Two Questions

[ClementofA]

Do you honestly think this version does not mean, forever?

It says "ages". What it means is a matter of interpretation & context. Translations should honestly state what a text says, not give their biased interpretations of what it means. Interpretations should be left to the reader.

Darby Bible Translation
Lk.1:33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end.

And i could add several more almost identical literal translations, unlike the deceptive version you posted with "forever" in it.

This is Hebrew poetry which states the same thing in two different ways. "reign"="kingdom," "εις τους αιωνας"="shall not be an end."
Poetry in the Hebrew Bible

That is your interpretation based on your assumption(s). OTOH, Scripture says:

1 Cor.15:24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power.
25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

Which i believe to mean that Christ's reign ends. In that light i take it that His "reign...for the ages" (Lk.1:33) is finite. From that it follows that those "ages" must be finite. Likewise with His reign "into the ages of the ages" (Rev.11:15):

And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, 'The kingdoms of the world did become those of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!' (YLT)

Can you explain how can the reign of Jesus only last for a finite age but His kingdom, that which He reign over, shall not end?

Please note that Christ reigns for "the ages" (Lk.1:33; Rev.11:15), not just an age.

To answer your question, one explanation is the kingdom remains His, Christ's, even after He ceases to reign & gives it up to the Father (cf. 1 Cor.15:24-25), because all that the Father has is His also: All things that the Father hath are mine...(Jn.16:15b; cf. 17:10).

To illustrate consider a fictional company i'll call Microsoft which is co-owned by a father & son. The son is running the company's daily operations while the father sips martinis in the Caribbean. Later the son gives the running of this company & its daily operations to the father. Does that mean the company is no longer co-owned by the father & the son? No, the company is still co-owned. But as to the running of it, that's in the father's hands now. The son's reign was temporary.

God as "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) has nothing to do with authority, but God "in" every being who ever lived. "To say that "all in all" signifies "the manifestation of God's supremacy"...is very far indeed from the truth...When we say "Christ is my all," what do we mean? That He is our Lord? Yes, and our Saviour and Friend and our Lover, our Wisdom and our Righteousness, and our Holiness--He is everything to us!...And that is just what God wishes to be and what He will be!...Will He be this only in some? No! He will be All in all!...we have said that when the last enemy [death] is abolished, then the Son abdicates and God becomes All in all. If there were still enmity we might imagine God being over all, but with all enmity gone, it is easy to see how He can become All in all...The "kingdom" is given up to the Father, after all sovereignty and authority and power have been abrogated. What kind of a "supremacy" will God "fully manifest" which has no power, no authority, no sovereignty? Thank God, all these elements, which characterized government during the eons, will be utterly unnecessary when the Son of God is finished with His "mediatorial" work. Instead of God's supremacy being fully manifested at that time, it will be entirely absent, and God, as Father, will guide His family by the sweet constraint of love." (AE Knoch).

As an interesting though non authoritative aside states:

"Compare moreover the apocalyptic book 2 Baruck (or Syriac Baruck, ascribed to a date of approximately 30 to 50 years after 70 AD; J.H. Charlesworth ABD I 620). 2 Baruck 40:3 states about the Annointed One (40:1) that his dominion will last forever until the world of corruption has ended and until the times which have been mentioned before have been fulfilled" (translation A.F.J. Klijn in Charlesworth I (1983) with note: "The rule of the Annointed One seems to be of a limited time."). Ferch (1977) 148-149: " "forever must be understood relatively, viz. until the age of corruption is ended" ("Life Time Entirety. A Study of AION in Greek Literature and Philosophy, the Septuagint and Philo", Heleen M. Keizer, 2010, p.134). THE BOOK OF THE APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH THE

Neither is "all rule and authority and power" yet nullified (1 Cor.15:24) by Revelation 21-22. There are still kings in the earth (Rev.21:24). There is still the throne of the Lamb & the saints reigning (22:3,5). So neither is death abolished or God "all in all" (1Cor.15:28).

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[Der Alte]

He was obviously talking about another word besides aionios. From his commentary on Jude 1:6 it is evident that word is aidios:
"Everlasting (ἀΐδίοις)" (Vincent)

Do you agree with Vincent that aidios means everlasting?

Ambivalent or you just don't understand what he's talking about. He was a Greek scholar, so quite a bit above your pay grade.

What I quoted from Vincent was written in plain English, which I read, speak and write quite fluently. Here is my post again.
Let us read further in Vincent

• Vincent Word Studies in the New Testament 2 Cor 4:17
A far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory (καθ' ὑπερεβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης)
Rev., more and more exceedingly an eternal weight, etc. An expression after the form of Hebrew superlatives, in which the emphatic word is twice repeated. Lit., exceedingly unto excess. The use of such cumulative expressions is common with Paul. See, for example, Phi 1:23, lit., much more better; Rom 8:37, abundantly the conquerors; Eph 3:20, exceeding abundantly, etc. Note how the words are offset: for a moment, eternal; light, weight; affliction, glory. ​

Note in his commentary on 2 Cor 4:17, above, Vincent translates aionion as eternal three times.

