Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

ClementofA · Nov 4, 2017

Der Alter said:
Quoting scripture is not cut and paste.

What you pasted was more then scripture, so again, you didn't answer this:

Firstly, according to you " "Evidence" which is not readily available to the average person is not evidence." You haven't shown that your cut and paste qualifies as "evidence" or is readily available to the average person, so why should i pay any attention to it?

Der Alter said:
Did you read my post? I indicated where the Hebrew/Greek word for eternal occurs in the Hebrew text and the LXX

What you pasted isn't clear in its meaning, didn't explain itself & neither did you explain it. So again, how does it answer these questions & why did you post it:

Does aionios have the same meaning in both of its occurrences in Hab.3:6? Or in both of its occurrences in Rom.16:25-26? Even your beloved JPS translation does not render olam as eternal when applied to God's goings, but as "of old" in Hab.3:6:

"He standeth, and shaketh the earth, He beholdeth, and maketh the nations to tremble; And the everlasting mountains are dashed in pieces, The ancient[OLAM] hills do bow; His goings are as of old.[OLAM]" (Hab.3:6, JPS)

Der Alter said:
JPS Hab 3:6
(6) He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting [עד][LXX omit] mountains were scattered, the perpetual
[עולם][LXX omit] hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.[αἰώνιοι LXX][עולם Heb.]

What is this supposed to mean? Again, i'm not a mind reader, so can't read your mind as to your reason for posting it. Here are some English translations of the LXX followed by the Greek:

the earth stood at his feet and trembled: he beheld, and the nations melted away: the mountains were violently burst through, the everlasting hills melted at his everlasting going forth. (Hab.3:6)
http://qbible.com/brenton-septuagint/habakkuk/3.html

6 He stood and the earth was shaken: he looked, and nations melted away: the mountains were violently convulsed, the everlasting hills melted. 7 Instead of labours I beheld his marches of old. (Hab.3:6-7a)
Habakkuk 3 The Prayer of Ambacum the prophet; with an Ode.

6 ἔστη καὶ ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ ἐπέβλεψεν καὶ διετάκη ἔθνη διεθρύβη τὰ ὄρη βίᾳ ἐτάκησαν βουνοὶ αἰώνιοι
7a πορείας αἰωνίας
Kata Biblon - Habakkuk 3 - Greek Septuagint Interlinear

And where is your JPS translation from? Here is JPS:

3:6 He standeth, and shaketh the earth, He beholdeth, and maketh the nations to tremble; and the everlasting mountains are dashed in pieces, the ancient hills do bow; His goings are as of old.(Hab.3:6)
Jewish Publication Society Bible: Habakkuk 3

he-man · Nov 5, 2017

ClementofA said:
Firstly, according to you " "Evidence" which is not readily available to the average person is not evidence." You haven't shown that your cut and paste qualifies as "evidence" or is readily available to the average person, so why should i pay any attention to it? Secondly, is there a point you are trying to make with that cut & paste? I am not a mind reader. Thirdly, how does that cut & paste answer this: Does aionios have the same meaning in both of its occurrences in Hab.3:6? Or in both of its occurrences in Rom.16:25-26? Even your beloved JPS translation does not render olam as eternal when applied to God's goings, but as "of old" in Hab.3:6: "He standeth, and shaketh the earth, He beholdeth, and maketh the nations to tremble; And the everlasting mountains are dashed in pieces, The ancient[OLAM] hills do bow; His goings are as of old.[OLAM]" (Hab.3:6, JPS)

What do you men "not readily available to the average person"? You have a computer and besides I posted the URL and the attachment is easily read. Perhaps you do not wish to acknowledge your own reference to TLG Home which supports Liddell-Scott- Jones (LSJ)? Your own reference to Romans 16:25-26 shows that you did not look up the word used for "since the world began", a hyperbole, and in verse 26 the Greek word for "Everlasting God". αιωνιοις αιςωιου here it is from the source attachment that makes your statement rdiculous: without end or beginning; perpetual

ClementofA · Nov 5, 2017

he-man said:
What do you men "not readily available to the average person"? You have a computer and besides I posted the URL and the attachment is easily read.

My post wasn't even addressed to you.

As for LSJ, it lists "lasting for an age" as the first definition of aionios.

Aionios is the adjective. Aion the noun. I've already given you a list from the LXX & Origen showing aionios & eternal punishment to be temporary, i.e. of finite duration.

Here are some samples re aion:

"Consider the N. T. use of aion. Does “eternity” make any sense in the following passages? To make my point unmistakable, I have translated the Greek word aion with the English word “eternity.”

¨ What will be the sign…of the end of the eternity (Mt. 24:3)?

¨ I am with you…to the end of the eternity (Mt. 28:20).

¨ The sons of this eternity are more shrewd (Lu. 16:8).

¨ The sons of this eternity marry (Lu. 20:34).

¨ Worthy to attain that eternity (Lu. 20:35).

¨ Since the eternity began (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21).

¨ Conformed to this eternity (Ro. 12:2).

¨ Mystery kept secret since the eternity began but now made manifest (Ro. 16:25-26).

¨ Where is the disputer of this eternity (1Co. 1:20)?

¨ Wisdom of this eternity, nor of the rulers of this eternity…ordained before the eternities…which none of the rulers of this eternity…(1Co. 2:6-8)

¨ Wise in this eternity (1Co. 3:18).

¨ Upon whom the ends of the eternities have come.
(1Co. 10:11)

¨ God of this eternity has blinded (2Co. 4:4).

¨ Deliver us from this present evil eternity (Ga. 1:4).

