A Defense of Dualistic Conditional Immortality

Der Alte · Jun 28, 2020

Butch5 said:
You start many of your posts with a logical fallacy. "According to three irrefutable Jewish sources; the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud," is the fallacy of "appeal to authority".

You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing I posted fits the definition of "appeal to authority." If I quote e.g. Shaquille O'Neal as an authority on Theology simply because he is a famous athlete, that is appeal to authority since his fame does not qualify him in that area.
OTOH the articles I quoted are documented historical information about the beliefs and practices of the Jews,
I have found it very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. Had you bothered to actually check the links I posted you would have found multiple sources listed at the bottom of the JE article. Do you know of any source, anywhere that brings better historical information to the table? I didn't think so.
It is not about what you or I think the scriptures say. That the Jews did not recognize their Messiah, which OBTW was prophesied, proves absolutely nothing about anything else and it certainly does not prove that the Jews did not believe what I quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud and the Encyclopedia Judaica. Had you bothered to actually read my post I addressed this.
Jesus undoubtedly knew what the Jews believed about hell, nothing Jesus said or taught contradicted that belief.

Der Alte · Jun 28, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
...
Now, some try to say that comparing “everlasting life with everlasting punishment” is proof of Eternal Torment.
However, if we were to look more closely at Matthew 25:46:
Everlasting is the parallel (which speaks of the eternal consequences).
Both life and death (destruction, i.e. the punishment) have eternal consequences or effects.
But life and death (punishment) is the contrast.
So the verse is one part parallel and one part contrast.

If I want factual information about what the Jews believed and the correct translation of the Hebrew in the OT should I go to anonymous people online or Jewish sources?
How did the native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars translate e.g. the Hebrew word "olam" in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society OT?
If I want to know the correct translation of Greek words should I go to anonymous people online or...
…..Greek is now, and has always been, the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who, better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the “literal” Greek Eastern Orthodox Bible [EOB], know the correct meaning of Greek words, e.g. “Gehenna,””aiōnios” and “kolasis?”
…..In the EOB, footnote pg. 180
Hades is the realm of the dead. The upper part of hades was considered to be luminous and it was called “paradise” or "Abraham's bosom.” Hades is not to be confused with hell (Gehenna) which is the final place of state or place of the damned (“the lake of’ fire”).
= = = = = = = = = =
The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96
Matthew 25:46 Then he will answer them saying ‘Amen. I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' “These [[ones on the left]] will go away into eternal punishment.[κολασιν αιονιον/kolasin aiōnion] but the righteous into eternal life.
= = = = = = = = = =
KJV Romans 16:26 [EOB 14:25]
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αιωνιου/aiōniou] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Paul, the same writer, uses αιωνιου/aiōniou, in Rom 16:26 synonymous with αιδιος/aidios in Rom 1:20, in the same writing, below.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world, his invisible things are clearly seen. They perceived through created things, even his everlasting [τε αιδιος/te aidios] power and divinity.
= = = = = = = =
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/or...tament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf
The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96 can be D/L at the link above. If anyone has doubts/questions about the EOB version I suggest they read the 200 page preface which documents the extensive Greek scholarship supporting this translation.

Bible Highlighter · Jun 29, 2020

Der Alte said:
If I want factual information about what the Jews believed and the correct translation of the Hebrew in the OT should I go to anonymous people online or Jewish sources?

The Scriptures say that the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not. They did not search the extra biblical writings to see whether those things be so or not (See: Acts of the Apostles 17:10-11).

You said:
How did the native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars translate e.g. the Hebrew word "olam" in the 1917 Jewish Publication Society OT?
If I want to know the correct translation of Greek words should I go to anonymous people online or...
…..Greek is now, and has always been, the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who, better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the “literal” Greek Eastern Orthodox Bible [EOB], know the correct meaning of Greek words, e.g. “Gehenna,””aiōnios” and “kolasis?”

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:13).

..In the EOB, footnote pg. 180
Hades is the realm of the dead. The upper part of hades was considered to be luminous and it was called “paradise” or "Abraham's bosom.” Hades is not to be confused with hell (Gehenna) which is the final place of state or place of the damned (“the lake of’ fire”).

The word “hades” is translated as “hell” in several places in my Bible.

I will trust what my Bible (King James Bible) says over what a dictionary says. Psalms 12:6-7 says that His words are pure words, and that they will be preserved for all generations. I believe that by faith. While dictionaries can be very helpful at times, my faith does not ultimately rest in dictionaries. The Bible and dictionaries should breath in harmony, but the Bible should be the basis for our faith, though (and not dictionaries).

You said:
= = = = = = = = = =
The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96
Matthew 25:46 Then he will answer them saying ‘Amen. I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' “These [[ones on the left]] will go away into eternal punishment.[κολασιν αιονιον/kolasin aiōnion] but the righteous into eternal life.
= = = = = = = = = =

I believe the Eastern Orthodox church split from the Catholic church. I do not believe either of these institutions have biblical practices that I agree with. So they are not my go to authority or source to understanding the Bible.

When reading Scripture: I ask God, and I compare Scripture with Scripture and I think about the goodness of God and His fair justice and good ways. I do look up difficult words in the King James generally using older English dictionaries (When possible), but this has to fit the context. I only use the Greek dictionary in Strong's when absolutely necessary, but the definition has to fit the context and the whole of Scripture in how that word or words is used elsewhere in the same kind of context.

Anyways, in the King James Bible: Matthew 25:46 says “everlasting” and not “eternal” in reference to punishment. They are similar words.

Do you believe the words “eternal judgment” in Hebrews 6:2 means a judgment by God where He is continually judging the wicked and the righteous for all eternity? Or do you believe Hebrews 6:2 is talking about a one time judgment that has eternal consequences?

I believe it’s pretty simple; God judges, and the result is everlasting. Few traditionalists (i.e. Eternal Torment proponents), if any, argue that this verse teaches that God is continually judging for eternity, banging his gavel and repeatedly declaring saved or unsaved the same finite number of existent people. But wait a minute; it doesn’t say “the eternal results of judgment.” It says “eternal judgment.” Following the reasoning applied to Matthew 25:46, this verse must teach that God is continually in the act of judging! In other words, the consequences of the punishment are everlasting, and not the act of punishing that is ongoing. In fact, if we compare Scripture with Scripture, we discover exactly what this“everlasting punishment” actually is.

