Romans 5:19 uses many to refer to those who are made sinners in Adam and also uses many for those who because of Jesus will be made righteous.

[Hentenza]

I seems that you did not understand what I was trying to get across- Most in western tradition believe that in Matt 24:46 when reading in most English translations read that eternal life for believers and eternal punishment for nonbelievers. They then conclude that the none believer is sent to hell for all eternity, but that is a bad translation because the Greek word does not mean eternal. So by using Romans 5:19 if those same people were intellectually honest they must conclude that the same " many" that are in Adam are the same "many" that will be in Jesus. In English this looks like we have a contradiction, but when you use the proper Greek translation of aionios as age enduring or of the age, there is total harmony of both verses.
The argument is that if you are going to use eternal as the definition of aionios in Matt 24:46 to prove "hell" is eternal, because its the same word for both the believer and unbeliever then you must conclude that in Rom 5:19 the use of "the many" must be the same on both sides, so all those in Adam are the same as all those who Jesus will redeem, if you are being consistent with you logic.

We’ve been through this before.

αἰώνιος aiṓnios, ahee-o'-nee-os; from G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):—eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

Aionios does indeed means eternal. Your argument is moot.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

We’ve been through this before.

αἰώνιος aiṓnios, ahee-o'-nee-os; from G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):—eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

Aionios does indeed means eternal. Your argument is moot.

Look up what aionios meant 2000 years ago and how it was used in other literature at the time, Plato is the one who used it as eternal but most did not, the Lexicons that we use are recent history , the first one was from 1607, and they used the Latin influenced by Plato not the Greek of the time.
So no I do not buy into that definition as eternal.

 

[Clare73]

I have no issue with Scripture interpreting Scripture as long as it does not cause one to “impose” or “alter” the plain reading and immediate surrounding context of the passage in question, in order to accommodate one’s personal theological construct. That is NOT harmonizing Scripture with Scripture. Each passage of Scripture should be able and allowed to stand on its own. THEN and only then should we should seek harmony among the rest of holy writ.

Now, Please demonstrate for me and stop dodging the question I proposed to you:
No use of “all” or “many” in any other NT passage can alter the meaning of this passage. In this instance … The All = The Many.
The only reason to interpret otherwise

All interpretation must be in agreement with all the NT to be correct, for God does not contradict himself in his word, as you have him doing.
You either understand that, or you don't. . .and seek to play games with God's holy word.
Never a good idea. . .

 

[Hentenza]

Look up what aionios meant 2000 years ago and how it was used in other literature at the time, Plato is the one who used it as eternal but most did not, the Lexicons that we use are recent history , the first one was from 1607, and they used the Latin influenced by Plato not the Greek of the time.
So no I do not buy into that definition as eternal.

I can prove the proper definition.

 

[Clare73]

I can prove the proper definition.

I would appreciate that.

 

[Hentenza]

I would appreciate that.

I posted it already in my post 21.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

All interpretation must be in agreement with all the NT to be correct, for God does not contradict himself in his word, as you have him doing.
You either understand that, or you don't. . .and seek to play games with God's holy word.
Never a good idea. . .

All scripture should be interpreted through Jesus and what he showed us while on earth.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I can prove the proper definition.

Ok what is your proof?

 

[Hoping2]

Go to Bible Hub and you will see that the " the" is used in the Greek, I do not use the KJV I use a more literal translation.

By the addition of the word "the" to "many", your version has distorted the meaning.
Besides, even "the many" doesn't necessarily mean "all" the people.

All sin because all inherit the sin nature from Adam, so all will sin. Through Jesus all will be made righteous, this will take ages but it will happen, that is what the text says, you may not like it because it goes against tradition but tradition can be wrong.

Enoch didn't sin.
Elijah didn't sin.
John the Baptist didn't sin.
Jesus didn't sin.
So an inherited anything, from Adam, is not scriptural.

 

[Hentenza]

Ok what is your proof?

See my post 21.

ETA: Here is some additional information.

2. Aion, Aionios:

In the New Testament, aion and aionios are often used with the meaning "eternal," in the predominant sense of futurity. The word aion primarily signifies time, in the sense of age or generation; it also comes to denote all that exists under time-conditions; and, finally, superimposed upon the temporal is an ethical use, relative to the world's course. Thus aion may be said to mean the subtle informing spirit of the world or cosmos--the totality of things. By Plato, in his Timaeus, aion was used of the eternal Being, whose counterpart, in the sense-world, is Time. To Aristotle, in speaking of the world, aion is the ultimate principle which, in itself, sums up all existence.. In the New Testament, aion is found combined with prepositions in nearly three score and ten instances, where the idea of unlimited duration appears to be meant. This is the usual method of expressing eternity in the Septuagint also. The aionios of 2 Cor 4:18 must be eternal, in a temporal use or reference, else the antithesis would be gone.

