eternal suffering

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
For your own information, apollumi means "utterly destroy".

Since Jesus Himself couldn't convince you that unbelievers will be destroyed in Gehenna at the final judgment, you are correct. I will never convince you either. For your own sake, do not argue with Jesus Christ on the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 2 Peter 3:7
But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

You can argue with Christ, you can argue with what "apollumi" means, but the Bible also says that the wicked will be destroyed in the Old Testament, and that was not written in Greek. The Hebrew word used in Psalm 92:7 (as a convenient example) is "shamad" and it DOES NOT mean "ruin".

But don't argue with me, go ahead and argue with God. Tell Him that the wicked will not be destroyed.
The stupid man cannot know;
the fool cannot understand this:
that though the wicked sprout like grass
and all evildoers flourish,
they are doomed to destruction forever;

God's Word says that the stupid man cannot know that the wicked are doomed to destruction forever, and the fool cannot understand this.

I can't convince you of something you are unwilling to believe. I'm merely asking you to believe God's Word.

That's because you are not going by the lexicon or word studies' definitions of the words. Nothing I'll do will convince you of this, but here are a few articles I've written on the topic that may be of benefit to others who read this thread:

1. Is hell fair?

2. Hell & Judgment

3. Paul on eternal punishment

4. Torment in Old Testament hell? The meaning of Sheol in the OT

5. Does eternal destruction mean annihilation for unbelievers at death?

Oz
 
Upvote 0

Timothew

Conditionalist
Aug 24, 2009
9,659
840
✟21,514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's because you are not going by the lexicon or word studies' definitions of the words. Nothing I'll do will convince you of this, but here are a few articles I've written on the topic that may be of benefit to others who read this thread:

1. Is hell fair?

2. Hell & Judgment

3. Paul on eternal punishment

4. Torment in Old Testament hell? The meaning of Sheol in the OT

5. Does eternal destruction mean annihilation for unbelievers at death?

Oz
I have looked the definition of the word apollumi and since the definition includes "utterly destroy", you have not proven that apollumi does NOT mean utterly destroy. It is not enough to say that I am wrong because in SOME instances apollumi means "lose". You need to show that apollumi IN THE VERSES that speak of the destruction of the wicked does not and can not mean "utterly destroy". Since in John 3:16 and Matthew 10:28 perish and destroy are clearly contrasted with living forever and with not being able to kill the soul, apollumi CANNOT mean "lose" or "misplace" in those verses.

Also, you have not looked at the definition of shamad (destroy) as it is used in Psalm 37:38 and Psalm 92:6-7.
You can't hand wave the definition of shamad away like you are attempting to do with the Greek word apollumi.

You are committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer. You can't take one subdefinition of a word and insist that the word means that, and only that, in every place it is used. You HAVE to look at the context. Your presupposition of eternal conscious torment in hell is influencing your reading of scripture. Please make some attempt to look at the issue objectively.

Regarding the links, I couldn't open them because I have the security on my computer set very high.
I have done my homework however, and I doubt that they are able to prove that the wicked are not destroyed just as the Bible says.

If you want to examine this further, I suggest rethinkinghell.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I have looked the definition of the word apollumi and since the definition includes "utterly destroy", you have not proven that apollumi does NOT mean utterly destroy. It is not enough to say that I am wrong because in SOME instances apollumi means "lose". You need to show that apollumi IN THE VERSES that speak of the destruction of the wicked does not and can not mean "utterly destroy". Since in John 3:16 and Matthew 10:28 perish and destroy are clearly contrasted with living forever and with not being able to kill the soul, apollumi CANNOT mean "lose" or "misplace" in those verses.

Also, you have not looked at the definition of shamad (destroy) as it is used in Psalm 37:38 and Psalm 92:6-7.
You can't hand wave the definition of shamad away like you are attempting to do with the Greek word apollumi.

You are committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer. You can't take one subdefinition of a word and insist that the word means that, and only that, in every place it is used. You HAVE to look at the context. Your presupposition of eternal conscious torment in hell is influencing your reading of scripture. Please make some attempt to look at the issue objectively.

Regarding the links, I couldn't open them because I have the security on my computer set very high.
I have done my homework however, and I doubt that they are able to prove that the wicked are not destroyed just as the Bible says.

If you want to examine this further, I suggest rethinkinghell.com

You have been trying this conditionalist, annihilationist trick on me for years. I no longer buy it now than I did in 2012 when you tried to convince me. The Bible doesn't teach me, no matter how much you try to twist the meaning of apollumi away from 'ruin'.

Bye, :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Timothew

Conditionalist
Aug 24, 2009
9,659
840
✟21,514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You have been trying this conditionalist, annihilationist trick on me for years. I no longer buy it now than I did in 2012 when you tried to convince me. The Bible doesn't teach me, no matter how much you try to twist the meaning of apollumi away from 'ruin'.

Bye, :wave:
I know that I am unlikely to convert you to the Biblical view, but in fairness, shouldn't you at least consider the evidence before rejecting the truth?

Honestly, what does John 3:16 say in your Bible? And if you object to John 3:16 because of the word "apoletai", what does Psalm 92:6-7 say in your Bible?

The Biblical evidence is overwhelming that the wicked will be destroyed on the day that Saint Peter calls "the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly".

You can reject the view of Conditional Immortality, but you shouldn't reject it without investigating it first.
Are you prepared to stand before God on the day of destruction of the ungodly and prevent God from destroying the wicked? Are you prepared to tell the Almighty God that He HAS to send people to be eternally tortured by fire?

If you are correct and God will consign the wicked to everlasting torture in hell, at least I will be able say in a small contrite voice "Gee, God...You said that the wicked will be destroyed." God may say to me, "My tender hearted child, I must do this." What will you say to God if the wicked will indeed be destroyed, but you insist that they must be tormented? At the very least you are inviting the words none of want to hear "Get away from me, I never knew you."

I urge you to at least consider the evidence. There is a lot of it. I can't understand why a person would continue to believe that the wicked will be preserved alive in hell when there is SO MUCH evidence throughout the Bible that the wicked will be destroyed. At the very LEAST, look up the definition of shamad. It does not mean "ruin".

Consider the implications if you are wrong. If God does not torture people alive in hell forever, and you claim that God does, How do you think that will make God feel? How would you feel? At least consider the evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
. . . Also, you have not looked at the definition of shamad (destroy) as it is used in Psalm 37:38 and Psalm 92:6-7.
You can't hand wave the definition of shamad away like you are attempting to do with the Greek word apollumi.
Here are several verses where shamad does not mean the destruction which you claim occurs at the final judgment.
Genesis 34:30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, [שָׁמַד/shamad] I and my house.
Leviticus 26:30 And I will destroy [שָׁמַד/shamad] your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.
Numbers 33:52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy [שָׁמַד/shamad] all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
Deuteronomy 1:27 And ye murmured in your tents, and said, Because the LORD hated us, he hath brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy [שָׁמַד/shamad] us.
Deuteronomy 2:12 The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed [שָׁמַד/shamad] them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the LORD gave unto them.
Deuteronomy 2:23 And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed [שָׁמַד/shamad] them, and dwelt in their stead.)
Joshua 7:12 Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy [שָׁמַד/shamad] the accursed from among you.
Joshua 11:14 And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed [שָׁמַד/shamad] them, neither left they any to breathe.
2 Samuel 14:7 And, behold, the whole family is risen against thine handmaid, and they said, Deliver him that smote his brother, that we may kill him, for the life of his brother whom he slew; and we will destroy [שָׁמַד/shamad] the heir also: and so they shall quench my coal which is left, and shall not leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the earth.
2 Samuel 14:11 Then said she, I pray thee, let the king remember the LORD thy God, that thou wouldest not suffer the revengers of blood to destroy [שָׁמַד/shamad] any more, lest they destroy my son. And he said, As the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth.
2 Samuel 14:16 For the king will hear, to deliver his handmaid out of the hand of the man that would destroy [שָׁמַד/shamad] me and my son together out of the inheritance of God.
1 Kings 15:29 And it came to pass, when he reigned, that he smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed [שָׁמַד/shamad] him, according unto the saying of the LORD, which he spake by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite:
1 Kings 16:12 Thus did Zimri destroy [שָׁמַד/shamad] all the house of Baasha, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake against Baasha by Jehu the prophet,
You are committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer. You can't take one subdefinition of a word and insist that the word means that, and only that, in every place it is used. You HAVE to look at the context. Your presupposition of eternal conscious torment in hell is influencing your reading of scripture. Please make some attempt to look at the issue objectively.

Men cannot "destroy" other men and things in the sense you claim God does the unrepentant at the final judgment. When men shamad e.g. idols and paintings that is different than the shamad you claim God exercises at the final judgment. To argue otherwise that is the lexical fallacy "illegitimate totality transfer."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Timothew

Conditionalist
Aug 24, 2009
9,659
840
✟21,514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Here are several verses where shamad does not mean the destruction which you claim occurs at the final judgment.
Genesis 34:30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, [שָׁמַד/shamad] I and my house.

Thanks Der Alter, from the very first passage you quoted, Shamad DOES mean destroyed, as you can plainly see from the translation and the context.
Those who are slain are destroyed. Do you think that Jacob was saying to Simeon and Levi, "I will be slain, and I will be undestroyed"? Do you think Jacob was saying "I will be slain, and I will be kept alive and tormented forever"?
From the context, you are proven wrong, and shamad actually does mean destroy.

See also Isaiah 66:16, "For by fire will the Lord enter into judgment,
and by his sword, with all flesh;
and those slain by the Lord shall be many."

Why don't you just accept what the Bible says instead of arguing against it all the time?

I'm not even going any further in your post, since I uncovered your error in the first verse.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I know that I am unlikely to convert you to the Biblical view, but in fairness, shouldn't you at least consider the evidence before rejecting the truth?

I'm already converted to the biblical view and that's not Conditionalism. The key to your view and mine is: Do not let our differences prevent us from proclaiming the Gospel which is the only cure for eternal torment or annihilation.

See 'What is conditional immortality?' (Got Questions?)

I'm finished with this discussion.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

Timothew

Conditionalist
Aug 24, 2009
9,659
840
✟21,514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm already converted to the biblical view and that's not Conditionalism. The key to your view and mine is: Do not let our differences prevent us from proclaiming the Gospel which is the only cure for eternal torment or annihilation.

See 'What is conditional immortality?' (Got Questions?)

I'm finished with this discussion.

Oz
Traditionalists never answer the question "What does John 3:16 say?"
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thanks Der Alter, from the very first passage you quoted, Shamad DOES mean destroyed, as you can plainly see from the translation and the context.
Those who are slain are destroyed. Do you think that Jacob was saying to Simeon and Levi, "I will be slain, and I will be undestroyed"? Do you think Jacob was saying "I will be slain, and I will be kept alive and tormented forever"?
From the context, you are proven wrong, and shamad actually does mean destroy.

You are still committing the lexical fallacy, "illegitimate totality transfer." In the examples of shamad that I gave above men are are tearing down pagan altars, idols and pictures and men are killing other men that is not the same thing as your position that in the judgment God "destroys" the unrepentant wicked, they are supposedly annihilated, they no longer exist in any form. A mere man cannot do that to anything or anyone.

See also Isaiah 66:16, "For by fire will the Lord enter into judgment,
and by his sword, with all flesh;
and those slain by the Lord shall be many."
Why don't you just accept what the Bible says instead of arguing against it all the time?
I'm not even going any further in your post, since I uncovered your error in the first verse.

You have uncovered nothing but your own illegitimate totality transfer. I do accept what the Bible says, but not what you claim the Bible says. I don't see the word shamad/destroy anywhere in the proof text you quoted here.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Traditionalists never answer the question "What does John 3:16 say?"

That's baloney! Of course I could answer what John 3:16 states but you wouldn't believe it when I state that 'perish' DOES NOT mean 'annihilation'. Remember the illustration I gave of backing over my child's toy. It perished, was ruined, suffered severe damage, but it was not annihilated. NEVER!

That's why we don't accept what you state. Evangelical Lutheran exegete, R C H Lenski, refutes your view of perish in John 3:16:
The real amplification [of having eternal life] lies in the addition of the negative, "should not perish," using the strong adversative alla [i.e. but]. "To perish" denotes total and eternal rejection by God, and it so used especially in the middle voice [i.e. for himself/herself] by John and Paul. The word never means to suffer annihilation. Here the aorist subjunctive me apoletai is in place to indicate the one final act of perishing in contrast with the present subjunctive eche to indicate the present and enduring having of life eternal. Not to perish is to have; not to have is to perish. To perish is defined in what follows as the opposite of being saved (v. 17), as being judged (v 18), and as being reproved or convicted (v. 20). In this negative "should not perish" Jesus touches the first grave warning for Nicodemus: God does not want him to perish - does he himself mean to perish, nevertheless? He surely will if he becomes obdurate in unbelief (Lenski 1943:265)

That's my parting exegesis of 'should not perish' of John 3:16 and it does not mean your conditionalist annihilation.

Acknowledge the truth that some will not engage with you on John 3:16 because you do not want to accept the meaning of apollumi.

Bye, by:scratch:e,
Oz

Works consulted
Lenski, R C H 1943. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St John’s Gospel. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (assigned in 1961 to Augsburg Publishing House).
 
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

Timothew

Conditionalist
Aug 24, 2009
9,659
840
✟21,514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's baloney! Of course I could answer what John 3:16 states but you wouldn't believe it when I state that 'perish' DOES NOT mean 'annihilation'. Remember the illustration I gave of backing over my child's toy. It perished, was ruined, suffered severe damage, but it was not annihilated. NEVER!

That's why we don't accept what you state. Evangelical Lutheran exegete, R C H Lenski, refutes your view of perish in John 3:16:


That's my parting exegesis of 'should not perish' of John 3:16 and it does not mean your conditionalist annihilation.

Acknowledge the truth that some will not engage with you on John 3:16 because you do not want to accept the meaning of apollumi.

Bye, by:scratch:e,
Oz

Works consulted
Lenski, R C H 1943. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St John’s Gospel. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (assigned in 1961 to Augsburg Publishing House).
I actually DO accept the definition of apollumi. If you had backed over your child instead of your child's toy, your child would have perished. That is the normal, regular meaning of perish. When a person is destroyed, the normal meaning is not that they remain undestroyed forever. The context of John 3:16 is that apoletai is held in contrast to "have eternal life". The opposite of eternal life is not eternal life in hell being tormented forever. The opposite of eternal life is either "Non-Eternal life", a life that ends; or Eternal Death.

I absolutely DO want to accept the meaning of apollumi and I hope that you do as well. You have restricted the meaning of apollumi so that it cannot mean "utterly destroy". There is no reason to restrict the meaning of apollumi so much that the primary definition of apollumi is excluded from the definition.

You don't know how many times I've asked ECTists to tell me what John 3:16 says in their Bibles and how many times the simple request has been completely ignored. I don't know either, as I have lost count. At least two dozen times.The fact that ECTists ignore scripture in order to hold onto their doctrine is telling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I actually DO accept the definition of apollumi. If you had backed over your child instead of your child's toy, your child would have perished. That is the normal, regular meaning of perish.

False again. If I backed over my child he would have been ruined, even killed. But he would not have perished by being annihilated. The normal, regular meaning of perish is just like what is happening to the belt on my trousers around the buckle right now. It is perishing, but it is NOT being annihilated.

No wonder people don't want to interact with you over the meaning of 'perish' in John 3:16. You are imposing a meaning on the text that is not there. Arndt & Gingrich refute you.

What you present is not only untrue to the text, but is irrational. 'Perish' (apollumi) in Greek of John 3:16 does NOT mean annihilation. Those who believe in conscious, eternal punishment of the unbeliever are demonstrating truthfulness to the meaning of apollumi (perish/ruin) and its etymology, especially when it is associated with aionios (eternal) life vs eternal punishment.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

Timothew

Conditionalist
Aug 24, 2009
9,659
840
✟21,514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
False again. If I backed over my child he would have been ruined, even killed. But he would not have perished by being annihilated. The normal, regular meaning of perish is just like what is happening to the belt on my trousers around the buckle right now. It is perishing, but it is NOT being annihilated.

No wonder people don't want to interact with you over the meaning of 'perish' in John 3:16. You are imposing a meaning on the text that is not there. Arndt & Gingrich refute you.

What you present is not only untrue to the text, but is irrational. 'Perish' (apollumi) in Greek of John 3:16 does NOT mean annihilation. Those who believe in conscious, eternal punishment of the unbeliever are demonstrating truthfulness to the meaning of apollumi (perish/ruin) and its etymology, especially when it is associated with aionios (eternal) life vs eternal punishment.

Oz
Whatever. I doesn't matter to me if you are wrong.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Whatever. I doesn't matter to me if you are wrong.

It should.

It matters to God if you are wrong or I am wrong for this reason: 'Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly' (James 3:1 NIV).

Doesn't that concern you? Internet forums seems to be ideal places for people to promote false teaching. Before God, we have a responsibility to be preaching the truth of Scripture. That's why I take special care with exegesis and exposition. I listen to what you are saying but I do not find your message to be correct in relation to 'destroy' and 'eternal destruction'.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

Timothew

Conditionalist
Aug 24, 2009
9,659
840
✟21,514.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It should.

It matters to God if you are wrong or I am wrong for this reason: 'Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly' (James 3:1 NIV).

Doesn't that concern you? Internet forums seems to be ideal places for people to promote false teaching. Before God, we have a responsibility to be preaching the truth of Scripture. That's why I take special care with exegesis and exposition. I listen to what you are saying but I do not find your message to be correct in relation to 'destroy' and 'eternal destruction'.

Oz
Well I tried, but since you won't listen I will let you your own way. Jesus said "leave them, they are blind leaders..."
 
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

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I actually DO accept the definition of apollumi. If you had backed over your child instead of your child's toy, your child would have perished. That is the normal, regular meaning of perish. When a person is destroyed, the normal meaning is not that they remain undestroyed forever. The context of John 3:16 is that apoletai is held in contrast to "have eternal life". The opposite of eternal life is not eternal life in hell being tormented forever. The opposite of eternal life is either "Non-Eternal life", a life that ends; or Eternal Death.
I certainly agree with you, although, to be fair, I have your unseen (to me) adversaries in this debate on "ignore" and am not reading their arguments. Certainly in our cultural context - the 21st century west - to speak of someone "perishing" clearly is to say they are, in any reasonable sense, annihilated. Of course, Jesus did not live in our culture. In any event, as you argue, since Jesus contrasts "perishing" to "receiving eternal life", it is even more challenging to argue that to "perish" entails continued full conscious existence in a state of torment. Why is that a problem? I hope to post a detailed explanation later.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I certainly agree with you, although, to be fair, I have your unseen (to me) adversaries in this debate on "ignore" and am not reading their arguments. Certainly in our cultural context - the 21st century west - to speak of someone "perishing" clearly is to say they are, in any reasonable sense, annihilated. Of course, Jesus did not live in our culture. In any event, as you argue, since Jesus contrasts "perishing" to "receiving eternal life", it is even more challenging to argue that to "perish" entails continued full conscious existence in a state of torment. Why is that a problem? I hope to post a detailed explanation later.

But for the fact Jesus did not contrast "'perishing' to "receiving eternal life." Jesus contrasted "eternal punishment" with "eternal life."
Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
And as I have shown a number of times, in this thread, a significant number of Jews at the time of Jesus believed in a fiery place of punishment and they called it gehinnom and sheol. They believed that God would put worms and fire in sinners bodies and they would cry in agony unto all eternity. Here are 2 OT passages which show the dead in sheol moving, talking having emotions, etc.
.....In Isaiah 14 there is a long passage about the king of Babylon dying, and according to many the dead know nothing. They are supposedly annihilated, destroyed, gone! But God, Himself, speaking, these dead people in שאול/sheol, know something, they move, meet the dead coming to sheol, stir up, raise up, speak and say, etc.

Isa 14:9-11 (KJV)
9) Hell [שאול] from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

10) All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
11) Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, [שאול] and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

[ . . . ]
22) For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.
In this passage God, himself is speaking, and I see a whole lot of shaking going on, moving, rising up, and speaking. These dead people seem to know something, about something. We know that verses 11 through 14 describe actual historical events, the death of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babble-on.
.....Some will try to argue that this passage is figurative because fir trees don’t literally rejoice, vs. 8. They will try to argue that the passage must be figurative since God told Israel “take up this proverb against the king of Babylon.” vs. 4. The occurrence of one figurative expression in a passage does not prove that anything else in the passage is figurative. The Hebrew word משׁל/mashal translated “proverb” does not necessarily mean something is fictional. For example Israel did not become fictional when God made them a mashal/proverb in 2 Chron 7:20, Ps 44:14, and Jer 24:9.

.....Here is another passage where God himself is speaking and people who are dead in sheol, speaking, being ashamed, comforted, etc.

Ezek 32:18-22, 30-31 (KJV)
18) Son of man, [Ezekiel] wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit.
19) Whom dost thou pass in beauty? go down, and be thou laid with the uncircumcised.
20) They shall fall in the midst of them that are slain by the sword: she is delivered to the sword: draw her and all her multitudes.
21) The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell [שאול]
with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.
22) Asshur is there and all her company: his graves are about him: all of them slain, fallen by the sword::[ . . . ]
Eze 32:30-31
(30) There be the princes of the north, all of them, and all the Zidonians, which are gone down with the slain; with their terror they are ashamed of their might; and they lie uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword, and bear their shame with them that go down to the pit.
(31) Pharaoh shall see them, and shall be comforted over all his multitude, even Pharaoh and all his army slain by the sword, saith the Lord GOD.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
QUOTE="Der Alter, post: 69831735, member: 11484"]But for the fact Jesus did not contrast "'perishing' to "receiving eternal life."

Actually, John 3:16 makes that exact contrast.

The word for perishing is used in Scripture for the "lost" sheep & coin that were later found. Also Jesus body that was "destroyed" & raised 3 days later.

The word "eternal" (aionion), transliterated into English as eonian, has been used of finite duration.

I came across this quote recently 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)."

http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/view/jat.2015-3.181913130418a/271

Matthew 25:46 "And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian." (CLNT)
 
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

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The word for perishing is used in Scripture for the "lost" sheep & coin that were later found. Also Jesus body that was "destroyed" & raised 3 days later.

The word "eternal" (aionion), transliterated into English as eonian, has been used of finite duration.
I came across this quote recently 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)."

http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/view/jat.2015-3.181913130418a/271

Matthew 25:46 "And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian." (CLNT)

This article is somewhat interesting but virtually useless as evidence of anything. This author, of unknown qualifications, gives his opinion and claims certain historical people, such as Origen, supposedly said certain things but he does not cite any sources for the statements, so that interested parties can review them in context.
Here is some of my research and my sources are properly identified.
Nine language sources cited. Fourteen total references!
1. NAS Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, 2. Thayer’s Lexicon, 3. Vine’s Expository of Biblical Words, 3 references, 4. Louw-Nida Greek English Lexicon of the NT based on Semantic Domains, 2 references, 5. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 6. Abridged Greek lexicon, Liddell-Scott, 7. Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, 3 references, 8. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek English Lexicon of the NT and other Early Christian Literature, 9. Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the NT.
Aion, Aionios and the lexicons:
166. αιωνιος aionios; from 165; agelong, eternal:— eternal(66), eternity(1), forever(1).

Thomas, Robert L., Th.D., General Editor, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries,
166 aionios- αιωνιος
1) without beginning and end, what has always been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

---Thayers
2. αιωνιος aionios [166] "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 αιωνιος , 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 <Philem. 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, <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,' <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>.
αιωνιος 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; 25:41; Jude 7>, and which is elsewhere said to be `unquenchable,' <Mark 9:43>.
"The use of αιωνιος here shows that the punishment referred to in <2 Thes. 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. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words) (Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
67.96 αιωνιος aji>vdio", on; aijwvnio", on: pertaining to an unlimited duration of time - ‘eternal.’
aji>vdio"ò h{ te aji>vdio" aujtou` duvnami" kai; qeiovth" ‘his eternal power and divine nature’ Ro 1.20.
aijwvnio"ò blhqh`nai eij" to; pu`r to; aijwvnion ‘be thrown into the eternal fire’ Mt 18.8; tou` aijwnivou qeou` ‘of the eternal God’ Ro 16.26.
The most frequent use of αιωνιος in the NT is with zwhv ‘life,’ for example, i{na pa`" oJ pisteuvwn ejn aujtw/` e[ch/ zwh;n aijwvnion ‘so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life’ Jn 3.15. In combination with zwhv there is evidently not only a temporal element, but also a qualitative distinction. In such contexts, αιωνιος evidently carries certain implications associated with αιωνιος in relationship to divine and supernatural attributes. If one translates ‘eternal life’ as simply ‘never dying,’ there may be serious misunderstandings, since persons may assume that ‘never dying’ refers only to physical existence rather than to ‘spiritual death.’ Accordingly, some translators have rendered ‘eternal life’ as ‘unending real life,’ so as to introduce a qualitative distinction.

Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.
αιωνιος aionios. An adjective meaning “eternal,” and found in the LXX in Pss. 24; 77:5; Gen. 21:33, aionios in the NT is used 1. of God (Rom. 16:26), 2. of divine possessions and gifts (2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 5:10; 1 Tim. 6:16; 2 Th. 2:16, and 3. of the eternal kingdom (2 Pet. 1:11), inheritance (Heb. 9:15), body (2 Cor. 5:1), and even judgment (Heb. 6:2, though cf. Mt. 18:8; 2 Th. 1:9, where the sense is perhaps “unceasing”).
Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard, Editors, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) 1985.
αιωνιος aionios ", ov and a, ov, lasting for an age (aion 3), Plat.: ever-lasting, eternal, Id.
Liddell, H. G., and Scott, Abridged Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1992.
166 aionios { ahee-o’-nee-os} αιωνιος from 165; TDNT - 1:208,31; adj
AV - eternal 42, everlasting 25, the world began + 5550 2, since the world began + 5550 1, for ever 1; 71
GK - 173 { aionios }
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.
CL The Gk. word αιων aion, which is probably derived from aei, … It thus appeared appropriate to later philosophers to use the word both for the dim and distant past, the beginning of the world, and for the far future, eternity (e.g. Plato, Tim. 37d).
Plato (Timoeus, ed. Steph. 3, 37, or ed. Baiter, Orell. et Winck. 712) says, speaking of the universe: …The nature therefore of the animal (living being) was eternal (aionios, before aidios), and this indeed it was impossible to adapt to what was produced (to genneto, to what had a beginning); he thinks to make a moveable image of eternity (aionos), and in adoring the heavens he makes of the eternity permanent in unity a certain eternal image moving in number, … And after unfolding this, he says (p. 38): "But these forms of time imitating eternity (aiona), and rolling round according to number, have had a beginning (gegonen).... For that pattern exists for all eternity (panta aiona estin on), but on the other hand, that which is perpetual (dia telous) throughout all time has had a beginning, and is, and will be." … Aion is what is properly eternal, in contrast with a divine imitation of it in ages of time, the result of the creative action of God which imitated the uncreate as nearly as He could in created ages.. ]
In Plato the term is developed so as to represent a timeless, immeasurable and transcendent super-time, an idea of time in itself. Plutarch and the earlier Stoics appropriate this understanding, and from it the Mysteries of Aion, the god of eternity, could be celebrated in Alexandria, and gnosticism could undertake its own speculations on time.
* * *

NIDNTT Colin Brown
Wherefore neither in place are things there formed by nature; nor does time cause them to grow old: neither is there any change of anything of those things which are arranged beyond the outermost orbit; but unchangeable, and subject to no influence, having the best and most independent life, they continue for all eternity (aiona). … According to the same word (logon) the completeness of the whole heaven, and the completeness which embraces all time and infinitude is aion, having received this name from existing for ever (apo tou aei einai), immortal (athanatos, undying), and divine." In 10 he goes on to shew that that beginning to be (genesthai) involves the not existing always, which I refer to as shewing what he means by aion. He is proving the unchangeable eternity of the visible universe. That is no business of mine; but it shews what he means by eternity (aion). It cannot be aidion and genesthai at the same time, when, as in Plato, aidios is used as equivalent to aionios.
[Continued next post]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0