In 2 Thessalonians 1:9. It says, “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;” (KJV).

So the wicked will be destroyed. Their everlasting punishment is…. everlasting destruction! Destruction means it is not around anymore. Something that is destroyed is no more.

You said:
KJV Romans 16:26 [EOB 14:25]
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αιωνιου/aiōniou] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Paul, the same writer, uses αιωνιου/aiōniou, in Rom 16:26 synonymous with αιδιος/aidios in Rom 1:20, in the same writing, below.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world, his invisible things are clearly seen. They perceived through created things, even his everlasting [τε αιδιος/te aidios] power and divinity.
= = = = = = = =
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/or...tament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf
The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96 can be D/L at the link above. If anyone has doubts/questions about the EOB version I suggest they read the 200 page preface which documents the extensive Greek scholarship supporting this translation.

Have you ever heard of hominems before? They are words that look and sound the same but they have two different meanings. For example, the word "know" in the Bible can refer to having knowledge (Genesis 3:5), or the word "know" can refer to wanting to have intimate relations with someone (Genesis 19:5). The context (the surrounding words) determines the use of the word. So when everlasting is in context to God, it is most definitely is eternal, but if everlasting is in context to the punishment of the wicked, we know that such a word is speaking metaphorically or it is referring to a great degree or extent (According to the Biblical language used in Isaiah 34:10.

“It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.” (Isaiah 34:10).

This is in reference to the city of Edom. Let me ask you a question.
Is the smoke of Edom still rising up forever to this very day?

No. Thus, we must conclude that such words as “for ever” does not always mean “for ever,” especially when it is referring to some form of punishment.

Bible Highlighter · Jun 29, 2020

zoidar said:
How are you then to understand the scripture? You are a man right?

Why would yours or mine understanding of scripture some 2000 years later, be better than those that fellowshipped with the apostles?

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:13).

Side Note:

BTW ~ Jesus is not a white European, brother. Ancient Jewish people do not look like white Europeans. I am white, and yet I understand that white men are trying to make Jesus like themselves. This to me is wrong. No offense of course. I just prefer not to make any idol images of my Lord so as to lead people to think that Jesus looked a certain way whereby they can pray to Him using that fake image of Him in their mind. I don't want to lead others to create any false images in their mind about Jesus. We don't know what He looked like, brother. Jesus said we are to worship Him in spirit and in truth (See: John 4:24).

Even the disciples did not regard Him after the flesh (Despite the fact that they really knew what He looked like). For it is written:

“Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.” (2 Corinthians 5:16).

Butch5 · Jun 29, 2020

Der Alte said:
You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing I posted fits the definition of "appeal to authority." If I quote e.g. Shaquille O'Neal as an authority on Theology simply because he is a famous athlete, that is appeal to authority since his fame does not qualify him in that area.
OTOH the articles I quoted are documented historical information about the beliefs and practices of the Jews,
I have found it very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. Had you bothered to actually check the links I posted you would have found multiple sources listed at the bottom of the JE article. Do you know of any source, anywhere that brings better historical information to the table? I didn't think so.
It is not about what you or I think the scriptures say. That the Jews did not recognize their Messiah, which OBTW was prophesied, proves absolutely nothing about anything else and it certainly does not prove that the Jews did not believe what I quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud and the Encyclopedia Judaica. Had you bothered to actually read my post I addressed this.
Jesus undoubtedly knew what the Jews believed about hell, nothing Jesus said or taught contradicted that belief.

I pointed it out. To claim that your three sources are irrefutable is a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to authority. It's fine to appeal to authorities to make an argument. There is nothing wrong with that. However, when you claim that they are correct simply because of who they are without any corroborating evidence, it's an appeal to authority. Saying they are irrefutable is saying they are authoritative simply because they are who they are. That's a fallacy.

When you said that your sources are irrefutable it became a fallacy. Whether your sources are right or wrong is irrelevant. To claim they are irrefutable is fallacious. It's the fallacy of unfalsifiability. So there are two fallacies with this statement.

This is why I don't respond to your posts. I've pointed these things out before and you don't acknowledge them, you just continue to post the same things. There's no reason to keep responding to the same issue. The only reason I responded to this one is that I've notice you've posted this claim that these sources are irrefutable several times, and I thought it would help others to understand that this claim is an error in reasoning.

Bible Highlighter · Jun 29, 2020

Butch5 said:
You're welcome! I would submit that there aren't two different earths, but one. Peter spoke of the restitution of all things.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:20-21 KJV)

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (Rev. 21:4-5 KJV)

Notice in this passage, He said, "behold, I make all things new". He didn't say I make all new things.

Paul said,

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Rom. 8:19-21 KJV)

The creature here is the creation. The creation will be delivered from bondage into the sons of God. This indicates that the creation will be renewed.

Hmmm.... something to consider.

Thank you.

You said:
But, I'm not asking what the translators think it means. Can you show any passage where Hades is used that cannot be the grave?

I had a different life experience with the Bible than most. This may seem silly to you, but I believe by faith that the King James Bible was inspired by God despite the imperfections of the translators and despite them knowing that they were being used by God. This is not based upon some random decision but it is based upon believing certain biblical truths that leads one to such a conclusion. I believe the original language are inspired and inerrant, and they continued on into the Latin Scriptures, and then the English (KJV Cambridge Edition circa 1900).

You said:
The passage of Lazarus and the Rich Man does make sense if Hades is the grave. Look at the passage.

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. (Lk. 16:22-23 KJV)

No, brother. I don't see it. This does not sound like he is in a tomb or grave site here. It says he lifted up his eyes in torments. Surely he is in some other place besides the grave. If he was in the grave, it would say:

“And he lifted up his eyes and could not see anything; He took off the bandages wrapped around his face, and got up and felt around with his hands and it felt like he was in some kind of cave or tomb."

You said:
The passage says the Rich Man died and was buried. Where are people buried? Is it not in the grave

I disagree. People are buried in graves.

