Topic: 8d82thebone asked me, Tony N, a question: (Read 9518 times)

Tony N · « **on:** March 23, 2006, 02:48:22 PM »

Quote

Tony N wrote:
Maybe so johnny, there are plenty of Satan worshipping cults that teach eternal torment too and wiccan and coolaid drinking maniacs, but tell me one religion that teaches that all will be saved based upon what Christ did for all mankind outside of true Christianity. Ah, there's the rub.

By the way, who brought up God saving all anyway? It was you, johnny, not me. I never hinted at it in this thread so why bring it up?

You got a phobia about it? Kind of haunting ya there bud?

8d82thebone replied:
Tony, it goes without saying that you are familiar with Matthew 24? If all are to be saved, why does Jesus differentiate between those who will be taken and those who are left behind as the events of the end times unfold?
I also assume that you are familiar with Revelation 19:19-21? If all are to be saved, who is it that makes war against Christ and his army, and are subsequently "killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse?"
Incidentally, I have a hunch as to how you're going to respond here, so allow me to elaborate on the word 'killed'. It's not painting a picture of a temporary 'time-out' here, but rather the Greek word 'a)pokteionw' implies
"to kill, destroy,abolish, inflict mortal death and deprive of spiritual life" and to "inflict eternal torment".

Tony's reply:
O.K., this really is not that difficult to answer.
I've answered questions like this a million times so it is nothing new to me. However, that does not mean you will believe my answer that I'm going to give. I would just about hazzard a guess that you already have made up your mind that I'm wrong no matter what I say. So this answer is more for those silent lurkers who are not biassed one way or the other.

You asked above:

Quote

Tony, it goes without saying that you are familiar with Matthew 24? If all are to be saved, why does Jesus differentiate between those who will be taken and those who are left behind as the events of the end times unfold?

Matthew 24 is not about the "end times." It occurrs when this age ends.

And He shall be dispatching His messengers with a loud sounding trumpet, and they shall be assembling His chosen from the four winds, from the extremities of the heavens to their extremities" (Mat 24:31).
Mat 24:37-41 For even as the days of Noah, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind." (38) For as they were in those days before the deluge, masticating and drinking and marrying and taking in marriage until the day on which Noah entered into the ark, (39) and did not know till the deluge came and takes them all away, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind." (40) Then two shall be in the field; one is taken along and one left: (41) two grinding at the millstone; one is taken along and one left.

O.K. so this takes place when the Lord touches foot down on Mount Zion and thus all Israel shall be saved (Romans 11:26 and Revelation 14:1).
After the Lord touches down on the earth it will be the beginning of the 1000 year reign (cf Rev.20:6). The one that is taken is the one that is kicked out of the kingdom in verses 40,41 or Matt.24 above.

After the Lord kicks out all who are lawless in the verses above by using His messengers He then deals with the nations (Judgment begins in the house of the Lord).
Here is Matthew 25:31,32 which is a continuation of chapter 24:
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats (Matt.25:31,32).

The goats enter into eonian chastening (KJV erroneously says "eternal punishment) which is the chastening pertaining to that eon/age (see Matt.25:46).

The reason this can't be "eternal punishment" is because the adjective "aionion" is used which does the duty of telling us what pertains to the aion. That aion/eon lasts 1000 years in duration. Then when the 1000 years ends the earth is destroyed by fire and a new earth emerges out of that one (see Rev. Rev 20:7 "And whenever the thousand years should be finished, Satan will be loosed out of his jail." then the rebellion, fire, great white throne.
Therefore, the time when Christ comes back is not the "end time." There is yet one more eon/age after that.

Your second question was:

Quote

I also assume that you are familiar with Revelation 19:19-21? If all are to be saved, who is it that makes war against Christ and his army, and are subsequently "killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse?"
Incidentally, I have a hunch as to how you're going to respond here, so allow me to elaborate on the word 'killed'. It's not painting a picture of a temporary 'time-out' here, but rather the Greek word 'a)pokteionw' implies
"to kill, destroy,abolish, inflict mortal death and deprive of spiritual life" and to "inflict eternal torment".

Tony's reply:
Friend, you are reading way too much into those verses.
When they killed our Lord on the cross did they "inflict eternal torment" on him?

Rev 19:19-21 And I perceived the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, gathered to do battle with Him Who is sitting on the horse and with His army." (20) And the wild beast is arrested, and with it the false prophet who does the signs in its sight, by which he deceives those getting the emblem of the wild beast, and those worshiping its image. Living, the two were cast into the lake of fire burning with sulphur." (21) And the rest were killed with the blade which is coming out of the mouth of Him Who is sitting on the horse. And all the birds are satisfied with their flesh.

Those killed cannot have "eternal torment inflicted" upon them. How so? Because it just doesn't say so. Does not Revelation warn people about adding to or taking away from the words of that prophecy? To state that "eternal torment is inflicted" upon them is to add to the prophecy where no such words or thought was ever dreamed of in the apostle John's vision. So why add it? It ain't there.
Those people who are killed in verse 19 will be resurrected to stand before the Great White Throne and then most likely be cast into the second DEATH. They are not living or eternally in pain. They are DEAD. DEAD as a door knob. DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

One day death will be abolished and all those dead people are going to come out of death and be subjected to Christ and then Christ will subject Himself to God and then God will be All in all (see 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 if you don't believe me.)

Peace,
Tony

8d82thebone · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2006, 12:14:28 PM »

8d82thebone replied:
Tony, it goes without saying that you are familiar with Matthew 24? If all are to be saved, why does Jesus differentiate between those who will be taken and those who are left behind as the events of the end times unfold?
I also assume that you are familiar with Revelation 19:19-21? If all are to be saved, who is it that makes war against Christ and his army, and are subsequently "killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse?"
Incidentally, I have a hunch as to how you're going to respond here, so allow me to elaborate on the word 'killed'. It's not painting a picture of a temporary 'time-out' here, but rather the Greek word 'a)pokteionw' implies
"to kill, destroy,abolish, inflict mortal death and deprive of spiritual life" and to "inflict eternal torment".

Quote

O.K., this really is not that difficult to answer.
I've answered questions like this a million times so it is nothing new to me. However, that does not mean you will believe my answer that I'm going to give. I would just about hazzard a guess that you already have made up your mind that I'm wrong no matter what I say. So this answer is more for those silent lurkers who are not biassed one way or the other.

You asked above:
Quote
Tony, it goes without saying that you are familiar with Matthew 24? If all are to be saved, why does Jesus differentiate between those who will be taken and those who are left behind as the events of the end times unfold?

Matthew 24 is not about the "end times." It occurrs when this age ends.

