I give up.

[Rize]

I still firmly believe that out of all of these interpretations of Revelation (pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib and pre-wrath) that pre-wrath is the most tenable by far. 

Even so, I'm backing off to reevaluate some fundamental assumptions I've made in regard to Revelation and revelation.

To everyone here, I would suggest that you keep an open mind in regard to anything as uncertain as prophecy.

 

[JesusServant]

I'm still seeking the truth of it as well. BTW, what does "universalist" under your name mean? It kind of worries me after seeing that Matraiya (whatever) website.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Nicely put Rize. This attitude you show isn't found too often around here. Seems like everybody wants to be know it all's!

I also believe in a pre-wrath rapture but I will always keep an open mind about it as well as any different interpretation in the bible. The only major problem I have with different interpretations is when I hear people say Jesus didn't really die or that Jesus wasn't really God, I have no open mind about that!

 

[Rize]

Today at 03:31 PM JesusServant said this in Post #2

I'm still seeking the truth of it as well. BTW, what does "universalist" under your name mean? It kind of worries me after seeing that Matraiya (whatever) website.

JS, check my signature.

Neph, thanks

 

[JesusServant]

I'm not very smart Rize. You'll have to explain it to me please.

 

[JesusServant]

NM, Rize, I'm checking it out now.

 

[ladylove]

Rize,

I do think you are taking this verse out of context to fit a Universalism view. However, please let me know if you don't believe that everyone recieves salvation. Because I don't believe everyone does...and the Bible does not support that view either.

You have some very strange disjointed belief systems.  It appears you believe that EVERYONE will be saved (Universalism), yet also appear to agree with the Pre-wrath view of eschatology.  Please let me know if this is how you view your theology.  I could misunderstand your posts, so please correct this if I am wrong here.  This is very strange. 

 

[ephod]

.

 

[MY-LIFE-IS-IN-YOU-LORD]

OK one thing is for certian JESUS is coming back one day!

The main thing is to BE READY!
Do not be so caught up on pre mid post.
Keep an open mind and focus on getting others ready for that wonderful day to come!


IF YOUR READY YOU WON'T MISS HIM!

 

[Rize]

Thank you ephod and MLiiYL.

LadyLove:

26th February 2003 at 12:00 PM ladylove said this in Post #7
I do think you are taking this verse out of context to fit a Universalism view. However, please let me know if you don't believe that everyone recieves salvation. Because I don't believe everyone does...and the Bible does not support that view either.

You have some very strange disjointed belief systems.  It appears you believe that EVERYONE will be saved (Universalism), yet also appear to agree with the Pre-wrath view of eschatology.  Please let me know if this is how you view your theology.  I could misunderstand your posts, so please correct this if I am wrong here.  This is very strange. 

My post record did not show that this thread had been replied to or else I would have replied sooner.  Though I have addressed this in other threads, I will address it here again for the rest.

It is my view that, of the pre-millenial views of eschatology, pre-wrath is far superior to any other view.  I am still evaluating the possibility of less literal views.  Though I admit that the surprising coherency of the pre-wrath view strongly suggests that it is correct.

I do believe that everyone will be saved eventually.  This does not mean that anyone will avoid judgment, or that no one goes to Hell.  It simply means that Hell is not a place where God tortures people forever because He just can't figure out something better to do with them.  The misunderstanding regarding the nature of Hell is due to errors being introduced into the first non-Greek/Hebrew copies of the Bible (in Latin).  Since then, the errors of been handed down to us, and even today, no popular Bible has corrected them (publishers are too afraid of the money they would lose).  There are actually many translations that do not have the erronous renderings which teach eternal torment, but they are obscure.  The majority of the confusion comes from the mistranslation of a single word and it's derivatives:  aion, aiones, aionios and in Hebrew, olam.  Some Christians have even done some honest, albeit superficial, study of these words in answer to universalism.  I've stared the opposition in the face, and their argument simply don't hold water.

The following two links are electronic copies of books with no copyright.  The first is much newer than the second, but the second is a little more thorough (though less readable) than the first.  If you can find time, I strongly suggest that you read them in that order.  They will shed light on just how dubious our translation of aionios and aion as "forever" and "eternal" is.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/time/index.html

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html

As far as taking that verse out of context, that is not at all the case.  In fact, just yesterday, I verified that it is very much within the context.  I will reprint below something I sent to someone in an email that relates to 1 Corinthians 15:22-23.  And this doctrine does not stand or fall on this one verse.  There are many others like it in both the Old and New Testaments.

