Does the Bible Need a Major Overhaul?

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟16,051.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Overhauls won't solve the problem. The problem isn't the Bible-- it's us! We are the old wineskin!

The disciples and apostles wrote the gospels and letters for a reason. They believed they would accomplish some good. Only when we have accurate translations of these writings can that positive influence be achieved. The mistranslations we have today convince people they are saved by 'faith in the atonement' not by actively loving their neighbors as themselves.

The mistranslations (especially of the writings of Paul) have removed the central message of the Gospel: Treat others the way you want to be treated for this is the Law. I have to believe the world would be a much better place if most professing Christians understood that they themselves will be judged according to their deeds (Romans 2:6).
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟16,051.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Could I ask for a careful, point-by-point response to this post?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7464293-8/#post54841994

You seem to be ignoring it. The Koine lexicons and dictionaries (BDAG, Louw and Nida, Little Kittel) don't agree with you, and these verses seem to indicate why. LSJ also does not claim that the New Testament uses the word in this way.

So perhaps we can start with these clear New Testament uses? [Emphasis added]

Are you referring to the post where you bring up:
Romans 16:25
2 Timothy 1:9
Titus 1:2
Matthew 19:16
Because I already dealt with them (in post #62) in this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Bootstrap

Regular Member
Jun 17, 2008
2,838
205
Durham, NC
✟11,739.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The disciples and apostles wrote the gospels and letters for a reason. They believed they would accomplish some good. Only when we have accurate translations of these writings can that positive influence be achieved. The mistranslations we have today convince people they are saved by 'faith in the atonement' not by actively loving their neighbors as themselves.

The mistranslations (especially of the writings of Paul) have removed the central message of the Gospel: Treat others the way you want to be treated for this is the Law. I have to believe the world would be a much better place if most professing Christians understood that they themselves will be judged according to their deeds (Romans 2:6).

I agree with you that this is a central message of the Gospel.

I doubt that you are right about these specific , I'm much more likely to trust the Koine lexicons if I want to know what a Koine word means - but if you'd like to discuss this on a forum like B-Greek or the biblical translation forum, where other experts could weigh in, I would take the time to engage you there.

There's not a lot of value to doing that here, where we don't have the right experts to debate this.
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟16,051.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I agree with you that this is a central message of the Gospel.

I doubt that you are right about these specific , I'm much more likely to trust the Koine lexicons if I want to know what a Koine word means - but if you'd like to discuss this on a forum like B-Greek or the biblical translation forum, where other experts could weigh in, I would take the time to engage you there.

There's not a lot of value to doing that here, where we don't have the right experts to debate this.

The Lexicon authors were linguists, not historians. They demonstrate that they did not know how the original Greek speaking theological schools used the words aion and aionios. They wrote their Lexicons under the false assumption that early Greek Christianity taught eternal punishment. Based on misinformation, they misapplied the word in their biblical assignments.

The Lexicon authors were unaware of the historical usage and wrote their opinions about the word usage based on their understanding of early Christian theology. If they knew the original Greek theology was different than the modern one, they would have likely applied the word differently in their lexicons.

The experts (the native Koine speakers) are dead and gone. So we cannot debate with experts on B-Greek. Most people on B-Greek will be Lexicon trained linguists - unaware of the historical usage of the word themselves. They will be more inclined to your worldview - prefer the Lexicons over the historical evidence.

By the way, my work is being reviewed by a top Hellenistic Greek archaeologist. If you are curious, I'll let you know what he says, positive or negative. I'm always open to truth, no matter what it is.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bootstrap

Regular Member
Jun 17, 2008
2,838
205
Durham, NC
✟11,739.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The Lexicon authors were linguists, not historians. They demonstrate that they did not know how the original Greek speaking theological schools used the words aion and aionios. They wrote their Lexicons under the false assumption that early Greek Christianity taught eternal punishment. Based on misinformation, they misapplied the word in their biblical assignments.

