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled.

It's not wrong. I've posted the passages. Jesus said the Law and the prophets were until John. Paul said that the priesthood had changed.


This is all human reasoning. I did not say "not destroyed" is the definition of aion. I suggest you read my posts and address what I say not your strawman arguments.

Of course it's human reasoning, that's what an argument is.


Is that site inspired? What are the Hebrew qualification of the person(s) who maintains that site. You are misquoting your link. It does not say "olam is to the horizon" it says "beyond the horizon." Here is the definition of olam from one of, if not, the most highly accredited Hebrew lexicon available.
III עולם. n.m. long duration, antiquity, futurity — 1. of past time: a. ancient time: ymy olam days of old; am olam, ancient people; hrbwt olam, old waste places; ptkhy olam, ancient gates; mn (m)olam, from of old, of the fathers, the prophets, the ancient bhm olam: nplym, long in them. b. mty olam , the long dead. c. of God, molam : former acts; as redeemer; of love, judgment, dominion; long silence; his wisdom personif.; his existence. d. of things: gba’wt olam, ancient hills. e. pl. a’wlmym shnwt, years of ancient times;a’lmym, in olden times. 2. a. indef. futurity, c. prep.for ever, always (sts. = during the lifetime); a’bd a’wlm, slave for ever; a’bd lolam, serve for ever; g’alt olam, redemption at any time; hrt olam, ever pregnant (womb); klmt olam of persecutors of Jeremiah; shlwy olam, alway at ease; (yhyh) yhy lolam, may the king live always; so of the pious; other phr.; olam ‘ashyrh, I will sing for ever (as long as I live); other emotions and activities continuous throught life. b. = continuous existence, (1) of things: the earth; other phr., heavens and contents, ruined cities, ruined lands; la’d a’d olam, for a witness for ever, in a book; (2) of nations: (Babylon loqu.); yshb lolam, of Judah; (3) families; the dynasty of Saul; house of Eli; (4) national relations: ‘aybt olam, continual enmity; of exclusion from a’d olam, qhl ylam; various relations; khrpt olam, perpetual reproach, of dynasty of David, families. c. of divine existence: hy holam; hy ‘anky lolam; ‘alhy olam; ‘al olm; of divine name, zh shmy lolam; blessing and praise of it; of YHWH himself; attributes, ‘ahbh; reign; presence in Zion; his salvation; zra’t olam, everlasting arms. d. of God’s covenant: bryt olam, everlasting covenant; covenant with Noah, ld r t olam 5; God remembers it; will not break it, lolam. e. of God’s laws; temple to bear God’s name, a’d olam; consecrated; its ceremonies; Levit. priesthood; Aaronic priesthood. f. of God’s promises: his word, yqwm lolam; promised dynasty of David; of holy land; given lolam, inherited lolam; dwelt in a’d olam; other blessings; Jerus. to abide lolam . g. of relations between God and his people, lolam. h. of Messianic dynasty and king: (l)olam; having divine throne; name endures; established; God blesses him; of his reign. i. = indefinite, unending future: live hwby’aym hlolam yhyw lolam, the prophets, can they live for ever?; c. neg. never. j. after death. k. = age (duration) of the world: a’t h’alm ntn blbm, the age of the world he hath set, etc. 1. pl. intens. everlastingness, eternity. m. special phr.: m(h)olam (w)a’d (h)olam (mn) from everlasting to everlasting, of yolam; khsd yolam; benedictions; the land given; wa’d olam ma’th, from now and for ever (i.e. as long as one lives); of people’s hope in God; dynasty of David; of God’s acts, words, etc.; v. further I. a’d.
Whitaker, R., Brown, F., Driver, S. (. R., & Briggs, C. A. (. A. 1997, c1906. The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament : From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, based on the lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius, 1833. Edited by Richard Whitaker (Princeton Theological Seminary). Text provided by Princeton Theological Seminary. (electronic ed.) . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor WA.
Here is how olam is translated in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation.
JPS Exo 15:18
(18) The LORD shall reign for ever [עולם/olam] and ever.[עד/ad]
JPS Psa 10:16
(16) The LORD is King for ever [עולם/olam] and ever;[עד/ad] the nations are perished out of His land.
JPS Psa 48:14
(14) (48:15) For such is God, our God, for ever [עולם/olam] and ever[עד/ad]; He will guide us eternally.

