- Jul 10, 2016
- 5,459
- 2,197
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
I think that about does it here. Sayonara.
Clearly your position was untenable. Also posts 130-131 were never answered.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think that about does it here. Sayonara.
Do you know how lexicons are made?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but you provided 0 evidence. I quoted from the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia and I think I will accept their evidence versus unsupported opinion from an anonymous poster online.
Clearly your argument is untenable. I will not respond to any post which consists totally or primarily of copy/pastes from universalist websites as these posts did. I might be interested in your views which you have formed from your own personal reading of primary sources instead of incessant copy/pastes from secondary sources.Clearly your position was untenable. Also posts 130-131 were never answered.
Clearly your argument is untenable.
I will not respond to any post which consists totally or primarily of copy/pastes from universalist websites as these posts did.
No I do not read them, I am not interested in nor will I waste my time reading copy/pasted canned arguments from uni websites of some supposed scholar who quotes bits and pieces of other scholarsEasy to say. Another thing to prove. And how would you know? Did you even read them? Doubtful.
Up to you. You are not consistent in doing that. And many of your posts are primarily quoting others
There is a difference which you do not seem to be aware of. Unlike you I do not copy/paste second hand canned arguments from websites. I quote primary sources such as lexicons, concordances, encyclopedias, grammars etc. For example, you quoted Ramelli, who quoted one sentence from Origen among other second hand quotes.
No I do not read them, I am not interested in nor will I waste my time reading copy/pasted canned arguments from uni websites of some supposed scholar who quotes bits and pieces of other scholars
There is a difference which you do not seem to be aware of. Unlike you I do not copy/paste second hand canned arguments from websites.
I quote primary sources such as lexicons, concordances, encyclopedias, grammars etc. For example, you quoted Ramelli, who quoted one sentence from Origen among other second hand quotes.
I read enough to know they were copy/pastes from second/third hand sources. Your objection is irrlevantYou didn't even read them, yet said "Clearly your argument is untenable."
Wrong! Here is an example from [post #130] This is not a quote from a primary source. It is part of an argument copy/pasted from a book by "pope" Ramelli. Only the blue is a primary source.Since you didn't even read the quotes, how would you know? Actually they were first hand quotes, i.e. directly from the sources quoted.
Prove that the sources I quote from quote other sources? And prove that they are not in context. And OBTW everything you quote from "pope" Ramelli often in "other &/or dead ancient languages, so in that sense they are far from being primary sources."Those sources often refer to other sources that they often do not quote, let alone quote in context, sources that are often in other &/or dead ancient languages, so in that sense they are far from being primary sources.
I read enough to know they were copy/pastes from second/third hand sources. Your objection is irrlevant
The majority of the numbered statements were copy/pastes similar to the one I quoted. Most of it came from this website.You didn't read enough to know that the majority of quotes from posts 130 & 131 were from first hand sources.
The majority of the numbered statements were copy/pastes similar to the one I quoted. Most of it came from this website.
Universalism and the Salvation of Satan
I checked some of them and they came from the site I linked to. The site you link to here is not a primary source. It is no different than tents-r-us, somebody giving their opinion what the scriptures "really" mean, with the obligatory universalist slant.
I checked some of them and they came from the site I linked to. The site you link to here is not a primary source. It is no different than tents-r-us, somebody giving their opinion what the scriptures "really" mean, with the obligatory universalist slant.
I'd recommend this book i'm reading now on the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/History-Testament-Lexicography-Studies-Biblical/dp/0820434809
"Baldwin’s use of the lexicons as authoritative raises the question: Do the lexicons provide authoritative boundaries for the meaning and glosses of αὐθεντέω in the various contexts? Lee, Nida and Louw are agreed that the answer is ‘no’, not only for αὐθεντέω, but in general. Lee asserts, ‘The body of attestations accumulated in the lexicons has reached its greatest extent yet. But because of the ways it has been gathered there is an inherent unreliability’ (Lee, Lexicography, p. 124). Nida and Louw write: ‘We must not assume that the English glosses in a Greek–English lexicon can provide accurate information about the designative and associative meanings of a Greek term’ (Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, p. 59)"
http://jgrchj.net/volume10/JGRChJ10-7_Westfall.pdf
While the Greek words αἰών and αἰώνιος sometimes refers to something that is not eternal, in nineteen verses in the NT it is literally defined or described as eternal.
