Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

[ClementofA]

The TDNT is not a lexicon, but rather a theological wordbook.

I have the hardcover edition on my bookshelves. Here it is called a dictionary:

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) (10 vols.)

After all, TDNT stands for Theological Dictionary of the NT.

Dictionary is a synonym for lexicon, wordbook, etc

It's a common bad assumption -- propagated from Latin -- that the Greek /aion/ refers to one unit of time, where aion follows aion. This is caused by the fact that the Latin /aevum/ does work this way, and our English "age" takes that Latin meaning very often. But in Greek, where a plurality of /aion/s is referenced, the most common meaning is "generations." (In the Bible it also often is the Hebrew plural of intensification, often accompanied by the construct form or the genitive -- the phrase "for the /aion/s of the /aion/s" is no more plural than "vanity of vanities, all is vanity.")

You can read more about that in the "Time Life Entirety" book.

On p.142 the "Time Life Entirety" book by Keizer speaks of such phrases...futility of futilities...endurance of endurances, song of songs, generation of generations, alam of alams "expreses definity rather than infinity".

The holies of holies were not an endless number of holy places, but the two most holy places. Compare "ages of the ages" in the NT.

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

"That is easily proven by passages that speak of their "end", e.g. the "end of the AION" (Mt.24:3). Something that has an "end" cannot be endless or forever."

Sorry, I overlooked this.

Two points.

First, this is an example where hyperbole works the other way. Jesus is with us until the end of the /aion/... but then what happens? The answer: Jesus will still be with us.

Second, the Greek plural use of /aion/ implied two aions: the past and the future. Both are endless from their appropriate point of view, but have an end in the eternal now from the other point of view. From this new perspective the intertestamental Jews seemed to have received the idea of a present age and an age to come, substituting for the simpler Greek past/future divide. From that the idea of a changing of ages in the future comes into conceptual view.

This second point of view is well exemplified in Matt 13's interpretation of the parable of the tares; there the end of the ages is a major change. And of course we don't see street Greek like that in Keizer; it's a Hebraism to speak of the end of an age. At the same time, the fact that the end of the age is also the end of the wicked together with all causes of stumbling makes it appropriate to speak of the end of the generations of the wicked (which as I mentioned would be the /aiones/ of the wicked).

So although speaking of the end of the age would be rare in Greek, it's not impossible, and even more likely when there's Semitic influence.

 

[ClementofA]

I read the page where that was discussed. It's absolutely ridiculous; they should not have listed her without either her permission or a clear citation. Their citation of why they think she believes that /aion/ does not mean "everlasting" is actually her explaining why one specific author uses /aion/ not to mean timeless eternity (but she thinks that author DOES mean everlasting time without end).

I don't know what page you are referring to. It isn't the same as the one i mentioned. The page i was referring to on Tentmaker has no "citation of why they think she believes that /aion/ does not mean "everlasting" ". It is just a list of names of those who from ancient times allegedly believed in universalism:

>Believers and Supporters of Christian Universalism

 

[ClementofA]

My response is to your claim "Most lexicons disagree with the notion that the Hebrew & Greek words OLAM & AION mean "forever" according to how you appear to understand it." Now, you may have actually originally typed that thinking you were only replying to a person who believes "aionios means forever except when it's used hyperbolically." But your response was much broader than just that,

In your thinking, perhaps. Not mine.

and my response to it was right on the head; you actually DO believe that /aion/ and /aionios/ don't normally mean everlasting time. You've argued that very clearly to me.

I don't know where you got that idea. Universalists have dealt with aion/ios in various ways:

1. They mean what context dictates, sometimes duration that is endless, other times duration that is finite & ends.

2. They never speak of endlessness in Scripture.

3. Other interpretations, e.g. related to them being a quality vs quantity, relation to God alone, related to effects.

For an example:

AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

I have the hardcover edition on my bookshelves. Here it is called a dictionary: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) (10 vols.) After all, TDNT stands for Theological Dictionary of the NT. Dictionary is a synonym for lexicon, wordbook, etc

First, that doesn't address Barr's criticism of that specific book.

