Where is the justice?????????

[dadof10]

Let's try to concentrate on this first. Paul says: "for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. (2Corinthians (RSV) 4)Once a person enters into the "unseen" the person enters into the eternal. Parable or not, the rich man is in the unseen, the eternal.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that this verse supports Luke 16. It's purpose is merely to point out that there are two different dimensions of life and eternity. You are stretching the limits of interpretation to apply it to a tormenting afterlife.

Read it again SLOWLY (see, I can be condescending too). I am not "stretching the limits of interpretation to apply it to a tormenting afterlife", I am claiming the above point only: "Paul says: "for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. (2Corinthians (RSV) Once a person enters into the "unseen" the person enters into the eternal. Parable or not, the rich man is in the unseen, the eternal." That's all the 2Cor. supports.

Ever heard of personification and metaphor? This parable makes it clear that the rich man and Lazarus are dead. Giving them life for the sake of having a conversation is not out of the realm of parabolic nature.

No, but teaching error is. That's what this parable would be doing if there was only "sleep" immediately after death.

Jesus made it plain the parable's message "They would not hear even if one rose from the dead'. Not rose from hell. Not come down from Abraham's bosom.

Irrelevant to our discussion. The rich man was conscious and communicating, not asleep, before the "resurrection and second death", therefore there is "life after death even for the wicked".

They were dead. To read anything more into this as an exposition on the afterlife is to encounter a myriad of contradictions and things that NOWHERE is supported in the bible.

Not according to Strong's and Vine's. Well, we're back to the word "dead" again. You wouldn't accept Strong's definition, but you will accept Vine's, since YOU referenced it. Here is Vine's definition of the word "thanatos":

<A-1,Noun,2288,thanatos>
"death," is used in Scripture of: (a) the separation of the soul (the spiritual part of man) from the body (the material part), the latter ceasing to function and turning to dust, e.g., John 11:13; Heb. 2:15; 5:7; 7:23. In Heb. 9:15, the AV, "by means of death" is inadequate; the RV, "a death having taken place" is in keeping with the subject. In Rev. 13:3,12, the RV, "death-stroke" (AV, "deadly wound") is, lit., "the stroke of death:"

(b) the separation of man from God; Adam died on the day he disobeyed God, Gen. 2:17, and hence all mankind are born in the same spiritual condition, Rom. 5:12,14,17,21, from which, however, those who believe in Christ are delivered, John 5:24; 1 John 3:14. "Death" is the opposite of life; it never denotes nonexistence. As spiritual life is "conscious existence in communion with God," so spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God."

"Death, in whichever of the above-mentioned senses it is used, is always, in Scripture, viewed as the penal consequence of sin, and since sinners alone are subject to death, Rom. 5:12, it was as the Bearer of sin that the Lord Jesus submitted thereto on the Cross, 1 Pet. 2:24. And while the physical death of the Lord Jesus was of the essence of His sacrifice, it was not the whole. The darkness symbolized, and His cry expressed, the fact that He was left alone in the Universe, He was 'forsaken;' cp. Matt. 27:45,46." * [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 134.]

Hummm....No mention of "cessation of life", just "seperation of the soul from the body".

As spiritual life is "conscious existence in communion with God," so spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God".

Game over.

No, not irrelevant. Read it again slowly. Even if he was conscious...this is not the final judgment where he will be annihilated.

But he is conscious, in the afterlife, so, according to Paul, eternal. That's where the verses tie together.

Don't you get the difference between interim and final judgment?

"Interim" judgment? I thought you believed body and soul are not seperated and merely "sleep" until the resurrection? "- Acts 7:60, John 11:11 and Matthew 9:24 agree with the myriads of OT texts that death is not conscious existence in heaven or hell as a dimembodied soul, but a 'sleep'"

Still irrelevant. I was responding to this:

The Bible makes it clear that the wicked do not have life in the afterlife.

The rich man ABSOLUTELY has "life" in the afterlife, you admit it above.

Then you contradict the majority of bible texts that make it clear that there is no life except for at resurrection.

I am not the one "contradicting", Jesus is, at least according to you.

You might as well just teach our of your catechism for all the good it will do us.

If I did, it would make sense unlike this convoluted batch of conflicting views.

by guibox: "I have shown and there are many other instances where 'forever' is used to denote qualitative and temporal usages. 'Forever and ever' is used to mean 'as long as life lasts' many times. It IS relevant to whom it is speaking to, despite your protests."

[quote:203uhnkf]In the afterlife? No, you have NOT. You have shown that the word "forever" can be used in a metaphorical sense in reference to TEMPORAL things. It is used as an exaggeration. AGAIN, you need to look at the words in context, not simply do a word search, find verses that help your case, ignore context and ASSUME the word means the same thing THROUGHOUT Scripture.

And you have no basis for interpreting eternity as being different. [/quote:203uhnkf]

Yes I do. It's 2Cor:4- "for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal." and I also have YOUR OWN WORDS "I'm not sure why you seem to think that this verse supports Luke 16. It's purpose is merely to point out that there are two different dimensions of life and eternity." You really should read what you write before you push the "submit" button.

