An argument for "eternal conscious torment"

[Der Alte]

Clem,
So would you do a better job at developing a dictionary (lexicon) for NT Greek than BDAG?
NO dictionary that I know of presents the reasons for their conclusions. Try Oxford Dictionaries Online, Collins Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, etc and see if they give you context driven definitions.
Oz

In my quote of Aioniws, above, I highlighted in blue 69 historical, secular Greek documents the authors of of BDAG consulted in determining the meaning of aioniws especially for questions like the one you responded to in the quoted response.

 

[daydreamer40]

I heard a minister preach once who said: 'Hell is a place where God's presence does not exist'. He asked people to think hard about the consequences of that.
Eternal torment,. under those circumstances could mean when people lived on earth, and rejected Christ, they chose, in eternity to live a life without the presence of his Father in it. That really would be hell, in my view

 

[Der Alte]

I heard a minister preach once who said: 'Hell is a place where God's presence does not exist'. He asked people to think hard about the consequences of that.
Eternal torment,. under those circumstances could mean when people lived on earth, and rejected Christ, they chose, in eternity to live a life without the presence of his Father in it. That really would be hell, in my view

2 Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;​

A person who is "destroyed," i.e. no longer exists, cannot be "from the presence of the Lord" or anything else.

 

[ClementofA]

You seem to be going up the garden path with your question: 'Also where does the NT ever refer to an "eternity which transcends time"?' That's language from Sasse and it refers to the eternity of God. He gives the reference as Rom 16:26, which states:

'but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—' (ESV)​

The NKJV translates as 'the everlasting God'.

In your view, does the eternal God transcend time or not?

Scripture speaks of "before times aionion" (2 Tim.1:9; Titus 1:2) & "before the aions" (1 Cor.2:7), so is not aionion related to time, rather than timelessness? And do those verses not indicate that the "times aionion" (and aions/eons) had a beginning? If they had a beginning, then how can aionion be speaking of timelessness or "transcending time"? The aions had a beginning (1 Cor.2:7) so are a part of time, not "transcending time". Also, the context of Rom.16:25-26 associates aionion (v.25) with "time":

25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times EONIAN,
26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the EONIAN God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience (CLV)

The Greek word mis translated "eternal" (Rom.16:26) is aionion (Strongs #166). What gives Sasse the idea it speaks of "transcendent time"? The context speaks of the aionion God's "command". Does God give His "command[ments]" in time or outside of time?

A literal more accurate translation of aionion (=eonian) in Rom.16:25-26 states:

25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times EONIAN,
26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the EONIAN God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience

A number of Greek scholars understand aionion in Rom.16:25 to refer to a finite duration, even among those biased to endless punishment. Just look at a few dozen Greek lexicons, dictionaries & translations to see for yourself. Even aionion in verse 26 doesn't require aionion mean eternal. A. Deisman discovered a tablet from the time of the ECF Origen that said God is aionian and more than aionian (epiaionion), making aionion in reference to God finite. Moreover, if aionion in v.25 is finite, then contextually one should consider that its use in v.26 of the context is likewise finite. Rom.16:25 refers to eons past that have ended. So in the same sentence continuing into v.26, the reference to eonian God can be to those past eons. That's the contextual case for the viewpoint that eonian in v.26 is also finite.

God was the eonian God over past eons that have already ended. Rom.16:25 refers to eons past that have ended. So in the same sentence continuing into v.26, the reference to eonian God can be to those past eons. That's a contextual case for the viewpoint that eonian in v.26 is also finite.

Oldmantook said [@ post # 287 below]:

"I agree that aidios conveys the sense of eternal, forever, etc. but that in itself does not automatically make it synonymous with aionios which is a completely different word. How did you make that leap of logic? That would be another logical fallacy commonly known as an overgeneralization. Did you not notice that in v.25 - the verse previous to Rom 16:26 - also contains the word aionios? This word cannot possibly mean eternal in this verse as it refers to a mystery previously kept secret but is now revealed. An “eternal” secret by plain definition can never be revealed thus the translators/scholars chose to translate aionios in v.25 as “long ages” or something equivalent. This then begs the question why these scholars chose to translate aionios in the very next verse as eternal instead of ages? What is the justification for changing its meaning from one verse to the next? And if Paul wanted to convey the meaning of an eternal God in v.26, why didn’t he employ aidios which does mean that? The context of these two verses describe God who reveals himself and his purpose to men through the prophets and the scriptures. Something that was once a mystery kept secret but now made manifest though the ages of time. Therefore v.26 can be properly translated as “and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith -” (YLT). God works out his manifest will through the ages making it known to all the nations - something that was previously a secret. Thus aionios in v.26 does not refer to God’s eternal nature but instead references his age-during ‘method’ of making his will known through the ages of time."

