Could most modern translations be in error?

The translators biased to the endless hell dogma rendered terms (olam, aion, aionios, etc) that can & do - often - refer to finite durations as "eternal", "forever" & the like in contexts referring to eschatological punishment. Thus, they rendered them according to their theological position. What they should have done is translated them as theologically neutral terms, e.g. eon, eonian, which can refer either to a finite or endless period of time. And left the interpreting up to the readers whether or not, in any given context, the words "eon" & "eonian" refer to a finite or endless "eon" or "eonian" duration. But, instead they injected their opinion, their interpretation, of terms (such as olam, aion & aionion) into the text. Thus you don't have a faithful translation of these words with most English translations, but rather an interpretation, a paraphrase, a theologically driven opinion.

The fair way to translate (olam, aion, aionion, etc) is to use an English word (e.g. eon, eonian) that covers the range of meanings for that term & leave the interpreting up to the readers. Rather than inject one's theological biases into Scripture's ancient language words that have multiple or ambiguous meanings. If an appropriate English word is not available, then there is the option of using the ancient language word, i.e. not translating it, as some versions have done, e.g. using aionion. Or just transliterate it into English, e.g. eonian (or alternately aeonian, agian, etc.).

Good grief no! But that is what Universalist "scholars" do when they make bold statements that words don't mean what most scholars have translated them to mean. My point is why do we disregard virtually ALL of the modern Bible translations just because Universalists dont like what they say?

Click to expand...

"I understand it is hard to grasp for many, but for 1000 years there was no Bible available at all for the common people who had to rely on a corrupt clergy, however even the worst translations contain the universalist verses and show that "for ever" is not always endless. It's only for a few years now where all people have access to all translations and even the source texts in their original languages."

Blindly relying on a bunch of biased versions cloned by the pro ECT advocates boys club is worth as much as a piece of toilet paper. If atheists shelled out to have printed 100 versions saying "God is dead" would you accept that because the 100 outnumber what other versions say?

Since the translators all believed in endless punishment, what else would you expect, except that they all would mis-translate certain "hell" passages the same way? Obviously.

Dozens of English translations don't agree with those cloned by the endless tortures boys club.

Likewise the early church father Greek scholar universalists would have rejected your cloned excuses for translations. Better to call them paraphrases, interpretations or theologically driven opinions of what the originally inspired ancient language texts say.

Even your cloned theologically driven interpretative "versions" support universalism, which makes them self-contradictory, e.g.:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context.

What biased scholars who agreed with the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" (of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning opposers to death with fire & their writings) have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."

redleghunter said:

Therefore Jesus promised “indefinite duration life” instead of eternal life?

Click to expand...

No, He promised life in the age/eon to come. Or, as below:

From the Greek word aionion, which is transliterated into English as eonian, pertaining to (related to) an eon or eons, etc.

nikolai_42;5267833 said:

2. The righteous go into eternal life. The cursed into everlasting punishment. The word for everlasting and eternal is the same here - so unless there is some specific construction leading us to believe that the comparison here is not direct, one would have to give the eternal life of the righteous the same weight as the everlasting punishment due the wicked. A similar argument is made by UR proponents about "all" in I Corinthians 15:22 (and may have been made in this thread - my apologies, I haven't read it in its entirety). So if the eternal life of the believer is never to cease, why should we think the punishment due the wicked will? And if the life of the believer is merely age-lasting, does that mean that at some point in the future, that salvation can be expended and come to an end?

Click to expand...

Regarding your questions, nikolai, there are two main universalist interpretations of Mt.25:46:

(1) The aionion life & the aionion punishment refer to contrasting eonian destinies pertaining to a finite eonian period to come, e.g. the millennial eon. The verse has nothing to do, & says nothing about, final destiny. Regarding the endless life of the righteous in Christ, other passages address that topic, such as those that speak of immortality, incorruption & being unable to die.

(2) Another universalist option in interpretating Mt.25:46 is that aionion life refers to a perpetual life that lasts as long as God Almighty wills it to last, so it is endless. OTOH, aionion punishment refers to a perpetual punishment that also lasts as long as Love Omnipotent wills it to last, which is until it has served its useful purpose in bringing the offender to the salvation in their Savior, Who died & shed His blood for their sins. While life is an end in itself, punishment is a means to an end.

Furthermore, since aionion is an adjective, it "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." A tall chair is not the same height as a tall mountain. Likewise, the aionion punishment is not of the same duration as the aionion life.

