Universalism...why not?

[ClementofA]

Considering that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, your reputable biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their own theological Universalist opinions. Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. What your biased scholars have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own Universalist opinions, which is shameful. As you can see empty accusations are meaningless.

Actually, unlike Eternal Damnationist versions, true translations allow the word to be interpreted within its range of meanings. Aionios translated as "eonian", for example, leaves it up to the reader to interpret if this refers to a finite or infinite eonian period of time. OTOH, the blasphamous evil translation "eternal" injects biased theological opinion into the Scriptures. Eternal is an interpretation, not a legitimate translation.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[mkgal1]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false

....and that can apply to universal reconciliation just as much as eternal damnation or annihilation. Neither of these beliefs can be "proven false"--that's why all 3 beliefs have continued to be accepted (universal reconciliation; annihilation; eternal torment).

Irrelevant logical fallacy, argument from silence.

Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence): The fallacy that if available sources remain silent or current knowledge and evidence can prove nothing about a given subject or question this fact in itself proves the truth of one's claim. E.g., "Science can tell us nothing about God. That proves God doesn't exist." Or "Science admits it can tell us nothing about God, so you can't deny that God exists!" Often misused in the American justice system, where, contrary to the 5th Amendment, remaining silent or "taking the Fifth" is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., "Mr. Hixon has no alibi for the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was in fact in room 331 at the Smuggler's Inn, murdering his wife with a hatchet!" In today's America, choosing to remain silent in the face of a police officer's questions can make one guilty enough to be arrested or even shot. See also, Argument from Ignorance.

That would work for topics that ARE irrelevant or out of cultural context......like Scripture being silent on use of the internet being "sinful" or not........but I don't believe it makes sense that the whole NT is silent on such a crucial topic of salvation (as asserted by damnationists).

 

[mkgal1]

On necessary paradigm shifts:

History has so long operated with a static and imperial image of God—as a Supreme Monarch who is mostly living in splendid isolation from what he—and God is always and exclusively envisioned as male in this model—created. This God is seen largely as a Critical Spectator, and his followers do their level best to imitate their Creator in this regard.

We always become what we behold; the presence that we practice matters. That’s why we desperately need a worldwide paradigm shift in Christian consciousness for how we relate to God. This shift has been subtly yet profoundly underway for some time, hiding in plain sight—the revelation of God as what we have called “Trinity” but have barely understood.

In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn popularized the term “paradigm shift.” [1] Kuhn said that paradigm shifts become necessary when the plausibility structure of the previous paradigm becomes so full of holes and patchwork “fixes” that a complete overhaul, which once looked utterly threatening, now appears as a lifeline.

I believe we’re at precisely such a moment when it comes to our images of God. Instead of the idea of Trinity being an abstruse conundrum, it could well end up being the answer to the foundational problem of Western religion.

Instead of God being the Eternal Threatener, we have God as the Ultimate Participant—in everything—both the good and the painful.

Instead of an Omnipotent Monarch, we see Trinity as the actual and wondrous shape of Divine Reality, which replicates itself in us (see Genesis 1:26) and in “all the array” of creation (see Genesis 2:1).

Instead of God watching life happen from afar and judging it . . .
How about God being inherent in life itself?
How about God being the Life Force of everything?

Instead of God being an Object like any other object . . .
How about God being the Life Energy between each and every object (which we would usually call Love or Spirit)?

Instead of the small god—usually preoccupied with exclusion—in our current (and dying) paradigm, the Trinitarian Revolution reveals God as totally inclusive and with us in all of life instead of standing on the sidelines, critiquing which things belong and which things don’t.

This God is the very one whom we have named “Trinity”—the Flow who flows through everything, without exception, and who has done so since the beginning. For those who have learned to see, everything is holy now.~https://cac.org/spiritual-paradigm-shift-2016-09-14/

 

[Der Alte]

Actually, unlike Eternal Damnationist versions, true translations allow the word to be interpreted within its range of meanings. Aionios translated as "eonian", for example, leaves it up to the reader to interpret if this refers to a finite or infinite eonian period of time. OTOH, the blasphemous evil translation "eternal" injects biased theological opinion into the Scriptures. Eternal is an interpretation, not a legitimate translation.

Total nonsense. For example the adjective aionios was first used by Plato and he used it synonymous with aidios. I provided the evidence in my post quoting nine Greek languages sources, several times, which has been totally ignored. Many scholars believe Plato coined the adjective from the noun aion. Since the first known use of aionios means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. the other translations are the ones that are blasphemous evil, injects biased theological opinion and are not legitimate translations. And I have the historical evidence on my side. Along these lines one who is interested in the truth of this argument might want to review how the ECF used the adjective aionios.

 

[ClementofA]

Total nonsense. For example the adjective aionios was first used by Plato and he used it synonymous with aidios. I provided the evidence in my post quoting nine Greek languages sources, several times, which has been totally ignored. Many scholars believe Plato coined the adjective from the noun aion. Since the first known use of aionios means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. the other translations are the ones that are blasphemous evil, injects biased theological opinion and are not legitimate translations. And I have the historical evidence on my side. Along these lines one who is interested in the truth of this argument might want to review how the ECF used the adjective aionios.

Those comments are not rational or pertinent to the topic or points i made.

 

[gordonhooker]

Total nonsense. For example the adjective aionios was first used by Plato and he used it synonymous with aidios. I provided the evidence in my post quoting nine Greek languages sources, several times, which has been totally ignored. Many scholars believe Plato coined the adjective from the noun aion. Since the first known use of aionios means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. the other translations are the ones that are blasphemous evil, injects biased theological opinion and are not legitimate translations. And I have the historical evidence on my side. Along these lines one who is interested in the truth of this argument might want to review how the ECF used the adjective aionios.

Rubbish it is another example of a straw man argument.

 

[mkgal1]

I'm not a linguist.....but doesn't language evolve....and have different uses in different contexts (isn't that part of what's difficult taking even the same language--like Greek--from 1600 years ago or so and translating it to now)?

If a teenager says, "that's sick!"....does that always mean the same thing as "that's ill"? Is that always expressing something negatively....or does it sometimes mean they greatly appreciate something? In the U.S.....when someone goes shopping at the grocery store they use the English word "cart", but in England, I believe they use the word "buggy". It's all English.....it's all for this era.

Plato didn't author any of the Bible---so why would we be concerned with HIS usage of language?

 

[Hillsage]

Plato didn't author any of the Bible---so why would we be concerned with HIS usage of language?

It's important because he knew the meaning of contemporary Greek in his day. So we learn from secular writers 'today' saying "that's sick" the same way we learn from 'smart' theologians 'today' who say "that's sick".

Those who have to have a 'likeness of God' that resonates with their heart, have to support eternal torture . But there's another explanation for Plato's plight, concerning modern scholarship looking back through the millennia with their indoctrinated glasses.

This adjective “aionios” is never found until the writings of Plato (427 BC - 347 BC) who only used the word five times, and while he did use this word in the context of eternity, he never used it by itself to mean such. Why? Because the word, in and of itself does not mean “eternity.” Whenever he wanted to convey the idea of eternity, he always combined a stronger forced word with it (such as “aidios”), but not once did he ever use “aionios” by itself to mean “endless.” However, both Plato and Aristotle did use the word “aionios” by itself to mean temporary.

Below is the only Greek word that is equivalent to our definition of eternity;

0126 aidios: everduring (forward and backward, or forward only) 2x in NT; Rom 1:20, Jude 1:6

An 'adjective' example; An 'hour' (noun) has 60 minutes in it. To have 5 'hourly' (adjective) meetings does not mean an hour's definition is now 300 minutes long. Hourly is simply descriptive of something that takes place within each hour's time span of a '60 minutes'. In this case the adjective 'hourly' is descriptive of the noun, 'meetings'. A ‘60 minute’ definition doesn’t become ‘300 minutes’. But that is exactly what many scholars would have us believe when interpreting the noun aion into its derivative adjective aionios....an age suddenly becomes eternity.

YLT JOH 17:3 and this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send - Jesus Christ;

Aionios pertains to a quality of life, in time as opposed to a quantity of time, in life. 2000 years ago Plato and Aristotle knew this, today eternal torturers don't.

 

[mkgal1]

That's a good point about using writers of an era to understand the particular language of that time....it just seems to me that Jesus, Paul, and John repeated their themes in their use of language in a way that was unique to them. They had their own metaphors ("bread of life"; "living water"; "walk in the spirit not the flesh"; "baptism by fire " are a few phrases that come to mind).

As far as the Greek word aion.. I found this:

>>>>In the Septuagint the Greek word, aion, is used to translate the Hebrew word olam. Thus, if we want to get a sense of the N.T. meaning of aion, we need to understand the meaning of olam in the O.T. Numerous passages referring to olam show clearly it cannot mean “never-ending” in those texts. Note these few:

¨ Jonah was in the fish forever [olam]. But only until he left three days later (Jon. 1:17; 2:6).

--Sodom’s fiery judgment is eternal [olam]. But only until God returns them to their former state (Ez. 16:53-55; Ju. 7).
http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/articles/further-study/eternity/


ETA: Ezekiel 16:53~“Your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to their former state, and you with your daughters will also return to your former state.

 

[Der Alte]

Rubbish it is another example of a straw man argument.

Interesting! I didn't use the word "rubbish."

 

[Der Alte]

I'm not a linguist.....but doesn't language evolve....and have different uses in different contexts (isn't that part of what's difficult taking even the same language--like Greek--from 1600 years ago or so and translating it to now)?

If one supposes that Biblical languages evolved then one has the burden of proof to provide credible, verifiable, historical, emphasis on historical evidence to support that supposition. Quoting from "hope beyond hell" is not such evidence.

If a teenager says, "that's sick!"....does that always mean the same thing as "that's ill"? Is that always expressing something negatively....or does it sometimes mean they greatly appreciate something? In the U.S.....when someone goes shopping at the grocery store they use the English word "cart", but in England, I believe they use the word "buggy". It's all English.....it's all for this era.

We could say the same thing about words like "heavy,""cool" etc. but the fact that some words are used e.g. figuratively does not mean that "sick" does not still have the primary meaning "to be ill." "Heavy still means weighing quite a bit,""cool still means low temperature." And we know that words are used figuratively in the Bible e.g. Peter was not actually a stone although Jesus called him one. Herod was not actually a fox although Jesus called him one. James and John were not actually fathered by thunder although Jesus called them sons of thunder.

Plato didn't author any of the Bible---so why would we be concerned with HIS usage of language?

Irrelevant that Plato did not author any of the Bible. Greek was Greek, the NT writers used the same language Plato did, they did not invent a new language to write the Bible. If you think the word aionios changed in meaning from Plato to the NT please provide some credible, verifiable, historical evidence.
.....What did aionios mean to native Greek speakers who did not have years of indoctrination by pastors who insist that aionios does not mean eternal? Why don't we ask some early Greek writers.

•– Hippolytus [A.D. 170-236] The Extant Works and Fragments
Part I. Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture. On Proverbs.
Proverbs 11:30 But the souls of the unrighteous meet an untimely expulsion from the presence of God, by whom they shall be left to remain in the flame of torment.
•– Justin [A.D. 110-165.] First Apology Chap LII
He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils. And that these things also have been foretold as yet to be, we will prove. By Ezekiel the prophet it was said: “Joint shall be joined to joint, and bone to bone, and flesh shall grow again; and every knee shall bow to the Lord, and every tongue shall confess Him.” (Eze_37:7, Eze_37:8; Isa_45:24) And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: “Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched;” (Isa_66:24) and then shall they repent, when it profits them not.
•– Justin The First Apology Chap. VIII
And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.
•– Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies. Book V Chap. XXVII
Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light.
•– Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] Part First Apologetic Chap. XLVIII
Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still unchanged — the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment of everlasting fire — that fire which, from its very nature indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility.
•– Commodianus [a.d. 240] Instructions in Favour of Christian Discipline. Against the Gods of the Heathens.
Learn God, O foolish man, who wishes thee to be immortal, that thou mayest give Him eternal thanks in thy struggle. His own law teaches thee; but since thou seekest to wander, thou disbelievest all things, and thence thou shalt go into hell. By and by thou givest up thy life; thou shalt be taken where it grieveth thee to be: there the spiritual punishment, which is eternal, is undergone; there are always wailings: nor dost thou absolutely die therein - there at length too late proclaiming the omnipotent God.
•– Hippolytus [A.D. 170-236] Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe
And we call it by the name Abraham’s bosom. But the unrighteous are dragged toward the left by angels who are ministers of punishment, and they go of their own accord no longer, but are dragged by force as prisoners. And the angels appointed over them send them along, reproaching them and threatening them with an eye of terror, forcing them down into the lower parts. And when they are brought there, those appointed to that service drag them on to the confines or hell. And those who are so near hear incessantly the agitation, and feel the hot smoke. And when that vision is so near, as they see the terrible and excessively glowing spectacle of the fire, they shudder in horror at the expectation of the future judgment, (as if they were) already feeling the power of their punishment. And again, where they see the place of the fathers and the righteous, they are also punished there. For a deep and vast abyss is set there in the midst, so that neither can any of the righteous in sympathy think to pass it, nor any of the unrighteous dare to cross it.
2 and to the lovers of iniquity shall be given eternal punishment. And the fire which is un-quenchable and without end awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which dieth not, and which does not waste the body, but continues bursting forth from the body with unending pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no voice of interceding friends will profit them
•– Cyprian [A.D. 200-258.] Treatise V. — An Address to Demetrianus.
24. What will then be the glory of faith? what the punishment of faithlessness? When the day of judgment shall come, what joy of believers, what sorrow of unbelievers; that they should have been unwilling to believe here, and now that they should be unable to return that they might believe! An ever-burning Gehenna will burn up the condemned, and a punishment devouring with living flames; nor will there be any source whence at any time they may have either respite or end to their torments. Souls with their bodies will be reserved in infinite tortures for suffering. . . We wearied ourselves in the way of wickedness and destruction; we have gone through deserts where there lay no way; but we have not known the way of the Lord. What hath pride profited us, or what good hath the boasting of riches done us? All those things are passed away like a shadow.” (Wisdom of Solomon 5:1-9) The pain of punishment will then be without the fruit of penitence; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late they will believe in eternal punishment who would not believe in eternal life.
•– Minucius Felix (Octavius 34:12–5:3 [A.D. 226]).
"I am not ignorant of the fact that many, in the consciousness of what they deserve, would rather hope than actually believe that there is nothing for them after death.They would prefer to be annihilated rather than be restored for punishment. . . . Nor is there either measure nor end to these torments. That clever fire burns the limbs and restores them, wears them away and yet sustains them, just as fiery thunderbolts strike bodies but do not consume them"
•– Lactantius [A.D. 307] Divine Institutes 7:21
"[T]he sacred writings inform us in what manner the wicked are to undergo punishment. For because they have committed sins in their bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, that they may make atonement in their bodies; and yet it will not be that flesh with which God clothed man, like this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding forever, that it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire, the nature of which is different from this fire of ours, which we use for the necessary purposes of life, and which is extinguished unless it be sustained by the fuel of some material. But that divine fire always lives by itself, and flourishes without any nourishment. . . . The same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power, will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself with eternal nourishment. . . . Thus, without any wasting of bodies, which regain their substance, it will only burn and affect them with a sense of pain. But when [God] shall have judged the righteous, he will also try them with fire".
•– Cyril of Jerusalem [A.D. 350]Catechetical Lectures 18:19
"We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: for if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed. And righteously will God assign this portion to either company; for we do nothing without the body. We blaspheme with the mouth, and with the mouth we pray. With the body we commit fornication, and with the body we keep chastity. With the hand we rob, and by the hand we bestow alms; and the rest in like manner. Since then the body has been our minister in all things, it shall also share with us in the future the fruits of the past ​

 

[ClementofA]

Since the first known use of aionios means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. the other translations are the ones that are blasphemous evil, injects biased theological opinion and are not legitimate translations.

You seem to be missing the point. First known use is irrelevant to this:

Considering that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, your reputable biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions i posted gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in the specific context. What your biased scholars have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

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

Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

People can find versions which say what they want to hear.

Satan hates mankind. What version do you suppose he would like people to hear? Those that speak of people being punished forever? Who is the author of all sadism in the world? Certainly Satan wants to put God, Who is Love, in the worst light possible. There is no better way of doing this than having Bible versions that depict God as being the monster that Satan is.

For example the NWT translated by JWs to support their doctrine.

The NWT follows the same "everlasting" mistranslation as the tradition of "the church" of Inquisitions, Crusades, dark ages & burning free thinkers at the stake. JWs also believe in the anti-Scriptural "everlasting punishment".

The JST translated by the Mormons to support their doctrines.

The JST follows the same "everlasting" mistranslation as the tradition of "the church" of Inquisitions, Crusades, dark ages & burning free thinkers at the stake.

