[Serenity-Millennium]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

My dear friend, you really need to elaborate a little less! My time is precious!

I'm sorry, I thought you were looking for an intelligent conversation. I'll try to dumb it down to your level.

The KJV is divinely inspired. Every Christian knows that. But let's move on topic again:

King James was Anglican, he was not even a Christian by your standards. Do you think the original Greek is not divinely inspired?

Come, my friend, I do not believe for a moment that you are really that confused or stupid. Please take us seriously; these aren't matters to joke about. Jesus clearly teaches that we should only pluck our eyes out when they seduce us into sin. If they do not do that, why should we pluck them out? Would be rather pointless, wouldn't it?
And, by the way, you didn't explain why burning eternally in Gehenna is better than burning eternally in Hell.

The Greek mythological place the Greeks called "Tartarus" occurs one time in the Biblical text to denote a holding place for messengers (angels) "til" judgment which indicates an eventual release from this place. The case against "Gehenna" being translated into "Hell" is very aptly summarized by Dr. J.W. Hanson in his The Bible Hell when he listed the following regarding "Gehenna" :

1. Gehenna was a well-known locality near Jerusalem, and ought no more to be translated Hell, than should Sodom or Gomorrah. See Josh. 15:8; 2 Kings 17:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; Jer. 7:31,32; 19:2.
2. Gehenna is never employed in the Old Testament to mean anything else than the place with which every Jew was familiar.
3. The word should have been left untranslated as it is in some versions, and it would not be misunderstood. It was not misunderstood by the Jews to whom Jesus addressed it. Walter Balfour well says: 'What meaning would the Jews, who were familiar with this word, and knew it to signify the valley of Hinnom, be likely to attach to it when they heard it used by our Lord? Would they contrary to all former usage, transfer its meaning from a place with whose locality and history they had been familiar from their infancy, to a place of misery in another world? By what rule of interpretation, then, can we arrive at the conclusion that this word means a place of misery after death?
4. The French Bible, the Emphatic Diaglott, Improved Version, Wakefield's Translation, and Newcomb's, retain the proper noun, Gehenna, the name of a place as well-known as Babylon. (Many other Bibles since this was written, have also removed "Hell" and put "Gehenna" back.
5. Gehenna is never mentioned in the Apocrypha as a place of future punishment, as it would have been, had such been its meaning before and at the time of Christ.
6. No Jewish writer, such as Josephus, or Philo, ever used it as the name of a place of future punishment, as they would have done had such then been its meaning.
7. No classical Greek author ever alludes to it, and therefore, it was a Jewish locality, purely.
8. The first Jewish writer who ever names it as a place of future punishment is Jonathan Ben Uzziel, who wrote, according to various authorities, from somewhere between the second to the eighth century A.D.
9. The first Christian writer who calls Hell, Gehenna, is Justin Martyr, who wrote about A.D. 150.
10. Neither Christ nor his apostles ever named it to Gentiles, but only to Jews, which proves it a locality only known to Jews, wheras, if it were a place of punishment after death for sinners, it would have been preached to Gentiles as well as to Jews.
11. It was only referred to twelve times, on eight occasions, in all the ministry of Christ and the apostles, and in the Gospels and Epistles. Were they faithful to their mission to say no more than this, on so vital a theme as an endless Hell, if they intended to teach it?
12. Only Jesus and James ever named it. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jude ever employ it. Would they not have warned sinners concerning it, if there were a Gehenna of torment after death?
13. Paul says he 'shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God,' and yet, though he was the great preacher of the Gospel to the Gentiles he never told them that Gehenna is a place of after-death punishment. Dr. Thomas Thayer significantly remarks: 'The Savior and James are the only persons in all the New Testament who use the word. John the Baptist, who preached to the most wicked of men, did not use it once. Paul, wrote 14 epistles, and yet never once mentions it. Peter does not name it, nor Jude; and John, who wrote the gospel, three epistles, and the Book of Revelation, never employs it in a single instance. (the Greek words of "lake of fire" in Revelation is not Gehenna) Now if Gehenna or Hell really reveals the terrible fact of endless woe, how can we account for this strange silence? How is it possible, if they knew its meaning, and believed it a part of Christ's teaching, that they should not have used it a hundred or a thousand times, instead of never using it at all; especially when we consider the infinite interests involved? The Book of Acts contains the record of the apostolic preaching, and the history of the first planting of the church among the Jews and Gentiles, and embraces a period of thirty years from the ascension of Christ. In all this history, in all this preaching of the apostles of Jesus, there is no mention of Gehenna. In thirty years of missionary effort, these men of God, addressing people of all characters and nations, never, under any circumstances, threaten them with the torments of Gehenna, or allude to it in the most distant manner! In the face of such a fact as this, can any man believe that Gehenna signifies endless punishment, and that this is a part of divine revelation, a part of the Gospel message to the world? These considerations show how impossible it is to establish the doctrine in review on the word Gehenna All the facts are against the supposition that the term was used by Christ or his disciples in the sense of endless punishment. There is not the least hint of any such meaning attached to it, nor the slightest preparatory notice that any such new revelation was to be looked for in this old familiar word.
14. Jesus never uttered it to unbelieving Jews, nor to anybody but his disciples, but twice (Matt. 23:15-33) during his entire ministry, nor but four times in all. If it were the final abode of unhappy millions, would not his warnings abound with exhortations to avoid it?
15. Jesus never warned unbelievers against it but once in all his ministry, ((Matt. 23:33) and he immediately explained it as about to come in this life.
16. If Gehenna is the name of Hell then men's bodies are burned there, and well as their souls. (Matt. 5:29; 18:9)
17. If it be the name of endless torment, then literal fire is the sinner's punishment. (Mark 9:43-48)
18. Gehenna is never said to be of endless duration, nor spoken of as destined to last forever, so that even admitting the popular ideas of its existence after death, it gives no support to the idea of endless torment.
19. Clement, a Universalist, (of the early church) used Gehenna to describe his ideas of punishment. He was one of the earliest of the Christian Fathers. The word did not then denote endless punishment.
20. A shameful death, or a severe punishment, in this life, was, at the time of Christ, denominated Gehenna, (Schleusner, Canon Farrar, and others), and there is no evidence that Gehenna meant anything else, at the time of Christ." (end of insert from The Bible Hell)

I already told you that it is translated in multiple ways. However, this word is used to describe God Himself. As we know that God is eternal, it would be rather stupid to deny that this word means eternal, wouldn't it? And besides, isn't it striking how often it is translated with "eternal," or a synonym of that? About three-quarters of the time, in fact!

Furthermore, I've told you what the root of the word aionos is: aei on, always existing. This was the word as used by Artistotle and Plato, and as well used by the Greeks in the time of the New Testament. It might mean something different in the Old Testament, but remember that they have been translated a few hundreds of years earlier (by the Septuagint; another reason why the KJV is better than the Greek manuscripts; the KJV is written/translated in its entirety at once; the Old and New Testaments in Greek were translated by different people in entirely different ages).

Your answers are hardly doing anything to disprove the validity of my objections, friend. I'm sorry you spend so much time on it (as you obviously didn't copy-paste it).

If "eon" means forever than explain why it is used in Gal.1:4; 1 Tim.6:17; 2 Tim.4:10; Titus 2:12 to denote the present age (and mistranslated "world" in your KJV)

Why is it used to denote this age in which we live in Matt.12:32; 13:22; Mk.4:19; Lu.16:8; 20:34; Rom.12:2; 1 Cor.1:20; 2:6, 6, 8; 3:18; 2 Cor.4:4; Eph.1:21; 6:12 (and mistranslated "world in your KJV)

Why is it used to denote the current age of this world in Eph.2:2 (and mistranslated as "the course of this world" in your KJV)

Why is it used to mean from this present age on in 1 Cor.8:13 (and mistranslated as "while the world standeth" in your KJV)

Why is it used to mean before this present age in Jude 25 (what's before forever?) (and mistranslated as "before all time" in your KJV)

Why is it used in these ways in your KJV: Lk.1:70; Acts 3:21 (since the world began); Acts 15;18 (from the beginning for the world; Out of the eonJn.9:32 (since the world began).

Why is it described as being able to conclude, as per Matt.13:39,40,49; 24:3; 28:20 (and mistranslated "end of the world" in your KJV)

Why is there said to be another one coming (since when is there multiple eternities?) in Mk.10:30; Lk.18:30; Heb.6:5; Lk.20:35 (and mistranslated as "world" in your KJV)

For the day of the eon--2 Pet.3:18 (mistranslated as "for ever"). Compare Deut.32:7; Mic.5:2; 7:14; Mal.3:4.

Why is eternity described as being plural in these verses. Can eternity be plural?

