Annihilationism Is Actually...Biblical

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Here's a thought, annihilation for humans, eternal torment for Satan and his legions of fallen angels as an eternal reminder of the consequences of betraying the Almighty. So instead of arguing either or maybe both and? It's an interesting discussion and caused me to rethink eternal torment for humans years ago, but never really settled either way in a one hundred percent certain way. Whichever version of the punishment is on judgement day, it seems clear this much is true, it is extremely undesirable, and not anything any sane person would want to experience.

 

[ClementofA]

* In 1st Cent Judaism, eternal torment, annihilation for at least some people, and universalism (after purgatorial suffering) all were proposed.

From what source/s did you obtain this info?

 

[ClementofA]

Prove it?

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.”

1 Timothy 1:17 Interlinear: and to the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, is honour and glory -- to the ages of the ages! Amen.

Young's Literal Translation
and to the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, is honour and glory -- to the ages of the ages! Amen. (1 Tim.1:17)

The information that God is "King of the ages" is different info (not redundant info) from God being "immortal" & "invisible" & the "only wise God".

Nothing in this verse says "the ages" referred to are endless. Nothing there says the phrase "to the ages of the ages" means endless. If you are doing something up "to" a certain time (e.g. ages of the ages"), that leaves it an open question whether or not you keep doing it afterwards.

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.

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.

[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.

Actually the opposite of a "moment" can be an "age" of a "finite period":

Thesaurus results for MOMENT
Gegenteil-von.com
104 Moment Antonyms - Opposite of Moment - Page 3
Gegenteil-von.com

Also a "moment" is usually a 'short' period of time.
An "eon" or "age" can be a 'long' period of time.
And 'long' is the opposite of 'short':

http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/vocabulary-lesson-opposites2.php

[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.”

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.

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.

[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.”

Hebrews 7:24 Interlinear: and he, because of his remaining -- to the age, hath the priesthood not transient,

"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." Hebrews 7:24 Commentaries: but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

"This may be explained either as inviolable, or which does not pass over to another. Comp. Exodus 32:8; Sir. 23:18. Usage is in favor of the former meaning, but the other falls in better with the course of thought." Vincent @ Hebrews 7:24 Commentaries: but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

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).

[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.”

"The most ancient manuscripts omit the words, "for ever" ", i.e. they omit the Greek word aion:

1 Peter 1:23 Commentaries: for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

As do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ASV, DBY, ERV, & most at:

http://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-23.htm

and also this:

Greek-English Interlinear:
Index of /interlinear/1_peter

[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.”

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. 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.

Aionios is related to time in the Scriptures, not eternity:

in expectation of life eonian, which God, Who does not lie, promises before times eonian (Titus 1:2)
Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian,(2 Tim.1:9)
Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, 26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience (Rom.16:25-26)
but we are speaking God's wisdom in a secret, wisdom which has been concealed, which God designates before - before the eons, for our glory (1 Cor.2:7)

If time ends, the "times eonian" (Titus 1:2; 2 Tim.1:9; Rom.16:25) end & eonian ends with the beginning of eternity, then in Scripture eonian can never mean endless or everlasting.

The eons had a beginning (1 Cor.2:7, etc) & may also have an end (1 Cor.10:11; Heb.9:26).

Young's Literal Translation (1 Tim.6:16)
who only is having immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no one of men did see, nor is able to see, to whom is honour and might age-during! Amen.
Concordant Literal Translation
Who alone has immortality, making His home in light inaccessible, Whom not one of mankind perceived nor can be perceiving, to Whom be honor and might eonian! Amen!
Rotherham's Emphasized Version
Who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable,—Whom no man hath seen—nor can see: unto whom, be honour and might age-abiding. Amen.
Emphatic Diaglott NT
the only one having deathlessness, light dwelling in inaccessible, whom saw no one of men, nor to see is able; to whom honor and might age-lasting; so be it.
Emphatic Diaglott (margin)
...to whom be Honor and Might aionian. Amen

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AKR1767.0001.001/686?rgn=main;view=image
http://studybible.info/CLV/1 Timothy 6
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti6.pdf

Re Greek scholar Deissman:

"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" "

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter9.html

The Greek text is on p.275ff of the following url. The English translation follows.