Welcome | Precept Austin

www.preceptaustin.org

 

[Hentenza]

By the addition of the word "the" to "many", your version has distorted the meaning.
Besides, even "the many" doesn't necessarily mean "all" the people.

Enoch didn't sin.
Elijah didn't sin.
John the Baptist didn't sin.
Jesus didn't sin.
So an inherited anything, from Adam, is not scriptural.

All have been born with original sin since Adam except for the virgin birth of Christ. Christ never sinned. Everyone else was born naturally. You have no scriptural proof of your assertion.

 

[Clare73]

All scripture should be interpreted through Jesus and what he showed us while on earth.

What did Jesus show us about
the church as the bride of Christ and, therefore, the body of Christ in the two-in-one enfleshment of the marital union (Eph 5:30-32),
justification by faith (Ro 3:28),
imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16)
imputed righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5),
those in Christ being the seed of Abraham; i.e. Israel (Gal 3:29, 6:16),
etc., etc., etc.?

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

All interpretation must be in agreement with all the NT to be correct,

Not to the degree where one must “impose”, “qualify”, or ”provide” a thought , word, or idea upon any given passage the author did not present in the immediate surrounding context. Such forced interpretations will do nothing but add confusion to the authors original idea and intent. It is far better to simply say “I don’t know“ and revisit one’s theological position. Again. Any given txt must be able and allowed to stand alone with the intent the author had in mind when writing the passage. We must pursue harmony within the Scripture without stepping on the toes of the authors original intent and design for writing the passage in question.

Here is an example. In Romans chapter 5 and 1st Corinthians 15 are in complete harmony with one another. Paul contrasts and compares the global effects of Adam’s disobedience and the global effects of Christs obedience. The grammatical structure of both passages leaves no ambiguity. In Adam “ALL” die just as in Christ “ALL” are made alive. The ALL in Adam = The Many in Christ. The Many in Adam = The ALL in Christ. This is indisputable … perfect harmony … One passage speaking to condemnation/justification and the other speaking to resurrection/consummation.

for God does not contradict himself in his word,

finally we agree on something …

as you have him doing.

Now my friend, “I” don’t have him doing anything other than accomplishing that which He has declared in His word. I may not comprehend it all, or be able to explain it all But my position of Universal Reconciliation takes Him at His word without having to alter any passages of Scripture. He has declared His will. He has determined and provided the means by which He accomplishes His will. He has accomplished His will for He is not bound by time and all in all is the desired/achieved result.

You either understand that, or you don't. . .and seek to play games with God's holy word.

Now that is quite the accusation my friend. Since you made the assertion would you care to demonstrate how it is I am playing games with the Scripture? You appear to be quite fond of making accusations about me in our discussions and equally fond of never substantiating said accusations. Remember the “Falsifying grammar“ accusation? You never substantiated that accusation and if I may add, never apologized for failing to do so. I suppose I should expect the same result?

Never a good idea. . .

And we agree again! I guess that’s progress.

 

[Hoping2]

All have been born with original sin since Adam except for the virgin birth of Christ. Christ never sinned. Everyone else was born naturally. You have no scriptural proof of your assertion.

The word of God, through Ezekiel, nullifies that position.
It is written..."The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezek 18:20)
If the son cannot bear the iniquity of his father, how can a son bear the iniquity of a man created thousands of years earlier ?

 

[Hentenza]

The word of God, through Ezekiel, nullifies that position.
It is written..."The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezek 18:20)
If the son cannot bear the iniquity of his father, how can a son bear the iniquity of a man created thousands of years earlier ?

Your verse mining is out of context.

““Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has kept all My statutes and done them, he shall certainly live. The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt, nor will a father suffer the punishment for the son’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18‬:‭19‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Ezekiel 18:19-20 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has kept all My statutes and done them, he shall certainly | New American Standard Bible -

“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has kept all My statutes and done them, he shall certainly

bible.com

This talks about the son not suffering the punishment for their father’s sin. Try again.

Also, by your logic, you will be dead because you still sin.

 

[Hoping2]

Your verse mining is out of context.

My mining has produced the gold of God.

“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has kept all My statutes and done them, he shall certainly live. The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt, nor will a father suffer the punishment for the son’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18‬:‭19‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬
This talks about the son not suffering the punishment for their father’s sin. Try again.

Yes, it does.
As we were all products of Adam's seed, his sins will not be charged to any of his sons.

Also, by your logic, you will be dead because you still sin.

If I were to 'still sin', my own sins would warrant my second death.
Thankfully, by rebirth from God's seed, we can all live without sin now.