Why is scripture so fuzzy about heaven and hell?

[Saint Steven]

I remember the slight shock I felt when I first learnt that when Jesus said "aionias kolasis" this is translated as "eternal punishment" in most English Bibles but actually means something more like "pruning/correction lasting for an age", where "age" is a finite duration of time because the correction process has to end for the correction to be achieved.

It's natural for lay people, like myself, to assume that Bible translators would get things right and I always thought all the references to "eternal punishment" in all the popular Bibles I'd seen posed quite a challenge to a universalist interpretation. But when I learnt that it's simply a mistranlation, it all fell together, and I've since learnt that there are many Bible translations that translate these "infernalist" verses correctly.

These kind of errors, even though widely accepted in academia, continue to be kept in the more popular versions and the publishers are unlikely to change this any time soon because, as we see here, eternal torment (for others) commands a fierce loyalty and there'd be a significant drop in sales. It would be nice to think that the Bible is unaffected by these things but I guess it's not too surprising to learn that it isn't.

Yes.
If infernalism didn't exist, the churches wouldn't be full of blackmailed believers. (motivated by fear)

 

[Saint Steven]

@Hmm
It seems that the fuzziness comes from so many differing "educated" opinions on the subject. Which is fueled by the conflicting information from the primary source.

 

[Fervent]

I remember the slight shock I felt when I first learnt that when Jesus said "aionias kolasis" this is translated as "eternal punishment" in most English Bibles but actually means something more like "pruning/correction lasting for an age", where "age" is a finite duration of time because the correction process has to end for the correction to be achieved.

It's natural for lay people, like myself, to assume that Bible translators would get things right and I always thought all the references to "eternal punishment" in all the popular Bibles I'd seen posed quite a challenge to a universalist interpretation. But when I learnt that it's simply a mistranlation, it all fell together, and I've since learnt that there are many Bible translations that translate these "infernalist" verses correctly.

These kind of errors, even though widely accepted in academia, continue to be kept in the more popular versions and the publishers are unlikely to change this any time soon because, as we see here, eternal torment (for others) commands a fierce loyalty and there'd be a significant drop in sales. It would be nice to think that the Bible is unaffected by these things but I guess it's not too surprising to learn that it isn't.

A major issue with that interpretation is it doesn't fit the words used. As you've presented it the punishment characterizes the age, but in Greek "aionios" gives character to the punishment. Translating an adjective as a noun is completely grammatically incorrect.

 

[Hmm]

@Hmm
It seems that the fuzziness comes from so many differing "educated" opinions on the subject. Which is fueled by the conflicting information from the primary source.

That's true. I think mistranslations are a major source of confusion and contradictions. If we can deprogramme ourselves from our "education" for a moment and look at the Bible with a beginner's mind, I think we'll all see that eternal conscious torment (ECT) and annihilationism, contradict the verses that say that God is love; that His mercy is over ALL of his works; that His anger will not endure forever; that just as in Adam all die, in Christ ALL will be made alive; that through Christ, God will reconcile ALL thing to himself, and that Christ is the saviour of the whole world, especially, i.e. not only, of those who believe.

Christian universalism is the only interpretation(of a correctly translated scripture) that doesn't have these contradictions. The only supposed contradiction in universalism are verses allegedly referring to an eternal hell. But, as has been explained over and over again in these universalist threads, the original text doesn't refer to an eternal hell, but to an intense but finite period of painful education and correction.

In insisting that the Bible is infallible, Team Hell are ironically presenting the case for universalism because it's the only interpretation without contradictions, IMO. We continually see them say such strange things as "Well, 'ALL' doesn't actually mean 'ALL', and love is hate and eternal torment," etc which is a very odd thing for a literalist to do.

 

[Der Alte]

* * *
Christian universalism is the only interpretation(of a correctly translated scripture) that doesn't have these contradictions. The only supposed contradiction in universalism are verses allegedly referring to an eternal hell. But, as has been explained over and over again in these universalist threads, the original text doesn't refer to an eternal hell, but to an intense but finite period of painful education and correction. * * *

Rubbish! The same false narrative over and over and over. Doesn't make it true. But No, Zero, None credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence.
I have shown multiple times from unrefuted Jewish sources, The Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud that among Jews before and during the time of Jesus there was a significant belief in a place of eternal fiery punishment which the Jews called both sheol and Ge Hinnom, written as Hades and Gehenna in both the 225 bc LXX and the New Testament. And what Jesus taught about eternal punishment did not contradict but supported the extant Jewish belief.
Jesus never taught anything which could be understood as universal restoration.
Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church from its inception, 2000 +/- years ago. Who better than the team of native Greek speaking scholars who translated the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB] know the meaning of the Greek words in the N.T.?

