Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']I think I just posted this... A careful study of the Greek word aionios (translated as eternal, everlasting, and forever and ever in our English translations) shows that it comes from the Greek noun aion which always means an indeterminate period of time. It is a most unfortunate thing that the translators of old chose to translate aionios from the Latin language rather than the Greek from which the word is derived. Gods punishment will not last forever as is commonly taught, but will only last for the ages and only UNTIL Gods purpose for it is complete. [/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/FONT]This is a thorough study of the Greek word Aionios.
Plato (Timoeus, ed. Steph. 3, 37, or ed. Baiter, Orell. et Winck. 712) says, speaking of the universe: "When the father who begot it* perceived that the image made by him of the eternal (aidion) gods moved and lived, he was delighted with his work; and, led by this delight, thought to make his work much more like that first exemplar." Inasmuch therefore as it (the intelligible universe) is an eternal (aidion) animal (living being), so he set about to make this (the sensible) universe such with all his power. The nature therefore of the animal (living being) was eternal (aionios, before aidios), and this indeed it was impossible to adapt to what was produced (to genneto, to what had a beginning); he thinks to make a moveable image of eternity (aionos), and in adoring the heavens he makes of the eternity permanent in unity a certain eternal image moving in number, that which in fact we call time; that is, days and nights, and months and years, which did not subsist before the heaven began to be, then with its being established he operates their birth" (beginning to be, genesin auton). And after unfolding this, he says (p. 38): "But these forms of time imitating eternity (aiona), and rolling round according to number, have had a beginning (gegonen).... Time therefore began with heaven. that they having begun with it may be dissolved with it, if there be indeed any dissolution of them, and according to the pattern of eternal (diaionias, in some MSS. aionion or -as) nature that it might be as like as possible to it. For that pattern exists for all eternity (panta aiona estin on), but on the other hand, that which is perpetual (dia telous) throughout all time has had a beginning, and is, and will be." And then he goes on to speak of stars and planets, etc., as connected with what was created in time. It is impossible to conceive any more positive statement that aion is distinct, and to be contrasted with what has a beginning and belongs to the flux of time. Aion is what is properly eternal, in contrast with a divine imitation of it in ages of time, the result of the creative action of God which imitated the uncreate as nearly as He could in created ages. It is a careful opposition between eternity and ages; and aion and also aionios mean the former in contrast with ages. ]
In Plato the term is developed so as to represent a timeless, immeasurable and transcendent super-time, an idea of time in itself. Plutarch and the earlier Stoics appropriate this understanding, and from it the Mysteries of Aion, the god of eternity, could be celebrated in Alexandria, and gnosticism could undertake its own speculations on time.
* * *
NIDNTT Colin BrownAristotle peri ouranou, 1, 9 (ed. Bekker, 1, 279): "Time," he says, "is the number of movement, but there is no movement without a physical body. But outside heaven it has been shewn that there is not, nor possibly can come into existence, any body. It is evident then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time outside. Wherefore neither in place are things there formed by nature; nor does time cause them to grow old: neither is there any change of anything of those things which are arranged beyond the outermost orbit; but unchangeable, and subject to no influence, having