Does Jude say that Sodom and Gomorrah will burn forever or does it say the fire is eternal? Does aionios mean eternal and is it sometimes used hyperbolically?
1 Timothy 1:17In this verse “aion” is in apposition, see def. below, with “immortal.” If “aion” means “age(s),” a finite period, God cannot be for “a finite period” and “immortal” at the same time. God is “eternal” and “immortal” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
(17) Now unto the King eternal, (1) immortal,(2) invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever (1) and ever (1). Amen.
(1) αἰών/aion (2) ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos
Romans 2:7“Aion” is in apposition with “immortality.” If “aion” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternity” and “immortality” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
(7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,(2) eternal (1) life:
2 Corinthians 4:17-18Here “aion” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Aion” cannot mean “age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is.
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal (1) 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;(3) but the things which are not seen are eternal.(1)
(3) πρόσκαιρος/proskairos
2 Corinthians 5:1Here “aion house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” An “aion” house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” “Aion” means “eternal.”
(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 (1) in the heavens.
Hebrews 7:24Here “unchangeable” is in apposition with “aion.” If “aion” means “age(s),” a finite period, Melchizadek cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
(24) But this man, [Melchizadec] because he continueth ever,(1) hath an unchangeable (4) priesthood.
(4) ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos
1 Peter 1:23Here “incorruptible” is in apposition with “aion.” The seed of God cannot be “incorruptible” and only for “a finite period” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
(23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,(2) by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.(1)
The definition of “apposition” from a Greek grammar.
III. Nominative in Simple Apposition
The nominative case (as well as the other cases) can be an appositive to another substantive in the same case. The usage is quite common. There are four features of simple apposition to be noted (the first two are structural clues; the last two features are semantic): An appositional construction inz’olz’es (1) two adjacent substantives (2)in the same case (40) (3) which refer to the same person or thing, (4) and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause.
The first substantive can belong to any category (e.g., subject, Predicate nom., etc.) and the second is merely a clarification, description, or identification of who or what is mentioned.(41) Thus, the appositive “piggy-backs” on the first nominative’s use, as it were. For this reason simple apposition is not an independent syntactical category.
The appositive functions very much like a PN in a convertible proposition that is, it refers to the same thing as the first noun.(42) The difference, however, is that a PN makes an assertion about the S (an equative verb is either stated or implied); with appositives there is assumption, not assertion (no verb is in mind). In the sentence “Paul is an apostle,” apostle is a PN; in the sentence, “Paul the apostle is in prison,” apostle is in apposition to Paul.
Notes.
(40)The nom. occasionally is in apposition to an oblique case, but the semantics are the same. See discussion below.
(41) An appositive, strictly speaking, is substantival, not adjectival. Thus, adjectives or Participles in second attributive position are not generally appositives, but usually hate an adjectival force.
(42) The significance of this will be seen in our discussion of the gen. case, for the gen can also involve a syntactical category, vi.t., the gen of apposition. The semantics involved in such a category are quite different from those involved in simple apposition.
With proper names typically the first noun is anarthrous and the appositional noun is articular.
Matt 3:1 παραγινεται ιωαννης ο βαπτιστης κηρυσσων
John the Baptist came Preaching
Mark 15:4 0 εν αις ην και μαρια η μαγδαληνη
among them also were Mary the Magdalene...
Luke 1:24 συνελαβεν ελισαβετ η γυνη αυτου
Elizabeth his wife conceived
Rev 1:5 ο μαρτυς ο πιστος ο πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων
the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Daniel Wallace, pp.48-49
Do you mean that "aionios" in Jud 1:7 "can't and doesn't mean eternal?"Sorry, but it can't and doesn't mean eternal.
Do you mean that "aionios" in Jud 1:7 "can't and doesn't mean eternal?"
Verses which show conclusively that αἰώνιος/aionios means eternal.
1 Timothy 1:17In this verse “aion” is in apposition, see def. below, with “immortal.” If “aion” means “age(s),” a finite period, God cannot be for “a finite period” and “immortal” at the same time. God is “eternal” and “immortal” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
(17) Now unto the King eternal, (1) immortal,(2) invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever (1) and ever (1). Amen.