¨ Not only in this eternity but also in that which is to come (Ep. 1:21).

¨ Walked according to the eternity of this world (Ep. 2:2).

¨ In the eternities to come (Ep. 2:7).

¨ From the beginnings of the eternities (Ep. 3:9).

¨ Hidden from eternities…but now…revealed (Col. 1:26).

¨ Loved this present eternity (2Ti. 4:10).

¨ Receive him for eternity (Ph.1:15). Does this mean forever or only until Onesimus dies?

¨ Powers of the eternity to come (He. 6:5).

¨ At the end of the eternities (He. 9:26).

¨ We understand the eternities have been prepared by a saying of God (He. 11:3).

How can we say…

¨ “Before eternity” or “eternity began”? Eternity has no beginning (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21; 1Co. 2:7; Ep. 3:9).

¨ “Present eternity,” “eternity to come,” and “end of eternity?” Eternity transcends time. Only God is eternal (Mt. 24:3; 28:20; 1Co. 10:11; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 6:5; 9:26).

¨ “This eternity,” “that eternity,” or “eternities”? There is only one eternity (Lu. 16:8; 20:34-35; Ro. 12:2; 1Co. 1:20; 2:6-8; 3:18; 10:11; 2Co. 4:4; Ga. 1:4; Ep. 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9; Col. 1:26; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 11:3).

¨ “Eternal secret” if the secret is revealed? (Ro. 16:25-26; Col. 1:26). It is no longer a “secret” at that point."

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

he-man · Nov 5, 2017

ClementofA said:
My post wasn't even addressed to you. As for LSJ, it lists "lasting for an age" as the first definition of aionios.
ionios is the adjective. Aion the noun. I've already given you a list from the LXX & Origen showing aionios & eternal punishment to be temporary, i.e. of finite duration.. ¨ Mystery kept secret since the eternity began but now made manifest (Ro. 16:25-26). (2Co. 4:4).

Matthew 24:3 αιωνος or αιων means for a period of time and is the word used in Matthew and NOT αιωνιος LISTEN: perpetual, eternal

ClementofA · Nov 5, 2017

he-man said:
Matthew 24:3 αιωνος or αιων means for a period of time and is the word used in Matthew and NOT αιωνιος LISTEN: perpetual, eternal

"...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."

MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D.

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

Word Studies in the New Testament

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

Universalism – The Truth Shall Make You Free

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

Der Alte · Nov 5, 2017

ClementofA said:
"...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."
MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D....

When was Marvin Vincent made pope who must be obeyed and/or the king of all Bible scholars whose opinions must be accepted to the exclusion of all others?

ClementofA · Nov 5, 2017

Der Alter said:
Whenever someone says e.g. "My trip lasted forever." does that change the meaning of forever?

If someone says "my trip lasted for eons", does that change the meaning of eon? Eon is a transliteration of aion into English, just as aionion is transliterated as eonian.

Is the church age eon of the same duration as the internet age eon? Is the eon of a geological age of the same duration as the millennial eon? If not, then why should eonian in Mt.25:46 have to be of the same duration in reference to punishment & life?

"Whatever its correct translation, “aionios” is clearly an adjective and must therefore function like an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective for its meaning to vary, sometimes greatly, depending upon which noun it qualifies. For more often than not, the noun helps to determine the precise force of the adjective. As an illustration, set aside the Greek word “aionios” for a moment and consider the English word “everlasting.” I think it safe to say that the basic meaning of this English word is indeed everlasting. So now consider how the precise force of “everlasting” varies depending upon which noun it qualifies. An everlasting struggle would no doubt be a struggle without end, an unending temporal process that never comes to a point of resolution and never gets completed. But an everlasting change, or an everlasting correction, or an everlasting transformation would hardly be an unending temporal process that never gets completed; instead, it would be a temporal process of limited duration, or perhaps simply an instantaneous event, that terminates in an irreversible state. So however popular it might be, the argument that “aionios” must have exactly the same force regardless of which noun it qualifies in Matthew 25:46 is clearly fallacious."

Talbott on Matthew 25:41, 46?

BTW, your AD/OLAM/AION-IOS theory that those 4 words are defined only & always as eternal (except when used in hyperbole) was refuted in the following thread. See posts #'s 201, 190, 172 @

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

Der Alter said:
Do ants and trees even have aions?

"There are as many eons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one eon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow’s life, another of an oak’s life. The length of the eon depends on the subject to which it is attached." (WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D.)

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

Word Studies in the New Testament

"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."

MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D.

Olethron Aionion (eternal destruction)

According to the LSJ lexicon the word aion has meant "life". Do ants & trees have a "life"?

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, αἰών

Der Alter said:
Tall is not an adjective with a specific measurement neither is long, short, small, large etc.

Just as the adjective tall varies with what it refers to, so also the adjective aionion (eonian) varies with what it refers to. A tall man is not the same size as a tall tree or highrise or mountain. Likewise:

"So of aiónion; applied to Jonah's residence in the fish, it means seventy hours; to the priesthood of Aaron, it signifies several centuries; to the mountains, thousands of years; to the punishments of a merciful God, as long as is necessary to vindicate his law and reform his children; to God himself, eternity." AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS

Der Alte · Nov 5, 2017

ClementofA said:
If someone says "my trip lasted for eons", does that change the meaning of eon? Eon is a transliteration of aion into English, just as aionion is transliterated as eonian.

Is this supposed to make any sense?

Is the church age eon of the same duration as the internet age eon? Is the eon of a geological age of the same duration as the millennial eon? If not, then why should eonian in Mt.25:46 have to be of the same duration in reference to punishment & life?