And He shall be dispatching His messengers with a loud sounding trumpet, and they shall be assembling His chosen from the four winds, from the extremities of the heavens to their extremities" (Mat 24:31).
Mat 24:37-41 For even as the days of Noah, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind." (38) For as they were in those days before the deluge, masticating and drinking and marrying and taking in marriage until the day on which Noah entered into the ark, (39) and did not know till the deluge came and takes them all away, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind." (40) Then two shall be in the field; one is taken along and one left: (41) two grinding at the millstone; one is taken along and one left.

O.K. so this takes place when the Lord touches foot down on Mount Zion and thus all Israel shall be saved (Romans 11:26 and Revelation 14:1).
After the Lord touches down on the earth it will be the beginning of the 1000 year reign (cf Rev.20:6). The one that is taken is the one that is kicked out of the kingdom in verses 40,41 or Matt.24 above.

After the Lord kicks out all who are lawless in the verses above by using His messengers He then deals with the nations (Judgment begins in the house of the Lord).
Here is Matthew 25:31,32 which is a continuation of chapter 24:
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats (Matt.25:31,32).

The goats enter into eonian chastening (KJV erroneously says "eternal punishment) which is the chastening pertaining to that eon/age (see Matt.25:46).

The reason this can't be "eternal punishment" is because the adjective "aionion" is used which does the duty of telling us what pertains to the aion. That aion/eon lasts 1000 years in duration. Then when the 1000 years ends the earth is destroyed by fire and a new earth emerges out of that one (see Rev. Rev 20:7 "And whenever the thousand years should be finished, Satan will be loosed out of his jail." then the rebellion, fire, great white throne.
Therefore, the time when Christ comes back is not the "end time." There is yet one more eon/age after that.

Tony, on your 'verbal gymnastics' I'll give you a perfect 10 on style, but you blew the landing bud,...
The KJV actually brings the correct meaning from the Greek, but for arguments sake lets go to the New American Standard;
Then the King will say to those on his right ,"Come you who are blessed
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Matt. 25:34
Original Greek: tote erei o basileuv toiv ek deciwn autou, Deute, oi euloghmenoi tou patrov mou,klhronomhsate thn htoimasmenhn umin basileian apo katabolhv kosmou
Then He will also say to those on his left, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" Matt. 25:41
Original Greek: Tote erei kai toiv ek euwnumwn, Poreuesqe (transfer, leave) ap'
emou [oi] kathramenoi (curse,doom) eiv to pur (fire) aiwnion (aionios; pertaining to beginning;'without beginning' or pertaining to end;'without end', 'never to cease', 'everlasting') to htoimasmenon tw diabolw kai toiv aggeloiv autou
The KJV translates the Greek in the same way; nothing that I can really notice has been added or deleted.

Your second question was:

Quote

I also assume that you are familiar with Revelation 19:19-21? If all are to be saved, who is it that makes war against Christ and his army, and are subsequently "killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse?"
Incidentally, I have a hunch as to how you're going to respond here, so allow me to elaborate on the word 'killed'. It's not painting a picture of a temporary 'time-out' here, but rather the Greek word 'a)pokteionw' implies
"to kill, destroy,abolish, inflict mortal death and deprive of spiritual life" and to "inflict eternal torment".

Quote from: Tony

Friend, you are reading way too much into those verses.
When they killed our Lord on the cross did they "inflict eternal torment" on him?

Rev 19:19-21 And I perceived the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, gathered to do battle with Him Who is sitting on the horse and with His army." (20) And the wild beast is arrested, and with it the false prophet who does the signs in its sight, by which he deceives those getting the emblem of the wild beast, and those worshiping its image. Living, the two were cast into the lake of fire burning with sulphur." (21) And the rest were killed with the blade which is coming out of the mouth of Him Who is sitting on the horse. And all the birds are satisfied with their flesh.

Those killed cannot have "eternal torment inflicted" upon them. How so? Because it just doesn't say so. Does not Revelation warn people about adding to or taking away from the words of that prophecy? To state that "eternal torment is inflicted" upon them is to add to the prophecy where no such words or thought was ever dreamed of in the apostle John's vision. So why add it? It ain't there.

If you look in Matthew, since that's where we are right now, the Greek translates : 'aphiemi to pneuma', or "yielded the spirit";(NAS) There is no kind of implication of any kind of eternal torment as in Rev.19, where the Greek is a completely different word;"apokteino" is the word which denotes "kill, abolish, destroy, deprive of spiritual life and procure eternal misery". Apples and oranges.
I would also like a reference from scripture where you believe these individuals will be resurrected to stand at the White Throne Judgement. It sounds to me like they've just had it?...

Tony N · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2006, 08:55:45 PM »

Quote from: 8d82thebone

Tony, on your 'verbal gymnastics' I'll give you a perfect 10 on style, but you blew the landing bud,...

Tony's reply:
Hey, you are just one judge. The other judges gave me a 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8,10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8.
So obviously you either weren't paying attention, can't judge or don't know a perfect landing from a bad one. Now then, I'll show you what a bad landing is:

Quote from: 8d82thebone

The KJV actually brings the correct meaning from the Greek, but for arguments sake lets go to the New American Standard;
Then the King will say to those on his right ,"Come you who are blessed
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Matt. 25:34
Original Greek: tote erei o basileuv toiv ek deciwn autou, Deute, oi euloghmenoi tou patrov mou,klhronomhsate thn htoimasmenhn umin basileian apo katabolhv kosmou
Then He will also say to those on his left, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" Matt. 25:41
Original Greek: Tote erei kai toiv ek euwnumwn, Poreuesqe (transfer, leave) ap'
emou [oi] kathramenoi (curse,doom) eiv to pur (fire) aiwnion (aionios; pertaining to beginning;'without beginning' or pertaining to end;'without end', 'never to cease', 'everlasting') to htoimasmenon tw diabolw kai toiv aggeloiv autou
The KJV translates the Greek in the same way; nothing that I can really notice has been added or deleted.

Tony's reply:
You are parroting what everyone else does. You are just like those uneducated commoners (don't be offended. All of us carry baggage) of years gone by that strenously defended the geocentric cosmology and flat earth just because the "authorities" said that's the way it is. You are merely continuing the spreading of an old old urban legend. What is that urban legend? It is this: "aionios; pertaining to beginning;'without beginning' or pertaining to end;'without end', 'never to cease', 'everlasting'".