the best and most independent life, they continue for all eternity (aiona). For this expression (name) has been divinely uttered by the ancients; for the completeness which embraces the time of the life of each, outside which there is nothing, according to nature, is called the aion of each. According to the same word (logon) the completeness of the whole heaven, and the completeness which embraces all time and infinitude is aion, having received this name from existing for ever (apo tou aei einai), immortal (athanatos, undying), and divine." In 10 he goes on to shew that that beginning to be (genesthai) involves the not existing always, which I refer to as shewing what he means by aion. He is proving the unchangeable eternity of the visible universe. That is no business of mine; but it shews what he means by eternity (aion). It cannot be aidion and genesthai at the same time, when, as in Plato, aidios is used as equivalent to aionios. Aristotle has not the abstract thoughts of Plato as to ideas, and the paradeigma of what is visible, the latter being a produced image of the eternal paradeigma. He rests more in what is known by the senses; and makes this the eternal thing in itself. But the force of aion for both is a settled point; and Aristotle's explanation of aion as used for finite things, I have long held to be the true one; that is, the completeness of a thing's existence, so that according to its natural existence there is nothing outside or beyond it. It periechei the whole being of the thing. 126
Philo, the sentence is in De Mundo, 7, en aioni de oute pareleluthen ouden, oute mellei, alla monon iphesteken. Such a definition needs no explanation: in eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but only subsists. This has the importance of being of the date and Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament, as the others give the regular, and at the same time philosophical force of the word, aion, aionios. Eternity, unchangeable, with no 'was' nor 'will be,' is its proper force, that it can be applied to the whole existence of a thing, so that nothing of its nature was before true or after is true, to telos to periechon. But its meaning is eternity, and eternal. To say that they do not mean it in Greek, as Jukes and Farrar and S. Cox, and those they quote, is a denial of the statements of the very best authorities we can have on the subject. If Plato and Aristotle and Philo knew Greek, what these others say is false. That this is the proper sense of aionios in Scripture, is as certain as it is evident. In 2 Corinthians 4: 18, we have ta gar blepomena proskaira, ta de me blepomena aionia. That is, things that are for a time are put in express contrast with aionia, which are not for a time, be it age or ages, but eternal. Nothing can be more decisive of its positive and specific meaning.
0166 aionios [SIZE=+1]αιωνιος without beginning or end, eternal, everlasting
LEH lxx lexicon
UBS GNT Dict. # 169 (Str#166)
aionios eternal (of quality rather than of time); unending, everlasting, for all time
aijwvnio" (iva Pla., Tim. 38b; Jer 39:40; Ezk 37:26; 2 Th 2:16; Hb 9:12; as v.l. Ac 13:48; 2 Pt 1:11; Bl-D. §59, 2; Mlt.-H. 157), on eternal (since Hyperid. 6, 27; Pla.; inscr., pap., LXX; Ps.-Phoc. 112; Test. 12 Patr.; standing epithet for princely, esp. imperial power: Dit., Or. Index VIII; BGU 176; 303; 309; Sb 7517, 5 [211/2 ad] kuvrio" aij.; al. in pap.; Jos., Ant. 7, 352).
1. without beginning crovnoi" aij. long ages ago Ro 16:25; pro; crovnwn aij. before time began 2 Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2 (on crovno" aij. cf. Dit., Or. 248, 54; 383, 10).
2. without beginning or end; of God (Ps.-Pla., Tim. Locr. 96c qeo;n t. aijwvnion; Inscr. in the Brit. Mus. 894 aij. k. ajqavnato"; Gen 21:33; Is 26:4; 40:28; Bar 4:8 al.; Philo, Plant. 8; 74; Sib. Or., fgm. 3, 17 and 4; PGM 1, 309; 13, 280) Ro 16:26; of the Holy Spirit in Christ Hb 9:14. qrovno" aij. 1 Cl 65:2 (cf. 1 Macc 2:57).