Does or does not hyperbole and other figures of speech occur in the Bible? It appears that hyperbole and other figures of speech do exist for unis only so long as it does not conflict with their uni assumptions/presuppositions. But when to consider something hyperbole etc. disproves their uni assumptions etc. then there is no way a word/phrase can be hyperbole etc.

"Whatever its correct translation, “aionios” is clearly an adjective and must therefore function like an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective for its meaning to vary, sometimes greatly, depending upon which noun it qualifies. For more often than not, the noun helps to determine the precise force of the adjective. As an illustration, set aside the Greek word “aionios” for a moment and consider the English word “everlasting.” I think it safe to say that the basic meaning of this English word is indeed everlasting. So now consider how the precise force of “everlasting” varies depending upon which noun it qualifies. An everlasting struggle would no doubt be a struggle without end, an unending temporal process that never comes to a point of resolution and never gets completed. But an everlasting change, or an everlasting correction, or an everlasting transformation would hardly be an unending temporal process that never gets completed; instead, it would be a temporal process of limited duration, or perhaps simply an instantaneous event, that terminates in an irreversible state. So however popular it might be, the argument that “aionios” must have exactly the same force regardless of which noun it qualifies in Matthew 25:46 is clearly fallacious."

And you think an anonymous post from another forum 8 years ago is authoritative? I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I will let you have real cheap.

BTW, your AD/OLAM/AION-IOS theory that those 4 words are defined only & always as eternal (except when used in hyperbole) was refuted in the following thread. See posts #'s 201, 190, 172 @

Nothing was refuted! Arguments alone do not refute anything. Can you show me any verse which describes/defines עד/עוֹלָם/αιων/αἰώνιος as something other than eternal, everlasting, eternity. Can you provide any verses which describe/define עוֹלָם/עד/αιων/αἰώνιος as something other than eternity/eternal? For example here is a quote from Origen's commentary on the apocalypse of John which describes/defines "eternal life" as being similar to or having something in common with "never perishes,""remains.''''is not taken away,""[is not]consumed"and "[does not] perish."

(6o) And he has explained the statement, But “he shall not thirst forever:” as follows with these very words: for the life which comes from the well is eternal and never perishes, as indeed, does the first life which comes from the well,; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.

"There are as many eons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one eon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow’s life, another of an oak’s life. The length of the eon depends on the subject to which it is attached." (WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D.)
"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."
MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D.

Now let us review a paragraph from the same article which you did not quote.

In this passage the word destruction is qualified. It is “destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power, “ at his second coming, in the new eon. In other words, it is the severance, at a given point of time, of those who obey not the gospel from the presence and the glory of Christ. Ἁιώνιος may therefore describe this severance as continuing during the millennial eon between Christ's coming and the final judgment; as being for the wicked prolonged throughout that eon and characteristic of it, or it may describe the severance as characterizing or enduring through a period or eon succeeding the final judgment, the extent of which period is not defined. In neither case is αἰώνιος to be interpreted as everlasting or endless.

Note Vincent does not know what "aionios" describes. He offers two possibilities. If he does not know this how can we trust that he "knows" the other things he states as fact?

According to the LSJ lexicon the word aion has meant "life". Do ants & trees have a "life"

LSJ can be helpful but there are many differences between the classical Greek of LSJ and Koine. What does BDAG say?

Just as the adjective tall varies with what it refers to, so also the adjective aionion (eonian) varies with what it refers to. A tall man is not the same size as a tall tree or highrise or mountain. Likewise:

Interesting but not really relevant. Can you make your argument from historical sources?

"So of aiónion; applied to Jonah's residence in the fish, it means seventy hours; to the priesthood of Aaron, it signifies several centuries; to the mountains, thousands of years; to the punishments of a merciful God, as long as is necessary to vindicate his law and reform his children; to God himself, eternity."

Are we going to let the panicked cries of a man facing almost certain death define one word for us?

he-man · Nov 6, 2017

ClementofA said:
My post wasn't even addressed to you.

As for LSJ, it lists "lasting for an age" as the first definition of aionios.

Aionios is the adjective. Aion the noun. I've already given you a list from the LXX & Origen showing aionios & eternal punishment to be temporary, i.e. of finite duration.

Here are some samples re aion:

"Consider the N. T. use of aion. Does “eternity” make any sense in the following passages? To make my point unmistakable, I have translated the Greek word aion with the English word “eternity.”

¨ What will be the sign…of the end of the eternity (Mt. 24:3)?

¨ I am with you…to the end of the eternity (Mt. 28:20).

¨ The sons of this eternity are more shrewd (Lu. 16:8).

¨ The sons of this eternity marry (Lu. 20:34).

¨ Worthy to attain that eternity (Lu. 20:35).

¨ Since the eternity began (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21).

¨ Conformed to this eternity (Ro. 12:2).

¨ Mystery kept secret since the eternity began but now made manifest (Ro. 16:25-26).

¨ Where is the disputer of this eternity (1Co. 1:20)?

¨ Wisdom of this eternity, nor of the rulers of this eternity…ordained before the eternities…which none of the rulers of this eternity…(1Co. 2:6-8)

¨ Wise in this eternity (1Co. 3:18).

¨ Upon whom the ends of the eternities have come.
(1Co. 10:11)

¨ God of this eternity has blinded (2Co. 4:4).

¨ Deliver us from this present evil eternity (Ga. 1:4).

¨ Not only in this eternity but also in that which is to come (Ep. 1:21).

¨ Walked according to the eternity of this world (Ep. 2:2).