1. God made the eons--Heb.1:2; equipped the eons Heb.11:3 (worlds).
2. Purpose of the eons--Eph.3:11; King of the eons1 Tim.1:17 (eternal).
3. Before the eons--1 Cor.2:7 (before the world); From the eonsEph.3:9 (from the beginning of the world); Col.-1:26 (from ages).
4. For the eons--Matt.6;13; Lk.1:33; Rom.1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Heb.13:8 (for ever); 2 Cor.11:32 (for evermore); _for all the eons_ Jude 25 (ever). "all" omitted in some MSS.
5. The on-coming eons--Eph.2:7 (ages to come).
6. Conclusion of the eons--Heb.9:26 (end of the world). R.V. "end of the ages."
7. Ends of the eons--1 Cor.10:11 (ends of the world). R.V. "ends of the ages."

Can you explain these passages?


1. The eons of the eons--Gal.1:5; Phil.4:20; 1 Tim.1:17; 2 Tim.4:18; Heb.13:21; 1 Pet.4:11; 5:11; Rev.1:6; 4:9,10; 5:13,14; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5 (for ever and ever); Rev.1:18 (for evermore). A comparison of Rev.11:14,15 with 1 Cor.15:27,28 makes it clear that the expression "the eons of the eons" does not mean an endless succession of eons. Christ reigns for "the eons of the eons," after which He delivers up the kingdom to the Father and Himself becomes subject, that God may be All in all.
2. The eon of the eons--for all the generations of, Eph.3:21 (throughout all ages, world without end). In the Authorized Version, the Greek word for "generations" is wrongly translated "ages" in this passage. The eon of the eons is the last and greatest eon of them all, which consummates in the realization of God's purpose in the salvation of all.
3. The eon of the eon--Heb.1:8 (for ever and ever). This is a reference to the last eon which issues out of the one which preceeds it.

How about these ones?

1. Before eonian times--2 Tim.1:9; Titus 1:2 (before the world began).
2. In eonian times--Rom.16:25 (since the world began).

Yes, in other parts, they used other words. So what? That doesn't do anything to disprove that aionos meant "eternal."



Yes, of course. That is plainly what the Bible teaches.

Again, my friend, if you do not take this, or anything else in the Bible for that matter, literally, then how do you decide which parts to take literally, and which parts metaphorically? If this isn't to be taken literally, does that mean that Genesis is neither? And what about "love thy neighbour?" Or "Jesus died for our sins?" Is Jesus metaphorical as well? If he is, what is the use of surrendering your life to Him, or even love Him at all, when He's just an idea? If he is not, why would Revelation be? Why would the gospels be literally true, but Revelation not? And why call yourself a Christian, when you can just choose what to believe and then select only those verses that agree with that?

You're making no sense at all, friend. So, instead of copy-pasting some answer that vaguely resembles my question from your site, you might do better actually reading and considering what I'm saying here.

Consider John actually says that his visions have symbolic meanings and implores the reader to figure out what they mean, I think we can safely assume Revelation not to be a literal text.

I think I have said enough on this subject.

I'm sure you do think that.

I'm not going to read that, friend. I do not believe you have to answer my questions using the equivalent of four pages of text, they weren't that complex. I will answer you when you are more concise.

Finally, two Scripture verses, specially selected for you. Please take a moment to consider them:

Don't come up with some uppity long-winded answer this time, that is more or less the point. Just consider them.

Can I quote my own verses to you?

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:22
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 10:21
The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.

The Bible is a pretty long book, by the way.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

I'm sorry, I thought you were looking for an intelligent conversation. I'll try to dumb it down to your level.

[True Disciple]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

I'm sorry, I thought you were looking for an intelligent conversation. I'll try to dumb it down to your level.

My dear friend, copy-pasting huge mounts of text without even adressing the question can hardly be considered a sign of intelligence. Intelligent people do not need to answer simple questions with long, elaborate answers.
And I haven't asked you anything complex; I have just said, "look, here are six Scripture verses that prove you wrong." If you disagree with me, than please directly adress my objections.
I have pointed out multiple times that you didn't, and quite often you posted long sheets of text, and left me to search these for information that bears any relevance to the point of discussion (this is mostly less than 1%). A few times you posted an answer that didn't even touch the subject.

So, from now on, I will ignore long sheets of text. Just get to the point, and we can discuss it more in-depth later on. Let's move on now.

King James was Anglican, he was not even a Christian by your standards. Do you think the original Greek is not divinely inspired?

It might very well be. But let me make it clear again: the KJV is the only acceptable Bible here at Landover, and the only one that we all consider divinely inspired. Therefore we use that one.
However, the subject was not the KJV, it was your interpretation of the Greek source texts. Let's get on with that, shall we?

---long text about Gehenna---

I admire the effort you put in this, but as I remarked in my first post, the whole Gehenna thing is just a matter of naming. It bears no relevance to the real issue: eternal punishment. I don't think it will be of any consolation to you, when you arrive in a dreadful place to be tortured forever, that Satan then says to you: "cheer up, mate, this is not Hell, it's Gehenna!"
To summarize, I never said that Gehenna should be translated as a place of eternal punishment. However, in the Scripture verses I quoted, the element of eternal punishment was named apart from the word "Hell."

So, let's move on to aionion:

If "eon" means forever than explain why it is used in Gal.1:4; 1 Tim.6:17; 2 Tim.4:10; Titus 2:12 to denote the present age (and mistranslated "world" in your KJV)

Are you deliberately misrepresenting my words? When did I ever say that "eon" means forever? I didn't. It is the word aionion what I'm talking about. It has the root "aion," which is a period of time. However, it is rather strange to assume that all words using this root would apply to a specific period of time.
To make a comparison: in Dutch, the word for "eternal" is "eeuwig." This comes from the stem "eeuw," which means "century." Yet, if a Dutch person says "eeuwig," he really means eternal, not a specific period of time, even though the stem designates a restricted period of time.

So, let's have a look at "aionion." For readability's sake, I will shorten your responses, but I hope you get what I'm referring to in each instance.

---examples where aionion doesn't mean "eternal"---

I already said in my last post that I'm well aware that aionion does not always mean "eternal." I believe that you have quoted almost all cases where it doesn't. Now I will quote some cases where it definitely does mean "eternal," and then we will move on to "aionas ton aionon."

John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal (aionion) life.
John 20:28, "and I give eternal (aionion) life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."
Rom. 16:26, " but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal (aionion) God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith."
1 Tim. 6:16, "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal (aionion) dominion! Amen.

We can see in the above Scripture verses that aionion is used for eternal life of the believer, the eternity of God, and the eternal dominion of God. The assumption that I make now is that you agree with these three dogmas, as they are rather fundamental to Christian faith, I presume you do. If you do not, then please tell me so.

Now another three cases of aionion:

Matt. 18:8, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal (aionion) fire.
2 Thess. 1:9, "And these will pay the penalty of eternal (aionion) destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"
Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal (aionion) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (aionion) life."

These are the same words. Your interpretation, of course, is that they are meant to designate a "limited period of time," like in the examples you gave me. However, there are several problems with your explanation:
1. Most important: in each and every one of your examples aionion is a noun. However, in above cases, both when applied to eternal punishment and eternal life, it is an adjective. This, of course, already favors the hypothesis that it means "eternal" instead of "age."
2. Secondly, a very strong hint might be that in Matthew 25:46, the same word is used both for eternal life and eternal punishment. It would seem very unlikely to me that the writer would have included these two words in a single sentence, if he meant it to mean two different things in that sentence.

Now to the subject of forever and ever (aionas ton aionon). This is used is the following Scripture, for example:

"The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen," (2 Tim. 4:18).
"And the seventh angel sounded; and there arose loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever,'" (Rev. 11:15).
"And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever," (Rev. 15:7).
"and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades," (Rev. 1:18).

The bold parts of the Scriptures translate from the Greek aionas ton aionon (into the age of the ages). It seems rather obvious that it really means eternal in these instances. In fact there are only two cases where this phrase is not used to describe God or God's reign. These are the following:

"And the devil who deceived 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," (Rev. 20:10).
"And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever," (Rev. 19:3).

Now let's face it: if there are eighteen cases where this phrase is used, and in sixteen of these cases it means eternal, why should these last two be any different? I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't make any sense!

So, to finally conclude, I think that we might say that aionion and aionas ton aionon really do mean eternal when applied to the Scripture I quoted.

Consider John actually says that his visions have symbolic meanings and implores the reader to figure out what they mean, I think we can safely assume Revelation not to be a literal text.

1. Even if this were true, it would be a rather far-fetched idea that eternal punishment would suddenly mean something non-eternal because it is a "metaphor." The "eternal" part is in there for a reason, I believe.
2. See my earlier comments about why it is useless to call yourself a Christian and claim the Bible as an authority with certain, subjectively chosen parts interpreted as "metaphorical."

Can I quote my own verses to you?

Yes, of course!

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:22
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 10:21
The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.

Posting this, I think I have been rather clear that I do not fear wisdom.

The Bible is a pretty long book, by the way.

Yes, I know it is. That's why I, unlike you, do not tell you "you're wrong, take a Bible and try to find by yourself why you are wrong," (while you are doing this to me with your huge amounts of text), but I directly quote Scripture. That's because I think it might be clearer that way for you. Again, long-winded arguments aren't in any way preferable over short and concise ones.