Vincent Ephesians 3:21
Throughout all ages, world without end (εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων)
Lit., unto all the generations of the age of the ages. Eternity is made up of ages, and ages of generations. ​

In his commentary on Eph 3:21, above, Vincent translates tou aionios ton aionion as “eternity.”
If aion does not mean “eternal” why does Vincent translate it as eternal so many times?

Vincent Heb 5:9 The author of eternal salvation (αἴτιος σωτηρίας αἰωνίου)
Ἀίτιος, N.T.o , an adjective, causing. Comp. captain of salvation, Heb_2:10. The phrase σωτηρία αὀώνιος eternal salvation N.T.o , but see lxx, Isaiah 15:17. Not everlasting salvation, but a salvation of which all the conditions, attainments, privileges, and rewards transcend the conditions and limitations of time. ​

Sounds to me like Vincent is playing word games to avoid admitting that aion does mean everlasting.

Vincent Heb 9:12
Eternal, see or Heb_6:2. Not mere duration is contemplated, but quality; a redemption answering in its quality to that age when all the conditions of time shall be no more: ​

Vincent just described aionios as everlasting again.

Vincent 2 Pet 1:11 Everlasting kingdom (αἰώνιον βασιλείαν)
In the first epistle, Peter designated the believer's future as an inheritance; here he calls it a kingdom. Eternal as Rev., is better than everlasting, since the word includes more than duration of time.​

Aionios does not mean everlasting because is better than everlasting, since the word includes more than duration of time. I think this is a good example of double talk.

1 John 1:2
That eternal life (τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον)
A particularly faulty translation, since it utterly fails to express the development of the idea of life, which is distinctly contemplated by the original. Render, as Rev., the life, the eternal life; or the life, even the eternal life. For a similar repetition of the article compare 1Jo_2:8; 1Jo_4:9; 2Jo_1:11. This particular phrase occurs only here and Joh_2:25. John uses ζωὴ αἰώνιος eternal life, and ἡ αἰώνιος ζωη the eternal life, the former expressing the general conception of life eternal, and the latter eternal life as the special gift of Christ. Αἰώνιος eternal, describes the life in its quality of not being measured by time, a larger idea than that of mere duration. ​

Here Vincent translated ainios as “eternal” eight 8 times. Note another double talk description of aionios. "eternal, describes the life in its quality of not being measured by time, [i.e. it includes living forever but] is, a larger idea than that of mere duration."

John 3:15 Believeth in Him (πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν)
The best texts read ἐν αὐτῷ, construing with have eternal life, and rendering may in Him have eternal life,. So Rev.
Should not perish, but The best texts omit.
Have eternal life, A characteristic phrase of John for live forever. See Joh_3:16, Joh_3:36; Joh_5:24; Joh_6:40, Joh_6:47, Joh_6:54; 1Jo_3:15; 1Jo_5:12. ​

Live forever sound like eternal to me. Now show me exactly where I have not understood or misrepresented Vincent? And OBTW I can show several more similar comments. e.g.

Gal 5:8 Eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον)
1 Tim 1:16 Eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον)
1 Tim 6:19 Eternal life (τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς)
2 Tim 2:10 With eternal glory (μετὰ δόξης αἰωνίου)
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life (ἐπ' ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου)
Titus 3:7 According to the hope of eternal life (κατ' ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου)
Heb 5:9 The author of eternal salvation (αἴτιος σωτηρίας αἰωνίου)
Heb 9:12 Having obtained eternal redemption (αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος)
Heb 9:14 Through the eternal spirit (διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου)
1 Jn 2:25 Eternal life (τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον)



​

 

[Der Alte]

It says "ages". What it means is a matter of interpretation & context. Translations should honestly state what a text says, not give their biased interpretations of what it means. Interpretations should be left to the reader.
Darby Bible Translation
Lk.1:33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end.
And i could add several more almost identical literal translations, unlike the deceptive version you posted with "forever" in it.

You keep throwing around the term "literal translation" but you have yet to answer my many requests to show me what makes a translation "literal." Just because a writer claims something is literal that does not make it so. Compare some so-called literal translations they are all different. If you can't show me what makes a "literal translation" actually literal then your claim is meaningless.
.....The only bias here is the quoted post. "His kingdom shall never end" is forever, no matter how many biased translations you cherry pick.