Second, it doesn't have anything to do with my comment. Yes, it rightly calls itself a dictionary. I didn't say it couldn't. My criticism had nothing to do with its title.

Third, it is certainly not a "lexicon". Every lexicon is a dictionary; not every dictionary is a lexicon. A lexicon explains the observed use of a single word based only on its context in existing texts and their translations. The "lexicon" is therefore in a _sense_ more objective than the dictionary in general, in that it documents evidence more than giving the author's opinion. (This is not an absolute statement, though. Of course the author's opinion matters in what evidence is collected, and opinions can be wrong, which is why monographs like Keizer get written. The point is that the purpose of a lexicon is different from the purpose of a theological wordbook; and that this wordbook is deeply flawed in a well-known and documented way.)

On p.142 the "Time Life Entirety" books by Keizer speaks of such phrases...futility of futilities...endurance of endurances, song of songs, generation of generations, alam of alams
"expreses definity rather than infinity".

Good catch. I was talking about a concept only loosely related to the superlative: the emphatic plural. I misspoke. BTW, by "definity" here she means definite-ness.

The holies of holies were not an endless number of holy places, but the two most holy places. Compare "ages of the ages" in the NT.

There's nothing right about this. "Holy of holies" is translated "the most holy place", not "the two most holy places." And I was NOT claiming that the Hebrew superlative means "an endless number." I was claiming that using the emphatic on /olam/ would make it emphatically /olam/.

I'm not sure why Keizer thinks this particular passage emphasizes definiteness. She knows Aramaic, of which I'm ignorant (I read only Hebrew and Greek); but I suspect other translators would disagree with her. But it hardly matters in general; as she pointed out, the superlative (as strictly defined) is only used with /olam/ this once.

However, this passage is significantly different from most of the other uses of /olam/ for its use of /ad olam/. The preposition is usually found in _limitation_ phrases which restrict the time being spoken of. Rather than "forever" it often means "for a long time, short of forever". In this case the addition of the superlative may actually expand the time scope, but it's also possible that the use of /ad olam/ is intended to limit the time.

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

I don't know what page you are referring to. It isn't the same as the one i mentioned. The page i was referring to on Tentmaker has no "citation of why they think she believes that /aion/ does not mean "everlasting" ". It is just a list of names of those who from ancient times allegedly believed in universalism: >Believers and Supporters of Christian Universalism

I assumed you were referring to something that would give a reason to believe what you're saying, not to a random list of unsourced and inexplicable claims. Who cares whether she's on a list with a bunch of other people who also didn't ask to be put on that list? This is one of the things that makes universalists look bad: claiming supporters without any sensible reason. It's one reason I'm having such a hard time reading Ramelli (but I've gotta, she did a ton of hard work and I won't be caught dismissing it).

I was mentioning another page which discusses someone researching in order to consider adding her to a list, and people explaining why they think she belongs. They're all misunderstanding her point -- she's not saying that aion means a finite time; she's saying it doesn't mean timeless eternity.

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

In your thinking, perhaps. Not mine.

Hmmmmm. Well, you're going to have to deal with the fact that you just had a discussion with me in which you affirmed and defended all the things you're now trying to distance yourself from.

I don't know where you got that idea. Universalists have dealt with aion/ios in various ways:

I got that idea talking with you specifically, not from the abstract concept of universalists. I'm discussing with you, not with an abstract concept. You believe and affirm that /aion/ means a finite amount of time, and you claim the Bible defines a huge number of finite ages, only one of which will contain the rule of Christ, and only one of which will contain the punishment of the wicked. This was the core concept in that huge never-ending discussion of 1 Cor 15:25.

 

[he-man]

I wasn't writing a book, my friend.
Can you say that every post you write includes every verse that defends CI (Conditional Immortality)?

Did you give any scriptures? Try typing some and I will translate for you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Did you give any scriptures?

Yes, you quoted my post that had Scriptures in it originally. I also started out posting in this thread with lots of Scripture, as well. So take your pick.

Try typing some and I will translate for you.

