Annihilationism Is Actually...Biblical

[DavidPT]

Matthew says "fear him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." What God has created He most certainly can destroy. But neither Matthew nor any other scripture says that God has actually destroyed or will actually destroy any souls in hell. Here is how Luke records that.

Luke 12:4-5
(4) And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
(5) But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.​

The fact you are highly intelligent, far more intelligent than I, it blows my mind that you are apparently failing to grasp what I am simply saying.

Let's start with the statement in Daniel 2:44.

which shall never be destroyed
which shall be destroyed

Which of the two is meaning to exist forever? The former or the latter?

Now let's do the same with the statement in Matthew 10:28.

but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
but rather fear him which is able to never destroy both soul and body in hell.

Which of the two is meaning to exist forever? The former or the latter? Keep in mind though, it would be unreasonable to reason that one way in Daniel 2:44 and in an entirely different way in Matthew 10:28. If in Daniel 2:44 you reasoned it to be meaning the former that means to exist forever, that would mean in Matthew 10:28 in order to be consistent, you would have to reason it to be meaning the latter that means to exist forever. But by doing that though, you just added something to the text not in the text. Anytime someone has to add or subtract something regarding the text, that is a big red flag that their interpretation can't be trusted to be correct.


If in Matthew 10:28---which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell---can mean exist forever----in the same way then, if in Daniel 2:44 someone removed 'forever', thus--which shall be destroyed---can mean exist forever as well. Yet we both know it can't. Even by subtracting from the text it still can't mean to exist forever. So how can to destroy mean to exist forever in Matthew 10:28 but it couldn't mean that in Daniel 2:44 as well?

 

[Der Alte]

There are obviously multiple way of interpreting olam, aidiois, and ainoios. None of them mean true eternity every time.
Therefore, anyone who tries to use any of these three words to prove whether or not something is truly eternal or not is chasing after the wind.
So acknowledge that you can't win or lose ANYTHING by arguing about any of these three words.
They can all be EASILY interpreted BOTH ways.

So God is not eternal, Jesus is not eternal, and eternal life is not eternal.

Mark 8:36
(36) For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
[Luke 9:25 Mark 8:36]​

Can a man literally, actually gain the whole world?

1 John 5:19
(19) And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.​

Did the whole world literally, actually lie in wickedness?

Revelation 12:9
(9) And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.​

Was the whole world literally, actually deceived?

Revelation 13:3
(3) And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.​

Did all the world literally, actually wonder after the beast? Does "the whole world", "all the world" in these verses literally, actually mean the entire planet or is that a figure of speech?

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

So God is not eternal, Jesus is not eternal, and eternal life is not eternal.

That is NOT what I said.

It is amazing that, despite your high level of intelligence, you repeatedly fail to understand extremely simple concepts.

Did I say that those three words could not be interpreted as literal eternity (for example, when describing God)?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said that those three words don't necessarily mean literal eternity and can be interpreted BOTH ways.

 

[Der Alte]

That is NOT what I said.
It is amazing that, despite your high level of intelligence, you repeatedly fail to understand extremely simple concepts.
Did I say that those three words could not be interpreted as literal eternity (for example, when describing God)?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I said that those three words don't necessarily mean literal eternity and can be interpreted BOTH ways.

So according to you aion/aionios/aidios/olam/ad can only be translated eternal when describing God? Let me go out on a limb and take a guess, your rule is they can also be translated "eternal" when they wouldn't contradict your assumptions/presuppositions. But when they would contradict your assumptions/presuppositions they definitely can't be translated as "eternal." Would that be correct?
.....Do you know how to parse a Greek verb? Do you know how to locate a Hebrew verb? I'm assuming you don't and very likely do not even know what I am talking about. But you feel qualified to make imperative grammatical pronouncements about other grammatical points.

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

.....Do you know how to parse a Greek verb? Do you know how to locate a Hebrew verb? I'm assuming you don't and very likely do not even know what I am talking about. But you feel qualified to make imperative grammatical pronouncements about other grammatical points.

γλῶσσα ouk δυσερμήνευτος

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

So according to you aion/aionios/aidios/olam/ad can only be translated eternal when describing God?

No. You use the context around it to determine whether or not it means "true" eternal.

Which is why we shouldn't be focusing on the specific Greek words, but instead on the context clues.

