What is the 2nd Death? (Annihilationsim vs. Eternal Torment)

[Der Alte]

Everyone has assumptions & biases. Others translate as Young (who is quite well respected amongst scholars), such as, for a few examples:
Douay-Rheims Bible
Now to the king of ages
Darby Bible Translation
Now to the King of the ages, [the] incorruptible, invisible, only God, honour and glory to the ages of ages. Amen.
Weymouth New Testament
Now to the immortal and invisible King of the Ages, who alone is God, be honour and glory to the Ages of the Ages! Amen.
Greek-English Interlinear:
1 Timothy 1:17 Interlinear: and to the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, is honour and glory -- to the ages of the ages! Amen.

What does ages of the ages mean when it is apposition with incorruptible/immortal? What is a finite period of finite period that is immortal/incorruptible if not "eternal?" Oops just blew your argument out of the water.

And numerous sources acknowledge the literal meaning of aion, not as eternal/eternity, but an age, eon. As i've previously stated, which you said was wrong.

No, numerous sources merely use the words to refer to something that is not eternal. None of the verses which you could cite show grammatically, as I have done, that aion/aionios mean a finite period.

If aion/olam meant eternity, then Scripture says:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will not cast off for ETERNITY:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.

What exactly is your argument? Olam is in apposition with "never ceases"never come to an end""not cast off" what is that if not "eternal?"

Which is irrelevant to the fact that your comment was a logical fallacy. Your point & argument therefore fails. Furthermore, since you made the same type of comment re the vast majority of your 8 aion/ios verses, the same applies to them. Logical fallacy. Argument fails.

Nonsense I do not commit logical fallacies! Saying "Logical fallacy!""Logical fallacy!" does not make it so. Show me how anything I posted is a logical fallacy! Which logical fallacy are they? Do you even know what the different logical fallacies are? Had you bothered to actually read the 8 passages and the supporting scholarship, two highly accredited scholars A.T. Robertson and Dan Wallace support my argument in 2 Corinthians 4:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 5:1

 

[Noxot]

God created countless ages because we are not going to sit in heaven for all eternity and pluck harps and read the bible

 

[ClementofA]

What does ages of the ages mean when it is apposition with incorruptible/immortal? What is a finite period of finite period that is immortal/incorruptible if not "eternal?" Oops just blew your argument out of the water.

Your second sentence is nonsensical.

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[ClementofA]

No, numerous sources merely use the words to refer to something that is not eternal.

Thank you for admitting that numerous sources say the words aion, aionios & olam "refer to something that is not eternal".
So they can refer to finite duration. So why can't they refer to the finite duration of after death punishment?

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[ClementofA]

What exactly is your argument? Olam is in apposition with "never ceases"never come to an end""not cast off" what is that if not "eternal?"

If your theory is true, there would be a bible contradiction between verses like Lamentations 3:31-33 and verses like Matthew 25:41. Therefore, your theory is false. As i said:

If aion/olam meant eternity, then Scripture says:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will not cast off for ETERNITY:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.

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

 

[ClementofA]

What exactly is your argument? Olam is in apposition with "never ceases"never come to an end""not cast off" what is that if not "eternal?"

So are you saying it's impossible for that verse to be saying "For the Lord will not cast off for the eon"? That it is logically impossible? If so, then that's another logical fallacy you've committed.

And you're saying words in a verse [v.22] that occurs 9 verses before another verse [v.31] is in apposition with olam in v.31? Would that also apply to words that are several chapters apart from a particular verse with olam in it?

If we have verses that speak of "the day of the olam" or "the year of the olam" does that prove olam means finite duration?

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will not cast off for ETERNITY:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.

 

[ClementofA]

Nonsense I do not commit logical fallacies!

See post #136 where i told you:

Your following statement is a logical fallacy:

"God cannot be for “a finite period” and “immortal” at the same time."

That it is a logical error can be easily seen by the following statement: God lives "today" and is "immortal". Today is finite, so God will be for a finite period, namely "today". Additionally, God is "immortal". So when the finite time period "today" ends, He does not end, but lives on. That God will be living "today" and also at the same time be "immortal" are two distinct and different facts, not redundant facts telling us the same thing.

And in another post i added:

Which is irrelevant to the fact that your comment was a logical fallacy. Your point & argument therefore fails. Furthermore, since you made the same type of comment re the vast majority of your 8 aion/ios verses, the same applies to them. Logical fallacy. Argument fails.