This never occurs when αἰώνιος and αἰώνιος refer to something which is eternal.
Nineteen verses which define/describe αἰών and αἰώνιος: 1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 7:24, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, John 6:58, John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7, Luke 1:33, Revelation 14:11, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24,
[1] 1 Timothy 1:17
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [αἰών/aion] immortal, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [αἰών/aion] and ever [αἰώνιος/aionios]. Amen.
In this verse “aion” is in apposition, see def. below, with “immortal.” “aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” means “eternal.”
[2]2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;[πρόσκαιρος/proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this passage “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Aionios” cannot mean “age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is. See Robertson below.
[3]2 Corinthians 5:1
(1)For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] in the heavens.
In this verse “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” An “aionios” house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus “aionios” means “eternal.”
[4]Hebrews 7:24
(24) But this man, because he continueth ever.[αἰών/aion] hath an unchangeable [ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos] priesthood.
In this verse “aion” is in apposition with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Melchizadek cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time.
Thus “aion” means “eternal.”
[5]1 Peter 1:23
(23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, .[αἰών/aion]
In this verse “aion” is in apposition with “incorruptible.” The seed of God cannot be “incorruptible” and only for “a finite period” at the same time. Thus “aion” means “eternal.”
[6]1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [ ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting.[aionios]
In this verse “aionios” is in apposition with “immortality”. If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” means “eternal.”
[7]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;[φθορά/fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.[αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “corruption.” “fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap life aionios, i.e. not “corruption.” Thus “aionios” means
“eternal/everlasting.”
[8]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “death” If “aionios” is only a finite period, “A finite period” is not opposite of “death.” Thus “aionios” means “eternal.”
[9]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Here “aionios” and “aion” are contrasted with not “snatch them out of my hand” In a finite period they could be snatched out, “Aionios” means “eternal.”
[10]1 John 2:17
(17) The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [αἰών/aion]
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “pass away” “aionios” cannot mean a finite period, “A finite period” is not opposite of “pass away.” Thus “aionios” means “eternal.”
[11]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [ολιγον/oligon] will himself restore you
and make you strong, firm and steadfast.
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “little while” “aionios” cannot mean a finite period, A “finite period” is not opposite of “little while.” Thus “aionios” means “eternal.”
[12]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [ἀφθαρσία/apftharsia] he will give eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.
In this verse “aion” is in apposition with “immortality.” If “aion” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can
seek for “eternity” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus “aion” means “eternal.”
[13]Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom there shall be no end.[τελος/τελος]
In this verse “aionios” is paired with “without end.” “aionios” cannot be paired with “without end” if it means only “ages” a finite period. “Aionios” means eternal.
[14]Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[εις αιωνας αιωνων/eis aionas aionas] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paired with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” means
“forever and forever.”
[15]John 10:28
(28) And I give unto them eternal [αιωνιον] life; and they shall never [εις τον αιωνα] perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
In this verse “aionion” is paired with “[no man can] “pluck them out of my hand.” If “aionion” is only a finite period then at some time they could be plucked out. “Aionion” means eternal.
[16]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life.
In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” They could perish in a finite period, “aionion” means eternal.
[17]John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life.
In this verse “aionion” is paired with “shall not perish.” They could perish in a finite period, “aionion” means eternal.
[18]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [αἰώνιος] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
In this verse “aionios” is paired with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from life unto death.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period” it means “eternal.”
[19]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [αἰώνιος] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with death. “A finite period” is not opposite death, “eternal life” is.
= = = = =
The definition of “apposition” from a Greek grammar.
III. Nominative in Simple Apposition
The nominative case (as well as the other cases) can be an appositive to another substantive in the same case. The usage is quite common. There are four features of simple apposition to be noted (the first two are structural clues; the last two features are semantic): An appositional construction inz’olz’es (1) two adjacent substantives (2)in the same case (40) (3) which refer to the same person or thing, (4) and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause.
The first substantive can belong to any category (e.g., subject, Predicate nom., etc.) and the second is merely a clarification, description, or identification of who or what is mentioned.(41) Thus, the appositive “piggy-backs” on the first nominative’s use, as it were. For this reason simple apposition is not an independent syntactical category.
The appositive functions very much like a PN in a convertible proposition that is, it refers to the same thing as the first noun.(42) The difference, however, is that a PN makes an assertion about the S (an equative verb is either stated or implied); with appositives there is assumption, not assertion (no verb is in mind). In the sentence “Paul is an apostle,” apostle is a PN; in the sentence, “Paul the apostle is in prison,” apostle is in apposition to Paul.