Vine's doesn't agree with you. Nothing in the passages you gave me implies that the wicked will be consciously tormented for all eternity. Merely it shows the nature of the word 'aionios' and the finality of it's usage. Even the interpretation into the 2 Thessalonians passage doesn't imply eternal torment. The punishment (which according to the bible is 'DEATH' and the 'destruction' is what is eternal.

Now you are going to mis-interpret Vine's? LOL....This is getting ridiculous.

"The predominant meaning of aionios, that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in 2 Cor. 4:18, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., 'for a season,' and in Philem. 1:15, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless,

"Aionios is also used of the sin that 'hath never forgiveness,' Mark 3:29, and of the judgment of God, from which there is no appeal, Heb. 6:2, and of the fire, which is one of its instruments, Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 1:7, and which is elsewhere said to be 'unquenchable,' Mark 9:43. "The use of aionios here shows that the punishment referred to in 2 Thess. 1:9, is not temporary, but final, and, accordingly, the phraseology shows that its purpose is not remedial but retributive."

The word is "PUNISHMENT", not punishing. Vine's interprets it as everyone else does. The only ones who tries to CHANGE the word to "punishing" are the people with a preconceived agenda.

Just to be fair, let's look at your source and see what it says for the word "kolasis"

<3,,2851,kolasis>
akin to kolazo (PUNISH, No. 1), "punishment," is used in Matt. 25:46, "(eternal) punishment," and 1 John 4:18, "(fear hath) punishment," RV (AV, "torment"), which there describes a process, not merely an effect; this kind of fear is expelled by perfect love; where God's love is being perfected in us, it gives no room for the fear of meeting with His reprobation; the "punishment" referred to is the immediate consequence of the sense of sin, not a holy awe but a slavish fear, the negation of the enjoyment of love.

So, what does "not temporary" mean if not "permanent"? The punishment is permanent, final and the PURPOSE is retributive, according to YOUR OWN SOURCE. A permanent PROCESS that is retributive. What else do you need?

That's the exact OPPOSITE of your view. What's coming next? Will you start looking these words up in Vine's and try to find out what context they are in "elswhere" in the dictionary, then claim there is no reason to define them the way they are written? It seems to be working for you when it comes to "studying" Scripture. :

 

[Bubba]

Just to be fair, let's look at your source and see what it says for the word "kolasis"

<3,,2851,kolasis>
akin to kolazo (PUNISH, No. 1), "punishment," is used in Matt. 25:46, "(eternal) punishment," and 1 John 4:18, "(fear hath) punishment," RV (AV, "torment"), which there describes a process, not merely an effect; this kind of fear is expelled by perfect love; where God's love is being perfected in us, it gives no room for the fear of meeting with His reprobation; the "punishment" referred to is the immediate consequence of the sense of sin, not a holy awe but a slavish fear, the negation of the enjoyment of love.

Dadoff,
I think you may find these translations interesting in regards to the verse in Mt.45:46;

Bibles Without "Everlasting Punishment"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And these shall go away into punishment of the ages, but the righteous into life of the ages."
-New Testament in Modern Speech
"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."
-Concordant Literal Translation

"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."
-Young's Literal Translation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is sad to note, but nevertheless true, that most Christians do not realize there are very dramatic differences in translation from one Bible to another. We have heard so often that the "inspired" or "inerrant" Word of God is basically the same in all translations. This is just not true. But one will not see this unless they place several side by side and make some comparisons. Listed below are a few translations which we will compare to the King James Bible on the verse Matthew 26:46.
Concerning the duration of chastening, Matt. 25:46 says (KJV),

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal."

Scarlett's New Testament written in 1792 has "aeonian punishment" in place to "everlasting punishment."

"And these will go away into aeonian punishment: but the righteous into aeonian life."

The New Covenant by Dr. J.W. Hanson written in 1884 renders Matt. 25:46:

"And these shall go away into aeonian chastisement, and the just into aeonian life."

Young's Literal Translation first published in 1898 and reprinted many times since uses the following words:

"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."

Professor Young also compiled Young's Concordance, wherewith one can check the translation of each Hebrew or Greek word as translated in the KJV.

The Twentieth Century New Testament first printed in the year 1900 has:

"And these last will go away 'into aeonian punishment,' but the righteous 'into aeonian life.'"

The Holy Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton first published in 1903 gives the rendering:

"And these He will dismiss into a long correction, but the well-doers to an enduring life.

The New Testament in Modern Speech, by Dr. Weymouth, says:

"And these shall go away into punishment of the ages, but the righteous into life of the ages."

Dr. Weymouth most frequently adopts such terms as "life of the ages," "fire of the ages;" and in Rev. 14:6, "The good news of the ages." It is a matter to regret that the editors of the most recent edition of Dr. Weymouth's version have reverted to the KJV renderings for the passages containing the Greek word aion, eon, or age.