That was a brief explanation of the main two different universalist interpretations of Mt.25:46. Following are more elaborate remarks in support of these two perspectives.

? said:

I read the book Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment by Robert Peterson. He makes a solid argument. Would recommend it. He includes this quote from Augustine's City of God,

what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence, "These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal!" Matthew 25:46 If both destinies are "eternal," then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative — on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end.

Click to expand...

"This specious argument goes back at least to Augustine. As has long ago been said, however, due to its unreasonableness, it ought never be heard again."

Augustine was rather ignorant of Greek.

For some other parallels in Scripture consider:

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."

1 Cor.15:22 AS in Adam ALL die SO ALSO in Christ shall ALL be made alive.

1 Cor.15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Col.1:16 For by Him ***ALL*** was created that are in HEAVEN and that are on EARTH, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All was created through Him and for Him.
20 and by Him to reconcile ***ALL*** to Himself, by Him, whether on EARTH or in HEAVEN, having made peace through the blood of His cross.


Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER: 32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

David Burnfield makes an interesting point re Matthew 25:46:

"None of the sins listed in [the context of] Matt.25:46 can be considered blasphemy of the Holy Spirit."

He quotes Mt.12:31:

"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven." (NASB)

And emphasizes the words "any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people".

He then says "If we can believe what Christ tells us, then the 'only' sin that is 'not' forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which obviously does not include the sins listed in Matt.25:34-44."

Then he quotes from Jan Bonda's book "The One Purpose of God...":

"Verse...46, in particular, has always been cited as undeniable proof that Jesus taught eternal punishment. Yet it is clear that the sins Jesus listed in this passage do not constitute the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Assuming Jesus did not utter this word with the intention of contradicting what he said moments before [Matt 12:31], we must accept that the sins mentioned in this passage [Matt 25:46] will eventually be forgiven. This means, however strange it may sound to us, that this statement of Jesus about eternal punishment is not the final word for those who are condemned."

(pg 220-221, Patristic Universalism: An Alternative To The Traditional View of Divine Judgement, 2nd ed, 2016, by David Burnfield)

The NT translation of Eastern Orthodox scholar Bentley Hart does not use the words "eternal" or "everlasting" at Mt.25:46, but instead reads "chastening of that Age" & "life of that Age". (The New Testament: A Translation, 2017, Yale University Press).

Many other versions do likewise.

Some literal translations of Mt.25:46 have:

Young‘s Literal Translation: ―punishment age-during.
Rotherham Translation: ―age-abiding correction.
Weymouth Translation: ―punishment of the ages.
Concordant Literal Translation: ―chastening eonian."

Regarding the Greek word for "punishment"(kolasis) in Matthew 25:46:

"In the late 2nd century/early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria clearly distinguished between kólasis and timoria: “For there are partial corrections [padeiai] which are called chastisements [kólasis], which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish [timoria], for punishment [timoria] is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually” (Strom. 7.16)."

Was "eternal"(eonian) fire that burned Sodom endless, or finite:

Jude 1:7 As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner to these committing ultra-prostitution, and coming away after other flesh, are lying before us, a specimen, experiencing the justice of fire eonian."

Do you think the city of Sodom in Israel is still burning by that "eternal fire" today? Or has it long ago been extinguished & was not "eternal" but eonian & finite? BTW, the same phrase, "eonian fire" also appears twice in Matthew (25:41; 18:8). If the eonian fire of Jude 1:7 was finite, then why can't the same in Matthew's account be finite? And if aionion is finite in Mt.25:41, shouldn't it also be finite in Mt.25:46 when again referring to punishment?

Considering the Greek word kolasis ("punishment", Mt.25:46, KJV) can refer to a corrective punishment, that should tell the reader of Matthew 25:46 what the possible duration of aionios ("everlasting", KJV) is & that it may refer to a finite punishment. Why? Because if it is corrective, it is with the purpose of bringing the person corrected to salvation. Once saved the person no longer has need of such a punishment & it ends. So it isn't "everlasting". Therefore this passage could just as easily support universalism as anything else.

From a review of a book by Ilaria Ramelli, namely The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp):

"...in a passage in Origen in which he speaks of “life after aionios life” (160). As a native speaker of Greek he does not see a contradiction in such phrasing; that is because aionios life does not mean “unending, eternal life,” but rather “life of the next age.” Likewise the Bible uses the word kolasis to describe the punishment of the age to come. Aristotle distinguished kolasis from timoria, the latter referring to punishment inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” On the other hand, kolasis refers to correction, it “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer” (quoted at 32). Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament, since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."