The Lexicon authors were unaware of the historical usage and wrote their opinions about the word usage based on their understanding of early Christian theology. If they knew the original Greek theology was different than the modern one, they would have likely applied the word differently in their lexicons.

You don't use theology to determine what words must mean, you look at the uses of a word - across history - to determine how the writers understood the words. If you have to change the Greek lexicons and translations to support your theology, odds are you might be a little off. But sometimes you'll be right - we do change our understanding from time to time. That's why I would encourage you to engage with the scholarly community that influences how our lexicons and translations are done, if you are convinced you are right.

If you follow the bibliography for any word in BDAG, Kittel, Spicq, etc., you'll find that they definitely considered historical usage of each word, and I've talked with Fred Danker several times, he definitely understood history in great depth. He spent a lot of time examining images of the original manuscripts (which aren't always easy to read!). Look up the articles and read them, examine the arguments presented for various meanings.

If you really are the expert you say you are, go engage with other experts who can assess your work. Build on the extensive scholarship that has already been done in existing scholarship on Koine Greek. If all the experts are wrong, prove it. Evidence counts in scholarly circles. Or if you're not an expert yet, get involved with them to learn. Actually, even if you are an expert, take on a beginner's mindset, assume that you just might have a lot to learn from people who may know things you might not know about Greek, biblical lexicography, history, etc. You need a community that can discuss these things at a useful level.

The experts (the native Koine speakers) are dead and gone. So we cannot debate with experts on B-Greek. Most people on B-Greek will be Lexicon trained linguists - unaware of the historical usage of the word themselves. They will be more inclined to your worldview - prefer the Lexicons over the historical evidence.

A lexicon lists the uses of a word, showing where to find it in the historical sources. Have you read anything on biblical lexicography? It's a pretty deep subject, and very interesting. With your interest in history, and your energy, you would probably enjoy it. Trust me, lexicographers know about history.

And a lot of people on B-Greek do know about history.

Also, consider showing up at SBL so you can talk to these guys:

SBL Biblical Lexicography

By the way, my work is being reviewed by a top Hellenistic Greek archaeologist. If you are curious, I'll let you know what he says, positive or negative. I'm always open to truth, no matter what it is.

That's the right attitude.

Big claims require a lot of proof, and should be reviewed by experts. In this case, I think biblical lexicographers are the real experts, the biblical Greek community can also offer a lot of help.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟16,051.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You don't use theology to determine what words must mean, you look at the uses of a word - across history - to determine how the writers understood the words. If you have to change the Greek lexicons and translations to support your theology, odds are you might be a little off. But sometimes you'll be right - we do change our understanding from time to time. That's why I would encourage you to engage with the scholarly community that influences how our lexicons and translations are done, if you are convinced you are right.

If you follow the bibliography for any word in BDAG, Kittel, Spicq, etc., you'll find that they definitely considered historical usage of each word, and I've talked with Fred Danker several times, he definitely understood history in great depth. He spent a lot of time examining images of the original manuscripts (which aren't always easy to read!). Look up the articles and read them, examine the arguments presented for various meanings.

If you really are the expert you say you are, go engage with other experts who can assess your work. Build on the extensive scholarship that has already been done in existing scholarship on Koine Greek. If all the experts are wrong, prove it. Evidence counts in scholarly circles. Or if you're not an expert yet, get involved with them to learn. Actually, even if you are an expert, take on a beginner's mindset, assume that you just might have a lot to learn from people who may know things you might not know about Greek, biblical lexicography, history, etc. You need a community that can discuss these things at a useful level.



A lexicon lists the uses of a word, showing where to find it in the historical sources. Have you read anything on biblical lexicography? It's a pretty deep subject, and very interesting. With your interest in history, and your energy, you would probably enjoy it. Trust me, lexicographers know about history.

And a lot of people on B-Greek do know about history.

Also, consider showing up at SBL so you can talk to these guys:

SBL Biblical Lexicography



That's the right attitude.