(40)The nom. occasionally is in apposition to an oblique case, but the semantics are the same. See discussion below.
(41) An appositive, strictly speaking, is substantival, not adjectival. Thus, adjectives or Participles in second attributive position are not generally appositives, but usually hate an adjectival force.
(42) The significance of this will be seen in our discussion of the gen. case, for the gen can also involve a syntactical category, vi.t., the gen of apposition. The semantics involved in such a category are quite different from those involved in simple apposition.
With proper names typically the first noun is anarthrous and the appositional noun is articular. Matt 3:1 παραγινεται ιωαννης ο βαπτιστης κηρυσσων
John the Baptist came Preaching
Mark 15:4 0 εν αις ην και μαρια η μαγδαληνη
among them also were Mary the Magdalene...
Luke 1:24 συνελαβεν ελισαβετ η γυνη αυτου
Elizabeth his wife conceived
Rev 1:5 ο μαρτυς ο πιστος ο πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων
the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Daniel Wallace, pp.48-49
=======
• A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament 2 Co 4:17
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
Literally, “the for the moment (old adverb parautika, here only in N.T.) lightness (old word, in N.T. only here and Mat_11:30).”
More and more exceedingly (kath' huperbolēn eis huperbolēn). Like piling Pelion on Ossa, “according to excess unto excess.” See note on 1Co_12:31.
Eternal weight of glory (aiōnion baros doxēs). Careful balancing of words in contrast (affliction vs. glory, lightness vs. weight, for the moment vs. eternal).
• Vincent Word Studies in the New Testament
A far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (καθ' ὑπερεβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης)
Rev., more and more exceedingly an eternal weight, etc. An expression after the form of Hebrew superlatives, in which the emphatic word is twice repeated. Lit., exceedingly
unto excess. The use of such cumulative expressions is common with Paul. See, for example, Phi_1:23, lit., much more better; Rom_8:37, abundantly the conquerors; Eph_3:20,
exceeding abundantly, etc. Note how the words are offset: for a moment, eternal; light, weight; affliction, glory.
Repeating the same argument over and over while misrepresenting what I have been saying. Your assertion about not having "the support of a single lexicon, Church Father, commentator or dictionary" etc. is a logical fallacy, argument from silence. And once again the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So instead of repeating the logical fallacy argument over and over, ad nauseum, perhaps you can find an affirmative argument among the "lexicon, Church Father, commentator or dictionary" etc. which directly addresses and disproves my argument?Your theory that aion & aionios are always defined as 'eternal' everywhere in the Scriptures and never defined as finite duration does not have the support of a single lexicon, Church Father, commentator or dictionary. You've been unable to give one source in the past 2000 years that agrees with your definition....
In all these versions 1 Tim 1:17 reads "The eternal king." KJV, NIrV, NIV, ISV, ASV, NET. Do you know why they are right and all those you quoted are wrong? In order for the verse to read "kings of the ages" the word βασιλει/basilei i.e. "king," which is in the dative case, would have to be in the genitive case. In the genitive case "king" is written βασιλεως/basileos here are a few of the vss. where "king" occurs in the gentive, Matt 2:9, 5:35, 14:9on that God is "King of the ages" is different info (not redundant info) from God being "immortal" & "invisible" & the "only wise God".
How does Paul "define" αἰώνιος?Additionally, if the ages have an end (1 Cor.10:11;Heb.9:26), then "King of the ages" cannot mean King for endless time.
Still irrelevant none of the verses say "during the ages of the ages?" The text says εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων "unto the eternity of the eternities" As Vincent said, in his commentary on 2 Cor 4:17, "An expression after the form of Hebrew superlatives, in which the emphatic word is twice repeated." Jewish writers emphasize a word by repeating it. This occurs in the second book of the Bible Genesis 2:17 where it is is translated "you shall surely die" in Hebrew מות תמות/muth t'muth, "dying you shall die."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.
Wrong as usual.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.
2 Corinthians 4:17 cannot be interpreted in isolation from vss. 18 and 5:1.Actually the opposite of a "moment" can be an "age" of a "finite period":
Do you think that God is going to provide the righteous a "house," i.e. body, that is just floating around in the cosmos somewhere which He plans to destroy later on? Or will it be in the paradise described in Revelation?First, in this verse it says "aionios in the heavens". Scripture says the heavens which now are will pass away. So if these heavens are temporary, so also can aionios be temporary in 2 Cor.5:1.