Believers and Supporters of Christian Universalism

 

[Butch5]

Thank you very much for your unsolicited, unsupported opinion. Please let me know when you have acquired sufficient education and training in Greek that I should accept your "interpretation" or provide arguments by accredited Greek scholars. Until then I will go with the translation by accredited Bible scholars.

See previous response. Your last sentence misrepresents my response.

Read my complete reply and respond to it, not just bits and piece out-of-context. See my comments on temporal vs. eternal contrasted with temporal and age(s)

If something is not destroyed then it is eternal.

Hebrews 7:24 ο δε δια το μενειν αυτον εις τον αιωνα [aion] απαραβατον εχει την ιερωσυνην ​

1Peter 1:23
(23) αναγεγεννημενοι ουκ εκ σπορας φθαρτης αλλα αφθαρτου δια λογου ζωντος θεου και μενοντος εις τον αιωνα[aion]​

Irrelevant. Thank you once again for your unsupported opinion. If God is eternal then all of his attributes are eternal not "age(s)" long. My argument remains unscathed.

Your assumptions and amateurish attempts to reinterpret words are irrelevant. Once again I will go with the translations provided by accredited scholars. In Galatians 6:8 “aionios” is contrasted with “corruption.” “fleshly” people reap “corruption” [of some kind] but people in the spirit people reap life aionios i.e. not “corruption.” That which is eternal cannot be corrupted. “Aionios” means “eternal/everlasting.”

This is nonsense. "Eternity" is not an undefined period of time. "Eternal" and "age(s)" are not interchangeable. You have not conclusively refuted any of my arguments.

Actually the reply was solicited. You said no one had addressed the passages, so I did. I showed how your arguments don't hold water. That you resort to Ad Hominems shows that your arguments aren't strong at all. If they were you would have no reason to attempt to discredit me. That you do shows how weak your arguments are. You've been presented with passages that clearly show that "aion" is used of finite periods of time. It's also been shown how in the passages you posted one's theology is being imposed on the passages.

 

[Der Alte]

Thank you for admitting that numerous sources say the words aion, aionios & olam "refer to something that is not eternal".
So they can refer to finite duration. So why can't they refer to the finite duration of after death punishment?

I have never denied that aion/aoionios are used hyperbolically to refer to things which are not by nature eternal. Remember me asking if Peter was actually, literally a stone, if Herod was actually, literally a fox? But nothing you have said or can say proves that "aionion kolasis" means "death." Jesus knew the words for "death, die, dead" and He used them at least 59 times. If Jesus had meant death in Matthew 25:46 that is what He would have said.

 

[Der Alte]

Actually the reply was solicited. You said no one had addressed the passages, so I did.

Yes I did say that.

I showed how your arguments don't hold water.

No you claimed to disprove my arguments but alas you did not as I have shown. Try again.

That you resort to Ad Hominems shows that your arguments aren't strong at all. If they were you would have no reason to attempt to discredit me. That you do shows how weak your arguments are.

I have not used any ad hominems. You have not stated or demonstrated any qualifications in Greek nor have you quoted any Greek scholars in support of your arguments.

You've been presented with passages that clearly show that "aion" is used of finite periods of time.

Irrelevant. I am aware that words are used hyperbolically in the Bible. None of those examples define "aion" as my examples do. Here are some clear examples.
.....There are actual stones but Simon was not a stone when Jesus called him "Petros" i.e. a stone. There are actual foxes but Herod was not a fox when Jesus called him one. Thunder is real but James and John were not actually sons of thunder when Jesus called them that. People have eyes and beams actually exist but a person could not literally have a beam in his eye as Jesus said. Hyperbole.

It's also been shown how in the passages you posted one's theology is being imposed on the passages.

Wrong! You have not shown any such thing. I made 8 grammatical arguments which have not been refuted. OBTW you claimed that two of the verses I quoted did not have the word "aion" I showed you that they did.

 

[ClementofA]

I have never denied that aion/aoionios are used hyperbolically to refer to things which are not by nature eternal. Remember me asking if Peter was actually, literally a stone, if Herod was actually, literally a fox?

Who agrees with you that when Scripture repeatedly speaks of the "end of the age" (e.g. Mt. 24:3) it is not a literal use of aion and is being used as hyperbole (an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally) like references to Herod being a fox or Peter a stone? No lexicon, church father, commentator or forum poster in the past 2000 years has been cited in support of your theory. Except you, yourself & you. It is Der Alter against the world & history of 2000 years. Does anyone agree with your ridiculous theory?