Big claims require a lot of proof, and should be reviewed by experts. In this case, I think biblical lexicographers are the real experts, the biblical Greek community can also offer a lot of help.

It is impossible to separate theology from word assignment in Lexicons. You are claiming the impossible to be true.
If a person theologically believes Jesus taught about eternal punishment vs. eternal life, they would believe Matthew 25 is an example where aionios means 'eternal'.

If a person believes that all souls are eternal (have eternal life) and that Jesus was teaching about what happens during the next temporal age, then they would believe Matthew is an example where aionios means 'of the age'.
The presumed theology dictates the word assignment.

You fail to separate Lexical fact from Lexical opinion. Lexicons are awesome for determining the scope of words during specific time periods. This is their strength. But one must always remember that the word assignments (especially biblical ones) are opinions based on assumed theology; nothing more, nothing less.

I use lexicons to get the scope of the words only. I do not parrot their theologically driven opinions one how that scope is to be applied.

And I am having my ideas reviewed by appropriate experts - historians who also know the ancient language. The historians will review whether or not the historical setting agrees with my work, and then determine if the translations accurately reflect the historical setting. Linguists can only parrot lexicons based on presumed history and theology. That is not the kind of expertise I need to know if my findings are valid or not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bootstrap

Regular Member
Jun 17, 2008
2,838
205
Durham, NC
✟11,739.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It is impossible to separate theology from word assignment in Lexicons. You are claiming the impossible to be true.
If a person theologically believes Jesus taught about eternal punishment vs. eternal life, they would believe Matthew 25 is an example where aionios means 'eternal'.

If a person believes that all souls are eternal (have eternal life) and that Jesus was teaching about what happens during the next temporal age, then they would believe Matthew is an example where aionios means 'of the age'.
The presumed theology dictates the word assignment.

Actually, this is where theoretical lexicography can be helpful. It's no good to look at just one use of a word to determine what it means, you have to look at all the uses in the New Testament and the papyrii, using context to determine the most likely meaning of each. You look at patterns of word usage, assigning semantic domains, and consider the background of each writer, as far as you can, which requires some grasp of history and philosophy, and the historical development of theology.

The guys who write lexicons know how to do this.

You fail to separate Lexical fact from Lexical opinion. Lexicons are awesome for determining the scope of words during specific time periods. This is their strength. But one must always remember that the word assignments (especially biblical ones) are opinions based on assumed theology; nothing more, nothing less.

I use lexicons to get the scope of the words only. I do not parrot their theologically driven opinions one how that scope is to be applied.

And I am having my ideas reviewed by appropriate experts - historians who also know the ancient language. The historians will review whether or not the historical setting agrees with my work, and then determine if the translations accurately reflect the historical setting. Linguists can only parrot lexicons based on presumed history and theology. They are not the 'experts' I need to know if my findings are valid or not.

You seem to like the word "parrot", implying these guys simply repeat things without understanding. I don't think you've ever talked to any of these guys - I've only had significant conversations with one lexicographer, Fred Danker, but I've also read a little about lexicography. I'm convinced these guys dig deep, and they are definitely open to changing their minds based on evidence.

I can't force you to engage with experts who might disagree with you, of course. But I'd be much more likely to take you seriously in a forum like that, in a discussion that could go into more depth on history, lexicography, linguistics, etc.
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟16,051.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Actually, this is where theoretical lexicography can be helpful. It's no good to look at just one use of a word to determine what it means, you have to look at all the uses in the New Testament and the papyrii, using context to determine the most likely meaning of each. You look at patterns of word usage, assigning semantic domains, and consider the background of each writer, as far as you can, which requires some grasp of history and philosophy, and the historical development of theology.

The guys who write lexicons know how to do this.



You seem to like the word "parrot", implying these guys simply repeat things without understanding. I don't think you've ever talked to any of these guys - I've only had significant conversations with one lexicographer, Fred Danker, but I've also read a little about lexicography. I'm convinced these guys dig deep, and they are definitely open to changing their minds based on evidence.