Grave -
(Noun):

a place for the burial of a corpse (especially beneath the ground and marked by a tombstone); "he put flowers on his mother's grave"

Source:
Grave | Definition of Grave by Webster's Online Dictionary

You said:
Notice it says the Rich Man was buried and in Hades he lifted up his eyes. Luke equate being buried with being in Hades. He was buried, and in Hades. If Hades is the grave and the rich man was buried, where would he be? In Hades.

The question I would ask is, if Hades is a subterranean location where people are alive, what went there? Jesus said the Rich Man was buried so his body was in the ground. But notice that the Rich Man has eyes. These are body parts. He has a tongue, another body part. Lazarus has a finger, another body part. Abraham has a bosom, a chest, another body part. He can speak, so he must have a mouth and tongue also. These are all body parts. These are things supposedly left behind with the body when it died. However, if Hades is the grave we would expect to see all of these parts there. Actually saying that Hades is the grave here fits nicely.

Before you said people are not buried in a grave, and yet you are saying that the rich man went to the grave. This sounds like a contradiction. What does the word “grave” mean to you?

As for your question:

“if Hades is a subterranean location where people are alive, what went there?”

Jesus tells us what went on there with the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

You said:
Jesus said the Rich Man was buried so his body was in the ground. But notice that the Rich Man has eyes. These are body parts.

Actually Jesus says, “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” (Luke 16:22-23).

This sounds like the rich man died, and was buried, and then in a place called hell he lift up his eyes and he was in torments and seen Abraham afar off. Either he was hallucinating in the grave, or his spirit body was in an other worldly place or dimension. I am leaning towards the fact that he went to some spiritual other worldly place because Jesus does not indicate that he was imagining things while he was stuck in his tomb.

You said:
But notice that the Rich Man has eyes. These are body parts. He has a tongue, another body part. Lazarus has a finger, another body part. Abraham has a bosom, a chest, another body part. He can speak, so he must have a mouth and tongue also. These are all body parts. These are things supposedly left behind with the body when it died. However, if Hades is the grave we would expect to see all of these parts there. Actually saying that Hades is the grave here fits nicely.

Paul says, “...There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1 Corinthians 15:44). So a person can have spiritual body parts in the afterlife after their natural body dies because they have a spiritual body. The story of Lazarus and the rich man doesn't fit nicely if it was referring to his natural body that died. How could his body parts do anything if they died? It makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is if his spirit body went to a spiritual place. Remember, when Lazarus died, the angels took him to Abraham's bosom. Angels are spiritual beings. So this sets the tone and stage of some other worldly place and not a tomb.

You said:
The question isn't what can the Bible accommodate, but rather what does it teach. Can you show me any Scripture that teaches that some part of man can live on after death to be in this subterranean place? Most people believe that the dead live on after the body dies. This is a majority belief. The question is, is this what the Bible teaches. I would submit that it is not what the Bible teaches. If we come to the text already believing this idea we can find passages that seem to support it. But again, is this what the Bible teaches or is this something we're bringing to the text?

Sometimes the majority belief can sometimes be true. There are many unbelievers who know that God is one, you can pray to God, and that the Bible is the correct way to follow God, but they simply do not want to follow God.

Anyways, I am not bringing in anything into the text. The text itself gives us the meaning. Angels, Abraham's bosom, Abraham, and a description of some other worldly place with torments in fire sounds like a spiritual place of the underworld. Jesus did not indicate that this was a metaphor or parallel of something else. He just told us like it was as if he was talking about some real account.

You said:
Of course Jesus spoke truth. The priesthood was destroyed just as He predicted. Look at the details of the parable.

The story of Lazarus and the rich man is not a parable. A parable is a real world example of something else. Jesus did not say the kingdom of heaven is like.... or something along those lines. Jesus was also not describing some story in the real world to illustrate a spiritual truth, either. Jesus was giving us a real life account of the underworld so as to warn men not to go there.

You said:
Why did Jesus say that the Rich Man had five brothers? Why was he dressed in purple and fine linen. Why did he say that the Rich Man fared sumptuously? Why was Lazarus full of sores? Why did the dogs lick his sores? Why was he carried away by angels? Why was he taken to Abraham's bosom? What does Abraham have to do with this? The answers to all of these questions tell us what the parable means. Jesus gave all of these specific details. They are important to the parable. If this was about an afterlife, why would it matter how many brothers the Rich Man had? Why would it matter what he wore? Why would it matter that Lazarus had sores or that the dogs licked his sores? These details wouldn't be important if the parable was simply about what happens when people die.

If somebody does not like the idea of a hell, then I can see them wanting to look at this as a parable and or as a metaphorical story. But there is no indication the story is a metaphor. Most people have a problem with hell because they can only think the alternative to accepting hell is the wicked are tortured in flames like we see in Hollywood, and or hell houses in churches. But this is not how the Bible describes hell with the story of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man was not screaming out in pain trying to talk to Abraham.

zoidar · Jun 29, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:13).

Side Note:

BTW ~ Jesus is not a white European, brother. Ancient Jewish people do not look like white Europeans. I am white, and yet I understand that white men are trying to make Jesus like themselves. This to me is wrong. In addition, the pic in your avatar also makes it look like he is hopped up on drugs or something. But that's just me. No offense of course. I just prefer not to make any idol images of my Lord so as to lead people to think that Jesus looked a certain way whereby they can pray to Him using that fake image of Him in their mind. I don't want to lead others to create any false images in their mind about Jesus. We don't know what He looked like, brother. Jesus said we are to worship Him in spirit and in truth (See: John 4:24).

Even the disciples did not regard Him after the flesh (Despite the fact that they really knew what He looked like). For it is written:

“Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.” (2 Corinthians 5:16).

Your loss brother.

You don't know what Jesus looked like, let's keep it there. I'm not to argue with what others have seen or not seen.

Bible Highlighter · Jun 29, 2020

zoidar said:
Your loss brother.

You don't know what Jesus looked like, let's keep it there. I'm not to argue with what others have seen or not seen.