We know that God is truly eternal because of all the context clues that clearly tell us this. And we know that the destruction of the wicked is truly eternal because of the context clues - NOT because of what this specific Greek word means or because of what that specific Greek word means, but through the context clues. We have something telling us that they will be destroyed forever, and we have nothing telling us that they will ever change from being in the state of destruction, so by the context we understand that we are dealing with "true" eternal. We do NOT discover this by arguing about particular words. Not when the three words for eternal can be interpreted both ways through context.

The Bible says that God will reign forever, that He alone is immortal, and that his reign will have no end. It also says that Jonah was in the belly of the fish forever and then got spat out after three days.

So we recognize that the words like forever, eternal, death, etc... can have multiple interpretations and realize we must use the context - not the word itself - to determine its meaning.

 

[ClementofA]

It does seem to suggest it makes Him sadistic to do that to them forever, yet that's what the text clearly states though---- and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


If the text in Revelation 20 said this about humans as well, there wouldn't be a debate as far as I'm concerned.

Since you seem to adhere to universalism, how do you make the following fit with that position?

Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.


Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

From a universalist perspective the issue in the above texts - Rev.20:10 & BHS passages - and others such as Mt.25:46; Dan.12:2; 2 Thess.1:9 - all relate to the translation (or mistranslation) of the one Greek word AIONION & the related noun AION, which literally means an "age" or "eon", not "world" (Mt.12:31) as in your quoted translation. Another Greek word, KOSMOS, means "world". In the case of Dan.12:2 the Hebrew word is OLAM, & in the LXX AIONION, which corresponds to the Greek AION & AIONION.

Literal translations have:

28 Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the penalties of the sins and the blasphemies, whatsoever they should be blaspheming, 29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin-" 30 for they said, "An unclean spirit has he." (Mark 3, CLV)

31 Therefore I am saying to you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be pardoned men, yet the blasphemy of the spirit shall not be pardoned."
32 And whosoever may be saying a word against the Son of Mankind, it will be pardoned him, yet whoever may be saying aught against the holy spirit, it shall not be pardoned him, neither in this eon nor in that which is impending. (Mt.12:31-32, CLV)

Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin

and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night-to the ages of the ages. (Rev.20:10, YLT)

And the Adversary who is deceiving them was cast into the lake of fire and sulphur where the wild beast and where the false prophet are also. And they shall be tormented day and night for the eons of the eons. (Rev.20:10, Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983)

...and the Adversary that had been deceiving them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [were] both the wild-beast and the false-prophet; and they shall be tormented
day and night unto the ages of ages. (Rev.20:10, Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959

American Standard Version footnote: *Gr. unto the ages of the ages.
Revised Version, 1881 footnote: *Gr. unto the ages of the ages.

Does ages of the ages have an end? Christ's reign is "to the ages of the ages":

And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, 'The kingdoms of the world did become those of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!' (Rev.11:15, YLT)

But His reign is "until" He gives up the Kingdom to the Father:

24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. (1 Corinthians 15)

So Christ's reign "to the ages of the ages" is not "forever and ever". Therefore the phrase "to the ages of the ages" can be understood of a limited time period that comes to an end. So those in the lake of fire are not punished there "for ever and ever" (Rev.20:10).

Also, "forever and ever" is nonsense. No time can be added to "forever".

When Christ's reign ends (1 Cor.15 above), this will lead to God being "All in all" (v.28). IOW everyone will be saved, as all will be "in Christ" (v.22).

12 points re forever and ever being finite:
For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

It does seem to suggest it makes Him sadistic to do that to them forever, yet that's what the text clearly states though---- and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The consensus from just about every denomination out there is that the "Beast" is not a person or being, but instead a symbol for some government, idea, or force of some kind.

How can such a thing be tormented literally for forever and ever?

How can you punish a human and a government/idea/force with the same form of punishment?

 

[ClementofA]

Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

If it shall not be forgiven him in this world, which I take to mean this present age, let alone it will not be forgiven him in the age to come, how then could a person doing this possibly get saved in this age if they can't even be forgiven in this age? The text indicates it is only whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him. I would think this easily debunks universalism.

Paul speaks of the age to come (Eph.1:21). In the same context he refers to multiple ages to come (Eph.2:7), as do many other Scriptures (e.g. Lk.1:33; Rev.11:15). So a sin that is not pardoned in this age or the coming age does not require it mean it can never be pardoned, or that it cannot be pardoned in an age following the coming age.