That is your interpretation based on your assumption(s). OTOH, Scripture says:

" of His kingdom shall not be an end." is not an assumption. Nothing you can say or quote can make it not mean 'forever."
.....The false interpretation being pushed here claims, that in Luk 1:33, the reign/basileusei is finite while the kingdom/basileias has no end.

Luke 1:33
(33) and he will reign [βασιλευσει] over Jacob's descendants forever; his kingdom [βασιλειας] will never end."​

Basileias [reign] is the verb form of basileus, sovereign/king, the same root word for basileias [kingdom]

1 Cor.15:24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power.
25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
Which i believe to mean that Christ's reign ends. In that light i take it that His "reign...for the ages" (Lk.1:33) is finite. From that it follows that those "ages" must be finite. Likewise with His reign "into the ages of the ages" (Rev.11:15):

This biased opinion creates a contradiction between these verses and Luk 1:33 which clearly states "of his kingdom there shall not be an end." You have to twist the other verses to make them say what you want them to. Let me know if/when you correctly interpret your proof texts to agree with the words of the angel to Mary.

And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, 'The kingdoms of the world did become those of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!' (YLT)
Please note that Christ reigns for "the ages" (Lk.1:33; Rev.11:15), not just an age.
To answer your question, one explanation is the kingdom remains His, Christ's, even after He ceases to reign & gives it up to the Father (cf. 1 Cor.15:24-25), because all that the Father has is His also: All things that the Father hath are mine...(Jn.16:15b; cf. 17:10).

When does "all" not mean "all?" All things include reigning.

Rev 22:3
(3) And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:5
(5) And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they [God and the lamb vs. 3] shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 17:14
(14) These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
Rev 19:13
(13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 22:3
(3) And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 19:16
(16) And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.​

Please show me where the reign of the king of kings ends?

To illustrate consider a fictional company ...

No let's not. Anybody can concoct a scenario which can prove almost anything. See scripture above.

God as "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) has nothing to do with authority, but God "in" every being who ever lived. "To say that "all in all" signifies "the manifestation of God's supremacy"...is very far indeed from the truth...When we say "Christ is my all," what do we mean? That He is our Lord? Yes, and our Saviour and Friend and our Lover, our Wisdom and our Righteousness, and our Holiness--He is everything to us!...And that is just what God wishes to be and what He will be!...Will He be this only in some? No! He will be All in all!...we have said that when the last enemy [death] is abolished, then the Son abdicates and God becomes All in all. If there were still enmity we might imagine God being over all, but with all enmity gone, it is easy to see how He can become All in all...The "kingdom" is given up to the Father, after all sovereignty and authority and power have been abrogated. What kind of a "supremacy" will God "fully manifest" which has no power, no authority, no sovereignty? Thank God, all these elements, which characterized government during the eons, will be utterly unnecessary when the Son of God is finished with His "mediatorial" work. Instead of God's supremacy being fully manifested at that time, it will be entirely absent, and God, as Father, will guide His family by the sweet constraint of love." (AE Knoch).

Cherry picking out-of-context scripture while ignoring others.

As an interesting though non authoritative aside states:...

Nope!

Neither is "all rule and authority and power" yet nullified (1 Cor.15:24) by Revelation 21-22. There are still kings in the earth (Rev.21:24). There is still the throne of the Lamb & the saints reigning (22:3,5). So neither is death abolished or God "all in all" (1Cor.15:28).

Where does this say that the reign of the king of kings and lord of Lords ends?

 

[ClementofA]

You keep throwing around the term "literal translation" but you have yet to answer my many requests to show me what makes a translation "literal." Just because a writer claims something is literal that does not make it so. Compare some so-called literal translations they are all different. If you can't show me what makes a "literal translation" actually literal then your claim is meaningless.

I'd suggest you look up a dozen sources that comment on the question of "ages" or "forever" being the literal translation in Lk.1:33. Or let me save you some time & give you the score:

"ages" = 12
"forever" = 0

.....The only bias here is the quoted post. "His kingdom shall never end" is forever, no matter how many biased translations you cherry pick.

Nobody said otherwise!

To the contrary!

" of His kingdom shall not be an end." is not an assumption. Nothing you can say or quote can make it not mean 'forever."

Nobody said otherwise!

Nobody quoted anything otherwise!

To the contrary!

.....The false interpretation being pushed here claims, that in Luk 1:33, the reign/basileusei is finite while the kingdom/basileias has no end.

​

Just saying its false doesn't make it so. Others can call your opinion a "false interpretation" too.
​

This biased opinion creates a contradiction between these verses and Luk 1:33 which clearly states "of his kingdom there shall not be an end."

No one denied Lk.1:33 clearly states "of his kingdom there shall not be an end." Didn't you read the versions i posted?