3. without end (Diod. S. 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 dovxa aij. everlasting fame; in Diod. S. 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their aij. oi[khsi"; Arrian, Peripl. 1, 4 ej" mnhvmhn aij.; Jos., Bell. 4, 461 aij. cavri"=a gracious gift for all future time; Dit., Or. 383, 10 [I bc] eij" crovnon aij.; ECEOwen, oi\ko" aij.: JTS 38, 37, 248-50) of the next life skhnai; aij. Lk 16:9 (cf. En. 39, 5). oijkiva, contrasted w. the oijkiva ejpivgeio", of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1. diaqhvkh (Gen 9:16; 17:7; Lev 24:8; 2 Km 23:5 al.) Hb 13:20. eujaggevlion Rv 14:6; kravto" in a doxolog. formula (=eij" tou;" aijw`na") 1 Ti 6:16. paravklhsi" 2 Th 2:16. luvtrwsi" Hb 9:12. klhronomiva (Esth 4:17m) vs. 15; aij. ajpevcein tinav (opp. pro;" w{ran) keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cf. Job 40:28). Very often of Gods judgment (Diod. S. 4, 63, 4 dia; th;n ajsevbeian ejn a{/dou diatelei`n timwriva" aijwnivou tugcavnonta; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40; Da 12:2; Ps 76:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 13:15) kovlasi" aij. (Test. Reub. 5:5) Mt 25:46; 2 Cl 6:7; krivma aij. Hb 6:2; qavnato" B 20:1. o[leqron (4 Macc 10:15) 2 Th 1:9. pu`r (4 Macc 12:12.Sib. Or. 8, 401 fw`" aij.) Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jd 7; Dg 10:7 (IQS 2, 8). aJnavrthma Mk 3:29 (v.l. krivsew" and aJmartiva"). On the other hand of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d qeou` zwh; aij.; Diod. S. 8, 15, 3 life meta; to;n qavnaton lasts eij" a{panta aijw`na; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3; PsSol 3, 12; Philo, Fuga 78; Jos., Bell. 1, 650; Sib. Or. 2, 336) in the Kingdom of God: zwh; aij. Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30; Ac 13:46, 48; Ro 2:7; 5:21 al.; J 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36 al.; 1J 1:2; 2:25 al.D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also basileiva aij. 2 Pt 1:11 (cf. Da 4:3; 7:27; Philo, Somn. 2, 285; Dit., Or. 569, 24 uJpe;r th`" aijwnivou kai; ajfqavrtou basileiva" uJmw`n; Dssm. B 279f, BS 363). Of the glory in the next life dovxa aij. 2 Ti 2:10 (cf. Wsd 10:14; Jos., Ant. 15, 376.Sib. Or. 8, 410). aijwvnion bavro" dovxh" 2 Cor 4:17; swthriva aij. (Is 45:17; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9; short ending of Mk. Of heavenly glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses ta; mh; blepovmena aijwvnia 2 Cor 4:18.carav IPhld inscr.; doxavzesqai aijwnivw/ e[rgw/ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. 67, 186-201. M-M.
Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.[/SIZE]
From the book, 'Hope Beyond Hell', by Gerry Beauchemin.
http://tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
So what if the Greek word aion has been erroneously translated eternal instead of age? What does that have to do with everlasting punishment? It has everything to do with it, since one of the key texts used in defense of the Augustinian view of hell is Mt. 25:46: And these will go away into everlasting [aionian] punishment. If this passage as translated here is
accurate, then I would have to admit the Bible teaches that hell is forever. But what if it is not? What if aion does not mean everlasting? What would that do to the biblical support of an infinite hell? It would negate the use of any verses resting on the word aion used in its defense.
Consider how the following translations word this phrase:
♦ Youngs Literal Translation: punishment age-during.
♦ Rotherham Translation: age-abiding correction.
♦ Weymouth Translation: punishment of the ages.
♦ Concordant Literal Translation: chastening eonian.
These reputable and literal translations use the word age and not eternal. These two concepts are diametrically opposed to one
another. They are not the same by any means. An age has a beginning and an end; eternity does not. 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 (This is very important!).
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 Jonahs 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 Solomons 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 or 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.
Joh 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
The problem with the NT is the Jesus who walked the earth never condemned anyone; except the religious of His day; He told the women at the well " to go and sin no more".
But then for some reason when He ascended in heaven there was a personality change and He became this monster God condemning and damning.
Something is surely wrong here; I am sure a lot of this has to do with Rome getting their hands on the Bible and translations were influences not by truth but pagan religions near and in Rome.
I think I just posted this... A careful study of the Greek word aionios (translated as eternal, everlasting, and forever and ever in our English translations) shows that it comes from the Greek noun aion which always means an indeterminate period of time. It is a most unfortunate thing that the translators of old chose to translate aionios from the Latin language rather than the Greek from which the word is derived. Gods punishment will not last forever as is commonly taught, but will only last for the ages and only UNTIL Gods purpose for it is complete
[ . . . ]The term forever (and its equivalents, eternal and everlasting) often occurs when it cannot possibly mean unending. In the story of Jonah one is surprised to hear him say while in the belly of the fish, "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever" (Jon. 2:6). But he was in the fish only three days and three nights! [ . . . ]
This still does NOT address anything I posted. You just ignore everything I post and copy/paste complete arguments from tentmakers. I am talking to you NOT tentmakers. If you cannot present your own arguments, in your own words this discussion is over.