¨ In the eternities to come (Ep. 2:7).

¨ From the beginnings of the eternities (Ep. 3:9).

¨ Hidden from eternities…but now…revealed (Col. 1:26).

¨ Loved this present eternity (2Ti. 4:10).

¨ Receive him for eternity (Ph.1:15). Does this mean forever or only until Onesimus dies?

¨ Powers of the eternity to come (He. 6:5).

¨ At the end of the eternities (He. 9:26).

¨ We understand the eternities have been prepared by a saying of God (He. 11:3).

How can we say…

¨ “Before eternity” or “eternity began”? Eternity has no beginning (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21; 1Co. 2:7; Ep. 3:9).

¨ “Present eternity,” “eternity to come,” and “end of eternity?” Eternity transcends time. Only God is eternal (Mt. 24:3; 28:20; 1Co. 10:11; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 6:5; 9:26).

¨ “This eternity,” “that eternity,” or “eternities”? There is only one eternity (Lu. 16:8; 20:34-35; Ro. 12:2; 1Co. 1:20; 2:6-8; 3:18; 10:11; 2Co. 4:4; Ga. 1:4; Ep. 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9; Col. 1:26; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 11:3).

¨ “Eternal secret” if the secret is revealed? (Ro. 16:25-26; Col. 1:26). It is no longer a “secret” at that point."

Again you are in error. owlan = everlasting Deuteronomy 33:27, eternal God; Isaiah 60:15, eternal Excellency; Matthew 25:46, αιωνιος, Strong's G166, perpetuel, eternal; Mark 3:29, αιων , Strong's G165; an age; Mark 10:30; αιωνιος; world to come eternal life; You would do well to read the scriptures for they contain the way to eternal life: John 5:39; also Hebrews 5:9 ..eternal life for ALL that OBEY him; Hebrews 9:15 all that are called...; 1 John 5:13 all that believe..; or else if you do not believe: Jude 1:7 shall pay the penalty of eternal fire. *Note the word " αιωνιος " is used in those that OBEY, are called, that beleive, and eternal fire.

ClementofA · Nov 6, 2017

Der Alter said:
Note Vincent does not know what "aionios" describes. He offers two possibilities. If he does not know this how can we trust that he "knows" the other things he states as fact?

Hermann Sasse says re "D. The Personification of Aion" that the "idea of a personal Aion...so important in Hellenistic syncretism is alien to the NT. It may perhaps be found only in Eph.2:2..." ("Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Vol. 1, p.207, editor, Gerhard Kittel).

Because TDNT doesn't know whether or not Eph.2:2 should be classified under section D, does that mean we shouldn't trust anything else in the 10 volume set?

BDAG lists under this same category, "4 the Aeon as a person" three Scripture references: "Eph 2:2. The secret hidden from the Aeons Col 1:26; Eph 3:9..." ("A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature", p.33).

At least one of the above 2 lexicons is simply - flat out wrong - re Aeon personified. Which one do you think it is? Is TDNT wrong? Or is BDAG wrong? Or both of them? To use your type of comment above, since at least one of these lexicons is clearly wrong, how can we trust anything else they state?

The LSJ lexicon lists Eph.3:9, but not under aion personified as BDAG does. So which is wrong, LSJ or BDAG? Which of the two should we not trust? (See The Liddell and Scott Greek–English Lexicon (9th edition, 1940), p.45).

Thayer's lexicon, p.19, lists Eph.3:9 & Col.1:26 in terms of ages of time, not Aeons personified as BDAG does. So which is wrong, Thayer or BDAG? Which of the two should we not trust with anything they say, & throw in the trash?

The BDAG lexicon is opposed to the above 3 sources & others. Which should we not trust? Thayer, LSJ & TDNT, etc? Or BDAG?

Der Alter said:
Wrong as usual! Do you verify every reference in every lexicon, grammar, dictionary etc. you consult? Neither do I nor anyone else that I know of. Because those are accredited peer reviewed reference works. They would not have the trust and reputations they have if their citations were not accurate.

Accurate? Ooops. I have just shown that they are not "accurate".

Maybe you should start checking those "references".

How many thousands of errors did you say Strongs had?

"Peer reviewed"? You've never provided any reviews, whether critical or back patters. Here are some reviews:

"Baldwin’s use of the lexicons as authoritative raises the question: Do the lexicons provide authoritative boundaries for the meaning and glosses of αὐθεντέω in the various contexts? Lee, Nida and Louw are agreed that the answer is ‘no’, not only for αὐθεντέω, but in general. Lee asserts, ‘The body of attestations accumulated in the lexicons has reached its greatest extent yet. But because of the ways it has been gathered there is an inherent unreliability’ (Lee, Lexicography, p. 124). Nida and Louw write: ‘We must not assume that the English glosses in a Greek–English lexicon can provide accurate information about the designative and associative meanings of a Greek term’ (Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, p. 59)"
http://jgrchj.net/volume10/JGRChJ10-7_Westfall.pdf

"No one has drawn more attention to the methodological issues and, well, let's face, flaws, in our New Testament Greek lexicons that John A. L. Lee. In a good summary statement of the state of affairs of our lexicons, Lee says "The concise, seemingly authoritative statement of meaning can, and often does, conceal many sins - indecision, compromise, imperfect knowledge, guesswork, and, above all, dependence on predecessors."

Lee is quoted again: "...NT lexicons are contaminated by glosses from the standard translations, going back as far as the Vulgate."