No loss at all. I used to believe Jesus was white when I first came to the faith back in 1992. Then again, I was a teenager at that time. I have grown and matured and learned to think logically since that time. Perhaps one day you will see where I am coming from.

In any event, getting back on topic: What do you think the Bible says on the Lake of Fire being a place of eventual annihilation instead of endless torture?

zoidar · Jun 29, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
No loss at all. I used to believe Jesus was white when I first came to the faith back in 1992. Then again, I was a teenager at that time. I have grown and matured and learned to think logically since that time. Perhaps one day you will see where I am coming from.

In any event, getting back on topic: What do you think the Bible says on the Lake of Fire being a place of eventual annihilation instead of endless torture?

Of course Jesus wasn't European, but as I have understood it Jews of that of that time had a brighter skin. I have no source to share right now, but will look up one.

I think annihilation is possible and sounds reasonable. I have never understood how God could let this dark pit in the universe burn for an eternity. But from scripture I think both are possible, so I'm not sure.

Bible Highlighter · Jun 29, 2020

zoidar said:
Of course Jesus wasn't European,

Then we shouldn't promote Him in being such a way if such is the case, brother.

You said:
but as I have understood it Jews of that of that time had a brighter skin. I have no source to share right now, but will look up one.

Jesus would have looked like his disciples. The disciples would have been your standard Jew and not your odd rare version Jew who may have been different or uncommon. The reason why Jesus had to look similar to His disciples is because Judas had to kiss Jesus in order to identify Him for the guards to take him. If Jesus was a white looking Jew that stood out in appearance from His disciples,

then Judas would have simply said to the guards,
“there is no need for me to kiss Him to
tell you which one is Jesus.
He is the only white Jew among the disciples.”

It seems highly unlikely that most Jews were white in appearance.

You said:
I think annihilation is possible and sounds reasonable. I have never understood how God could let this dark pit in the universe burn for an eternity. But from scripture I think both are possible, so I'm not sure.

There are two kinds of Conditional Immortality.

#1. Traditional Conditional Immortality.
#2. Dualistic Conditional Immortality.

Traditional Conditional Immortality states that “hell” (or the place of torments the rich man went to in Luke 16) is just a metaphor or parable, and the Lake of Fire is a place of annihilation (Either eventual annihilation or right away).

Dualistic Conditional Immortality believes hell is a very real and literal place (i.e. the place that the rich man went to in Luke 16 was not a metaphor or parable), and the lake of Fire is a place of annihilation (Either eventual annihilation or right away).

I believe in Dualistic Conditional Immortality. I believe the wicked will most likely suffer in the Lake of Fire for a certain amount of time and they most definitely will be destroyed or annihilated (as their final fate in the Lake of Fire). For the Lake of Fire is called the Second Death. It is called the Second Death because it relates to the First Death. The First Death is where our physical body perishes. The same will be true of the Second Death. There is going to be a resurrection of the damned. They will die again (or perish) a second time.

The different types of Conditional Immortality Proponents differ on the fate of Satan and his minions. Some Conditional Immortality Proponents believe Satan and his minions will suffer for all eternity (But wicked humans will be annihilated). Other Conditional Immortality Proponents (like myself) believe Isaiah 14, in that he will be trodden down like a carcase, and they believe Ezekiel 28 that says he will be destroyed.

Only 5 major verses appear to teach Eternal Torment at first glance, but when comparing Scripture with Scripture, this quickly fades away (When we understand the language the Bible is using to paint us a picture of what is really going on). I believe most do not accept Conditional Immortality because they don't think that the majority of evangelical churches can be wrong, and or they have been taught such a belief for so long, they cannot see it any other way. So it just becomes fact for them. They regurgitate the same ole lines that other ECT Proponents say on trying to defend Eternal Torment (with little to no rational sense or logical thinking on their own; They do not really sit down and think about the goodness of God and His fair justice). They may be afraid to think differently because they do not want to lose their Pastor or friends at their church.

Der Alte · Jun 29, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
The Scriptures say that the Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not. They did not search the extra biblical writings to see whether those things be so or not (See: Acts of the Apostles 17:10-11).

Do you know how many times Paul quoted from Greek writers in the NT?

[1] Acts 17:28 Paul quotes from Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. b.c. 270) Ta Phainomena and [2] Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 b.c.) in his Hymn to Zeus has Ek sou gar genos esōmen.
[3] In 1Co_15:32 Paul quotes from Menander
[4] and in Tit_1:12 from Epimenides.
[5] Acts 17.28, for example, paraphrases Aratus, Phaenomena 5.
[6] 1 Corinthians 15.33 quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218.
[7] Titus 1.12 quotes Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon.
[8] In Acts 26:14, Paul places a quotation from Euripides (ca. 480-406 B.C.), Bacchae 794-5, in the mouth of Christ, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
[9] In Romans 1:32, he quotes a passage from the Pseudepigraphic Testament of Asher 6:2,
[10] while in Romans 12:21, he draws from Testament of Benjamin 4:3
[11] and in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, he quotes Testament of Gad 5:6-7.
[12] Romans 8:38 and 9:5 contain quotes from 1 Enoch (61:10 and [13] 77:1, respectively).

I believe the Eastern Orthodox church split from the Catholic church. I do not believe either of these institutions have biblical practices that I agree with. So they are not my go to authority or source to understanding the Bible.

Even if true that proves nothing about the reliability of the EOB translation of the Greek NT.

When reading Scripture: I ask God, and I compare Scripture with Scripture and I think about the goodness of God and His fair justice and good ways. I do look up difficult words in the King James generally using older English dictionaries (When possible), but this has to fit the context. I only use the Greek dictionary in Strong's when absolutely necessary, but the definition has to fit the context and the whole of Scripture in how that word or words is used elsewhere in the same kind of context.

Strong's is not reliable. It has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. People who do this seem to find exactly what supports their assumptions/presuppositions.

Do you believe the words “eternal judgment” in Hebrews 6:2 means a judgment by God where He is continually judging the wicked and the righteous for all eternity? Or do you believe Hebrews 6:2 is talking about a one time judgment that has eternal consequences?
This is in reference to the city of Edom. Let me ask you a question.
Is the smoke of Edom still rising up forever to this very day?
No. Thus, we must conclude that such words as “for ever” does not always mean “for ever,” especially when it is referring to some form of punishment.