"I adjure thee by the great God, the eternal and more than eternal and almighty, who is exalted above the exalted Gods." (p.277)

"The tablet, as is shown not only by its place of origin (the Necropolis of Adrumetum belongs to the second and third centuries, A.D.; the part in which the tablet was found is fixed in the third), but also by the character of the lettering, is to be assigned to the third century,1 that is— to determine it by a date in the history of the Greek Bible — about the time of Origen." (p.279)

https://ia800300.us.archive.org/4/items/biblestudiescon00deisuoft/biblestudiescon00deisuoft.pdf

[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.”

The "corruption" is not stated to be endless, so it does not necessarily follow that the life or eonian or life eonian must be endless.

Be not decived, God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall he be reaping also, 8 for he who is sowing for his own flesh, from the flesh shall be reaping corruption, yet he who is sowing for the spirit, from the spirit shall be reaping life eonian. (Galatians 6:8; Concordant Literal Version).

Origen, the Early Church Father, speaks a number of times of after aionios (eternal) life, thereby making it finite in relation to a coming age or ages, such as, e.g.the millennial kingdom eon age. Christ also speaks of aionios life in the age to come (Mk.10:30; Lk.18:30). And Daniel 12:2 refers to olam life followed in verse 3 by "olam and beyond", thereby making olam life in this context finite.

[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.”

John 10:28 is a repeat of the same verse addressed below at verse #15 on your list of 19 verses (actually only 18, & just 17 that have aion/ios in them).

In John 6:58 death is not contrasted with aionios, but with live. Aionios is not the opposite of death.

And the world is passing by, and its desire, yet he who is doing the will of God is remaining for the eon. (1 Jn.2:17, CLV) and the world doth pass away, and the desire of it, and he who is doing the will of God, he doth remain -- to the age. (YLT)

For the eon or age here can certainly refer to a finite eon such as the millennial age eon kingdom of Christ, or also the eon of the second death (lake of fire) until death is abolished (1 Cor.15:26) & God becomes "all in all" (v.28), even all who were ever in Adam (v.22).

[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.”

Actually aion (and therefore aionios) can be the opposite of a "little while". See previous comments above re 2 Cor.4:17-18 & "moment".

[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.”

Those who "in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality" will be given "aionios life". Aionios (eonian) life is the special reward for those who believe. They get life in the eonian period called the 1000 years in Revelation, i.e. the millennial age eon. Unbelievers will not get eonian life in the age to come. As we see in 1 Tim.4:9-11, God is the Saviour of all men, but specially of them that believe. For believers get the special gift of grace of eonian life. Others will lose out on that & be punished. But even they shall be eventually saved (Rom.5:18-19; Rev.5:13; 1 Cor.15:22-28; etc).

[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.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1-33.htm
http://studybible.info/ACVI/Luke
http://studybible.info/IGNT/Luke

Darby Bible Translation
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end.

This is what it actually literally says:

Luk 1:33 and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation. (CLV)

It is about reigning over the house of Jacob and the time limit is "for the eons."

Here is the full verse with context:

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David,
Luk 1:33 His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. (here is the second half of the verse you allude to And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation."

Christ eventually hands over the kingdom to His God and Father (1 Cor.15:24-28) and quits reigning (1 Cor.15:25). So His reign "for the eons" over the house of Jacob (Lk.1:33) is not forever, but finite. Therefore the phrase "for the eons" in Lk.1:33 is of finite duration & the translation "forever" is wrong, misleading & deceptive.

[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.”

If someone said to me "I have had no rest day or night", this could mean for a period of 24 hours. Not forever and ever.

If someone said to me "I've had no rest day or night for ages", this could mean for a finite period of days, weeks or months. It doesn't mean forever. BTW the phrase 'forever and ever' in Rev.14:11 literally translates as "to ages of ages". So having no rest day or night for "ages" can mean for a short or long time of finite duration, not forever.

Here is the literal translation from a Greek-English Interlinear:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/14-11.htm

Many other similar examples could be given with a literal translation.

Scripture also speaks of night being "no more". So can "day and night" be forever?

For 12 arguments re "ages of ages" ending, see posts 130 & 131 @

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...hilationsim-vs-eternal-torment.8019864/page-7

This includes everyone in the universe, including the dead and demons:

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are on the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

John speaks of "every creature" & to emphasize this again he repeats "and all that are in them":

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are on the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

This worship (v.13) uses the same worshipful words as the redeemed of vs 9-10 use in v.12:

12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

All this being in the context of salvation - "the Lamb that was slain" (v.12 & 13).