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ll-when-scripture-supports-it.8072784/page-15
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ure-supports-it.8072784/page-15#post-72968303

 

[ClementofA]

NO dictionary that I know of presents the reasons for their conclusions.

Therefore why - blindly - believe BDAG's reason-less conclusions. Yet many do. And then regurgitate them as if they are gospel.

Many scholars disagree with BDAG on many points, including those related to aionion. So why trust in one guy's (Danker of BDAG) opinion over all the rest?

In some cases BDAG is opposed by the vast majority of other scholars.

For the aionion entry, for example, why did BDAG leave out dozens of usages of the word where it refers to a finite duration, which i give here:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/two-questions.8069145/page-4#post-72837159

http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2931562-does-aionios-always-mean-eternal-ancient.html

 

[Gr8Grace]

A person who is "destroyed," i.e. no longer exists

Peter unequivocally uses language that tells us some things will be annihilated and no longer exist.


Why isn't the same language used for people"s destruction?

 

[ClementofA]

In my quote of Aioniws, above, I highlighted in blue 69 historical, secular Greek documents the authors of of BDAG consulted in determining the meaning of aioniws especially for questions like the one you responded to in the quoted response.

Yet no reasons are given why Danker categorized the citations the way he did.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually I have the Logos software and I have "purchased" both BDB, several years ago, and BDAG, about a month or 2 ago. The basic software was free and I think BDB cost about $60 and BDAG was about $30.
The 1957 edition of BAGD can be read online at this link. One drawback is the Greek does not reproduce correctly. Click on name of Greek letter to see words under that letter.
http://lareopage.free.fr/a&g/main.htm

Thanks for the info. I have a hard copy of the 1957 edition.

 

[OzSpen]

Therefore why - blindly - believe BDAG's reason-less conclusions. Yet many do. And then regurgitate them as if they are gospel.

Many scholars disagree with BDAG on many points, including those related to aionion. So why trust in one guy's (Danker of BDAG) opinion over all the rest?

In some cases BDAG is opposed by the vast majority of other scholars.

For the aionion entry, for example, why did BDAG leave out dozens of usages of the word where it refers to a finite duration, which i give here:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/two-questions.8069145/page-4#post-72837159

http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/2931562-does-aionios-always-mean-eternal-ancient.html

Lexicons = Lexicons

 

[OzSpen]

In some cases BDAG is opposed by the vast majority of other scholars.

And you gave not one example from this 'vast majority of other scholars' in this post. Not one!

Ever heard of the Appeal to Anonymous Authority Logical Fallacy?

 

[Der Alte]

begin

...<Clem>
The context of these two verses describe God who reveals himself and his purpose to men through the prophets and the scriptures. Something that was once a mystery kept secret but now made manifest though the ages of time. Therefore v.26 can be properly translated as “and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith -” (YLT). God works out his manifest will through the ages making it known to all the nations - something that was previously a secret. Thus aionios in v.26 does not refer to God’s eternal nature but instead references his age-during ‘method’ of making his will known through the ages of time."...<end>

end

That one 18th century scholar thinks a word can be translated a certain way does not mean it must be so translated. In order to show my interpretation wrong one needs to quote an accredited scholar, not an anonymous website, which specifically addresses Rom 1;20 and 16:26 and shows with credible evidence that my interpretation cannot be correct.

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal [αἰώνιος] God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith—​

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

 

[Der Alte]

Thanks for the info. I have a hard copy of the 1957 edition.

But if you need to quote BAGD 1957 the online copy will save a lot of typing.

 

[ClementofA]

And you gave not one example from this 'vast majority of other scholars' in this post.

Take the word aion for example. The vast majority of lexicons i've seen disagree with BDAG's NT citations re aion as a person.

 

[Der Alte]

Yet no reasons are given why Danker categorized the citations the way he did.