I can't force you to engage with experts who might disagree with you, of course. But I'd be much more likely to take you seriously in a forum like that, in a discussion that could go into more depth on history, lexicography, linguistics, etc.

You don't believe the native Greek speakers read every verse of the New Testament during the first five hundred years of Christianity? Because this is what you are implying. You are implying the Lexicon authors read every verse and the papyri, but the native Greek speakers didn't. Is this really what you believe?

And I am not calling the Lexicon authors parrots. The parrots are people who quote the Lexicons regardless of what other information is presented.

If someone points out that there was a unamimous consensus among every Greek speaking theological school that aionios meant one thing, then a person quotes a Lexicon to 'disprove the native speakers', that person is a Lexicon parrot.
 
Upvote 0

Bootstrap

Regular Member
Jun 17, 2008
2,838
205
Durham, NC
✟11,739.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You don't believe the native Greek speakers read every verse of the New Testament during the first five hundred years of Christianity? Because this is what you are implying. You are implying the Lexicon authors read every verse and the papyri, but the native Greek speakers didn't. Is this really what you believe?

No, but I do believe that the people who write these lexicons have read the writings of the native Greek speakers, and that the earliest writings, the Apostolic Fathers are most useful in understanding the meaning of the word.

William Crockett doesn't believe in everlasting punishment, but he does believe that the word aionios means eternal, based on writings in the Early Fathers:

Hell - Theopedia

During the time of the early Apostolic Fathers, Christians believed hell would be a place of eternal, conscious punishment. In Ignatius of Antioch's letter To the Ephesians (ca. A.D. 117) we read: "Such a one shall go in his foulness to the unquenchable fire" (16:2). Likewise, in the Epistle to Diognetus (ca. A.D. 138) we read: . . . when you fear the death which is real, which is kept for those that shall be condemned to the everlasting fire, which shall punish up to the end those that were delivered to it. Then you will marvel at those who endure for the sake of righteousness the fire which is for a season (10:7-8). 40 And 2 Clement reads (ca. A.D. 150): Nothing shall rescue us from eternal punishment, if we neglect his commandments (6:7). And again: '...when they see those who have done amiss, and denied Jesus by word or deed, are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire (17:7). Finally, in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (ca. A.D. 156- 60) we read: And the fire of their cruel torturers had no heat for them, for they set before their eyes an escape from the fire which is everlasting and is never quenched (2:3). And again: You threaten with the fire that burns for a time, and is quickly quenched, for you do not know the fire which awaits the wicked in the judgment to come and in everlasting punishment (11:2).

In fact, I'm in a similar position. I don't know what I believe about hell, but I think I've seen some pretty good support for what the lexicons say the word aionios means.


If someone points out that there was a unamimous consensus among every Greek speaking theological school that aionios meant one thing, then a person quotes a Lexicon to 'disprove the native speakers', that person is a Lexicon parrot.

You did make that claim. Other people disagree with your claim, including scholars who do not believe in eternal punishment. A useful discussion of this really does require more than one person looking, together, at the uses of this word found in the Koine lexicons, including the writings of the early fathers. You may be right, you may be wrong - but if you're not willing to defend your views in a place that experts will discuss it with you, we've probably reached the limits of what's worth discussing here.
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟16,051.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You did make that claim. Other people disagree with your claim, including scholars who do not believe in eternal punishment.

Alright Boostrap, its really time for you to put your money where your mouth is. Please show me one scholar who says that the theological schools of Alexandria, Antioch, Caesaria, Edessa, and Ephesus did not teach temporary punishment. You must document what you say. This should be easy since there's so many scholars who believe in eternal punishment.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bootstrap

Regular Member
Jun 17, 2008
2,838
205
Durham, NC
✟11,739.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Alright Boostrap, its really time for you to put your money where your mouth is. Please show me one scholar who says that the theological schools of Alexandria, Antioch, Caesaria, Edessa, and Ephesus did not teach temporary punishment. You must document what you say. This should be easy since there's so many scholars who believe in eternal punishment.