(1) αἰών/aion (2) ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos
Romans 2:7“Aion” is in apposition with “immortality.” If “aion” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternity” and “immortality” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
(7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,(2) eternal (1) life:
2 Corinthians 4:17-18Here “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Aionios” cannot mean “age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is.
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal (1a) 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;(3) but the things which are not seen are eternal.(1a)
(1a) αἰώνιος/aionios (3) πρόσκαιρος/proskairos
2 Corinthians 5:1Here “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” An “aionios” house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” “Aionios” means “eternal.”
(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 (1a) in the heavens.
Hebrews 7:24Here “unchangeable” is in apposition with “aion.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Melchizadek cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
(24) But this man, because he continueth ever,(1) hath an unchangeable (4) priesthood.
(4) ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos
1 Peter 1:23Here “incorruptible” is in apposition with “aion.” The seed of God cannot be “incorruptible” and only for “a finite period” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
(23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,(2) by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.(1)
The definition of “apposition” from a Greek grammar.
III. Nominative in Simple Apposition• A. T. Robertson 2 Co 4:17
The nominative case (as well as the other cases) can be an appositive to another substantive in the same case. The usage is quite common. There are four features of simple apposition to be noted (the first two are structural clues; the last two features are semantic): An appositional construction inz’olz’es (1) two adjacent substantives (2)in the same case (40) (3) which refer to the same person or thing, (4) and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause.
The first substantive can belong to any category (e.g., subject, Predicate nom., etc.) and the second is merely a clarification, description, or identification of who or what is mentioned.(41) Thus, the appositive “piggy-backs” on the first nominative’s use, as it were. For this reason simple apposition is not an independent syntactical category.
The appositive functions very much like a PN in a convertible proposition that is, it refers to the same thing as the first noun.(42) The difference, however, is that a PN makes an assertion about the S (an equative verb is either stated or implied); with appositives there is assumption, not assertion (no verb is in mind). In the sentence “Paul is an apostle,” apostle is a PN; in the sentence, “Paul the apostle is in prison,” apostle is in apposition to Paul.
(40)The nom. occasionally is in apposition to an oblique case, but the semantics are the same. See discussion below.
(41) An appositive, strictly speaking, is substantival, not adjectival. Thus, adjectives or Participles in second attributive position are not generally appositives, but usually hate an adjectival force.
(42) The significance of this will be seen in our discussion of the gen. case, for the gen can also involve a syntactical category, vi.t., the gen of apposition. The semantics involved in such a category are quite different from those involved in simple apposition.
With proper names typically the first noun is anarthrous and the appositional noun is articular.
Matt 3:1 παραγινεται ιωαννης ο βαπτιστης κηρυσσων
John the Baptist came Preaching
Mark 15:4 0 εν αις ην και μαρια η μαγδαληνη
among them also were Mary the Magdalene...
Luke 1:24 συνελαβεν ελισαβετ η γυνη αυτου
Elizabeth his wife conceived
Rev 1:5 ο μαρτυς ο πιστος ο πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων
the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Daniel Wallace, pp.48-49
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
2 Corinthians 4:17
Literally, “the for the moment (old adverb parautika, here only in N.T.) lightness (old word, in N.T. only here and Mat_11:30).”
More and more exceedingly (kath' huperbolēn eis huperbolēn). Like piling Pelion on Ossa, “according to excess unto excess.” See note on 1Co_12:31.
Eternal weight of glory (aiōnion baros doxēs). Careful balancing of words in contrast (affliction vs. glory, lightness vs. weight, for the moment vs. eternal).
• Vincent Word Studies
A far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (καθ' ὑπερεβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης)
Rev., more and more exceedingly an eternal weight, etc. An expression after the form of Hebrew superlatives, in which the emphatic word is twice repeated. Lit., exceedingly unto excess. The use of such cumulative expressions is common with Paul. See, for example, Phi_1:23, lit., much more better; Rom_8:37, abundantly the conquerors; Eph_3:20, exceeding abundantly, etc. Note how the words are offset: for a moment, eternal; light, weight; affliction, glory.