A criminal is sentenced to 20 years in prison. If he is pardoned after 10 years for good behavior or by the governor he gets out of prison early. Otherwise he is not pardoned & serves his full sentence. Then he is released. The fact he was not pardoned did not mean he stayed in prison & was punished forever. Even though he was not pardoned, he still became free when his sentence was served. Or after half his sentence was served when the governor pardoned him or he repented & changed his ways.

For some people who lied to the Holy Spirit they were not pardoned & their sentence was immediate physical death (e.g. Acts 5).

In this case a person is not pardoned. But it is limited until he die:

Isa 22:14 But the LORD of hosts revealed Himself to me, "Surely this iniquity shall not be forgiven [purged/atoned] you Until you die," says the Lord GOD of hosts.

Was the immoral person of 1 Cor.5:4-5 pardoned while in his sin? No, he was given over to Satan for destruction that he might be saved in the day of the Lord.

Was King Nebuchadnezzar pardoned during the 7 years God made him insanely eat grass like an animal. No. Though he wasn't pardoned, he wasn't punished forever, either.

Here we see a sin that won't be pardoned. It won't be pardoned "until" they pardon others:

Mt.6:15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Similarly, the not being pardoned here is "until" a certain point:

Mt.18:34 In his anger, his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should repay all that he owed. 35 That is how My Heavenly Father will treat each of you, unless you forgive your brother from your heart.

If such a horrific thing as eternal punishment were the idea in Mt.12:31-32 & Mk.3:28-29, would Christ have used the ambiguous words aion & aionios? No. He would have used words such as eternal (aidios, Rom.1:20; Jude 6), endless (aperantos, 1 Tim.1:4), no end (Lk.1:33), unlimited (apeiron, by Philo). Since He never used such words, He did not teach endless annihilation or torments.

The Spirit blasphemers (Heb.10:28-29) are even worse than a "serial sinner" such as Saul of Tarsus who was persecuting Spirit filled Christians, even unto death.

Even then, all of God's punishments are corrective, not merely pointlessly or sadistically meting out justice for justice's sake, but for the good of all, including the offender.

Heb.10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Stoning to death is not a very sore or longlasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the eternal hell believing Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed the wicked would be punished with something so monstrous as being endlessly annihilated or tormented, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is an unfeeling terminator machine or sadist who abandons forever the beings He created in His own image & likeness so easily.

He shall save His people (Mt.1:21), i.e. Israel (2:6), from their sins.

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life's justifying."

Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."

Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin:
Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin

 

[Der Alte]

γλῶσσα ouk δυσερμήνευτος

όχι απάντηση

 

[ClementofA]

What other word could the LXX translators use to express eternal? Where is that Greek word which unequivocally means eternal?

According to you:

"Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc."

Scholars also agree that aionios can mean a finite duration.

So AIDIOS would be a superior word to express endless punishment, IF that is what God believed in. Since He didn't use that would thusly, He doesn't.

Likewise the phrase "no end" was another superior choice to aionios, to express endless punishment, if the LXX translators wished to do so. They didn't.

12 points re forever and ever being finite
For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

 

[Der Alte]

No. You use the context around it to determine whether or not it means "true" eternal.

Do you mean like how you blew off the contextual clues I provided in 22 verses? And how you blew off scores of years of scholarship in BDAG and all the context in the many historical and lexical sources provided in the lexicon article? It appears that context is only anything which supports your assumptions/presuppositions

begin

Which is why we shouldn't be focusing on the specific Greek words, but instead on the context clues.
We know that God is truly eternal because of all the context clues that clearly tell us this. And we know that the destruction of the wicked is truly eternal because of the context clues

end

Now this is what is known as a logical fallacy. Begging the question. Making an assertion and proceeding as if the assertion is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, with no,. zero, none evidence. Right about here is where you should be providing a few of those contextual clues.

- NOT because of what this specific Greek word means or because of what that specific Greek word means, but through the context clues. We have something telling us that they will be destroyed forever, and we have nothing telling us that they will ever change from being in the state of destruction, so by the context we understand that we are dealing with "true" eternal.

More of your logical fallacy. Begging the question. Here you assume that "eternal" means true eternal, with no, zero, none evidence.