Finally, I'm saying all of this because:
1. You are, clearly and simply, dead wrong about Hell not being eternal.
2. I think you're deceiving people into your unbiblical version of Christianity, where you leave out the parts you don't like, and only read the parts you do like. It's your own choice, but you can't possibly call yourself a follower of Jesus and the Bible without being a hypocrite.
3. I think you're going to Hell, and I want you to attain Salvation™.

YIC

True Disciple

[MarkHenry]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

If you try to make people loose their ideas by presenting walls of text... you made it.

If you can't sum up an idea in 5 lines, its propably not developed enough or just random blabbaring.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

Basically, Serenity is trying to refer back to ancient texts to say there is no Hell and even if there were, the torture therein is not eternal.

True Disciple has dismissed SM's argument and left him no wriggle room.

SM also fails to realise that KJV1611 is the final Word of God and inerrant - if it says Hell, it means Hell, not Gehenna.

Please feel free to negatively rep Serenity-Millennium

[Serenity-Millennium]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

My dear friend, copy-pasting huge mounts of text without even adressing the question can hardly be considered a sign of intelligence. Intelligent people do not need to answer simple questions with long, elaborate answers.
And I haven't asked you anything complex; I have just said, "look, here are six Scripture verses that prove you wrong." If you disagree with me, than please directly adress my objections.
I have pointed out multiple times that you didn't, and quite often you posted long sheets of text, and left me to search these for information that bears any relevance to the point of discussion (this is mostly less than 1%). A few times you posted an answer that didn't even touch the subject.

So, from now on, I will ignore long sheets of text. Just get to the point, and we can discuss it more in-depth later on. Let's move on now.

It's not my fault you're lazy. God still loves you though, don't worry.

It might very well be. But let me make it clear again: the KJV is the only acceptable Bible here at Landover, and the only one that we all consider divinely inspired. Therefore we use that one.
However, the subject was not the KJV, it was your interpretation of the Greek source texts. Let's get on with that, shall we?

Why is the KJV divinely inspired?

I admire the effort you put in this, but as I remarked in my first post, the whole Gehenna thing is just a matter of naming. It bears no relevance to the real issue: eternal punishment. I don't think it will be of any consolation to you, when you arrive in a dreadful place to be tortured forever, that Satan then says to you: "cheer up, mate, this is not Hell, it's Gehenna!"
To summarize, I never said that Gehenna should be translated as a place of eternal punishment. However, in the Scripture verses I quoted, the element of eternal punishment was named apart from the word "Hell."

So, let's move on to aionion:

If you bothered to read, you would see why Gehenna cannot be eternal.

One of the most important of these is what I called my “palmary argument,” – that our word “hell” is used in the Gospel as the rendering for Gehenna; that “hell” cannot necessarily mean, and ought not to be made to mean, more than Gehenna meant; that in the days of our Lord Gehenna did not normally imply an endless doom; and that therefore “hell” ought not – so far at any rate as the New Testament is concerned – to be understood of necessity to convey that meaning.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting my words? When did I ever say that "eon" means forever? I didn't. It is the word aionion what I'm talking about. It has the root "aion," which is a period of time. However, it is rather strange to assume that all words using this root would apply to a specific period of time.
To make a comparison: in Dutch, the word for "eternal" is "eeuwig." This comes from the stem "eeuw," which means "century." Yet, if a Dutch person says "eeuwig," he really means eternal, not a specific period of time, even though the stem designates a restricted period of time.

So, let's have a look at "aionion." For readability's sake, I will shorten your responses, but I hope you get what I'm referring to in each instance.

You said: "The word "aionian," which translates to everlasting, comes from the two word combination aei on, which means always existing. Sounds like everlasting to me. It is also used for the coming Kingdom Of Christ, and is consistently used throughout the New Testament to describe things which are eternal. God is also described as eternal using this word, by the way."

Sounds like you're changing your story as you go along...

John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal (aionion) life.
John 20:28, "and I give eternal (aionion) life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."
Rom. 16:26, " but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal (aionion) God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith."

I rely on "the Living God, Who is the Savior of all mankind" (1 Tim 4:10), and He is both eternal and eonian. God is eternal by virtue of the definition of the term God, and according to the entire teaching of Scripture. God is also eonian by virtue of His relationship to the eons, as their Creator (Heb. 1:2: "made the eons"), which is what eonian means in the only place where that term is used to describe God in Scripture (Romans 16:26).

1 Tim. 6:16, "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal (aionion) dominion! Amen.

FACT: Some would argue that if aionian and related words do not mean eternal, then God cannot be eternal, for these words also describe Him. To this we say, that just because God is described as the God of the eons, does not mean that He is not the God who also transcends the eons. In the same way, just because He is called the God of Israel, does not also mean that He is not the God of all the other nations. Also, there are other Greek words used to refer to the unending power and life of God. They are, aptharsia/apthartos, which means imperishableness and immortality; amarantinos/amarantos which mean unfading, without loss of pristine character; and akatalytos, which means indestructable and unstoppable. They are usually translated as immortal, or incorruptible. Please refer to the following verses for reference: Hebrews 7:15-16, 1 Peter 1:3-4, 1 Peter 5:4, 1 Timothy 1:17, Romans 1:23, 1 Corinthians 9:25, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, Romans 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:42, 2 Timothy 1:10, and 1 Timothy 6:16.

Matt. 18:8, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal (aionion) fire.
2 Thess. 1:9, "And these will pay the penalty of eternal (aionion) destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"
Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal (aionion) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (aionion) life."

Here, finally, we have something which really has the potential to cut against universalism. (Matthew 25:46 is weakened by the fact that it's part of a parable. In fact, many who cite this parable as a good source as to the duration of punishment don't take seriously its teaching as to the grounds of the distinction between those who are rewarded and those who are punished. It's quite clearly said that those who are rewarded are rewarded for their good actions and those who are punished are punished for a lack of such good actions (see verses 34-36 and 41-43, paying careful attention to the word "for" or "because" (depending on your translation) in each). But most who cite this parable as a good source on the duration of the punishment don't accept salvation by works -- perhaps because it's taught in a parable, all the details of which needn't be taken to reflect the actual world? At any rate, if you are inclined nevertheless to give this feature of the parable great weight as an indication of the duration of actual punishment, the below discussion of the meaning of "eternal" will apply to this Matthew passage as well.)

"The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen," (2 Tim. 4:18).
"And the seventh angel sounded; and there arose loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever,'" (Rev. 11:15).

The renown Bible teacher and translator of a New Testament, Dr. William Barclay points out in his The Letters to the Corinthians that if the Greek words eis tous aionas ton aionon means endless time, as translated in the KJV, "forever and ever," we have a contradiction in Scripture, for Revelation 11:15 says, in the same version (KJV): "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever." That contradicts 1 Cor. 15:25, which says: "He must reign till ..." If Revelation 11:15 is translated "eons of the eons" or "ages of the ages," there is no contradiction.

"And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever," (Rev. 15:7).
"and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades," (Rev. 1:18).

Jesus "abolished death" (2 Timothy 1:10). "He has put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26). His power "enables him to subject all things to himself'" (Philippians 3:21). "The gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does" (1 Peter 4:6). He has "the keys of Death and Hades" (Revelation 1:18). He will throw "Death and Hades into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:14).

"And the devil who deceived 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," (Rev. 20:10).
"And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever," (Rev. 19:3).

Singular/plural (aionos ton aionon): Ephesians 3:21
Singular/singular (aiona tou aionos): Hebrews 1:8
Plural/plural (aionas ton aionon): Revelation 20:10, 1 Peter 4:11
The word "aion" in ALL its forms refers to "ages" which have ends AND beginnings. There are at least 5 ages mentioned in the Greek New Testament. There is only ONE eternity, not multiples.

1. Even if this were true, it would be a rather far-fetched idea that eternal punishment would suddenly mean something non-eternal because it is a "metaphor." The "eternal" part is in there for a reason, I believe.
2. See my earlier comments about why it is useless to call yourself a Christian and claim the Bible as an authority with certain, subjectively chosen parts interpreted as "metaphorical."

So do you believe that even the parts actually CALLED symbolic in the Bible itself should be taken literally? Why does John tell us to discern his meaning if he is being completely literal? Why does John within the book reveal certain of his subjects to be allegories which he later explains (though not all of them).

Finally, I'm saying all of this because:
1. You are, clearly and simply, dead wrong about Hell not being eternal.
2. I think you're deceiving people into your unbiblical version of Christianity, where you leave out the parts you don't like, and only read the parts you do like. It's your own choice, but you can't possibly call yourself a follower of Jesus and the Bible without being a hypocrite.
3. I think you're going to Hell, and I want you to attain Salvation™.