[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.

And I am giving them life eonian, and they should by no means be perishing for the eon, and no one shall be snatching them out of My hand. (Jn.10:28, CLV)

Evidently this may refer to a future eon & not the disciples time in the first century A.D., since they did perish or die. The coming eon will include the millennium or 1000 years of Revelation 20. Even during that millennial age eon some will die (Isa.65:20), but Jesus says here in Jn.10:28 that believers will not perish "for the eon".

Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. (Isa.65:20)

Unbelievers will not enter the millennial age kingdom of Christ, but perish, according to verses in John above. It is noteworthy that it doesn't say they perish "without end" or "endlessly". They are raised at the great White Throne judgement of Revelation 20 & ultimately saved. For Jesus is the Lamb Who takes away the sin of the world (Jn.1:29) & their Saviour (Jn.4:42) Who will draw them to Himself (Jn.12:32).

[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.”

For neither is the Father judging anyone, but has given all judging to the Son, 23 that all may be honoring the Son, according as they are honoring the Father. He who is not honoring the Son is not honoring the Father Who sends Him." 24 Verily, verily, I am saying to you that he who is hearing My word and believing Him Who sends Me, has life eonian and is not coming into judging, but has proceeded out of death into life. (Jn.5:22-25, CLV)

Here we see that all judging has been given to the Son for a positive end, that all may be honoring the Son.

Believers have life eonian, as long as they don't lose their salvation. Then they would lose this gift of grace of eonian life and come into condemnation again.

[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.

Actually in that verse death is not contrasted with aionios. Death is contrasted with its opposite life. Aionios life is the gift of God (Rom.6:23) to those who believe. Eventually all
will recieve life (verses 18-19 of the same book of Romans & chapter 5).

= = = = =
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.

None of these sources support your aionios theory. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent, whom you quote, opposes it, saying:

"The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting."

"...The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting."

".... Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods."

"...Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material can not carry in themselves the sense of endlessness."

"...There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded."

https://books.google.ca/books?id=oD... everlasting if that idea is demanded&f=false

https://www.hopefaithprayer.com/books/Word-Studies-in-the-New-Testament-Vol-3&4-Marvin-R-Vincent.pdf


----


https://www.christianforums.com/thr...os-based-on-aion.8040292/page-2#post-72110302

 

[Sanoy]

I call this the SPAM-Fig argument. When scripture as written contradicts someone's dearly held beliefs simply dismiss them as symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor or figurative anything but literal.
.....I explained how "death and "hell" were actually individuals.Your SPAM-fig argument does not disprove my explanation. My approach is this "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense."
.....Where does Rev 20:14 say anything about "horses?"

Rev 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.​

Anyone can concoct an example from life which appears to refute an argument. What you may/may not say in any given situation proves absolutely nothing about the scripture in question. Read the verses I quoted again and my explication. The LOF is not synonymous with death because not everyone/everything thrown into the LOF dies. The living beings the devil, the beast and the false prophet are thrown in to the LOF. They did not suffer a first death so they can't die a second death, they are tormented day and night forever.

I already explained how 'death" and "hell" could be literally thrown into the LOF. Your assumptions have not proved me wrong.

The grammatical structure of Rev 21:3-8 will not logically, grammatically or any other way permit any of the verses to be yanked out of their immediate context and placed in some earlier passage. Note these vss. are one continuous narrative. See the conjunctions "and" and "but.'

Revelation 21:3-8
(3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
(5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
​

I will drop my belief in Annhilation the moment you make a cogent argument against it. I do not invest myself such that I would destroy the word of God to defend it. I use scripture with fear and trembling. I don't make it up, like...throwing horses into the lake of fire because I need to find a supplement for death and hell.

I don't need to disprove your explanation. Your explanation first needs to be cogent and proper to the text. The 4 horseman were indeed on horses. So if death and hell are proper individuals as you suggest and are thrown into the lake of fire then their horses are too which is just ridiculous. And we know that hell is a place anyway, not a person. And of course we know that death is a concept not a person with a sickle. This book is of the genre of apocalyptic literature and is naturally full of symbolism. You can't just borrow parts of the Bible and jam them in, and say 'defeat me'. You have to first respect the text and show that those parts reasonably refer to the other parts. You need to use hermeneutics, not a word search.