There were actual foxes in Israel but Herod was not a fox when Jesus called him one. Hyperbole! There were actual stones in Israel but Simon was not one when Jesus named him "Petros." Hyperbole!
There was actual thunder in Israel but James and John were not sons of thunder when Jesus named them that. Hyperbole!
That a word is used hyperbolically does not change the inherent meaning.
Have you ever actually done a study of every occurrence of "aionios" in the NT?
"Aionios" occurs 69 times in the NT. 67 times it is translated eternal/everlasting. It is translated "world" 2 times. 2 Tim 1:9, Titus 1:2.
Do we assume that aionios does not mean "eternal" since it is translated world 2 times?
"Aion" occurs 203 times in the NT. It is translated "world" 39 times. Aion/world is said to have an end 6 times. That means it is translated eternity 164 times. Do we assume that "aion" does not mean "eternity" because it is translated "world" 39 times?
In twenty four [24] of the following verses aion and aionios are defined/described as eternal, everlasting, eternity etc, by comparison or contrast with other adjectives or adjectival phrases.
= = = = = = = = = =
…..Some people claim that “aion/aionios” never means eternity/eternal because they sometimes refer to things which are not eternal.
But neither word is ever defined/described, by other adjectives or adjectival phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, in the New Testament, as in the following verses.
…..In 9 of these verses Jesus has defined “aionios” as eternal. Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight times. He never used “aionios to refer to anything mundane that was clearly not eternal.

[1] Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[2] Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

In Rom 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, refers to God as “aionios.” Paul has used “aidios” synonymous with “aionios.” In this verse by definition “aionios” means eternal, everlasting.

[3] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei][Vb] over the house of Jacob for ever; [aionas] and of his kingdom [basileias][Nn] there shall be no end.[telos]

In this verse the reign/basileusei, which is the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternal.

[4] 2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [aionios] weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;[proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [aionios]

In this passage Paul contrasts “aionios” with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” an indeterminate finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary” “eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[5] 2 Corinthians 5:1
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [aionios] in the heavens.

In this verse Paul contrasts “aionios house” with “earthly house which is destroyed.” Is God going to replace our destroyed earthly house with a house which only lasts a little longer and will be destroyed at the end of an age? The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus, “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[6] Hebrews 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever [aion] he has an unchangeable [aparabatos] priesthood.

In this verse “aion” is paired with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[7] 1 Peter 1:23
(23) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, [aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God. …
1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[aion] " And this is the word that was preached to you.

In verse 23 Peter pairs “word of God” with “imperishable.” The same writer, Peter, in the same writing 1 Peter, in verse 25 writes the word of God “endures eis ton aiona/unto eternity. ” Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity.”

[8] 1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting [/aionios]

In this verse “aionios” Paul paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”

[9] Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; [fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [aionios]

In this verse Paul contrasts “aionios” with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”

[10] John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[aionios]

In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[Continued next post character limit]

Der Alte · Jun 29, 2020

[Previous post continued]

[11] John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[12]1 John 2:17
(17) The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever. [aion]

In this verse John contrasts “lives aion” with “pass away,” “lives aion” cannot mean a finite period, which is is not opposite of “pass away.” Thus “lives aion” by definition here means “lives eternally.”

[13]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [oligon] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.

In this verse Peter contrasted “aionios” with “little while” Does Jesus give His followers a finite period of glory then they eventually die? Thus “aionios” here, by definition, means “eternal.”

[14] Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [apftharsia] he will give eternal [aionios] life.

In this verse Paul pairs “aionios” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, believers do not seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aionios life” here means “eternal life.”

[15] 1 Timothy 1:17.
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [aion] immortal, [aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [aion] and ever [aionios]. Amen.

In this verse Paul pairs “aion” with “immortal.” “Aion” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite period and immortal at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”

[16] Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[eis aionas aionon] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paired with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite period” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “forever and forever.”

[17] John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
[18] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life.

In these two verses Jesus pairs “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

[19] John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[20] Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [aionios] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

In this verse Paul contrasts “aionios life” with death. “A finite period life” is not opposite death. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”

[21] Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [tou aionios] and ever! [ton aionion] Amen.

In this verse Paul paired “tou aionios ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.

[22] John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

In this verse John contrasted aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[23] John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.

In this verse John contrasted aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See note on “ou mé” below.

[24] John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

In this verse “aionios meat” is contrasted with “meat that perishes” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[25] John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ου μη θεωρηση εις τον αιωνα/ou mé theorese eis ton aiona] see death."

●The double negative [ου μη] signifies in nowise, by no means. Θεωρήσῃ[theōrésé], denoting steady, protracted vision, is purposely used, because the promise contemplates the entire course of the believer's life in Christ. It is not, shall not die forever, but shall live eternally.
● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.

Der Alte · Jun 29, 2020

Butch5 said:
I pointed it out. To claim that your three sources are irrefutable is a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to authority. It's fine to appeal to authorities to make an argument. There is nothing wrong with that. However, when you claim that they are correct simply because of who they are without any corroborating evidence, it's an appeal to authority. Saying they are irrefutable is saying they are authoritative simply because they are who they are. That's a fallacy.
When you said that your sources are irrefutable it became a fallacy. Whether your sources are right or wrong is irrelevant. To claim they are irrefutable is fallacious. It's the fallacy of unfalsifiability. So there are two fallacies with this statement.
This is why I don't respond to your posts. I've pointed these things out before and you don't acknowledge them, you just continue to post the same things. There's no reason to keep responding to the same issue. The only reason I responded to this one is that I've notice you've posted this claim that these sources are irrefutable several times, and I thought it would help others to understand that this claim is an error in reasoning.

As I said you don't know what you are talking about. You claiming that my quotes are an "appeal to authority" is absurd. To quote a standard reference work such as an Encyclopedia is not an appeal to authority. Look it up.
If you think you can refute anything I posted get busy and provide some credible, verifiable, historical evidence. As I said I quoted Jewish histories written and published by Jewish scholars with historical evidence dating back to the time of the events. What do you have? Nothing but "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!"