The Scriptural references to the "end of the age"[aion] prove that aion literally is used of, & can mean, a finite period of time that ends, an age, eon, a duration of time, an epoch. As i defined the word (and lexicons agree):

"Aion literally means age, eon. It refers to a duration of time, often an epoch."

Which you said was wrong.

When some duration of time has an "end" it is not endless, but finite. So when aion is in apposition to "end", it is therefore opposed to being endless & cannot mean eternal.

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

 

[Der Alte]

See post #136 where i told you:
Your following statement is a logical fallacy:
"God cannot be for “a finite period” and “immortal” at the same time."
That it is a logical error can be easily seen by the following statement: God lives "today" and is "immortal". Today is finite, so God will be for a finite period, namely "today". Additionally, God is "immortal". So when the finite time period "today" ends, He does not end, but lives on. That God will be living "today" and also at the same time be "immortal" are two distinct and different facts, not redundant facts telling us the same thing.

Nonsense. God is either finite or He is eternal, He cannot be both. God exists today, which is finite, but He is eternal.

And in another post i added:

Which is irrelevant to the fact that your comment was a logical fallacy. Your point & argument therefore fails. Furthermore, since you made the same type of comment re the vast majority of your 8 aion/ios verses, the same applies to them. Logical fallacy. Argument fails

.

You still have not shown any logical fallacies.

2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] 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; but the things which are not seen are eternal.[αιωνια/aionia]
2 Corinthians 5:1
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] in the heavens.

• A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament 2 Co 4:17
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
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 in the New Testament 2 Cor 4:17
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.​

 

[Noxot]

I guess you guys already talked about the ancient of days which is a reference to aeons due to a day in heaven being an age and can include an entire lifetime of being a human.

aeons are days of eternity.


Dan 7:9 (YLT)
`I was seeing till that thrones have been thrown down, and the Ancient of Days is seated, His garment as snow is white, and the hair of his head is as pure wool, His throne flames of fire, its wheels burning fire.

Dan 7:13 (YLT)
`I was seeing in the visions of the night, and lo, with the clouds of the heavens as a son of man was one coming, and unto the Ancient of Days he hath come, and before Him they have brought him near.

Dan 7:22 (YLT)
till that the Ancient of Days hath come, and judgment is given to the saints of the Most High, and the time hath come, and the saints have strengthened the kingdom.

other interesting things to consider

Ps 90:4 (YLT)
For a thousand years in Thine eyes are as yesterday, For it passeth on, yea, a watch by night.

2Pet 3:8 (YLT)
And this one thing let not be unobserved by you, beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day;

Rev 20:4-5 (YLT)
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years; and the rest of the dead did not live again till the thousand years may be finished; this is the first rising again.

Matt 12:32 (YLT)
And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming.

Mark 3:29-30 (YLT)
but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness--to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;' because they said, `He hath an unclean spirit.'

aeons also refers to different worlds like this universe and the other world we are in as spirits, which we shall more fully see when we die here and fully wake there. I had a vision of the aeons once, it was countless times that compose the kingdom of God and of each soul. it was like infinite bubbles in the vastness of eternity and a never ending complex tapestry.

 

[Butch5]

Yes I did say that.

No you claimed to disprove my arguments but alas you did not as I have shown. Try again.

I have not used any ad hominems. You have not stated or demonstrated any qualifications in Greek nor have you quoted any Greek scholars in support of your arguments.

Quoting Greek "scholars" doesn't make or break an argument. They are simply one's opinion that get evaluated like any other evidence. When their opinion is in opposition to Scripture the get rejected.

I don't need to show qualifications in Greek. I've simply used your sources of authority, the lexicons, to show that your argument is wrong. When you deny my argument are denying your own sources.

Irrelevant. I am aware that words are used hyperbolically in the Bible. None of those examples define "aion" as my examples do. Here are some clear examples.
.....There are actual stones but Simon was not a stone when Jesus called him "Petros" i.e. a stone. There are actual foxes but Herod was not a fox when Jesus called him one. Thunder is real but James and John were not actually sons of thunder when Jesus called them that. People have eyes and beams actually exist but a person could not literally have a beam in his eye as Jesus said. Hyperbole.