Thank you for your advice about the opinions of others I will keep that in mind when I read your opinions. No, there are not other ways to "interpret" the verses I quoted. Usage alone does not determine meaning. I provided a definition of the grammatical term "apposition" in my previous post.Do you realize the opinions of others are not infallible? Have you considered another way to understand the passages you posted? Aionios cannot mean eternal. The Greeks didn't have a word for eternal, that's why they used the phrase, "ages of the ages". Put your definition in place of ages and see that it doesn't make sense. For the, eternities of the eternities doesn't make any sense. There is only one eternity, not multiples. Besides that, the word is used in the Scriptures of finite periods of time. A word cannot have opposing meanings.
Thank you for your advice about the opinions of others I will keep that in mind when I read your opinions. No, there are not other ways to "interpret" the verses I quoted. Usage alone does not determine meaning. I provided a definition of the grammatical term "apposition" in my previous post.
.....Here is an example of apposition from English "[1]six-foot-six and [2]weighed two-forty-five, Kinda [3] broad at the shoulder and [4] narrow at the hip. And everybody knew you didn't give no lip to big John." There are four appositional phrases here which identify one person.
.....Now lets look at three appositional phrases from the verses I quoted.
-One, “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God” The words "eternal, immortal, invisible" refer to God. God cannot live for only "aion"/age(s) and be "immortal" at the same time.
-Two, ”seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life“ Believers cannot seek for only "aion"/age(s) and immortality at the same time.
-Three, ”[Melchizadec] “continueth ever, has an unchangeable priesthood.” Melchizadek couldn't continue only for "aion"/age(s) and be unchangeable at the same time.
In all the examples I quoted "aion" can only mean "eternal."
.....You are relying on the lexical fallacy, "Illegitimate totality transfer:" which assumes that all the uses that occur at a given time apply in any given instance.
.....That words are sometimes used hyperbolically does not change their inherent meaning.
.....God said that He would increase the descendants of Abraham until they would be more numerous than the stars in the heavens and the sands of the sea, seven times. Gen 22:17, 32:12, 15:5, 26:4, Ex 32:13, Jer 33:22, Hos 1:10. The descendants of Abraham are definitely not more numerous than the stars in the heavens and the sands of the sea, that is hyperbole.
.....The repetition of words for emphasis as in εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων/eis tous aionas ton aionon is a figure of speech called epezeuksis. An almost identical phrase using a different word occurs in 2 Cor 4:10 "υπερβολην εις υπερβολην"/huperbolen eis huperbolen which is translated "far more exceeding." The English word "hyperbole" is derived from the Greek word υπερβολην
That fact is supported by Scripture which tells us that Gehenna will not burn for eternity, but will one day be made holy to the Lord.
Butch5
from above post - is not working as to reply at the moment
================
You think the lake of fire will be holy one day? What about the evil angels that will be cast into it? They do not need to be tormented to know God, as they already do. In the time of Jesus Christ on the earth-they had to shut up when He told them to, go where He put them, feared torment/destroy, knew His name and Paul's/later, and fell down before Him.
Wrong! Once again I thank you for your unsupported opinion. Virtually everything you posted is wrong, evidently filtered through whatever false teaching you have had for however many years.Yes, they can. If you define aion correctly.
You're confusing definition with useage. Aion cannot mean eternal. The definition cannot be eternity. That can simply be seen by it's usage. If you define aion as eternal then that's what it means. However, it is used of things that are not eternal.
And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month.
(Lev. 23:41 KJV)
We are told quite a few times in the NT that the ordinances of the Law have ended, however, the translators of the English Bible have translated aionion as for ever. Jesus said the Law and the prophets were until John. Paul said the Law was vanishing away. Which is it? Who's correct, Jesus and Paul or the English translators. You see, by translating aionion as forever, they've imposed their theology on the text.
The word, aion means and age. An age, by definition is an undefined period of time, it's usually a long time. Scientists use this word for periods of time, such as the "Ice Age", or the "Stone Age." Now surely you're not going to argue that the Ice Age and the Stone age are eternal. It was used to translate "Olam" which didn't mean eternity either. It basically meant, for the foreseeable future. Since aion is an undefined period of time it can incorporate the concept of eternity, thus the phrase ages of ages. However, it cannot be defined as eternity because that would limit it's use to only that which is unending and it is clearly used of things that end.
As I said, defining it as eternity doesn't make sense when that definition is applied to the text. Eternities of eternities doesn't make sense.