Just saying its a "biased opinion" doesn't make it so. Others can call your opinion a "biased opinion" too.

Just saying it "creates a contradiction" doesn't state how there is a contradiction.

You have to twist the other verses to make them say what you want them to.

Another empty assertion with no evidence of such.

Let me know if/when you correctly interpret your proof texts to agree with the words of the angel to Mary.

What gives you the idea i don't already?

When does "all" not mean "all?" All things include reigning.

That's ironic when you posted the other day about the "whole world" not meaning the "whole world". But now you want "all" to mean "all"? Not when there is a clear exception given in the Scriptures that Christ's reign ends when He gives up the kingdom & is "nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power" [v.24, CLV]:

1 Cor.15:24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

Rev 22:5
(5) And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they [God and the lamb vs. 3] shall reign for ever and ever.
​

Another misleading translation. More literal translations speak of "ages of the ages" or "eons of the eons", e.g.:

Rev.22:5 And night shall be no more, and they have no need of lamplight and sunlight, for the Lord God shall be illuminating them. And they shall be reigning for the eons of the eons. (CLV)

The reign of the saints will end, just as Christ's does, as per:

1 Cor.15:24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

So the reign of the saints into "the eons" (Rev.22:5) is finite, as are those eons finite.

For more evidence re the mistransled phrase "forever and ever" referring to finite duration:

12 points re forever and ever being finite:
For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

Neither is "all rule and authority and power" yet nullified (1 Cor.15:24) by Revelation 21-22. There are still kings in the earth (Rev.21:24). There is still the throne of the Lamb & the saints reigning (22:3,5). So neither is death abolished or God "all in all" (1Cor.15:28).

​

Please show me where the reign of the king of kings ends?

1 Cor.15:24 Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

Neither is "all rule and authority and power" yet nullified (1 Cor.15:24) by Revelation 21-22. There are still kings in the earth (Rev.21:24). There is still the throne of the Lamb & the saints reigning (22:3,5). So neither is death abolished or God "all in all" (1Cor.15:28).


God as "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) has nothing to do with authority, but God "in" every being who ever lived. "To say that "all in all" signifies "the manifestation of God's supremacy"...is very far indeed from the truth...When we say "Christ is my all," what do we mean? That He is our Lord? Yes, and our Saviour and Friend and our Lover, our Wisdom and our Righteousness, and our Holiness--He is everything to us!...And that is just what God wishes to be and what He will be!...Will He be this only in some? No! He will be All in all!...we have said that when the last enemy [death] is abolished, then the Son abdicates and God becomes All in all. If there were still enmity we might imagine God being over all, but with all enmity gone, it is easy to see how He can become All in all...The "kingdom" is given up to the Father, after all sovereignty and authority and power have been abrogated. What kind of a "supremacy" will God "fully manifest" which has no power, no authority, no sovereignty? Thank God, all these elements, which characterized government during the eons, will be utterly unnecessary when the Son of God is finished with His "mediatorial" work. Instead of God's supremacy being fully manifested at that time, it will be entirely absent, and God, as Father, will guide His family by the sweet constraint of love." (AE Knoch).

To answer your question, one explanation is the kingdom remains His, Christ's, even after He ceases to reign & gives it up to the Father (cf. 1 Cor.15:24-25), because all that the Father has is His also: All things that the Father hath are mine...(Jn.16:15b; cf. 17:10).

To illustrate consider a fictional company i'll call Microsoft which is co-owned by a father & son. The son is running the company's daily operations while the father sips martinis in the Caribbean. Later the son gives the running of this company & its daily operations to the father. Does that mean the company is no longer co-owned by the father & the son? No, the company is still co-owned. But as to the running of it, that's in the father's hands now. The son's reign was temporary.

As an interesting though non authoritative aside:

"Compare moreover the apocalyptic book 2 Baruck (or Syriac Baruck, ascribed to a date of approximately 30 to 50 years after 70 AD; J.H. Charlesworth ABD I 620). 2 Baruck 40:3 states about the Annointed One (40:1) that his dominion will last forever until the world of corruption has ended and until the times which have been mentioned before have been fulfilled" (translation A.F.J. Klijn in Charlesworth I (1983) with note: "The rule of the Annointed One seems to be of a limited time."). Ferch (1977) 148-149: " "forever must be understood relatively, viz. until the age of corruption is ended" ("Life Time Entirety. A Study of AION in Greek Literature and Philosophy, the Septuagint and Philo", Heleen M. Keizer, 2010, p.134). THE BOOK OF THE APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH THE

 

[ClementofA]

Do you agree with Vincent that aidios means everlasting?