Where does it say "the house will not be dissolved for an aionion (eonian) period of time?" You are still trying to argue that God is going to give the saints a new tabernacle which is going to be destroyed at some time. Is that really what you think 2 Cor 5:1 means?Secondly, that the house is not dissolved for an aionion (eonian) period of time does not necessarily mean that eonian means eternal in this verse. For example if something is not dissolved for the eon of the millennial age eon, that doesn't mean the millennial eon is eternal.
And you think this invalidates my argument how? It still refers to something that cannot, will not happen i.e. eternal."hath an unchangeable priesthood] Rather, “hath his priesthood unchangeable” (sempiternum, Vulg.) or perhaps “untransmissible;” “a priesthood that doth not pass to another,” as it is rendered in the margin of our Revised Version."
Thank you for this unsupported assumption/presupposition. If God did not think it was important it would not be in the Bible.Will the office of priesthood be even needed or last forever? If not, then it will cease & aion in this verse cannot refer to an endless duration. After God becomes "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) priesthood may no longer serve any purpose. Likewise with kings (cf. 1 Tim.1:17 above).
Let us say for the sake of argument that αἰών/aion does not occur in 1 Peter 2:23. αἰών/aion does occur in verse 25, referring to the incorruttible word of God. My argument still stands, unrefuted."The most ancient manuscripts omit the words, "for ever" ", i.e. they omit the Greek word aion..
Irrelevant. Show me a verse or two which states that.Actually God can be (and is) both immortal & existing "for a finite period at the same time". For God lives both "today" and is "immortal". Today is finite, so God will be for a finite period, namely "today". Additionally, God is "immortal". So when the finite time period "today" ends, He does not end, but lives on.
That God will be living "today" and also at the same time be "immortal" are two distinct and different facts, not redundant facts telling us the same thing.
When you consider all 21 verses I posted it certainly does. God is immortal does Paul says His honor and power only last for a finite age?Likewise the fact God is both aionian (eonian) & immortal in 1 Tim.6:16 do not require they be redundant or that eonian mean eternal or endless time.
Twisting scripture, 2 Cor 5:1 does not say “heavens,” plural, it says “in heaven” singular.
In Uni land does the abode of God pass away?
So your argument is Paul was talking
nonsense in 2 Cor 5:1.
There is no difference, both houses are destroyed just at different times?
This argument ignores the previous verse where Paul contrasts αἰώνιος with
“temporary.” Are you arguing that αἰώνιος in 2 Cor 5:1 means something different than it does in 2 Cor 4:18?
None of this repetitious argumentation addresses or disproves that Paul used “aidios” and “aionios” interchangeably in Rom 1:20 and Rom 16:26.
In Rom 1:20 Paul uses “aidios” to refer to the Godhead. “Aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending. In Rom 16:26 Paul uses “aionios” to refer to God
therefore Paul considers the two words to be synonymous.
....."Aion and aionios are defined in scripture as eternal, etc. Both words are used to refer to something which is not eternal etc, but are never defined as such. How do we explain the use of
aion/aionios to refer to something not eternal etc? Figurative or hyperbolically as the word "world " is used to refer to only a part of the world. The faith of the Roman Christians was not
literally reported over the entire earth. The entire earth was not literally under the control of the evil one. The devil or satan did not literally lead the entire earth astray.
Romans1:8
(8) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
1 John 5:19
(19) We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.
Revelation 12:9
(9) The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
(25) But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. [αἰών]And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
When you consider all 21 verses I posted it certainly does. God is immortal does Paul says His honor and power only last for a finite age?
In all these versions 1 Tim 1:17 reads "The eternal king." KJV, NIrV, NIV, ISV, ASV, NET. Do you know why they are right and all those you quoted are wrong? In order for the verse to read "kings of the ages" the word βασιλει/basilei i.e. "king," which is in the dative case, would have to be in the genitive case. In the genitive case "king" is written βασιλεως/basileos here are a few of the vss. where "king" occurs in the gentive, Matt 2:9, 5:35, 14:9
And you think this invalidates my argument how? It still refers to something that cannot, will not happen i.e. eternal.
Thank you for this unsupported assumption/presupposition. If God did not think it was important it would not be in the Bible.