 

[Der Alte]

I will drop my belief in Annhilation the moment you make a cogent argument against it. I do not invest myself such that I would destroy the word of God to defend it. I use scripture with fear and trembling.[1] I don't make it up, like...throwing horses into the lake of fire because I need to find a supplement for death and hell.
I don't need to disprove your explanation. Your explanation first needs to be cogent and proper to the text. [2.] The 4 horseman were indeed on horses. So if death and hell are proper individuals as you suggest and are thrown into the lake of fire then their horses are too which is just ridiculous. [3]And we know that hell is a place anyway, not a person. And of course we know that death is a concept not a person with a cycle. [4] This book is of the genre of apocalyptic literature and is naturally full of symbolism. [5] You can't just borrow parts of the Bible and jam them in, and say 'defeat me'. You have to first respect the text and show that those parts reasonably refer to the other parts. [6] You need to use hermeneutics, not a words search and post.

1. I made nothing up and I destroyed nothing. I didn't need to "find" anything it was right there in scripture. I simply pointed it out. That it contradicts your assumptions/presuppositions is not my problem.
2. The 4 horsemen are irrelevant I was discussing death on a horse and hell following behind him, which OBTW says nothing about "hell" being on a horse.
3. Death and hell are also described as individuals with pronouns "he" and "they." Was there a literal angel of death in the OT?
4. While Rev. is apocalyptic, i.e. "revealed," funny how it is "figurative" or "literal" where it fits your agenda. Properly "If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to look for any other sense." I gave a plain sense explanation.
5. I didn't borrow any parts. Death and hell thrown into the LOF, death and hell as individuals given power to kill, same subjects. Sorry it doesn't fit your agenda.
6. As I said in 5. that is proper hermeneutics. I didn't do a word search I actually read the text. Unlike many I don't copy/paste my arguments.
I first started learning to speak Greek the year of Sputnik 1 and formally studied both Biblical languages about 2 decades later.

 

[Sanoy]

1. I made nothing up and I destroyed nothing. I didn't need to "find" anything it was right there in scripture. I simply pointed it out. That it contradicts your assumptions/presuppositions is not my problem.
2. The 4 horsemen are irrelevant I was discussing death on a horse and hell following behind him, which OBTW says nothing about "hell" being on a horse.
3. Death and hell are also described as individuals with pronouns "he" and "they." Was there a literal angel of death in the OT?
4. While Rev. is apocalyptic, i.e. "revealed," funny how it is "figurative" or "literal" where it fits your agenda. Properly "If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to look for any other sense." I gave a plain sense explanation.
5. I didn't borrow any parts. Death and hell thrown into the LOF, death and hell as individuals given power to kill, same subjects. Sorry it doesn't fit your agenda.
6. As I said in 5. that is proper hermeneutics. I didn't do a word search I actually read the text. Unlike many I don't copy/paste my arguments.
I first started learning to speak Greek the year of Sputnik 1 and formally studied both Biblical languages about 2 decades later.

It was there after you found it and so you took it and pointed it out. That isn't a hermeneutic. That is just a word search. It doesn't contradict my statement because it doesn't instantiate. It is just the same word used elsewhere in the bible.

1. Yes the other 3 horseman are irrelevant to the discussion. I will probably still call it the 4 horseman so that readers may understand what you are referring too. Just subtract 3 if you hear it.
2. Yes hell is not on a horse, though it can be implied if hell wants to keep up. But death is on a horse so this is no objection at all. Are you trying to be slick here? Is that how we should transmit theology, through slight of hand?
3. This is of the genre of apocalyptic literature. Apocalyptic literature uses symbolism and figurative language. So if you use the symbol of a rider it becomes a he. Part of hermeneutics is knowing what type of literature you are reading.
4. I have no idea what the point you are making here is.
5. You borrowed from revelation 6.
6. Reading the text is not a hermeneutic
7. That is excellent.

 

[Der Alte]

copy/paste, copy/paste, copy/paste omitted. . . Origen, the Early Church Father, speaks a number of times of after aionios (eternal) life, thereby making it finite in relation to a coming age or ages, such as, e.g.the millennial kingdom eon age. . . . .