The Western New Testament published in 1926 renders Matt. 25:46 as follows:

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal."

The translation, however, has a footnote on Matthew 21:19 on the word "forever" which is the same word for "eternal" which says: "Literally, for the age (and elsewhere) This Bible does not use the word "Hell" at all.

Clementson's The New Testament (1938) shows,

"And these shall go away into eonian correction, but the righteous into eonian life."

Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott (1942 edition) translates the verse,

"And these shall go forth to the aionian cutting-off; but the righteous to aionian life."

It should be noted that the "cutting-off" refers to pruning a fruit tree to make it bear more fruit. The idea behind the word is not destructive but productive! Had Jesus wanted to emphasize a destructive end, He would have used the word "timoria."

The Concordant Version (1930):

"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed printed in 1958 says:

"And these shall go away into agelasting cutting-off and the just into agelasting life."

Rotherham, in his Emphasized Bible (1959), translates this verse,

"and these shall go away into age-abiding correction, but the righteous into age-abiding life."

The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible copyrighted in 1976 has "age-abiding correction" instead of the incorrect and quite frankly, blasphemous "everlasting punishment." This phrase "everlasting punishment," when one really thinks about it, renders the work of Christ worthless. It says that His forgiveness, His love, His grace, His mercy, the power of His blood, all these and more become limited when one translates "aionion kolasin" as "everlasting punishment."

"And these shall go away -abiding correction, but the righteous into age-abiding life."

There are other Bible translations besides these which have either completely eliminated the concept of eternal punishment from their pages, or have made great strides towards wiping this pagan concept off God's Word. Even some King James Study Bibles will show the reader in the margins or appendixes that the King's translators were incorrect in their rendering of "eternal punishment" and "Hell." The great Companion Bible by Dr. Bullinger is an example of that."

Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

Just to be fair, let's look at your source and see what it says for the word "kolasis"

<3,,2851,kolasis>
akin to kolazo (PUNISH, No. 1), "punishment," is used in Matt. 25:46, "(eternal) punishment," and 1 John 4:18, "(fear hath) punishment," RV (AV, "torment"), which there describes a process, not merely an effect; this kind of fear is expelled by perfect love; where God's love is being perfected in us, it gives no room for the fear of meeting with His reprobation; the "punishment" referred to is the immediate consequence of the sense of sin, not a holy awe but a slavish fear, the negation of the enjoyment of love.

Dadoff,
I think you may find these translations interesting in regards to the verse in Mt.45:46;

Bibles Without "Everlasting Punishment"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And these shall go away into punishment of the ages, but the righteous into life of the ages."
-New Testament in Modern Speech
"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."
-Concordant Literal Translation

"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."
-Young's Literal Translation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is sad to note, but nevertheless true, that most Christians do not realize there are very dramatic differences in translation from one Bible to another....

There are other Bible translations besides these which have either completely eliminated the concept of eternal punishment from their pages, or have made great strides towards wiping this pagan concept off God's Word.

Funny how you appear to complain about the "dramatic differences in translation from one Bible to another (which implies there shouldn't be such differences) and THEN argue that the concept of eternal punishment is a pagan concept - when the Greek version that we have clearly is not what the Young Literal Translation says.

In effect, the YLT is the translator committee's opinion on what the Word of God should be, regardless of what the Church has believed for 2000 years and has written as such, the same Church that is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, guided by the Spirit of Truth. Who cares about the Truth "passed down".

All that matters is that "we" make God in our image... :roll:

In effect, you are creating God in your image, aren't you? YOU take your own opinions of how Scriptures should be read by consulting a few translations that uphold your already-preconceived notions of what God has told us - that punishment, JUST LIKE REWARDS in the afterlife, are eternal. They last the same amount of "time".

We know that punishment in the next world is not reformative. Why?

We hear of not one person going to hell and then entering the Kingdom. Not one angel of satan. NOWHERE does the Scriptures even HINT at such a thing. We hear from Jesus' lips that there is an unforgiveable sin. No matter what you think that sin is doesn't matter. Do you think that God will allow people into heaven without forgiving them of sin??? Nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Thus, those with the unforgiveable sin upon their soul WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN. EVER.

Where do they go? Everlasting hell. Punitive punishment, just as satan's angels are CONTINUING to endure punishment from the dawn of time. They will be joined by those who refuse to love and obey God. The wrath of God shall be fulfilled - wicked men will be allowed the separation from God that they yearn for and will receive it for all time. To believe that God will punish men and satan in hell UNTIL the second coming has absolutely no warrant in Scriptures - and additionally, it STILL has God punishing people "unjustly" (according to your mindset) when He "should" just wink them out of existence so they don't "suffer" (those poor murders...)

The idea that God will not punish the wicked makes a mockery out of God's Law, and to me, is a pagan American concept built upon relativism and political correctness.

Regards

 

[Bubba]

The idea that God will not punish the wicked makes a mockery out of God's Law, and to me, is a pagan American concept built upon relativism and political correctness.

Francesdesales,
It is interesting how passionate one can get, over someone believing God really is merciful and that He loves all of His creation. I do believe in the punishment of the wicked, but I believe it is remedial and not eternal torture. What possible satisfaction would God receive from eternal punishment? I hope in my lifetime, we will see even more accurate interpretations of God's Word and I think we will, in fact it is already unfolding.
Peace, Bubba

 

[Free]

"And these shall go away into punishment of the ages, but the righteous into life of the ages."
-New Testament in Modern Speech
"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."
-Concordant Literal Translation

"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."
-Young's Literal Translation

A plain reading of the above texts logically leads one to believe that if punishment isn't eternal, then neither is life; they are of the same duration.

 

[Bubba]

"And these shall go away into punishment of the ages, but the righteous into life of the ages."
-New Testament in Modern Speech
"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."
-Concordant Literal Translation

"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."
-Young's Literal Translation

A plain reading of the above texts logically leads one to believe that if punishment isn't eternal, then neither is life; they are of the same duration.

Free,
The Bible is written in respect to time and space, which man in his finite state has lived in from the beginning. We can have life in Christ now in this age and the age to come. We can live with out Christ in this age and live in punishment in the next, but there will come a time when everything will be handed over to the Father (1Cor.15:20-28) and death will be destroyed forever. This is when eternity has it's essence for all mankind.
Bubba

 

[guibox]

Not according to Strong's and Vine's. Well, we're back to the word "dead" again. You wouldn't accept Strong's definition, but you will accept Vine's, since YOU referenced it. Here is Vine's definition of the word "thanatos":

<A-1,Noun,2288,thanatos>
"death," is used in Scripture of: (a) the separation of the soul (the spiritual part of man) from the body (the material part), the latter ceasing to function and turning to dust

Where is this supported? Where in the linguistic nature of the words 'nephesh/psuche' as used by the Hebrews associated as immortal separation from the body at 'muth/thanatos'? 'muth' and 'thanatos' according to Young's is translated as 'to put to death, to cause to die'. It is used as these literal functions all throughout scripture. Now, you want to make 'thanatos' mean 'eternal life as a soul'? What in the world gives you, Strong, or Vine the linguistic right to determine that definition when the definition is quite clear already (and the exact opposite of what you want it to mean)?

"Death" is the opposite of life; it never denotes nonexistence.

As spiritual life is "conscious existence in communion with God," so spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God."

Where do you get this reasoning? Where in the bible is such backwards logic and entymological contradiction ever supported? Death IS the opposite of life. There is nothing that should give us the impression that as 'spiritual life is 'conscious existence in communion with God' that 'spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God. When man sinned, he died spiritually and was dying physically. The two do not go together. When man was saved, he was rejuvenated spiritually. He has immortality. The wicked are not revived spiritually.

What in the world makes you think that when they die physically they will live on as spirit when they were spiritually dead but physically alive before?? Logic tells us that if they are not revived spiritually (which gives the righteous eternal life...HINT IN YOUR LANGUAGE - MAKES THE SOUL IMMORTAL, then they will remain without spiritual eternal life.

dadof10, this is complete illogical thinking that has no support whatsoever from scripture.

"

Just to be fair, let's look at your source and see what it says for the word "kolasis"

<3,,2851,kolasis>
akin to kolazo (PUNISH, No. 1), "punishment," is used in Matt. 25:46, "(eternal) punishment," and 1 John 4:18, "(fear hath) punishment," RV (AV, "torment"), which there describes a process, not merely an effect; this kind of fear is expelled by perfect love; where God's love is being perfected in us, it gives no room for the fear of meeting with His reprobation; the "punishment" referred to is the immediate consequence of the sense of sin, not a holy awe but a slavish fear, the negation of the enjoyment of love.

So, what does "not temporary" mean if not "permanent"? The punishment is permanent, final and the PURPOSE is retributive, according to YOUR OWN SOURCE. A permanent PROCESS that is retributive. What else do you need?

According to Young's 'kolasis' has two meanings, 'torment' and 'punishment'. The first is used in 1 John 4:18 which does NOT say ANYTHING about the afterlife. There is nothing to read 'a process' from 'kolasis' into Matthew. The usage of 'kolasis' cannot be read into the usage of 'kolasis' which means 'punishment' in Matthew. 'kolasis' doesn't describe the nature of the punishment in Matthew. This is done elsewhere. The wicked are destroyed. The wages of sin is death. Death is eternal.

You see, dad...the Greek and Hebrew have more than one meaning and more than one context for that word. You can't take different contexts of the word and read them into another passage where the context of that word is to be different.

Take 'destroy' for instance.

'destroy' - appolumi' can mean 'destroy,' perish and lose'

Now it would make no sense to use the final usage of 'destroy' appolumi and mix it with 'lose' appolumi'

Passages like Matthew 10:42 'Verily I say to you, he shall not lose his reward' make no sense to apply the 'destroy' meaning as is used in the context of Mark 3:6 where the Pharisees 'took counsel...how they might destroy' Jesus'

Or were they really just planning to 'lose' Jesus?

 

[RND]

Glad to see you're still at it Guibox!

 

[RND]

Death IS the opposite of life.

Yes indeed it is. The exact opposite of creation. The "reverse" of creation: Breath ceases and returns to God who gave it, the body returns to dust and the thoughts (the essence of a living soul) perish.

 

[Free]

"And these shall go away into punishment of the ages, but the righteous into life of the ages."
-New Testament in Modern Speech
"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."
-Concordant Literal Translation

"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."
-Young's Literal Translation

A plain reading of the above texts logically leads one to believe that if punishment isn't eternal, then neither is life; they are of the same duration.

Free,
The Bible is written in respect to time and space, which man in his finite state has lived in from the beginning. We can have life in Christ now in this age and the age to come. We can live with out Christ in this age and live in punishment in the next, but there will come a time when everything will be handed over to the Father (1Cor.15:20-28) and death will be destroyed forever. This is when eternity has it's essence for all mankind.
Bubba

So, in regards to the above passages, what age are they referring to?



Still looking for a response guibox. And I'll throw this in the mix:

However, no morally upright person would continue to flick the switch giving a little bit of juice to continue the pain and keep them alive for further torture.

The assumption here, and an incorrect one IMO, is that the physical punishment (pain) lasts forever. I don't think that such a stance can be supported biblically.

 

[dadof10]

LOL. I knew this was coming...

<A-1,Noun,2288,thanatos>
"death," is used in Scripture of: (a) the separation of the soul (the spiritual part of man) from the body (the material part), the latter ceasing to function and turning to dust

Where is this supported? Where in the linguistic nature of the words 'nephesh/psuche' as used by the Hebrews associated as immortal separation from the body at 'muth/thanatos'? 'muth' and 'thanatos' according to Young's is translated as 'to put to death, to cause to die'. It is used as these literal functions all throughout scripture. Now, you want to make 'thanatos' mean 'eternal life as a soul'? What in the world gives you, Strong, or Vine the linguistic right to determine that definition when the definition is quite clear already (and the exact opposite of what you want it to mean)?

So you won't accept Strong's AT ALL, you say this about Vine's: This interpretation you call 'esegesis', is not from Young's but from a scholarly analysis of 'aionios'. I gave you quotes from scholars. Here are more on the nature of the word:

You then proceded to quote this:

"The force attaching to the word is not so much that of the actual length of a period, but that of a period marked by spiritual or moral characteristics" (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of NT Words)

Then, when Vine's is shown to COMPLETELY DEBUNK everything you said concerning the afterlife, you go back TO YOUNG'S??? There is a consistant thread throughout this fiasco. YOU ARE THE SOLE ARBITER OF BIBLICAL DEFINITIONS, INTERPRETATION AND TRUTH. I guess the sooner all of us on come to this logical conclusion, the better. When will your Greek/Hebrew Lexicon be published? Will there be an online version or are you going strictly with hard cover for now? After it comes out you can save a lot of time by simply quoting yourself.

I asked this in a previous post:

You said: For the record, I use Young's Analytical Concordance and nowhere does it support any of Strong's usage of the term 'thanatos'. It is gross assumption read into the term. Nowhere are the terms 'psuche', pneuma' as being separated from the 'sarx' implied in the interpretation of 'thanatos'.

I said: Strong's is the standard, accepted by everyone I've ever talked to. You are the first person I've run across that has challenged it. Before I comment, how does Young's differ from Thayer's and what are Young's definitions of the word "death"? Is it simply "cessation of life" or is there more than one?

And this:

You said: Really? Where do you get a present tense action involved from the meaning of 'to go or come up'? It is merely explaining an action anabiano is also used in John 3:13; Ephesians 4:8-10 and Acts 2:34 to describe past events. Even if what I was saying wasn't so, the verse refers to the smoke ascending aionios, 'forever' doesn't mean 'eternally' but 'age lasting'.

I asked: OK, if you won't accept Thayer's tense, what is the tense given by Young's for the above verb "goes up" or "ascendeth up"?

It is starting to look like you will only accept sources that I can't check. You have lost all credibility.

"Death" is the opposite of life; it never denotes nonexistence.

As spiritual life is "conscious existence in communion with God," so spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God."

Where do you get this reasoning? Where in the bible is such backwards logic and entymological contradiction ever supported? Death IS the opposite of life. There is nothing that should give us the impression that as 'spiritual life is 'conscious existence in communion with God' that 'spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God. When man sinned, he died spiritually and was dying physically. The two do not go together. When man was saved, he was rejuvenated spiritually. He has immortality. The wicked are not revived spiritually.

What in the world makes you think that when they die physically they will live on as spirit when they were spiritually dead but physically alive before?? Logic tells us that if they are not revived spiritually (which gives the righteous eternal life...HINT IN YOUR LANGUAGE - MAKES THE SOUL IMMORTAL, then they will remain without spiritual eternal life.

dadof10, this is complete illogical thinking that has no support whatsoever from scripture.

"

Just to be fair, let's look at your source and see what it says for the word "kolasis"

<3,,2851,kolasis>
akin to kolazo (PUNISH, No. 1), "punishment," is used in Matt. 25:46, "(eternal) punishment," and 1 John 4:18, "(fear hath) punishment," RV (AV, "torment"), which there describes a process, not merely an effect; this kind of fear is expelled by perfect love; where God's love is being perfected in us, it gives no room for the fear of meeting with His reprobation; the "punishment" referred to is the immediate consequence of the sense of sin, not a holy awe but a slavish fear, the negation of the enjoyment of love.

So, what does "not temporary" mean if not "permanent"? The punishment is permanent, final and the PURPOSE is retributive, according to YOUR OWN SOURCE. A permanent PROCESS that is retributive. What else do you need?

According to Young's 'kolasis' has two meanings, 'torment' and 'punishment'. The first is used in 1 John 4:18 which does NOT say ANYTHING about the afterlife. There is nothing to read 'a process' from 'kolasis' into Matthew. The usage of 'kolasis' cannot be read into the usage of 'kolasis' which means 'punishment' in Matthew. 'kolasis' doesn't describe the nature of the punishment in Matthew. This is done elsewhere. The wicked are destroyed. The wages of sin is death. Death is eternal.

You see, dad...the Greek and Hebrew have more than one meaning and more than one context for that word. You can't take different contexts of the word and read them into another passage where the context of that word is to be different.

Take 'destroy' for instance.

'destroy' - appolumi' can mean 'destroy,' perish and lose'

Now it would make no sense to use the final usage of 'destroy' appolumi and mix it with 'lose' appolumi'

Passages like Matthew 10:42 'Verily I say to you, he shall not lose his reward' make no sense to apply the 'destroy' meaning as is used in the context of Mark 3:6 where the Pharisees 'took counsel...how they might destroy' Jesus'

Or were they really just planning to 'lose' Jesus?

Why are you attacking me? Take it up with the "scholars" you expected me to accept when you thought they agreed with you?

 

[dadof10]

Bubba,

Will you accept Strong's or Vine's definitions? If not, why will you only accept the scholars that agree with you?

 

[dadof10]

Not according to Strong's and Vine's. Well, we're back to the word "dead" again. You wouldn't accept Strong's definition, but you will accept Vine's, since YOU referenced it. Here is Vine's definition of the word "thanatos":

<A-1,Noun,2288,thanatos>
"death," is used in Scripture of: (a) the separation of the soul (the spiritual part of man) from the body (the material part), the latter ceasing to function and turning to dust

Where is this supported? Where in the linguistic nature of the words 'nephesh/psuche' as used by the Hebrews associated as immortal separation from the body at 'muth/thanatos'? 'muth' and 'thanatos' according to Young's is translated as 'to put to death, to cause to die'. It is used as these literal functions all throughout scripture. Now, you want to make 'thanatos' mean 'eternal life as a soul'? What in the world gives you, Strong, or Vine the linguistic right to determine that definition when the definition is quite clear already (and the exact opposite of what you want it to mean)?

"Death" is the opposite of life; it never denotes nonexistence.

As spiritual life is "conscious existence in communion with God," so spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God."

Where do you get this reasoning? Where in the bible is such backwards logic and entymological contradiction ever supported? Death IS the opposite of life. There is nothing that should give us the impression that as 'spiritual life is 'conscious existence in communion with God' that 'spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God. When man sinned, he died spiritually and was dying physically. The two do not go together. When man was saved, he was rejuvenated spiritually. He has immortality. The wicked are not revived spiritually.

What in the world makes you think that when they die physically they will live on as spirit when they were spiritually dead but physically alive before?? Logic tells us that if they are not revived spiritually (which gives the righteous eternal life...HINT IN YOUR LANGUAGE - MAKES THE SOUL IMMORTAL, then they will remain without spiritual eternal life.

dadof10, this is complete illogical thinking that has no support whatsoever from scripture.

As I was re-reading this it occured to me that you might be under the impression that I personally wrote the following:

"Death" is the opposite of life; it never denotes nonexistence.

As spiritual life is "conscious existence in communion with God," so spiritual "death" is "conscious existence in separation from God."

I did not write it. It's from Vine's. They are the ones who are guilty of "illogical thinking'. I am guilty of posting from a source that you accepted until it disagreed with you.

http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0000670

 

[Bubba]

Bubba,

Will you accept Strong's or Vine's definitions? If not, why will you only accept the scholars that agree with you?

Dadof10,
Here is Strong's for “aion†used in Mt 45:46, note the word In the Greek which leaves no doubt for the word eternal is “aidiosâ€Â. Why did Matthew not use this Greek word (“adiosâ€Â)? Is Strong's or Vine's the last word in regards to the Greek?
Bubba

165. aion ahee-ohn' from the same as 104; properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end). Compare 5550.
126. aidios ah-id'-ee-os from 104; everduring (forward and backward, or forward only):--eternal, everlasting.

 

[Bubba]

So, in regards to the above passages, what age are they referring to?

Mt. 25:46â€ÂAnd these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.†Young’s Literal Translation.

Free,
This verse is the last verse of a parable (being a parable there may be limits on it interpretation) of the Second Coming of our Lord, where the sheep are separated from the goats (believers and non-believers). Those who are believers at His coming will take part in a life in Christ or an age or ages after His coming prior to Him turning over all things to the Father. Some believe this to be the Millennial age (a thousand year period) beginning at His appearance. I myself believe the Millennial age is the period between His 1st and 2nd comings. Where the lost spend an “age†in remedial punishment (the “rich man†in Luke 16:23). The saved spend an “age†in the presence of the Lord awaiting their glorified bodies. Being a partial Preterist, I have no difficulty with Jesus coming in judgment in 70A.D. upon Jerusalem (an “ageâ€Â), nor do I have a problem with Jesus physically coming to begin a new “ageâ€Â, where the heavens and earth are made anew. Yet, after His physical coming and whatever time frame this entails, there will finally be an age where all things are given over to the Father and eternity is realized for all of mankind in a completely reconciled humanity.
1Cor.15:20-28 (Young’s Literal Translation):
20And now, Christ hath risen out of the dead -- the first-fruits of those sleeping he became,
21for since through man [is] the death, also through man [is] a rising again of the dead,
22for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive,
23and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ's, in his presence, 24then -- the end, when he may deliver up the reign to God, even the Father, when he may have made useless all rule, and all authority and power --
25for it behoveth him to reign till he may have put all the enemies under his feet --
26the last enemy is done away -- death;
27for all things He did put under his feet, and, when one may say that all things have been subjected, [it is] evident that He is excepted who did subject the all things to him,
28and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to Him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all.
Grace, Bubba

 

[whitecloud]

Because one man rose from the dead, all men live forever. What hope, what blessing, Jesus was faithful to the end, There is no justice , He called "us" His friends. Day by day we each sinners made rightious through faith in Him, robers, liers and murders hold sway, Jesus our Lord will be on our horizons on that bright, glorious, shinny day.

You guys crack me up. Many blessings be yours.

 

[dadof10]

Here is Strong's for “aion†used in Mt 45:46, note the word In the Greek which leaves no doubt for the word eternal is “aidiosâ€Â. Why did Matthew not use this Greek word (“adiosâ€Â)?

Because "aiÃ…Ânios" conveys what he meant. According to both Vine's and Strongs it means "having no end". You have no problem accepting their definition when it's applied to the word "life" in the same sentence, in the same context. I'll ask you the same question.

Why didn't Matthew use the word "proskairos", which means "for a season", to describe the "punishment"? As Francis and Free keep trying to get you to see, if the "punishment" has an end, so does the "life". This is the context.

Is Strong's or Vine's the last word in regards to the Greek?

If not them, who? They are widely accepted and highly regarded. I have been on Christian forums for about 15 years and have argued with poeple from all denominations. You and Guibox are the first people i've come across who will not accept them. What makes Young's the "last word"? All things being equal, Vine's and Strong's were written in the 20th century and are regularly updated. Young's (as far as I know) has not been.

 

[Bubba]

Dadof10,
Scholars are not immune to bias, anymore than the rest of us. The traditions of men have persuaded many errors in regards to the Word of God, just a simple glance through the history of the church will substantiate this thought.
Grace, Bubba


"Eternal" Punishment (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language. By Tony Nungesser and Gary Amirault
The entire concept of eternal or everlasting punishment hinges primarily on a single verse of Scripture--Matthew 25:46. This is the only place in the entire Bible where we find these two words together AND only in some Bibles. There are over a dozen English translations which do NOT contain the concept of "eternal punishment" on ANY of their pages, NOR the pagan concept of Hell.
The Greek form for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is "kolasin aionion." Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bare more fruit." "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion," in the singular form and means "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time." (Note: the two words in many, not all translations become reversed changing the Greek into English.)
"Aionion," as shown above, is the singular form of the adjective of the Greek noun "aion." Many people unfamiliar with the Greek do not realize that the endings of the same word change (inflection) to indicate its mood, case, gender, etc. Therefore, "aionion" may appear with different endings. "Aionion, aioniou, aionios," for example, are all different inflections of the adjective form of the noun "aion."
The noun "aion" in Greek literature has always meant "an indeterminate period of time. It could be as short as the time Jonah spent in the belly of a fish (three days or nights), the length of a man's life, or as long as a very long age.
The Bible speaks of at least 5 "aions" and perhaps many more. If there were "aions" in the past. This must mean that each one of them have ended for they are now past! The New Testament writers spoke of "the present wicked aion" which ended during that very generation. Obviously, it was followed by another "aion"-- the "aion" in which we presently live. If there are "aions" to come, it must mean that this one we live in will also end.
There is a verse which says "the consummation of the aions" showing that each "aion" ends. So how can they be eternal?
There is "the coming eon" (Matt.10:30, Luke 18:30
There is "the present wicked eon" (Gal.1:4)
There is "the oncoming eons (future)(Eph.2:7)
There is "the conclusion of the eon (present) (Mt.13:39,40)
There is "the secret concealed from the eons (past) (Eph.3:9)
Plainly, the Greek word "aion" transliterated "eon" cannot mean "eternal." A study into the Greek of the Biblical period and before will bear this out.
"Aionion" is the adjective of the noun "aion."
Since grammar rules mandate an adjective CANNOT take on a greater force than its noun form, it is evident that "aionion" in any of its adjective forms (ios, ou, on) CANNOT possible mean "everlasting" or anything remotely indicating eternity or unending time.
For example, "hourly" cannot mean "pertaining to days, weeks, months, or years. The word MUST mean "pertaining to an hour." Therefore, "aionion," the adjective form of the noun "aion" which clearly means a period of indeterminate TIME, CANNOT mean, "forever and ever, eternal, everlasting, eternity, etc) or other words which connote timelessness or unending ages.

 

[dadof10]

Scholars are not immune to bias, anymore than the rest of us.

Does this include Tony Nungesser and Gary Amirault? Does it include Robert Young? Then you admit to bias? So you are interpreting with this bias? Well, here is something we can agree on, then. We ALL come to the Scriptures with biases, which is why "Scripture interprets Scripture" is simply repackaged "private interpretation", and it will NEVER get to the full Truth. Jesus didn't set His Church up to operate this way, Sola-Scriptura is a man-made doctrine.

How is anyone to decide which of these "scholars" is right? Maybe we should look at what Jesus left us with to guide us to the Truth. Scripture calls the Church the pillar and foundation of truth, not Scripture alone. It should be blatantly obvious to even the casual observer that personal interpretation of Scripture ALONE is what leads to all this bias, confusion, division and hodge-podge of conflicting churches and doctrines. Jesus left us with one Church, not 2000. Where is this Church today? Hint: It wasn't started by EGW.

The traditions of men have persuaded many errors in regards to the Word of God, just a simple glance through the history of the church will substantiate this thought.

Yes, let's take a glance at the Reformation. Many man-made errors came out of it. Many more came out of the SDA split also, including the one you hold on this subject.

 

[francisdesales]

The idea that God will not punish the wicked makes a mockery out of God's Law, and to me, is a pagan American concept built upon relativism and political correctness.

Francesdesales,
It is interesting how passionate one can get, over someone believing God really is merciful and that He loves all of His creation. I do believe in the punishment of the wicked, but I believe it is remedial and not eternal torture. What possible satisfaction would God receive from eternal punishment? I hope in my lifetime, we will see even more accurate interpretations of God's Word and I think we will, in fact it is already unfolding.
Peace, Bubba

Bubba,

Of course God loves His creation. I even posit that God loves those whom He condemns to hell. Love is NOT the 21st century definition, where we are "nice" to each other. It often involves "tough" love - letting a person have what they demand and insist on having, even if WE know it hurts them.

"If you love someone, set them free"... Sting.

Sometimes, we set someone free who demands to be set "free" from us. And so, as Romans 1 tells us, God's wrath is to allow men and women to have what they want - in this case, to be handed over to their evil desires and to be separated from God.

You see, I don't see hell as eternal physical torment, but more a mental and spiritual torment. The worm that never dies will be the regret these people will experience from being stubborn and proud and not realizing their purpose and meaning in life. They will not experience true happiness because they will not be in Christ. They will see that they screwed up, but they got what they wanted. And is this a difficult concept to make an analogy of in our own lives?

Take the husband and wife. The wife dotes over the husband, loves him with her whole heart. The husband, on the other hand, has fallen out of love with her. He begins to hate the wife because of her actions of love. He becomes disgusted with her. He wants to avoid her and cannot stand being with this person. An outsider will see the husband as an idiot - "how could he treat her this way"? But that is the reality of those who do not love and cannot accept love. They hate the person who loves them and want to get away from this person.

The same will happen in the next life. There will be people who CHOOSE to not be with Christ. They will want no part of Him. They would consider heaven an even GREATER torture. They will NOT ask for forgiveness from God - the UNFORGIVEABLE SIN. As such, God will allow such a person to leave His presence, since NOTHING unclean shall enter heaven. NOTHING.

In the end, Bubba, IF there is an unforgiveable sin, your whole premise is false.

There will be no forgiveness offered to the devil or man who chooses not to ask for forgiveness. There can be no "reformative" fire for such people because the sin will REMAIN unforgiveable.

Hell will remain for such people - and it does not make God "happy".

Regards