Translations by individuals such as Rotherham and Young's clearly reflect their biases.

Did you provide any evidence in support of this unsupported assertion? No.

 

[gordonhooker]

Interesting! I didn't use the word "rubbish."

Maybe you didn't use the word rubbish, you use a straw man argument response instead, but it basically means the same thing.

 

[mkgal1]

We could say the same thing about words like "heavy,""cool" etc. but the fact that some words are used e.g. figuratively does not mean that "sick" does not still have the primary meaning "to be ill." "Heavy still means weighing quite a bit,""cool still means low temperature." And we know that words are used figuratively in the Bible e.g. Peter was not actually a stone although Jesus called him one. Herod was not actually a fox although Jesus called him one. James and John were not actually fathered by thunder although Jesus called them sons of thunder.

Good point.....that, to me, just supports the idea that translation/interpretation is a bit more complicated than merely looking to ONE source's definition (like Plato's).

 

[Der Alte]

Maybe you didn't use the word rubbish, you use a straw man argument response instead, but it basically means the same thing.

You appear not to know the meaning of "straw man argument." Care to try again?

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"​

 

[Der Alte]

Good point.....that, to me, just supports the idea that translation/interpretation is a bit more complicated than merely looking to ONE source's definition (like Plato's).

If you have been following this thread you should have seen my posts where I quoted nine (9) Greek language sources e.g. my [post #562] and post #1000 which included quotes from Plato 428/427 bc—348/347 bc and Philo 25 bc-50 ad. Or we could cherry pick and find sources that support our assumptions/presuppositions.

 

[Der Alte]

You seem to be missing the point. First known use is irrelevant to this:

Thanks but no thanks I will go with the scholars who have actually studied the Biblical languages in an academic setting and have their works reviewed by other similarly qualified scholars. Rather than amateur hour who clearly interpret everything in accordance with their assumptions/presuppositions.

Considering that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, your reputable biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions i posted gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in the specific context. What your biased scholars have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

I do not believe this. You asked for evidence that Young and Rotherham were biased and here you accuse all the scholars I have quoted of being biased twice, accused them of not interpreting but giving theological opinions. Please provide credible evidence that any scholar I have quoted is biased etc? I'm not holding my breath. And please tell me what qualifies you to determine what is/is not a faithful translation? Your criteria appears to be anything which supports your assumptions/presuppositions.

* * * Same old copy/paste from the biased "hope beyond hell" deleted * * *

Satan hates mankind. What version do you suppose he would like people to hear? Those that speak of people being punished forever? Who is the author of all sadism in the world? Certainly Satan wants to put God, Who is Love, in the worst light possible. There is no better way of doing this than having Bible versions that depict God as being the monster that Satan is.

Not interested in unsupported personal opinions.

The NWT follows the same "everlasting" mistranslation as the tradition of "the church" of Inquisitions, Crusades, dark ages & burning free thinkers at the stake. JWs also believe in the anti-Scriptural "everlasting punishment".
The JST follows the same "everlasting" mistranslation as the tradition of "the church" of Inquisitions, Crusades, dark ages & burning free thinkers at the stake.

Irrelevant objections. That there is a JST and NWT version is evidence that individuals and religious groups create versions which support their doctrines so referring to a version is meaningless without the reasoning behind their translations.

Did you provide any evidence in support of this unsupported assertion? No

Do you honestly believe the biases of any individual scholar does not affect their translations?

Robert Young (1822-1888) was a Scottish editor and publisher who became proficient in several ancient languages through self-study. Below I reproduce the biographical article on Young in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge edited by Samuel M. Jackson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1964 reprint), vol. XII, p. 490.
YOUNG, ROBERT: Lay theologian and orientalist; b. at Edinburgh Sept. 10, 1822; d. there Oct. 14, 1888. He received his education at private schools, 1827-38; served an apprenticeship to the printing business, 1838-45, using his spare time to study the oriental languages; became a communicant in 1842; joined the Free Church, and became a Sabbath-school teacher in 1843. In 1847 he took up printing and bookselling on his own account, proceeding to publish books that tended to further the study of the Old Testament and its ancient versions; his first publication was an edition with translation of Maimonides' 613 precepts.
...
Young's translation is designed to assist students in the close study of the Biblical text by reproducing in English the Hebrew and Greek idioms, in an exceedingly literal translation. In the New Testament his translation is based on the text of Estienne 1550. The character of the version may be judged from the sample passage below. It will be noticed that the English is highly unnatural. In the pursuit of minute accuracy, Young tries to represent the Greek tenses with certain English tenses consistently, he tries to adhere to the word-order of the original, and he consistently translates a Greek word with the same English word in all of its occurrences. But in doing these things, he often fails to give the sense of the Greek correctly in English. It is doubtful whether the translation is really of much help to those who do not know Greek, because here the English is being forced to observe rules of the Greek language. The reader must become familiar with Greek syntax and vocabulary in order to make sense of the English! Regarding Young's translation of the Old Testament, F.F. Bruce writes that "it is largely vitiated by an eccentric theory about the tenses of the Hebrew verb." (The English Bible: A History of Translations, p. 132.) The method of the translation and its rationale—including his theory of the Hebrew tenses—are fully explained in the Prefaces.
Young's Literal Translation
ETA:
New Testament, 1872. Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The New Testament: newly translated from the Greek text of Tregelles and critically emphasised, according to the logical idiom of the original; with an introduction and occasional notes. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1872.
The translation itself is very difficult and peculiar, and indeed it can scarcely be called English. It resembles the kind of barbarous and occasionally absurd output one gets from translation software applications. The reason is, Rotherham produced the version in the same way that a computer would—he mechanically reproduced the order of the Greek words, no matter how unatural the result in English; he used the same English gloss for all occurrences of a Greek word, without any regard for contextual appropriateness; and he rendered the tenses of the Greek verbs into stereotyped English tenses, without any allowance for the differences between English and Greek grammar. He also did such things as refrain from using the English definite article "the" where the text did not have the Greek article, despite the fact that English usage does not correspond to Greek usage in this matter. Moreover, he seems to have had uninformed notions about the meaning of various Greek words, often preferring a 'root' meaning arrived at by some etymological fallacy. And so we see in the page above such renderings as "Why any longer am even I as a sinner to be judged;" (following the Greek word order); "do we screen ourselves" (giving an eccentric 'root' meaning to the Greek word); "a way of peace they did not get to know" (omitting the article, and attempting to represent the Greek aorist with a 'punctiliar' verbal tense in English), and so forth. Some flagrant examples of these tendencies to be found on other pages are:
Rotherham Version​

 

[gordonhooker]

You appear not to know the meaning of "straw man argument." Care to try again?

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"​

I most certainly do know know what it means and I have read your responses to posts and seen where you have done just that. I won't bother to engage in any further communication with you because I believe all you are interested in doing in forcing your view down other people throats.

 

[ClementofA]

I do not believe this. You asked for evidence that Young and Rotherham were biased and here you accuse all the scholars I have quoted of being biased twice, accused them of not interpreting but giving theological opinions. Please provide credible evidence that any scholar I have quoted is biased etc? I'm not holding my breath. And please tell me what qualifies you to determine what is/is not a faithful translation? Your criteria appears to be anything which supports your assumptions/presuppositions.

Like i said before, my argument is based upon what scholars say, including all those you have ever quoted on the subjects of aion, aionios and olam, mistranslated as "everlasting", "eternal" & the like. Thus you will never be able to refute it:

Considering that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, your reputable biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions i posted gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in the specific context. What your biased scholars have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

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

Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[Gabriel Anton]

If my child became a wayward soul, as any loving parent I would do everything I could to woo him back to a healthy and restorative place. I would never give up on him. I would put no time limits on my love and patience towards him.

If our Father desires all men to be saved, why can't he continue to work on their souls postmortem? If he wanted to, couldn't he do it? Can't God do what he wants to do? I think he can do what he wants to do.

So, if God desires all men to be saved and if God can do what he wants to do, he wouldn't put a time limit (i.e. upon death) on his love and patience towards us.

So, if God's love and patience run out on a soul upon death, either God doesn't want all men to be saved or God can't do what he wants to do. Which is it?

Peace be with you.

I think as a human and a man, we must live with the consequences of our decisions and actions.

This is quite clear to be the case in the Garden of Eden.

We must take responsibility for our actions and bear the consequences of our actions.

We should get what we deserve.

We should not be cowards and not face the consequences of our actions.

When rules are broken, Justice must be served.

God bless you.