Advances in the Study of Greek

"The first three chapters chronicle the three leading characteristics of the NT lexicographical tradition: reliance on predecessors, employment of the gloss method, and dependence on versions. Lee demonstrates how lexicographers in their choice of glosses frequently drew on the rendering of a given word in current translations and shows the chain of development from the kjv to Tyndale, from Tyndale to Luther, and from Luther via Erasmus to the Vulgate. He also points to the limitations of the gloss method and advocates a definition approach instead... Hence even BDAG (2000) is but the last in a series of works with a long, checkered pedigree that should now give way to new efforts..."

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/47/47-3/47-3-pp481-547_JETS.pdf

The Curious Case of Gerhard Kittel, the Nazi lexicographer:
The Curious Case of Gerhard Kittel

Myth: Biblical Reference Works Are Objective
Myth: Biblical Reference Works Are Objective (Gupta)

" Lee goes on to say that lexicographical work in Greek – especially the vocabulary of the LXX – is far from over not just in terms of demand, but in terms of accuracy. There is a huge amount of sources not yet incorporated into our understanding of Koine Greek. Undertaking exhaustive and integrative analysis of this body of language is therefore essential to interpreting Scripture rightly."
Lexicography for the Church

"Recent studies have...demonstrated the inadequacies of many of the standard Greek lexicons, including Bauer & Dankers:"

Christian Identity in Corinth

Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians ...By V. Henry T. Nguyen

Der Alte · Nov 6, 2017

ClementofA said:
Hermann Sasse says re "D. The Personification of Aion" that the "idea of a personal Aion...so important in Hellenistic syncretism is alien to the NT. It may perhaps be found only in Eph.2:2..." ("Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Vol. 1, p.207, editor, Gerhard Kittel).

First do you own or have access to any of the sources you refer to in this post? Or is this the usual collection of out-of-context second hand quotes from tents-r-us or other universalist website? From my copy of TDNT the quote is misrepresented.
"The personification of aion. Important in Hellenstic syncretism, the personification of Aion is absent from the NT except for a suggestion in Eph.2:2" A disagreement between scholars is common and does not invalidate any of them That is not the same as "maybe this" maybe that."

Because TDNT doesn't know whether or not Eph.2:2 should be classified under section D, does that mean we shouldn't trust anything else in the 10 volume set?

Irrelevant!

BDAG lists under this same category, "4 the Aeon as a person" three Scripture references: "Eph 2:2. The secret hidden from the Aeons Col 1:26; Eph 3:9..." ("A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature", p.33).

Irrelevant. See above.

At least one of the above 2 lexicons is simply - flat out wrong - re Aeon personified. Which one do you think it is? Is TDNT wrong? Or is BDAG wrong? Or both of them? To use your type of comment above, since at least one of these lexicons is clearly wrong, how can we trust anything else they state?

When you have acquired a few semesters of Greek and a few years of research and teaching then we can consider your arguments.

The LSJ lexicon lists Eph.3:9, but not under aion personified as BDAG does. So which is wrong, LSJ or BDAG? Which of the two should we not trust? (See The Liddell and Scott Greek–English Lexicon (9th edition, 1940), p.45).

Once again I remind you LSJ is classical Greek not Koine. And disagreement among scholars is common and does not invalidate anything.

Thayer's lexicon, p.19, lists Eph.3:9 & Col.1:26 in terms of ages of time, not Aeons personified as BDAG does. So which is wrong, Thayer or BDAG? Which of the two should we not trust with anything they say, & throw in the trash?
The BDAG lexicon is opposed to the above 3 sources & others. Which should we not trust? Thayer, LSJ & TDNT, etc? Or BDAG?

Irrelevant!

Accurate? Ooops. I have just shown that they are not "accurate".
Maybe you should start checking those "references".

Maybe you should learn something about the topic you are discussing.

How many thousands of errors did you say Strongs had?

About 15,000 errors or omissions but irrelevant. Strong was not a lexicographer.

"Peer reviewed"? You've never provided any reviews, whether critical or back patters. Here are some reviews:

Check the references. I found 10 on the dust jacket of my TDNT and the publishers will have a list.

"Baldwin’s use of the lexicons as authoritative raises the question: Do the lexicons provide authoritative boundaries for the meaning and glosses of αὐθεντέω in the various contexts? Lee, Nida and Louw are agreed that the answer is ‘no’, not only for αὐθεντέω, but in general. Lee asserts, ‘The body of attestations accumulated in the lexicons has reached its greatest extent yet. But because of the ways it has been gathered there is an inherent unreliability’ (Lee, Lexicography, p. 124). Nida and Louw write: ‘We must not assume that the English glosses in a Greek–English lexicon can provide accurate information about the designative and associative meanings of a Greek term’ (Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, p. 59)"

http://jgrchj.net/volume10/JGRChJ10-7_Westfall.pdf
"No one has drawn more attention to the methodological issues and, well, let's face, flaws, in our New Testament Greek lexicons that John A. L. Lee. In a good summary statement of the state of affairs of our lexicons, Lee says "The concise, seemingly authoritative statement of meaning can, and often does, conceal many sins - indecision, compromise, imperfect knowledge, guesswork, and, above all, dependence on predecessors."
Lee is quoted again: "...NT lexicons are contaminated by glosses from the standard translations, going back as far as the Vulgate."
Advances in the Study of Greek
"The first three chapters chronicle the three leading characteristics of the NT lexicographical tradition: reliance on predecessors, employment of the gloss method, and dependence on versions. Lee demonstrates how lexicographers in their choice of glosses frequently drew on the rendering of a given word in current translations and shows the chain of development from the kjv to Tyndale, from Tyndale to Luther, and from Luther via Erasmus to the Vulgate. He also points to the limitations of the gloss method and advocates a definition approach instead... Hence even BDAG (2000) is but the last in a series of works with a long, checkered pedigree that should now give way to new efforts..."
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/47/47-3/47-3-pp481-547_JETS.pdf
The Curious Case of Gerhard Kittel, the Nazi lexicographer:
The Curious Case of Gerhard Kittel
Myth: Biblical Reference Works Are Objective
Myth: Biblical Reference Works Are Objective (Gupta)
" Lee goes on to say that lexicographical work in Greek – especially the vocabulary of the LXX – is far from over not just in terms of demand, but in terms of accuracy. There is a huge amount of sources not yet incorporated into our understanding of Koine Greek. Undertaking exhaustive and integrative analysis of this body of language is therefore essential to interpreting Scripture rightly."
Lexicography for the Church
"Recent studies have...demonstrated the inadequacies of many of the standard Greek lexicons, including Bauer & Dankers:"
Christian Identity in Corinth
Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians ...By V. Henry T. Nguyen