--------------------------

While shopping in Books A Million, I happened to see a book entitled Figures of Speech Used In the Bible authored by Bullinger.  So I took the opportunity to look up something I had heard concerning 1 Corinthians 15:23, and I found a small discussion of that very verse. 

From the Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (REB): 1 Corinthians 15:23 -- But each [will be made alive] in his own rank: a firstfruit, Christ; after that, they who are the Christ's in his Presence; afterwards the end.

Bullinger fully supported the view that the figure of speech, the end, refers to the rest of the dead being resurrected rather than referring to the end of the world.  But he viewed this third resurrection as a resurrection for judgment at the end of the one thousand years of Revelation chapter 20.  However, in a completely different part of the book (the figures of speech being arranged by category and only in the index by scriptural location), the author contradicts this view in discussing 1 Corinthians 15:22.

From the REB: 1 Corinthians 15:22 -- For just as in the Adam all die [Greek: or died], so also in the Christ shall all be made alive.

He was apparently well aware that when it appears elsewhere in scripture, the term made alive always refers to the kind of vivifying resurrection that results from the saving work of Jesus.  Because of this, he explained that the all who die in Adam cannot truly mean all people, because some will escape death through the rapture.  Based on this assumption, he infers that in a similar manner, the all who will be made alive in Christ cannot refer to all people because not all will be saved.  However, because the two discussions were separated in his book by many pages, he apparently never realized that his position on verse 22 contradicts his explanation on verse 23.  Apparently, he also didn't consider that the tense of the Greek word for die can also mean died (in a historical sense; see following quote from http://www.blueletterbible.com concerning the verb's tense).

"Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English will often occur in the present tense in Greek. These are termed "historical presents," and such occurrences dramatize the event described as if the reader were there watching the event occur. Some English translations render such historical presents in the English past tense, while others permit the tense to remain in the present."

Such a historical present can only be determined by context.

So, an explanation that preserves the idea that both instances of all mean all people, would be:  Just as Adam surely died (spiritually) on the day that he ate of the tree of knowledge (Genesis 3:16), we surely were born dead (spiritually) because of Adam's transgression.  It could easily be argued that this spiritual death is what is being referred to here.  In that way, an amplified rendering of verse 22 might read:  For as in Adam all have died [spiritually], so in Christ all will be made alive [spiritually]!  This fits perfectly with the usage of made alive (Strong's # 2227) elsewhere in the New Testament.

Because modern translations render these verses in such a way that only Christ and those who are in Christ at his coming are mentioned as part of the all who will be made alive, this was previously a major sticking point for me, and it easily provides cover for those who wish to find an easy way out of the universalist implications of these verses.  In this new light, it has instead become an extremely strong scripture in support of universal salvation!  When properly understood, verse 23 clarifies exactly who the all in verse 22 is, and it thus makes the grammatical gymnastics of non-universalists all the more dubious.

--------------------

Pontious Pilate asked Jesus to his face: "What is truth?"  What indeed?

 

[Pericles]

Today at 06:13 PM Rize said this in Post #10

I do believe that everyone will be saved eventually.  This does not mean that anyone will avoid judgment, or that no one goes to Hell.  

I am not sure how you can biblically justify what you are saying.

1.  If everyone will eventually be saved, then who ends up in hell?

2.  Jesus said in John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, AND DOES NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT, but has passed out of death into life."  How do the plain words of Christ fit in your judgment theory?

 

[Rize]

Today at 05:32 PM Pericles said this in Post #11

I am not sure how you can biblically justify what you are saying.

1.  If everyone will eventually be saved, then who ends up in hell?

2.  Jesus said in John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, AND DOES NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT, but has passed out of death into life."  How do the plain words of Christ fit in your judgment theory?

Basically, it's exactly like normal Christianity except those who end up in "Hell" or more accurately "the Lake of Fire", do not remain there for eternity.  Exactly what happens to them, I don't know, but eventually, they will come to repentance and be delivered from sin just like everyone else.  Everyone's salvation has been gauranteed from the beginning of time when God purposed to save us through Jesus.  Everything else is detail.

For more information, check the two links in my sig.  The first will get you started with the basics, the second is perfect for follow up questions (and I'll be happy to answer any myself).

Just ask yourself this:  What reason could God possibly have (assuming that He is good, and that He is love) for tormenting people for eternity?

 

[Pericles]

Rize,

We can ask ourselves questions all day.  I am talking about what the Bible says.  Where does the Bible say that people will not be in the lake of fire for ever, and where does it say that they are coming out for a second chance?  According to your logic Satan, since he was also thrown into the lake of fire, will also have a chance to be redeemed.

