Universalism...why not?

[Dartman]

How would Scripture disprove Scripture?

Scripture disproves YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture.

Your own highly touted sources disagree with you. As well as many other learned ones.

When Jesus says "end of the aion" did He mean end of eternity? End of forever? Aions end in the scriptures. It's not hyperbolic.

It depends on the context. Other Scripture MUST harmonize with your interpretation of context.

 

[Der Alte]

Strawman argument fallacy. I referred to Scripture:

Most of your post was quotes from the universalist bible "tentmakers."

"Even your own touted highly venerated 9 sources admit the word is used of duration that is finite and ends in the NT. To say nothing of all the OT and extrabiblical contexts where aionios is used of finite duration. Likewise with the noun aion and the corresponding Hebrew OT word olam."

You quoted four words by one scholar out of nine pages of documentation and ignored where that same scholar also said aionios means eternal!

2. αιωνιος aionios [166] "describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in <Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2>; or undefined because endless as in <Rom. 16:26>, and the other sixty-six places in the NT.
"The predominant meaning of αιωνιος , that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in <2 Cor. 4:18>, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., `for a season,' and in <Philem. 15>, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e. g., of God, <Rom. 16:26>; of His power, <1 Tim. 6:16>, and of His glory, <1 Pet. 5:10>; of the Holy Spirit, <Heb. 9:14>; of the redemption effected by Christ, <Heb. 9:12>, and of the consequent salvation of men, <5:9>, as well as of His future rule, <2 Pet. 1:11>, which is elsewhere declared to be without end, <Luke 1:33>; of the life received by those who believe in Christ, <John 3:16>, concerning whom He said, `they shall never perish,' <10:28>, and of the resurrection body, <2 Cor. 5:1>, elsewhere said to be `immortal,' <1 Cor. 15:53>, in which that life will be finally realized, <Matt. 25:46; Titus 1:2>.
αιωνιος is also used of the sin that `hath never forgiveness,' <Mark 3:29>, and of the judgment of God, from which there is no appeal, <Heb. 6:2>, and of the fire, which is one of its instruments, <Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7>, and which is elsewhere said to be `unquenchable,' <Mark 9:43>.
"The use of αιωνιος here shows that the punishment referred to in <2 Thes. 1:9>, is not temporary, but final, and, accordingly, the phraseology shows that its purpose is not remedial but retributive."

From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp 232, 233. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words) (Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)​

You have not even read or addressed the other 8 sources. Four words out of nine pages only proves that one scholar said that. One is not a consensus. Note how Vine's cites 2 Cor 4:18 as a verse which shows aionios means eternal, just as I said it does.

Another strawman argument. I never said or implied in any way that Paul was wrong. How could he be. His words are inspired scripture. What i said was:
""Even your own touted highly venerated 9 sources admit the word is used of duration that is finite and ends in the NT. To say nothing of all the OT and extrabiblical contexts where aionios is used of finite duration. Likewise with the noun aion and the corresponding Hebrew OT word olam."

And you have not shown any discussion or evidence that my interpretation of 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1 is not correct. Vines quotes 2 Cor 4:18 5:You keep repeating the claim that "your own touted highly venerated 9 sources admit the word is used of duration that is finite etc." But you have only quoted "4 words from one source to back up that claim. Once again one is not a consensus.

End of eternity is ridiculous nonsense. When Jesus says "end of the aion" (Mt.28:20) did He mean end of eternity? End of forever? Aions end in the scriptures. It's not hyperbolic.

Repeating the same thing over and over and over does not make it correct. Peter being a rock and satan is ridiculous! Herod being a fox is ridiculous! James and John being sons of thunder is ridiculous! Issachar being a donkey is ridiculous! People having a log in their eye is ridiculous! A camel going thorough the eye of a needle is ridiculous! But all of those things are stated in scripture. And many others. How do you explain that?

Do you think aion means forever here: "Not only in this AION but also in that which is to come (Ep. 1:21)." Then it would read: "Not only in this forever but also in that which is to come (Ep. 1:21). That would be ridiculous. Aion in Eph.1:21 is a finite time period that ends. It's not hyperbolic.