It can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that aionios cannot possibly mean any of those meanings. No, not even one. Every language has laws which govern them. It's is called "grammar." The adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derrived. That's fact number 1. Fact number two is: the noun aion is never used to mean "eternal" or "everlasting" or "without beginning" or "without end." As a matter of fact, the Bible is very clear that all the aionas (plural for aion) end. Therefore, since the adjective is that which pertains to the noun from which it is derrived, and therefore aionion pertains to the aion it is impossible for it to pertain to anything other than what it is derived from. Therefore, the most that aionion can tell us is that something is pertaining to the eon(s).

Case in point: America is a noun. American is the adjective derived from the noun America. Bush is the American president. His presidency pertains to America. That adjective "American" does not pertain to Russia or Pluto or Youranus.

The fact that these ignorant slobs do not understand this most basic law of language tells me that they translated their bibles to harmonize with their preconceived ideas rather than sticking to what the rules say. Knoch, Young and Rotherham and Scarlett, to name but just a few, stuck to the rule rather than follow the lemmings over the cliff.

Therefore, we must admit that since Matthew 25:46 states that these shall go away into aionion chastening, that it is the chastening pertaining to the aion. That aion is the 1000 year aion which begins when Christ sets foot on the earth again.

Your (8d82thebone) second question was:
I also assume that you are familiar with Revelation 19:19-21? If all are to be saved, who is it that makes war against Christ and his army, and are subsequently "killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse?"
Incidentally, I have a hunch as to how you're going to respond here, so allow me to elaborate on the word 'killed'. It's not painting a picture of a temporary 'time-out' here, but rather the Greek word 'a)pokteionw' implies
"to kill, destroy,abolish, inflict mortal death and deprive of spiritual life" and to "inflict eternal torment".

Quote from: Tony

Friend, you are reading way too much into those verses.
When they killed our Lord on the cross did they "inflict eternal torment" on him?

Rev 19:19-21 And I perceived the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, gathered to do battle with Him Who is sitting on the horse and with His army." (20) And the wild beast is arrested, and with it the false prophet who does the signs in its sight, by which he deceives those getting the emblem of the wild beast, and those worshiping its image. Living, the two were cast into the lake of fire burning with sulphur." (21) And the rest were killed with the blade which is coming out of the mouth of Him Who is sitting on the horse. And all the birds are satisfied with their flesh.

Those killed cannot have "eternal torment inflicted" upon them. How so? Because it just doesn't say so. Does not Revelation warn people about adding to or taking away from the words of that prophecy? To state that "eternal torment is inflicted" upon them is to add to the prophecy where no such words or thought was ever dreamed of in the apostle John's vision. So why add it? It ain't there.
Those killed cannot have "eternal torment inflicted" upon them. How so? Because it just doesn't say so. Does not Revelation warn people about adding to or taking away from the words of that prophecy? To state that "eternal torment is inflicted" upon them is to add to the prophecy where no such words or thought was ever dreamed of in the apostle John's vision. So why add it? It ain't there.
Those people who are killed in verse 19 will be resurrected to stand before the Great White Throne and then most likely be cast into the second DEATH. They are not living or eternally in pain. They are DEAD. DEAD as a door knob. DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

One day death will be abolished and all those dead people are going to come out of death and be subjected to Christ and then Christ will subject Himself to God and then God will be All in all (see 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 if you don't believe me.)

8d82thebone replied:
If you look in Matthew, since that's where we are right now, the Greek translates : 'aphiemi to pneuma', or "yielded the spirit";(NAS) There is no kind of implication of any kind of eternal torment as in Rev.19, where the Greek is a completely different word;"apokteino" is the word which denotes "kill, abolish, destroy, deprive of spiritual life and procure eternal misery". Apples and oranges.

Tony's reply:
I don't know where you are getting your definitions concerning that word apokteino. It surely does not mean "deprive of spritual life and procure eternal misery." When they killed our Lord did they deprive Him of spiritual life and cause Him to procure eternal misery? When they killed the apostles is that what happened to them? You need to be consistent. You can't easily say it is the case for one person but not for another. You are not the sole arbiter of truth. The only way we can know what a word means it to locate its definitive uses. There is no place in the Bible where its definitive usage is what you make of it as to eternal misery.

8d82thebone wrote:
I would also like a reference from scripture where you believe these individuals will be resurrected to stand at the White Throne Judgement. It sounds to me like they've just had it?

Tony's reply:
Both Matthew and Revelation concur that the next time the Lord returns it begins the 1000 year age/eon. If one dies during that 1000 year reign, and I assure you, many millions if not billions will, they eventually will be resurrected to stand before the Great White Throne which occurrs upon the ending of that 1000 year eon. How else do you think they will stand before the GWT?

Tony

8d82thebone · « **Reply #3 on:** March 26, 2006, 09:29:24 PM »

Quote from: Tony N

Tony's reply:
Hey, you are just one judge. The other judges gave me a 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8,10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8.

Quote from: 8d82thebone

The KJV actually brings the correct meaning from the Greek, but for arguments sake lets go to the New American Standard;
Then the King will say to those on his right ,"Come you who are blessed
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Matt. 25:34
Original Greek: tote erei o basileuv toiv ek deciwn autou, Deute, oi euloghmenoi tou patrov mou,klhronomhsate thn htoimasmenhn umin basileian apo katabolhv kosmou
Then He will also say to those on his left, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" Matt. 25:41
Original Greek: Tote erei kai toiv ek euwnumwn, Poreuesqe (transfer, leave) ap'
emou [oi] kathramenoi (curse,doom) eiv to pur (fire) aiwnion (aionios; pertaining to beginning;'without beginning' or pertaining to end;'without end', 'never to cease', 'everlasting') to htoimasmenon tw diabolw kai toiv aggeloiv autou
The KJV translates the Greek in the same way; nothing that I can really notice has been added or deleted.

Quote
Tony's reply:
You are parroting what everyone else does. You are just like those uneducated commoners (don't be offended. All of us carry baggage) of years gone by that strenously defended the geocentric cosmology and flat earth just because the "authorities" said that's the way it is. You are merely continuing the spreading of an old old urban legend. What is that urban legend? It is this: "aionios; pertaining to beginning;'without beginning' or pertaining to end;'without end', 'never to cease', 'everlasting'".

It can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that aionios cannot possibly mean any of those meanings. No, not even one. Every language has laws which govern them. It's is called "grammar." The adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derrived. That's fact number 1. Fact number two is: the noun aion is never used to mean "eternal" or "everlasting" or "without beginning" or "without end." As a matter of fact, the Bible is very clear that all the aionas (plural for aion) end. Therefore, since the adjective is that which pertains to the noun from which it is derrived, and therefore aionion pertains to the aion it is impossible for it to pertain to anything other than what it is derived from. Therefore, the most that aionion can tell us is that something is pertaining to the eon(s).