The first thought that astonishes the mind when the Scriptures are consulted on this great question, by one who has taken for granted that they teach endless torture, for any part of the human family, is
THE SILENCE OF GOD.
The Almighty Father of the human family would not fail, at the very beginning of human history, to announce to his children the penalty of sin. To conceal such a doom as that of endless torment from any would be cruel treachery towards those whom he had created, and who would have the right to know all the consequences of disobedience. And yet only limited consequences - temporal punishments - were threatened at the announcement of the law to Adam, or when the penalty of their Sin was referred to, in the history of the earliest transgressors. If endless punishment were true, it would be stated as the threatened penalty of the original sin.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

It's not my fault you're lazy. God still loves you though, don't worry.

[True Disciple]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

It's not my fault you're lazy. God still loves you though, don't worry.

I'm not going to explain this any more if you don't listen anyway. Again, your counter arguments can be presented in several lines of text, yet you post several pages, and expect me to sift through it to find the relevant parts. That's not only laziness on your part for not taking the time to summarize the articles you copy-paste, but it's also rather inconsiderate and anti-social towards the one you're having a discussion with. And you condemn our behaviour? You might want to take a look in the mirror first!

If you bothered to read, you would see why Gehenna cannot be eternal.

...that “hell” cannot necessarily mean, and ought not to be made to mean, more than Gehenna meant; that in the days of our Lord Gehenna did not normally imply an endless doom...

I have read every single one of your twenty arguments for Gehenna.
I responded that it does not matter, because we are not talking about whether Gehenna is Hell, but whether aionion means eternal.
Because, whatever the Biblical writers meant when they wrote "Gehenna," the thing they immediately wrote after Gehenna was "eternal punishment," using the word aionion. It doesn't matter that Gehenna wasn't seen in those time as a place of eternal punishment. What matters is that the Biblical writers said that people would suffer an eternity of pain at this place. What part of that do you not understand?

You said: "The word "aionian," which translates to everlasting, comes from the two word combination aei on, which means always existing.

Sounds like you're changing your story as you go along...

No, I'm not. Are you stupid, are you stubborn, or are you too childish to admit your errors?

With aei on, I gave the most accepted theory regarding the origin of the word aion (not aionian. If I said something different before, I'm sorry, I was wrong about that). Then, I accepted that aionian could mean "age" or "world," so it doesn't really matter at all, in fact.

God is also eonian by virtue of His relationship to the eons, as their Creator (Heb. 1:2: "made the eons"), which is what eonian means in the only place where that term is used to describe God in Scripture (Romans 16:26).

NO, aionian doesn't mean that. Why not? Because there is no other place in the bible where aionian means that when used as an adjective. It is applied to eternal life and eternal dominion as well, of which the eternity is not denied by Universalists, as far as I know (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this)

I see, by the way, that you failed to answer maybe my main objection to your use of aionian: that it was used as a noun in all your examples, and as an adjective when applied to punishment and eternal life. Why haven't you adressed this point, when it so effectively disproves everything you've been saying?
To compare with Dutch again: the Dutch noun for "century" also means "eternal" when applied as an adjective.

FACT: Some would argue that if aionian and related words do not mean eternal, then God cannot be eternal, for these words also describe Him. To this we say, that just because God is described as the God of the eons, does not mean that He is not the God who also transcends the eons.

"God of the eons" makes only sense when you interpret it as "God who made/rules the eons." However, how would this adjective apply to life and punishment? To recap: never in the Bible means aionian something else than eternal when applied as an adjective.

---Matthew 25:46 being a parable---

It might of course well be, that you are right that, if something like this is used in a parable, we should not use this passage to claim that there would be eternal punishment. However:
1. The parable more or less stopped here, as he directly speaks about the people lining up for the judgment in this passage after the Son of Man comes into glory, so it is very shaky to dismiss it on this ground, as the son of man coming into glory is not generally regarded as a parable.
2. Even if this weren't true, this does not disprove in any way that aionian would not mean eternal, as in the "storyline" of this part, it makes quite a lot of sense that He talks about eternal life, like Jesus often did. So, even if this passage wouldn't directly teach that people fry forever in Hell, it validates the interpretation of aionion as "eternal" in other passages.

And, of course, the problem still remains that the adjective aionion is always used as meaning eternal, and never as "of the ages" or something.

---1 Corinthians 15:25---

this passage speaks of Jesus conquering his enemies, and then surrendering his kingdom to God. However, Jesus is God, so it doesn't present a contradiction at all. As you can read here, the phrase aionas ton aionon is used quite often in Revelation, and also applies to Jesus living for ever and ever, so why not reigning? Or don't you believe that Jesus lives eternally?

And anyway, even if there was a contradiction, this does not justify the arbitrary redefining of words in the Bible.

Singular/plural (aionos ton aionon): Ephesians 3:21
Singular/singular (aiona tou aionos): Hebrews 1:8
Plural/plural (aionas ton aionon): Revelation 20:10, 1 Peter 4:11
The word "aion" in ALL its forms refers to "ages" which have ends AND beginnings. There are at least 5 ages mentioned in the Greek New Testament. There is only ONE eternity, not multiples.

In each and every case you mention except Revelation, the context directly implies that it means eternal, as it applies to God's throne and dominion "for ever and ever." My friend, you aren't going to get anywhere this way, unless you imply that God Himself would be temporal.

So do you believe that even the parts actually CALLED symbolic in the Bible itself should be taken literally? Why does John tell us to discern his meaning if he is being completely literal? Why does John within the book reveal certain of his subjects to be allegories which he later explains (though not all of them).

Can you please give me the actual passages where John says so? It will make this discussion a lot easier if I know what exactly you're talking about.

---about THE SILENCE OF GOD---

It may be reasonable what you say, but it hardly matters. Can we comprehend why God revealed to us what He did? Of course not. But the point remains that there are several Scripture verses that teach eternal punishment, and your objections against that have failed because:

1. You use the word aionion incorrectly, by stating that it designates a certain period of time, while in many places where it is used as an adjective, it clearly means eternal, so it would be rather pointless to assume that it accidentally meant something entirely different (in fact, a "certain period of time" can be considered more or less opposite to eternal) in the case where it is applied to darkness and punishment. Especially when this word is used both for eternal life and eternal punishment in the same sentence. If Jesus meant that one of them was temporal, He would have used another word.
2. There is no evidence whatsoever, not any piece of context, which would possibly imply that aionas ton aionon would mean anything different than "for ever and ever."
3. Even if both preceding points weren't true, this would only mean that the reign of God, the afterlife and God Himself wouldn't be eternal. These are fairly basic dogma's, and I don't suppose you disagree with those.

So, to conclude, you have completely failed to answer any of my objections against your theories, as it is clear that your denial of Biblical eternal punishment is based on wishful thinking, and has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

You are, simply and plainly, still dead wrong.

People are heading for an eternity in Hell, and you are just in denial, and keep saying a lot of intellectual sounding things without adressing my main objections. Please stop behaving as a spoiled child, and start listening seriously! I'm saddened when I think of all the people who are lured into a false sense of security by your false church!

You'll be in the prayers of every True Christian™ who reads this thread, including mine.

YIC

True Disciple

[Free Market Fred]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

About getting "high" on Christianity...

Our technology research people have found that continuous doses of "mood-elevating drugs" like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa, etc, combined with heavy doses of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, are great for mind control. The drugs make even rational thinkers into highly suggestive subjects, which is perfect for converting them to Christianity and getting them to join a right-wing militia. In the past, you needed to get a lobotomy to believe Rush Limbaugh, but no longer!

True, the meds cause some people to spin out of control, which is why we have the occasional school massacre like at Columbine and Virginia State, but fortunately those people tend to commit suicide so they're only a short-term nuisance. Best of all, these drugs are HIGHLY PROFITABLE, and once people start taking them, it's very difficult to stop.

Of course, you can get high on Jesus without drugs. But it's nice to know that modern pharmaceuticals can give the Lord a helping hand. Technology has advanced a lot since the days of Mother's Little Helper.



Praise Jesus!
Brother Fred

[Serenity-Millennium]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

I'm not going to explain this any more if you don't listen anyway. Again, your counter arguments can be presented in several lines of text, yet you post several pages, and expect me to sift through it to find the relevant parts. That's not only laziness on your part for not taking the time to summarize the articles you copy-paste, but it's also rather inconsiderate and anti-social towards the one you're having a discussion with. And you condemn our behaviour? You might want to take a look in the mirror first!

Sure, whatever you say.

I have read every single one of your twenty arguments for Gehenna.
I responded that it does not matter, because we are not talking about whether Gehenna is Hell, but whether aionion means eternal.
Because, whatever the Biblical writers meant when they wrote "Gehenna," the thing they immediately wrote after Gehenna was "eternal punishment," using the word aionion. It doesn't matter that Gehenna wasn't seen in those time as a place of eternal punishment. What matters is that the Biblical writers said that people would suffer an eternity of pain at this place. What part of that do you not understand?

Calm down, friend. No need for the hostility. You seem angrier than your image of God.

If I said something different before, I'm sorry, I was wrong about that).

Apology accepted.

NO, aionian doesn't mean that. Why not? Because there is no other place in the bible where aionian means that when used as an adjective. It is applied to eternal life and eternal dominion as well, of which the eternity is not denied by Universalists, as far as I know (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this)

I see, by the way, that you failed to answer maybe my main objection to your use of aionian: that it was used as a noun in all your examples, and as an adjective when applied to punishment and eternal life. Why haven't you adressed this point, when it so effectively disproves everything you've been saying?
To compare with Dutch again: the Dutch noun for "century" also means "eternal" when applied as an adjective.

Scarlett: "That aiónion, does not mean endless or eternal, may appear from considering that no adjective can have a greater force than the noun from which it is derived. If aión means age (which none either will or can deny) then aiónionmust mean age-lasting, or duration through the age or ages to which the thing spoken or relates."

"God of the eons" makes only sense when you interpret it as "God who made/rules the eons." However, how would this adjective apply to life and punishment? To recap: never in the Bible means aionian something else than eternal when applied as an adjective.

In all the above authors extending more than six hundred years, the word is never found. Of course it must mean the same as the noun that is its source. It having clearly appeared that the noun is uniformly used to denote limited duration, and never to signify eternity, it is equally apparent that the adjective must mean the same. The noun sweetness gives its flavor to its adjective, sweet. The adjective long means precisely the same as the noun length. When sweet stands for acidity, and long represents brevity, aiónios can properly mean eternal, derived from aión, which represents limited duration. To say that Plato, the inventor of the word, has used the adjective to mean eternal, when neither he nor any of his predecessors ever used the noun to denote eternity, would be to charge one of the wisest of men with etymological stupidity. Has he been guilty of such folly? How does he use the word?

It might of course well be, that you are right that, if something like this is used in a parable, we should not use this passage to claim that there would be eternal punishment. However:
1. The parable more or less stopped here, as he directly speaks about the people lining up for the judgment in this passage after the Son of Man comes into glory, so it is very shaky to dismiss it on this ground, as the son of man coming into glory is not generally regarded as a parable.
2. Even if this weren't true, this does not disprove in any way that aionian would not mean eternal, as in the "storyline" of this part, it makes quite a lot of sense that He talks about eternal life, like Jesus often did. So, even if this passage wouldn't directly teach that people fry forever in Hell, it validates the interpretation of aionion as "eternal" in other passages.

And, of course, the problem still remains that the adjective aionion is always used as meaning eternal, and never as "of the ages" or something.

Thus the adjective aionios, a derivative of aion, carries within itself its own solution; for aionios is simply what belongs or relates to the aions - the ages - hence it cannot carry a force or express a duration greater than that of the ages of which it speaks. If therefore these ages are limited periods, some of which are already past, while others are yet to come, the word aionios cannot mean infinity!

this passage speaks of Jesus conquering his enemies, and then surrendering his kingdom to God. However, Jesus is God, so it doesn't present a contradiction at all. As you can read here, the phrase aionas ton aionon is used quite often in Revelation, and also applies to Jesus living for ever and ever, so why not reigning? Or don't you believe that Jesus lives eternally?

And anyway, even if there was a contradiction, this does not justify the arbitrary redefining of words in the Bible.

Well, since I think we both agree the Bible doesn't have contradictions, I'd hope you think a logical solution to a discrepancy in your interpretation would be a good thing.

But anyway,
Luke 1:50 says, kai to eleos autou eis geneas kai geneas tois phoboumenois auton, "and His mercy is for generations and generations, for those who are fearing Him." In the phrase, "for generations and generations," there is an example of two plural nouns being used with the conjunction kai, "and;" but in the expression aionas ton aionon, there is no conjunction. The word ton, "of the," is the genitive plural article, and should not be translated "and," as is done in the KJV's "forever and ever." The LXX, at Psa. 90:1, states, en genea kai genea, "in generation and generation." Another example of the use of the conjunction kai, "and," between the two words for "generation" in the singular. At Heb. 1:8 the noun aion, "eon," is used twice in the singular form, but with no "and" between. At Ex. 15:18, kurios basileuon ton aiona kai ep aiona kai eti, "the Lord is reigning the eon and upon eon and longer." Eon, as used here, cannot refer to time without end, for there could be nothing beyond, or longer than, endless time. Here the Latin Vulgate says, Dominus regnabit in aeturnum et ultra, "The Lord will reign unto [or into] eternity and beyond." The Latin word in, when used with an accusative aeturnum, has the meaning of placing His reign in eternity, but the ultra, "beyond," shows it did not stop when it was placed there, but continued beyond the time of the placing. The English words, "forever and ever," unfortunately, do not convey the same meaning.



BTW, I wouldn't trust that CARM website. It's a bit shady: http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/CARM.htm

In each and every case you mention except Revelation, the context directly implies that it means eternal, as it applies to God's throne and dominion "for ever and ever." My friend, you aren't going to get anywhere this way, unless you imply that God Himself would be temporal.

Bible Verses in Question The text of the King James Version The text of the Greek Manuscripts Eph 3:21 Jesus throughout all (ages), Jesus to all the generationsHeb 1:8 is for (ever) and (ever) AIONA of the AIONOS or age of the agesRev 20:10 night for (ever) and (ever) AIONAS of the AIONON or ages of the ages1Pe 4:11 for (ever) and (ever) AIONAS of the AIONON or ages of the ages

Can you please give me the actual passages where John says so? It will make this discussion a lot easier if I know what exactly you're talking about.

Well, some examples of John pointing out his visions are symbolic:

John 1: 19Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
20The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

John 17:1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.



15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

It is always important to notice carefully the words "like" and "as" (6: 1; 9: 7), for these words show a comparison, not an identification.

It may be reasonable what you say, but it hardly matters. Can we comprehend why God revealed to us what He did? Of course not. But the point remains that there are several Scripture verses that teach eternal punishment, and your objections against that have failed because:

1. You use the word aionion incorrectly, by stating that it designates a certain period of time, while in many places where it is used as an adjective, it clearly means eternal, so it would be rather pointless to assume that it accidentally meant something entirely different (in fact, a "certain period of time" can be considered more or less opposite to eternal) in the case where it is applied to darkness and punishment. Especially when this word is used both for eternal life and eternal punishment in the same sentence. If Jesus meant that one of them was temporal, He would have used another word.
2. There is no evidence whatsoever, not any piece of context, which would possibly imply that aionas ton aionon would mean anything different than "for ever and ever."
3. Even if both preceding points weren't true, this would only mean that the reign of God, the afterlife and God Himself wouldn't be eternal. These are fairly basic dogma's, and I don't suppose you disagree with those.

So, to conclude, you have completely failed to answer any of my objections against your theories, as it is clear that your denial of Biblical eternal punishment is based on wishful thinking, and has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

You are, simply and plainly, still dead wrong.

People are heading for an eternity in Hell, and you are just in denial, and keep saying a lot of intellectual sounding things without adressing my main objections. Please stop behaving as a spoiled child, and start listening seriously! I'm saddened when I think of all the people who are lured into a false sense of security by your false church!

You'll be in the prayers of every True Christian™ who reads this thread, including mine.

YIC

True Disciple

ADAM'S PUNISHMENT.
But Adam was neither before nor afterward told that he had incurred or should receive endless woe.
Here is the law, and its penalty:
And the Lord God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. Gen. 2: 15-17.
Adam died as the penalty of his sin. How? This threatened death is not (1.) of the body, for physical dissolution was the natural result of physical organization, and the death threatened was

to be "In the day he sinned." His body did not die in that day. (2.) It was not eternal death for the same reason. He certainly went to noendless hell "in the day" of his transgression. It was (3.) a moral, spiritual death from which recovery is feasible. Paul describes it:
Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts. Eph. 4: 18. You has he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins. Eph. 2: 1.
Jesus describes it in the parable of the Prodigal son:
It was meet that we should make merry and be glad; for this, your brother, was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.Luke 15: 32. See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live. Deut. 30: 15-19.
Adam died this kind of death and no other "in the day" he sinned. The death God threatened was in this life. The devil denied this penalty. If it was any different from that threatened, then the devil told the truth. This penalty is described in the language used toward Adam after he had sinned:
And unto Adam he said, Because you have harkened unto the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, you shall not eat of it; cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to you; and you shall eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of your face shall you eat bread, till you return unto the ground; for out of it were you

taken; for dust you are, and unto dust shall you return. Gen. 3: 17-19.
Would all these consequences be so fully described, and the one of surpassing importance be concealed? Would God perpetrate a "snap judgment" on his poor deluded creatures? Impossible. Our first parents died in trespasses and sins, as did the prodigal, "in the day" they sinned. The whole penalty to which Adam or any other should ever be liable was fully described, but not a word of endless punishment is there.


--



THE FINAL CONSUMMATION.
The apostle describes the "far-off divine event to which the whole creation moves," thus:
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them

in their hearts: and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Heb. 8: 10-12.
And the Apocalyptic seer saw all men happy when he beheld the final consummation:
Every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sits on the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever. Rev. 5: 13. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. Rev. 21: 2-4.

[True Disciple]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

My dear friend, I am nothing short of amazed by your stubbornness! Again, you reply to me with nothing more than a repeat of things you said earlier about how writers outside of the Bible used aionion (while we are definitely talking about the writers of the Bible), about how aionion must mean something temporal, about the roots of aion, some Scripture that, when taken out of context, seem to deny eternal punishment, and your personal idea that there aren't enough warnings about Hell in the Bible.

Scarlett: "That aiónion, does not mean endless or eternal, may appear from considering that no adjective can have a greater force than the noun from which it is derived. If aión means age (which none either will or can deny) then aiónionmust mean age-lasting, or duration through the age or ages to which the thing spoken or relates."

The bold sentence is completely untrue. The Dutch example of "eeuw" and "eeuwig" already disproves that.

And if we want to know what the writers of the New Testament meant with aionion, the best place to look is at the context, instead fo its usage outside the Bible. As I've shown, there is no place where aionion as an adjective means anything temporal, and there are lots of places where it definitely means eternal.

---repeat of the fallacy that an adjective cannot mean more than the noun it's derived from---

Well, dear friend, let's take a look at the English word "eternal" in the Online Etymology Dictionary, shall we? And at the same time look at "eon," where we will find a pleasant surprise.

eon 1640s, from L. aeon, from Gk. aion "age, vital force, lifetime," from PIE base *aiw- "vital force, life, long life, eternity" (cf. Skt. ayu "life," Avestan ayu "age," L. aevum "space of time, eternity," Goth. aiws "age, eternity," O.N. ævi "lifetime," Ger. ewig "everlasting," O.E. a "ever, always"). eternal mid-14c. (in variant form eterne), from O.Fr. eternal, from L.L. aeternalis, from L. aeternus contraction of aeviternus "of great age," from aevum "age" (see eon). Related: Eternally.

You see? Our own word "eternal" is a derivative of the Latin word aevum, meaning age. This further proves that an adjective can be "more" than the noun it is derived from.
And, even nicer, it turns out that the English word "ever," just like the German word "ewig" and the Dutch word "eeuwig," all of which mean eternal, are closely related to aion! I didn't even know this, to be honest, before I looked this up, but it was a nice surprise. God is clearly blessing me in this conversation! Oh, Glory!

Point proven, I'd say.

Well, since I think we both agree the Bible doesn't have contradictions, I'd hope you think a logical solution to a discrepancy in your interpretation would be a good thing.

Which discrepancy are you talking about?

But anyway,
Luke 1:50 says, kai to eleos autou eis geneas kai geneas tois phoboumenois auton, "and His mercy is for generations and generations, for those who are fearing Him." In the phrase, "for generations and generations," there is an example of two plural nouns being used with the conjunction kai, "and;" but in the expression aionas ton aionon, there is no conjunction. The word ton, "of the," is the genitive plural article, and should not be translated "and," as is done in the KJV's "forever and ever." The LXX, at Psa. 90:1, states, en genea kai genea, "in generation and generation." Another example of the use of the conjunction kai, "and," between the two words for "generation" in the singular. At Heb. 1:8 the noun aion, "eon," is used twice in the singular form, but with no "and" between. At Ex. 15:18, kurios basileuon ton aiona kai ep aiona kai eti, "the Lord is reigning the eon and upon eon and longer." Eon, as used here, cannot refer to time without end, for there could be nothing beyond, or longer than, endless time. Here the Latin Vulgate says, Dominus regnabit in aeturnum et ultra, "The Lord will reign unto [or into] eternity and beyond." The Latin word in, when used with an accusative aeturnum, has the meaning of placing His reign in eternity, but the ultra, "beyond," shows it did not stop when it was placed there, but continued beyond the time of the placing. The English words, "forever and ever," unfortunately, do not convey the same meaning.

When people say "and longer" after eternal, it is just a poetic use of a pleonasm to reinforce the original meaning of a statement. It is like saying "to eternity and beyond," which doesn't mean that eternity is limited, it only used "beyond" to reinforce the meaning of eternity. A rhetorical exaggeration.

And, in any case, anywhere we find aionas ton aionon in the Bible (which is what we are talking about), if the context says anything, it says that this means eternity. I myself can easily imagine that people use something like "age of the ages" or "age upon age" as meaning eternity. But the context should be a sufficient argument all by its own.

BTW, I wouldn't trust that CARM website. It's a bit shady: http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/CARM.htm

Ad hominem fallacy. The link you give doesn't provide any kind of argument against the arguments of the CARM, only a pathetic story about how evil those CARM people are. If you need to resort to this kind of arguments, you must be really desperate!

Bible Verses in Question

The text of the King James Version The text of the Greek Manuscripts Eph 3:21 Jesus throughout all (ages), Jesus to all the generationsHeb 1:8 is for (ever) and (ever) AIONA of the AIONOS or age of the agesRev 20:10 night for (ever) and (ever) AIONAS of the AIONON or ages of the ages1Pe 4:11 for (ever) and (ever) AIONAS of the AIONON or ages of the ages

We already knew this, mr smart boy! My argument was about the context of these passages

Eph 3:21 "the glory in the church be unto Jesus Christ aionas ton aionon"
Heb 1:8: "the Throne of God be aionas ton aionon"
Rev 20:10: "They shall be tormented aionas ton aionon"
1 Peter 4:11: "Praise and dominion be onto Jesus Christ aionas ton aionon"

You see, in three of the four cases it definitely applies to something eternal, the fourth being the subject of our discussion. Why should Peter and Paul apply aionas ton aionon to things which definitely are eternal, if aionas ton aionon would mean something temporal? That just doesn't make any sense!
Don't tell me you don't understand this point?

Well, some examples of John pointing out his visions are symbolic:

John 1: 19Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
20The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

John 17:1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

Maybe it is just me, but I completely fail to see how these statements would result in something which is eternal becoming not eternal all of a sudden. I think you can't deny that Revelations speaks about "things to come." According to these quotes, the characters in Revelations might be considered metaphorical like the characters in Jesus parables, but I don't think the "men on the earth" mean anything different than "men on the earth." And this:

15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

only reinforces the idea that Revelations speaks about real people (and if it does, it means that real people are going to burn for an eternity).

---about God not warning Adam---

My friend, you already said this, and I understood you.
But you must understand, this argument more or less boils down to: "if this were true, then God would/should have done this-and-this." However, that's just your personal opinion, nothing more. Can you understand why God did what He did? Of course not!

---passages about God forgiving all people on the earth---

The first of these, Hebrews 8:10, speaks about the new covenant that God makes with his people. This doesn't say anything about "all people" however.
The second, Revelations 5:13, speaks about all creatures of the earth praising God at a given moment in history, but how this wouls imply that all creatures of the earth would be saved eludes me.
Finally, your quotation of Revelations 21:3-4 is nothing short of (willfully) ignorant, as it happens after the Beast and its minions are thrown into the Lake of Fire. This is confirmed just four verses down, at Revelations 21:8:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

As you can see, a rather elementary look at these passages falsifies the conclusions you based on them.

You have said a couple of times by now that I'm being too mean to you.
While this doesn't present any logical objection against the reasonable arguments I present (and which you still fail to answer), there is a good reason that I'm doing so. You see, compare it with this:
Say, you are sitting in a bus full of people on a mountain road. Suddenly you see that the road has been destroyed by an avalanche, and the bus is heading for a deep precipice. You shout: "watch out, watch out, we're heading for a precipice, turn around!"
Then someone says to you: "no, my friend, there isn't a precipice there, it's an optical illusion, and it's way nicer to believe that there is no precipice there."
And consequently, people start believing him, and don't turn around the bus. Would you be desperate then, to save those people? Wouldn't you scream and shout and do everything necessary to stop the bus and turn it around?

Well, that's exactly how I feel. I see that Scripture clearly teaches about eternal punishment, and I don't want people to be eternally punished, so I try to warn them. Then you come by, and tell everyone that there is no eternal punishment, despite the fact that you can't provide any Scriptural evidence for that. Well, I can't stand here doing nothing while you mislead people, and lead them away from God into Hell! That's why I can be rather firm with you sometimes.

Please, listen to reason, my friend, and warn your brothers at your false church, because I fear that there might be a lot of people heading for Hell there.

YIC

True Disciple

[Serenity-Millennium]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

The bold sentence is completely untrue. The Dutch example of "eeuw" and "eeuwig" already disproves that.

And if we want to know what the writers of the New Testament meant with aionion, the best place to look is at the context, instead fo its usage outside the Bible. As I've shown, there is no place where aionion as an adjective means anything temporal, and there are lots of places where it definitely means eternal.

We are discussing Ancient Greek, not Dutch. Do you know of any Ancient Greek words where there adjectival form of a word carries greater force than the noun?

BTW, I don't speak Dutch, but is "eeuwig" really the adjectival form of the word "eeuw", or is it simply an adjective of a similar origin? "Militant" isn't the adjective form of the word "military", you know. "Official" isn't the adjective form of "office". ""Political" isn't the adjective form of "policy".

Well, dear friend, let's take a look at the English word "eternal" in the Online Etymology Dictionary, shall we? And at the same time look at "eon," where we will find a pleasant surprise.
You see? Our own word "eternal" is a derivative of the Latin word aevum, meaning age. This further proves that an adjective can be "more" than the noun it is derived from.
And, even nicer, it turns out that the English word "ever," just like the German word "ewig" and the Dutch word "eeuwig," all of which mean eternal, are closely related to aion! I didn't even know this, to be honest, before I looked this up, but it was a nice surprise. God is clearly blessing me in this conversation! Oh, Glory!

Point proven, I'd say.

Words derived from another language often take on different meanings. Let's see what this dictionary says is the meaning of the root Greek word -

from Gk. aion "age, vital force, lifetime,"

Hmm. And for eternal, let's see the root from the Latin word, which comes from the Greek -

from L. aeternus contraction of aeviternus "of great age," from aevum "age"

Seems it originally meant something different from what it means today.

Which discrepancy are you talking about?

How long Christ's reign lasts.

When people say "and longer" after eternal, it is just a poetic use of a pleonasm to reinforce the original meaning of a statement. It is like saying "to eternity and beyond," which doesn't mean that eternity is limited, it only used "beyond" to reinforce the meaning of eternity. A rhetorical exaggeration.

And, in any case, anywhere we find aionas ton aionon in the Bible (which is what we are talking about), if the context says anything, it says that this means eternity. I myself can easily imagine that people use something like "age of the ages" or "age upon age" as meaning eternity. But the context should be a sufficient argument all by its own.

Oh, so the Bible ISN'T always literal??

Ad hominem fallacy. The link you give doesn't provide any kind of argument against the arguments of the CARM, only a pathetic story about how evil those CARM people are. If you need to resort to this kind of arguments, you must be really desperate!

The whole website is arguments against CARM...

[QUOTE]
We already knew this, mr smart boy! My argument was about the context of these passages

Eph 3:21 "the glory in the church be unto Jesus Christ aionas ton aionon"

Ephesians 3:21: eis pasas tas geneas tou aionos ton aionon, "for all the generations of the eon of the eons." KJV: "throughout all the ages, world without end." ASV margin: "unto all the generations of the age of the ages." Young's Literal Translation: "into the age of the ages." The "eon of the eons" refers to a crowning eon of another which precedes it.

Heb 1:8: "the Throne of God be aionas ton aionon"

Windet, in De Vita Functor Statu, states, "However you understand the phrase, it could not be used unless it signified something less than endlessness; for 'completion' does not accord with true endlessness." Therefore, the expression "eon of the eons" and "eon of the eon" mean the last and crowning eon in which Christ will hand everything to His Father, entirely subjected (1 Cor. 15:22-28). We know that the millennial eon will not be one of such complete subjection, for Christ will rule with a rod of iron, and at its close, after the most wonderful and beneficial rule by His sceptre, at the instigation of Satan, loosed from the pit, large numbers of those who have been blessed under Christ's gracious reign will revolt against Him (Rev. 20:7-9). While there may be many different interpretations about this "thousand year period," clearly we have time, and things not yet subjected. This revolt shows that the subjection spoken of at 1 Cor. 15:22-28; Eph. 1:9-11; Phil. 2:10-11; and Col. 1:10-20 has not been completed. It will take yet another eon, following the millennial one, with Christ reigning to end all insubordination in all His realms, before He will finally surrender to His Father all completed, so that the Father can be "all in all." The final eon is that of new heavens and the new earth wherein reigns righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13). That is the one called the "eon of the eon" (Heb. 1:8). It is also called the "eon of the eons" at Eph 3:21, because it is paramount to all preceding eons, including the millennial eon in which Christ Jesus reigns as Messiah and King. Paul writes (Eph. 2:6,7) of the blessings of the coming eons. He says: "And He rouses us together and seats us together among the celestials in Christ Jesus, that in the oncoming eons, He may be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus" (see also Eph. 3:20-21).

Rev 20:10: "They shall be tormented aionas ton aionon"

Since I have repented of laziness in study, I have discovered many things which I wasn't taught in the fundamental/evangelical churches I used to attend. I discovered the word for "punishment" in Matthew 25:46 in the Greek was a word describing pruning a tree to make it bear more fruit, not vindictive punishment. The Greek word translated "torment" in Revelation 20:10 meant "touchstone," a stone used to test the quality of gold, which represents divinity. Torture or torment inaccurately represents the original meaning. I discovered that the Bible always stated that the "wages of sin was death" not eternal torment. Jesus holds the keys to both death and Hades. To me, that is Good News!

1 Peter 4:11: "Praise and dominion be onto Jesus Christ aionas ton aionon"

EONS OF THE EONS (two eons superior to the others, the last two eons, the Kingdom eon and the one beyond)
Rom 16:27 1 Pet 4:11 Rev 4:10 Rev 14:11 Gal 1:5 1 Pet 5:11 Rev 5:13 Rev 15:7 Phil 4:20 Rev 1:6 Rev 7:12 Rev 19:3 1 Tim 1:17 Rev 1:18 Rev 10:6 Rev 20:10 2 Tim 4:18 Rev 4:9 Rev 11:15 Rev 22:5 Heb 13:21

You see, in three of the four cases it definitely applies to something eternal, the fourth being the subject of our discussion. Why should Peter and Paul apply aionas ton aionon to things which definitely are eternal, if aionas ton aionon would mean something temporal? That just doesn't make any sense!
Don't tell me you don't understand this point?

I think you are not understanding my point.

Maybe it is just me, but I completely fail to see how these statements would result in something which is eternal becoming not eternal all of a sudden. I think you can't deny that Revelations speaks about "things to come." According to these quotes, the characters in Revelations might be considered metaphorical like the characters in Jesus parables, but I don't think the "men on the earth" mean anything different than "men on the earth." And this:

only reinforces the idea that Revelations speaks about real people (and if it does, it means that real people are going to burn for an eternity).

I didn't say that, I just got off-topic because you suggested Revelation does not use symbols to represent other things. Let's get an idea of what Revelation says about the end of all things.

Revelation 20: 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

If sinners enter "eternal death", and the punishment of "hell" is forever, how is it possible Jesus destroys death and hell?

Revelation 21: 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

There will no longer be death nor pain.

Consider, Revelation tells us that there will be a first resurrection, where the Saints will be in Christ's reign for a millennium but the rest of the people shall be dead. Then there will be a second resurrection, where everyone will come back to life. These people will then be judged (not at the time of their death, but only now), and be punished, temporally, until death and hell is destroyed, and then they shall all join in Christ's new kingdom. Even Paul tells us the same:

1 Corinthians 15: 16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

Finally, your quotation of Revelations 21:3-4 is nothing short of (willfully) ignorant, as it happens after the Beast and its minions are thrown into the Lake of Fire. This is confirmed just four verses down, at Revelations 21:8:

Let's look at the term "second death". It occurs only in one book of the Bible--Revelation. And in that book it is used four times: Rev. 2:11; Rev. 20:6; Rev. 20:14; and Rev. 21:8. Rev. 2:11 and Rev. 20:6 speaks of the Church class who are overcomers and therefore will not have part in the second death--the death of the "old man" being accomplished in the first death. Rev. 20:11-15 is the throne scene at the time of the world's awakening from their sleep in death. They are judged for their works. If not found in the book of life they are cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. Who at the awakening is found in the book of life? The only ones at that time would be the church, the great company and the ancient worthies. The rest of the world lies in sin and darkness. 1 Cor. 3:11-15 states "if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved; yet so as BY FIRE." 2 Pet. 3:10-13 states that fire consumes the dross of the earth and heavens but the earth and heavens remain. In Rev. 21:8--Who is cast into the lake of fire? The list covers every sin. The whole world is covered by this verse in one way or another, even the fearful. The lake of fire and brimstone is the portion of their cup. Psa. 11:6.
What is the nature of the Lake?--fire and brimstone.
Fire:
Fire is a purifying agent--it burns up the stubble and purges the vessel from all defilement. Fire is an energizer and source of power: fire will energize the people to go the way of righteousness. Fire is a quickening element--melts the rigid heart and molds it into the form of God's holy will. Fire warms--sets the heart aglow with divine enthusiasm. Fire protects-the eastern shepherd surrounds his fold at night with a little wall of fire around his flock. Zec. 2:5—"I will be unto her a wall of fire round about."
Brimstone: Brimstone-sulfur-used in fumigation to get rid of pests and bugs. Sulfur is used in medicine for healing. (Sulfur and molasses-blood purifier) (sulfur salves and sulfur drugs) Sulfur was used in ancient times for bleaching cloth Isa. 1:18) Taken from Encyclopedia Britannica. Smith's Bible Dictionary: Fuller is one who bleaches cloth. (Isa. 7:3; 36:2; Mal. 3:2; Mark 9:3.) Fuller field OUTSIDE the city of Jerusalem; so close that one speaking in field could be heard by one standing on the wall.
Revelation is a book of symbols and should be analyzed as such.

As you can see, a rather elementary look at these passages falsifies the conclusions you based on them.

You have said a couple of times by now that I'm being too mean to you.

I never said that...

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

How does any of this make Christianity more fun?

[True Disciple]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

Dear mr. Millennium,
Nice to hear from you again!
I must say that I'm impressed by your spirit. After being so effectively destroyed on all points of debate, it would seem that one would know when to stop, and for a day or so, I thought you did.
However, you replied again, and, I'm sorry to say, your arguments are getting progressively worse. In this post, you make up new laws about adjectives, but consequently totally defeat this argument yourself. Then you go on about aionas ton aionon, where your argument comes down to: "If I would have said that, I would have meant this-and-this." Of course, you never look at context of passages, which prove your interpretations dramatically wrong.

Nouns and adjectives

BTW, I don't speak Dutch, but is "eeuwig" really the adjectival form of the word "eeuw", or is it simply an adjective of a similar origin? "Militant" isn't the adjective form of the word "military", you know. "Official" isn't the adjective form of "office". ""Political" isn't the adjective form of "policy".

Yes, it is. Similar forms include waas/wazig, room/romig, groen/groenig, nood/nodig, maat/matig and so on. In some of these cases the adjective bears roughly the same meaning as the noun, in other cases it means something different or even opposite. "Eeuw/eeuwig" is not like military/militant, it is like sick/sickly.
However, this doesn't really matter, as I was not talking about an "adjectival form," but about an adjective being a derivative of a noun, which is any adjective that has a certain noun as a stem.

We are discussing Ancient Greek, not Dutch. Do you know of any Ancient Greek words where there adjectival form of a word carries greater force than the noun?

This doesn't matter at all. This is because your argument was:

Scarlett: "That aiónion, does not mean endless or eternal, may appear from considering that no adjective can have a greater force than the noun from which it is derived. If aión means age (which none either will or can deny) then aiónionmust mean age-lasting, or duration through the age or ages to which the thing spoken or relates."

You didn't say anything about this "rule" being unique to Greek. You proposed a universal negative, being that this was, for some unclear reason, impossible. I have proven conclusively that this is a fallacy.

I have given examples of four different languages where adjectives are "more" than the nouns they are derivatives from. For what reason shouldn't this be possible in Greek? Additionally, these very examples use the loanword aion, which further confirms that an adjective derivative of something meaning "age" could mean eternal.

Words derived from another language often take on different meanings. Let's see what this dictionary says is the meaning of the root Greek word -

What? You mean that aion, the stem of aionion, could mean something temporal? Well, why haven't we discussed this before?! Because this is totally not something we already agree on!

Hmm. And for eternal, let's see the root from the Latin word, which comes from the Greek -

from L. aeternus contraction of aeviternus "of great age," from aevum "age"

Man, you've got to be kidding me! I'm trying my best to prove to you how a word which has a temporal meaning can have its meaning changed to mean something eternal. You were trying (and failing) to present a counter-argument, and you conclude with:

Seems it originally meant something different from what it means today.

I would never have thought that could be so!

In all earnestness, I like how self-defeating your argument is. Here, you freely admit that the Latin word aeviternus, meaning "very long" and being a derivative of aevum, "age," was contracted to aeternus and used to mean "eternal." Thanks for proving my point!

So:
1. An adjective can mean "more" than its noun
2. There is no sensible reason why the Greek language should be an exception to this
3. You have confirmed yourself that this is so
4. So, to draw an informed conclusion, it is best to look at the instances in the Bible (and not outside of it), and look at what the context says.

We see then, that this adjective is almost exclusively applied to nouns which generally designate something eternal (God, God's reign, the afterlife). it would still be rather exceptional, wouldn't it, if a word which would supposedly mean something temporal, were so often applied to something which is its opposite, eternal. After all, how could God be both temporal and eternal?

As you have apparently given up to question the meaning of aionion based on context (which I fully understand, given how weak your case is), I think we can say that, if an adjective can mean more than the noun it's derived from (and I think we together have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it can), than aionion means eternal punishment, regardless of aionas ton aionon. However, as you are wrong on that point as well, we shall continue. First some minor points:

How long Christ's reign lasts.

I have already explained that. Jesus is God.

Oh, so the Bible ISN'T always literal??

I may not have been clear about this before, I'm sorry, but the Bible obviously isn't meant to be taken literally when the Bible itself says it doesn't have to be. So about the beast with seven heads and ten horns: nowhere in the Bible it says that that is not to be taken literally, I believe, John says this about some other things, like the water being the peoples of the earth, but as long as he didn't say it about the beast, I'm inclined to believe it is to be taken literally.

And even if it weren't, there is still a difference between something being metaphorical and something being untrue. Metaphors serve a purpose, and while persons and things in parables may represent something else (like a Father representing God and a wayward son representing Man), they serve the clear purpose (in the case of the parables of Jesus) of teaching people about the relationship between God and Man.

However, if in such a parable eternal punishment is mentioned, what purpose would serve that, if not eternal punishment? What would the "eternal" part be doing there? You need to answer that first, before you claim that things eternal in metaphors would not be literal in reality (and I repeat: Matthew 25:46 is not a metaphor like the others; Jesus only compares people with sheep and goats, but he speaks directly about the Son of Man).

The whole website is arguments against CARM...

Then why are you unable to rebuke the arguments given by the CARM in this discussion?

Aionos ton aionon

---about the crowning aion---

My friend, you do not seem to get my point, again.
1. My point was that the phrase aionas ton aionon is used almost exclusively for eternal things, in particular God's Reign and Glory. You cannot deny those, because there are multiple instances in the Bible which speak of this being eternal. I have heard of the millennial-crowning aion division before, and there might well be such a thing, as testamented by other parts of the Bible, but as this word is always used for the Reign of God, which is eternal, maybe with a crowning age being a last, neverending age.
2. It is not strange to use "age of the ages" for eternity, with nothing temporal outside it, just as using "King of the Kings" means supreme ruler, with nothing which isn't under His rule. It might well be a poetic construct.
3. The context should be consulted to interpret it, not a theoretical construct about what words possibly could mean, like your citations provide. What matters is what the writers meant, and to discover that, one should look at the context.

I discovered the word for "punishment" in Matthew 25:46 in the Greek was a word describing pruning a tree to make it bear more fruit, not vindictive punishment. The Greek word translated "torment" in Revelation 20:10 meant "touchstone," a stone used to test the quality of gold, which represents divinity.

How would you interpret this then? Remember, Matthew 25:46 contrasts eternal punishment (or pruning) with eternal life, so that suggests that this "pruning" isn't something desirable. Additionally, punishing and pruning often have related meanings.
And about Revelations 20:10, how do you interpret being "touchstoned" for all eternity? And why does this have to happen in a Lake of Fire? Doesn't really change the meaning of this passage, I think.
Anyway, this discussion is broad enough. We can discuss meanings of new words later on.

I think you are not understanding my point.

Yes, I do, you interpret aionas ton aionon as referring to coming ages. However, you cannot explain why this phrase is almost exclusively applied to the eternal Glory of God, and only two times to something else.

Revelation 20: 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

If sinners enter "eternal death", and the punishment of "hell" is forever, how is it possible Jesus destroys death and hell?

I did not insist that it was "Hell" where people were being eternally punished. Maybe it means that people are moved from a temporary phase of punishment into an eternal one. And the second death isn't destroyed anywhere in the Bible.

Revelation 21: 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

There will no longer be death nor pain.

I refer again to Revelation 21:8, which proves that this will happen only to the Saved(tm). Your adressing of this seems to come down to the point that Fire and Brimstone have their positive sides too. I didn't deny this at any point, but I fail to see in what way this is relevant.

I never said that...

Yes, you did:

Calm down, friend. No need for the hostility. You seem angrier than your image of God.

So, to conclude:

You have tried, and failed again, to rescue the worldviews of your church. While I am always willing to discuss certain things about the Bible, it occurs to me that you simply do not listen at all to what I have to say.
Also, you keep copy-pasting things as "counter-arguments," while they do not directly address my points, but speak about related things. These things are useless. Also, you keep appealing to authority by quoting theologians, as if something would be a sufficient answer if it is said by a theologian. As I've shown, it isn't. Note that I, on the other hand, never quoted anyone, never copy-pasted anything, but always used my own words.
Finally, I just can't imagine you still believe in your words. I have proven conclusively that aionion can mean eternal, and in all cases where context says anything, it definitely does. It is just your personal unwillingness to accept an eternity of punishment (and thereby your resistance to God Himself) that keeps you posting idiocies.
You are leading people into a gruesome abyss, and I must beg you to come to your senses and stop doing so.

YIC

True Disciple

[True Disciple]

Re: Christianity can be FUN!

How does any of this make Christianity more fun?

Well, I'm rather enjoying myself!