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”[1]​

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., Matt 25:46 and the second occurrence is 1 John 4:18.

EOB 1 John 4:18 here is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[ κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.[2]​

Note the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars who translated the EOB translated “aionios” as “eternal.”
The Greek word translated “punishment” in Matt 25:46 is “kolasis.” Some folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction” but according to the EOB Greek scholars it means “punishment.” 1 John 4:18 there is no correction the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect.

 

[Saint Steven]

That's true. I think mistranslations are a major source of confusion and contradictions.

And even when the translation is good there are contradictions.

My wife and I were talking about answers to prayer this morning. We are told to ask believing and will get what we asked for. But then Jesus tells us about the woman that pestered the king until she got what she wanted. So, which is it? Ask believing, or ask until you get it?

 

[Fervent]

And even when the translation is good there are contradictions.

My wife and I were talking about answers to prayer this morning. We are told to ask believing and will get what we asked for. But then Jesus tells us about the woman that pestered the king until she got what she wanted. So, which is it? Ask believing, or ask until you get it?

Do you think the woman would have kept asking if she didn't believe? Why treat them as mutually exclusive?

 

[Hmm]

And even when the translation is good there are contradictions.

My wife and I were talking about answers to prayer this morning. We are told to ask believing and will get what we asked for. But then Jesus tells us about the woman that pestered the king until she got what she wanted. So, which is it? Ask believing, or ask until you get it?

Great question! Let me pray about that and get back to you. I may be some time...

 

[Hmm]

Rubbish!

Some advice comrade Alte. If you want someone to take the time to read your long posts and respond, it may be a good idea not to start every post with "Rubbish!" etc. But I suspect you do this because don't want to drawn into a conversation because that would take you out of copy and paste mode and that wouldn't be nice would it, bless.

 

[Der Alte]

Some advice comrade Alte. If you want someone to take the time to read your long posts and respond, it may be a good idea not to start every post with "Rubbish!" etc. But I suspect you do this because don't want to drawn into a conversation because that would take you out of copy and paste mode and that wouldn't be nice would it, bless.

Is this your best shot? Don't post rubbish and I won't call it out.
Now that you have replied but not read or responded to my post why not give it a shot if you are capable. I posted only 2 vss. read and try to refute them if you think you can. That does not mean find something some scholar said which is different than what I posted unless said scholar parses the words and shows grammatically/ lexically that what I posted is incorrect.
And FYI my posts have been being ignored right here for more than 3 decades. That is a darn good sign that I am right.

 

[Saint Steven]

If we can deprogramme ourselves from our "education" for a moment and look at the Bible with a beginner's mind, I think we'll all see that eternal conscious torment (ECT) and annihilationism, contradict the verses that say that God is love; that His mercy is over ALL of his works; that His anger will not endure forever; that just as in Adam all die, in Christ ALL will be made alive; that through Christ, God will reconcile ALL thing to himself, and that Christ is the saviour of the whole world, especially, i.e. not only, of those who believe.

Agreed.
For those raised in the church, looking at biblical truth in a different light can be quite a challenge. In an earlier post I wrote about the perceived risk of "unbelief". Heaven is for believers and hell is for unbelievers.

So, deciding to examine our beliefs and consider alternatives is a dangerous direction to go. Crossing the line, so it seems, between belief and unbelief. In the past, those who were willing to challenge the traditional views were considered heretics, some of whom the church murdered by various methods. (what's wrong with this picture)

And though the church has stopped murdering "unbelievers" (for the most part), the same mindset remains. Those who enter a discussion on UR for the first time have some preconceptions about it. Mostly, that it is wrong somehow. When asked what is wrong with UR, they stumble over their words and display their ignorance for all to see.

And so, we seek to lovingly educate them. After all, UR is true whether they believe in it or not. And if they go into the afterlife holding onto their ignorance, hopefully they will be relieved to find that there is no forever burning hell.

Family members and loved ones that they assumed were lost have already been gloriously saved. And perhaps they will be horrified at those whom they told to "Go to hell!", had no such place to go. "Howdy neighbor." - lol

 

[Hmm]

In the past, those who were willing to challenge the traditional views were considered heretics, some of whom the church murdered by various methods. (what's wrong with this picture)

At first I thought "Is it misuse of 'whom'"?, which of course would be deserving of eternal torment, but that seems okay. Then I thought "Is it the church murdering by various methods?" but that seems okay too because it's obviously gone out of its way to design a selection of varied and interesting execution methods to spare the victims from boredom, so I give up. What is wrong with murdering people for believing in universal salvation? No doubt I'll kick myself when you tell me..."Oh, of course!!"

 

[Saint Steven]

At first I thought "Is it misuse of 'whom'"?, which of course would be deserving of eternal torment, but that seems okay. Then I thought "Is it the church murdering by various methods?" but that seems okay too because it's obviously gone out of its way to design a selection of varied and interesting execution methods to spare the victims from boredom, so I give up. What is wrong with murdering people for believing in universal salvation? No doubt I'll kick myself when you tell me..."Oh, of course!!"

It matters not what the heresy is, what matters is that it is heterodox. It is a rejection of the "approved" man-made doctrinal statement. And every denomination has its own standard. What may be heretical in one church is acceptable in another. There is no standard across denominations. What to do.... what to do??? - lol

 

[Hmm]

And every denomination has its own standard. What may be heretical in one church is acceptable in another. There is no standard across denominations. What to do.... what to do??? - lol

I think the only hope for a sanity is to look at the early church. Luckily when we do that, we realise that it wasn't just early, it lasted for a long time, tsome 500 years or so. We also learn that universalism was probably the majority view over this time.

As evidence for this, Augustine, a non-universalist, probably unwittingly revealed that universalism, or apokatastasis as it was then called, was a very popular doctrine of the early church when he wrote in the fifth century:

"It is quite in vain, then, that some–indeed very many–yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture—but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express literal truth."
— Augustine, Enchiridion, sec. 112.

And probably more than very popular. The historian Ilaria Ramelli comments that when Augustine described the Universalists as "indeed very many" (immo quam plurimi), what he meant is that they were a "vast majority" (Ramelli, Christian Doctrine, 11). That is what the Latin word plurimi, from the adjective plurimus, implies.

It all seemed to go pear-shaped after that but it's amazing that we have so much knowledge of the early church now to go back to. The Internet has helped bring about an increased interest in universalism by making this knowledge available to all, or at least the rich nations.

 

[Der Alte]

* * * And probably more than very popular. The historian Ilaria Ramelli comments that when Augustine described the Universalists as "indeed very many" (immo quam plurimi), what he meant is that they were a "vast majority" (Ramelli, Christian Doctrine, 11). That is what the Latin word plurimi, from the adjective plurimus, implies. * * *

I'm so glad you quoted Ilaria Ramelli. She is quoted so much around here that I refer to her as the high priestess of UR.
Here is what Ramelli claimed Origen said about "eternal."

"But even the aiónes will come to an end, Origen tells us: “After aiónios life a leap will take place and all will pass from the aeons to the Father, who is beyond aiónios life. For Christ is Life, but the Father, who is ‘greater than Christ,’ is greater than life” (Comm. in Io 13.3; quoted in Ramelli, p. 160)."
Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope​

And here quoting from Origen's Commentary on John books 13-32, what Origin actually said.

Origen Commentary On The Gospel Of John Book Thirteen
"(18) For, as there, [Song 2:8] the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here [Joh 4:14] the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life; but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.20.Pg. 23"​

Contrary to the assertion by UR high priestess Ilaria Ramelli and her loyal followers, here is the one and only time Origen mentions “after eternal life.”
Note the context, Origen is not talking about the fate of believers he is talking about the well of water, John 4:14. Origen is saying after the well of water springs into eternal life perhaps, not for certain, it [the well of water] springs into the Father because the Father is beyond eternal life. And Origin says nothing about the end of the aion.
Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 72–73). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
In the same writing Origen gives us a rock solid definition of "aionios life"

(59) He [Heracleon] is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power.[John 4:14]
(60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.​

Note Origen says that "aionios life" "never perishes 2x,""remains,""not taken away,""is not consumed."

 

[Saint Steven]

It all seemed to go pear-shaped after that but it's amazing that we have so much knowledge of the early church now to go back to. The Internet has helped bring about an increased interest in universalism by making this knowledge available to all, or at least the rich nations.

Yes.
And in evangelicalism, the Early church was considered to be the church we read about in the NT texts. I had no idea who the Early Church Fathers were. This was never discussed. No wonder I came away with such a myopic view.

 

[Hmm]

2x,""remains,""not taken away,

Is this a maths lesson now with the two-times table, remainders and taking away negative numbers? I'm trying to keep up.

 

[Jamdoc]

To the annihilationists and universalists, I pose this:

Matthew 26

24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

For us, it's "good" that Judas had been born and betrayed Christ in the sense that the betrayal of Christ led to His crucifixion by which we all had the debt of our sins paid. Without that betrayal, there'd be no salvation for us. So no this is not better for us if he had never been born, nor is it better for Jesus if Judas had never been born, through the betrayal and crucifixion, Jesus is glorified greater than He would have been without the cross.

So the target of who it would have been better if he'd never been born, is Judas himself.

If universalism is true, eventually Judas would make it to heaven, making his entire life, and even the suffering he'd go through any sort of temporal punishment worth it, right? So it would of course be better to be born, be punished and eventually make it to heaven, than to never exist. Jesus said woe to him and that it'd have been better if he'd never been born.

If annihilationism is true, then it wouldn't be better for him if he'd never been born, because once no longer existing, it's the same as never being born at all. There'd be the benefit for us and for Jesus from his actions, even though he meant them for evil God make them work for good.... and Judas would be like he never existed in the first place, from his point of view, because once unconscious.. what does anything matter that you've experienced or suffered, you have no awareness or memory of them anyway.

ECT is the only way where it can be better to have never existed at all, than the woe that happens to Judas.

 

[earthmover]

I remember the slight shock I felt when I first learnt that when Jesus said "aionias kolasis" this is translated as "eternal punishment" in most English Bibles but actually means something more like "pruning/correction lasting for an age", where "age" is a finite duration of time because the correction process has to end for the correction to be achieved.

"aionias" is translated as "eternal, everlasting, forever" and "kolasis" is translated as "punishment or torment"

It's natural for lay people, like myself, to assume that Bible translators would get things right and I always thought all the references to "eternal punishment" in all the popular Bibles I'd seen posed quite a challenge to a universalist interpretation. But when I learnt that it's simply a mistranlation, it all fell together, and I've since learnt that there are many Bible translations that translate these "infernalist" verses correctly.

These kind of errors, even though widely accepted in academia, continue to be kept in the more popular versions and the publishers are unlikely to change this any time soon because, as we see here, eternal torment (for others) commands a fierce loyalty and there'd be a significant drop in sales. It would be nice to think that the Bible is unaffected by these things but I guess it's not too surprising to learn that it isn't.

I think somebody has been feeding you some bad information. "How We Got Our Bible", by Chuck Missler is on Amazon for 99 cents. It will tell you the truth and has many references to backup everything he says. Many writers will not do that but rather just give one their views whether it be right or wrong. I think you will find it is nice to know the Bible is exactly translated correctly, not without error but without error affecting any and all doctrines that Jesus Christ through it
66 books taught.

earthmover

 

[Jamdoc]

"aionias" is translated as "eternal, everlasting, forever" and "kolasis" is translated as "punishment or torment"

It's natural for lay people, like myself, to assume that Bible translators would get things right and I always thought all the references to "eternal punishment" in all the popular Bibles I'd seen posed quite a challenge to a universalist interpretation. But when I learnt that it's simply a mistranlation, it all fell together, and I've since learnt that there are many Bible translations that translate these "infernalist" verses correctly.



I think somebody has been feeding you some bad information. "How We Got Our Bible", by Chuck Missler is on Amazon for 99 cents. It will tell you the truth and has many references to backup everything he says. Many writers will not do that but rather just give one their views whether it be right or wrong. I think you will find it is nice to know the Bible is exactly translated correctly, not without error but without error affecting any and all doctrines that Jesus Christ through it
66 books taught.

earthmover

Universalism makes all of Jesus, and the apostle's warnings to be in vain.
You could excise all those verses out, because they're meaningless unless there is punishment as Jesus warned.