This is a blatantly false statement which I have proved several times.

...Luk 1:33 His father, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. (here is the second half of the verse you allude to And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation."...

Cherry picked "translation."
NIV Luk 1:33 and he will reign over Jacob's descendants forever; his kingdom will [εσται] never [ουκ] end."[τελος]

G5056 τέλος telos tel'-os
From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare G5411.​

"consummation" is not part of the definition.

 

[Der Alte]

It was there after you found it and so you took it and pointed it out. That isn't a hermeneutic. That is just a word search. It doesn't contradict my statement because it doesn't instantiate. It is just the same word used elsewhere in the bible.
1. Yes the other 3 horseman are irrelevant to the discussion. I will probably still call it the 4 horseman so that readers may understand what you are referring too. Just subtract 3 if you hear it.
2. Yes hell is not on a horse, though it can be implied if hell wants to keep up. But death is on a horse so this is no objection at all. Are you trying to be slick here? Is that how we should transmit theology, through slight of hand?
3. This is of the genre of apocalyptic literature. Apocalyptic literature uses symbolism and figurative language. So if you use the symbol of a rider it becomes a he. Part of hermeneutics is knowing what type of literature you are reading.
4. I have no idea what the point you are making here is.
5. You borrowed from revelation 6.
6. Reading the text is not a hermeneutic
7. That is excellent.

Quote some scholarship on this I'm not interested in amateur opinions and arguments.
Principles of Biblical Hermenutics.
1. Identify the kind of literature your text is for insight into its meaning.
2. Consider the context of the passage for a better understanding of its meaning.
3. Read the text for its plain and obvious meaning.
4. Try to discern the writer’s intentions when he wrote the text.
5. Look carefully at the language of the text for what it reveals about its meaning.
6. Notice the various theological themes in the text.
7. Always take a God-centered perspective for interpreting your text.
https://www.lifeway.com/pastors/2014/03/12/7-principles-of-biblical-interpretation/

 

[Sanoy]

Quote some scholarship on this I'm not interested in amateur opinions and arguments.
Principles of Biblical Hermenutics.
1. Identify the kind of literature your text is for insight into its meaning.
2. Consider the context of the passage for a better understanding of its meaning.
3. Read the text for its plain and obvious meaning.
4. Try to discern the writer’s intentions when he wrote the text.
5. Look carefully at the language of the text for what it reveals about its meaning.
6. Notice the various theological themes in the text.
7. Always take a God-centered perspective for interpreting your text.
https://www.lifeway.com/pastors/2014/03/12/7-principles-of-biblical-interpretation/

It is a personal commitment of mine that I do not quote scholarly opinions. I will however quote scholars wherein they speak of facts. The reason for my commitment is that I desire that my participation in a thread exceed that of a quote miner or google search technician. Given that the issue is a highly controversial one among scholars, opinion quotes are even more useless here.

Very good, each of these points should be used when trying to understand a text. Notice that the very first point is to know what type of genre you are reading.

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

A quick word but also just as quick an error IMO. Pneuma is the 4151 Greek word in KJV as Spirit 257x and as Ghost 92x. A spirit is a spirit and the Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit, end of theology lesson IMO. If you think you can shoot Casper the ghost/spirit and kill him or any spirit, I disagree.


Actually no, I believe man IS A SPIRIT like GOD having a physical experience here on earth. You on the other hand see man as yourself, a sinful flesh body trying to have a spiritual experience. I am a spirit, I have a soul and I live in a body. Or as Paul said "this earthly tent we live in". IOW I'm just quoting the bible and spirit isn't accidentally left out of the verse in Matt 10 IMO. And if you quote better bibles your beloved eternity is missing also. And if you do a historical study on sulfur/brimstone you'll find it was always used as a purgative and a preservative, certainly not to torture/torment. And you also need to do a study on the word 'torment'.



No I didn't say that. Your body died in the grave, REMEMBER your earlier post??? Price for sin death. Can't come to life as a new glorified body til long after dust and ashes for most of God's creation. THEN when 'death and hell' have finished their useful purpose for God even they too will end up in God who is the lake of fire.

