• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The decline of hell doctrine and church attendance

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟32,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Because it's a translation.

"Hell" helps people recognize that "it is not tied to the real world."

Why not use a word that would be understood by the people reading?

And why not continue using a word that people still recognize as the concept taught in Scripture?

Hades is translated as Hell, and when it is understood it is distinguished from Gehenna Hell. It was understood in Christ's day as a reference to the place of the dead, and it's use does not endorse Greek Mythology anymore than our use of the word Hell endorses norse mythology.


There is no reason, unless you are trying to set up a doctrine the text does not support.

But the texts do support the Doctrine of Hell.

You aren't going to change that by trying to cry "bad translation."

We must include New Testament teachings when we consider the concept of Hell, and if Sheol were intended in Christ's teachings Hades was used because it was an accepted understanding in His day. Where the final judgment was meant He spoke of Gehenna.

Would people understand better if hades and geena were meant? Or hades and gehenna? Would it change what the Lord Himself was saying?


It was the same with "hades," the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "sheol."

So people would have a different understanding of Hades if the word Hades was used?

They would still see the rich man in torment after his death? Most people would associate that with the judgment that follows physical death.


Well, it was not quite equivalent, as it came from a pagan culture, carried pagan connotations, and was even the name of the "god" who the pagans thought ruled it.

It was equivalent: that is how they undertood it in that day, and that is how we understand it in this day.

People still go to sheol when they die. It doesn't matter if I say sheol or hades in a doctrinal discussion because all parties are going to know what I am speaking about.

And it is the job of the preacher or teacher to make it understood to their students. The translation they use is irrelevant if they are doing their job properly.


Continued...
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,315
8,568
Canada
✟895,181.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married

1) people are doing this, people who belong to an organization they call church.

2) Everything the church does is not automatically an action of "the Lord"

3) By looking at the biblical context, and only emphasizing certain texts, the people in the organization "church" are cultivating spiritual immaturity.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,315
8,568
Canada
✟895,181.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Acts 5:11
And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.



So God and the Apostles were not mature and not properly ministering the New Covenant when this happened?


Continued...
No, they were all brand new Christians at the time, it took time for them to mature. What is written in one place (Acts) does not negate what is written in another place (1st John). That's basic when reading the bible.
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟32,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, the not-so-quick answer is most Bibles in which theology guided the translation.

And Theology is derived from translations?

The Theologians that teach the Doctrine of Hell as taught by Christ never did what you did, study the original language and use of these words and try to place them in the context they are found?

Again, crying "bad translation" is a false argument, because nobody stops at a translation or fails to include all relevant teachings and trying to present the context of those passages as it relates to any given Doctrine.


Bias is almost inevitable, but some versions are more accurate than others and more free of bias.

Irrelevant: if someone is relying on a translation they aren't exactly trying to interpret Scripture.

And this is clearly the case with universal salvation, because they ignore the context and try to use translations to support their doctrine.

The same is true with annihilationists, who think "souls" are in physical graves after death. First misapplying the true meaning of soul to a false meaning of grave.

I don't see those who teach the Doctrine of Hell doing that. So if your argument has any merit it is against your position—not for it.

Study is required,

Correct.

And not study of translations, but the study of the original languages and cultures.


not just choosing the most popular version or one recommended by a stranger in a www forum.

Who does that?

Oh, that's right, those who teach annihilation and universal salvation.


That is why I will not make a recommendation here.

You should: you should recommend people do what you say you did:

I took a good look at how the Hebrew word "sheol" was translated

That's how it's done.


God bless.
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟32,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

So these people were righteous because of their works?

No, i don't agree with that, because salvation is based on the Work of Christ, is a gift, and the works of men do not make them righteous in an eternal context.

That is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about.

The Sheep do these things because they know Christ. That is explicitly taught by Christ in this chapter:


Matthew 25:11-12
King James Version

11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.


Matthew 25:32-33
King James Version

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


Do you think that if men give food and drink they can be saved?

Or do they need to "invite" Christ into their hearts?

Do men need to be righteous to escape the everlasting punishment you are trying to ignore in the passage?


God bless.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,315
8,568
Canada
✟895,181.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married






1) Today's church cannot be compared to the 1st century church, there lacks a centralized structure regulating what is taught in any given church around the world.

2) You cannot claim authority by quoting scripture, the scripture records the devil quoting scripture, and Jesus calling Peter the devil after praising his good confession.

3) The churches abusive practices towards people is reason plenty to leave. If you treat people well, they tend to stick around.

4) The main scripture where teachings is derived from is what Jesus taught as the number one and two teaching, to love God with all of your heart, mind, body, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus further explained anyone standing next to you is your neighbor.

The church didn't do this, and taught teachings, applying them in manner that violated this concept, thus negating any authority they claimed through false bravado. A cracked foundation filled in with sand.
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟32,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree about different "judgments". But that's not the best word for what will happen. Speaking of wrong words...

Aionios mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46.

The wrong words?


Matthew 25:46
King James Version

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



The use of these words show the skill of the Translators, because they distinguish between those who will go into everlasting punishment, and those who go into Life Eternal.

While the righteous have life everlasting, they also have Eternal Life through union with God.

We can say that the everlasting punishment of those not known of God and who obey not the Gospel is eternal punishment because their punishment takes place outside of Creation.

The Lake of Fire is a spiritual place outside of Creation, and we know this because it is still in existence when this Creation passes away:


Revelation 20:11-15
King James Version

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.



So you are free to correct the translation. Please let me know what words you would have used.

And remember, Eternal Life is a basic teaching of Christ. Whatever the duration for punishment you decide on you are going to have to equally apply it to those who have Life.


Continued...
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
* * * When most people hear or see "Hell" they don't think of Norse mythology, they think of the concept taught in Scripture.

Continued
...
I have been active at this forum since Dec '89 or Jan '90, not sure which, and I have been saying that same thing since then, But no matter how many times it is said the UR fall back position is the illogical argument "100s of years ago there was a Norse deity named 'hell.'" Here is how illogical it is. When we say "truck" we think of a large boxy vehicle used for transporting large heavy loads. But originally it meant "vegetables" and over time something that was used to transport vegetables. When we say truck today nobody thinks about vegetables.
 
Reactions: P1LGR1M
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟32,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

And?

Does context mean anything?

Are you really going to say that God should only receive glory in this present world?

Or is Paul stating glory to God forever?

Just answer me that.


Continued...
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟32,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Well, it's pretty obvious to the Public that those teaching universal salvation and annihilation keep repeating the same arguments. And once they have presented them they run off and start a new thread.

Keep up the good work. The work you do is probably not going to benefit your antagonists but it will benefit those who sincerely want to understand the debate.


God bless.
 
Reactions: David's Harp
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,315
8,568
Canada
✟895,181.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married



So let's break that down.

The lake of fire, is the presence of God, people are burning up because they are not compatible with God. As it is written, kill them before my sight.

The second death is called the second death for a reason, because it is written, he who is dead is freed from sin.

There's millennia of torment to be afraid of, sure, but Sin is not Immortal.
 
Reactions: wendykvw
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,315
8,568
Canada
✟895,181.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Eternal separation from God, one of those mythical false teachings that no one ever claims to subscribe to.

There are multiple passages in scripture stating it is impossible to be separated from God so, it's just false, you cannot claim to be teaching the same teachings as Christ and the Apostles.
 
Reactions: wendykvw
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟32,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Aionios, the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in the Bible (eternal hell?)

Yes, Eternal Hell, also known as the Lake of Fire, which has no end:


Rev 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.



Looks like a pretty good translation that is justified by the wording itself.

Do you also see "day and night" as a bad translation?


Continued...
 
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟32,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I appreciate your thoughtful posts, I really do. BUT, the format here on a www discussion forum, is a bit limiting.

You can say that again.


It is not easy posting a comprehensive answer to critics.

Sure it is. It just takes time.


I have posted several times my "Condensation of Conclusions" with many Scripture references, but even that is not generally well received by non-UR believers.

Isn't the same thing I addressed comprehensively in the other thread?


My notes on my 2+ year read-thru of the KJV are too ponderous to post here, as the book the notes turned into runs over 200 pages.

200 pages seems about right for my usual visit to a forum.

I have to say it would be a good idea to bring all you hvae to bear to the table, because so far you haven't been able to present anything that can see that isn't out-of-context use of proof texts and arguments that simply won't stand up.

"Bad translation" is just one of those arguments.

You made boast that you had posted something that no one had answered, and I addressed it in detail, and you ignored the responses.


Continued...
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Saint Steven said:
WRONG! "aionios" is never translated "age" anywhere in the NT. "Aion" is.
“αιωνιος/aionios” occurs 72x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated world only 3 times in the N.T. [1%]
“aionios” is correctly translated “eternal” 42 times in the N.T.[52%]
“aionios” is correctly translated “everlasting” 25 times in the N.T.[34.7%]
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times, [38.8% of total] Jesus never used “aionios” to refer something common, ordinary/mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
In twenty four [24] of the following 26 verses “αιων/aion//αιωνιος/aionios are defined/described as eternal, everlasting, eternity etc, by paralleling or juxtaposition with other adjectives or descriptive phrases.
= = = = = = = = = =
…..Some people claim that “αιων/aion//αιωνιος/aionios never means eternity/eternal” because a few times they refer to something which are not eternal e.g. “world.”
However, neither word is ever defined/described, by adjectives or descriptive phrases, as meaning a period less than eternal, as in the following NT verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. Jesus never used “aionios” to refer to anything common, ordinary or mundane that was not/could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten verses Jesus defines/describes “aionios” as “eternal.” Lk 1:33, John 6:58, 10:28, 3:15, 3:16, 5:29, 3:36, 4:14, 6:27, 8:51

[1] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei [Vb.] over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom [basileias, [Nn.] there shall be no end.[telos]
In this verse the reign/basileusei, the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternal, no end.
[2] John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[aionios]
In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “live aionios” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite age, a finite period life is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[3] John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand”, and “never perish.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite age,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’/never perish” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
[4]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
[5] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life.
In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” twice. Believers could eventually perish in a finite age, by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
[6]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, [Amen, Amen] I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite age,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.
[7]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.
[8]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never [ου μη/ou mé] thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.
In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.
[9]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.
[10]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."
In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means unto eternity.

[Character Limit. Continued next post]




 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,315
8,568
Canada
✟895,181.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married

Father God doesn't want us to fear Him, that's why He sent Jesus, the Son. This is why we have "the comforter." God, The Holy Spirit sent to us.

This is wrong teaching.


You don't seem to be saying anything in response to me here.


1) learn to separate your teaching from when God is teaching, you are not God.

2) Stating that satan did one thing with the old testament scriptures, and the new testament scriptures are immune exposes your falsehood, too obvious.


When there are 1000's of denominations with different teachings, sound teaching becomes an exercise in satisfying itching ears - because it becomes doctrine that "sounds good" to those listening.

Until there's one church, like in the beginning, sound doctrine cannot be claimed.


The passage there didn't communicate certainty, but trust in God's judgment.


I quoted a passage, and you replied with "on the contrary" doesn't that discredit all that you've said up until now?

Theologizing a point not made in the bible to fit your personal theology is kind of what you're at odds with today, so best to start cleaning your own cup first.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: wendykvw
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟32,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, to confirm one of the three afterlife theories, I used a KJV to avoid accusations of bias, but a prominent poster accused me anyway - I think just yesterday.

How exactly is using a King James a way to avoid an accusation of bias?

And why would you think any translation should have preferrence over another outside of personal opinion?


So you know where I am coming from, I was raised a Southern Baptist, so I got hellfire & brimstone.

I was not raised in the "church," I was a heavy metal musician enslaved to drug and alcohol addiction. I was saved in a Baptist Church and began attending Southern and Fundamental fellowships. When I finally realized there were differing views about numerous things I did not go to a translation to seek out the truth, I went to all of Scripture and as best as I could I tried to understand the original languages and cultures and everything that had an impact on what was given us in Scripture.

I no longer have doubts concerning Eternal Security, and I no longer have doubts about the opposite of Eternal Salvation, everlasting punishment.

Eternal Security is by far a tougher dispute to resolve than everlasting judgment. Everlasting judgment is pretty basic.

Later, I was an atheist for several years.

Sorry to hear that.

While never an atheist—I have always been a skeptic.

Still am.

Later, I was a member of the SDA church, which stressed annihilation.

And do you embrace annihilation? Did you? Do you still ride the fence? Seems I remember someone saying they are sympathetic to annihilation or something along those lines, but I am not sure if that was you or not.

What we can say is that it is impossible to entertain annihilation and universal salvation at the same time. Someone is clearly in error.

Who is it?


Continued...
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[Previous post continued]

Paul used the word “aionios” eighteen [18] times. It is correctly translated “eternal/everlasting” 16 times and world only 2 times. In the following 12 verses Paul defines/describes “aionios” as eternal.
[11]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [aionios] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios life” with "death." “A finite age life” is not opposite death. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”
[12]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [tou aionios] and ever! [ton aionion] Amen.​
In this verse Paul parallels “tou aionios ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)," a finite period, cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.
[13]Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[14]Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​
In Rom 1:20, above, Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars unanimously agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, refers to God as “aionios.” Paul has used “aionios” synonymous with “aidios.” In this verse, by definition, “aionios” means eternal, everlasting etc.
[15]2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [aionios] weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;[proskairos] but the things which are not seen are eternal [aionios]​
In this passage Paul juxtaposes “aionios” with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” an indeterminate finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary” “eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[16]2 Corinthians 5:1
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [aionios] in the heavens.​
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios house” with “earthly house which is destroyed.” God is not going to replace our destroyed earthly house with a house which only lasts a little longer and will be destroyed at the end of an indeterminate age. The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus, “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[17]1 Timothy 6:16
(16) Who only hath immortality, [aphthartos] dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting [aionios]​
In this verse Paul paralleled “aionios” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite age, God cannot be “immortal” and exist only for a finite age at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”
[18]Galatians 6:8
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; [fthora] but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [aionios]​
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios” with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”
[19]Romans 2:7
(7) To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, [apftharsia] he will give eternal [aionios] life.​
In this verse Paul parallels “aionios life” with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, believers do not seek for “a finite age,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternal life” and “immortality” at the same time. Thus by definition “aionios life” here means “eternal life.”
[20]1 Timothy 1:17.
(17) Now unto the King eternal, [aion] immortal, [aphthartos] invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever [aion] and ever [aionios]. Amen.​
In this verse Paul parallels “aion” and “aionios” with “immortal.” “Aion”/”aionios” cannot mean “age(s),” a finite age and immortal at the same time. Thus “aion”/”aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
[21]Romans 5:21
(21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal [aionios] life by Jesus Christ our Lord.​
In this verse Paul juxtaposes “aionios life” with death. “A finite ‘age’ life” is not opposite death. “Aionios life” by definition here means ‘eternal life.”
[22]Ephesians 3:21
(21) to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever [tou aionios] and ever! [ton aionion] Amen.​
In this verse Paul parallels “tou aionios/ton aionion” with “throughout all generations.” "Age(s)" a finite period cannot refer to "all generations." By definition “tou aionios ton aionion” means forever and ever.
[23]Hebrews 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever [aion] he has an unchangeable [aparabatos] priesthood.​
In this verse “aion” is parallel with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue for only a “finite age” and simultaneously be “unchangeable.” Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”
[24]1 Peter 1:23
(23) For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, [aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God. …
1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[aion] " And this is the word that was preached to you.​
In verse 23 Peter parallels “word of God” with “imperishable.” The same writer, Peter, in the same writing 1 Peter, in verse 25 writes the word of God “endures eis ton aiona/unto eternity. ” The word of God is not a finite age long but imperishable. Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity”
[25]1 Peter 5:10
(10) And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal [aionion] glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, [oligon] will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.​
In this verse Peter contrasted “aionios” with “little while” Jesus does not give His followers a finite period of glory then they eventually die. Thus “aionios” here, by definition, means “eternal.”
[26]Revelation 14:11
(11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:[eis aionas aionon] and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.​
In this verse “aionas aionon torment” is paralleled with “no rest day or night.” If “aionas, aionon” means “a finite age” at some time they would rest, “Aionas, aionon” by definition here means “unto eternities of eternities.”
= = = = = = =
Footnotes ου μη/ou mé
●The double negative [ου μη] signifies in nowise, by no means. Θεωρήσῃ[theōrésé], denoting steady, protracted vision, is purposely used, because the promise contemplates the entire course of the believer's life in Christ. It is not, shall not die forever, but shall live eternally.[Vincent word studies]
● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή/ ou mé has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

● The combinations with οὐ μή/ou mé also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή/ ou mé (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165
 
Reactions: P1LGR1M
Upvote 0

P1LGR1M

Stranger
Jun 20, 2012
2,528
145
✟32,889.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Later, I almost stumbled over UR, and rejected it a time or two, until I did that read-thru of the KJV.

Or proof texted yourself into believing it?

Would you even admit that such a thing could happen to you?

Do you really deny that when I show the proof texts to be out of context that they are in fact being used out of context?


Here is just one of the posts that responded to what you are again presenting as something that hasn't been addressed:





Your proof texts have been addressed but you diid not bother to respond to that address.

Why not?

Can you show how your proofs and proof-texting are not out of context and why my own presentation as to why they are can be shown to be erroneous conclusion?


Continued...
 
Upvote 0