We do NOT discover this by arguing about particular words. Not when the three words for eternal can be interpreted both ways through context.

Begging the question with no, zero, none evidence.

The Bible says that God will reign forever, that He alone is immortal, and that his reign will have no end. It also says that Jonah was in the belly of the fish forever and then got spat out after three days.

Yet you rejected the verse I provided which said that God's eternal covenant would not end or be destroyed because it did not fit your agenda. No Jonah, a man in a state of panic expecting that he would die at any moment said "the earth with her bars was about me for ever:" So that is a very poor proof text.:

So we recognize that the words like forever, eternal, death, etc... can have multiple interpretations and realize we must use the context - not the word itself - to determine its meaning

I provided 35 OT verses with context which you blew off because it did not fit your agenda.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

According to you:
"Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc."
Scholars also agree that aionios can mean a finite duration.
So AIDIOS would be a superior word to express endless punishment, IF that is what God believed in. Since He didn't use that would thusly, He doesn't.

end

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considered “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous.

Likewise the phrase "no end" was another superior choice to aionios, to express endless punishment, if the LXX translators wished to do so. They didn't.

The LXX translators never used the word aidios in the entire OT even for God. One of the people arguing here said that neither aionios nor aidios mean eternal even when referring to God, or his attributes

12 points re forever and ever being finite

Rubbish! This source neither states nor provides any evidence that they have any expertise in Greek or Hebrew. Anybody can find an anonymous website to prove almost anything.

 

[Oseas]

[QUOTE Jordan Henshaw, post # 428] Do you even know what the word "quench" means in relation to fire?
If the worm this is referencing literally never dies, is it an immortal worm? Do the bodies magically have an endless supply of flesh? Is this worm somehow fireproof and indestructible too? Is it an immortal worm?
Or is it simply figurative language from the extremely poetic book of Isaiah?[/QUOTE]

Hi Jordan
In truth, what JESUS said is not poetic, but real. By your words above, I saw that you imagined in your mind as whether I were interpreting Scriptures literally. In truth, we know literally what JESUS said, as it is written in Mark 9:42-50, but the most important to me is to interpret the words of JESUS by His own mind, the mind of Christ, and not by my mind. You know what the Apostle Paul said in this sense: (1Cor.2:7&11)
7 We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

If you see well, JESUS had worried much more with the salvation of man, and not with the final consequences of the unbelievers or of the disbelief in his words or his teachings, however, He warned and left very clear what was/is the better choose, for to suffer not the everlasting punishment of the hell's fire.

You asked me? >>Do the bodies magically have an endless supply of flesh? Is this worm somehow fireproof and indestructible too? Is it an immortal worm?<<

If literally you are referring to a worm of the grave, such conception has no sense. Then, what was in the mind of JESUS? What did He mean? You know that what was in the mind of JESUS is not of literal interpretation, and this is not as superficial as it may seem in our eyes. Yes, it is not as superficial as it may seem in our eyes.

JESUS was referring not to a kind of "bactery"/worm, but to the own person of man who was created by God, by JESUS, by He Himself. Then, referring to the man and not to a "worm", Then the verse, in accord the mind of JESUS, may or could be write of the follow manner: "Where their bodies (worm) dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
For our better understanding, how would you interpret the follow verses of the Word of God, by the way very very hard to understand and believe, even literally?

Job 25:v.5-6 -
5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.
6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

A short portion of Psalms 22: 6-11
6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.

Then, the question is: Will the man (not the worm) be immortal after be cast into the hell's fire?

By analogy, let analyse these two situations:

What will happen with the body of the true believers which will be saved from de eternal perdition? There will be a changing to another kind of nature, eternal nature.
1 Cor.15:v.51to55
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed . . .
at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave (hell), where is thy victory?
In the book of Luke, our Lord JESUS explained how will be this new nature of the true believers in this millennium in which we are living, and it will be for a thousand years, once within of God's Kingdom. After this will be established the Eternity, in the end of this millennium.

In the other hand, what will happen with the nature of the bodies of the unbelievers in Christ JESUS and enemies of Him, which will be cast into the hell's fire? If the (worm) man cast into the hell's fire, as JESUS said, dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, how will be his nature or what kind of nature there will be in the hell? Do you know how will be the environment inside the hell and what kind of nature there will be there, and what kind of life its inhabitants will have and will live within there?