And OBTW your tentmakers website deliberately misinterprets scripture to make it appear their argument is correct. The bars of the ocean were behind Jonah forever, from his point of view, and without the direct intervention of God that would have been true.
Funny coming from someone who has not addressed me or what I have posted AT ALL. And also funny that for several posts YOU did not address Benoni personally but gave copied and pasted texts.
Tentmakers is simply a resource centre for many qualified men and woman from around the world who have studied Greek and Hebrew like you for many many years.
Your sources too, are simply that... just sources. Just because someone has a big name before men (the christian world) does not make them big in the eyes of God, or that they have taught the truth.
I would rather follow the narrow road and keep away from lies that have been perpetuated from one generation to the next.
Theologian... Sir William Barclay, who said,
"I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God. In the early days Origen was the great name connected with universalism. I would believe with Origen that universalism is no easy thing. Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification."
This is jst one example of someone else who has studied Greek for a long time... you are not the only one. You most likely have not answered me because I don't speak as a 'scholar' and you think I don't know what I'm talking about.
So, please, put aside your Greek scholarship and listen to what the Spirit says to you...
I think she addressed your post thoroughly; I was totally satisfied with her answers but your answers are nothing but the letter that killeth. Youre just too hard headed to receive anything but your doctrines of damnations.
There thousands of Greek and Hebrew Scholars, some are Catholic, some Baptist some Greek Orthodox and Hebrew Scholars and they are all bias like your self.
If I placed my faith in Jesus the savior but all you know is Jesus the monster; I dont agree with you and never will. You see I am bias because of Gods anointed speaks in ways you Greek and Hebrew Scholars have no clue.
Neither you nor anyone else has directly addressed anything I have posted. Copy/pasting several complete posts from tent burners or hell makers that say a lot of stuff about universalism does nothing to address the 28 passages of scripture I posted, Jesus speaking on punishment of the wicked. I will show you how it is done.
I have quoted your post now I will address these specific points. Anybody can make assertions that some other group is biased. Assertions without evidence are meaningless. Where is the evidence? Can you quote 1-2 scholars and show specifically how they are biased? Just because someone has a different view or opinion than you does NOT make them biased.
Here you are making more assertions with NO, NONE, ZERO evidence. You know absolutely nothing about me. What you agree with or not does NOT mean anything. More assertions about anointing and Greek and Hebrew scholars with NO, NONE, ZERO evidence. Are you aware that the KJV has over 800 words that have changed in meaning or have dropped out of the language completely. E.g. what is a wimple or a bruit?
I do not care to even read you post; I used to believe just like you; all Christian Universalist were once eternalhellist just like you. The theme of this thread was whose anointing; do you even care about Gods anointing or is your carnal human brain all matters when it comes to scriptural truth?
I said I was bias, are you claiming your not bias?
No where does it say in Gods Word that scholars will lead and guide us into all truth; but is this not what your asking me to blindly follow?
Here is some evidence for you; notice I quote Gods Word not bias scholar.
David was king; He was Gods anointed King; not like Saul who was also anointed by God; but chosen by the people; like many ministries in the church (little c) realm today. David was one of those special people God called, anointed and was anointed as child. [1] Todays ministry is chosen by men. [2] I have found men of God that I know anointed by the deepness of their understanding not because they have been voted in or out by some church committee. [3] David walked for many years and knew He had an anointing; but he kept it to himself and understood that Saul was Gods anointed; that is until the appointed time. I think we are better off to wait for God to anoint Gods chosen vessel then to anoint our own. [4]
Also let us not forget Solomon who was also anointed of God; but because of his marring and turning his heart to false idols he became corrupt. Reminds me of all the different religions out there that man has married into; [5] there is only one way; Christ with in.
The Bible says the letter killeth; there is no life in eternal torture?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?