My question was "how can you biblically justify it", not how we can ask ourselves questions.  You are taking the Mormon position on this issue, the Low Way ending in the telestial kingdom, where of course, anyone can eventually elevate himself or herself to godhood. 

The Bible clearly and plainly says that:

1. Whoever hears Christ's word and believes it will not go through judgment. - John 5

and

2. Individuals that end up in the lake of fire are tormented "forever and ever" - see Revelation 20:10.

Again, I am asking, what are you making of these verses, and what biblical support do you have for this position? If these passages don't mean what they say, what exactly do they mean?

 

[Rize]

Yesterday at 07:07 PM Pericles said this in Post #13
We can ask ourselves questions all day.  I am talking about what the Bible says.  Where does the Bible say that people will not be in the lake of fire for ever, and where does it say that they are coming out for a second chance?  According to your logic Satan, since he was also thrown into the lake of fire, will also have a chance to be redeemed.

My question was "how can you biblically justify it", not how we can ask ourselves questions.  You are taking the Mormon position on this issue, the Low Way ending in the telestial kingdom, where of course, anyone can eventually elevate himself or herself to godhood. 

The Bible clearly and plainly says that:

1. Whoever hears Christ's word and believes it will not go through judgment. - John 5

and

2. Individuals that end up in the lake of fire are tormented "forever and ever" - see Revelation 20:10.

Again, I am asking, what are you making of these verses, and what biblical support do you have for this position? If these passages don't mean what they say, what exactly do they mean?

I need to write up a universalism primer or something.

First of all, I never said that the wicked will not face judgment.  What is judgment to you?  Does the word judgment somehow imply that they judged will be tormented for ever?  If so, why?

Secondl, Revelation 20:10 says that the Devil, the Beast and the False Prophet will be tormented "for ever and ever".  It should also be noted that it says nothing about ordinary people (if any people at all).

Nowl, what is "for ever and ever" supposed to mean?  Wouldn't "for ever" imply eternity by itself?  What is that extra ever for?  It doesn't make any sense.

The reason it is there is because in the original language it actually says "into the ages of ages" which is not exactly the same now is it?  Whenever modern translators think the idea of everlasting duration should be applied, they translate aion as forever/ever, or (in conjunction with not) or never, and likewise, they translate aionios as eternal except in one instance where the context forces them to translate it in a non eternal way.  Remember those articles I cited above on aion and aionios (in the middle of the big reply to LadyLove).  Unless you want to learn about aionios and aion you're just going to have to take my word for that and try to find other verses that suggest that people will be tormented for ever.

As to where the Bible says that individuals will escape the Lake of Fire, where does it say that they will not?  In fact, it is specifically called "the second death" numerous times.  The most natural reading of it would imply annihilation not eternal torment.  Whatever our position is concerning what happens to wicked people who die is exactly the position we will naturally read into the Lake of Fire.

In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, it never says anything about the Rich Man getting out of Hades and escaping those flames of torment.  In fact, he asks to get out and warn his family and he's told that he isn't going anywhere.  It sounds like he'll be in there for ever eh?  Yet, we know from the rest of the Bible that there will be a judgment, and that Hades itself will be thrown into the Lake of Fire, so he must get out of Hades at some point.  In the same way, all of the scriptural support for universal salvation forces the position that people will eventually get out of the Lake of Fire.  We take "the second death" to be the death of the sinful nature.  A purging in other words (and this language is perfectly consistant with the language of Paul and the Gospel writers: converts on earth must be baptized with the Spirit and with Fire, and they must crucify their flesh to die and be born again).  So, what does "the second death" mean to someone who believes in eternal torment?  And is that understanding stretching things a bit?

Even so, the, the Lake of Fire is clearly a place to fear and avoid (1 Corinthians 3:10-15ish).

The reason I ask you "questions all day" is because they are designed to reveal to you that there is a problem with the logic of eternal torment.  This should cause you to explore whether or not the Bible has been translated correctly in that regard.

 

[JesusServant]

Keep reading Revelation 20 Rize. You are wrong about "ordinary people" not being mentioned...

(Revelation 20:14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

(Revelation 20:15) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Rize]

JS,

You misunderstand.  When the devil the beast and false prophet are thrown in, it says that they will be tormented day and night "forever and ever" (into the ages of ages).  When the people are thrown in, it says "this is the second death".

As I said though, none of that really matters in the first place because "for ever and ever" is a dishonest translation from the Greek.  It is like the NIV translation of 1 Peter 4:6 where they added a word because they felt like it (go check a few different translations to see what I mean:  http://www.biblegateway.com ).

How do you get "for ever and ever" from "into the ages of ages"?

The best explanation I've heard of is that "into the ages of ages" was an expression that meant "forever".  The idea is that in "Greek thought" and "Jewish thought" there was only "the current age" and "the age to come" (which is eternal).  So any reference to the coming age, or to "age of ages" or "into the ages of ages" means forever.  The mention of "ages of ages" though, ruins this right there.  If there are only two ages, then the expression "ages of ages" is meaningless.  Furthermore, parts of the Bible (old and new testament) mention ages to come.  Modern Jewish thought, and possibly even first century Pharisaical thought holds to that kind of thinking.  But it's not evident in the Bible.

Additionally, the expression is not found outside of the Bible (in Greek literature).  This is because it is a transliteration of an OT expression, olam of olams.

It was used there to indicate obscurity.  Something of which no end was known, but it did not implicitly mean eternal.  So, this expression word was often applied to God (for lack of a Hebrew word meaning eternal).  The only way that a Hebrew could express, in certain terms, everlastingness was with negatives.  For example, "world without end" (a line that appears twice in the KJV but which is not in the original language) clearly means "world with no end". 

If you have time, you should read some of the material at the Tentmaker website 

Time and Eternity in the Bible is a most excellent discussion on the Hebrew and Greek words that we often mistranslate as "forever" and "eternity".
 
There's no good short presentation on the subject.  A short presentation won't tell you anything more than what I have already told you.  The best I can do, in short, is below: 

Aionios simply does not mean eternal.  It is the adjective form of the Greek noun aion which means "age" or "eon".  And so, aionios either means, "of the age" or "age-enduring" (we have no adjective form of the English noun age, so it's hard to express).

The simplest indication of this that I can give you is the couple of instances of the word where cannot have the meaning of eternal (and so isn't translated in that way).

Romans 16:25 before times (chronos) of the age (aionios)
2 Timothy 1:9 before times (chronos) of the age (aionios)
Titus 1:2 before age-abiding (aionios) times (chronos)

Notice that "before eternal times" makes no sense (since nothing can be 'before' eternity).  So the word is not used.  In all of these KJV verses, we get "before the world began".  Now if that, or the more literal "before times of the age" or "before age-abiding times" can be used here, why can't "eternal life" and "eternal punishment" be: "life of the age" and "punishment of the age"?  Or even, "life of eternity" and "punishment of eternity"?

If it could mean that, then would the Bible still say that people will be tortured for ever?  If that is what it means, couldn't the life of the age be everlasting while the punishment of the age is not?

Look those verses up in ttp://www.blueletterbible.org">[url]http://www.blueletterbible.org[/URL]]the Blue Letter Bible[/URL] if you want.

Hit the little blue square with a C in it.  From there, find, in the chart that pops up, the instance of Strong's number (166).  Since this is the KJV, you'll find that it isn't even rendered in these instances.  Note that if the meaning of "eternal" (without beginning or end) were ascribed, the passage would become giberish.

The question is, if it can't mean eternal in a few spots, why does it have to mean eternal in all of those other spots? 

Again, check out this free, online book for a comprehensive study of the relevant scripture.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/time/index.html

 

[Pericles]

Rize,

What is dishonest is your approach to the original language, not the Bible translation. Any normal person that would hear a phrase like "tormented day and night" would understand a continuous action, and by adding "into ages and ages" to this, it's very plain and clear that the tormenting will not have an end.

On top of this, at first, I thought that you simply don't have the understanding necessary to comprehend the Bible as a whole, but it is now clear that you are actively ignoring the most basic principles of exegesis.  If your argument rests entirely on the translation of Revelation 20:10, then you are falling quite short of satisfying a critical mind.

A sound principle of exegesis would direct one to look at other passages of the scripture to see how the concept of eternity, time, and punishment fits in the Bible as a whole.

The idea that aion (and other derivatives) was not translated properly in ANY of the passages that imply a never-ending period of time is ludicrous. Examples that disprove you are numerous:

- Romans 1:25 - the creator who is blessed forever (aionas)

- Romans 9:5 - God blessed forever (aionas)

- 2 Cor. 11:31 - He who is blessed forever (aionas)

- Ephesians 3:21 - to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever (aionos ton aionon) - basically the same expression used in Rev. 20:10

- Phil. 4:20 - to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen - THE SAME EXPRESSION USED IN Rev. 20:10 (eis tous aionas ton aionon)

- 1 Timothy 1:17 - be honor and glory forever and ever - THE SAME EXPRESSION USED IN Rev. 20:10 (eis tous aionas ton aionon)

- 2 Timothy 4:18 - to Him be the glory forever and ever - THE SAME EXPRESSION USED IN Rev. 20:10 (eis tous aionas ton aionon)

- Heb. 13:21 - to whom be the glory forever and ever - THE SAME EXPRESSION USED IN Rev. 20:10 (eis tous aionas ton aionon)

- 1 Peter 4:11 - to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever - THE SAME EXPRESSION USED IN Rev. 20:10 (eis tous aionas ton aionon)

- 1 Peter 5:11 - to Him be dominion forever and ever - THE SAME EXPRESSION USED IN Rev. 20:10 (eis tous aionas ton aionon)

- Revelation 1:6 - to Him be the glory and the dominon forever and ever - THE SAME EXPRESSION USED IN Rev. 20:10 (eis tous aionas ton aionon)

I could go on and on.  To claim that ALL these passages are mistakenly translated is laughable, ridiculous and simply dishonest.  Not only is God eternal and everlasting, but in none of these passages would the author ever dare to imply that God would only be blessed for a "limited" period of time.  Plain and straightforward reading of the passages imply that the authors intend to communicate a never-ending period of time. 

Furthermore, many instances of the hebrew word "ever, forever, time without end, eternity" has also been translated as "aion" in the Septuagint or as eis tous aionas ton aionon.

At last, many instances in classical greek literature make use of the same expression to communicate the same idea of "never-ending, everlasting" periods of time. 

I recommend that you put more study into this issue.  Moses Stuart wrote a great book on this issue titled "Exegetical Essays on Several Words relating to Future Punishment". The book is available on my website.

 

[EveOfGrace]

Rize i am disheartened. You truly ARE my brother in the Lord and i have come in even a short time to respect your views and beliefs because you DO have a teachable, earnest spirit that seeks to learn truth. The discussions here which i myself have participated revealed not only this, but together, as previously stated here, we learn from each other.  It is written: Come, let us reason TOGETHER. You have obviously taken time in obedience to scriptures to study them and do know them well. It is thus disquieting to hear your words here, which are not your own, but those written by the authors of the Tentmaker site. 

Before posting a response here, i followed your link in all fairness and did read alot there.  What struck me first in your postings, is the dwelling on of misinterpretation of the Word of God, as though God is not capable of preserving His word as He so states in Psalms and other places.  The one word, aionas, which was said to mean 'age' is not altogether correct. Perpetual would be a better meaning, since it IS the adjective of the root. The other puzzling theme running through the entire doctrinal notion requires the absence of mans own decision toward God, that He simply saves all.

The page on the site i was interested in first was of course, the about page.  What the 'ministry's' intent, statements of faith, etc., consisted of.  All important. It seems the intent is to prove or show the true attributes of God, which is first and foremost Love. So far so good, no argument from me.  However, the mistake rests on the idea that because God's Love is unconditional (agape), that He would not at any time condemn a person to torment or eternal punishment.  It paints a wonderful picture of a loving merciful God who saves all and embraces the whole of creation. It mentions little if nothing of God being HOLY.

Nevertheless, i read further to understand your point here. I visited several pages which included one very disturbing one, at the bottom of course, that totally DENIES mans ability to choose Christ and therefore life. That salvation is solely given without regard to mans will. That even Adam had not freedom to choose.  It was a very lengthy page drenched in morbid supposition with very little scripture.

I ask you Rize to consider: If God is Love, and made man with the same capacity of giving and recieving the same, how can choice be eliminated?  That one thing, the choice, is what enables the very capacity to Love.  Absence of choice is slavery, and that is satans ground. 

I encourage you to rely upon your first approach to this cult heresy to stand AGAINST it, close the door that you have openned and partake not any further in the words of the tongues of serpents.  Keep on studying the BIBLE but please do leave these unorthodox religious 'isms' to their own. I am being blunt and forward here as a sister in Christ, because what you are delving in is NOT FOR YOU. 

And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 

To Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever.

 EveOfGrace 

 

 

[dnich163]

Today at 08:59 AM EveOfGrace said this in Post #18
The other puzzling theme running through the entire doctrinal notion requires the absence of mans own decision toward God, that He simply saves all.  

Hi there Eve,

I think that this is one of the main issues surrounding an omniscient God.

If God is all powerful, maker of all, do we really have free will?

Medeival theology deemed it true that we have free will, but only inside the context of the creator and creation i.e. that we have a choice but this choice eventually cannot be beyond the power of God.

David

 

[Pericles]

Today at 08:23 AM dnich163 said this in Post #19
Medeival theology deemed it true that we have free will, but only inside the context of the creator and creation i.e. that we have a choice but this choice eventually cannot be beyond the power of God.
David

How does the Bible deem it?