- Jul 10, 2016
- 5,459
- 2,197
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
Uni nonsense which I have proved false a number of times.
That statement proves you don't comprehend what is required to prove something false. After you've taken a number of university courses on the subject you might realize this. You throw the word "proof" around so loosely.
Something which you and all other unis refuse to acknowledge, the OT is full of figures of speech one of those is "hyperbole," exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis.
That statement is simply false. Also, who in their right mind denies that the Bible uses hyperbole? I can't recall anyone ever saying that.
Even in English the word "forever" categorically means everlasting, unending, eternal but it is often followed by "an ever" or "and always." That "forever" is often emphasized by saying e.g. "forever and ever" or "forever and always." is not self-contradictory.
If you had ever studied logic at the university level you'ld know it is illogical and contradicts itself.
Why would God want to rely on hyperbole for a subject so important as man's final destiny? Why would God leave people guessing on this subject whether or not He was speaking hyperbolically or not? Why not speak plainly as is His general rule throughout the Scriptures? Of course that is what He would do regarding final destiny. So that in itself disproves your hyperbolic theory re olam, aion & aionios.
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 to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words ad, olam, aion and 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"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.
.....I have quoted 2 articles on hyperbole from your favorite 'source' tents-я-us more than once but evidently since they contradict your biases,assumptions/presuppositions you even ignore tents-я-us.
Where do they say anything supporting your hyperbolic theory re olam, aion, & aionios? It is commonly acknowledged that Scripture sometimes uses hyperbole. So what? What is your point?
This is typical for all heterodox groups if a source agrees with their teachings then it is automatically right if that same source says something which contradicts them that particular point is "wrong."
How does that statement apply to the subject at hand? You think orthodox groups are not often guilty of the same charge?
.....Once again versions are irrelevant unless the 'scholar" who made the "translation" provides his reasoning why he chose the meaning he did.
Who said they are irrelevant? OTOH blindly believing them without any reason or any critical thinking like they are some kind of infallible leader or pontiff is contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures which say "Prove all things" etc.
2 Tim.2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Irrelevant unless they provided their reasoning for choosing "eti." Remember that is your requirement which you keep demanding that I do.
Not irrelevant. They indicate a different opinion than your TWOT. One that many would consider far superior to whoever wrote those few uncritical paragraphs on the subject of AD (Strongs 5703) in TWOT. Such a brief uncritical comment on the topic as provided by TWOT would never satisfy higher education standards that the writer knew what he was talking about, or being objective, or considering other viewpoints, if he was even aware of any, e.g. the LXX translators. A truly scholarly work on the subject would be far more detailed. The TWOT tiny piece would get a great big F, as in fail, in any academic institution worth anything.
Upvote
0