 

[Oseas]

But there is more this warns of Isaiah 33:v.10to15

10 Now will I rise, saith the Lord; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.
11 Ye shall conceive chaff, ye shall bring forth stubble: your breath, as fire, shall devour you.
12 And the people shall be as the burnings of lime: as thorns cut up shall they be burned in the fire.
13 Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; and, ye that are near, acknowledge my might.
14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;

Hebrew Word Definitions - Eternity[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE Butch5, post #434] This doesn't have anything to do with what Jesus said. However, the word "everlasting" is incorrect. The Hebrew word Is the word owlam. It doesn't mean everlasting. Here's a link from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center that explains how the word owlam was used.[/QUOTE]

No Butch, it is not incorrect, absolutely. To me it seems that you know not who is the devouring fire or consuming fire or yet the everlasting burnings.

 

[Oseas]

[QUOTE Butch5, post #423] What happens to people when they die?[/QUOTE]

It depends. For example, See what happened with these after they died:
Revelation 6:9to12

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

 

[Oseas]

The question isn't to know or not this or that or to interpret this or that. The most important is to be saved and have the name written in the book of life.

For the contrary, knowing or not this or that, and interpreting or not this or that, will be cast into the lake of fire, into the hell's fire. Is this the horrible end, coming from your human wisdom?

 

[ClementofA]

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considered “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous.

Not pertinent to my comments which stated what scholars (not you=amateur) believe:

According to you:

"Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc."

Scholars also agree that aionios can mean a finite duration.

So AIDIOS would be a superior word to express endless punishment, IF that is what God believed in. Since He didn't use that would thusly, He doesn't.

Likewise the phrase "no end" was another superior choice to aionios, to express endless punishment, if the LXX translators wished to do so. They didn't.

Psa.102:27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have NO END.

The LXX translators never used the word aidios in the entire OT even for God.

The LXX translators did use the word aidios. TDNT & Muraoka, (p.14 below) both list exactly 2 occurrences of AIDIOS in the LXX, one in reference to "light" (Wis.7:26) & one re "life" (4 Mac.10:15).

Muraoka defines aidios as "everlasting". But for aionios his definitions are "1. lasting for very long, everlasting" & "2.having existed very long, long past, ancient" (p.19).

Clearly aidios was a superior word to express endless punishment over aionios at Dan.12:2, if that is what God meant. So He didn't.

"A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint Hardcover – Dec 31 2009
by T Muraoka (Author), p.14)
https://www.amazon.ca/Greek-English-Lexicon-Septuagint-T-Muraoka/dp/9042922486

Rubbish! This source neither states nor provides any evidence that they have any expertise in Greek or Hebrew. Anybody can find an anonymous website to prove almost anything.

Then why don't you just believe the early church father universalists who were Greek scholars? Or you could ask the Holy Spirit to teach you. Then you wouldn't have to rely on man's opinions. Not that your "Greek or Hebrew" experts agree, which leaves you in the dark as far as knowing who to trust and trusting them is concerned. BTW if you had read the following then you would have known it quotes some scholars & is not an "anonymous website" but refers to 2 successive posts on these forums.

12 points re forever and ever being finite
For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

 

[Der Alte]

Not pertinent to my comments which stated what scholars (not you=amateur) believe:

No I'm not the amateur here. AFAIK I'm the only person in this discussion who has actually studied both Hebrew and Greek

According to you:
"Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc."
Scholars also agree that aionios can mean a finite duration.

There is a difference between "can mean" and "is sometimes used for." Are the phrases the "whole world" and "all the world" sometimes used to refer to something less than the entire planet in the NT?

So AIDIOS would be a superior word to express endless punishment, IF that is what God believed in. Since He didn't use that would thusly, He doesn't.

Likewise the phrase "no end" was another superior choice to aionios, to express endless punishment, if the LXX translators wished to do so. They didn't.
Psa.102:27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have NO END.

When you have earned a graduate degree in Greek and/or Hebrew/ with an additional decade or two of research, study and teaching,you might have the requisite expertise to make such claims. Otherwise that is just your agenda speaking.

