Annihilationism

[Doulos Iesou]

A straw man is a 'logical fallacy', which is what you said.

A straw man is a logical fallacy, not the logical fallacy I indicated you committed. I said you were and are committing the fallacy of appealing to an authority.

So do I, but I am NOT qualified to translate it. If you are then please show us so I can lend more credulity and study to your assertions.

Which passage would you like me to translate for this discussion?

 

[Kathi]

(Deleted, response to deleted post. Obadiah.)

 

[agua.]

Would you rather die in your sleep very quickly or would you rather have a horrible disease that took you inch by inch with horrible suffering over 10 years?

Die in my sleep of course. This is an ok analogy to what happens to the wicked after judgement aside from that the wicked won't "die in their sleep". First they're resurrected, then judged according to what they've done, then tossed into the LoF. We can see that the length/severity of the punishment will depend on what they've done which makes sense when we think of perfect justice.

Rev 20:12-15 KJV And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. (14) And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (15) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


We have no idea how to translate punishment/justice into a tangible pain period but Yahweh does. Remember how Yahweh keeps the wicked alive while He pours out His bowls of wrath.

What value do you place on eternal life ?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

And IF Jesus was saying what you purport, then he would have said WILL not CAN. You said using common sense, not me.

Hi Stan,

Why did he say "can"? Do you understand how it would make absolutely no sense in that given context if he said "will?" Who was he addressing in this text?

Please answer these basic questions.

Yes and death is physical, just as the first death was. Believers do not experience the second death, as they go on to Eternal Life.

Indeed, both body and soul are destroyed in hell.

I'm not interested in cross posting or arguing another thread. Please deal with the issue HERE in this thread.
I'm sure I can address all your concerns here.

If you'd like, I can copy and pasting my work here. (Edited, Obadiah.)

I have no doubt that the Bible interprets itself, but I also know it does not mean the same thing everywhere the same words are used. Context is always of prime importance, not just a word.

I have been saying this several times in this thread.

 

[Kathi]

(Deleted, off topic. Obadiah.)

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You said using common sense, not me.

Also, I am searching for where I appealed to "common sense," and I can't find it.

Can you perhaps tell me where you think I made this appeal? As I cannot find it, nor can I find anything that would remotely be an appeal to common sense.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

(Deleted, response to deleted post. Obadiah.)

 

[Butch5]

The scripture say what they mean and when some bring up Greek , they are just equivocating about what the English does properly convey. Not every use of a word carries the same connotation...THAT is a result of the context.



αἰώνιος (aiṓnios) is not the same Greek word in Ex 27:21 as used in the examples used above, and connotes "perpetual", not "eternal'. So yes different word and connotation.
I'll go with the credentialed scholars. Either way Paul and Jesus said it in Hebrew but it was transcribed in Greek so unless you were there and know Hebrew, I fail to understand your rational here.

Stan,

Yes Ex 27:21 is the same word that is used in Mat 25:41. The same word can't mean eternal and not eternal. The context is not going to indicate opposite meanings for the same word. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say Jesus and Paul said it in Hebrew.

Can I assume then that you are going with the scholars rather than Paul?

 

[Butch5]

That is not Biblcal.Life is full of choices and if that is what you believe the Bible says that is your choice.

That is Biblical, It's right there in the text. Gehenna will be restored, it cannot burn eternally and be restored too.

 

[Butch5]

That is your opinion, NOT fact. The fact is the word is properly translated as "eternal" and you are now equivocating about two words, fire and eternal. If you can demonstrate you are more qualified than the scholars that have ALL translated this as ETERNAL, then please do so, otherwise all you are doing is opining, not exegeting.

Stan, I'm not equivocating and it's not my opinion. Jesus said 'aionios', a quick look in the OT will reveal that aionios cannot mean eternal. I'ts already been pointed out that the appeal to the majority is fallacious. You can cite as many scholars as you like, I'll take the word of the apostle Paul over all of them. He had direct revelation and he said the first covenant came to an end. If we take the word of your scholars it hasn't.

 

[Gary]

(Deleted, off topic. Obadiah.)

 

[Stan1953]

A straw man is a logical fallacy, not the logical fallacy I indicated you committed. I said you were and are committing the fallacy of appealing to an authority.

Which passage would you like me to translate for this discussion?

You used the terminology. I did indicate a straw man. Let's move on.

I asked IF you ARE qualified, then show us your qualifications, and ONLY then can we pursue it.

 

[farouk]

(Deleted, response to deleted post. Obadiah.)

 

[Stan1953]

Also, I am searching for where I appealed to "common sense," and I can't find it.
Can you perhaps tell me where you think I made this appeal? As I cannot find it, nor can I find anything that would remotely be an appeal to common sense.

I said your sense of common sense.

Now, would it make any sense for Jesus to tell them to fear God for something that he would never do? Or rather was he describing what happens in hell, which namely is the destruction of body and soul. This seems to me the only rational way to look at this text.

Please stop with all the semantics and make you point.

 

[Stan1953]

Stan,
Yes Ex 27:21 is the same word that is used in Mat 25:41. The same word can't mean eternal and not eternal. The context is not going to indicate opposite meanings for the same word. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say Jesus and Paul said it in Hebrew.
Can I assume then that you are going with the scholars rather than Paul?

αἰώνιος - Ex 27:21
αἰώνιον - Mt 25:41

Not the same word, but then again if you knew Greek or had the qualifications to translate it, you would know that.
I agree with what the scholars say Paul said
(Edited, Obadiah.)
.

 

[Butch5]

αἰώνιος - Ex 27:21
αἰώνιον - Mt 25:41

Not the same word, but then again if you knew Greek or had the qualifications to translate it, you would know that.
I agree with what the scholars say Paul said
(Edited, Obadiah.)
.

They are the same word Stan. They are both forms of "aion" Greek is inflected, it's like the English words ran and run. They both mean the same thing only one is past tense and the other present or future. Greek changes the endings on word depending on how they are used in a sentence.

You agree with what the scholars say Paul said? That was not what was stated. Paul said and Aionion event ended your scholars say it is everlasting, I'll take Paul's word.

 

[Stan1953]

Stan, I'm not equivocating and it's not my opinion. Jesus said 'aionios', a quick look in the OT will reveal that aionios cannot mean eternal. I'ts already been pointed out that the appeal to the majority is fallacious. You can cite as many scholars as you like, I'll take the word of the apostle Paul over all of them. He had direct revelation and he said the first covenant came to an end. If we take the word of your scholars it hasn't.

One verse does not the OT make. Take a look at Gen 21:33, where you will find αἰώνιος, and tell us God is NOT Eternal?
I really don't understand the point you are trying to (make) here about Paul?
(Edited, Obadiah.)
I'm not sure exactly what you expect me to say?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

(Edited, Obadiah.)

I asked IF you ARE qualified, then show us your qualifications, and ONLY then can we pursue it.

People need certain qualifications now in order to study other languages?

I've been personally mentored by one of my Pastors, in addition to doing some schooling on the matter.

What do qualifications matter? Doesn't the quality of the person's argument then matter?

(Edited, Obadiah.)

I'm learning just like you and everyone else here
(Edited, Obadiah.)
If you'd like to see how well I handle the Greek, you can discuss it with me,
(Edited, Obadiah.)

 

[Stan1953]

They are the same word Stan. They are both forms of "aion" Greek is inflected, it's like the English words ran and run. They both mean the same thing only one is past tense and the other present or future. Greek changes the endings on word depending on how they are used in a sentence.
You agree with what the scholars say Paul said? That was not what was stated. Paul said and Aionion event ended your scholars say it is everlasting, I'll take Paul's word.

Not quite, but the scholars know that and it's why they use different words to translate it. My pizza is taking forever to get here is not the same as God has and will exist forever.
The scholars tell us what Paul said by their translation, ALL of them.
(Edited, Obadiah.)
Maybe you can show ONE English translation that depicts what you say Paul says?

 

[DRS81]

An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on facts or knowledge. This is not what I presented, which was my interpretation of the passage as it is in it's original Greek, providing a definition not only of the Greek word, but the English word. I then demonstrated from the context what the proper translation and interpretation of the word, which happens to be the one every single NT Greek scholar agrees with. Which is to translate the word "destroy" rather than "ruin."

Have you attempted to demonstrate from the context how it could possibly mean simply to "ruin."

When Jesus speaks, we put all his words under a microscope.
As flawed humans we are funny that way.
Greek "scholars" are no better than commentators (flawed humans).
Destroy and ruin are synonyms...http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destroy?s=ts

What are your thoughts on Dan 12:1-2 and Matt 25:46.