You act like I do not have any knowledge of the things of God. Why would I want to put my trust in what you say? I do not know who you are and all of what you believe. Well, you did say that you believe there is no devil and or fallen angels (Which to me is clearly false). Jesus was tempted by the devil and Jesus cast out demons into pigs. I am pretty sure these beings are not imaginary. The Bible describes them very plainly. So I would be very skeptical of anything you would say if you do not grasp basic truths like this in the Bible. Besides, I understand Conditional Immortality just fine without your help. In other words, no thank you; I do not need you to translate anything for me.

 

[ClementofA]

Sorry, I overlooked this.

Two points.

First, this is an example where hyperbole works the other way. Jesus is with us until the end of the /aion/... but then what happens? The answer: Jesus will still be with us.

In Mt 28:20 Jesus says He will be with His disciples to the "end of the age"[AION]. It doesn't address what happens after that time, but other Scriptures do. Are you suggesting AION here is hyperbole? No translation i've ever seen says "end of the eternity" or the like.

Second, the Greek plural use of /aion/ implied two aions: the past and the future. Both are endless from their appropriate point of view, but have an end in the eternal now from the other point of view. From this new perspective the intertestamental Jews seemed to have received the idea of a present age and an age to come, substituting for the simpler Greek past/future divide. From that the idea of a changing of ages in the future comes into conceptual view.

IMO there are no endless past ages[eons/aions], either singular or plural. The eons had a beginning since they were created (Heb.1:2) and Scripture speaks of there being a "before" them in "before the eons" (1 Cor.2:7; 2 Tim.1:9; Tit.1:2). The eons of the Bible With Concordance, God’s purpose of the eons.

This second point of view is well exemplified in Matt 13's interpretation of the parable of the tares; there the end of the ages is a major change. And of course we don't see street Greek like that in Keizer; it's a Hebraism to speak of the end of an age. At the same time, the fact that the end of the age is also the end of the wicked together with all causes of stumbling makes it appropriate to speak of the end of the generations of the wicked (which as I mentioned would be the /aiones/ of the wicked).

So although speaking of the end of the age would be rare in Greek, it's not impossible, and even more likely when there's Semitic influence.

There's at least a handful or two of Scripture passages that speak of the "end(s) of the age(s)":

The eons of the Bible With Concordance, God’s purpose of the eons.

It's not hyperbole & i've never seen a lexicon that understands it that way. Or a church father or commentary, etc.

 

[ClementofA]

First, that doesn't address Barr's criticism of that specific book.

Second, it doesn't have anything to do with my comment. Yes, it rightly calls itself a dictionary. I didn't say it couldn't. My criticism had nothing to do with its title.

Third, it is certainly not a "lexicon". Every lexicon is a dictionary; not every dictionary is a lexicon. A lexicon explains the observed use of a single word based only on its context in existing texts and their translations. The "lexicon" is therefore in a _sense_ more objective than the dictionary in general, in that it documents evidence more than giving the author's opinion. (This is not an absolute statement, though. Of course the author's opinion matters in what evidence is collected, and opinions can be wrong, which is why monographs like Keizer get written. The point is that the purpose of a lexicon is different from the purpose of a theological wordbook; and that this wordbook is deeply flawed in a well-known and documented way.)

I'm aware of Barr's remarks. As for definitions, we're clearly using different sources. I listed mine already.

Good catch. I was talking about a concept only loosely related to the superlative: the emphatic plural. I misspoke. BTW, by "definity" here she means definite-ness.

There's nothing right about this. "Holy of holies" is translated "the most holy place", not "the two most holy places." And I was NOT claiming that the Hebrew superlative means "an endless number." I was claiming that using the emphatic on /olam/ would make it emphatically /olam/.

I'm not sure why Keizer thinks this particular passage emphasizes definiteness. She knows Aramaic, of which I'm ignorant (I read only Hebrew and Greek); but I suspect other translators would disagree with her. But it hardly matters in general; as she pointed out, the superlative (as strictly defined) is only used with /olam/ this once.

However, this passage is significantly different from most of the other uses of /olam/ for its use of /ad olam/. The preposition is usually found in _limitation_ phrases which restrict the time being spoken of. Rather than "forever" it often means "for a long time, short of forever". In this case the addition of the superlative may actually expand the time scope, but it's also possible that the use of /ad olam/ is intended to limit the time.

I said "holies of the holies", not "holy of holies".

 

[ClementofA]

I assumed you were referring to something that would give a reason to believe what you're saying, not to a random list of unsourced and inexplicable claims. Who cares whether she's on a list with a bunch of other people who also didn't ask to be put on that list? This is one of the things that makes universalists look bad: claiming supporters without any sensible reason. It's one reason I'm having such a hard time reading Ramelli (but I've gotta, she did a ton of hard work and I won't be caught dismissing it).

I was mentioning another page which discusses someone researching in order to consider adding her to a list, and people explaining why they think she belongs. They're all misunderstanding her point -- she's not saying that aion means a finite time; she's saying it doesn't mean timeless eternity.

You think she denies that aion has been used to mean "timeless eternity"? Have you read or studied aion in Plato? See, for example, p.228 at:

Fragmenta
By Charles H. Kahn, Heraclitus

Fragmenta

 

[ClementofA]

Hmmmmm. Well, you're going to have to deal with the fact that you just had a discussion with me in which you affirmed and defended all the things you're now trying to distance yourself from.

I got that idea talking with you specifically, not from the abstract concept of universalists. I'm discussing with you, not with an abstract concept. You believe and affirm that /aion/ means a finite amount of time,

No, I don't recall ever expressing such a view in discussions with you before. Since our discussions ended in August i've presented posts with multiple/two views re how aion can be understood - to another person, not you, in posts 130 & 131 at:

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

In scriptural usage i define aion as meaning literally an age, eon, a duration of time, often an epoch. In theory a duration of time can be from less than a second to endless.

and you claim the Bible defines a huge number of finite ages,

No, perhaps you have me confused with someone else, or something that was merely quoted. Origen, perhaps? From the Ramelli tome?

only one of which will contain the rule of Christ,

No, that idea i already explained in the most recent & last post of our previous discussions in August:

Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

That was over 2 months ago, so perhaps you need to refresh your memory. Also there are - many - points there you have never addressed.

and only one of which will contain the punishment of the wicked. This was the core concept in that huge never-ending discussion of 1 Cor 15:25.

In Scripture we see the wicked getting punished in the eons of their mortal life (esp. in the OT), in the millennium, and in the post millennium age or ages. Which eon or eons is in view depends upon the context.

 

[ClementofA]

NT Scripture says that the Law has changed (Hebrews 7:12) and yet OT Scripture says the Old Law will last forever. Therefore we have to conclude that the word "forever" and it's related words does not always mean forever in the sense of all of eternity but it means "forever" as long as that thing is destined to exist.

So torment "forever and ever" could mean the torment lasts until the "torment" is destined to cease to exist (Rev.20:10) when God becomes "All in all" (1 Cor.15:28), all are reconciled to God (Col.1:20) & torment is no more?

Which is finally then compared to being cast into everlasting hell fire (Matthew 18:8).

In a previous post you quoted this:

" Sodom's fiery judgment is "eternal" (Jude 1:7) until -- God "will restore the fortunes of Sodom" (Ezekiel 16:53-55)."

The same Greek words for "everlasting" or "eternal fire" occur in Jude 1:7; Mt.18:8 & 25:41. Something to think about?

So the punishment of experience hell fire has to be worse than drowning at the depths of the sea by having a millestone tied to one's neck.

True. Just being endlessly annihilated would be far worse than any punishment, even torments for a trillion X trillion X trillion years, if salvation for eternity followed. A punishment by drowning is nothing, it's like the suffering of a slap on the wrist compared to the torments i just described.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So torment "forever and ever" could mean the torment lasts until the "torment" is destined to cease to exist (Rev.20:10) when God becomes "All in all" (1 Cor.15:28), all are reconciled to God (Col.1:20) & torment is no more?

In the English, the words "Forever" and "ever" is speaking in reference to an endless duration of time unless it is stopped by something.

Adverb
forever

1. (duration) For all time, for all eternity; for a lifetime; for an infinite amount of time.
   I shall love you forever.
   • 1839, Denison Olmsted, A Compendium of Astronomy, page 95:
     Secondly, When a body is once in motion it will continue to move forever, unless something stops it. When a ball is struck on the surface of the earth, the friction of the earth and the resistance of the air soon stop its motion.

In the Greek, it has a deeper meaning, which literally means, the "age of ages." So...

What is the "Ages of Ages" in Revelation 20:10 talking about?

Revelation 20:10 is indeed saying that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented day and night for... "the ages of ages." Here are a few translations that express this.

"for the eons of the eons." ~ Concordant Literal New Testament
"for the ages of the ages." ~ Darby Bible Translation.
"for the aeons of the aeons." ~ The New Covenant by Dr. J.W. Hanson​

In other words, Revelation 20:10 is saying the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented day and night for the purpose of the Ages of the Ages. Meaning the Ages of Ages that are past! They are being punished day and night for the evil that they committed during the past Ages and Ages here on this Earth. For the word "for" can also be defined as "because" within the English language.

Revelation 20:10 Darby
"And the devil who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] both the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for [the purpose of] the ages of ages."

For the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are all demons who have tormented mankind for ages and ages. So they will be cast into the Lake of Fire and brimstone and will be tormented day and night and not for all eternity.

So the "ages of ages" is talking about "past ages" and not "future ages."

This is further supported by the fact that Paul says the last enemy to be destroyed is death (1 Corinthians 15:26), which suggests that there were other enemies of God that the Lord destroyed before this last enemy. This then ties in nicely with Revelation 21:4 saying, "the former things have passed away." These former things that have passed away are: tears, sorrow, crying, death, and pain. For the first heaven and first earth will pass away and a new heaven and a new earth will take it's place (Revelation 21:1). For Jesus says, "I make all things new." (Revelation 21:5).

Side Note:

BTW ~ Not sure why this truly matters to you to debate this. If everyone is going to be saved as you believe, then your efforts are useless and futile. What you do doesn’t matter. Everyone is saved according to your belief.

Source used for a small paragraph and few words within my post:
forever - Wiktionary

 

[he-man]

In Mt 28:20 Jesus says He will be with His disciples to the "end of the age"[AION]. It doesn't address what happens after that time, but other Scriptures do. Are you suggesting AION here is hyperbole? No translation i've ever seen says "end of the eternity" or the like.




IMO there are no endless past ages[eons/aions], either singular or plural. The eons had a beginning since they were created (Heb.1:2) and Scripture speaks of there being a "before" them in "before the eons" (1 Cor.2:7; 2 Tim.1:9; Tit.1:2). The eons of the Bible With Concordance, God’s purpose of the eons.



There's at least a handful or two of Scripture passages that speak of the "end(s) of the age(s)":

The eons of the Bible With Concordance, God’s purpose of the eons.

It's not hyperbole & i've never seen a lexicon that understands it that way. Or a church father or commentary, etc.

The same as Matthew 13:39 end of the world; age is the proper translation; αιωνιος´ αιων

 

[he-man]

I am not much of a history buff. I am just a Bible guy. I used to believe in Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) and I even defended it at one time. I then learned of the Conditional Immortality, and I was on the fence for a good while between ECT and CI (Conditional Immortality). Then one day when I started looking at more verses for Conditional Immortality from reading a really good article, I was convinced that it was true. What helped me to be convinced even more beyond this was the fact that Conditional Immortality is moral, just, and good (Whereas ECT attempts to turn God into some kind of monster), as well. For I believe every teaching or Godly truth in the Bible should always be good, just, and moral.
I believe in reading and using Modern Translations, but my final Word of authority is the KJV. So if the KJV says "forever" I believe that. But words from the 1600's don't always have the same meaning as they do today; And we have to sometimes think outside the box to see what God is really telling us, as well. This is why I believe the word "forever" is used in context of within something that is temporary, like a Covenant, or here upon this Earth (which is temporal), or within the Lake of Fire (Which is also a temporary place or form of punishment). It is "forever" for as long as that thing exists. For example: A husband might say to his wife that he will be her man forever. This is context to as long as they live (of course). Forever is in context as long as they live. It is a metaphorical expression. For are we to assume that Onesimus is still alive with his master today according to Philemon 1:15? Surely not. Onesimus return back to his master for "forever" was not for all eternity. The word "forever" in Philemon 1:15 is clearly in context to as long as Onesimus would live.
As for the English word "hell" in Matthew 10:28 taken from the Greek word "Gehenna" meaning the "Lake of Fire": While it is helpful to look to the Greek to get a clearer picture of what Matthew 10:28 is saying, I believe the "Lake of Fire" (Gehenna) can also be called "hell" (even though "hell" will be cast into the Lake of Fire). How so?
Well, "hell" is sort of like an island sitting atop of the Lake of Fire. The Earth's core is like a big fiery hot ball. The great gulf is an opening or crack in hell's surface letting some of the flame from below (in the Lake of Fire) to show (Whereby the Richman is tormented by the heat of it). Deuteronomy 32:22 "For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." In other words, the lowest "hell" is the Lake of Fire. Isaiah 34:14 "The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest." And the wild beasts, the satyr, and the screech owl in this passage are demons. The wild beasts of the island are those demons on the island of "hell" below.

Philemon 1:15 is the sames as Matthew 13:39 αιωνιον end ofthe age world. and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 τινω explains the use of everlasting destruction. Deueteronomy 32:22 is not hell it is αδης hades, properly "unseen"; or the place (state of departed souls) the grave. Isaiah 34:14; This takes place after the destruction of the enemy when Zion is established forever. and will perish by the judgement of Jehovah in the land of Edom and the wild beasts of the island are wildcats that feed upon the dead carcasses.Their yell resembles that of infants. [see Bochart's Hieroz, i, 3,,14. pp. 860-863] A satyr in mythology, is a slyvan deity or demigod, represented by a monster, half man and half goat and properly denotes that which is hairy or rough, in Leviticus 17:7 it is rendered he-goats or devils and means objects of worship, or idols. [BARNES]

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Philemon 1:15 is the sames as Matthew 13:39 αιωνιον end ofthe age world. and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 τινω explains the use of everlasting destruction. Deueteronomy 32:22 is not hell it is αδης hades, properly "unseen"; or the place (state of departed souls) the grave. Isaiah 34:14; This takes place after the destruction of the enemy when Zion is established forever. and will perish by the judgement of Jehovah in the land of Edom and the wild beasts of the island are wildcats that feed upon the dead carcasses.Their yell resembles that of infants. [see Bochart's Hieroz, i, 3,,14. pp. 860-863] A satyr in mythology, is a slyvan deity or demigod, represented by a monster, half man and half goat and properly denotes that which is hairy or rough, in Leviticus 17:7 it is rendered he-goats or devils and means objects of worship, or idols. [BARNES]

While I do on occasion look to the original languages and commentaries, I am not a big fan of looking to the original languages and looking to textbook explanations by commentators all the time. While I am not saying I agree or disagree yet with your post, the issue I have with your approach is that you appear to lean a little too heavily on a language you don’t know. For chances are you did not grow up speaking and writing Greek. You are taking it by faith that what they say is true. That is why I prefer to stick to discussions of the Bible primarily in our language. I prefer to let the context and cross references support what I say.

 

[he-man]

While I do on occasion look to the original languages and commentaries, I am not a big fan of looking to the original languages and looking to textbook explanations by commentators all the time. While I am not saying I agree or disagree yet with your post, the issue I have with your approach is that you appear to lean a little too heavily on a language you don’t know. For chances are you did not grow up speaking and writing Greek. You are taking it by faith that what they say is true. That is why I prefer to stick to discussions of the Bible primarily in our language. I prefer to let the context and cross references support what I say.

Wrong, my wife was Greek and her grandfather imigrated fom Athens. He still had the Greek newspaper delivered in 1969. He could cuss in Greek too, like you don't know "skatah". σκατα. I also took Hebrew in college and have translated Koine Greek.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wrong, my wife was Greek and her grandfather imigrated fom Athens. He still had the Greek newspaper delivered in 1969. He could cuss in Greek too, like "skitah".

So your wife checks your work? Is she also aware of the differences between Biblical Greek and Modern Greek?

Besides, Christians today cannot read the Bible in English today because they have preconceived beliefs. Why would I trust someone who has an interpretation on a language I don’t know? It would make it even more difficult to find out the truth on such a thing.