1. You haven't proven your claim, are you saying it's true unless proven otherwise?

2. The post you respond to includes quotes from Ignatius of Antioch (~ AD 117), the Epistle to Diognetus (~ AD 138), 2 Clement (~ AD 150), the Martyrdom of Polycarp (~ AD 156-160), who all seem to believe what you say nobody believed, as well as a summary statement from William Crockett that says this is what the Apostolic Fathers generally believed. You haven't responded to these quotes, but you insist that I "put my money where my mouth is". These are specific quotes from early writings, saying something different from what you claim every single school believed.

3. As I've said many times now, if you really believe that all the translations and all the lexicons on New Testament Greek are wrong, you owe it to yourself to debate this in a community that includes historians and lexicographers to see if your claim has merit. Write some articles, give some presentations, participate in the scholarly lists. Convince some of the people who really understand these things.
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟16,051.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
1. You haven't proven your claim, are you saying it's true unless proven otherwise?

2. The post you respond to includes quotes from Ignatius of Antioch (~ AD 117), the Epistle to Diognetus (~ AD 138), 2 Clement (~ AD 150), the Martyrdom of Polycarp (~ AD 156-160), who all seem to believe what you say nobody believed, as well as a summary statement from William Crockett that says this is what the Apostolic Fathers generally believed. You haven't responded to these quotes, but you insist that I "put my money where my mouth is". These are specific quotes from early writings, saying something different from what you claim every single school believed.

3. As I've said many times now, if you really believe that all the translations and all the lexicons on New Testament Greek are wrong, you owe it to yourself to debate this in a community that includes historians and lexicographers to see if your claim has merit. Write some articles, give some presentations, participate in the scholarly lists. Convince some of the people who really understand these things.

Let me remind you of the documentation you are ignoring:
"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality (annihilationism); one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked”. - The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, by Schaff-Herzog, volume 12, on page 96
All the Greek speaking schools taught temporary punishment, only the non-Greek Latin school taught eternal punishment.

I'm not letting you off the hook. I've documented that all the schools which shared the same native language as the New Testament taught temporary punishment. I will give you as long as you need to prove otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

Bootstrap

Regular Member
Jun 17, 2008
2,838
205
Durham, NC
✟11,739.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Let me remind you of the documentation you are ignoring:
"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality (annihilationism); one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked”. - The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, by Schaff-Herzog, volume 12, on page 96
All the Greek speaking schools taught temporary punishment, only the non-Greek Latin school taught eternal punishment.

That's not documenting anything, that's quoting one modern source that has an opinion, an opinion different from that found in many other modern sources, and an opinion that seems to ignore the same early Greek writings that I have quoted here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7464293-9/#post54856810

You don't think that every opinion in an article or encyclopedia is true, and you can't expect me to believe this claim just because you quote someone who makes it.

I'm not letting you off the hook. I've documented that all the schools which shared the same native language as the New Testament taught temporary punishment. I will give you as long as you need to prove otherwise.

I don't think most scholars would accept that as documenting your claim, you're quoting one other source that agrees with you.

But look, I'll let you off the hook. It's not worth discussing here. Bring it up on B-Greek or the biblical translation list, where there are people who can discuss it at a serious level, and I'll engage you here.

I won't bother discussing it further here, it's a waste of time and energy. You may have the last word.
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟16,051.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
That's not documenting anything, that's quoting one modern source that has an opinion, an opinion different from that found in many other modern sources, and an opinion that seems to ignore the same early Greek writings that I have quoted here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7464293-9/#post54856810

You don't think that every opinion in an article or encyclopedia is true, and you can't expect me to believe this claim just because you quote someone who makes it.



I don't think most scholars would accept that as documenting your claim, you're quoting one other source that agrees with you.

But look, I'll let you off the hook. It's not worth discussing here. Bring it up on B-Greek or the biblical translation list, where there are people who can discuss it at a serious level, and I'll engage you here.

I won't bother discussing it further here, it's a waste of time and energy. You may have the last word.

I'm glad we're ending our discussion because you seem to not read my posts anyway. I have already told you that after finding the encyclopedia quote, I personally tracked down the beliefs and teachings of each school. And I even mentioned the surprise I found between the school of Antioch and the school of Alexandria. So either you think I'm lying about the research I did, or you did not read the post. Out of kindness, I'll assume the latter.

I don't parrot sources, whether they are Lexicons or Encyclopedias. I check to see if what they say is true. They are the starting points of my research, not the ending points.

And ending the conversation is a good idea. You will never be able to document that the Greek schools taught eternal punishment because they did not. It's simply a historical reality that, for whatever reason, you don't want to factor into your understanding of the Bible. That is fine. But if my presenting historical facts doesn't cause you to rethink anything, then there really isn't much to talk about anyway. As for me, facts matter.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bootstrap

Regular Member
Jun 17, 2008
2,838
205
Durham, NC
✟11,739.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
2) Strongs Concordance disingenously includes only the Classical meaning.

3) Liddell and Scott includes both the Classic and Koine.

The link I provided documents there is a difference between the Hellenistic usage and Plato's; there is a difference between Koine and Classical.

Now, with this in mind, does the Strongs entry you quoted even include the Koine definition? No, it does not. So ask yourself, why would a Christian Lexicon of the New Testament (a Koine document) give the Classical definition instead of the Koine? If you spend time with this question, your eyes will open and you will realize you really have been duped.

Does Strongs know the difference between Classical and Koine? Of course they do. So they can't plead ignorance. Yet they censure the Koine and insert the Classical, forcing people to conclude the Bible says things it really does not.

This is a very deceptive answer. Either you don't know how to use Koine dictionaries and lexicons, or you are wilfully misrepresenting what they say.

Liddell and Scott do not claim that this was the Koine meaning of the word, and do not cite any Koine examples for this meaning. (And Liddell and Scott is very sketchy on Koine - when you dismiss the Koine reference works, and use only Liddell and Scott, misrepresenting what it says, that's not good.)

Strong's isn't a lexicon or a dictionary, you simply can't take his definitions that seriously, and it was prepared without the papyri. But none of the serious Koine lexicons agree with you. So anyone who simply looks up the Koine meanings in the best lexicons or dictionaries we have for the language would conclude that you are wrong.

You don't want to take this to B-Greek or the biblical translation list, you prefer to discuss this only among people who are unlikely to know enough to seriously evaluate your claims together with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timothew
Upvote 0

Bootstrap

Regular Member
Jun 17, 2008
2,838
205
Durham, NC
✟11,739.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm using Strong's extensively, it's more convenient than digging into my little Liddell for each definition. I just bought the Strong's dictionary (physical book) for easier armchair reading.

It is what it is. :)

Yeah. I you're looking for something easier to read, Vine's is significantly better than Strong's:

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

aionios "describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom_16:25; 2_Tim_1:9; Titus_1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom_16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the NT.

"The predominant meaning of aionios, that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in 2_Cor_4:18, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., 'for a season,' and in Php_1:15, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e.g., of God, Rom_16:26; of His power, 1_Tim_6:16, and of His glory, 1_Pet_5:10; of the Holy Spirit, Heb_9:14; of the redemption effected by Christ, Heb_9:12, and of the consequent salvation of men, Heb_5:9, as well as of His future rule, 2_Pet_1:11, which is elsewhere declared to be without end, Luke_1:33; of the life received by those who believe in Christ, John_3:16, concerning whom He said, 'they shall never perish,' John_10:28, and of the resurrection body, 2_Cor_5:1, elsewhere said to be 'immortal,' 1_Cor_15:53, in which that life will be finally realized, Matt_25:46; Titus_1:2.

"Aionios is also used of the sin that 'hath never forgiveness,' Mark_3:29, and of the judgment of God, from which there is no appeal, Heb_6:2, and of the fire, which is one of its instruments, Matt_18:8; Matt_25:41; Jude_1:7, and which is elsewhere said to be 'unquenchable,' Mark_9:43. "The use of aionios here shows that the punishment referred to in 2_Thess_1:9, is not temporary, but final, and, accordingly, the phraseology shows that its purpose is not remedial but retributive." [ From Notes on Thessalonians by Hogg and Vine, pp. 232,233.]

That second paragraph is a pretty good place to start to get a feel for how the word is used, if you look up the verses it references.

Louw and Nida is really good, and also much easier to read than Strong's. But only part of it is available online for free.

Greek New Testament -

Thayer's is also easy to read, and also available in the link above.

The Middle Liddell is not as up to date as the complete Liddell, and not that great for Koine Greek. BDAG is the best, period.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
You said,
"Over time, the meanings of words can change. And, in some instances, the words can even change to their very opposite.

With this in mind, let's consider the Greek word aionios. The classical author Plato used aionios exclusively to express eternal. But during the Koine period, the word meant: lasting for an age, enduring. And there is historical evidence it was also a Hebraism when used eschatologically to mean: of the age.

So what's the big deal?

During the first five hundred years of Christianity there were six mainstream orthodox Christian theological schools. Five of them were native Greek speaking schools (one wasn't, it was Latin).

Now, all five (100%) of the Greek theological schools taught temporary punisment. None of them taught eternal punishment. None of the schools which shared the same native language as the New Testament taught eternal punishment. And the rediscovery of Koine now explains why.

Today, we have a very different doctrine, and very different Bibles. Most churches teach eternal punishment based on the classical meaning of aionios, and they have classically translated Bibles to support them. But Jesus' teachings were not recorded in classical Greek, they were recorded in Koine. Yet millions of people today are convinced Jesus taught eternal punishment, and these people will confidently proclaim, "God said..." all the while quoting a book that contains the opposite of what Jesus actually taught.

The change in aionios is an empircal counter-example to Gavin Baits claim. His underplay of the differences between Koine and Classical is disingenuous. It's time for people such as this to be shown as the Emperors with no clothes. And it's time to unhide the Bible by restoring the actual meanings of the words."

The Strong's definition of aionios is:
eternal, forever, everlasting.
From aion; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well) -- eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).
My copy of Liddell and Scott (I got it in a used bookstore for $12.50, good find huh?) has this definition: lasting, eternal.

John 17:3 is a verse that uses the word aionios.
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

How does the meaning of this verse change, with your understanding of the meaning of aionios?

My old NASB translates the verse "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."
##However, none of that takes account of the meaning of αἰών in the NT, which is cosmological & eschatological. The evil one is "prince" of the old αἰών or age, until the Kingship of God replaces it, and brings in the new αἰών - the new age. The Kingship is "near" or imminent or "among you", because in Jesus it has already begun.

It is very misleading to look up words alone - as this example shows; the words, and phrases ("son of man", is another instance) w/o knowing the ideas behind the writings. & a dictionary is useless & worthless & a guide to what the NT means, because the NT is very often expressed in OT categories; the word basileia & its gloss "kingdom" is worse than useless as a guide to the meaning of the Kingdom or Kingship of God in (say) St. Matthew, because the Greek words do not lead one to the OT concepts & OT uses of the concept of the Kingdom of God.
Looking up dikaiosune is no guide to the meaning of Romans - the righteousness of God is much more than a look at a Greek lexicon not designed to take account of Biblical theology would suggest. The great mischief of looking up the words, is that because looking them up gives information, there is no reason to suppose - unless one knows already - that there is anything to look for in the OT.

Yet people look up words in dictionaries in order to understand the meaning of passages :sad:
 
Upvote 0