ἀΐδιος, ον (ἀεί ‘always’; Hom. Hymns, Hes. et al.; ins; PSI 1422, 16; Wsd 7:26; 4 Macc 10:15; a favorite w. Philo: Jos., Ant. 4, 178; 17, 152; Just., A II, 11, 5; Tat. 14, 2; Ath.; Mel., P. 2f, 20) eternal ἡ ἀ. αὐτοῦ (of God) δύναμις Ro 1:20 (Zoroaster in Philo Bybl.: 790 Fgm. 4, 52 Jac. [Eus., PE 1, 10, 52]; 58th letter of Apollonius of Tyana [Philostrat. I 360, 29 K.]; SibOr 5, 66 θεὸς ἀ.). ζωή (Philo, Fug. 97; Tat.14, 2) IEph 19:3; δεσμοῖς ἀ. Jd 6 (PGM 4, 1466 πυλωρὲ κλείθρων ἀϊδίων).—DELG s.v. αἰών. M-M. TW
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 24). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

begin

The LXX translators did use the word aidios. TDNT & Muraoka, (p.14 below) both list exactly 2 occurrences of AIDIOS in the LXX, one in reference to "light" (Wis.7:26) & one re "life" (4 Mac.10:15).
Muraoka defines aidios as "everlasting". But for aionios his definitions are "1. lasting for very long, everlasting" & "2.having existed very long, long past, ancient" (p.19).

end

Guess you missed Muraoka's definition "everlasting" for "aionios. According to your pronouncements the LXX translators must not have believed that God or His covenant were eternal since they did not use "aidios" to describe Him..

Clearly aidios was a superior word to express endless punishment over aionios at Dan.12:2, if that is what God meant. So He didn't.

As I said above you do not have the requisite expertise to make these determinations. Just more of your agenda.

"A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint Hardcover – Dec 31 2009
by T Muraoka (Author), p.14)
https://www.amazon.ca/Greek-English-Lexicon-Septuagint-T-Muraoka/dp/9042922486

Linking to Amazon is meaningless. I'm sure you don't own them and I don't intend to buy every book at Amazon you link to.

Then why don't you just believe the early church father universalists who were Greek scholars? Or you could ask the Holy Spirit to teach you. Then you wouldn't have to rely on man's opinions. Not that your "Greek or Hebrew" experts agree, which leaves you in the dark as far as knowing who to trust and trusting them is concerned. BTW if you had read the following then you would have known it quotes some scholars & is not an "anonymous website" but refers to 2 successive posts on these forums.

I'm, not the one in the dark here. Which "early church father universalists"[plural] I only know of one and his writings are contradictory as I have shown you from his commentary on John. If some website quotes an accredited scholar quote the scholar not the website. But use caution some websites misquote scholars pushing their agenda. Better to find the primary source and quote them directly

12 points re forever and ever being finite

Amateurish refuse no, zero, none evidence that the folks at this website have any relevant expertise.

 

[jovanovic]

The fact you are highly intelligent, far more intelligent than I, it blows my mind that you are apparently failing to grasp what I am simply saying.

Let's start with the statement in Daniel 2:44.

which shall never be destroyed
which shall be destroyed

Which of the two is meaning to exist forever? The former or the latter?

Now let's do the same with the statement in Matthew 10:28.

but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
but rather fear him which is able to never destroy both soul and body in hell.

Which of the two is meaning to exist forever? The former or the latter? Keep in mind though, it would be unreasonable to reason that one way in Daniel 2:44 and in an entirely different way in Matthew 10:28. If in Daniel 2:44 you reasoned it to be meaning the former that means to exist forever, that would mean in Matthew 10:28 in order to be consistent, you would have to reason it to be meaning the latter that means to exist forever. But by doing that though, you just added something to the text not in the text. Anytime someone has to add or subtract something regarding the text, that is a big red flag that their interpretation can't be trusted to be correct.


If in Matthew 10:28---which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell---can mean exist forever----in the same way then, if in Daniel 2:44 someone removed 'forever', thus--which shall be destroyed---can mean exist forever as well. Yet we both know it can't. Even by subtracting from the text it still can't mean to exist forever. So how can to destroy mean to exist forever in Matthew 10:28 but it couldn't mean that in Daniel 2:44 as well?

But the soul is enternal. Destroy can mean being tortured for ever because in other bible verses it says that wicked people will be tormented for ever, how can someone who is destroyed be tormented for ever