"Fallacy of Unfalsifiable Claims / Unfalsifiability / Untestibility
The fallacy of unfalsifiability / untestibility / unfalsifiable claims fallacy occurs when a proposition is presented with a claim that it is falsifiable, but the proposition is maintained as true no matter what evidence is presented. In other words, an unfalsifiable proposition is claimed to be falsifiable.
Keep in mind that the fact that something is falsifiable cannot prove that something is true. The fact that something is genuinely not falsifiable doesn't prove it to be false, either. For instance, if you tell someone that your toe hurts you, and it does, the other person cannot test whether you feel pain--yet you do. However, it is a fallacy to claim that something is falsifiable when it is not. It is a political move to try to create the illusion of open-mindedness. The fallacy may take the form of stating that a certain thing can only be proved or falsified by some standard that is impossible, in which case, it would be an impossible perfection fallacy.

To falsify what I posted is not impossible all that is necessary is providing evidence which is at least as reliable as the sources I quoted which contradicts what I quoted.

zoidar · Jun 29, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Then we shouldn't promote Him in being such a way if such is the case, brother.

Jesus would have looked like his disciples. The disciples would have been your standard Jew and not your odd rare version Jew who may have been different or uncommon. The reason why Jesus had to look similar to His disciples is because Judas had to kiss Jesus in order to identify Him for the guards to take him. If Jesus was a white looking Jew that stood out in appearance from His disciples,

then Judas would have simply said to the guards,
“there is no need for me to kiss Him to
tell you which one is Jesus.
He is the only white Jew among the disciples.”

It seems highly unlikely that most Jews were white in appearance.

Race and appearance of Jesus - Wikipedia

"Research on ancient skeletons in Israel suggests that Judeans of the time were biologically closer to Iraqi Jews than any other contemporary population, and thus in terms of physical appearance the average Judean of the time would have likely had dark brown to black hair, olive skin, and brown eyes."

Not sure what an Iraqi Jew looks like. But here is an image of a Palestinan man capturing what I believe to be close to Jesus's colours. To me the facial lines are more important than colour of skin when depicting Jesus. Not too far off from my picture is it?

I'll get back to you on the other things.

zoidar · Jun 29, 2020

Iraqi Jew

Bible Highlighter · Jun 29, 2020

Der Alte said:
Do you know how many times Paul quoted from Greek writers in the NT?

Der Alte said:
[1] Acts 17:28 Paul quotes from Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. b.c. 270) Ta Phainomena and [2] Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 b.c.) in his Hymn to Zeus has Ek sou gar genos esōmen.
[3] In 1Co_15:32 Paul quotes from Menander
[4] and in Tit_1:12 from Epimenides.
[5] Acts 17.28, for example, paraphrases Aratus, Phaenomena 5.
[6] 1 Corinthians 15.33 quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218.
[7] Titus 1.12 quotes Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon.
[8] In Acts 26:14, Paul places a quotation from Euripides (ca. 480-406 B.C.), Bacchae 794-5, in the mouth of Christ, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
[9] In Romans 1:32, he quotes a passage from the Pseudepigraphic Testament of Asher 6:2,
[10] while in Romans 12:21, he draws from Testament of Benjamin 4:3
[11] and in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, he quotes Testament of Gad 5:6-7.
[12] Romans 8:38 and 9:5 contain quotes from 1 Enoch (61:10 and [13] 77:1, respectively).

You are not telling me anything new.
I wrote this a long while back:

The Different Books Mentioned in the Bible:

A. Heavenly Books:

#1. The Word of God.
#2. The Lamb's Book of Life.
#3. The Book of Remembrance.
#4. Unnamed Book That Has All Our Members Written Within It.
#5. The Book (Scroll) of the Seven Seals.
#6. Unnamed Books of Judgment.
#7. The Unnamed Little Books That Ezekiel and John Eat.

B. Earthly Books:

I. Spiritual and or Prophetic:

#1. The Word of God.
#2. Samuel's Book of the Manner of the Kingdom.
#3. The Book of Nathan the Prophet.
#4. The Book of Gad the Seer.
#5. The Acts of Solomon.
#6. Solomon's Many Other Proverbs and Songs.
#7. The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite.
#8. The Story of the Prophet Iddo.
#9. The Visions of Iddo the Seer.
#10. The Book of Shemaiah the Prophet.
#11. The Sayings of the Seers.
#12. Paul's Earlier Epistle to the Corinthians About Fornication.

II. Historical:

#1. The Book of the Living.
#2. The Book of the Wars of the Lord.
#3. The Book of Jasher.
#4. David's Letter to Joab.
#5. The Book of Jehu.
#6. Jehu's 1st Letter to Samaria.
#7. Jehu's 2nd Letter to Samaria.
#8. Unfinished Record of Princes Not Added to Chronicles.
#9. Writings of David and Solomon on Passover Keepings.
#10. Actions of King Uzziah Not Recorded in the Book of Isaiah.
#11. Mordecai's Purim Announcement Letter to the Jews.
#12. Esther & Mordecai's 2nd Confirmation Letter of Purim.

C. Possible Other Books.

I. Heavenly Books:

#1. The Book of the Living.
#2. Library (Larger Than Earth) on the Complete Life of Jesus.

II. Earthly Books:

#1. The Book of the Kings of Israel.
#2. The Book of the Kings of Judah.
#3. The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.
#4. The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.

D. God's People Revealing Past New Oral Prophecies:

#1. Writer of Hebrews Reveals a New Oral Prophecy of Jesus.
#2. Jude Reveals an Unknown New Oral Prophecy of Enoch.

E. Secular or Wordly Writings in God's Word:

I. God's People Verbally Quoting Secular Writings:

#1. Paul Quotes an Inscription on an Athenian Altar.
#2. Paul Quotes Epimenides' de Oraculis.
#3. Paul Quotes Aratus' Phaenomena (A Poem).
#4. Paul Quotes Menander's Poetry.
#5. Paul Quotes Epimenides' Paradox.