Your examples are metaphors, not hyperbole. A metaphor is phrase that is applied to something but is not taken literally. Hyperbole is an extreme exaggeration to make a point. Forever and ever is hyperbole. There is nothing more than forever. To add the word "ever" after forever is an exaggeration and thus hyperbole. An age as a limited period of time is not an exaggeration of eternity. Therefore it is NOT an example of hyperbole.

What we have are clear statements showing plainly that your claim that aion means eternity is simply wrong.

Wrong! You have not shown any such thing. I made 8 grammatical arguments which have not been refuted. OBTW you claimed that two of the verses I quoted did not have the word "aion" I showed you that they did.

It appears you showed that one did. However, your arguments are not grammatical. They are via human reasoning. If this, then that. You're reasoning that is this is true then that must be true. However, I've shown that that reasoning is not the case. For instance, in one statement you claim that something that is not destroyed is eternal. That's not the case. To destroy something means to put an end to it. Some things cease of their own accord, thus they are not destroyed.

 

[Der Alte]

Who agrees with you that when Scripture repeatedly speaks of the "end of the age" (e.g. Mt. 24:3) it is not a literal use of aion and is being used as hyperbole (an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally) like references to Herod being a fox or Peter a stone. No lexicon, church father, commentator or forum poster in the past 2000 years has been cited in support of your theory. Except you, yourself & you. It is Der Alter against the world & history of 2000 years. Does anyone agree with your ridiculous theory?

Now there is a logical fallacy an argument from silence. I must be wrong because you don't know of any source which disagrees with me. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

The Scriptural reference to "end of the age"[aion] proves that aion literally is used of, & can mean, a finite period of time that ends, an age, eon, a duration of time, an epoch. As i defined the word (and lexicons agree):
"Aion literally means age, eon. It refers to a duration of time, often an epoch."
Which you said was wrong.

As I said before when you quote "Aion literally means age, eon. It refers to a duration of time, often an epoch." and insist that is the only definition, you are wrong and will always be wrong. BDAG also includes these definitions,
“Ton panta aiona-through all eternity,” “of time to come which if it has no end, is also known as eternity. “eis ai’ to eternity, eternally, in perpetuity’; “w. negative= never, not at all, never again,””eis tous aionas-unto all eternity””forevermore,””formulaically=eternal…according to the eternal purpose,””from (past) eternity to (future) eternity,”” of time to come which, if it has no end, is also known as eternity.

 

[Butch5]

Now there is a logical fallacy an argument from silence. I must be wrong because you don't know of any source which disagrees with me. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

As I said before when you quote "Aion literally means age, eon. It refers to a duration of time, often an epoch." and insist that is the only definition, you are wrong and will always be wrong. BDAG also includes these definitions,
“Ton panta aiona-through all eternity,” “of time to come which if it has no end, is also known as eternity. “eis ai’ to eternity, eternally, in perpetuity’; “w. negative= never, not at all, never again,””eis tous aionas-unto all eternity””forevermore,””formulaically=eternal…according to the eternal purpose,””from (past) eternity to (future) eternity,”” of time to come which, if it has no end, is also known as eternity.

BDAG isn't inspired.

 

[Der Alte]

Quoting Greek "scholars" doesn't make or break an argument. They are simply one's opinion that get evaluated like any other evidence. When their opinion is in opposition to Scripture the get rejected.
I don't need to show qualifications in Greek. I've simply used your sources of authority, the lexicons, to show that your argument is wrong. When you deny my argument are denying your own sources.

Are there any words in English which have contradictory meanings such as large-small, strong-weak etc? Does the English word eternal mean everlasting, forever, unending etc? Is the English word "eternal" ever used to describe something which is not everlasting, forever, unending etc? For example, "I flew from Japan to the United states it took forever." Does the English word "eternal" mean a period of 16-17 hours as I just used it in that sentence? That is the claim you are making for aion/aionios.

Your examples are metaphors, not hyperbole. A metaphor is phrase that is applied to something but is not taken literally. Hyperbole is an extreme exaggeration to make a point. Forever and ever is hyperbole. There is nothing more than forever. To add the word "ever" after forever is an exaggeration and thus hyperbole. An age as a limited period of time is not an exaggeration of eternity. Therefore it is NOT an example of hyperbole.

Perhaps you are right but one is both metaphor and hyperbole "the sons of thunder." The point is there are many figures of speech in the Bible. I think Bullinger said about 200.