Thank you for your unsupported opinion what is and is not hyperbole! Paul stated very clearly three times that aionios was the opposite of temporal, momentary and an earthly house which can be destroyed. What part do I need to explain again?

For more examples, see pages 23-24 at:

I don't read the universalist bible "tentmakers!"

Your hyperbolic theory is weak. If the theory of endless torments relied on this, it would be very weak. Surely if Jesus taught something so horrible as never ceasing sufferings in fire He would have made this His main message & made it very clear. But you'ld rather discuss your hyperbolic theory instead of key texts such as My.25:46 which i posted lengthy comments on.

I am not interested in any copy/pasted commentaries. They are all unsupported arguments, not evidence.

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)?
Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

This is a argument not evidence. How many words in English do we have to say eternal? Endless! Unending! Everlasting! Perpetual! Infinite! Where is it written that Greek only has one word?

Why not come back when you can prove aion, aionios or olam are ever used, even once, in hyperbole in the Scriptures. IOW, never.

Paul said aionios was the opposite of temporal and momentary! "Ages,""age during" etc are not the opposite of temporal and momentary. And Paul said that our earthly house can be destroyed but we have an aionios home in heaven which strongly implies it cannot be destroyed. Origen quoted this passage four (4) times in his writings.
.....Why don't you come back when you can provide credible, verifiable, historical which is your own work and not a copy/paste from tents-я-us.

 

[ClementofA]

You quoted four words by one scholar out of nine pages of documentation and ignored where that same scholar also said aionios means eternal!

​

Because obviously it was not pertinent to the point being made. But now that you've brought it up, that prompts me to respond to his unsupported notions which he merely claims but does not prove or provide any evidence for. Which is typical of your touted highly venerated 9 sources. Are they infallible popes that one should just take them blindly at their word? For example re Mt.25:46, does he provide any support for his view? No. Does he respond to the following? No.


The vast majority of learned sources agree the word aionios, & the noun, aion, can refer to a duration which is of a limited time period that has an end.
The real issue here, then, is whether or not the word means a limited time period in the context of Matthew 25:31-46 in regards to punishment. That is something
that should be a matter of serious study rather than assumptions based on what my pastor or bible study group assumes to be the case.

Considering the Greek word kolasis ("punishment", Mt.25:46, KJV) can refer to a corrective punishment, that should tell the reader of Matthew 25:46 what the possible duration of aionios ("everlasting", KJV) is & that it may refer to a finite punishment? Why? Because since it is corrective, it is with the purpose of bringing the person corrected to salvation. Oncce saved the person no longer has need of such a punishment & it ends. So it isn't "everlasting".[Or if it "everlasting", it is only everlasting in its positive effect]. Therefore this passage could just as easily support universalism as anything else.

From a review of a book by Ilaria Ramelli, namely The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp):

"...in a passage in Origen in which he speaks of “life after aionios life” (160). As a native speaker of Greek he does not see a contradiction in such phrasing; that is because aionios life does not mean “unending, eternal life,” but rather “life of the next age.” Likewise the Bible uses the word kolasis to describe the punishment of the age to come. Aristotle distinguished kolasis from timoria, the latter referring to punishment inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” On the other hand, kolasis refers to correction, it “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer” (quoted at 32). Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament, since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.


"In addition, Augustine's reasoning does not hold up in light of Ro. 16:25, 26 and Hab. 3:6. Here, in both cases, the same word is used twice—with God and with something temporal. "In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God" (Ro. 16:25, 26 CLT). An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God eternal, but God makes eonian eternal. "And the everlasting mountains were scattered.…His ways are everlasting" (Hab. 3:6). Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God's ways however, are eternal, because He is eternal." Kolasis

"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases.5 However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers. For example, when aionios referred to the duration of Jonah’s entrapment in the fish, it was limited to three days. To a slave, aionios referred to his life span. To the Aaronic priesthood, it referred to the generation preceding the Melchizedek priesthood. To Solomon’s temple, it referred to 400 years. To God it encompasses and transcends time altogether."

"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated. It is similar to what “tall” is to height. The size of a tall building can be 300 feet, a tall man six feet, and a tall dog three feet. Black Beauty was a great horse, Abraham Lincoln a great man, and Yahweh the GREAT God. Though God is called “great,” the word “great” is neither eternal nor divine. The horse is still a horse. An adjective relates to the noun it modifies. In relation to God, “great” becomes GREAT only because of who and what God is. This silences the contention that aion must always mean forever because it modifies God. God is described as the God of Israel and the God of Abraham. This does not mean He is not the God of Gentiles, or the God of you and me. Though He is called the God of the “ages,” He nonetheless remains the God who transcends the ages." Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever? No.

Philo was contemporary with Christ & we have this translation of his words which use the same words Christ used at Mt.25:46:

"It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part
of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment [kolasis aiónios] from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other
line of conduct." Philo: Appendix 2: Fragments

In the year 544 A.D. the emperor Justinian wrote a letter:

"It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does not merely say,
"We believe in aionion kolasin," for that was just what Origen himself taught. Nor does he say "the word aionion has been misunderstood; it denotes endless duration," as
he would have said, had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that abundant language from which to choose, he says: "The holy church
of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked." If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration. Chapter 21 - Unsuccessful Attempts to Suppress Universalism

Early Church Father universalists who were Greek scholars & many others of the time did not see Mt.25:46 contradicting their belief:

"The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in the æonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "æonian life," to "the life of the coming æon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself (an Early Church Father universalist) declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?" Another Aionios Thread - These Things Go On Forever


"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?"
Chapter Nine
​

 

[Der Alte]

Because obviously it was not pertinent to the point being made. But now that you've brought it up, that prompts me to respond to his unsupported notions which he merely claims but does not prove or provide any evidence for.

Seriously? Whoa we have a big disconnect here. When you quoted four words from Vine's you did not demand or provide any evidence but when I quote his complete article suddenly you are demanding that Vine provide evidence why he interpreted aionios as eternal etc. Trying to eat your cake and have it too.

Which is typical of your touted highly venerated 9 sources. Are they infallible popes that one should just take them blindly at their word? For example re Mt.25:46, does he provide any support for his view? No. Does he respond to the following? No.

Just exactly like your highly touted sources e.g. Ilaria Ramelli and the crew at tents-я-us. You quote them incessantly as if you think they are infallible popes. Typical heterodox ploy reject anything/everything which disproves univesalism but accept without question anything written by anyone, anywhere which appears to support universalism. Let me know when you decide to hold yourself and your sources to the same standards you demand of me and my sources.

 

[Uber Genius]

Excellent self analysis.

Now, I am happy to compare Scriptures with you.

Opps read step 2 again.

Of coarse you are "comparing scripture" but it is eisogesis not exegesis. You are proof- texting.

Now I wrote yesterday that I am not at all certain about which inference best explains the Biblical data as I have had other systematic theological work to do on more central doctrines. So I am not reject your view out of hand, I'm rejecting your method. Your view could have the most explanatory power for how the original audiences would have understood the teaching on the afterlife by Jesus in the sermon on the mount, or Oliver discourse, etc. But highlighting English words in modern translation and what they mean to us in English is a class of exegetical fallacy known as word study fallacy.

Taking passages out of context and highlighting what they don't say is known as an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

 

[Uber Genius]

Read it again;
It's simple.
Viewing the behavior of the wicked with "everlasting shame and contempt" is NOT listed in Rev 21:4.

Example of argument from ignorance.

 

[Uber Genius]

And an editorial concerning that 'book' said; "I do not doubt the integrity of the four authors. BUT the differences in interpretation highlights the fact that SOMETHING other than "reading the Bible" is involved....we all bring our family prejudices, our personal histories, and our habits of thought into our reading of the Scriptures. Just as we cannot hear our own accents, we cannot readily see our own assumptions...assumptions which apply to what we see and how we "see" in the plain teaching of the Bible." (BOLD is mine)

All learning and knowledge proceed the way this book does, at least at the scholarly level. For you to suggest we can't see our own assumption (which is absurd as we often write all of them down when we present scholarly papers), is not just wrong but even if we soften it to say we have reasons other than rationality to argue for one inference over another, arguing as this book does in conversation with those who reject our inference, leads to exposing all but justified beliefs!

Hard to keep your view from destroying all knowledge.

And I have never heard 2 NDE stories that are the same

again, in a court room if a lawyer made this statement about witness accounts of the same event, he or she would be laughed out or court.

What we look for is common features.

Seems like you haven't done much of an investigation of the data. Go back and close that gap and then we can talk.

 

[Dartman]

Read it again;
It's simple.
Viewing the behavior of the wicked with "everlasting shame and contempt" is NOT listed in Rev 21:4.

Example of argument from ignorance.

If you examine the thread of the discussion, you will find that ClementofA was inventing a contradiction between Dan 12:2 and Rev 21:4. I was correctly pointing out, NOTHING in Rev 21:4 contradicts with Dan 12:2.
Therefore, YOUR accusation is an "argument from ignorance"....

 

[Dartman]

Opps read step 2 again.

Of coarse you are "comparing scripture" but it is eisogesis not exegesis. You are proof- texting.

You're going to need to do MUCH better than merely CLAIM it is eisogesis, you are going to have to provide Scripture that contradicts my interpretation.

Now I wrote yesterday that I am not at all certain about which inference best explains the Biblical data as I have had other systematic theological work to do on more central doctrines. So I am not reject your view out of hand, I'm rejecting your method. Your view could have the most explanatory power for how the original audiences would have understood the teaching on the afterlife by Jesus in the sermon on the mount, or Oliver discourse, etc. But highlighting English words in modern translation and what they mean to us in English is a class of exegetical fallacy known as word study fallacy.

As long as the translators did a good job, it is no problem quoting the English translation. The ONLY time a word study is essential is, when the English translators were biased ... and trust me, I am utterly convinced this happens frequently.
BUT, until then your point is invalid.

Taking passages out of context and highlighting what they don't say is known as an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

Not when the other party, or the other position, claims the text makes a point that is NOT supported by the actual words of the text.

 

[ClementofA]

Seriously? Whoa we have a big disconnect here. When you quoted four words from Vine's you did not demand or provide any evidence but when I quote his complete article suddenly you are demanding that Vine provide evidence why he interpreted aionios as eternal etc. Trying to eat your cake and have it too.

When i quoted a few words from Vine's it was to show how your own sources say aionios is used of finite duration. When i point out that Vine's doesn't support his points, i am pointing out the truth. It's all about the truth, not eating cake.

Just exactly like your highly touted sources e.g. Ilaria Ramelli and the crew at tents-я-us. You quote them incessantly as if you think they are infallible popes.

I think no such thing, so please don't put words in my mouth that you have not the slightest clue about.

Typical heterodox ploy reject anything/everything which disproves univesalism but accept without question anything written by anyone, anywhere which appears to support universalism.

The non heterodox should look in the mirror. Scripture says to prove all things. Blindly following blind leaders is not recommended.

Let me know when you decide to hold yourself and your sources to the same standards you demand of me and my sources.

I never demanded anything of anyone. I'm not into legalism & Phariseeism.

 

[ClementofA]

This is a argument not evidence. How many words in English do we have to say eternal? Endless! Unending! Everlasting! Perpetual! Infinite! Where is it written that Greek only has one word?​

If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end":

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)?
Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

 

[Dartman]

If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end":

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)?
Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

Christ wasn't teaching in a vacuum.... the "Law and the prophets" were already written, and Jesus was harshly critical of those who did "not know the Scriptures, or the power of God".
The utter destruction of the wicked is not news. There are MANY texts that explain, using several different terms/phrases, so the student can understand CLEARLY, the wicked will be "burned up", "left neither root nor branch", "destroyed", their end will be "shame, and everlasting contempt", they will "not be", they "will not be found".
As David said in Psa 72:2 But as for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. 3 For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked......
17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. 18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. 19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors.

These are merely a FEW of the texts that destroy your theory. When ALL of Scripture is harmonized, the plan of God is clear. He will utterly destroy the wicked.

 

[Der Alte]

When i quoted a few words from Vine's it was to show how your own sources say aionios is used of finite duration. When i point out that Vine's doesn't support his points, i am pointing out the truth. It's all about the truth, not eating cake.

What you quoted was out-of-context therefore irrelevant. Here for your edification. Note Vine says "the predominant meaning" and gives reasons for his conclusion.

2. αιωνιος aionios [166] "describes duration, ... undefined because endless as in <Rom. 16:26>, and the other sixty-six [66] places in the NT.
"The predominant meaning of αιωνιος , [undefined because endless] that in which it [αιωνιος] is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in <2 Cor. 4:18>, where it [αιωνιος] is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., `for a season,' and in <Philem. 15>, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e. g., of God,​

I think no such thing, so please don't put words in my mouth that you have not the slightest clue about.

Try again! I said "as if you think", I did not put any words anywhere.

The non heterodox should look in the mirror. Scripture says to prove all things. Blindly following blind leaders is not recommended.

But you do not "prove all things" you apparently do not prove anything. You quote and link to only one source as if that one source supersedes, disproves, and rebuts everything ever written anywhere by anyone. I quoted nine Greek languages sources you blow them off with a wave of the hand and quote Ramelli.

I never demanded anything of anyone. I'm not into legalism & Phariseeism.

No you are apparently into Ramelli-ism. Sure looks like demands to me and if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc.

 

[Der Alte]

If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end":
If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)?
Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

It is only ambiguous to people with an agenda. As Vine said the predominant meaning in the NT is eternal. Remember, aionios was not ambiguous to Paul! He clearly defined αἰώνιος/aionios as opposite to temporary. And Origen, the poster boy for universalists, quotes Paul four times.

NIV 2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] glory that far outweighs them all.
(18) So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.[αἰώνιος]
2 Corinthians 5:1
(1) For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal [αἰώνιος] house in heaven, not built by human hands.​

 

[ClementofA]

You have not even read or addressed the other 8 sources. Four words out of nine pages only proves that one scholar said that. One is not a consensus.

[snip]

You keep repeating the claim that "your own touted highly venerated 9 sources admit the word is used of duration that is finite etc." But you have only quoted "4 words from one source to back up that claim. Once again one is not a consensus.

Sources which say aionios is used of limited duration or speak of it as including the meaning agelong, lasting for an age & similarly:

1. Vine's Expository Dictionary says aionios "describes duration, either undefined but not endless..."

2. Thomas, Robert L., Th.D., General Editor, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries says "166. αιωνιος aionios; from 165; agelong..."
Strong's Greek: 166. αἰώνιος (aiónios) -- agelong, eternal

3. Liddell, H. G., and Scott, Abridged Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1992: "αιωνιος aionios ", ov and a, ov, lasting for an age"

Greek Word Study Tool
Strong's #166 - αἰώνιος - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon
[MOVED]Hell is not Eternal (Evidence from the Bible and the Greek text)

4. Strong's "age-long...partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age, as contrasted with that which is brief and fleeting."
Strong's Greek: 166. αἰώνιος (aiónios) -- agelong, eternal

5. Helps Word Studies copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc. "properly, "age-like" ("like-an-age"), i.e. an "age-characteristic" (the quality describing a particular age)..."
Strong's Greek: 166. αἰώνιος (aiónios) -- agelong, eternal

6. Abbott-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament: "[in LXX chiefly for H5769;] age-long..."
Strong's #166 - αἰώνιος - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon

7a. The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. Copyright © 1914, 1929, 1930 by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan. Hodder and Stoughton, London. Derivative Copyright © 2015 by Allan Loder. "In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view, whether the horizon be at an infinite distance...or whether it lies no farther than the span of a Cæsar’s life." Strong's #166 - αἰώνιος - Old & New Testament Greek Lexicon

7b. In THE VOCABULARY OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT (edited by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan)..."Concerning aionios we read, “In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view . . .” (p.16)." The Greek Words "aion" and "aionios," do these words mean "eternal" or "everlasting"?

7c. The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, by Mounce, says: "indeterminate as to duration, eternal, everlasting".When did "eternal" change from "ethereal" to "endless"?

8. A. T. Robertson in his "Word Pictures In The New Testament" in commenting on Titus 1:2 explains Paul’s words as signifying “Long ages ago” (vol.4, p.597).
The Greek Words "aion" and "aionios," do these words mean "eternal" or "everlasting"?

9a. In the multivolume THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (begun in German under the editorship of Gerhard Kittel) Hermann Sasse admits, “The concept of eternity [in aionios] is weakened” in Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 (vol.1. p.209). He explains that these passages use “the eternity formulae” which he had previously explained as “the course of the world” perceived as “a series of smaller aiones” (p.203). Sasse also refers to the use of aionios in Philemon 15, which he feels “reminds us of the non-biblical usage” of this word, which he had earlier found to signify “lifelong” or “enduring” (p.208). The Greek Words "aion" and "aionios," do these words mean "eternal" or "everlasting"?

9b. "TDNT aiwnnios. In later poetry and prose aijwvnio" is also used in the sense of “lifelong” or “enduring,” in accordance with the basic meaning of ® aijwvn: Callim.Hymn., 3, 6; 4, 130; Philodem. De Deis, III, 8, 22, Diels (AAB, 1916, 4); Dion. Hal.Ant. Rom., X, 36; Diod. S., I, 1, 5; IV, 63, 4; Max. Tyr., XLIII, 43, Dübner. Cf. the distinction between nou`so" cronivh and aijwnivh in Aretaios of Cappadocia (181, 7 Ermerins). Inscriptions: hJ aijwvnio" kai; ajqavnato" tou` panto;" fuvsi", Inscr. Brit. Mus. (inscription in honour of Augustus from Halicarnass.); eij" crovnon aijwvnion, Ditt. Or., 383, 11; pro;" dovxan kai; mnhvmhn aijwvnion, ibid., 438, 13 and many similar formulations...

In the LXX µl;/[ is often rendered adjectivally by aijwvnio", the sense being thus affected, e.g., in y 23ò7: puvlai aijwvnioi (“everlasting doors”) instead of “ancient doors”; y 76ò5: e[th aijwvnia (“eternal years”) instead of “years long past”...4. The concept of eternity is weakened in crovnoi aijwvnioi, R. 16:25; 2 Tm. 1:9; Tt. 1:2. This expression is simply a variant of aijw`ne" in the eternity formulae. The phrase in Phlm. 15: i{na aijwvnion aujto;n ajpevch/" (“that thou shouldest receive him for ever”) reminds us of the non-biblical usage ((® 208) and of oijkevth" eij" to;n aijw`na –µl;/[ db,[,„“slave for life” in Dt. 15:17..." Greek translation problems. - Page 8 - FRDB Archives

10. Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, by Abbot-Smith, says: "age-long, eternal".
When did "eternal" change from "ethereal" to "endless"?
A manual Greek lexicon of the New Testament : Abbott-Smith, George : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

11a. BDAG "1. pert. to a long period of time, long ago..."
[B-Greek] More on AIONIOS
http://markmayberry.net/wp-content/uploads/bible-study/2014-12-28-am-MM-HeavenIsEternal.pdf

11b. "BDAG aiwnios...1. pert. to a long period of time, long ago cro,noij aiv. long ages ago Ro 16:25; pro. cro,nwn aiv. before time began 2 Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2 (in these two last pass. the prep. bears the semantic content of priority; on cro,noj aiv. cp. OGI 248, 54; 383, 10)..."
Greek translation problems. - Page 8 - FRDB Archives

12. Dr. Bullinger, author of the King James Companion Bible: "aionios, of or belonging to an age...." From Bullinger's appendix 151...C. Aionios , of or belonging to an age...
LAKE OF FIRE (eternal pain)
"Burning in Hell"
Bible Translations That Do Not Teach Eternal Torment

Most, if not all, of the above 12 are non-universalist sources.

I could list dozens if not 100's more.

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

 

[ClementofA]

It is only ambiguous to people with an agenda. As Vine said the predominant meaning in the NT is eternal.

Does he state that opinion re the ambiguous word aionios because of contextual considerations? Compare that mere opinion to:

The ***only*** meaning for AIDIOS (Rom.1:20; Jude 7) in the NT is eternal.

The***only*** meaning for "NO END" (LK.1:33) in the NT is eternal.

The ***only*** meaning for "ENDLESS" (1 Tim.1:4) in the NT is eternal.

If Jesus were teaching eternal punishment He would have used words which were better suited to express endlessness than olam, aion and aionios. Those 3 words are often used in the ancient languages, including the Scriptures, of finite time periods that end, i.e. of durations that are not eternal.

If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)?

Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.

If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end".

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

 

[ClementofA]

As David said in Psa 72:2 But as for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. 3 For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked......
17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. 18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. 19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors.

That should be Psalm 73.

This is easily harmonized with the Scriptural teaching of universalism, the salvation of all:

"So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." (Gen.6:13)

The "end" of all people was "destruction" by God. This already happened. Yet they are not annihilated forever. And they will be resurrected.

The earth that was "destroyed" still exists as well.

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.

1 Timothy 2:4-6
4 Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus,
6 Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all (the testimony in its own eras),

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

 

[Dartman]

That should be Psalm 73.

Yes, thank you.

This is easily harmonized with the Scriptural teaching of universalism, the salvation of all:

"So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." (Gen.6:13)

The "end" of all people was "destruction" by God. This already happened. Yet they are not annihilated forever. And they will be resurrected.

You are forgetting that Psa 73, already discussed the FIRST death of the wicked; 4 For there are no pains in their death, and their body is fat.
David is discussing their ULTIMATE end. That they will be;

Psa 73:17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. 18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. 19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. 20 As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.

So, your CLAIM that this is "easily harmonized" is in error.

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.

1 Timothy 2:4-6
4 Who wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus,
6 Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all (the testimony in its own eras),

By contrast to YOUR claims of "easily harmonized", these passages truly ARE "easily harmonized" with the VAST quantity of Scriptures that explain God's desire for all to choose "life", and be saved, His Grace in providing ALL of the tools necessary for that salvation, AND YET, His promise that those who do NOT obey Him, in this life, will be utterly destroyed.

 

[ClementofA]

You are forgetting that Psa 73, already discussed the FIRST death of the wicked; 4 For there are no pains in their death, and their body is fat.
David is discussing their ULTIMATE end. That they will be;

Psa 73:17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. 18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. 19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. 20 As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.

Slippery places? It doesn't sound like the lake of fire, but earth & this lifetime when they are destroyed, prior to resurrection, just like those in Noah's day. In the OT the righteous are often spoken of as living full lives while the wicked get an early death.

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

 

[Dartman]

You are forgetting that Psa 73, already discussed the FIRST death of the wicked; 4 For there are no pains in their death, and their body is fat.
David is discussing their ULTIMATE end. That they will be;

Psa 73:17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. 18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. 19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. 20 As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.

Slippery places? It doesn't sound like the lake of fire, but earth & this lifetime when they are destroyed..

Sorry, this pathetic attempt to wriggle out of the text isn't persuasive. You think "Slippery places" is a literal description of where they died first death????? Who do you know that died on a "slippery place"???? HOW do you intend to overcome; "cast them down into destruction", "utterly consumed" .... with this pitiful attempted distraction?? MUCH LESS all the other texts that explain the options in the second resurrection are life, or death.