II. Secular Works Transcribed (In Part or In It's Entirety):

#1. Jezebel's Letters to the Officials of Naboth's City.
#2. Sennacherib's Letter to Hezekiah.
#3. Huram's Letter to Solomon.
#4. Shemaiah's Letter to Zephaniah on the Exile Prophecy.
#5. King Cyrus's Proclamation to All His Kingdom.
#6. Enemies of Judah Led by 3 Men Write a Letter to Artaxerxes.
#7. Artaxerxes Letter in Reply to the 3 Men.
#8. Govenor Tatnai Writes to Darius About the Jews Rebuilding.
#9. Darius' Decree to Help Rebuild the Temple.
#10. Artaxerxe's Approval Letter to Ezra to Rebuild the Wall.
#11. Sanballat Threatens Nehemiah to Stop Building the Wall.
#12. Chief Captain Claudius Lysias' Letter to Governor Felix.

III. Secular Works Mentioned By Name But Not Shown:

#1. Benhadad's Letter to the King of Israel.
#2. Berodachbaladan's Letters to Hezekiah.
#3. Artaxerxe's Letters to Nehemiah in Rebuilding the Wall.
#4. Tobaiah & the Judean Noble's Letters Sent to Nehemiah.
#5. The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia.
#6. Xerxe's Unintended Decree (By Haman) to Kill the Jews.
#7. Xerxe's Decree for the Jews to Protect Themselves.
#8. High Priest's Letters Enabling Saul to Round-up Christians.

CF Source:
The Lamb's Book of Life.

There is a difference between Paul quoting from secular works vs. Scripture being the divinely inerrant inspired Word of God. The works Paul quotes are not Scripture, but he can glean truth from those works. It does not mean these other works are an authority like Scripture. You are trying to make the Jew's writings as if they are an authority on hell; They are not. Their writings are not Scripture. Sure, Paul has the authority to refer to other works, but he is an apostle; We are not apostles.

You said:
Even if true that proves nothing about the reliability of the EOB translation of the Greek NT.

I checked out a PDF version of the EOB online. It appears to be no different than a Modern Translation. I just looked at 2 Timothy 2:15 to see that it is not reliable by way of comparison to the KJV. The devil does not want people to study to shew (show) themselves approved unto God. Philippians 2:7 is also changed. The EOB wrongfully says that Christ emptied Himself suggesting the same thing that the NLT says in the fact that Christ gave up His divine privileges. Do you believe Christ gave up His powers as God? In the EOB also wrongfully translates 2 Corinthians 3:12. In the verse, Paul says he uses great boldness of speech. The KJV says that Paul uses great plainness of speech. Why? Because the gospel is hid from them that are lost. When Moses is read by the Israelites the vail is upon their heart. The EOB is wrong for translating it as “boldness of speech” because it does not fit the context.

You said:
Strong's is not reliable. It has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. People who do this seem to find exactly what supports their assumptions/presuppositions.

Yes, I would agree. I only use the original languages when I absolutely have to. I mostly look to old English dictionaries when I read the KJV.

Anyways, the point I wanted to make is that if we are going to establish truth on a bible based doctrine (i.e. The type of punishment for the wicked in the Lake of Fire), we need to make this case solely from the Bible and not from those who rejected their Messiah (Jews). We cannot also look to Eastern Orthodox sources, either. Unless you are in support of the Eastern Orthodox beliefs, you cannot look to the Bible of the Eastern Orthodox to prove your case, either. That is not consistent. Unless you are a Jew, or Eastern Orthodox, you should not use these other sources (that promote their beliefs that run contrary to the Bible). Yes, Paul was able to quote from secular sources at times, but we are not the apostle Paul who was guided by the Spirit to write Scripture.

Bible Highlighter · Jun 30, 2020

@Der Alte

First, I was just quickly re-reading your posts, and you did not really closely read what I had written. I made the point before about how the word “ever” (i.e. aiōn) (like in Revelation 20:10) can be used to refer to how the Lord (Jesus) can live for “ever” (i.e. aiōn) as in reference to eternity. By your lengthy argument towards me, this implies that you are saying that I do not believe that this word can mean for all eternity when I already stated that such a thing is so. But words like “ever” (i.e. aiōn) are determined by the context or cross references and they can mean a temporary amount of time, too (of which you would agree with).

Second, I believe “ever” (i.e. aiōn) in Revelation 14:11 and Revelation 20:10 is in reference to the language used in Isaiah 34:10. Isaiah 34:10 gives us the painted picture on understanding the words in Revelation such as “night nor day” and the “smoke... shall go up for ever”

Isaiah 34:10 says,

“It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.”

These words in Isaiah 34:10 sound a lot like the words repeated in Revelation. So what happened in Isaiah 34:10? Is the city of Edom still burning today? Is the burning tar (pitch) in Edom not quenched night and day to this very day? Is the smoke of that fire in Edom going up forever? Have none really not passed through Edom for ever, and ever? We learn that Edom is restored in Isaiah 35.

So Isaiah 34:10 is speaking metaphorically.

So when we read Revelation 14:11, and Revelation 20:10, we understand that these are the same metaphorical phrases used in Isaiah 34:10. That is what we do. We interpret Scripture using Scripture. Isaiah 34:10 gives us the code key and or interpretation on how to use these words. So when we see the words “night nor day” and “smoke thereof shall go up for ever” in relation to punishment, we know it is a picture of destruction and not eternal torment. This sets the stage on how we interpret these words throughout the rest of the Bible. So when we read Revelation 14:11, and Revelation 20:10, we understand that these phrases are metaphors taken from Isaiah 34:10.

This is what I would call misunderstanding the Bible based on not taking into account its metaphors that is establishes. Another example of folks misunderstanding metaphorical language in the Bible is in the story of Noah and Ham, too.

Here is a CF thread I created a long while back on that:
Biblical Metaphors Shed Light on Ham's Sin in Noah's Tent.