I think it was a superior word to use relative to the ambiguous aion & aionios, if God was a believer in endless punishment. Moreover, as opposed to aion and aionios (which are often used of finite duration), God had a number of other words & expressions available that would also have better served to express endless punishment, if Love Omnipotent were a believer of such. But He never uses such of eschatological punishment. So the reasonable conclusion is that Love Omnipotent rejected using such words and expressions of a final destiny of endless punishment because He knew better & He rejected the notion that anyone will endure endless punishment. Those words & expresssions are:

1. no end (Lk.1:33)...this expression is used of God's kingdom having "no end". It is never used of anyone's torments or punishment. We never read of anyone receiving torments that will have "no end". This unambiguous phrase, "no end", would have been a superior choice to the ambiguous words aion & aionion, if Love Omnipotent had a belief in endless torments or annihilation. But He rejected its use in expressing such a fate.

2. endless (1 Tim.1:4)...Again if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments, why didn't He use this word to express it, instead of the ambiguous aion & aionion, which often refer to finite durations in ancient Greek usage?

3. never (Mt.7:23, etc)...this word appears to occur 16 times in the NT & it seems that it never means anything except "never". It is used of "love never fails" (1 Cor.13:8). It also occurs in Mt.7:23 where Jesus says "I never knew you; depart you from Me, those working lawlessness." Which is such an incredibly lame remark, if Love Omnipotent believed in endless torments. If He believed that such an unspeakably horrific final destiny awaits the wicked, including those He was referring to in Mt.7:23, why didn't He make it clear by telling them that they would "never" be saved and/or He would "never" know them? Would that not have been clear & unambiguous, unlike the words He spoke, & unlike the ambiguous aion & aionios, which often refer to finite duration in ancient Koine Greek? OTOH consider re the use of the word "never":

"Philo saith, “The punishment of the wicked person is, ζην αποθανοντα αει, to live for ever dying, and to be for ever in pains, and griefs, and calamities that never cease..." Mark 9 Benson Commentary

Yet Scripture - never - uses such language. Moreover, it speaks of death being abolished, not being "for ever".

4. eternal (Rom.1:16; Jude 1:6)...this word, AIDIOS, is used of God's "eternal" power & "eternal" chains that bind until the day of judgement. It is never used of anyone's final destiny. We never read of anyone being tormented for eternal ages. We never read of anyone suffering eternal (AIDIOS) punishment. If Jude believed in endless punishment, he had the perfect opportunity at Jude 1:6 by simply adding that the angels would suffer the judgement of eternal (AIDIOS) punishment or torments. Instead of warning his readers of such a horrificly monstrous fate, as he should have been morally obligated to do if it were a real possibility, instead he conveys the relatively utterly lame & insignificant info that these angelic beings will be kept in chains until judgement day. OTOH, consider:

"Instead of saying with Philo and Josephus, thanaton athanaton, deathless or immortal death; eirgmon aidion, eternal imprisonment; aidion timorion, eternal torment; and thanaton ateleuteton, interminable death, he [Jesus] used aionion kolasin..." Chapter 3 - Origin of Endless Punishment

"Nyssa defined the vision of God promised there as "life without end, eternal incorruption, undying beatitude [ten ateleuteton zoen, ten aidion aphtharsian , ten athanaton makarioteta]." ("Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in ..." By Jaroslav Pelikan, p.165 @): Christianity and Classical Culture

5. unfading (1 Pet.1:4; 5:4)...Peter uses this word of an endless inheritance reserved in heaven & a crown of glory. It is never used of the endless pain, punishment or torments that anyone will receive. Can it be denied that this would have been a superior word (over aion & aionios) to use to express such a horrific destiny if Love Omnipotent actually had such in store for anyone? Wouldn't He want to express warnings about it in the clearest ways possible?

6. found no place for repentance (Heb.12:17)...is used in Heb.12:17 of the loss of a finite earthly blessing..."he found no place of repentance, although having earnestly sought it with tears". Never is it used regarding those in Gehenna, Hades, the lake of fire, or eschatological punishment. Never do we read of those cast into any "hell" that they will not (or never) find a place of repentance, even though they earnestly seek it with tears. God was quite capable of expressing such in His Holy Scriptures. But rather than give such a warning, as Love Omnipotent should have if such an unbelievably horrific future awaited anyone, instead we are told of the relatively lame loss of a finite earthly blessing. Such a waste of words if endless punishment were really true.

7. In Mt.18:6 is the lame warning of a punishment which is compared to mere drowning, which is nothing compared to being kept alive for the sole purpose of being tortured for all the "endless" ages of eternity that have "no end" & "never" cease. Jesus says it is "better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea". OTOH, if He had been a believer in endless punishment, He could have expressed that by saying it is better for them to have never lived, never been conceived, or that their parents had never known (had sex with) one another. Compare this anti-biblical Jewish view that the Lord Jesus Christ, Love Omnipotent, rejected:

"To every individual is apportioned two shares, one in hell and one in paradise. At death, however, the righteous man's portion in hell is exchanged, so that he has two in heaven, while the reverse is true in the case of sinners (Ḥag. 15a). Hence it would have been better for the latter not to have lived at all (Yeb. 63b)." GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[Der Alte]

...

