What if Aionios does mean forever in relation to punishment?

[NinjaWizards777]

I was trying to show a friend of mine,  that aionios only means eternal in relation to God and his realm. But then he looked up the greek in his concordence and he was like "it says ETERNAL in every instance relating to heaven and hell" bla bla bla bla. I wasnt really sure how to answer that but anyway.

"Rev 14:10
10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

now the "forever and ever" are aionios but if the presence of the Lord is in that "lake of fire" wouldnt that mean that it is his "realm" meaning that aionios means forever in terms of that?

This greatly disturbs me. What if aionios, such as in this verse, does mean eternal in the sense of "Gods punishment"?

[Paul Hazelwood]

Actually, if there is not both a figurative (seems like, imperceptible) and a literal (literally an age of time, or pertaining to ages of time) concerning this word, then no one can really trust scripture.

No one can undeniably prove which translation of scripture is exactly correct and since  "Some" claim it must be one or the other then you cannot trust the bible at all.


So to me, I can either see the meaning conveyed both ways, or I can dump the whole thing because I am not going to spend my life worrying over what is this and that like you and andromeda do.

No offense to you, at all, but both of you break my heart that you always have to be in fear as you sway from side to side depending upon what you read any given day.

It is really sad to see.

[martincisneros]

aionios never means everlasting in Greek from the 5th century B.C. to the 5th century A.D.

[reFORMer]

NinjaWizards777,

The following is a little fuller context with the passage you quoted:

Revelation 14:9-12 (CLV) . . .
9 And another, a third messenger, follows them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone is worshiping the wild beast and its image, and is getting an emblem on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he, also, is drinking of the wine of the fury of God, blended undiluted in the cup of His indignation, and he shall be tormented in fire and sulphur in the sight of the holy messengers and in the sight of the Lambkin.
11 And the fumes of their torment are ascending for the eons of the eons. And they are having no rest day and night, those worshiping the wild beast and its image, and if anyone is getting the emblem of its name.
12 Here is the endurance of the saints, who are keeping the precepts of God and the faith of Jesus."

It only says the smoke from their torment is ascending for however long.  It does NOT say their torment is for however long.  If I smoked a cigarette in my dad's car, the cigarette would only burn a couple of minutes, but he'd say he could smell it forever.  The fumes from burning something can be quite impossible to remove from things like clothes.  While it seems not having rest is limited to for as long as they are worshipping the wild beast and its image.  Anyway, since it is day and night it can only be as long as the earth exists and the Bible says it and everything in it will dissolve with a fervent heat:

1 Peter 3:10-13 (CLV) . . .
10 Now the day of the Lord will be arriving as a thief, in which the heavens shall be passing by with a booming noise, yet the elements shall be dissolved by combustion, and the earth and the works in it shall be found.
11 At these all, then, dissolving, to what manner of men must you belong in holy behavior and devoutness,
12 hoping for and hurrying the presence of God's day, because of which the heavens, being on fire, will be dissolved, and the elements decompose by combustion!
13 Yet we, according to His promises, are hoping for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness is dwelling.

Getting them to show any verse that says what they say, "Conscious continuous torture for ever" is impossible.  I can't find it.  Even concerning the goat nations in Matthew 25, in verse 41 it is the fire that is eonian, or as KJV has it, "Everlasting fire," NOT the torture.  If that was the point we were supposed to get it would exactly say so.  In verse 46, while actually referring to their "chastening eonian," (CLV) a point good lexicons reveal, the KJV has, "everlasting punishment," which if continuous would read, "Punishing."  If they want that one word verified from the orginal then, tit for tat, the adjective form of "eon" (an age) may be insisted on.  There are a minimum of five eons, before and after them, and they all end, individually and collectively.

There are only 2 or three places it even comes close, yet Scripture never does actually say in its own words that there are any humans undergoing "conscious continuous torture for ever."  Here's an example of when it speaks several places of "Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:15, KJV) that "whosoever" in Greek is "If" and there is no answer whether or not there were any "whosoevers" found by that time.  The "if" is not answered.  Notice too, duration of suffering is not address in the preceding verse.

