Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

[ClementofA]

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

Which are "major lexicons"?

You have not proved anything. It is not unusual for scholars to disagree about a translation. A disagreement is not proof of error.

One lexicon (BDAG) saying verses A, B & C apply to "Aion Personified" & 4 other sources saying they don't means somebody is in error & wrong. It's as simple as that. And it's been proven.

Error would be one scholar saying something and another scholar providing historical or other credible evidence that the second scholar was wrong. You have not done that and likely you never will!

Error is error of any kind, not just that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ClementofA]

I'd like to see someone go into a court room and say "Your honor the evidence I have supporting my case is in a database which requires a somewhat expensive subscription to view."​

The same could be said re BDAG. Are you going to disqualify that also from counting as "evidence"?

Nope, TLG is one of a kind database that is why they can and do charge for their service.

The topic is not the entire database, but one single quote in Origen's commentary on John. Probably available for free in libraries & various online sources.

 

[ClementofA]

Wrong as usual! Do you verify every reference in every lexicon, grammar, dictionary etc. you consult? Neither do I nor anyone else that I know of. ​

If the claims in those works are based upon those references in a reference book (e.g. BDAG) & the ancient references are not "readily available to the average person" then according to your statement, they are not evidence:

​

No and don't intend to. "Evidence" which is not readily available to the average person is not evidence.

 

[Der Alte]

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

Show me how what I quoted, from BAG, differs in any significant way from your quote from BDAG? I have a scan of the entire aion article from BDAG and I can't find any difference.

 

[Der Alte]

If the claims in those works are based upon those references in a reference book (e.g. BDAG) & the ancient references are not "readily available to the average person" then according to your statement, they are not evidence:

Nonsense. Your argument has been refuted now you are arguing about irrelevant minutiae. Let me know when you start verifying every reference cited in standard reference works e..g BDAG. Do not waste my time trying to nit pick everything I say. What I said and I stand by is if some amateur on a forum like this quotes something as a source, that alleged source must be readily available to the average person. Virtually everything I quote or cite is readily available online, at local libraries, college libraries, local bookstores, etc. Citations in e.g. BDAG quote ancient sources such "E. Heracl. 900 (lyr.), cf. Corp.Herm. 11, etc.; as title of various divine beings, Dam. Pr. 151," which are not readily available to the average reader.

 

[Der Alte]

The same could be said re BDAG. Are you going to disqualify that also from counting as "evidence"?

More irrelevant minutae.

The topic is not the entire database, but one single quote in Origen's commentary on John. Probably available for free in libraries & various online sources.

Wrong, as usual. It is not about one out-of-context quote from Origen commentary on John. As I have shown that quote was cherry picked evidently to support Ramelli's agenda. When I read further in the same book you linked to I found a quote para. 60 which says "eternal life" "never perishes,""remains.""is not taken away,""[is not]consumed" and "[does not] perish." Since you appear to have a subscription to TLG why not quote the Greek of Origen commentary on John and prove that it does not say "aionios zoe" as I quoted.

 

[Der Alte]

Which are "major lexicons"?

Figure that out for yourself. A 20th century lexicon would certainly be more reliable than a 19th century.

One lexicon (BDAG) saying verses A, B & C apply to "Aion Personified" & 4 other sources saying they don't means somebody is in error & wrong. It's as simple as that. And it's been proven.'

Wrong again! Arguing from your agenda.. Please show me where any lexicon says "Col 1:26; Eph 3:9 do not apply to 'aion personified.'" I know for a fact that none of them say that.

Error is error of any kind, not just that.

Still wrong, uni agenda! A difference in opinion about one word is NOT an error.

Hermann Sasse says re "D. The Personification of Aion" that the "idea of a personal Aion...so important in Hellenistic syncretism is alien to the NT. It may perhaps be found only in Eph.2:2..." ("Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Vol. 1, p.207, editor, Gerhard Kittel).
Because TDNT doesn't know whether or not Eph.2:2 should be classified under section D, does that mean we shouldn't trust anything else in the 10 volume set?

Irrelevant a difference in opinion is NOT an error. That's uni agenda if someone can disqualify one or more of the standard references sources it will be easier to push the uni agenda.

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

What BDAG says about aeon as a person "Eph 2:2...Col 1:26; Eph 3:9... various other meanings have been suggested for these passages."

4. the aeon as a person, the Aeon (Rtzst., Erlosungsmyst. 268 index under Aion, Taufe 391 index; Epict. 2, 5, ou gar eimi aion all’ anthropos=I am not a being that lasts forever, but a human being [and therefore I know that whatever is must pass away Mesomedes 1, 1 7=Coll. Alex. p. 197, 17; Simplicius in Epict-p 81, 15 oi aiones beside the meter tes zoes and the demiourgos; En 9:4 kurios t. Kurion kai theos t, theon kai basileus t. aionon PGM 4, 520; .1169: 2198; 2314; 3168; 5, 468: AcPh 132 [AaII/2, 63, 5] Kephal I p 24, 6, 45, 7) o ai tou kosmou toutou at. Eph 2:2 The secret hidden from the aeons Col 1:26; Eph 3:9 (Rtzst., Erlosungsmyst. 235f); 1Eph 19:2 (Rtzt. 236, 2; various other meanings have been suggested for these passages.—CLackeit, ​

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

You do not know what you are talking about. You evidently do not know anything about how languages are translated or how lexicons are compiled.

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

My copy of LSJ does not list Eph 3:9 at all.

Thayer's lexicon, p.19, lists Eph.3:9 & Col.1:26 in terms of ages of time, not Aeons personified as BDAG does. So which is wrong, Thayer or BDAG? Which of the two should we not trust with anything they say, & throw in the trash?
The BDAG lexicon is opposed to the above 3 sources & others. Which should we not trust? Thayer, LSJ & TDNT, etc? Or BDAG?
Because TDNT doesn't know whether or not Eph.2:2 should be classified under section D, does that mean we shouldn't trust anything else in the 10 volume set?

You do not know what you are talking about. You are simply arguing to support your agenda. As with all heterodox religious groups if a standard reference, e.g. BDAG, Thayer etc., supports their agenda then it is right but if it contradicts their agenda then it must be wrong.

 

[he-man]

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

Funny but the verses that you Quote are masculine nouns and Not adjectives: 1 Co 1:20 'debater of this age..has God made foolish of this wisdom' and the manuscripts do not include the word "world" see attached file. Mt. 24:3 & 28:20 from G165 masculine noun from G5550 aion = space of time. The blue "T" shows the word touto instead of world. Ps. 90:2 is owlam, masculine, noun:

 

[ClementofA]

My copy of LSJ does not list Eph 3:9 at all.​

What is it, another one of your extremely abridged versions of books? Here is LSJ online with the reference to Eph.3:9:

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

Which i have posted to you before & took about 3 seconds to find online via an online search. Should we discount that as "evidence" according to your definition because most of the world don't use the internet & read English? As you said:

​

No and don't intend to. "Evidence" which is not readily available to the average person is not evidence.

And i said:

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

After you remarked re the Greek scholar Marvin Vincent:

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

Who says re aionios:

"The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting."

"...The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting."

".... Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods."

"...Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material can not carry in themselves the sense of endlessness."

"...There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded."

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

 

[ClementofA]

Funny but the verses that you Quote are masculine nouns and Not adjectives:

I'm well aware that aion is a noun. The subject is the entry of BDAG re Aion as a Personification in Hellenistic syncretism:

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

BTW the G in BDAG refers to Gingrich who wrote "4. the Aeon, a powerful evil spirit Eph 2:2; perh. Col 1:26." (Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 1957 and 1965, p.7).

The following sources disagree with BDAG:

1. LSJ Lexicon
2. TDNT Wordbook
3. Thayer's Lexicon
4. Spiros Zodhiates (multiple sources)
5. Vine's Dictionary
6. Mounce's Dictionary
7. Strongs (original)
8. Strongs (new)
9. Abbott-Smith Lexicon @

Strong's #165 - αἰών - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon

So who would you say is wrong & in error, all those 9 sources, or BDAG?

Here is an interesting opinion related to Gingrich's book:

"His most important study book was a matter of integrity named "Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament", which was also published by the University of Chicago in 1957. Arndt had nothing to do with it and some scholars (friends of Gingrich and associates say He did so to cover his credibility, as Arndt bullied his theology into "Baurer's translation by adding to the Greek word "psallo" a lie about the translation of the german lexicon did not have. This addition is in the Unabridged Lexicon of 1957 by Arndt and Gingrich. This shorted lexicon shows Gingrich to be in noncompliance with Arndt. Arndt died in 1957 and wanted to add his lexiconal theology to this word and did so. Gingrich by Dr. Danker and Dr. McCord corresponded about this clear error and addition to Bauers german Lexicon and Gingrich used his notes and still in 1957 put out the short Lexicon and does "psallo" correctly, to cover his integrity as a scholar, which Dr. Arndt had compromised for his "theology". This work by Gingrich is of the same Bauer materials they had researched for several years in German and have a clear difference in translating Bauer's german Lexicon, showing Dr. Arndt's error and uninspired championing mechanical instruments in worshipping. This book is a must in every honest student's library for a chronicle query about its place, why and difference with Arndt in translating Bauer's german Lexicon. It ought to be seen by every student of the Greek Text, yet you or few others even mention it, likely for the scandal it would raise and the truth about "psallo" among other words corrupted by the 1957 Unabridged Lexicon."

F. Wilbur Gingrich - Wikipedia

 

[Der Alte]

What is it, another one of your extremely abridged versions of books? Here is LSJ online with the reference to Eph.3:9:
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, αἰών
Which i have posted to you before & took about 3 seconds to find online via an online search. Should we discount that as "evidence" according to your definition because most of the world don't use the internet & read English? As you said:
And i said:
The LSJ lexicon lists Eph.3:9, but not under aion personified as BDAG does. So which is wrong, LSJ or BDAG? Which of the two should we not trust? (See The Liddell and Scott Greek–English Lexicon (9th edition, 1940), p.45).

Irrelevant! Perhaps you should educate yourself on how scholars translate and compile Lexicons. That different scholars place "aion" in a different minor category is not an error and is not a contradiction. If you had any knowledge of other languages you might know why.

After you remarked re the Greek scholar Marvin Vincent:

There is a difference between one scholar disagreeing with other scholars in which minor category "aion" belongs is different than one scholar saying "maybe this, maybe that."

Who says re aionios:
"The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting."
"...The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting."
".... Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods."
"...Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material can not carry in themselves the sense of endlessness."
"...There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded."

Except when it doesn't always carry the notion of time, and not of eternity. As it does in the two passages quoted below and also the following verses
Hebrews 7:4, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, Philemon 1:15, John 6:58, John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7

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

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

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 [αἰώνιος/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;[πρόσκαιρος/proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios]​

Here “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Aionios” cannot mean “age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is.

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 [αἰώνιος/aionios] in the heavens.​

Here “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” An “aionios” house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus “aionios” means “eternal.” And these conclusions are always valid unless someone can show me where any NT writer equated "aion" with something less than eternal as aion is equated with "immortal" or aionios is contrasted with "for a moment,""temporary

 

[ClementofA]

Irrelevant! Perhaps you should educate yourself on how scholars translate and compile Lexicons. That different scholars place "aion" in a different minor category is not an error and is not a contradiction. If you had any knowledge of other languages you might know why.

See post 850. Nine sources that oppose BDAG. Either those 9 well known lexicons, dictionaries & others or wrong - or - BDAG is wrong & in error.

There is a difference between one scholar disagreeing with other scholars in which minor category "aion" belongs is different than one scholar saying "maybe this, maybe that."

BDAG lists 4 categories in bold type under aion. What makes these minor?

Being just flat out wrong is worse than being unsure between 2 possibilities in the total range of possibilities. And evidently BDAG fails in both points, as i've shown already. Likewise TDNT is unsure between 2 opposing options. And you've already admitted lexicons disagree in many points, so they are unsure as a group. Does that mean we should throw them all away, as you said:

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

Many Christian commentators are unsure on one or more points. Do you then throw out everything they've ever said? Christianity is divided re 100's of doctrines & into 100's of denominations. Does that mean one should throw out the Scriptures & the baby with the bath water?

Except when it doesn't always carry the notion of time, and not of eternity.

A few examples where the word/s - in context - mean eternity would not refute what Vincent said. Apparently you don't understand his meaning.

 

[he-man]

See post 850. Nine sources that oppose BDAG. Either those 9 well known lexicons, dictionaries & others or wrong - or - BDAG is wrong & in error. BDAG lists 4 categories in bold type under aion. What makes these minor? Being just flat out wrong is worse than being unsure between 2 possibilities in the total range of possibilities. And evidently BDAG fails in both points, as i've shown already. Likewise TDNT is unsure between 2 opposing options. And you've already admitted lexicons disagree in many points, so they are unsure as a group. Does that mean we should throw them all away, as you said:
Many Christian commentators are unsure on one or more points. Do you then throw out everything they've ever said? Christianity is divided re 100's of doctrines & into 100's of denominations. Does that mean one should throw out the Scriptures & the baby with the bath water? A few examples where the word/s - in context - mean eternity would not refute what Vincent said. Apparently you don't understand his meaning.

BDAG is in error. "If one does not know the meaning of a word, one is predisposed to trust the only means of rescue from ignorance.. If we wish to understand scripture accurately, then we must understand Greek accurately".
2015 | Septuaginta &c.

 

[Der Alte]

See post 850. Nine sources that oppose BDAG. Either those 9 well known lexicons, dictionaries & others or wrong - or - BDAG is wrong & in error.

Let me know when you have earned a graduate degree in Greek and have several years researching, teaching etc. then you might have the qualifications to determine what is or is not an error in BDAG or any other Greek resource.

BDAG lists 4 categories in bold type under aion. What makes these minor?

I don't understand the question. See previous reply, above.

Being just flat out wrong is worse than being unsure between 2 possibilities in the total range of possibilities. And evidently BDAG fails in both points, as i've shown already. Likewise TDNT is unsure between 2 opposing options. And you've already admitted lexicons disagree in many points, so they are unsure as a group. Does that mean we should throw them all away, as you said:

Once again I do not think you have the necessary qualifications to make these arguments.

Many Christian commentators are unsure on one or more points. Do you then throw out everything they've ever said? Christianity is divided re 100's of doctrines & into 100's of denominations. Does that mean one should throw out the Scriptures & the baby with the bath water?

Word Studies in the New Testament, Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, 1887. Vincent was a good resource for his time but he did not have the advantage of the large body of archaeological discoveries e.g. Qumran/DSS, and research since his death. But I can understand why Universalists want to elevate him over all the other Greek resources.

A few examples where the word/s - in context - mean eternity would not refute what Vincent said. Apparently you don't understand his meaning.

Do you know the difference between a writer using a word to refer to something/someone which the word does not fit and defining/describing the word itself as in the 13 vss. I listed above? See e.g. Numbers 13:33

 

[ClementofA]

Let me know when you have earned a graduate degree in Greek and have several years researching, teaching etc. then you might have the qualifications to determine what is or is not an error in BDAG or any other Greek resource.

This is irrelevant to the issue in question.

Also poster "he-man" appears to - get it - & said BDAG is wrong:

BDAG is in error.