What of this tells me is if all the standard Greek language references are so unreliable we certainly can't trust any of the opinions from tents-r-us or other Universalist websites since few, if any, have any qualifications in Biblical Greek, just universalists turning out uni writings to influence other unis..

ClementofA · Nov 6, 2017

Der Alter said:
First do you own or have access to any of the sources you refer to in this post?

Yes, all quotes & references were from hardcover books. I provided the page references if you care to check it out.

Der Alter said:
From my copy of TDNT the quote is misrepresented.

Your version is abridged. Mine is complete.

Der Alter said:
"The personification of aion. Important in Hellenstic syncretism, the personification of Aion is absent from the NT except for a suggestion in Eph.2:2"

Der Alter said:
A disagreement between scholars is common and does not invalidate any of them That is not the same as "maybe this" maybe that."

Notice the - "maybe", i.e. "suggestion", in your quote above. How much worse when a source is not just unsure of something, as your quote of TDNT above, but just dead wrong, as i showed re the lexicons in my post.

If being unsure of a point disqualifies a source from being worthy of trusting, as your post remarked, then you shouldn't be trusting TDNT, should you?

Furthermore, how much worse is it if the source is not just unsure of two different alternatives, but flat out wrong, as i showed the lexicons are. How much more are they unworthy of trust, if your remark is true. Which of those contradicting each other was wrong & which do you say we should not trust?

Der Alte · Nov 6, 2017

ClementofA said:
Yes, all quotes & references were from hardcover books. I provided the page references if you care to check it out.

I mean an actual hard bound book which you have held in your hands not a preview of a book on google as some of them were.

Your version is abridged. Mine is complete.

An abridgement doesn't change what was written.

Notice the - "maybe", i.e. "suggestion", in your quote above. How much worse when a source is not just unsure of something, as your quote of TDNT above, but just dead wrong, as i showed re the lexicons in my post.

You have not shown anything to be "dead wrong." Scholars interpreting the same thing in a different way does not make either of them wrong.

If being unsure of a point disqualifies a source from being worthy of trusting, as your post remarked, then you shouldn't be trusting TDNT, should you?

TDNT was not unsure. TDNT interpreted the word aionios in Eph 2:2 as a "suggestion" of personification. That is different than either this or that.

Furthermore, how much worse is it if the source is not just unsure of two different alternatives, but flat out wrong, as i showed the lexicons are. How much more are they unworthy of trust, if your remark is true. Which of those contradicting each other was wrong & which do you say we should not trust?

You have not shown anything to be flat out wrong. Just because a scholar rejects universalism does not make them "dead wrong."

ClementofA · Nov 6, 2017

Der Alter said:
I mean an actual hard bound book which you have held in your hands not a preview of a book on google as some of them were.

They were in my hand.

Der Alter said:
You have not shown anything to be "dead wrong." Scholars interpreting the same thing in a different way does not make either of them wrong.

They contradict each other. So they can't all be right. At least one of them has to be wrong. So much for your claim regarding their accuracy.

Der Alter said:
TDNT was not unsure. TDNT interpreted the word aionios in Eph 2:2 as a "suggestion" of personification. That is different than either this or that.

The word is aion, not aionios & it is unsure. Read it again:

Hermann Sasse says re "D. The Personification of Aion" that the "idea of a personal Aion...so important in Hellenistic syncretism is alien to the NT. It may perhaps be found only in Eph.2:2..." ("Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Vol. 1, p.207, editor, Gerhard Kittel).

Der Alter said:
You have not shown anything to be flat out wrong.

Wrong. See above.

BDAG lists under this same category, "4 the Aeon as a person" three Scripture references: "Eph 2:2. The secret hidden from the Aeons Col 1:26; Eph 3:9..." ("A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature", p.33).

Compare:

Hermann Sasse says re "D. The Personification of Aion" that the "idea of a personal Aion...so important in Hellenistic syncretism is alien to the NT. It may perhaps be found only in Eph.2:2..." ("Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Vol. 1, p.207, editor, Gerhard Kittel).

So which is wrong? TDNT or BDAG?

Which is wrong? Thayer or BDAG?