[journalofanalytictheology.com/ja ... 30418a/271](http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/view/jat.2015-3.181913130418a/271)

"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases. However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers. For example, when aionios referred to the duration of Jonah’s entrapment in the fish, it was limited to three days. To a slave, aionios referred to his life span. To the Aaronic priesthood, it referred to the generation preceding the Melchizedek priesthood. To Solomon’s temple, it referred to 400 years. To God it encompasses and transcends time altogether."

"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated. It is similar to what “tall” is to height. The size of a tall building can be 300 feet, a tall man six feet, and a tall dog three feet. Black Beauty was a great horse, Abraham Lincoln a great man, and Yahweh the GREAT God. Though God is called “great,” the word “great” is neither eternal nor divine. The horse is still a horse. An adjective relates to the noun it modifies. In relation to God, “great” becomes GREAT only because of who and what God is. This silences the contention that aion must always mean forever because it modifies God. God is described as the God of Israel and the God of Abraham. This does not mean He is not the God of Gentiles, or the God of you and me. Though He is called the God of the “ages,” He nonetheless remains the God who transcends the ages."

"In addition, Augustine’s reasoning does not hold up in light of Ro. 16:25, 26 and Hab. 3:6. Here, in both cases, the same word is used twice—with God and with something temporal. “In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God” (Ro. 16:25, 26 CLT). An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God eternal, but God makes eonian eternal. “And the everlasting mountains were scattered.…His ways are everlasting” (Hab. 3:6). Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God’s ways however, are eternal, because He is eternal."]http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf[/url

Philo was contemporary with Christ & we have this translation of his words which use the same words Christ used at Mt.25:46:

"It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment [kolasis aiónios] from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of conduct." [earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book45.html](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book45.html)

In the year 544 A.D. the emperor Justinian wrote a letter:

"It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does not merely say, "We believe in aionion kolasin," for that was just what Origen himself taught. Nor does he say "the word aionion has been misunderstood; it denotes endless duration," as he would have said, had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that abundant language from which to choose, he says: "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked." If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration.

[tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd21.html](http://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd21.html)

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

Early Church Father universalists who were Greek scholars & many others of the time did not see Mt.25:46 contradicting their belief:

"The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in the æonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "æonian life," to "the life of the coming æon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself (an Early Church Father universalist) declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?"

[tentmaker.org/forum/word-studie ... n-forever/](https://tentmaker.org/forum/word-studies/another-aionios-thread-these-things-go-on-forever/)

continued in my next post...

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

[tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter9.html](http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter9.html)

"Walvoord appeals to Matthew 25:46 (“And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian,” CV), declaring that if the state of the blessed is eternal, as expressed by this word, there is no logical reason for giving limited duration to punishment."

"This specious argument goes back at least to Augustine. As has long ago been said, however, due to its unreasonableness, it ought never be heard again. From the fact that the life of the just nations and the chastening of the unjust nations are herein described by the same adjective, descriptive of duration, it does not follow that the latter group of nations, therefore, will be subjected to endless punishment. The argument assumes what is at issue by presuming that the life of the just, here, is termed an endless life. Simply because, on certain grounds, the life of those persons comprising the just nations will prove to be endless, it does not follow that the blessing of life afforded here to any such nations is therefore that of endless duration. It is as unreasonable to assume that eonian life doubtlessly signifies endless life as it would be to claim that youthful life actually signifies aged life, simply because our presuppositions and predilections may dictate such a conclusion."

"...It is simply contrary to historical fact to suggest that the essence of these time expressions is that of endless duration. As Thomas De Quincey, the nineteenth century essayist and literary critic states: “All this speculation, first and last, is pure nonsense. Aiõnios does not mean ‘eternal,’ neither does it mean of limited duration . . . . What is an aiõn? The duration or cycle of existence which belongs to any object, not individually of itself, but universally, in right of its genius * . . . . The exact amount of the duration expressed by an aiõn depends altogether upon the particular subject which yields the aiõn.” "

"...Likewise, the Presbyterian Bible scholar, M. R. Vincent, in his extensive note on aiõn/aiõnios states: “Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting.” "

"...not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version).