When the facts are pointed out to them it's good to also warn them of adding to the words in the Unveiling, the Revelation, the Apocalypse:

Revelation 22:18-19 (CLV) . . .
18 "I am testifying to everyone who is hearing the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If ever anyone may be appending to them, God shall be appending to him the calamities written in this scroll.
19 And if ever anyone should be eliminating from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God shall be eliminating his part from the log of life, and out of the holy city, that is written in this scroll.

[sven]

I recently read where a 5th or 7th century orthodox bishop wrote about endless ages of ages, if ages of ages was understood to mean everlasting, there is no need to add endless.

and another very interesting quote, a pagan philosopher in the 5th is quoted to have written:

"Don't imagine people are punished in tartaros for endless ages (aperanton aionas) but only for an aeonian period."

it was somewhere in the articles or pages linked at tentmaker.

[legoman]

Rev 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.


This verse gives more insight.  I believe the words "shall have their part" is referring to their portion, or allotted time.  Not everyone's experience in the lake of fire will be the same duration, or the same at all.

Notice who goes into the lake of fire:  murderers, liars, idolaters, etc.  But right beside them we have the "fearful".  Some translations it is "timid" or "cowardly".

So just for being a little bit timid, you are going to get the same punishment as a murderer or liar?  Why would someone who is timid or fearful need to go into the lake of fire anyway?  They need to have their courage strengthened - the lake of fire will do that for them.  Of course it won't be forever though.

These words of Jesus confirm it:

Luke 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
 47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Clearly if the lake of fire was eternal, the above verses would make no sense at all.

Cheers,
Legoman

[IceDash]

Rev 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.


This verse gives more insight.  I believe the words "shall have their part" is referring to their portion, or allotted time.  Not everyone's experience in the lake of fire will be the same duration, or the same at all.

Notice who goes into the lake of fire:  murderers, liars, idolaters, etc.  But right beside them we have the "fearful".  Some translations it is "timid" or "cowardly".

So just for being a little bit timid, you are going to get the same punishment as a murderer or liar?  Why would someone who is timid or fearful need to go into the lake of fire anyway?  They need to have their courage strengthened - the lake of fire will do that for them.  Of course it won't be forever though.

These words of Jesus confirm it:

Luke 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
 47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Clearly if the lake of fire was eternal, the above verses would make no sense at all.

Cheers,
Legoman

wow, you nail it right!!!

[NinjaWizards777]

Actually, if there is not both a figurative (seems like, imperceptible) and a literal (literally an age of time, or pertaining to ages of time) concerning this word, then no one can really trust scripture.

No one can undeniably prove which translation of scripture is exactly correct and since  "Some" claim it must be one or the other then you cannot trust the bible at all.


So to me, I can either see the meaning conveyed both ways, or I can dump the whole thing because I am not going to spend my life worrying over what is this and that like you and andromeda do.

No offense to you, at all, but both of you break my heart that you always have to be in fear as you sway from side to side depending upon what you read any given day.

It is really sad to see.

oh im sorry! I dont have ultimate reconcilliation as revealed to me as fact as you know...someone such of your stature!

You know because eternal torture hasnt been the ESTABLISHED and most accepted doctrune for the last oh...couple thousand years. Excuse me if I seek for better understanding of some verses that at face value dont promote these new views im learning towards

I have faith in what I believe, but obviously if I was "totally" wrong about something for  years of my life (and i think people always will be wrong about some things pertaining to God, hes kindof transcendent you know) then I can be wrong about just about anything. Obviously i have reasons to believe that ground me or i wouldnt waste my freaking time now would I? its that type of "know it all attitude" that doesnt even let people on the ET side of things examine anything because their too stuck in pride!

grow up

[sven]

this might maybe help you:

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=4781.msg49634#msg49634

[Paul Hazelwood]

Nah, I'll never grow up, too boring.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I have faith in what I believe, but obviously if I was "totally" wrong about something for  years of my life (and i think people always will be wrong about some things pertaining to God, hes kindof transcendent you know) then I can be wrong about just about anything.

Actually it is here that causes me to write what I do.   It is the part in your first post where you say your  "disturbed" but then you write here you have a faith in what you believe.