Which is wrong? LSJ or BDAG?

he-man · Nov 7, 2017

ClementofA said:
Hermann Sasse says re "D. The Personification of Aion" that the "idea of a personal Aion...so important in Hellenistic syncretism is alien to the NT. It may perhaps be found only in Eph.2:2..." ("Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Vol. 1, p.207, editor, Gerhard Kittel). Because TDNT doesn't know whether or not Eph.2:2 should be classified under section D, does that mean we shouldn't trust anything else in the 10 volume set? BDAG lists under this same category, "4 the Aeon as a person" three Scripture references: "Eph 2:2. The secret hidden from the Aeons Col 1:26; Eph 3:9..." ("A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature", p.33). At least one of the above 2 lexicons is simply - flat out wrong - re Aeon personified. Which one do you think it is? Is TDNT wrong? Or is BDAG wrong? Or both of them? To use your type of comment above, since at least one of these lexicons is clearly wrong, how can we trust anything else they state? The LSJ lexicon lists Eph.3:9, but not under aion personified as BDAG does. So which is wrong, LSJ or BDAG? Which of the two should we not trust? (See The Liddell and Scott Greek–English Lexicon (9th edition, 1940), p.45). Thayer's lexicon, p.19, lists Eph.3:9 & Col.1:26 in terms of ages of time, not Aeons personified as BDAG does. So which is wrong, Thayer or BDAG? Which of the two should we not trust with anything they say, & throw in the trash? The BDAG lexicon is opposed to the above 3 sources & others. Which should we not trust? Thayer, LSJ & TDNT, etc? Or BDAG? "...NT lexicons are contaminated by glosses from the standard translations, going back as far as the Vulgate."

Glosses are the norm and as you say, they stem from the vulgate up to the present day NKJV and are tied to the translations of the Textus Receptus. The Siniaticus and Vaticanus both have the word aion as an age αιωνα and Koine Greek supports that translation as does LSJ, Vines, Low-Nida, and others, you just have to look for it and know how Koine Greek is used. "If one does not know the meaning of a word, one is predisposed to trust the only means of rescue from ignorance..if we wish to understand scripture accurately, then we must understand Greek accurately". Source: Lexicography of the Church;
2015 | Septuaginta &c.

Der Alte · Nov 7, 2017

ClementofA said:
They were in my hand.

I have no way of knowing that, you linked to a short preview online.

They contradict each other. So they can't all be right. At least one of them has to be wrong. So much for your claim regarding their accuracy.

But everything you quote from tents-r-us and "pope" Ramelli is 100% accurate? Because it supports your uni assumptions/presuppositions?.

The word is aion, not aionios & it is unsure. Read it again:

Whatever. Substitute the correct word, my argument still stands.

Hermann Sasse says re "D. The Personification of Aion" that the "idea of a personal Aion...so important in Hellenistic syncretism is alien to the NT. It may perhaps be found only in Eph.2:2..." ("Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Vol. 1, p.207, editor, Gerhard Kittel).

Once again my edition of TDNT does not read that way. Since I have mine in my hand and can see it, I will go with that.

BDAG lists under this same category, "4 the Aeon as a person" three Scripture references: "Eph 2:2. The secret hidden from the Aeons Col 1:26; Eph 3:9..." ("A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature", p.33).
Compare:
Hermann Sasse says re "D. The Personification of Aion" that the "idea of a personal Aion...so important in Hellenistic syncretism is alien to the NT. It may perhaps be found only in Eph.2:2..." ("Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Vol. 1, p.207, editor, Gerhard Kittel).
So which is wrong? TDNT or BDAG?

Help me out here, please show me exactly what you consider wrong? Your quote from BDAG seems to be deliberately truncated misrepresenting what the editor actually said. Here from my copy. Note the sentence "Various other meanings are poss. in these passages."

4. the Aeon as a person ... The secret hidden from the Aeons Col 1:26 ; Eph 3:9 (Rtzst., Erlösungsmyst. 235 f ); IEph 19:2 (Rtzst., op. cit. 86, 3); cf. 8:1 (Rtzst. 236, 2). Various other meanings are poss. in these passages.

Which is wrong? Thayer or BDAG?

See this review of Thayer.

Thayer's is NOT a good tool or a "classic". It was a fairly decent tool in 1889, which is the edition sold here. It has been terribly out of date for a century, since it was written before most of the papyri and inscriptions were discovered. ...
Not only is Thayer incomplete, it is positively misleading, since he makes claims (for example, about the words "agape" and "phile") that are now discredited...although still popularly employed in books and sermons. There is no substitute for the up-to-date work of the 3rd edition of Baur's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (2000). For people who do not know Greek, even Vine's is better. .... Its only benefit is that it is coded to Strong's for people who do not know Greek. Please, if you do not know Greek, don't teach as if you know the Greek!
...No serious New Testament professor has recommended it for the better part of a century.
Product Reviews: Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 1565632095

Which is wrong? LSJ or BDAG

Once again I remind you LSJ is classical Greek, BDAG is koine. There will be many differences. My copy of LSJ does not have any reference to the NT in aion personified para.

3. Αἰών, ὁ, personified, Αἰὼν Χρόνου παῖς E. Heracl. 900 (lyr.), cf. Corp.Herm. 11, etc.; as title of various divine beings, Dam. Pr. 151, al.; esp.=Persian Zervan, Suid. s.v. Ἡρασκος.[LSJ]

I find it very questionable that you are arguing about a sentence in BDAG which says "It may perhaps be found only in Eph.2:2." When in Origen's commentary on John you considered this to be a definitive statement "after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life" although it also has the word perhaps.

ClementofA · Nov 7, 2017

Der Alter said:
Help me out here, please show me exactly what you consider wrong? Your quote from BDAG seems to be deliberately truncated misrepresenting what the editor actually said. Here from my copy. Note the sentence "Various other meanings are poss. in these passages."

4. the Aeon as a person ... The secret hidden from the Aeons Col 1:26 ; Eph 3:9 (Rtzst., Erlösungsmyst. 235 f ); IEph 19:2 (Rtzst., op. cit. 86, 3); cf. 8:1 (Rtzst. 236, 2). Various other meanings are poss. in these passages.