Can you quote any scholar who gave reasons why they categorized the citations they way they did? Or is this just more UR muddying the water? I think I can say without fear of being contradicted that no, zero, none of the "scholars" you could quote; Vincent, Young, Thayer, Strong etc. explain why they categorized their citations the way they did.

 

[ClementofA]

That one 18th century scholar thinks a word can be translated a certain way does not mean it must be so translated.

It's not just one scholar, but many, since the early church fathers.

In order to show my interpretation wrong one needs to quote an accredited scholar,

Been there, done that...with you many times. You should know all the scholars i've posted to you & what they've said by memory.

not an anonymous website,

That was from a forum member, not an anonymous website. See the urls i provided.

which specifically addresses Rom 1;20 and 16:26 and shows with credible evidence that my interpretation cannot be correct.

I see you've provided nothing showing the points i made to be incorrect.

Scripture speaks of "before times aionion" (2 Tim.1:9; Titus 1:2) & "before the aions" (1 Cor.2:7), so is not aionion related to time, rather than timelessness? And do those verses not indicate that the "times aionion" (and aions/eons) had a beginning? If they had a beginning, then how can aionion be speaking of timelessness or "transcending time"? The aions had a beginning (1 Cor.2:7) so are a part of time, not "transcending time". Also, the context of Rom.16:25-26 associates aionion (v.25) with "time":

25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times EONIAN,
26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the EONIAN God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience (CLV)

The Greek word mis translated "eternal" (Rom.16:26) is aionion (Strongs #166). What gives Sasse the idea it speaks of "transcendent time"? The context speaks of the aionion God's "command". Does God give His "command[ments]" in time or outside of time?

A literal more accurate translation of aionion (=eonian) in Rom.16:25-26 states:

25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times EONIAN,
26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the EONIAN God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience

A number of Greek scholars understand aionion in Rom.16:25 to refer to a finite duration, even among those biased to endless punishment. Just look at a few dozen Greek lexicons, dictionaries & translations to see for yourself. Even aionion in verse 26 doesn't require aionion mean eternal. A. Deisman discovered a tablet from the time of the ECF Origen that said God is aionian and more than aionian (epiaionion), making aionion in reference to God finite. Moreover, if aionion in v.25 is finite, then contextually one should consider that its use in v.26 of the context is likewise finite. Rom.16:25 refers to eons past that have ended. So in the same sentence continuing into v.26, the reference to eonian God can be to those past eons. That's the contextual case for the viewpoint that eonian in v.26 is also finite.

God was the eonian God over past eons that have already ended. Rom.16:25 refers to eons past that have ended. So in the same sentence continuing into v.26, the reference to eonian God can be to those past eons. That's a contextual case for the viewpoint that eonian in v.26 is also finite.

Oldmantook said [@ post # 287 below]:

"I agree that aidios conveys the sense of eternal, forever, etc. but that in itself does not automatically make it synonymous with aionios which is a completely different word. How did you make that leap of logic? That would be another logical fallacy commonly known as an overgeneralization. Did you not notice that in v.25 - the verse previous to Rom 16:26 - also contains the word aionios? This word cannot possibly mean eternal in this verse as it refers to a mystery previously kept secret but is now revealed. An “eternal” secret by plain definition can never be revealed thus the translators/scholars chose to translate aionios in v.25 as “long ages” or something equivalent. This then begs the question why these scholars chose to translate aionios in the very next verse as eternal instead of ages? What is the justification for changing its meaning from one verse to the next? And if Paul wanted to convey the meaning of an eternal God in v.26, why didn’t he employ aidios which does mean that? The context of these two verses describe God who reveals himself and his purpose to men through the prophets and the scriptures. Something that was once a mystery kept secret but now made manifest though the ages of time. Therefore v.26 can be properly translated as “and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith -” (YLT). God works out his manifest will through the ages making it known to all the nations - something that was previously a secret. Thus aionios in v.26 does not refer to God’s eternal nature but instead references his age-during ‘method’ of making his will known through the ages of time."https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ll-when-scripture-supports-it.8072784/page-15
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ure-supports-it.8072784/page-15#post-72968303

 

[ClementofA]

...

​

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be interchangeable since he used them as synonyms.

Scholars generally agree that - aion & aionios - sometimes (or often) refer to finite durations. So your conclusion is nothing but the logical fallacy of "begging the question":

"The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle." http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Begging-the-Question.html

This is your argument:

1. The AIDIOS God means eternal God
2. Paul speaks of the AIONION God.
3. Conclusion 1: therefore the two words are synonyms.
4. Conclusion 2: AIONION means eternal.

Even one with only high school or a first year college logic course under his belt would easily see how that argument fails to prove its case. The first conclusion doesn't logically follow from the first two premises. And you've provided nothing in support of why it should. So your argument is based on nothing. No evidence. It's like someone saying the tooth fairy exists & providing no evidence that it does.

Your argument is just like this argument:

1. The AIDIOS God means eternal God
2. Paul speaks of the (put any word here, call it XYZ) God.
3. Conclusion 1: therefore the two words are synonyms.

What makes them synonymous? You didn't say. You provided nothing as evidence that they are synonymous. Are two words automatically synonymous whenever they refer to God? No. Is "day" synonymous with "eternal" when Scripture says "day of God"? If someone said God was the "God of this age" (compare 2 Cor.4:4, god of this age) does that prove that "age" is synonymous with "eternal"? No.


I posted:

Evidently pure assumption based on no evidence. You only proved one side of the equation equals eternal, aidios, not aionios. Scholars agree aionios is used of finite duration.

Furthermore, just because a word is applied to God doesn't make it "eternal".

According to you the Greek word aion (eon) means "eternal". In 2 Cor.4:4 we read of the "god of this eon". But this eon will end, so it can't be "eternal".

Satan is the "god of this eon" (2 Cor.4:4). The "god" Satan's existence will be "eternal" just like God's existence. But just because the Satan-god is eternal, that doesn't make "eon" eternal when Scripture says he is the "god of this eon".

Likewise, neither does it make "eonian" eternal when it is applied to God in Rom.16:26.

Therefore your logic has holes in it & your argument fails.

Der Alter replied with:

Irrelevant smokescreen. Does not address my post in any way.

Is this supposed to make sense? How does this address my post?

Your argument provided no evidence in support of it. So i can only imagine what you think supports it, since you refuse to say. Therefore if you think it is supported by the premise that any word applied to God must mean eternal, you are wrong. As I said above.

Furthermore, with the example of 2 Cor.4:4, i showed how an - aionion god - can refer to a finite duration of the word aionion. Compare Rom.16:26, our verse under consideration, that speaks of the "aionion God". BTW in both cases the God referred to is "eternal".

I previously posted:

A number of Greek scholars understand Rom.16:25 to refer to a finite duration, even among those biased to endless punishment. Just look at a few dozen Greek lexicons, dictionaries & translations to see for yourself. Do you think you know more than them? Even verse 26 doesn't require aionios mean eternal. As my post documented, A. Deisman discovered a tablet from
the time of the ECF Origen that said God is eonian and more than eonian (epiaionion). Moreover, if aionios in v.25 is finite, then contextually one should consider that its use in v.26 of the context is likewise finite.

God was the eonian God over past eons that have already ended. Rom.16:25 refers to eons past that have ended. So in the same sentence continuing into v.26, the reference to eonian God can be to those past eons. That's a contextual case for the viewpoint that eonian in v.26 is also finite.

Der Alter only replied to the first of those two paragraphs with:

More of the same meaningless argumentation, without any support.

John Gill Rom 16:26 according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith; that is, it is by the express order and command of that God who is from everlasting to everlasting, that the mystery of the Gospel is made manifest by the preaching of the apostles being witnessed to by the law and prophets in all its doctrines; faith on Christ,..., Act_13:46; here is a clear proof that Christ is God, and that he is the everlasting God.

A literal more honest translation states:

25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, 26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience

"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?
"www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter9.htm
​

 

[Ripheus27]

The secret of the duration of Hell is that everyone there will be emojis in a forum thread about the duration of Hell... and as long as the thread continues, so will their damnation...

 

[ClementofA]

Can you quote any scholar who gave reasons why they categorized the citations they way they did?

Many scholars explain - why - they are translating a word a certain way in a particular context. Do you not read much?

 

[Der Alte]

Many scholars explain - why - they are translating a word a certain way in a particular context. Do you not read much?

For instance?

 

[ClementofA]

For instance?

For example Greek scholar Marvin Vincent's NT commentaries on biblehub.