Case in point: America is a noun. American is the adjective derived from the noun America. Bush is the American president. His presidency pertains to America. That adjective "American" does not pertain to Russia or Pluto or Youranus.

The fact that these ignorant slobs do not understand this most basic law of language tells me that they translated their bibles to harmonize with their preconceived ideas rather than sticking to what the rules say. Knoch, Young and Rotherham and Scarlett, to name but just a few, stuck to the rule rather than follow the lemmings over the cliff.

Therefore, we must admit that since Matthew 25:46 states that these shall go away into aionion chastening, that it is the chastening pertaining to the aion. That aion is the 1000 year aion which begins when Christ sets foot on the earth again.

Actually, 'American' can be either a noun or an adjective, according to Merriam-Webster, or are they just more "lemmings and commoners" who have gotten themselves sucked into the "conspiracy?"
You claim to be able to prove the meaning of the word 'aionios' cannot be
'eternal' or 'everlasting', but then fail to do it. This must mean one of two things; either you simply forgot to do it, or you can't do it.
On the other hand, I have given definitions from the word as it appears in the original Greek text. It is true that the root word for "aionios" is the masculine noun "aion",(which my source gives as "unbroken age, perpetuity of time,as well as period of time, and age) but the root word given for "aion" is "aei", an obsolete primary noun, meaning 'continued duration'. The primary meaning is 'perpetually, incessantly'.
Another problem with your theory is that the same word, "aionios", is used twice in Matthew 25:46 in describing both the wicked and the righteous;"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
I don't think I'm 'parroting' anyone... I know what I see. And what I see is the same word used to describe both God's reward to the righteous and his judgement to the unrighteous.

Tony N · « **Reply #4 on:** March 27, 2006, 05:16:11 AM »

Quote from: 8d82thebone

Quote from: Tony N

Tony's reply:
Hey, you are just one judge. The other judges gave me a 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8,10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8, 10, 9.9, 9.8, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10,9.8.

Quote from: 8d82thebone

The KJV actually brings the correct meaning from the Greek, but for arguments sake lets go to the New American Standard;
Then the King will say to those on his right ,"Come you who are blessed
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Matt. 25:34
Original Greek: tote erei o basileuv toiv ek deciwn autou, Deute, oi euloghmenoi tou patrov mou,klhronomhsate thn htoimasmenhn umin basileian apo katabolhv kosmou
Then He will also say to those on his left, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" Matt. 25:41
Original Greek: Tote erei kai toiv ek euwnumwn, Poreuesqe (transfer, leave) ap'
emou [oi] kathramenoi (curse,doom) eiv to pur (fire) aiwnion (aionios; pertaining to beginning;'without beginning' or pertaining to end;'without end', 'never to cease', 'everlasting') to htoimasmenon tw diabolw kai toiv aggeloiv autou
The KJV translates the Greek in the same way; nothing that I can really notice has been added or deleted.

Quote
Tony's reply:
You are parroting what everyone else does. You are just like those uneducated commoners (don't be offended. All of us carry baggage) of years gone by that strenously defended the geocentric cosmology and flat earth just because the "authorities" said that's the way it is. You are merely continuing the spreading of an old old urban legend. What is that urban legend? It is this: "aionios; pertaining to beginning;'without beginning' or pertaining to end;'without end', 'never to cease', 'everlasting'".

It can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that aionios cannot possibly mean any of those meanings. No, not even one. Every language has laws which govern them. It's is called "grammar." The adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derrived. That's fact number 1. Fact number two is: the noun aion is never used to mean "eternal" or "everlasting" or "without beginning" or "without end." As a matter of fact, the Bible is very clear that all the aionas (plural for aion) end. Therefore, since the adjective is that which pertains to the noun from which it is derrived, and therefore aionion pertains to the aion it is impossible for it to pertain to anything other than what it is derived from. Therefore, the most that aionion can tell us is that something is pertaining to the eon(s).

Case in point: America is a noun. American is the adjective derived from the noun America. Bush is the American president. His presidency pertains to America. That adjective "American" does not pertain to Russia or Pluto or Youranus.

The fact that these ignorant slobs do not understand this most basic law of language tells me that they translated their bibles to harmonize with their preconceived ideas rather than sticking to what the rules say. Knoch, Young and Rotherham and Scarlett, to name but just a few, stuck to the rule rather than follow the lemmings over the cliff.

Therefore, we must admit that since Matthew 25:46 states that these shall go away into aionion chastening, that it is the chastening pertaining to the aion. That aion is the 1000 year aion which begins when Christ sets foot on the earth again.

Actually, 'American' can be either a noun or an adjective, according to Merriam-Webster, or are they just more "lemmings and commoners" who have gotten themselves sucked into the "conspiracy?"
You claim to be able to prove the meaning of the word 'aionios' cannot be
'eternal' or 'everlasting', but then fail to do it. This must mean one of two things; either you simply forgot to do it, or you can't do it.
On the other hand, I have given definitions from the word as it appears in the original Greek text. It is true that the root word for "aionios" is the masculine noun "aion",(which my source gives as "unbroken age, perpetuity of time,as well as period of time, and age) but the root word given for "aion" is "aei", an obsolete primary noun, meaning 'continued duration'. The primary meaning is 'perpetually, incessantly'.
Another problem with your theory is that the same word, "aionios", is used twice in Matthew 25:46 in describing both the wicked and the righteous;"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
I don't think I'm 'parroting' anyone... I know what I see. And what I see is the same word used to describe both God's reward to the righteous and his judgement to the unrighteous.

Tony's reply:
8d82thebone,
I have not found a place in the Bible where aionion is used in nounal form. The passage currently under review by you and me is Matthew 25:46 and there both times the word is used it is the adjectival form and it means "pertaining to the aion/eon."

There are some lexical people who do not agree with you that aion is derrived from aei:

Marvin R. Vincent in the book: "Word Studies in the New Testament"
states concerning the misconception that aion is derived from aei this:

"It is sometimes translated world; world represents a period or a series of periods of time. See Matt 12:32; 13:40,49; Luke 1:70; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6; Eph 1:21. Similarly oi aiones, the worlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. 1 Cor 2:7; 10:11; Heb 1:2; 9:26; 11:3. The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to aei is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, aei does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (aei) liars (Tit. 1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 4:11; 6:10; Heb 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:15. Aei means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject's life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. "The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum."

You wrote:
Quote
Another problem with your theory is that the same word, "aionios", is used twice in Matthew 25:46 in describing both the wicked and the righteous;"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
I don't think I'm 'parroting' anyone... I know what I see. And what I see is the same word used to describe both God's reward to the righteous and his judgement to the unrighteous.

Tony's reply:
It is really no theory but fact. It is true that both the righteous NATIONS and the goat NATIONS enter into the same duration which is allotted to them. But surely you are not going to have us believe that Jesus is going to give eternal life to a NATION because that NATION gave a cup of water to one of Christ's brethren. I can just see Satan pulling up in a huge water tanker truck and dispensing water to as many Jews as possible hoping to get that one that is Christ's brother.
Notice, that the only reason given in Matthew 25 for what allotment the nations get is based upon how they TREATED Christ's brethren. This judgment is not based upon faith in Christ and it does occur 1000 years before the Great White Throne.

Furthermore, they both get the same duration as to what they receive. The goat nations get chastening pertaining to that eon and the sheep nations get life pertaining to that eon.

It is not really that hard a concept once one aligns their thinking with God's way of thinking.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2006, 12:09:44 PM »

Quote from: Tony N

It can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that aionios cannot possibly mean any of those meanings. No, not even one.

Well, I'm having trouble finding an actual resource that supports your claim; according to Studylight.org, Crosswalk.com, which give interlinear bible studies, and http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon (which gives ancient greek references) the word "aionios" always comes up as 'eternal', "aion" comes up as "lifetime, generation, or eternity" (probably depending on the context)

Quote

I have not found a place in the Bible where aionion is used in nounal form. The passage currently under review by you and me is Matthew 25:46 and there both times the word is used it is the adjectival form and it means "pertaining to the aion/eon."

I need to know where you are finding this "pertaining to the aion/eon" definition? I think this is where you are getting off on a tangent- confusing the word 'aion' which in Greek, can have several meanings, with the word 'eon' which means 'indefinitely long period of time, age" only.

Titus 1:2 " in the hope of eternal (aionios) life, which God , who cannot lie, promised long ages (chronos) ago."
I think you are confusing two different concepts, two different words.

Gotta go> more later!

[/quote]

Zagzagel · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2006, 11:21:29 PM »

Hmmm....this is all interesting. Tis hard to explain from the point of a G-d who knows no time.

8d82thebone · « **Reply #7 on:** April 02, 2006, 08:59:45 PM »

Hi Zagzagel great to meet you...
Actually we began this little discussion on another thread and it ended up here.

Tony N · « **Reply #8 on:** April 03, 2006, 10:12:01 AM »

Tony wrote:

It can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that aionios cannot possibly mean any of those meanings. No, not even one.[/quote]

8d82thebone replied:
Well, I'm having trouble finding an actual resource that supports your claim; according to Studylight.org, Crosswalk.com, which give interlinear bible studies, and http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon (which gives ancient greek references) the word "aionios" always comes up as 'eternal', "aion" comes up as "lifetime, generation, or eternity" (probably depending on the context)

Tony's reply:
Your best source would and should be the Scriptures and not the works of man. But since you need the prop of man, here's a link to "Word Studies in the New Testament" on Aionion http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/aionole.htm

It is impossible in the Bible for a word to mean two opposite meanings, where aion can mean a period having a beginning and an end and meaning having no beginning and no end. God is just not the author of such man-made confusion.

Tony wrote:
have not found a place in the Bible where aionion is used in nounal form. The passage currently under review by you and me is Matthew 25:46 and there both times the word is used it is the adjectival form and it means "pertaining to the aion/eon."

8d82thebone replied:
I need to know where you are finding this "pertaining to the aion/eon" definition? I think this is where you are getting off on a tangent- confusing the word 'aion' which in Greek, can have several meanings, with the word 'eon' which means 'indefinitely long period of time, age" only.

Titus 1:2 " in the hope of eternal (aionios) life, which God , who cannot lie, promised long ages (chronos) ago."
I think you are confusing two different concepts, two different words.

Gotta go> more later!

Tony's reply:
Your version is corrupt. It does not show the Greek properly. For instance, your's has "chronos" for "ages" but in the Greek it is actually:
"chronon aionion" which is "times eonian."
Tit 1:2 in expectation of life eonian, which God, Who does not lie, promises before times eonian,

So we get life pertaining to the eons which was promised before times pertaining to the eons.

As to finding sources of "pertaining to the eon(s)" here are just two of many:

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/aionole.htm

and here:
F.W. Farrar on "aeonian"
Of all the arguments on this question, the one which appears to me the most absolutely and hopelessly futile, is the one in which so many seem to rest with entire content; viz. that "eternal or aeonian life" must mean endless life, and therefore that "aeonian chastisement" must mean "endless chastisement." This battered and aged argument, . . . if it had possessed a particle of cogency, would not have been set aside as entirely valueless by such minds as those of Origen and the two Gregories in ancient days, nor by multitudes in the days of St. Augustine and St. Jerome, nor by the most brilliant thinker among the schoolmen, nor by many of our greatest living divines. . . . No proposition is capable of more simple proof than that aeonian is not a synonym of endless. It only means, or can mean, in its primary sense, pertaining to an aeon . . . ." http://www.saviour-of-all.org/faithfathers.html

Just to name two sources

[/quote][/quote]

Deep Thought · « **Reply #9 on:** April 03, 2006, 02:49:01 PM »

Aah...

I've seen this before someplace... Tony N...? I'm fairly certain I've read your arguments in favor of this variant Christianity on some other site, a while ago...

As for the aion question...

...um...

...I have no idea. Plus one item to the list of things to research later... although I have to admit that the idea of humanity going through all of this good/evil struggle, then being TEMPORARILY seperated into those who are rewarded (heaven) and those who are "darned" to a temporary "heck," as it were, only to be tossed in together for the same final, eternal salvation... it seems like a great, big, pointless runaround to me...

(In case you don't know, I'm agnostic. I have no real allegience as far as Universalism and eternal punishment go, I just noodle things out and speak my mind about them.)

Tony N · « **Reply #10 on:** April 03, 2006, 05:52:05 PM »

Quote from: Deep Thought

Aah...

I've seen this before someplace... Tony N...? I'm fairly certain I've read your arguments in favor of this variant Christianity on some other site, a while ago...

As for the aion question...

...um...

...I have no idea. Plus one item to the list of things to research later... although I have to admit that the idea of humanity going through all of this good/evil struggle, then being TEMPORARILY seperated into those who are rewarded (heaven) and those who are "darned" to a temporary "heck," as it were, only to be tossed in together for the same final, eternal salvation... it seems like a great, big, pointless runaround to me...

(In case you don't know, I'm agnostic. I have no real allegience as far as Universalism and eternal punishment go, I just noodle things out and speak my mind about them.)

Tony's reply:
Hi Deep Thought,
Thanks for your reply. It is very possible you have seen my arguments on other boards other than this one.

I think you might be under some misconceptions concerning heaven and heck:

It is a common misconception to think of heaven as a reward. Eonian life is a gratuitous "gift" and is graciously given not by works but solely by grace . . . unmerrited favor.

I realize it seems like a big runaround of being darned and later on re-united in a much better state of affairs. But what is the alternative? Would it be better for God just to darn for eternity all whom He does not graciously give life pertaining to the eons to come? If I were on the receiving end of God's darning, I'd be much happier knowing that my being darned would be for my good, that I'd learn something from it and later on be re-united with God in His loving embrace.

Think of it this way: Think of your earthly father as having some increddible wisdom. And he saw you had a really ugly pride about you. So he set about setting you up to fall so that your pride would be crushed, and, you'd see how ugly your pride *was* and that you are much better off without it, and upon that being done he would allow you back into his loving embrace. Would you rather he torture you for ever and ever, never to learn anything or become better or the alternative of improvement and learning that his way is the most loving way?

Deep Thought · « **Reply #11 on:** April 03, 2006, 06:26:13 PM »

I didn't misunderstand the ideas regarding heaven and such, I guess just used poor words. Gift, rather than reward--mental note to not mix that up in the future...

...Now, then, I think I understand what you're getting at. Essentially speaking, the situation is the same as the eternal-d--nation scenario, only without the eternal d--nation. God allows evil to exist for the same reasons... except that he only "grounds" the wayward child for a time, like a parent would, rather than disowning the child for good. (I think that analogy would fit your mindset, yes?)

Now that I have that all figured out, I guess the only thing left to ponder is whether or not that's the way things are. And before I even narrow down my scope to Universalism or even just generic Christianity, I have to figure out whether or not (G/g)od(s) even exist...

...

...Wow. Looks like I have my work cut out for me, eh?

Tony N · « **Reply #12 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:41:35 AM »

Quote from: Deep Thought

I didn't misunderstand the ideas regarding heaven and such, I guess just used poor words. Gift, rather than reward--mental note to not mix that up in the future...

...Now, then, I think I understand what you're getting at. Essentially speaking, the situation is the same as the eternal-d--nation scenario, only without the eternal d--nation. God allows evil to exist for the same reasons... except that he only "grounds" the wayward child for a time, like a parent would, rather than disowning the child for good. (I think that analogy would fit your mindset, yes?)

Tony's reply:
Yes, that is a very good analogy. For instance, the verse most eternal tormentists turn to is Matthew 25:46:

In the King James version this verse is rendered thus:
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment (aionion kolasin): but the righteous into life eternal (zoen aionion).

However, this cannot be correct due to at least two reasons:
1) the word for punishment is kolasin in Greek and the Greeks always used this word to mean that all kolasin punishment was to better the person undergoing it.

Plato used kolasin thusly:

"Plato: "For the natural or accidental evils of others no one gets angry, or admonishes, or teaches, or punishes (kolazei) them, but we pity those afflicted with such misfortune for if, O Socrates, if you will consider what is the design of punishing (kolazein) the wicked, this of itself will show you that men think virtue something that may be acquired; for no one punishes (kolazei) the wicked,
looking to the past only simply for the wrong he has done--that is, no one does this thing who does not act like a wild beast; desiring only revenge, without thought. Hence, he who seeks to punish (kolazein) with reason does not punish for the sake of the past wrong deed, but for the sake of the future, that neither the man himself who is punished may do wrong again, nor any other who has seen him chastised. And he who entertains this thought must believe that virtue may be taught, and he punishes (kolazei) for the purpose of deterring from wickedness"

And (#2) of course aionion cannot properly be translated eternal, or everlasting as in "aionion kolasin" as the kJV did in 25:46 due to the fact that the adjective (which is what aionion is) cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived (aion) and since aion can never be used of meaning "unending" or "eternal" neither can its adjective.

It is true that the nations that treated Christ's brethren well get the same LENGTH of life as the nations that mistreated them. Both get what they get pertaining to that aion/eon which is 1000 years.

So it is for their betterment and not just for punishment's sake.

Quote

Now that I have that all figured out, I guess the only thing left to ponder is whether or not that's the way things are. And before I even narrow down my scope to Universalism or even just generic Christianity, I have to figure out whether or not (G/g)od(s) even exist...

...

...Wow. Looks like I have my work cut out for me, eh?

Tony's reply:
That's the easy part

8d82thebone · « **Reply #13 on:** April 04, 2006, 11:12:25 AM »

Quote from: Tony N

Quote
And (#2) of course aionion cannot properly be translated eternal, or everlasting as in "aionion kolasin" as the kJV did in 25:46 due to the fact that the adjective (which is what aionion is) cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived (aion) and since aion can never be used of meaning "unending" or "eternal" neither can its adjective.

Deep Thought, what you need to realize about Tony is the fact that when he can't properly address an opposing point, he simply ignores it.
In fact, the word "aion" can mean or imply "eternity", a fact which I demonstrated using an unbiased source, only Tony refuses to acknowledge it; apparently he didn't take a look at the website I suggested in one of my posts, so I'll give it again...http:// www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon, as well as the reference it provides for the words "aion" : 'lifetime, generation, eternity', and for "aionios":'eternal'.
We find in Galatians 1:4,5 the word 'aion' being used in the 'age' context as well as the 'eternity' context: "...who gave himself for our sins, so that he might rescue us from this present evil age(aion) according to the will of our God and Father,(5) to whom be the glory forevermore ('aion, noun masculine, same word) Amen"
Does Tony want to suggest that we give "glory to God" temporarily, not forever?

Also, Tony's claim that "the verse most 'eternal tormentists' (I guess that's me) turn to is Matthew 25:46" is not even remotely accurate;
Revelation 20:10 :"And the devil who decieved them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Revelation 20 speaks of the Great White Throne judgement, where the dead are judged. In verse 13 we read "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them, and they were judged , every one of them according to their deeds.(14) Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.(15) And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
Also in Revelation 21:5 , we have Jesus speaking (you would think someone calling himself a Christian would be paying special attention at this point) "And he who sits on the throne said, Behold, I am making all things new. And he said 'write, for these words are faithful and true.'(6) Then he said to me "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts*(note: not everyone, it's an exclusive statement) from the spring of the water of life without cost.(7) He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God, and he will be my son.(8) But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Tony N · « **Reply #14 on:** April 04, 2006, 01:51:27 PM »

Quote from:

Quote from: Tony N

Quote
And (#2) of course aionion cannot properly be translated eternal, or everlasting as in "aionion kolasin" as the kJV did in 25:46 due to the fact that the adjective (which is what aionion is) cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived (aion) and since aion can never be used of meaning "unending" or "eternal" neither can its adjective.

8d82thebone replied:
Deep Thought, what you need to realize about Tony is the fact that when he can't properly address an opposing point, he simply ignores it.
In fact, the word "aion" can mean or imply "eternity", a fact which I demonstrated using an unbiased source, only Tony refuses to acknowledge it; apparently he didn't take a look at the website I suggested in one of my posts, so I'll give it again...http:// www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon, as well as the reference it provides for the words "aion" : 'lifetime, generation, eternity', and for "aionios":'eternal'.
We find in Galatians 1:4,5 the word 'aion' being used in the 'age' context as well as the 'eternity' context: "...who gave himself for our sins, so that he might rescue us from this present evil age(aion) according to the will of our God and Father,(5) to whom be the glory forevermore ('aion, noun masculine, same word) Amen"
Does Tony want to suggest that we give "glory to God" temporarily, not forever?

Tony's reply:
Dear 8d82thebone, I never ignored any argument by you. First of all, all a lexicon does is to give instances of where a word such as aion was translated not only from the Biblical source but also from non-biblical sources. Lexicons don't care if the source is correct or not, they just give sources much like dictionaries do as to how a word is used. The Lexicon is not proving the word is correctly translated!
Secondly, it is impossible for a word in the Bible to mean one thing in one instance and a completely opposite meaning in another. Aion cannot possibly mean something having a beginning and end and then the opposite of having no beginning and no end. The bible is emphatic that all the eons end:

1Co 10:11 Now all this befalls them typically. Yet it was written for our admonition, to whom the consummations of the eons have attained."

Heb 9:26 since then He must often be suffering from the disruption of the world, yet now, once, at the conclusion of the eons, for the repudiation of sin through His sacrifice, is He manifest."

Therefore, 8d82thebone is incorrect to try to force unendingness in the Galatian 1:4,5 passage which is properly translated:

Gal 1:4 Who gives Himself for our sins, so that He might extricate us out of the present wicked eon, according to the will of our God and Father,
Gal 1:5 to Whom be glory for the eons of the eons (eis tous aionas ton aionon). Amen!

Please note that 8d82thebone's mistranslation above in his response to me didn't even translate "eis tous aionas ton aionon." It just said "forevermore." LOL. But He is to have glory from humans for the eons which are the greatest eons of all the eons that went before. It doesn't mean He will stop getting glory when the eons end, which they will.

Likewise, in Revelation where it states that He lives for the 1000 years, does this mean that because His life is immortal that we must therefore make the 1000 years unending just so He can keep living when that 1000 years ends? Yet this is what they are doing with the eons.

8d82thebone wrote:
Also, Tony's claim that "the verse most 'eternal tormentists' (I guess that's me) turn to is Matthew 25:46" is not even remotely accurate;
Revelation 20:10 :"And the devil who decieved them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Tony's reply:
I'll grant you might be right concerning your picking of verses to try to prove unending torture, but your verses no more prove it than does 2 X 2 prove my car is a Saturn. Anyway, if "forever" is unending then why even add another "and ever" after it? Is there more than one unendingness? LOL!
Again, the translators of your per-version dropped the ball. It is really "day and night for the eons of the eons." Are you telling me that in "eternity" where time is not marked out there will still be "day and night" which is the marking out of time?
The term "for the eons of the eons" does not carry the idea "undendingness" any more than "the holies of the holies" in the tabernacle carries the idea of unending holy places in the Tabernacle in which there were only a total of five places therein.

8d82thebone wrote:
Revelation 20 speaks of the Great White Throne judgement, where the dead are judged. In verse 13 we read "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them, and they were judged , every one of them according to their deeds.(14) Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.(15) And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
Also in Revelation 21:5 , we have Jesus speaking (you would think someone calling himself a Christian would be paying special attention at this point) "And he who sits on the throne said, Behold, I am making all things new. And he said 'write, for these words are faithful and true.'(6) Then he said to me "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts*(note: not everyone, it's an exclusive statement) from the spring of the water of life without cost.(7) He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God, and he will be my son.(8) But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Tony's reply:
That's nice you know how to quote passages from the Bible, but I assure you, those passages quoted by you do not prove unending punishment. Just because someone is cast into death again does not mean #1 that they suffer (which they don't) and #2 that it is unending.

As a matter of fact, Paul saw beyond John's revelation when he stated that "death is being abolished" when Christ quits reigning (which He still is in Revelation) (see 1 Corinthians 15:22-28).

Deep Thought · « **Reply #15 on:** April 04, 2006, 10:33:55 PM »

Ah, this is progressing into territory I KNOW I've seen before...

...that territory being that the "second death" is part of the "death" being abolished. It makes a certain amount of sense, but it does seem to require a certain amount of interpretational gymnastics.

...Then again, most in-depth views on what the Bible means require some kind of interpretational gymnastics, so...

Quote from: Tony N

However, this cannot be correct due to at least two reasons:
1) the word for punishment is kolasin in Greek and the Greeks always used this word to mean that all kolasin punishment was to better the person undergoing it.

That's something I've never seen before. (Since I'm not currently more than a novice at understanding bits of biblical Greek, that's to be expected.) Thanks for bringing that to my attention. One more thing to ponder...

Quote from: 8d82thebone

Deep Thought, what you need to realize about Tony is the fact that when he can't properly address an opposing point, he simply ignores it.

I'll analyze Tony's debating style for myself as I go along, but I'll log that input away for consideration as I do so--I'll keep an eye out for it and call Tony on it if I catch it.

Quote from: 8d82thebone

In fact, the word "aion" can mean or imply "eternity", a fact which I demonstrated using an unbiased source

The trouble with said sources (lexicons, etc.) is that they tend to agree with the popular opinion on what a word's possible meanings are, whereas that popular opinion is what Tony opposes. In other words, Tony believes the lexicons are incorrect and has probably stated so a billion times, whenever they were brought up as arguments against his Universalist beliefs, and lexicons are brought up against Universalism a LOT. So it isn't exactly unexpected that he doesn't pay much attention to it--it's probably just same old business as usual to him.

As for me, I'm not sure whether or not the lexicons are right or wrong on this matter. I'll have to look at the evidence for and against the "eternal" definition of aionion myself...

Tony N · « **Reply #16 on:** April 05, 2006, 04:56:02 AM »

Deep Thought and 8d82thebone,

Here is an interesting thought: Let's make a simple lexical study of the King James version on psuche and psuchekon:

If we wanted to know what psuche meant using the KJV we'd come up with this:

heart 2x
life 40 x
mind 3x
soul 58x

and for the adjective psuchikon we find this:

natural 4x
sensual 2x

But if someone wanted to base his argument that he is right by using the lexicon above it would be easy to see he'd be in hot water.

You can see there's alot of confusion with the kjv on these two words.
In a properly translated bible such as the Concordant Literal New Testament, psuche is properly translated "soul" in every occurrence. And the adjective psuchikon is "soulish" in every occurrence.

So if one did a lexicon of psuche and psuchikon based upon the CLNT he'd get:

psuche: soul, the sensation resulting from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit Gn.2:7
psuchikon: soulish, that which pertains to the soul.

This is the same thing 8d82thebone is doing with aion/aionion. He is going to a lexicon thinking he is getting the real meaning of those two words when in fact all he is getting is a compilation of how those words were translated whether right or wrong! just as I would be should I use a lexicon of the KJV which many do to try to bolster their arguments. It is not that lexicons are not a good tool to use but one should not make them the final word on a word study.

The only true way to find the meaning of words is to see how God used them in His Word by finding definitive usages apart from figurative usages. If this is done much error is avoided.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #17 on:** April 05, 2006, 05:08:48 AM »

Quote from: Tony N

This is the same thing 8d82thebone is doing with aion/aionion. He is going to a lexicon thinking he is getting the real meaning of those two words when in fact all he is getting is a compilation of how those words were translated whether right or wrong! just as I would be should I use a lexicon of the KJV which many do to try to bolster their arguments. It is not that lexicons are not a good tool to use but one should not make them the final word on a word study.

The only true way to find the meaning of words is to see how God used them in His Word by finding definitive usages apart from figurative usages. If this is done much error is avoided.

In other words, it all falls back to the translation of the word, which the lexicon does not determine, but merely agrees with. Which is why lexicons are not absolute, because they really just repeat the translations under debate. Am I following this correctly?

Tony N · « **Reply #18 on:** April 05, 2006, 06:01:50 AM »

That is correct.

For instance, suppose you use a lexicon to determine the meaning of "aion" or "aionion" and that lexicon refers to Plato's Timeaus. And gives the meaning of the words in question "eternity."

But that is just how some if not most translators translated those two words into English in Timeaus. But they cannot be correct because area in question in Timeaus is headed by the Greek word "KRONOS" which means "time." Eternity is the absence of time.
In that treatise on time, Plato talks about the planets, stars, sun, moon and how they are used to show us time, not eternity. But you would not know that if you never read Timeaus. You'd just be thinking that, because the Lexicon says "eternity" for those two words, it must be eternity because it quotes sources proving that eternity was used (correctly or incorrectly).

8d82thebone · « **Reply #19 on:** April 05, 2006, 10:15:34 AM »

Quote from: Tony N

Deep Thought and 8d82thebone,

Quote
Here is an interesting thought: Let's make a simple lexical study of the King James version on psuche and psuchekon:

If we wanted to know what psuche meant using the KJV we'd come up with this:

heart 2x
life 40 x
mind 3x
soul 58x

and for the adjective psuchikon we find this:

natural 4x
sensual 2x

But if someone wanted to base his argument that he is right by using the lexicon above it would be easy to see he'd be in hot water.

You can see there's alot of confusion with the kjv on these two words.
In a properly translated bible such as the Concordant Literal New Testament, psuche is properly translated "soul" in every occurrence. And the adjective psuchikon is "soulish" in every occurrence.

If I said to you, "I'd lay down my soul for you, Tony." you might be a little confused as to what I meant. But if I said "I'd lay down my life for you, Deep Thought", he would know exactly what I meant.

This is one reason why you see in a passage like Matt. 20:28 -" just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life (psuche) as a ransom for many."
Also Luke 12:23 would read "for soul is more than food, and the body more than clothing" if the translators didnt care if people understood it. Instead, they translated 'psuche' as 'life', so that we would 'get it'.The meaning is not changed at all, but the understanding of the verse is enhanced.

Tony as I told you before, if you don't like the KJV, that's fine; I'm not here to defend or to flog any translation over another. I'm using the New American Standard instead... quit trying to confuse the issue!(as well as confusing Deep Thought too)
Just to put your argument to rest concerning the words you mentioned above:
In the NAS "heart" is translated 'leb' or 'lebab' in the OT and most often 'kardia' ,but sometimes 'psuche' in the NT, again depending on the context.

"life" is translated 'biotikos' (daily life) 'zoe' (often in the eternal sense) 'sarx', 'helikia'(life span) 'anazao' (restoration to life,revival) etc.

"mind" is translated "dokeo" (to think, opinion) 'dianioia' (understanding) 'phroneo' (to strive to understand) 'nous' (the intellect) 'metamellomai' (a changed mind) etc, including 'psuche'(life, the breath of life, the soul) Even in the English language, the word 'soul' can mean several different things.

Quote
So if one did a lexicon of psuche and psuchikon based upon the CLNT he'd get:

psuche: soul, the sensation resulting from the combination of an organic body with breath or spirit Gn.2:7
psuchikon: soulish, that which pertains to the soul.

This is the same thing 8d82thebone is doing with aion/aionion. He is going to a lexicon thinking he is getting the real meaning of those two words when in fact all he is getting is a compilation of how those words were translated whether right or wrong! just as I would be should I use a lexicon of the KJV which many do to try to bolster their arguments. It is not that lexicons are not a good tool to use but one should not make them the final word on a word study.

'psuche' is not at all the word used in your reference above,Genesis 2:7 "Then the LORD formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed (naphach) into his nostrils the breath (n@shamah) of life (chayay) and man became a living being (chay nephesh)
This is from the Septuagint,so hopefully it meets with your approval?
By the way, how many ancient Greek dictionaries have you written or composed, Tony, just out of curiosity? Most of us, (I'm guessing you as well) have to take someone else's research at face value when we get a reference. The greek-english dictionary I provided, as far as I know, is a secular Greek one, and therefore should be giving unbiased (biblical as well as non-biblical) references for the words in question.
Quote
The only true way to find the meaning of words is to see how God used them in His Word by finding definitive usages apart from figurative usages. If this is done much error is avoided

I doubt that rigid grammatical convention was what the writers of the Bible were concerned with. (Most of the Twelve were simple fisherman with likely little or no formal education. They still managed to convey the message of the gospel, as well as the warning of God's judgement to those who would reject it) It strikes me as very odd that all of these alleged "errors" always seem to be in favor of you and your favored translation. While as I said previously I'm not a big fan of the King James Version,considering the year it was translated, I think it does a respectable job of conveying the message.

Author Topic: 8d82thebone asked me, Tony N, a question: (Read 9518 times)