<ClemA,quote>I think it was a superior word to use relative to the ambiguous aion & aionios, if God was a believer in endless punishment. Moreover, as opposed to aion and aionios (which are often used of finite duration), God had a number of other words & expressions available that would also have better served to express endless punishment, if Love Omnipotent were a believer of such. But He never uses such of eschatological punishment. So the reasonable conclusion is that Love Omnipotent rejected using such words and expressions of a final destiny of endless punishment because He knew better & He rejected the notion that anyone will endure endless punishment. Those words & expresssions are:...<end>

end

The question I asked was do you agree with Vincent, whom you quote as an authority, that aidios means forever, everlasting etc? Instead of a meaningful response I get waffles. "I think is was a superior word if God was a believer in endless punishment..." You have argued in the past that aidios does mean eternal, forever etc. And you have also argued that it has the same meaning as aionios. So now we are all over the place on the meaning of aidios.
.....Here you have another logical fallacy. "He [God] knew better & He rejected the notion that anyone will endure endless punishment." Argument from silence. There is not even one single scripture which states that God rejected endless punishment.

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous since he uses them as synonyms to refer to God.

ἀΐδιος, ον (ἀεί ‘always’; Hom. Hymns, Hes. et al.; ins; PSI 1422, 16; Wsd 7:26; 4 Macc 10:15; a favorite w. Philo: Jos., Ant. 4, 178; 17, 152; Just., A II, 11, 5; Tat. 14, 2; Ath.; Mel., P. 2f, 20) eternal ἡ ἀ. αὐτοῦ (of God) δύναμις Ro 1:20 (Zoroaster in Philo Bybl.: 790 Fgm. 4, 52 Jac. [Eus., PE 1, 10, 52]; 58th letter of Apollonius of Tyana [Philostrat. I 360, 29 K.]; SibOr 5, 66 θεὸς ἀ.). ζωή (Philo, Fug. 97; Tat.14, 2) IEph 19:3; δεσμοῖς ἀ. Jd 6 (PGM 4, 1466 πυλωρὲ κλείθρων ἀϊδίων).—DELG s.v. αἰών. M-M. TW.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 24). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

 

[ClementofA]

The question I asked was do you agree with Vincent, whom you quote as an authority, that aidios means forever, everlasting etc? Instead of a meaningful response I get waffles. "I think is was a superior word if God was a believer in endless punishment..."

You just misquoted me.

You have argued in the past that aidios does mean eternal, forever etc.

And you have also argued that it has the same meaning as aionios.

No, i've have never argued that aidios & aionios have "the same meaning", i.e. that they are identical twins or exactly the same.

.....Here you have another logical fallacy. "He [God] knew better & He rejected the notion that anyone will endure endless punishment." Argument from silence.

It was an argument based on the New Testament expressing eschatological punishment in ambiguous terms (often aion & aionios) rather than language that would have been unambiguous (e.g. "no end", "endless", "never") if God meant to clearly express endless punishment or torments. That is a powerful argument against endless punishment. Moreover the Jews, whom i quoted, used some of these words & expressions of endless punishment. Jesus, however, rejected their terms by choosing not to use them.

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous since he uses them as synonyms to refer to God.

This is your argument:

1. The AIDIOS God means eternal God
2. Paul speaks of the AIONION God.
3. Conclusion 1: therefore the two words are synonyms.
4. Conclusion 2: AIONION means eternal.

Even one with only high school or a first year college logic course under his belt would easily see how that argument fails to prove its case. The first conclusion doesn't logically follow from the first two premises. And you've provided nothing in support of why it should. So your argument is based on nothing. No evidence. It's like someone saying the tooth fairy exists & providing no evidence that it does.

Your argument is just like this argument:

1. The AIDIOS God means eternal God
2. Paul speaks of the (put any word here, call it XYZ) God.
3. Conclusion 1: therefore the two words are synonyms.

What makes them synonymous? You didn't say. You provided nothing as evidence that they are synonymous. Are two words automatically synonymous whenever they refer to God? No. Is "day" synonymous with "eternal" when Scripture says "day of God"? If someone said God was the "God of this age" (compare 2 Cor.4:4, god of this age) does that prove that "age" is synonymous with "eternal"? No.

​

 

[SkyWriting]

I have been told over and over through the last 30 years that "perish" either means conscious, physical and mental pain and suffering OR it means being locked up in a dark hole with no contact with other souls or God.
That's what they keep telling me.