Are you suggesting that BDAG is unsure whether Eph.3:9; Eph.2:2 & Col.1:26 apply to "Aeon as a person"? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Like you questioned re Vincent? Or do you have a double standard?

Der Alter said:
See this review of Thayer.

Der Alter said:
Thayer's is NOT a good tool or a "classic". It was a fairly decent tool in 1889, which is the edition sold here. It has been terribly out of date for a century, since it was written before most of the papyri and inscriptions were discovered. ...
Not only is Thayer incomplete, it is positively misleading, since he makes claims (for example, about the words "agape" and "phile") that are now discredited...although still popularly employed in books and sermons. There is no substitute for the up-to-date work of the 3rd edition of Baur's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (2000). For people who do not know Greek, even Vine's is better. .... Its only benefit is that it is coded to Strong's for people who do not know Greek. Please, if you do not know Greek, don't teach as if you know the Greek!
...No serious New Testament professor has recommended it for the better part of a century.
Product Reviews: Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 1565632095

Does this mean in the future you won't be including Thayer in your list of 9 lexicons re aion/ios? That he is not an authority to be trusted about anything he wrote, as you questioned re Vincent?

Der Alter said:
Once again I remind you LSJ is classical Greek, BDAG is koine.

Actually both refer to both classical & koine Greek.

Der Alter said:
There will be many differences. My copy of LSJ does not have any reference to the NT in aion personified para.

Der Alter said:
3. Αἰών, ὁ, personified, Αἰὼν Χρόνου παῖς E. Heracl. 900 (lyr.), cf. Corp.Herm. 11, etc.; as title of various divine beings, Dam. Pr. 151, al.; esp.=Persian Zervan, Suid. s.v. Ἡρασκος.[LSJ]

As i've already proven BDAG is opposed by these 3: LSJ, Thayer & TDNT. I'll add a fourth: Spiros Zhodiates also opposes BDAG. So which are wrong, BDAG or the other 4? And should those that are wrong be unworthy of trust re everything as you questioned re Vincent?

Der Alter said:
I find it very questionable that you are arguing about a sentence in BDAG which says "It may perhaps be found only in Eph.2:2."

BDAG doesn't say that. The issues here are (1) double standards & (2) the fact of sources mentioned above being wrong & contradicting each other.

BTW, do you agree with BDAG that Eph.2:2; 3:9 & Col.1:26 refer to Aion Personified as in Hellenistic Syncretism?

he-man · Nov 7, 2017

ClementofA said:
Are you suggesting that BDAG is unsure whether Eph.3:9; Eph.2:2 & Col.1:26 apply to "Aeon as a person"?
BTW, do you agree with BDAG that Eph.2:2; 3:9 & Col.1:26 refer to Aion Personified as in Hellenistic Syncretism?

I have alredy shown that Eph 2:2 is translates "age of this world" ;Eph 3:9 is spurious because the words, "by Jesus Christ" are not in the manuscripts of the Siniaticus or Vaticanus and were inserted later by a later translator. Col 1:26 also uses the word "ages", so all of your questions are null and void. See the attached documents:

Der Alte · Nov 7, 2017

ClementofA said:
Are you suggesting that BDAG is unsure whether Eph.3:9; Eph.2:2 & Col.1:26 apply to "Aeon as a person"? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Like you questioned re Vincent? Or do you have a double standard?

I think I write fairly clear English where did I say or suggest any such thing? I quoted BAG exactly.

Does this mean in the future you won't be including Thayer in your list of 9 lexicons re aion/ios? That he is not an authority to be trusted about anything he wrote, as you questioned re Vincent?

When Thayer, or any other source, generally agrees with the major lexicons then he was correct. When Thayer contradicts the major sources then he is questionable.

Actually both refer to both classical & koine Greek.
As i've already proven BDAG is opposed by these 3: LSJ, Thayer & TDNT. I'll add a fourth: Spiros Zhodiates also opposes BDAG. So which are wrong, BDAG or the other 4? And should those that are wrong be unworthy of trust re everything as you questioned re Vincent?

You have not proved anything. It is not unusual for scholars to disagree about a translation. A disagreement is not proof of error. Error would be one scholar saying something and another scholar providing historical or other credible evidence that the second scholar was wrong. You have not done that and likely you never will!

BDAG doesn't say that. The issues here are (1) double standards & (2) the fact of sources mentioned above being wrong & contradicting each other.

I quoted BAG exactly. I used ellipses and omitted additional discussion not relevant to the point. Zero double standards and zero contradiction. The only way a contradiction would exist is if one scholar provides credible, verifiable, historical evidence that another scholar is wrong. One scholar saying "'A' means' X.'" and another scholar saying "'A' means 'Z'" is only a difference of opinion w/o evidence.

BTW, do you agree with BDAG that Eph.2:2; 3:9 & Col.1:26 refer to Aion Personified as in Hellenistic Syncretism?

Don't know, don't care, not now and never has been relevant to anything in this discussion. And none of this proves anything re. my comment about Vincent.

ClementofA · Nov 7, 2017

Der Alter said:
I quoted BAG exactly.

Before you said you were quoting BDAG. I told you BDAG doesn't say what you quoted. Now you answer "I quoted BAG exactly", evidently oblivious to the fact we were talking about BDAG and BDAG isn't BAG. This is typical of the confusion in your entire post.

Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

Well-Known Member

he-man

Well-Known Member

he-man

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

he-man

Attachments

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

he-man

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

he-man

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads