• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Could most modern translations be in error?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by ClementofA, Aug 26, 2018.

  1. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +28,685
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The text says reconciling things on earth and in Heaven. See no LoF there.

    This is demonstrated when the earthly joins the heavenly of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21.
     
  2. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    After reading the OP, please explain in your own words how it would argue that the first of these English language "opinions" (often called "translations" rather than "opinions" of men) of the ancient Koine Greek "Scriptures" is unfaithful & misleading and the second is not in its rendering of the Greek word aionion:

    Matthew 25:46

    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
    King James Version (KJV)

    And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian.
    Concordant Literal New Testament (CLV)

    BTW i added two paragraphs to the start of the OP. And reading post #4 in this thread might help with answering the question above.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2018
  3. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +2,452
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    <OT>Indeed, believers are reconciled and remain reconciled IF (a condition) they continue in their faith. That is a given. However, did you not even notice that the stated purpose of God is to RECONCILE ALL THINGS TO HIMSELF. How is it then that the doomed sinners in the lake of fire are reconciled to God when they remain forever unreconciled to God and are tormented for it in hell/LOF? Inquiring minds want to know Der Alter.,<end>
    Maybe I missed it did you answer my question, somewhere? Here it is again, "If those who have already been reconciled to God have to continue in their faith and do not move from the hope in the gospel to continue to be reconciled, what do the unrepentant have to do and when do they have do it?"
    .....Follow on question. Paul presupposes that some who have been reconciled will depart from the faith and will move from the hope in the gospel. What do you think happens if they do not meet the condition Paul stated? Does God reconcile them again?

    [NIV]Hebrews 6:4-6
    (4) It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
    (5) who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age
    (6) and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

     
  4. Hillsage

    Hillsage One for Him and Him for all Supporter

    +1,149
    United States
    Charismatic
    Married
    I don't know if I'm alone in my thoughts here, but I believe reconciliation is a two way street. First, is US being reconciled to GOD. Second is GOD being reconciled to US. Jesus paid the price for all humanity as far as God is concerned at the cross. Matters not if you believe or don't believe, it was His unilateral work and it is a finished work. Since the cross WE have been given the ministry of reconciliation to man. We can't say God will forgive and reconcile you, when you believe. That's not biblical.

    ROM 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

    And when did this reconciliation happen? When Jesus died, or when we believed? It was by his DEATH not his life.

    2CO 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

    Nothing here is saying we have to 'believe' to be reconciled 'to' God. But, if 'we believe' then God will be reconciled TO US, because it is US who is at enmity with God as unbelievers. His enmity was taken care of by Jesus. Debt paid in full for all and forever. And our part in the "ministry of reconciliation" is not to tell people you will be forgiven if you believe. Our message is Jesus DID DIE for the forgiveness of your sins 2000 years ago. So quit being unreconciled toward God and start SAVING your lives with the imparted life of Jesus. That was Peter's message on Pentecost; He told them to 'repent', get 'water baptized', and then 'receive the Holy Spirit' and then.... "SAVE YOURSELVES from this wicked generation." Hmmm, nothing about saving ourselves from ETERNAL HELL. He must have 'forgot' that important orthodox doctrine (for our Armenian brothers).

    Now, is there still judgment from God upon those of us who have believed? You bet there is, scripture is full of it. But it's purpose isn't to 'GET US TO HEAVEN', it's to get 'the HELL out of us' here and now that we might be "overcomers", that we might experience "life AND life abundant" 'here AND hereafter'.

    The 'eternal' reconciliation is His part. Working out the 'temporal' reconciliation of 'God is on my/our side', is our part.

    So, OMT am I alone in this 'reconciliation is a two way street' understanding?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  5. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +28,685
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The various versions of the KJV do not have penalty so please cite your source for the above.

    In the 1611 KJV which many of the KJV-onlyists like to quote it is shown as:

    46 And these shall goe away into euerlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternall.

    In the Authorized KJV Bible:

    46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    In the KJV for Public Domain:

    46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


    In the 21st Century KJV (KJV21):

    46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.”

    Not seeing your version of the KJV show up on any of the public resources. If you can provide the source that would be helpful and appreciated.

    Some other earlier English language versions should be noted as well:
    From the Douay-Rheims 1899 Edition:

    46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

    1599 Geneva Bible:

    46 And these shall go into everlasting pain, and the righteous into life eternal.

    Wycliffe Bible:

    46 And these shall go into everlasting torment; but the just men shall go into everlasting life.

    Bishops Bible 1568:

    46 And these shall go into euerlastyng payne: the ryghteous into lyfe eternall.

    Now for two Messianic Jewish English translations:

    Orthodox Jewish Bible (The Orthodox Jewish Bible, completed by Phillip Goble in 2002, is an English language version that applies Yiddish and Hasidic cultural expressions to the Messianic Bible.)

    46 And these will go away into Onesh Olam (Eternal Punishment), but the tzaddikim into Chayyei Olam (Eternal Life). YESHAYAYAH 66:24; DANIEL 12:2]

    Complete Jewish Bible (The New Testament section is Dr. Stern's original translation from the ancient Greek.)

    46 They will go off to eternal punishment, but those who have done what God wants will go to eternal life.”

    I would be remiss if I did not leave the Greek experts for last but certainly not least.
    The Eastern Greek Orthodox New Testament: Based on the Official Text of the Greek Orthodox Church (Patriarchal Text of 1904)

    46 These ones [on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

    What is different with all other English language translations and the CLV one above? Consistency with regards to the actual word used to describe the duration of the punishment (in your case chastening) and life. We all know this to be "aionion."

    The difference between the CLV and all others is the use of 'chastening.' I gather you are deriving from the CLV the notion that chastening is something that is limited. That in the case of aionion chastening there will be some time where it will cease. However, you are also suggesting that aionion life is never ending? Am I correct in the above would be your position?

    If this is correct then you would be advocating 'aionion' can be made to modify more than one meaning. In this case where both punishment/chastening and life are both clearly αἰώνιον and Adjective with the case accusative, gender feminine and number singular. There is no differentiation here so the context must tell us something. The context is judgement. Those who do what Jesus says end up with ζωὴν αἰώνιον (life aionion) and those who are disobedient end up with κόλασιν αἰώνιον (punishment aionion). (see here)

    Yet the issue here is you cannot have a finite version of aionion and an infinite version of aionion in the very same sentence or passage without further explanation in the text. Put more clearly you are advocating aionion means a finite duration for punishment/chastening for the disobedient, but means an eternal (no duration, infinite) life for the obedient to Christ. Question is how do you justify such from the actual text of Matthew 25?

    By your previous posts and OP, it seems you are advocating κόλασιν as translated in the vast majority of English translations as punishment or torment is mistranslated and should be chastening. In that making the word in English chastening makes such a finite duration. Would you like to explain this? Meaning how did the CLV come up with chastening from κόλασιν (kolasin) and by extension why you believe such a translation would indicate a limited time duration?



    For reference here are several other English translations of verse 46:

    New International Version
    "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

    New Living Translation
    "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life."

    English Standard Version
    And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    Berean Study Bible
    And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    Berean Literal Bible
    And these will go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into eternal life."

    New American Standard Bible
    "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

    King James Bible
    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    Christian Standard Bible
    “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    Contemporary English Version
    Then Jesus said, "Those people will be punished forever. But the ones who pleased God will have eternal life."

    Good News Translation
    These, then, will be sent off to eternal punishment, but the righteous will go to eternal life."

    Holman Christian Standard Bible
    "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

    International Standard Version
    These people will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life."

    NET Bible
    And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

    New Heart English Bible
    These will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life."

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English
    And these will go into eternal torture, and the righteous into eternal life.”

    GOD'S WORD® Translation
    "These people will go away into eternal punishment, but those with God's approval will go into eternal life."

    New American Standard 1977
    “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    Jubilee Bible 2000
    And they shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

    King James 2000 Bible
    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    American King James Version
    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    American Standard Version
    And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

    Darby Bible Translation
    And these shall go away into eternal punishment, and the righteous into life eternal.

    English Revised Version
    And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.

    Webster's Bible Translation
    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

    Weymouth New Testament
    "And these shall go away into the Punishment of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life of the Ages."

    World English Bible
    These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

    Young's Literal Translation
    And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

    Finally, the most mechanical word for word modern translation the Lexham English Bible (LEB):

    Lexham English Bible
    And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


    Greek Texts:

    ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 25:46 Greek NT: Nestle 1904
    καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

    ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 25:46 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort 1881
    καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

    ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 25:46 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort / [NA27 and UBS4 variants]
    καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

    ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 25:46 Greek NT: RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
    Καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον· οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

    ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 25:46 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
    καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

    ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 25:46 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Edition
    καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

    ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 25:46 Greek NT: Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
    καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον· οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

    ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 25:46 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
    καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

    Matthew 25:46 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
    καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

    Link to Greek Texts
     
  6. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Obviously that was a typo:

    After reading the OP, please explain in your own words how it would argue that the first of these English language "opinions" (often called "translations" rather than "opinions" of men) of the ancient Koine Greek "Scriptures" is unfaithful & misleading and the second is not in its rendering of the Greek word aionion:

    Matthew 25:46

    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
    King James Version (KJV)

    And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian.
    Concordant Literal New Testament (CLV)

    BTW i added two paragraphs to the start of the OP. And reading post #4 in this thread might help with answering the question above.
     
  7. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek Humbly Attempted by Nathaniel Scarlett Assisted by Men of Piety & Literature with notes, 1798:
    "And These will go away into onian punishment: but the righteous into onian life."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    The question i asked was about the translation of the word aionion in Mt.25:46, not kolasin. I have made no remarks regarding whether or not i think the latter word has been correctly translated in any version. And that is off topic, as is your entire comment above.


    The Universalist position does not depend on NT usage holding such a distinction, but only that in contexts where such words occur (e.g. Mt.25:46; 2 Pet.2:9), in reference to Divinely given eschatological &/or postmortem punishment, they are not indicative of vindictive retributive punishment, but rather of a corrective punishing or chastening for the good of the offender.

    As to the "wide gulf" referred to, the following sources allege that the words under consideration were used of corrective punishment before, soon after & at the time of Christ.

    According to this alleged quote of Trench κόλασις, as opposed to τιμωρία, has "more the notion of punishment as it has reference to the correction and bettering of the offender (see Philo, Leg, ad Cai. I; Josephus, Antt. ii. 6. 8); it is ‘castigatio,’ and naturally has for the most part a milder use than τιμωρία. Thus Plato (Protag. 323 e) joins κολάσεις and νουθετήσεις together: and the whole passage to the end of the chapter is eminently instructive as to the distinction between the words: οὐδεὶς κολάζει τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας ὅτι ἠδίκησεν, ὅστις μὴ ὥσπερ θηρίον ἀλογίστως τιμωρεῖται, ... ἀλλὰ τοῦ μέλλοντος χάριν ἵνα μὴ αὖθις ἀδικήσῃ; the same change in the words which he employs, occurring again twice or thrice in the sentence; with all which may be compared what Clement of Alexandria has said, Strom. iv. 24; and again vii. 16, where he defines κολάσεις as μερικαὶ παιδεῖαι, and τιμωρία as κακοῦ ἀνταπόδοσις. And this is Aristotle’s distinction (Rhet. i. 10): διαφέρει δὲ τιμωρία καὶ κόλασις· ἡ μὲν γὰρ κόλασις τοῦ πάσχοντος ἕνεκά ἐστιν· ἡ δὲ τιμωρία, τοῦ ποιοῦντος, ἵνα ἀποπληρωθῇ: cf. Ethic. Nic. iv. 5: τιμωρία παύει τῆς ὀργῆς, ἠδονῆν ἀντὶ τῆς λύπης ἐμποιοῦσα. It is to these and similar definitions that Aulus Gellius refers when he says (Noct. Att. vi. 14): ‘Puniendis peccatis tres esse debere causas existimatum est. Una est quae νουθεσία, vel, κόλασις, vel παραίνεσις dicitur; *** poena adhibetur castigandi atque emendandi gratiâ; ut is qui fortuito deliquit, attentior fiat, correctiorque. Altera est quam ii, qui vocabula ista curiosius diviserunt, τιμωρίαν appellant. Ea causa animadvertendi est, *** dignitas auctoritasque ejus, in quem est peccatum, tuenda est, ne praetermissa animadversio contemtum ejus pariat, et honorem levet: idcircoque id ei vocabulum a conservatione honoris factum putant.’ There is a profound commentary on these words in Göschel’s Zerstreute Blätter, part 2, p. 343–360; compare too an instructive note in Wyttenbach’s Animadd. in Plutarch. vol. xii. p. 776." https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/trench/section.cfm?sectionID=7

    So in favor of κόλασις (or κολάζω) being corrective Trench lists quotes from Plato, Aristotle, Philo, Josephus, Aulus Gellius & Clement of Alexandria. To those we could add early church universalists such as Oregon, Gregory Nyssa & many others. Moulton & Milligan continue to add to that list as follows:

    "The meaning ";cut short,"; which the presumable connexion with κόλος and κολούω would suggest, seems to be the original sense of the word. In the Paris Thesaurus we find quotations for the meaning ";prune"; (κόλασις τῶν δένδρων), and a number of late passages where the verb denotes ";correcting,"; ";cutting down"; a superfluity. Thus Galen ad Galatians 1:1-24 τὰ γὰρ ἐναντία τῶν ἐναντίων ἰάματά ἐστι, κολάζοντα μὲν τὸ ὑπερβάλλον. Of course this may be a derived sense, like that of castigo and of our ";correct,"; but in any case it is clearly a familiar sense during the NT period, and we cannot leave it out of consideration when we examine this very important word." https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/2849.html

    In addition to those, under the section on κολάζω in TDNT, J. Schneider notes regarding "inscr. given by Steinleitner from Phrygian and Lydian monuments of the imperial period" that in "these inscriptions the sins punished by deity are those against the deity itself, e.g. violations of the sacred cultic laws. The deity smites the offender with sickness and infirmity, or even punishes himself and his family with death. The sinner can win back the grace of the deity only by open confession of his guilt. In this way alone can he be liberated from sickness and misfortune."

    TDNT adds regarding Philo's view of the "legislative power of God" that this "power divides into two branches, the one for the rewarding of the good and the other for the punishment of sinners. Philo's view of God includes the insight that in God mercy is older than punishment (Deus Imm.,76) and that God would rather forgive than punish (Spec.Leg., II,196...). Punishment is for those who are not amenable to reason (Agric.,40). Thus punishment may seem to be the greatest evil, but it is to be regarded as the greatest blessing for fools, loc. cit. This is a Stoic view" ("Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", TDNT, ed. G. Kittel, Vol.3, p.815).

    The "New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis" (NIDNTTE, ed. Moises Silva, 2014, Vol. II, p.716-718) concurs with TDNT's remarks above.

    NIDTTE also refers to the 5 NT occurrences of the "derived vb. κολαφίζω" (kolaphizo, Strongs # 2852), "to strike (with the fist), fig. torment". It is used twice of "the Jewish leaders who struck Jesus during his trial before the Sanhedrin (Matt 26:67 = Mark 14:65)." (NIDTTE, p.718).

    "Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him," (Mt.26:67; NASB).

    There are no indications of an intent to correct Jesus via such actions by these evil human beings. Rather it seems vindictive or sadistic. Likewise with the occurrences of kolaphizo at 1 Pet.2:20 & 1 Cor.4:11, does the "buffeting" or ""to strike (with the fist), fig. torment" have no hint of correction.

    In all 4 cases of kolaphizo mentioned so far, they all are at the hands of men & do not indicate a corrective or beneficial purpose to those receiving such "torments". However, in the 5th occurrence of this word in the New Testament, that changes.

    In 2 Cor.12:7 is the only one of the 5 that refer to a Divinely given kolaphizo (compare Mt.25:46). In this context the Lord gives Paul a thorn in the flesh to "torment" or "buffet" [κολαφίζῃ] him, not as a sadistic or vindictive retribution with no thought of benefit to Paul, but rather for Paul's own good:

    "7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong."

    In Matthew 25:46, like 2 Cor.12:7, is another New Testament instance of Divinely given sufferings, usually translated "punishment" (κόλασιν) (v.46) of "fire" (v.41). Shall it not also be, as the Divinely given sufferings of 2 Cor.12:7, for the good of the recipients?

    Clearly the words under consideration are not always used of correction. So in order to determine whether or not their usage in eschatological and/or postmortem passages like Matthew 25:46 & 2 Peter 2:9 is corrective, one must consider the contexts. In that light, therefore, it seems questionable what use there would be in an examination of all of the many ancient Greek occurrences of the words. Will they inform us of the view of the New Testament God of love in regard to how He interprets them in an eschatological context? Or do extrabiblical usages, such as you've cited above, often come under the classification of false gods, fables & myths which are to be rejected, as in:

    "Not giving heed to Jewish myths, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14).

    2 Timothy 4:4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

    Do we find out what the real - good - God thinks on a subject by studying what the - evil - false gods think about it? Or how - evil - revengeful, bitter men with sadistic motivations use the words in question? They will punish from their own - evil - motives, whereas the - good - God, Love Omnipotent, always does so from the motive of the betterment of His created beings.

    In support of that there is much to be brought forth from the inspired Scriptures & nothing in opposition to it. There are examples where His wrath, destruction, wounding, punishment, anger and torments are intended for the good of those who receive such. And no examples to the contrary.

    Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

    Matthew 25:46: “And these shall be coming away into chastening(kolasin) eonian, yet the just into life eonian.” (CLV)...1 John 4:18: “for fear has chastening(kolasin).” (CLV)

    The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. Luke 12:47-48a
     
  9. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    My question was about - translation - not interpretation. As to interpretation, i already posted - to you - earlier in this thread (post #4) what i consider to be the two best ways for universalists to interpret Mt.25:46:

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

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

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

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

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

    Furthermore, since aionion is an adjective, it "must therefore function like an adjective, and it is the very nature of an adjective for its meaning to vary, sometimes greatly, depending upon which noun it qualifies." A tall chair is not the same height as a tall mountain. Likewise, the aionion punishment is not of the same duration as the aionion life.

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


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

    Augustine was rather ignorant of Greek.

    For some other parallels in Scripture consider:

    Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for ALL MANKIND for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for ALL MANKIND for life's justifying."

    Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, THE MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, THE MANY shall be constituted just."

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

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

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


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

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

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

    He quotes Mt.12:31:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Many other versions do likewise.

    Some literal translations of Mt.25:46 have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    continued in my next post...
     
  10. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    "Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "There are as many eons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one eon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow’s life, another of an oak’s life. The length of the eon depends on the subject to which it is attached." (WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D."
    https://www.hopefaithprayer.com/books/Word-Studies-in-the-New-Testament-Vol-3&4-Marvin-R-Vincent.pdf

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

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

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

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

    Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for ALL MANKIND for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for ALL MANKIND for life's justifying."
    Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, THE MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, THE MANY shall be constituted just."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    ---
     
  11. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +28,685
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Perhaps if you address the entire post I made you will see the relevance to the OP and Matthew 25:46 you quoted. Here are my comments below.



     
  12. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +28,685
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You see this as the millennial kingdom? If so, then how can purgatorial chastisement happen for the disobedient without the Resurrection of the dead?
     
  13. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Already addressed in posts 167, 168, 169 & 170 above before you posted that.
     
  14. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Who said anything about "purgatorial chastisement"? Purging of sins is by the blood of Jesus, both in the premortem & in the postmortem. It hasn't lost it's power & never will.
    It doesn't suddenly become powerless, impotent & useless for those for whom it was shed, just because a person has died in their sins.

    As to the salvation of those who died in their sins & went to Hades (cf. Lk.16:19-31), why would they need a bodily resurrection to get saved? Why couldn't they get saved there?
     
  15. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Already addressed here:

    https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ure-supports-it.8072784/page-38#post-73113254

    https://www.christianforums.com/threads/impossible-to-renew-unto-repentance-heb-6-3-6.8073582/

    Heb.10:28 A man that hath set at nought Moses' law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

    Stoning to death is not a very sore or long lasting punishment. People suffered far worse deaths via the torture methods of the eternal hell believing Medieval Inquisitionists and the German Nazis under Hitler.

    Therefore, if the writer of Hebrews believed that wicked, rebellious, Christ rejectors would be punished with something so monstrous as being endlessly annihilated or tormented, he would not have chosen to compare their punishment to something so lame as being stoned to death. Clearly he did not believe Love Omnipotent is an unfeeling terminator machine or sadist who abandons forever the beings He created in His own image & likeness so easily.

    https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
    http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/unique_proof_for_universalism.html

    http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html
     
  16. ClementofA

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private

    Here is what BDAG says:

    "...found only in Christian writers...reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20..." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd edition, 2000, p.112).

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

    "...Jesus existed before all things, He created all things, He holds together all things, and He will reconcile all things. And what does it mean for God to "reconcile to himself
    all things"? It is clear that the word reconcile means more than squashing opposition. It means a full restoration of peace and harmony."

    "...The "all things" of verse 20 is as extensive as the "all things" of verse 16. So just as God created everything and everybody through Christ, so He will reconcile everything
    and everybody through Christ (not everything except most of humanity!). The universe will be completely restored to its original perfection and peace. No one will be at enmity
    with God or with one another. He will completely fulfill "the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure"—"to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one
    head, even Christ" (Ephesians 1:10). Going from the depths of mankind's depravity to the total reconciliation of everyone to God and to each other will be more glorious than if we had never fallen in the first place. The restoration of every single relationship to perfect harmony through the work of reconciliation on the cross will be the most spectacular demonstration imaginable of the grace and justice and wisdom and power and love of God."
    http://blogs.christianpost.com/amba...e-heart-of-gods-grand-plan-for-creation-7138/

    "Just as His glories in creation take us back to the very beginning, so the greater glories of reconciliation take us to the very consummation. The universal reconciliation cannot be fully accomplished till the close of the eonian times, when all sovereignty and authority and power and even death are rendered inoperative (1Cor.15:24-27)...(Concordant Commentary, AE Knoch, 1968, Col.1:20, p.303).

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

    The context shows that verses 21-23 are a different topic from verses 16-20 in which the parallel of verses 16 & 20 occur. In v.21-23 the subject is not all creation as in v.16,20, but instead the Colossians, the saints. Paul says they will be presented "holy in His sight" (v.22) if they continue in the faith, clearly a reference to a specific time, the time when they meet the Lord, which for these saints would have been when they died, & for others when He returns. So v.22-23 refer to a time no later than the second coming & tell us nothing about reconciliation possibilities for "all" beyond that time. So verses 22-23 in no way limit the parallel of verses 16 & 20 from being a future universal reconciliation of created beings in the ages to come after the Lord's return, such as in the millennial age or in the ages of the new heavens & new earth. Nowhere does Paul say of those who don't continue in the faith that they are excluded from the "all" of verse 20. Therefore your specious argument fails.

    It's quite astonishing that many insist that the parallel of aionios in Mt.25:46 means the word must be of the same meaning & duration in both instances, but they don't apply the same reasoning to other passages with parallels, such as Col.1:20 above and these:

    Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for ALL MANKIND for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for ALL MANKIND for life's justifying."

    Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, THE MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, THE MANY shall be constituted just."

    1 Cor.15:22 AS in Adam ALL die - so also - in Christ shall ALL be made alive.

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

    ClementofA Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,153
    Non-Denom
    Private
    What presuppositions & biases do seminaries of alleged "orthodoxy" have? What spirit influences the - world - of "many colleges" & universities? An anti-christian spirit, perhaps? cf. 2 Cor.4:4.

    Here is what BDAG says re Col.1:20:

    "...found only in Christian writers...reconcile everything in his own person, i.e. the universe is to form a unity, which has its goal in Christ Col 1:20..." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd edition, 2000, p.112).

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

    This states the purpose of Love Omnipotent's - divine will - in sending His Son:

    For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world would be saved through Him. (Jn.3:17)

    The IVA ("that") is used in Jn.3:17 above. BDAG says “In many cases purpose and result cannot be clearly differentiated, and hence ἵνα is used for the result that follows according to the purpose of the subj. or of God. As in Semitic and Gr-Rom. thought, purpose and result are identical in declarations of the *divine will*…” https://translate.academic.ru/ἵνα/el/xx/

    The IVA also occurs in Phil.2:9-11:

    Phil.2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (NASB)

    What is the "world" in Jn.1:29; 3:17, 4:42 according to BDAG? According to BDAG by "world" in such verses is meant "humanity in general". Jesus Himself would be the only exception:

    The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (Jn.1:29)
    They said to the woman, "We now believe not only because of your words; we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man truly is the Savior of the world. (Jn.4:42)
    For God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world would be saved through Him. (Jn.3:17)

    And BDAG again, re Rom.5:18, is quoted in this commentary:

    "Paul declares, however, that the effects of Christ's obedience are far greater for mankind than the effect of Adam's fall. For the third (5:15) and fourth (5:17) times in this chapter he makes explicit use of the 'qal wahomer' ("from minor to major") form of argument that is commonly used in rabbinic literature, expressed by "much more"...cf. earlier use at 5:9,10...And as in the case of the typology previously used (5:14), here, too, the form of the argument is antithetical. The grace of God extended to humanity in the event of Christ's death has abounded "for the many" (5:15b), which corresponds to the "all" of 5:12,18. The free gift given by God in Christ more than matches the sin of Adam and its effects; it exceeds it..."

    "Contrasts are also seen in the results of the work of each. Adam's trespass or disobedience has brought condemnation (κατάκριμα, 5:18); through his act many were made sinners (5:19). Christ's "act of righteousness" results in "justification of life" (δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) for all (5:18). The term δικαίωσιν can be translated as "justification" (NIV, NRSV; but RSV has "acquittal") - the opposite of "condemnation". The word ζωῆς ("of life") is a genitive of result, providing the outcome of justification, so that the phrase may be rendered "justification resulting in life". 108

    108. BDAG 250 (δικαίωσιν): "acquittal that brings life". The construction is variously called a "genitive of apposition", an "epexegetical genitive" or "genitive of purpose". Cf. BDF 92 (S166). The meaning is the same in each case: justification which brings life."

    "The universality of grace in Christ is shown to surpass the universality of sin. Christ's "act of righteousness" is the opposite of Adam's "tresspass" and equivalent to Christ's "obedience", which was fulfilled in his being obedient unto death (Phil 2:8). The results of Christ's righteous action and obedience are "justification resulting in life for all persons"...5:18...and "righteousness" for "many" (5:19). The term "many" in 5:19 is equivalent to "all persons", and that is so for four reasons: (1) the parallel in 5:18 speaks in its favor; (2) even as within 5:19 itself, "many were made sinners" applies to all mankind, so "many will be made righteous" applies to all; (3) the same parallelism appears in 5:15, at which "many" refers to "all"; and (4) the phrase "for many" is a Semitism which means "all", as in Deutero-Isaiah 52:14; 53:11-12; Mark...10:45; 14:24; Heb.12:15. The background for Paul's expression is set forth in Deutero-Isaiah, where it is said that "the righteous one"...the Lord's servant, shall make "many" to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their sins...Isa.53:11..."

    "It is significant, and even astounding, that justification is here said to be world-embracing. Nothing is said about faith as a prerequisite for justification to be effective, nor about faith's accepting it."

    (Paul's Letter To The Romans: A Commentary, Arland J. Hultgren, Eerdmans, 2011, 804 pg, p.227, 229)
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2018
  18. Oldmantook

    Oldmantook Well-Known Member

    +1,048
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You have argued with those who believe in the doctrine of apokatastasis for quite some time now and yet you still have to ask the question "what do the unrepentant have to do and when do they have to do it?" I find that quite remarkable as it seems you haven't studied apokatastasis and what those who believe in it adhere to, or at the very least have not even understood the arguments you were replying to. Nonetheless to answer your question, the simple answer is the unrepentant who end up in the lake of fire spend an age of time there, are punished/chastised for their sin, until such time that they repent so that "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:10-11); thus fulfilling God's stated purpose in Col 1:20: "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."
    The context makes perfect sense as the scriptures do not conflict with each other as scripture informs scripture.
     
  19. Oldmantook

    Oldmantook Well-Known Member

    +1,048
    Non-Denom
    Married
    The simple answer is that some 300 years after his death some of Origen's teachings were condemned due to politics. Why did Justinian force the council to convene. Why did Justinian formulate the anathemas? The mixture of church and politics is an unholy union especially when it comes to the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Historian Philip Schaff and others consider the condemnation of Origen the result of “vehement and petty personal quarrels . . . and a narrow-minded intolerance towards all free speculation.”
     
  20. Oldmantook

    Oldmantook Well-Known Member

    +1,048
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Apparently, you neglected to notice the phrase "under the earth." Just what do you suppose that means? Who are those under the earth? Is is not those in the grave? Thus ALL of those in the grave - whether saved or unsaved will bow their knees and confess with their tongues that Jesus Christ is Lord.
     
Loading...