However, that aion is used of things that end proves that aionios fire can be a finite period of time. That fact is supported by Scripture which tells us that Gehenna will not burn for eternity, but will one day be made holy to the Lord.
Wrong! Once again I thank you for your unsupported opinion. Virtually everything you posted is wrong, evidently filtered through whatever false teaching you have had for however many years.
.....Simply saying e.g. "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" does not make it true.
Had you bothered to actually read the 18 verses I quoted you might learn that those verses do not merely use "aion" a certain way but they define "aion." If someone is "incorruptible,""unchanging,""immortal" etc. and "aion/aionios" at the same time "aion/aionios" cannot mean a finite period of time. They can only mean "eternal" because they are paired with the unambiguous words "incorruptible,""unchanging,""immortal" etc.
.....You are ignoring the fact that I referred to 7 verses where God used hyperbole concerning Israel saying that Abraham's descendants would be more numerous than the stars of the heaven and the sands of the sea. Abraham's descendants are not now and have never been more numerous than the stars of the heaven and the sands of the sea. That is hyperbole."
.....Aion/aionios" can be and are used hyperbolically, i.e. hyperbole. Even in English although forever means everlasting/unending, people often use it for things that are not everlasting/unending. For example "I went to the store yesterday and I had to wait in line forever." "I ordered some parts online and it took forever to get here." Hyperbole!
Still wrong and still doing nothing but giving your unsupported opinion. Do you understand what the word "defines" means? I provided verses which "define" "aion/aoionios."And yet you keep repeating the same argument.
I read the passages. And, as I said, aion can incorporate the concept of eternity, however, it cannot be defined as eternity. You can reject logic and common sense if you so choose. You can also reject the words of Jesus and Paul in favor of your commentaries if you so choose. However, doing so changes nothing. The fact is, the Scriptures use aion of finite periods of time. Again, you can reject that is you so choose. You state that aion cannot mean a finite period of time when it's used that way in Scripture.
Here, once again, you've destroyed your own argument. If aion and aionios can be used hyperbolically, we can say that aionios fire is hyperbole and thus not an eternal burning.
Still wrong and still doing nothing but giving your unsupported opinion. Do you understand what the word "defines" means? I provided verses which "define" "aion/aoionios."
They do this by pairing "aion/aionios" with unambiguous words such as "immortal." "immortality" "incorruptible""unchangeable."
Something which is "Immortal," "immortality,""incorruptible,""unchangeable" cannot be for a finite period at the same time.
.....Now if you want to show conclusively that "aion/aionios" means "age(s)," i.e. a finite period of time, and nothing else, then you must show verses where "aion/aionios" is paired with other words which mean a finite period, similar to what I have done. But I will inform you right now you cannot do so there are no such verses. I have looked. Unlike the verses I provided all you will be able to do is point to verses where "aion/aionios" refers to something which cannot be literally "eternal/eternity" i.e. hyperbole.
.....There were literal foxes during Jesus' time but Herod was not one although Jesus called him that. Hyperbole! There was a literal satan at the time of Jesus but Peter was not him although Jesus called him that. Hyperbole! There was literal thunder at the time of Jesus but James and John were not literally sons of thunder although Jesus called them that. Hyperbole. The descendants of Abraham are not literally more numerous than the stars of the heaven and the sands of the sea although God said they would be, seven times. Hyperbole.
.....No in the verses I posted "aion/aionios" cannot be hyperbole because they are paired with unambiguous words like "incorruptible.""unchanging,""immortal,""immortality."
OP: Q: "What is the "Second Death" " ( a term used only in Revelation)
A: (using only Revelation)
Revelation 20:14b...This is the "second death", the "lake of fire".
Both terms are literal decriptions of an eternal spiritual realm.
Good post. YLT uses age/s and age-during it his translation [one of the few that do]A lot in the Eternal Conscious Torment doctrine is based on some mis translation also. Aionios, is sometimes translated as forever, when it cannot mean that. The ETC crowd often points to Jesus' use of aionios fire, translated eternal fire. However, Jude give us an example of aionios fire and it's not still burning. Jude said that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the vengeance of aionios fire. Anyone can go to the Middle East and see that those two cities are not still burning.