Do you see the flaw here? You didn't even address the information that I posted. You simply dismissed it and posted your preferring information. That's been the case. You're not making an argument you're simply posting commentary and Lexical information that you believe is correct. That's not an argument. You're effectively saying, I'm right and you're wrong because my info says so. You've not addressed the info regarding olam. You also have not presented anything to show how aion can be used of finite periods of time if it means eternity as you claim. Jesus spoke several times of the end of the age. Eternity doesn't end, yet an age, aion, does.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Evidently you don't know what BDAG is or how it came about. If you think anything I quote is incorrect then you must prove it, not just make the assumption.


I'm well aware of what BDAG is, and it was written by men who are capable of error. Your sources aren't the end of the conversation. You may accept them as the final word, however, when they are wrong they are wrong. I've already shown that it is wrong. Aion is used of finite periods of time. Eternity is unending therefore the definition of aion cannot be eternity. It doesn't matter how many definitions you post or who they're from. If they contradict the useage of the word they're wrong.


You have not stated or shown any qualifications in Greek or Hebrew, nor have you quoted a credible source. An anonymous website does not qualify as a credible source.

I don't need to. My argument is based on logic, not grammar. It's quite obvious that a word that is used to define finite periods of time cannot be defined as eternal.


.Since you assume that the lexicons that I quote are probably wrong then you apparently do not know how the translators determined what the words mean. All credible lexicons show how they determined the meaning in the definitions. Here for example the definition of aionios from BAGD. The sources in the first paragraph are highlighted in blue.

αἰώνιος, ον, ( iva Pla ., Tim. 38 B ; Jer 39:40 ; Ezk 37:26 ; 2 Th 2:16 ; Hb 9:12 ; as v.l. Ac 13:48 ; 2 Pt 1:11 ; Bl-D. §59, 2; Mlt.-H. 157), on eternal (since Hyperid. 6, 27; Pla. ; inscr. , pap. , LXX ; Ps.-Phoc. 112; Test. 12 Patr. ; standing epithet for princely, esp. imperial power: Dit., Or. Index VIII; BGU 176; 303; 309; Sb 7517, 5 [211/2 AD ] kuvrio" aij. ; al. in pap. ; Jos. , Ant. 7, 352).
1. without beginning crovnoi" aij. long ages ago Ro 16:25 ; pro; crovnwn aij. before time began 2 Ti 1:9 ; Tit 1:2 (on crovno" aij. cf. Dit., Or. 248, 54; 383, 10).
2. without beginning or end; of God (Ps.- Pla. , Tim. Locr. 96c qeo;n t. aijwvnion ; Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. 894 aij. k. ajqavnato" ; Gen 21:33 ; Is 26:4 ; 40:28 ; Bar 4:8 al .; Philo , Plant. 8; 74; Sib. Or. , fgm. 3, 17 and 4; PGM 1, 309; 13, 280) Ro 16:26 ; of the Holy Spirit in Christ Hb 9:14 . qrovno" aij. 1 Cl 65:2 ( cf. 1 Macc 2:57 ).
3. without end ( Diod. S. 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 dovxa aij . everlasting fame; in Diod. S. 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their aij. oi[khsi" ; Arrian , Peripl. 1, 4 ej" mnhvmhn aij. ; Jos.
, Bell. 4, 461 aij. cavri" =a gracious gift for all future time; Dit., Or. 383, 10 [I BC ] eij" crovnon aij .; ECEOwen, oi\ko" aij. : JTS 38, ’37, 248-50) of the next life skhnai; aij. Lk 16:9 ( cf. En. 39, 5). oijkiva , contrasted w. the oijkiva ejpivgeio" , of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1 . diaqhvkh (Gen 9:16 ; 17:7 ; Lev 24:8 ; 2 Km 23:5 al .) Hb 13:20 . eujaggevlion Rv 14:6 ; kravto" in a doxolog. formula (= eij" tou;" aijw`na" ) 1 Ti 6:16 . paravklhsi" 2 Th 2:16 . luvtrwsi" Hb 9:12 . klhronomiva (Esth 4:17 m) vs. 15; aij. ajpevcein tinav ( opp. pro;" w{ran ) keep someone forever Phlm 15 ( cf. Job 40:28 ). Very often of God’s judgment ( Diod. S. 4, 63, 4 dia; th;n ajsevbeian ejn a{/dou diatelei`n timwriva" aijwnivou tugcavnonta ; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40 ; Da 12:2 ; Ps 76:6 ; 4 Macc 9:9 ; 13:15 ) kovlasi" aij. ( Test. Reub. 5:5) Mt 25:46 ; 2 Cl 6:7; krivma aij. Hb 6:2 ; qavnato" B 20:1. o[leqron (4 Macc 10:15 ) 2 Th 1:9 . pu`r (4 Macc 12:12 .— Sib. Or. 8, 401 fw`" aij .) Mt 18:8 ; 25:41 ; Jd 7 ; Dg 10:7 ( IQS 2, 8). aJnavrthma Mk 3:29 ( v.l. krivsew" and aJmartiva" ). On the other hand of eternal life ( Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d qeou` zwh; aij. ; Diod. S. 8, 15, 3 life meta; to;n qavnaton lasts eij" a{panta aijw`na ; Da 12:2 ; 4 Macc 15:3 ; PsSol 3, 12; Philo , Fuga 78; Jos. , Bell. 1, 650; Sib. Or. 2, 336) in the Kingdom of God: zwh; aij. Mt 19:16 , 29 ; 25:46 ; Mk 10:17 , 30 ; Lk 10:25 ; 18:18 , 30 ; Ac 13:46 , 48 ; Ro 2:7 ; 5:21 al .; J 3:15 f , 36 ; 4:14 , 36 al .; 1J 1:2 ; 2:25 al. — D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also basileiva aij. 2 Pt 1:11 ( cf. Da 4:3 ; 7:27 ; Philo , Somn. 2, 285; Dit., Or. 569, 24 uJpe;r th`" aijwnivou kai; ajfqavrtou basileiva" uJmw`n ; Dssm. B 279 f , BS 363). Of the glory in the next life dovxa aij. 2 Ti 2:10 ( cf. Wsd 10:14 ; Jos. , Ant. 15,
376.— Sib. Or. 8, 410). aijwvnion bavro" dovxh" 2 Cor 4:17 ; swthriva aij. (Is 45:17 ; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9 ; short ending of Mk. Of heavenly glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses ta; mh; blepovmena aijwvnia 2 Cor 4:18 .— carav IPhld inscr .; doxavzesqai aijwnivw/ e[rgw/ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186-201. M-M.