"Our God is a consuming fire." You want Him to be a gas or propane torch holder like some cosmic Hitler torturing to death in annihilation. I see Him as glorious and purgative in his work to kill us all. You do know you have two spirit trying to kill you don't you? One is the Holy Spirit with self crucifixion, and the other is the unholy spirit killing you with sin crucifixion. Paul learned to "crucify his flesh" and 'die to self" with the Holy Spirit. But he still hadn't made perfection according to Phillipians 3:12.

PHI 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

Paul knew the difference between immortality and eternal life I wonder if you do. He knew the difference between the two different Greek words for resurrection in the verse above, do you?

ROM 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;


Then you're as misinformed as the spirit Jesus was talking with....huh?

Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, TORMENT me not.


But you 'giving up' sounds like you still think you won, FYI I still don't. But I do agree it's time to start studying more, and for us to stop.

BTW if you haven't figured it out, I'm not an ECT guy. But I do believe I 'one up' your kinder annihilationist POV with a better plan. One where God is winning ALL and not the Devil winning MOST. Now that is GOSPEL good news.

"I am a spirit, I have a soul and I live in a body." - Just one question: What's the difference between you soul and your spirit?

"And if you quote better bibles your beloved eternity is missing also." Are you referring to the "had been thrown" thing? The word eternity to me is anything but beloved.

"You want Him to be a gas or propane torch holder like some cosmic Hitler torturing to death in annihilation. I see Him as glorious and purgative in his work to kill us all." - Huh?

"But I do believe I 'one up' your kinder annihilationist POV with a better plan." - So I take it your a universalist? Everyone gets saved? How do you explain verses like John 3:16, and every other verse that talks about how the wages of sin is death? Why did Jesus need to die on the cross in the first place? Where is the verse that explicitly states that he will save everyone? WHat about the verse that talks about the people whose names are not written in the Book of Life get cast into the lake of fire? There are so many MASSIVE holes in Universalism that it just doesn't make a lick of sense.

And Annihilationism isn't "kind" or "nice". It is simply what the bible clearly states.

"Paul knew the difference between immortality and eternal life I wonder if you do." - What's the difference? The first resurrection is talking about Jesus' resurrection, and the second is talking about the resurrection of the dead is talking about Revelation 20:5. But I don't see any important distinction between immortality and eternal life. They are essentially interchangeable.

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

Quote some scholarship on this I'm not interested in amateur opinions and arguments.
Principles of Biblical Hermenutics.
1. Identify the kind of literature your text is for insight into its meaning.
2. Consider the context of the passage for a better understanding of its meaning.
3. Read the text for its plain and obvious meaning.
4. Try to discern the writer’s intentions when he wrote the text.
5. Look carefully at the language of the text for what it reveals about its meaning.
6. Notice the various theological themes in the text.
7. Always take a God-centered perspective for interpreting your text.
https://www.lifeway.com/pastors/2014/03/12/7-principles-of-biblical-interpretation/

What exactly is your position?

You have yet to make a coherent, big picture argument. You are laser focused on that one verse, so I really don't know.

 

[Der Alte]

It is a personal commitment of mine that I do not quote scholarly opinions. I will however quote scholars wherein they speak of facts. The reason for my commitment is that I desire that my participation in a thread exceed that of a quote miner or google search technician. Given that the issue is a highly controversial one among scholars, opinion quotes are even more useless here.
Very good, each of these points should be used when trying to understand a text. Notice that the very first point is to know what type of genre you are reading.

As you stated opinion quotes are useless here therefore your unsupported opinion is useless here.
And note that number three says. "Read the text for its plain and obvious meaning."

 

[Der Alte]

What exactly is your position?

It should be evident that I do not support annihilationism.

You have yet to make a coherent, big picture argument. You are laser focused on that one verse, so I really don't know.

I think my [Post #10] is a coherent big picture argument for an everlasting, unending place of fiery torment for the unrighteous.

 

[Sanoy]

As you stated opinion quotes are useless here therefore your unsupported opinion is useless here.
And note that number three says. "Read the text for its plain and obvious meaning."

Opinions are useless. That is why I used abductive reasoning instead, and why your explanation that death and hell are persons remains less likely as an explanation of the verse.

#3 is guided by all the others. Especially guided by #1. #3 is manifestly fallacious in isolation. The messiah was not obvious from the OT text, which is why it is said if the rulers of this world knew they would not have crucified the Messiah. We have the benefit of hindsight but they did not.

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

It should be evident that I do not support annihilationism.

I think my [Post #10] is a coherent big picture argument for an everlasting, unending place of fiery torment for the unrighteous.

Post 10 is mostly a rant about Gehenna, except for the part where you list out a bunch of verses from Mathew, half of which I addressed in the opening statement, and the other half of which has nothing to do with conditionalism or unconditionalism. They make perfect sense in both views.

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

"Read the text for its plain and obvious meaning."

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Sounds like sin = death and believing in God = life. That's about as plain and obvious as you can get.

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

It should be evident that I do not support annihilationism.

I think my [Post #10] is a coherent big picture argument for an everlasting, unending place of fiery torment for the unrighteous.

What does the Tree of Life mean to you?

What does the bible mean when it repeatedly states that eternal life is a gift for the righteous?

How did Jesus pay our price for sin if the price he paid was death, instead of eternal torment?

Why does the bible repeatedly talk about the wicked being destroyed, killed, and burned up if they live forever?

If Sodom is our example of eternal fire and what will happen to the wicked, how is it no longer burning?

How do people thrown into a lake of burning sulfur survive for trillions of years in said lake?

Why would God want sin and people who hate him to be around for eternity?

How can God ever deliver justice to the wicked if the act of punishment is eternal and can never be complete in its implementation?

If the body and soul can be killed in hell, what could possibly be left over to suffer?


Answer all those questions from ECT and you may have a case.

 

[DavidPT]

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


What I notice here, is this. Two entirely different judgments taking place, where they all end up in the same place, yet their fates are not the same. The two judgments meaning satan's in verse 10, and the judgment of man in verses 11-15. Take note, nowhere in the context of verse 10 does it ever call it the 2nd death. And nowhere in the context of verses 11-15 does the text ever indicate any of them shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

As to the 2nd death, can't have that without there being a first death first. As to satan, he has never died since the time he was initially created, therefore a 2nd death can't apply to him, and he instead will be tormented day and night for ever and ever, just like the text indicates.

As to the fate of men though, since these cast into the LOF had already died once, and the fact there is a 2nd death, this means they can die again, and that's exactly what they do, die again.

Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

To anyone who agrees context counts, that one could not possibly interpret the above passage to also include the humans cast into the LOF. Verse 36 says----Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Notice one thing here in particular---for they are equal unto the angels. satan, too, is apparently an angel, and angels apparently can't and don't die, thus why satan shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever, the fact he is unable to die. But as to humans though, clearly humans can die. But they can no longer die if they are accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead.

Common sense tells us it has to be the opposite for those that are not accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, thus they instead die, the fact this part can't apply to them---Neither can they die any more. Because if it does apply to those cast into the LOF, that would indicate the LOF is also meaning that world mentioned in verse 35. In order for ECT to be true of humans, that requires they can't die anymore once being resurrected from the dead. It is clearly only those which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, that can't die anymore, and not also those cast into the LOF.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here's a thought, annihilation for humans, eternal torment for Satan and his legions of fallen angels as an eternal reminder of the consequences of betraying the Almighty. So instead of arguing either or maybe both and? It's an interesting discussion and caused me to rethink eternal torment for humans years ago, but never really settled either way in a one hundred percent certain way. Whichever version of the punishment is on judgement day, it seems clear this much is true, it is extremely undesirable, and not anything any sane person would want to experience.

I really don't think so, I think the lake of fire is the absolute end. There is a terrible moment when there is wailing and gnashing of teeth but I think it's mercifully brief. Jesus says God destroys the body and soul in hell, not that they suffer punishment forever. And something else, when the children of perdition go into the flames God doesn't rejoice, he grieves. It's not about punishment, it's about the permanent nature of perdition.

 

[Der Alte]

I really don't think so, I think the lake of fire is the absolute end. There is a terrible moment when there is wailing and gnashing of teeth but I think it's mercifully brief. Jesus says God destroys the body and soul in hell, not that they suffer punishment forever. And something else, when the children of perdition go into the flames God doesn't rejoice, he grieves. It's not about punishment, it's about the permanent nature of perdition.

Scripture does NOT say God "will" destroy, it says God is "able" to destroy the body and soul. God created man therefore He can destroy them. I do not know of a single verse which says God has or will destroy any soul.

Matthew 10:28
(28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.​