"In this response to your “deeply troubled” encounter with the Concordant Version, I have principally sought not to prove my position, but to open a door to its consideration; a door of further inquiry, with a view toward your attaining an awareness of the grace of God in truth, even as of the purpose of the eons, which He makes in Christ Jesus, our Lord (Eph.3:11). May our God and Father be pleased to use this writing unto such an end."

So let me get this straight...

Matthew 25:46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The same Greek word is used. Are you telling me these are used differently?

Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. Either way universalism is Bible truth & "eternal" is a deceptive translation.

Is aionios used "differently" in each of its two occurrences in Rom.16:25-26? Is the aionios God (Rom.16:26) of the same duration as "long ages" (Rom.16:25, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, WEY, YLT, etc) during which a revelation was kept secret (v.25) but is "now revealed" (v.26a)? Why, then, is it assumed aionios life must be of the same duration as aionios punishment (Mt.25:46)?

Is a tall building the same height as a tall blade of grass? No. Why, then, is it assumed aionios life must be of the same duration as aionios punishment (Mt.25:46)? In the sentence "The blessed stay in a tall high rise, but the wicked in a tall dungeon", is the high rise equally as tall as the dungeon?

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." AIN -- AINIOS

Similarly, a long life need not be of the same duration as a long punishment. A perpetual life is not necessarily of the same duration as a perpetual punishment.

Is the aion of an ant of the same duration as the aion of a tree?

"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

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?

If believers go into the life aionios (i.e. pertaining to the age to come) & unbelievers go into the punishment aionios (i.e. pertaining to the age to come), does that prove that the punishment must absolutely be co-extensive with the life? No. Does it prove that the age to come is not finite? No.

Could both occurrences of aionios in Mt.25:46 refer to a finite age (or ages) to come? Yes.

If aionios is of equal duration in both occurrences of Mt.25:46, shouldn't "all mankind" (Rom.5:18), "the many" (Rom.5:19) and "all" (1 Cor.15:22, 28) be co-extensive in number in these passages:

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."

1 Cor.15:22 AS in Adam ALL die - so also - in Christ shall ALL be made alive.
1 Cor.15:28 And when ALL shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in ALL.

"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases. However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers. For example, when aionios referred to the duration of Jonah’s entrapment in the fish, it was limited to three days. To a slave, aionios referred to his life span. To the Aaronic priesthood, it referred to the generation preceding the Melchizedek priesthood. To Solomon’s temple, it referred to 400 years. To God it encompasses and transcends time altogether."

"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated. It is similar to what “tall” is to height. The size of a tall building can be 300 feet, a tall man six feet, and a tall dog three feet...An adjective relates to the noun it modifies."
Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

"...It is simply contrary to historical fact to suggest that the essence of these time expressions is that of endless duration. As Thomas De Quincey, the nineteenth century essayist and literary critic states: “All this speculation, first and last, is pure nonsense. Aiõnios does not mean ‘eternal,’ neither does it mean of limited duration . . . . What is an aiõn? The duration or cycle of existence which belongs to any object, not individually of itself, but universally, in right of its genius [i.e., inherent nature] . . . . The exact amount of the duration expressed by an aiõn depends altogether upon the particular subject which yields the aiõn.” "
http://www.concordant.org/expositions/the-eons/eon-indefinte-duration-part-three/

Philosophy professor Tom Talbott, author of "The Inescapable Love of God", remarked:

"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."

"Accordingly, even if we should translate “aionios” with the English word “everlasting,” a lot would still depend upon how we understand the relevant nouns in our text: the nouns “life” (zoe) and “punishment” (kolasis). Now the kind of life in question, being rightly related to God, is clearly an end in itself, even as the kind of punishment in question seems just as clearly to be a means to an end. For as one New Testament scholar, William Barclay, has pointed out, “kolasis” “was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better.” Barclay also claimed that “in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment”–which is probably a bit of a stretch, since the language of correction and the language of retribution often get mixed together in ordinary language. But in any event, if “kolasis” does signify punishment of a remedial or a corrective kind, as I think it does in Matthew 25:46, then we can reasonably think of such punishment as everlasting in the sense that its corrective effects literally endure forever. Or, to put it another way: An everlasting correction, whenever successfully completed, would be a temporal process of limited duration that terminates in the irreversible state of being rightly related to God. Certainly nothing in the context of Matthew 25 excludes such an interpretation."

"This would not be my preferred interpretation, however, because the English word “everlasting” does not accurately capture the special religious meaning that “aionios” typically has in the New Testament."

https://www.amazon.com/Inescapable-...498222412/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8

Here are some literal & other translations of Mt.25:46:

The New Testament: A Translation, by Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart, 2017, Yale Press):
"And these shall go to the chastening of that Age, but the just to the life of that Age."

Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek Humbly Attempted by Nathaniel Scarlett Assisted by Men of Piety & Literature with notes, 1798:
"And These will go away into onian punishment: but the righteous into onian life."

The New Testament by Abner Kneeland, 1823:
"And these shall go away into aionian punishment*: but the righteous into aionian life."

The New Covenant by Dr. J.W. Hanson, 1884:
"And these shall go away into onian chastisement, and the just into onian life."

Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898:
"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."

The Holy Bible in Modern English, 1903
"And these He will dismiss into a long correction, but the well-doers to an enduring life."

The New Testament in Modern Speech, 1910:
"And these shall go away into the Punishment 1 of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life 1 of the Ages."
1. [Of the Ages] Greek "aeonian."

A Critical Paraphrase of the New Testament by Vincent T. Roth, 1960
"And these shall go away into age-continuing punishment, but the righteous into life age-continuing."

The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, 1976
"And these shall go away into age-abiding *correction, but the righteous into **age-abiding life."

The Twentieth Century New Testament, 1900
"And these last will go away into onian punishment, but the righteous into onian life."

The People's New Covenant, 1925
"And these will depart into age-continuing correction, but the righteous, into age-continuing life."

Emphatic Diaglott, 1942 edition
"And these shall go forth to the aionian 1 cutting-off; but the RIGHTEOUS to aionian Life."

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958
"And these shall go away into agelasting cutting-off and the just into agelasting life."

The New Testament, a Translation, 1938
"And these will go away into eonian correction, but the righteous into eonian life."

The New Testament, A New Translation, 1980
"Then they will begin to serve a new period of suffering; but God's faithful will enter upon their heavenly life."

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959
"And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life."

Jonathan Mitchell N.T. Translation:
"46. "And so, these folks will be going off into an eonian pruning (a lopping-off which lasts for an undetermined length of time; an age-lasting correction; a pruning which has its source and character in the Age), yet the fair and just folks who are in right relationship and are in accord with the Way pointed out [go off] into eonian life (life which has it source and character in the Age; life pertaining to the Age)."
::Jonathan Mitchell's New Testament Translation::

"....the Old Syriac Version [i.e., the Peshi^to], where the one [i.e., uniform] rendering is still more unmistakably clear: ‘These shall go away to the pain of the olam, and these to the life of the olam’–the world to come.” http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Retribution/retribution18.htm

"Of the New Testament, attempts at translation must have been made very early, and among the ancient versions of New Testament Scripture the Syriac in all likelihood is the earliest."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/syriac-isbe.html

"The Peshi^to is, as we have said, the earliest version of the New Testament. Its value and authority it is not easy to over-estimate. Westcott says: “Gregory Bar Hebraeus, one of the most learned and accurate of Syrian writers, relates that the New Testament Peshi^to was ‘made in the time of Thaddeus (the apostle), and Abgarus, King of Edessa,’ when, according to the universal opinion of ancient writers, the apostle went to proclaim Christianity in Mesopotamia” (Canon, p. 259). He adds that Gregory assumes the apostolic origin of the New Testament Peshi^ito as certain, and that it preceded all the sects of the Syrian Church, and was received and appealed to by all."

"How, then, was aionios translated by this version? In support of his own translation Prof. Tayler Lewis says, “So is it ever (translated) in the old Syriac version, where the one rendering is still more unmistakably clear.” “These shall go into the pain of the Olam (the world to come), and these to the life of the Olam (the world to come).” He refers to many other passages, as Matt. xix. 16; Mark x. 17.; Luke xviii. 18; John iii.15: Acts xiii. 46; 1 Tim. vi. 12, in which aionios is rendered belonging to the Olam, the world to come."
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Retribution/retribution18.htm


---

redleghunter said:

So recordable time as in this material space time? Did not God create time?

Click to expand...

See my edited post #4

redleghunter said:

Sounds like the Concordant Version (the work of roughly three people) leaves some strings attached with their interpretation.

Click to expand...

It's not only the CV scholars that agree the original language words of the Scriptures often rendered "eternal" & "forever" can refer to a finite age, but early church fathers & scholars of the past 2000 years.

redleghunter said:

I would prefer a straight answer and not what amounts to a filibuster.

Click to expand...

Then my answers are, respectively, no & yes, to your 2 questions. Did that help.