http://lareopage.free.fr/a&g/a/a-Index.html

I do know how they're made. However, you didn't answer the question so I have to assume that you don't. Remember the men who wrote BDAG didn't have Greek to English lexicons written by first century Christians whose native language was Greek. As I said, it doesn't matter how many you post, it's wrong. You seem to think because these men have a few letters after their names their words are inerrant. Sorry but that's not the case.

We can find Reformed theologians with all kinds of degrees and we can find Methodist theologians with all kinds of degrees. One group will teach that salvation can't be lost and the other group will teach that it can be. One group is wrong. It doesn't matters how many degrees they have in theology, their wrong. Having degrees in theology just means you were indoctrinated into a certain theology. It doesn't mean that theology is correct. It's these men with these degrees that make Lexicons and write commentaries.

So, I'll ask you again. Do you know how lexicons are made?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No such argument was stated saying you "must be wrong", though what are the odds that you are right when you cannot produce a single lexicon, church father, commentator or any other source supporting your view? We've both read many of these sources over several decades & i've never seen your argument presented by anyone, even in many forum debates re the words aion & aionion. Lexicons disagree with your view. And if you were aware of any source supporting your view, you'ld have posted it. All of this evidence combined together speaks volumes. In a court of law it would be a slam dunk. Your chance of winning would be like winning a 50 million dollar lottery.
Who agrees with you that when Scripture repeatedly speaks of the "end of the age" (e.g. Mt. 24:3) it is not a literal use of aion and is being used as hyperbole (an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally) like references to Herod being a fox or Peter a stone? No lexicon, church father, commentator or forum poster in the past 2000 years has been cited in support of your theory. Except you, yourself & you. It is Der Alter against the world & history of 2000 years. Does anyone agree with your ridiculous theory?
The Scriptural references to the "end of the age"[aion] prove that aion literally is used of, & can mean, a finite period of time that ends, an age, eon, a duration of time, an epoch. As i defined the word (and lexicons agree):
"Aion literally means age, eon. It refers to a duration of time, often an epoch."
Which you said was wrong.
When some duration of time has an "end" it is not endless, but finite. So when aion is in apposition to "end", it is therefore opposed to being endless & cannot mean eternal.
So your view that olam & aion & aionios mean eternal everywhere in the Scriptures (except when used in hyperbole) is proven to be wrong.
Those words often literally refer to, mean & are defined as a finite duration of time, whether of an age, eon, epoch, lifetime, etc. Both lexicons and Scriptural usage concur.
Epizeuxis: or, Duplication The Repetition of the Same Word in the Same Sense.
When the word is repeated in close and immediate succession, no other word or words coming between, it is called GEMINATIO , pronounced Gem-i-n ´-tio , which means a doubling, duplication, a re-doubling . It is also called ITERATIO ( It´-er- -ti-o ), iteration; CONDUPLICATIO ( con-d -pli-ca´-tio ), conduplication , or full doubling . When the words do not immediately succeed each other, but are separated by one or more intervening words, the figure is then called EPIZEUXIS , pronounced Ep´-i-zeux´-is epi ), upon , and ( zeugnumi ), to yoke , or join closely together . The intervening words thus form the yoke which joins the repeated words

We may give the figure the English name of Duplication, Gemination, Iteration, or Repetition. It is a common and powerful way of emphasizing a particular word, by thus marking it and calling attention to it. In writing, one might accomplish this by putting the word in larger letters, or by underlining it two or three times. In speaking, it is easy to mark it by expressing it with increased emphasis or vehemence. How important for us to notice, in the Scriptures, the words and expressions which the Holy Spirit has thus marked and emphasized in order to impress us with their importance! pp. 200-201
...
II. NOUNS AND PRONOUNS
( b ) In singular and genitive plural
A noun is repeated in the genitive plural in order to express very emphatically the superlative degree which does not exist in Hebrew. See under Idiom . Thus this figure is a kind of Enallage ( q.v. ), or exchange, by which a noun in the genitive plural, is used instead of a superlative adjective. …
Daniel 2:37 . Ezekiel 26:17 . A king of kings : i.e. , the most mighty king.
Daniel 2:47 . God of gods : i.e. , the great, living, or true God. The most mighty God.
Daniel 8:25 . The Prince of princes : i.e. , the most powerful Prince. Hosea 10:1

1 Timothy 6:15 . The King of kings, and Lord of lords. Compare Revelation 17:14 and 19:16 .
Revelation 1:6 . The ages of the ages , i.e. , to the remotest age, for ever and ever. pp. 301-302


E.W. Bullinger Link: [Figures of Speech in the Bible]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm well aware of what BDAG is, and it was written by men who are capable of error. Your sources aren't the end of the conversation. You may accept them as the final word, however, when they are wrong they are wrong. I've already shown that it is wrong. Aion is used of finite periods of time.
Empty argumentation. "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too Nuh huh!" Making a claim is not showing anything.
"Forever,"and "eternal" are used for finite periods in English such as "I went to DMV to reregister my car and I had to wait forever."Does "forever" mean, eternal, unending, everlasting or does it mean an hour or two?

Eternity is unending therefore the definition of aion cannot be eternity.
Logical fallacy, circular argument.
It doesn't matter how many definitions you post or who they're from. If they contradict the useage of the word they're wrong.
It does not matter how many arguments you make your opinion is not convincing.
I don't need to. My argument is based on logic, not grammar. It's quite obvious that a word that is used to define finite periods of time cannot be defined as eternal.
That is the same thing that a lot of heterodox religious groups say, JW, LDS, UU, OP, UPCI, INC, WWCG say, we don't need lexicons we just use logic.

I do know how they're made. However, you didn't answer the question so I have to assume that you don't. Remember the men who wrote BDAG didn't have Greek to English lexicons written by first century Christians whose native language was Greek. As I said, it doesn't matter how many you post, it's wrong. You seem to think because these men have a few letters after their names their words are inerrant. Sorry but that's not the case.
Do you trust Drs, lawyers accountants etc. they have letters after their names? Do you treat them with the same disdain? Theology is the only discipline that I know of where almost anyone with or without a Strong's thinks they are more knowledgeable than people who have spent years of study.

We can find Reformed theologians with all kinds of degrees and we can find Methodist theologians with all kinds of degrees. One group will teach that salvation can't be lost and the other group will teach that it can be. One group is wrong. It doesn't matters how many degrees they have in theology, their wrong. Having degrees in theology just means you were indoctrinated into a certain theology. It doesn't mean that theology is correct. It's these men with these degrees that make Lexicons and write commentaries.
So, I'll ask you again. Do you know how lexicons are made?
Maybe they just made it up as they went along?

History of Greek Lexicography
Middle Ages: no Greek lexicon needed!
Early Greek-Latin lexicons
Complutensian Polyglot, 75 pg. vocab. list in v. 5
(printed 1514; published 1522)
Pasor (1619), Lucius (1640)
„Greek-English NT lexicon
Leigh (1639)
Parkhurst (1769)
Thayer (1885)
„Erwin Preuschen,
Vollständiges griechisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testament und der übringen Urchristlichen Literatur (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1910)
reuschen died 1920
Publishers asked Walter Bauer to “adopt” the lexicon and revise it.
Bauer b. 1877
d. 1960 (age 83)
German Editions (6 total)
1st,
Preuschen, 1910
2d,
Bauer, 1924-28
3d,
Bauer, 1937
4th,
Bauer, 1949-52
5th,
Bauer, 1957-58
6th,
Aland/Reichmann, 1988
 
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Epizeuxis: or, Duplication The Repetition of the Same Word in the Same Sense.

How did your 100% cut pasted post, without a single word of your own explanation, answer my post or support your position? If anyone is reading this thread, i'm sure they're also wondering. As i said:

No such argument was stated saying you "must be wrong", though what are the odds that you are right when you cannot produce a single lexicon, church father, commentator or any other source supporting your view? We've both read many of these sources over several decades & i've never seen your argument presented by anyone, even in many forum debates re the words aion & aionion. Lexicons disagree with your view. And if you were aware of any source supporting your view, you'ld have posted it. All of this evidence combined together speaks volumes. In a court of law it would be a slam dunk. Your chance of winning would be like winning a 50 million dollar lottery.

Who agrees with you that when Scripture repeatedly speaks of the "end of the age" (e.g. Mt. 24:3) it is not a literal use of aion and is being used as hyperbole (an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally) like references to Herod being a fox or Peter a stone? No lexicon, church father, commentator or forum poster in the past 2000 years has been cited in support of your theory. Except you, yourself & you. It is Der Alter against the world & history of 2000 years. Does anyone agree with your ridiculous theory?

The Scriptural references to the "end of the age"[aion] prove that aion literally is used of, & can mean, a finite period of time that ends, an age, eon, a duration of time, an epoch. As i defined the word (and lexicons agree):

"Aion literally means age, eon. It refers to a duration of time, often an epoch."

Which you said was wrong.

When some duration of time has an "end" it is not endless, but finite. So when aion is in apposition to "end", it is therefore opposed to being endless & cannot mean eternal.

So your view that olam & aion & aionios mean eternal everywhere in the Scriptures (except when used in hyperbole) is proven to be wrong.

Those words often literally refer to, mean & are defined as a finite duration of time, whether of an age, eon, epoch, lifetime, etc. Both lexicons and Scriptural usage concur.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How did your 100% cut pasted post, without a single word of your own explanation, answer my post or support your position? If anyone is reading this thread, i'm sure they're also wondering. As i said:
The bulk of your posts are almost entirely copy/pastes from your pet website Tent-r-us.
No such argument was stated saying you "must be wrong",
Here is the post I was referring to.
This is a logical fallacy known as reification. Verses cannot define a word, that requires a mind. Verses are simply a collection of words. It's not the verses that are defining the word, it's you. And your interpretation doesn't fit with the word's usage in Scripture....
No lexicon, church father, commentator or forum poster in the past 2000 years has been cited in support of your theory. Except you, yourself & you. It is Der Alter against the world & history of 2000 years. Does anyone agree with your ridiculous theory?
If you ignore Bullinger above.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The bulk of your posts are almost entirely copy/pastes from your pet website Tent-r-us.

False!


Here is the post I was referring to.

If you ignore Bullinger above.

How did your cut pasted post, without hardly a word of your own explanation, answer my post or support your position? If anyone is reading this thread, i'm sure they're also wondering.

When some duration of time has an "end" it is not endless, but finite. So when aion is in apposition to "end", it is therefore opposed to being endless & cannot mean eternal.

So your view that olam & aion & aionios mean eternal everywhere in the Scriptures (except when used in hyperbole) is proven to be wrong.

Those words often literally refer to, mean & are defined as a finite duration of time, whether of an age, eon, epoch, lifetime, etc. Both lexicons and Scriptural usage concur.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0