Word Studies in the New Testament, Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, 1887. Vincent was a good resource for his time but he did not have the advantage of the large body of archaeological discoveries e.g. Qumran/DSS, and research since his death. But I can understand why Universalists want to elevate him over all the other Greek resources.

That also is not pertinent to the topic under discussion.

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

BTW the G in BDAG refers to Gingrich who wrote "4. the Aeon, a powerful evil spirit Eph 2:2; perh. Col 1:26." (Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 1957 and 1965, p.7).

The following sources disagree with BDAG:

1. LSJ Lexicon
2. TDNT Wordbook
3. Thayer's Lexicon
4. Spiros Zodhiates (multiple sources)
5. Vine's Dictionary
6. Mounce's Dictionary
7. Strongs (original)
8. Strongs (new)
9. Abbott-Smith Lexicon @

Strong's #165 - αἰών - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon

So who would you say is wrong & in error, all those 9 sources, or BDAG?

 

[ClementofA]

Do you know the difference between a writer using a word to refer to something/someone which the word does not fit and defining/describing the word itself as in the 13 vss. I listed above? See e.g. Numbers 13:33

You've shown no proof for the words aion, aionios, olam or ad being defined as "eternal" (or "forever") in every occurrence of the Scriptures or Koine Greek in general, except when used in hyperbole.

Likewise you've also shown no proof that any of these words have the same definition & usage as the English words "eternal" or "forever".

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
Aeon - Wikipedia
AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS
The Greek Words "aion" and "aionios," do these words mean "eternal" or "everlasting"?

 

[ClementofA]

Show me how what I quoted, from BAG, differs in any significant way from your quote from BDAG? I have a scan of the entire aion article from BDAG and I can't find any difference.

You said:

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

I replied that BDAG doesn't say that.

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

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

For you said:

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

 

[ClementofA]

Nonsense. Your argument has been refuted now you are arguing about irrelevant minutiae. Let me know when you start verifying every reference cited in standard reference works e..g BDAG. Do not waste my time trying to nit pick everything I say. What I said and I stand by is if some amateur on a forum like this quotes something as a source, that alleged source must be readily available to the average person. Virtually everything I quote or cite is readily available online, at local libraries, college libraries, local bookstores, etc. Citations in e.g. BDAG quote ancient sources such "E. Heracl. 900 (lyr.), cf. Corp.Herm. 11, etc.; as title of various divine beings, Dam. Pr. 151," which are not readily available to the average reader.

You dismiss TLG as evidence because it is a pay service. Now you include as evidence buying books. How is that not a double standard?

As i said:

If the claims in those works are based upon those references in a reference book (e.g. BDAG) & the ancient references are not "readily available to the average person" then according to your statement, they are not evidence:

No and don't intend to. "Evidence" which is not readily available to the average person is not evidence.

 

[ClementofA]

Wrong, as usual. It is not about one out-of-context quote from Origen commentary on John.

Incorrect. You dismissed the Greek text i provided from the TLG site because it doesn't qualify under your definition of "evidence":

No and don't intend to. "Evidence" which is not readily available to the average person is not evidence.

How do you know that particular quote of Origen re "after eternal life" is not "readily available to the average person"? As in libraries, for example.

Irrelevant a difference in opinion is NOT an error.

Here is a difference of opinion:

1. Dogs are human beings.
2. Dogs are not human beings.

Which is wrong and in error?

 

[ClementofA]

Figure that out for yourself. A 20th century lexicon would certainly be more reliable than a 19th century.

Then you should consider changing your opinion re aionios. Since now you are closer to the 19th century opinion of Thayer than 21st century BDAG. BDAG disagrees with you. So who is wrong & in error, you or BDAG?

BTW BDAG says nothing about aion or aionios ever being used in hyperbole. Whereas you evidently think they often are.

You also have been unable to quote a single lexicon, church father or commentary in the past 4000 years that supports your viewpoint.