Der Alte · Jun 30, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
...
E. Secular or Wordly Writings in God's Word:

I. God's People Verbally Quoting Secular Writings:

#1. Paul Quotes an Inscription on an Athenian Altar.
#2. Paul Quotes Epimenides' de Oraculis.
#3. Paul Quotes Aratus' Phaenomena (A Poem).
#4. Paul Quotes Menander's Poetry.
#5. Paul Quotes Epimenides' Paradox.
There is a difference between Paul quoting from secular works vs. Scripture being the divinely inerrant inspired Word of God. The works Paul quotes are not Scripture, but he can glean truth from those works. It does not mean these other works are an authority like Scripture. You are trying to make the Jew's writings as if they are an authority on hell; They are not. Their writings are not Scripture. Sure, Paul has the authority to refer to other works, but he is an apostle; We are not apostles.

Your list omits 8 of Paul's quotes.
And nothing I quoted did I state or imply that it was anything other than credible, verifiable, historical evidence. I certainly did not suggest that it was equal to scripture. But that is a good automatonic dismissal of anything you can't refute.
Try actually reading my post. I clearly explained my view on what I quoted from the JE, Talmud and EJ. The sources I quoted are infinitely more credible than the opinions of any anonymous poster on this forum.

I checked out a PDF version of the EOB online. It appears to be no different than a Modern Translation. I just looked at 2 Timothy 2:15 to see that it is not reliable by way of comparison to the KJV. The devil does not want people to study to shew (show) themselves approved unto God. Philippians 2:7 is also changed. The EOB wrongfully says that Christ emptied Himself suggesting the same thing that the NLT says in the fact that Christ gave up His divine privileges. Do you believe Christ gave up His powers as God? In the EOB also wrongfully translates 2 Corinthians 3:12. In the verse, Paul says he uses great boldness of speech. The KJV says that Paul uses great plainness of speech. Why? Because the gospel is hid from them that are lost. When Moses is read by the Israelites the vail is upon their heart. The EOB is wrong for translating it as “boldness of speech” because it does not fit the context....

Your opinion of the EOB means diddly squat! Unless you have several semesters of koine Greek and a few years of post grad study. Otherwise you are just another voice shouting in the darkness. "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!"
Perhaps you need to learn that the original Greek is the standard NOT the KJV.

Der Alte · Jun 30, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
@Der Alte
First, I was just quickly re-reading your posts, and you did not really closely read what I had written. I made the point before about how the word “ever” (i.e. aiōn) (like in Revelation 20:10) can be used to refer to how the Lord (Jesus) can live for “ever” (i.e. aiōn) as in reference to eternity. By your lengthy argument towards me, this implies that you are saying that I do not believe that this word can mean for all eternity when I already stated that such a thing is so. But words like “ever” (i.e. aiōn) are determined by the context or cross references and they can mean a temporary amount of time, too (of which you would agree with)...

You totally ignored my post and repeated your unsupported opinion.
You are totally wrong about the meaning of "aionios" as I have shown.
Αιωνιος/aionios occurs 69 times in the NT. 67 of those times it is correctly translated eternal/everlasting.
"Aionios" means "eternal/everlasting" but is used as hyperbole only 2 times, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2. Those two hyperbolic uses do not determine the meaning of "aionios." Once again "hyperbole." However you want to flip it upside down and say that those two hyperbole uses control the meaning. If "aionios" does not inherently mean eternal/everlasting there is nothing you can do to the word to make it mean eternal/everlasting. Nothing!
Jesus used the word "aionios" 28 times. He never used it to refer to anything which is not or cannot be eternal.
In 9 verses Jesus defines “aionios.”

[1]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]

In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[2]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
[3]John 3:15

(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life.
[4]John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life.

In these two verses Jesus pairs “aionion” with “should not perish,” twice. Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

[5]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [αἰώνιος] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless the followers of Jesus come into condemnation and pass into death.

[6]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

In this verse Jesus contrasts aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[7]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.

In this verse Jesus contrasts aionios with “shall never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[8]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[9]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [αμην αμην/amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ου μη εις τον αιωνα/ou mé eis ton aiōna] see death."

According to noted Greek scholar Marvin Vincent,

●The double negative [ου μη] signifies in nowise, by no means. Θεωρήσῃ[theōrésé], denoting steady, protracted vision, is purposely used, because the promise contemplates the entire course of the believer's life in Christ. It is not, shall not die forever, but shall live eternally.
● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.

Bible Highlighter · Jun 30, 2020

Der Alte said:
You totally ignored my post and repeated your unsupported opinion.
You are totally wrong about the meaning of "aionios" as I have shown.
Αιωνιος/aionios occurs 69 times in the NT. 67 of those times it is correctly translated eternal/everlasting.
"Aionios" means "eternal/everlasting" but is used as hyperbole only 2 times, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2. Those two hyperbolic uses do not determine the meaning of "aionios." Once again "hyperbole." However you want to flip it upside down and say that those two hyperbole uses control the meaning. If "aionios" does not inherently mean eternal/everlasting there is nothing you can do to the word to make it mean eternal/everlasting. Nothing!
Jesus used the word "aionios" 28 times. He never used it to refer to anything which is not or cannot be eternal.
In 9 verses Jesus defines “aionios.”

[1]John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[αἰώνιος/aionios]
In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[2]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, and they shall never [αἰών/aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
[3]John 3:15

(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [αιωνιον] life.
[4]John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [αιωνιον] life.
In these two verses Jesus pairs “aionion” with “should not perish,” twice. Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

[5]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [αἰώνιος] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless the followers of Jesus come into condemnation and pass into death.

[6]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
In this verse Jesus contrasts aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[7]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.
In this verse Jesus contrasts aionios with “shall never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[8]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[9]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [αμην αμην/amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ου μη εις τον αιωνα/ou mé eis ton aiōna] see death."
According to noted Greek scholar Marvin Vincent,

●The double negative [ου μη] signifies in nowise, by no means. Θεωρήσῃ[theōrésé], denoting steady, protracted vision, is purposely used, because the promise contemplates the entire course of the believer's life in Christ. It is not, shall not die forever, but shall live eternally.
● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.

I already pointed out for you to read Isaiah 34:10, but you simply ignored it. That is the metaphorical language used that helps us to interpret the words “day and night” and “for ever and ever” in Revelation 14:11, and Revelation 20:10. The city of Edom is not burning today. When these words are used in reference to punishment, we then know it is speaking metaphorically.

A Defense of Dualistic Conditional Immortality

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Newbie

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads