10 Nov 08
24 edits
because beetle is unable to post his thoughts he has sent the following to myself via private message with the understanding that it may provide some enlightenment for all concerned
etymology aion - aFion- aiw (duration) sanskrit: ayu (vital force), latin: aev-um (duration), aetas/ aev-itas (season, period, life). Later on, from the meaning of the "vital force" derived the definition "duration of life" and later "eternity".
The phrase "eis tous aionas ton aionon" means, as you epi and robbie and jaywill and all of you my friends you know, "for ever", and this paraphrasis is the reason why there is comfusion. For the ancient Greeks "aion" is a period of time, whilst according the gnostic philosophers "aion" is a series of lower divine existences which they fill the gap between God and Human. Furthermore "aionios" is the everlasting, the imperishable, but also the one who he derives from a long tradition.
But the interpretation of the scriptures looks poor due to false translations. When you check Matthew 25:46 and 25:41 you read that "kolasis is aionia/ aionios" and that "pyr is aionion", and also that "olethros is aionios" (B. Thes. 1:9) and that "crisis is aionios/ aionia" (Hebr. 6:2), and therefore a possible interpretation is that all these qualities will last for an "aion" and not eternally. I think that according to the Christian scriptures there were time periods before the creation of the "aiones" by God ("pro ton aionon", "pro xronon aionion", and you Christians are aware of the possible fact that the "aiones" will come to an end. Therefore "aiones" should have anyway a beginning and an end, so whatever belongs to the "aiones" is "aionion"!
So the whole concept of the "aim of the God" is getting place in the "aiones" (check "prothesis ton aionon" at Eph. 3:11), and this act is performed within this time period. The whole act of the God begins from the creation of the aiones (Hebr. 1:2, 11:3) and finishes at their end, at the time where God becomes "ta panta en pasi" (A' Corinth. 15:28).
Therefore the interpretation that the "aiones" are eternal seems false, and it could be caused due to the lack of decent knowledge of Greek and wrong translation.
sorry it took so many edits beetle, the system didn't seem to like those little triangular systems.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieVery thanx for your support rrrrobbie
because beetle is unable to post his thoughts he has sent the following to myself via private message with the understanding that it may provide some enlightenment for all concerned
etymology aion - aFion- aiw (duration) sanskrit: ayu (vital force), latin: aev-um (duration), aetas/ aev-itas (season, period, life). Later on, from the meaning of the ...[text shortened]... eem to like those little triangular systems.
🙂
10 Nov 08
7 edits
Originally posted by black beetleblack bettle writes:
Hey robbie and epi!
At first keep in mind that the authors of the scriptures were not at all fluent in Greek -to be frank the Atticists, Phrynichus included, were driving crazy because of the totally wrong way the Christian authors were using their broken Greek.
Regarding "kolasis" etc the etymology is:
kolos (short/ crop-tailed/ maimed/ mutilate lazo" as already known by Plato.
Regarding "aionion":
Etymology: aion
==================================
At first keep in mind that the authors of the scriptures were not at all fluent in Greek -to be frank the Atticists, Phrynichus included, were driving crazy because of the totally wrong way the Christian authors were using their broken Greek.
==================================
The Greek of First and Second Peter is very refined. It leads some to doubt that it was composed by a fisherman. Of course Peter could have had a more educated attendent assist him in writing of the letters.
Poor Koine Greek will not be enough eliminate the plain teachings of the basics of Christian doctrine. One of those basics is eternal redemption and conversely eternal retribution.
==============================
(but the philosophical term remains check/ control/ adjust/ I make corrections)! So robbie has definately right when he considers accurate (in a metaphorical sense) the definition "pruning", ie "I adjust/ I make corrections", because this is clearly the philosophical approach of "kolasis" and "kolazo" as already known by Plato.
=================================
Where is the hint that the ones condemned to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels ((Matt. 25:41) are being "pruned" for good works ?
Rather they are cursed - "Then He will say also to those on the left, Go away from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
There is no more implication that they are being adjusted or pruned than there is that the devil and his angels are being adjusted and pruned. Rather it is ALL OVER for them.
"And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (v. 46)
As to the person cursed, he is regarded as entirely vile, worthless, hateful, beyond recovery.
As regards to the Person doing the cursing. His intention is to shut off the cursed ones from all good. They are shut up to evil of every kind, devoted to vengence and deserving of full wrath and hatred.
The curse is upon the person, not upon his special acts (See Deut, 27:14-26). - "... you who are cursed ..." (Matt. 25:31).
While there is hope, there is a measured retribution, and the person is not declared vile. This is noticed in the Israelites with pardonable offenses. He is not stricken more than forty times - "lest thy brother seem vile to thee." (Deut. 25:3.) But when the curse is pronounced, he is declared utterly vile, beyond recovery.
In Matthew 25:31-46 The goat nations, the Devil and his angels are not adjusted or pruned correctively for future good works. They are eternally excluded from the kingdom and cursed as vile.
10 Nov 08
7 edits
======================================
but the philosophical term remains check/ control/ adjust/ I make corrections)! So robbie has definately right when he considers accurate (in a metaphorical sense) the definition "pruning", ie "I adjust/ I make corrections", because this is clearly the philosophical approach of "kolasis" and "kolazo" as already known by Plato.
==========================================
There is indisputable evidence that in later Greek liturature and in the New Testament period, kolasis was used to signify punishment without mercy and with no thought of the betterment of the sufferer:
1.) Josephus, Antiquites, XV.2,2: [1rst century. A.D.]
"When he [Herod] was upon his trial, and when he was in danger that a capital sentence would be pronounced against him, he [Hyrcanus] delivered him from danger, and from all punishment."
2.) Martyrdom of Polycarp, ii, 3: [Written about 160 A.D.]
"And giving heed unto the grace of Christ they despised the tortures of this world, purchasing at the cost of one hour a release from eternal punishment [aionion kolasin] ... And they found the fire [pur] of their inhuman tortures cold: for they set before thier eyes the escape from eternal fire [ aionian pur] which is never quenched ... And in like manner those that were condemned to wild beasts endured fearful punishment [kolaseis] ... that the devil might, if possible, by the persistence of the punishment [ kolaseos ] bring them a denial [of Christ]."
3.) II Macabees 4. 38 [Probably early in the first century B.C.].
" The Lord rewarded him [Antigonus] his punishment [ kolasisas] as he deserved."
4.) Wisdom 19:4 [1rst century B.C.]
"that they [the Egyptians of Moses' time ] might fulfill [equals complete] the punishment [kolasis] which was wanting to their torments [basaniois].
This kolasis was ther death in the Red Sea, as to which verse 1 says that thus "wrath came upon them without mercy."
This information comes from [b] The Last Assize, G.H. Lang, A Review of the Doctrines of UNIVERSAL RESTORATION, ANNIHILATION, and PUNISHMENT, Conley & Scheottle, 1985, see chapter 5 "Is Penal Sufferng Remedial?," pages 35,36.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by jaywillPoor Koine Greek will not be enough eliminate the plain teachings of the basics of Christian doctrine. One of those basics is eternal redemption and conversely eternal retribution
black bettle writes:
[b]==================================
At first keep in mind that the authors of the scriptures were not at all fluent in Greek -to be frank the Atticists, Phrynichus included, were driving crazy because of the totally wrong way the Christian authors were using their broken Greek.
==================================
The Gree ...[text shortened]... e good works. They are eternally excluded from the kingdom and cursed as vile.[/b]
correction number one, its not a basic biblical, nor christian doctrine, but a god dishonoring, pre christian, Babylonian fallacy.
correction number two, they are not being 'pruned', but cutt off, which is not only the correct understanding of the original greek as demonstrated but is also in complete harmony with the rest of the entire bible as has also been demonstrated.
correction number three, no one is saying that they are being corrected, but you yourself have stated what it is we are saying, it is all over for them, they are literally being cut off, no more to seen on the face of the earth nor anywhere else for that matter, try reading psalm 37.
as to whether they are reviled, i cannot say, i have never read anything regarding this, although i do not think that it can be inferred from the text, but this seems not entirely plausible even after consideration of the verses sited.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by jaywillmy goodness jaywill, i could not believe this, you are actually resorting to apocryphal books now in order to try to establish the legitimacy of your claim, its almost unbelievable from a professed christian, however, we shall live and let live, however this idea of punishment without mercy i cannot let stand, for it misrepresents the character of god is a most dishonouring fashion,
[b]======================================
but the philosophical term remains check/ control/ adjust/ I make corrections)! So robbie has definately right when he considers accurate (in a metaphorical sense) the definition "pruning", ie "I adjust/ I make corrections", because this is clearly the philosophical approach of "kolasis" and "kolazo" as already know ...[text shortened]... & Scheottle, 1985, see chapter 5 "Is Penal Sufferng Remedial?," pages 35,36.
Yes, when they had made for themselves a molten statue of a calf and began to say, ‘This is your God who led you up out of Egypt,’ and they went on to commit great acts of disrespect, you, even you, in your abundant mercy did not leave them in the wilderness.' Nehemiah 9:18
Who is a God like you, one pardoning error and passing over transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? He will certainly not hold onto his anger forever, for he is delighting in loving-kindness. He will again show us mercy; Micah 7:18
please consider these verses in the light of what you have stated and be careful that this cruel and vindictive nature does not transpose itself onto your thinking that you may also become unmerciful!
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by jaywillHey Jaywill,
black bettle writes:
[b]==================================
At first keep in mind that the authors of the scriptures were not at all fluent in Greek -to be frank the Atticists, Phrynichus included, were driving crazy because of the totally wrong way the Christian authors were using their broken Greek.
==================================
The Gree ...[text shortened]... e good works. They are eternally excluded from the kingdom and cursed as vile.[/b]
my posts have to do solely with the scientific etymology of the words in question. On the other hand the Atticists and Phrynichus were really enraged with the broken Greek of the authors and there are detailed pieces of informations regarding this fact.
The etymology of both words which I offered has nothing to do with any kind of theological aspect -this is a conversation that you gonna enjoy with epi, robbie, ToO, Nemesio and another friends that are into it. I just gave a full reasoning regarding the explanation of the proper use of the words in question.
Best regards
🙂
10 Nov 08
7 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie================================
my goodness jaywill, i could not believe this, you are actually resorting to apocryphal books now in order to try to establish the legitimacy of your claim, its almost unbelievable from a professed christian, however, we shall live and let live, however this idea of punishment without mercy i cannot let stand, for it misrepresents the character of go ictive nature does not transpose itself onto your thinking that you may also become unmerciful!
my goodness jaywill, i could not believe this, you are actually resorting to apocryphal books now in order to try to establish the legitimacy of your claim,
====================================
Read the post again. I clearly SAID that it was only to demonstrate the Greek writing of the NT time did not INSIST on the definition of kolasis that Plato and Aristotle used.
It was not an appeal to the canonicity of any Apochyphal text.
=============================
its almost unbelievable from a professed christian, however, we shall live and let live, however this idea of punishment without mercy i cannot let stand, for it misrepresents the character of god is a most dishonouring fashion,
==============================
The idea submitted by some annhilationists is that Matt. 25:46 cannot fail to mean remdial and corrective "punishment" (KOLASIS) since Plato and Aristotle used it in that sense instead of the contrasting term timoria.
The theory - kolasis must mean discipline with a hoped good effect to the sufferer. In constrast timoria should have been used in Matthew to mean the vindication of law and right by punishment.
Quoting Lang:
But Grimm-Thayer Lexicon (on kolasis, 353) says that "as in other cases usage (especially the latter) does not always recognize the distinction;" and Trench (Synonyms, 25,26) says that -
It would be a very serious error, however, to attempt transfer this distinction in its entireness to the words of the New Testament ... for in proof that KOLASIS with [its verb] KOLAZESTHAI has acquired in Hellenistic Greek [the Greek of the century or two B.C. and of the New Testament era] this severer sense (of adialeiptos timoria [unending judicial punishment] ). and was used simply as "punishment" or "torment" with no necessary underthought of the bettering through it of him who endured it, ..."
And the passages I quoted, though non-canonical, demonstrated that linguistically. This particular point is a language issue, more than a revelation issue.
===================================
Yes, when they had made for themselves a molten statue of a calf and began to say, ‘This is your God who led you up out of Egypt,’ and they went on to commit great acts of disrespect, you, even you, in your abundant mercy did not leave them in the wilderness.' Nehemiah 9:18
===================================
This has no effect on that fact that KOLASIS in Matthew 25:46 certainly can take on the meaning of punishment not for remedy or correction but for endless suffering.
That is the point refuted, that Matthew 25:46 must mean a corrective disciplinary punishment in the Greek language. And all in all the tenor of the passage confirms this more severe usage.
===============================
Who is a God like you, one pardoning error and passing over transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? He will certainly not hold onto his anger forever, for he is delighting in loving-kindness. He will again show us mercy; Micah 7:18
=================================
That is all well and good. I myself could find many many such passages. It does NOT negate that God would in an instance resort to eternal damnation as in Matthew 25:46.
You have to accept both sides of the truth of the Bible - "Behold the kindness AND severity of God." (Rom.11:22)
By acknowledging the severity I do NOT deny the kindness. By pointing out the kindness I do NOT deny the severity.
In your error you think it must be one or the other and God cannot have both attributes together.
=======================================
please consider these verses in the light of what you have stated and be careful that this cruel and vindictive nature does not transpose itself onto your thinking that you may also become unmerciful!
=======================================
The issue at the moment here is whether there is a teaching of eternal damnation anywhere in the Bible. "Can God be merciful?" is another issue. He of course can. There is an instance though where His wrath is UNDILUTED (Rev. 14:10), and thus without mercy. This is eternal perdition as in Matthew 25:41.
In denying this you are wrong, regardless of how MANY other passages you site me concernng the great mercy of God.
10 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetle============================
Hey Jaywill,
my posts have to do solely with the scientific etymology of the words in question. On the other hand the Atticists and Phrynichus were really enraged with the broken Greek of the authors and there are detailed pieces of informations regarding this fact.
The etymology of both words which I offered has nothing to do with any kind of th ...[text shortened]... soning regarding the explanation of the proper use of the words in question.
Best regards
🙂
I just gave a full reasoning regarding the explanation of the proper use of the words in question.
===============================
I understand. I hope you understand.
I in turn gave liturary reasons for why eternal punishment of a non-corrective, non-remedial nature certainly could be understood in the Greek language of Matthew 25:41.
10 Nov 08
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetleAt first keep in mind that the authors of the scriptures were not at all fluent in Greek...
Hey robbie and epi!
At first keep in mind that the authors of the scriptures were not at all fluent in Greek -to be frank the Atticists, Phrynichus included, were driving crazy because of the totally wrong way the Christian authors were using their broken Greek.
Regarding "kolasis" etc the etymology is:
kolos (short/ crop-tailed/ maimed/ mutilate lazo" as already known by Plato.
Regarding "aionion":
Etymology: aion
Could you provide a source for this?
And "kolasis" means definately "punishment/ amputation"...
I don't care who your ancestors are - do you have a source for this? The reason I ask is, every modern lexicon disagrees with you.
__________
It is my understanding that determining the meaning of a word by its derivation is an "etymological fallacy." D.A. Carson states that presuming that a word's meaning is bound up with its root or roots is "linguistic nonsense" (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 28).
__________
Furthermore, as you pointed out, kolazo had the meaning, "to prune, to cut off," in Classical Greek but eventually its meaning changed. Indeed, by the time Koine Greek arose kolazo meant chastisement or punishment (the following are a few sources in support of kolazo's transformation).
(1) "Prop[erly] to lop, prune as trees, wings ... to chastise, correct, punish: so in the N.T." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Thayer, Joseph H.).
(2) ""To cut short," "to lop," "to trim," and figuratively a. "to impede," "restrain," and b. "to punish" ... A common use is for divine chastisement....The NT uses kolazo in Acts 4:18 and 2 Peter 2:9. Only the latter refers to God's punishment" (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, Bromley, W., ed.).
(3) The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Bauer, Walter; Arndt, William; Gingrich, F. Wilbur; Danker, Frederick) lists dozens of examples from literature contemporary with the NT and lists "punish" as the only meaning for kolazo in this time period.
(4) The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Moulton & Milligan) suggest that kolazo retains the meaning "correcting," "cutting down" in later documents, such as Galen, but note that "punish" is the proper translation in the NT, and cite several contemporary sources supporting this meaning.
__________
If kolazo itself does not retain the meaning "to prune, to cut off," by the time the NT was written, how is it in any way conceivable that kolasis, a word derived etymologically from kolazo, does so? Keep in mind, also, that it is an etymological fallacy to determine the meaning of a word by its derivation.
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by epiphinehaslol, so you must resort to worldly theologians and the words of lexicographers to establish your credentials, well we have had the apocrypha, so I suppose anything is possible. your argument seems to stem from the quotation of an individual who states that there is no basis for understanding of a word from an etymological basis, naturally as the meanings of words change, this of course is a fallacy in itself as many words do maintain their etymological value, however i suppose you must grasp at something, secondly your argument seems to try to look at the historical aspect, what the ancient writers had in mind at the time, however this also is neither here nor there because even if it does mean punishment, it is the nature of the punishment that we are interested in, while you state that it means eternal punishment in a mythical burning fire which god keeps burning eternally for this purpose of his 'pleasure' at seeing poor imperfect individuals tormented, while we state, much closer to the actual word of course, that the punishment is in harmony with the rest of the scriptures and simply refers to being cut off, that death is a state of unconscious sleep and for the unrepentant complete separation from god with no resurrection prospects, 'the second death'.
[b]At first keep in mind that the authors of the scriptures were not at all fluent in Greek...
Could you provide a source for this?
And "kolasis" means definately "punishment/ amputation"...
I don't care who your ancestors are - do you have a source for this? The reason I ask is, every modern lexicon disagrees with you.
__________
...[text shortened]... y to determine the meaning of a word by its derivation.[/b]
10 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTherefore "aiones" should have anyway a beginning and an end, so whatever belongs to the "aiones" is "aionion"...
because beetle is unable to post his thoughts he has sent the following to myself via private message with the understanding that it may provide some enlightenment for all concerned
etymology aion - aFion- aiw (duration) sanskrit: ayu (vital force), latin: aev-um (duration), aetas/ aev-itas (season, period, life). Later on, from the meaning of the ...[text shortened]... eem to like those little triangular systems.
The fact remains, if kolasis aionion in Matthew 25:46 refers to a limited duration, then zoe aionion in that same verse must also refer to a limited duration. If this is the case, as you suggest, then we must conclude that the duration of the life (zoe) which righteousness affords a human being is simply a very long life, but not an eternal life.
This, of course, would introduce an extraordinary theological problem. For instance, assuming the life (zoe) referred to in Matthew 25:46 is not eternal, we must conclude that it ends at some point (for convenience, let's call this ending point, "death" ). Since the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), and those whom Christ "saved" die at some future point in time, then we must conclude that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to deliver human beings from sin and death, a ridiculous conclusion which is completely at odds with Holy scripture and its explicit claim that Christ defeated death, "For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?'" (1 Corinthians 15:53-55).
This is the theological problem we must tackle if we claim kolasis aionios in Matthew 25:46 refers to a limited duration. RC, are you prepared to solve this theological problem posed by black beetle?
10 Nov 08
4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehaswhat theological problem? i am quite sure that the beetle dude is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, is he not, rather eloquently i may hasten to add, Beatles input was not theological but mere etymological, and if he wants to state that it refers to a limited duration then who am i, but i do not accept the argument that you have postulated upon, because quite clearly eternal life and immortality are not the same thing, and thus it is quite possible, even probable, although i have done little research myself that both can refer to an indefinite but also finite amount of time, having a beginning and perhaps even an end. also i do not accept your argument that Christs sacrifice is unable to propitiate for sin, because it is not dependent upon Christ, but upon the individual themselves whether they accept and reciprocate the gift of the sacrifice, and no i do not hold any weight to this ludicrous idea of once saved always saved, which as far as i can determine has no basis in either scripture nor logic, nice to see a biblical quotation referring to the fact that the wages of sin is eternal torment, everlasting fire, no wait , it says simply....death, how interesting Mr Bond, don't you think!
[b]Therefore "aiones" should have anyway a beginning and an end, so whatever belongs to the "aiones" is "aionion"...
The fact remains, if kolasis aionion in Matthew 25:46 refers to a limited duration, then zoe aionion in that same verse must also refer to a limited duration. If this is the case, as you suggest, then we must conclude RC, are you prepared to solve this theological problem posed by black beetle?[/b]
p.s. have you got yourself one of them 'no hell', bibles like i suggested?
11 Nov 08
5 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasthis is the stance that i am taking on this subject and any further comments by myself with regard to this verse will reflect this, for
[b]At first keep in mind that the authors of the scriptures were not at all fluent in Greek...
Could you provide a source for this?
And "kolasis" means definately "punishment/ amputation"...
I don't care who your ancestors are - do you have a source for this? The reason I ask is, every modern lexicon disagrees with you.
__________
y to determine the meaning of a word by its derivation.[/b]
Matt. 25:46: 'These shall go away into everlasting punishment 'lopping off,' Greek, kolasin,' but the righteous into life eternal.'
The Emphatic Diaglott reads 'cutting-off', instead of 'punishment.' a footnote states: 'Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies,
1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune.
2. To restrain, to repress. . . .
3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment - hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word.
The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9
2 Thess. 1:9, Revised Standard version: “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” other translations “Eternal ruin, 'lost eternally,' 'eternal punishment in destruction,
so not only does the translation represent the true entomological meaning of the word but it is reflective of other passages of the bible and as the footnote states quite clearly it completely harmonizes with the immediate context, preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis, thus we have no need of appeal to worldly theologians and dubious works of the Apocrypha, but instead turn to the inspired word to furnish us with a definition, for as the ancient record states, ''Do not interpretations belong to God?'', Genesis 40:8