Those are really the same. And time does not exist there.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

This is your argument:
1. The AIDIOS God means eternal God
2. Paul speaks of the AIONION God.
3. Conclusion 1: therefore the two words are synonyms.
4. Conclusion 2: AIONION means eternal.
Even one with only high school or a first year college logic course under his belt would easily see how that argument fails to prove its case. The first conclusion doesn't logically follow from the first two premises. And you've provided nothing in support of why it should. So your argument is based on nothing. No evidence. It's like someone saying the tooth fairy exists & providing no evidence that it does.
Your argument is just like this argument:
1. The AIDIOS God means eternal God
2. Paul speaks of the (put any word here, call it XYZ) God.
3. Conclusion 1: therefore the two words are synonyms.
What makes them synonymous? You didn't say. You provided nothing as evidence that they are synonymous. Are two words automatically synonymous whenever they refer to God? No. Is "day" synonymous with "eternal" when Scripture says "day of God"? If someone said God was the "God of this age" (compare 2 Cor.4:4, god of this age) does that prove that "age" is synonymous with "eternal"? No.

end

Your argument is nonsensical. And I have explained before why aidios and aionios are synonymous in Rom 1;20 and 16:26. In your ridiculous example, "Day of God" and "God of this age" do not refer to the same or similar characteristic of God. In the 2 vss. "aiodios" and "aionios" refer to the same characteristic of God, His temporal duration, in the same way. It does not say "God of this/the age."

Rom 16:26 του [the] αιωνιου [eternal] θεου [God]
Rom 1:20 τε [the] αιδιος [eternal] αυτου [his] δυναμις [power] και [and] θειοτης [divinity/godhood]​

Now lets see you distort any of this and make it say something different.

 

[ClementofA]

Your argument is nonsensical.

Why? Did you even understand it?

And I have explained before why aidios and aionios are synonymous in Rom 1;20 and 16:26.

Where? Not in the post i replied to.

In your ridiculous example, "Day of God" and "God of this age" do not refer to the same or similar characteristic of God. In the 2 vss. "aiodios" and "aionios" refer to the same characteristic of God, His temporal duration, in the same way.

All 4 terms - day, age(eon/aion), aionios & aidios - refer to durations of time.

You refer to aionios & aidios as having "similar characteristics". Dogs & cats have some similar characteristics. That doesn't make them the same or synonymous. A "day" & "week" have some similarity. That doesn't make them the same or synonymous. Eon(s) & eternal have some similarity. That doesn't make them the same or synonymous.

Your argument's premises have failed to prove that it's conclusion must be true. All you have is assumption, a guess, an unproven theory. No proof or evidence that your premises must be true. You've essentially offered nothing to support your conclusion. OTOH there is much to oppose it:

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [ἀΐ́διος/aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος/aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
In Romans 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul evidently considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be interchangeable since he used them as synonyms.

Scholars generally agree that - aion & aionios - sometimes (or often) refer to finite durations. So your conclusions is nothing but the logical fallacy of "begging the question":

"The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle." Begging the Question : Department of Philosophy : Texas State University

This is your argument:

1. The AIDIOS God means eternal God
2. Paul speaks of the AIONION God.
3. Conclusion 1: therefore the two words are synonyms.
4. Conclusion 2: AIONION means eternal.

Even one with only high school or a first year college logic course under his belt would easily see how that argument fails to prove its case. The first conclusion doesn't logically follow from the first two premises. And you've provided nothing in support of why it should. So your argument is based on nothing. No evidence. It's like someone saying the tooth fairy exists & providing no evidence that it does.

Your argument is just like this argument:

1. The AIDIOS God means eternal God
2. Paul speaks of the (put any word here, call it XYZ) God.
3. Conclusion 1: therefore the two words are synonyms.

What makes them synonymous? You didn't say. You provided nothing as evidence that they are synonymous. Are two words automatically synonymous whenever they refer to God? No. Is "day" synonymous with "eternal" when Scripture says "day of God"? If someone said God was the "God of this age" (compare 2 Cor.4:4, god of this age) does that prove that "age" is synonymous with "eternal"? No.


I posted:

Evidently pure assumption based on no evidence. You only proved one side of the equation equals eternal, aidios, not aionios. Scholars agree aionios is used of finite duration.

Furthermore, just because a word is applied to God doesn't make it "eternal".

According to you the Greek word aion (eon) means "eternal". In 2 Cor.4:4 we read of the "god of this eon". But this eon will end, so it can't be "eternal".

Satan is the "god of this eon" (2 Cor.4:4). The "god" Satan's existence will be "eternal" just like God's existence. But just because the Satan-god is eternal, that doesn't make
"eon" eternal when Scripture says he is the "god of this eon".

Likewise, neither does it make "eonian" eternal when it is applied to God in Rom.16:26.

Therefore your logic has holes in it & your argument fails.

Der Alter replied with:

Irrelevant smokescreen. Does not address my post in any way.

Is this supposed to make sense? How does this address my post?

Your argument provided no evidence in support of it. So i can only imagine what you think supports it, since you refuse to say. Therefore if you think it is supported by the premise that any word applied to God must mean eternal, you are wrong. As I said above.

Furthermore, with the example of 2 Cor.4:4, i showed how an - aionion god - can refer to a finite duration of the word aionion. Compare Rom.16:26, our verse under consideration, that speaks of the "aionion God". BTW in both cases the God referred to is "eternal".

I previously posted:

A number of Greek scholars understand Rom.16:25 to refer to a finite duration, even among those biased to endless punishment. Just look at a few dozen Greek lexicons, dictionaries & translations to see for yourself. Do you think you know more than them? Even verse 26 doesn't require aionios mean eternal. As my post documented, A. Deisman discovered a tablet from the time of the ECF Origen that said God is eonian and more than eonian (epiaionion). Moreover, if aionios in v.25 is finite, then contextually one should consider that its use in v.26 of the context is likewise finite.

God was the eonian God over past eons that have already ended. Rom.16:25 refers to eons past that have ended. So in the same sentence continuing into v.26, the reference to eonian God can be to those past eons. That's a contextual case for the viewpoint that eonian in v.26 is also finite.

Der Alter only replied to the first of those two paragraphs with:

More of the same meaningless argumentation, without any support.

John Gill Rom 16:26 according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith; that is, it is by the express order and command of that God who is from everlasting to everlasting, that the mystery of the Gospel is made manifest by the preaching of the apostles being witnessed to by the law and prophets in all its doctrines; faith on Christ,..., Act_13:46; here is a clear proof that Christ is God, and that he is the everlasting God.

A literal more honest translation states:

25 Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, 26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience

"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter9.htm

 

[Der Alte]

...

<Clementof A>"ἀποκαταλλάσσω is found in the NT only in Col. and Eph., where καταλλάσσω does not occur. Since it is never found prior to Paul, it is perhaps coined by him....In men [it] is
preceded by alienation and enmity (Col.1:22)...Col.1:20 speaks of the gracious purpose which God had demonstrated...to reconcile the whole world to Himself; it does not speak of a reconciliation of the world already concluded. ἀποκαταλλάξαι cannot refer merely to the removal of a relationship of guilt by God, since it is plainly expounded as a conclusion of peace in Col.1:20 and Eph.2:15. Hence it is not something one-sided. It embraces the total life situation of man. It does not refer merely to his guilt before God. In Eph.2:16 reconciliation to God also brings reconciliation to Jews and Gentiles, and in Col.1:20 the reconciliation of men to God also carries with it that of supraterrestrial beings" (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Vol.1, p.258-259, Friedrich Buschel, ed. Gerhard Kittel, 1st printing 1964, 2006).<ClementofA>​

This entire section was copied verbatim from this website, without citing the source.
http://cranfordville.com/IBC Cologne/ColStudy03_3_1_21-23_CRBS.pdf

 

[ClementofA]

<Clementof A>"ἀποκαταλλάσσω is found in the NT only in Col. and Eph., where καταλλάσσω does not occur. Since it is never found prior to Paul, it is perhaps coined by him....In men [it] is
preceded by alienation and enmity (Col.1:22)...Col.1:20 speaks of the gracious purpose which God had demonstrated...to reconcile the whole world to Himself; it does not speak of a reconciliation of the world already concluded. ἀποκαταλλάξαι cannot refer merely to the removal of a relationship of guilt by God, since it is plainly expounded as a conclusion of peace in Col.1:20 and Eph.2:15. Hence it is not something one-sided. It embraces the total life situation of man. It does not refer merely to his guilt before God. In Eph.2:16 reconciliation to God also brings reconciliation to Jews and Gentiles, and in Col.1:20 the reconciliation of men to God also carries with it that of supraterrestrial beings" (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Vol.1, p.258-259, Friedrich Buschel, ed. Gerhard Kittel, 1st printing 1964, 2006).<ClementofA>​

This entire section was copied verbatim from this website, without citing the source.
http://cranfordville.com/IBC Cologne/ColStudy03_3_1_21-23_CRBS.pdf

Umm, no, Der Alte. The source is listed right there in your own quote from my post, namely:

"The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Vol.1, p.258-259, Friedrich Buschel, ed. Gerhard Kittel, 1st printing 1964, 2006)."

And it wasn't copied from any website, but from the hardcover book on my bookshelf.