What we have are clear statements showing plainly that your claim that aion means eternity is simply wrong.

Nonsense. You keep telling yourself that.

It appears you showed that one did.

Wrong I showed two.

However, your arguments are not grammatical. They are via human reasoning. If this, then that. You're reasoning that is this is true then that must be true. However, I've shown that that reasoning is not the case.
For instance, in one statement you claim that something that is not destroyed is eternal. That's not the case. To destroy something means to put an end to it. Some things cease of their own accord, thus they are not destroyed.

They most certainly are grammatical. Is it your argument that the eternal house in heaven ceases of its own accord? This is just plain silliness. The verse I quoted contrasted "the earthly tent we live in is destroyed" with "a building from God, an eternal house in heaven." Does that eternal home in heaven last for only an "age" then it destroys itself? If the home in heaven is eventually destroyed how is that any different than the earthly home? Lets get real here.

 

[Der Alte]

BDAG isn't inspired.

Irrelevant. Do you have any idea at all what BDAG is? Any version you choose to use is also not inspired. Do you read Greek fluently? Since you do not, then you must rely on an uninspired translation by an uninspired someone who may or may not know what they are doing. The KJV is certainly not inspired.

 

[Butch5]

Are there any words in English which have contradictory meanings such as large-small, strong-weak etc? Does the English word eternal mean everlasting, forever, unending etc? Is the English word "eternal" ever used to describe something which is not everlasting, forever, unending etc? For example, "I flew from Japan to the United states it took forever." Does the English word "eternal" mean a period of 16-17 hours as I just used it in that sentence? That is the claim you are making for aion/aionios.

You've got it backwards. People do use hyperbole just as you suggested. However, the don't do it in reverse. When something is quick we don't say it took an eternity. Eternity is used as hyperbole of finite periods. Finite periods are not used of eternity. If someone wants to say, I want to live for eternity, they don't say I want to live for years, they say eternity.

Perhaps you are right but one is both metaphor and hyperbole "the sons of thunder." The point is there are many figures of speech in the Bible. I think Bullinger said about 200.

There are quite a few figures of speech in the Scriptures, but finite periods of time are not used as hyperbole for eternity.

Nonsense. You keep telling yourself that.

I'ts already been proven. Jesus and Paul both said that the Law ended, yet the translators indicate that those statutes will go on forever. These two oppose each other. One has to be wrong. I'm arguing that Jesus and Paul are right and the translators are wrong.

Wrong I showed two.

They most certainly are grammatical. Is it your argument that the eternal house in heaven ceases of its own accord? This is just plain silliness. The verse I quoted contrasted "the earthly tent we live in is destroyed" with "a building from God, an eternal house in heaven." Does that eternal home in heaven last for only an "age" then it destroys itself? If the home in heaven is eventually destroyed how is that any different than the earthly home? Lets get real here.

This shows what I said. You're using human reasoning to make your argument. They are not grammatical. Your argument was based on the phrase "not destroyed". I pointed out that "not destroyed" is not the definition of aion. I've also pointed out that an "age" can incorporate the concept of eternity, however, the concept of eternity cannot incorporate a finite period of time, an age. An age is an undefined period of time. What is eternity? It is an undefined period of time. However, we cannot say that an age is an unending period of time because it is clearly used in the scriptures of periods of time that ended.

The word "aion" was used in the Greek Old Testament to translate the Hebrew word "olam." The definition of olam is, to the horizon. It's what can be seen or we could say for the foreseeable future. It doesn't indicate an unending period of time as it is usually translated in English. The concept of olam is what should be understood by aion as it was used to translate olam.

Hebrew Word Definitions - Eternity

 

[Butch5]

Irrelevant. Do you have any idea at all what BDAG is? Any version you choose to use is also not inspired. Do you read Greek fluently? Since you do not, then you must rely on an uninspired translation by an uninspired someone who may or may not know what they are doing. The KJV is certainly not inspired.

It's not irrelevant. You quote them like what they say ends the discussion. They are humans and just a capable of making a mistake or being subject to bias and anyone else. You ask if I read Greek and then assume that I don't. You don't know to what extent I know Greek. You also don't know to what extent I've studied the Scriptures. You're just making assumptions. Do you know how lexicons are made? Do you know how translators determine what a word means? I assume anything, I'll let you answer for yourself. If you do know the answers please elaborate.