I don't want to see anyone in fear and I do not like messages that spread a perspective to cause people to be in fear.  So personally, I couldn't care less if you dislike my words.

Otherwise many times, what it comes down to is there is a certain presence of ET believers
around here that want to subtly be that presence here and walk the line of not preaching it so they do not get banned.

So, where ever your faith lies, then stand on it and anything I say then becomes irrevalent.

[NinjaWizards777]

Well right now your not acting any differently than the ETers that are bashed for being "close minded"

The minute someone raises a disturbing question its "OH YOU SHOULDNT FEAR OH LOOK AT ME I KNOW EVERYTHING WERE PERFECTLY RIGHT"

its a funny thing you know...everyone on the ET side of the fence thinks they have scripture perfectly figured out and all Gods meanings to them, and so does everyone on the UR fence. I kindof see an issue with that. Me, i just seek for better understanding while being able to admit I cant prove anything.

and by the way you can say things without being a total jerk about it. thanks

[Paul Hazelwood]

Well right now your not acting any differently than the ETers that are bashed for being "close minded"

The minute someone raises a disturbing question its "OH YOU SHOULDNT FEAR OH LOOK AT ME I KNOW EVERYTHING WERE PERFECTLY RIGHT"

its a funny thing you know...everyone on the ET side of the fence thinks they have scripture perfectly figured out and all Gods meanings to them, and so does everyone on the UR fence. I kindof see an issue with that. Me, i just seek for better understanding while being able to admit I cant prove anything.

and by the way you can say things without being a total jerk about it. thanks

I gave my point of view and haven't changed it because there is no evidence given that I need to.   Some people find comfort is spreading the fear they feel.  People do things for a lot of reasons.  This is one where I post to counter the spreading of fear no matter how sincere you are in asking it.  If you think I am a jerk, so be it.

[sven]

I personally don't appreciate this kind of discussing, if he has doubts whe should help him, not accuse him

After all I've read I personally believe aiônios never meant endless

it can't mean eternal in Romans 16:15, Titus 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:9

aeonion times in all three verses, eternal times (I think plural) are impossible
προ χρονων αιωνιων [pro chronôn aiôniôn], before "eternal times"

this is interesting: http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/eternity.php

even Plato probably didn't used it as endless

[NinjaWizards777]

 I think people like mr.hazelwood are misunderstanding the difference between having doubts/thoughts and being completley swayed by any band-wagon idea that comes along. Im a skeptical person by nature, it doesnt mean that I dont have beliefs to I tightly adhere to. It means I question things alot, and I do my best not to rationalize away things that dont make total sense...hence why I no longer really believe in eternal torment. So I identify with the first, seeing as if my beliefs were actually swayed THAT easily I would have became a universalist the moment I heard about it back in september, but no...I was only vaguely sympathetic to the idea for many months until seeing more evidence for it.

Moving on, my understanding though was that aionios DOES mean eternal in relation to God and "his realm".  So is his realm strictly defined as heaven? is there no possible way for it to describe what also comes FROM God? see what im saying here?

the verse that i was talking about in Revelations it says "in the presence of the Lamb" so one COULD argue that because the lake of fire has HIS presence, that it would constitute as his realm, airgo giving it the ability to have the "eternal" property of aionios. I also realize that the "fumes of their torment" is regarding the fumes and not the actual time of the "torment" itself, however, in a book thats based on an entire vision and is entirely metaphorical I think its hard to make the claim that it cant possibly mean that the aionios' dont apply to the duration of torment itself in relation to happening in "Gods realm" aigo eternal torment

though I would certainly hope and think that it is not saying that. but its an argument...hence the name of this section of the fourm! go figure 

maybe mr.hazewood you take the name of the "ARGUMENTS against universal salvation" to mean you literally go and argue with people? 

[Paul Hazelwood]

Moving on, my understanding though was that aionios DOES mean eternal in relation to God and "his realm".  So is his realm strictly defined as heaven? is there no possible way for it to describe what also comes FROM God? see what im saying here?

ok, in my initial post look past what you feel are my misunderstandings of you and read why we do not have to argue over which word meaning is ultimatly correct in the first place.

[Paul Hazelwood]

even Plato probably didn't used it as endless

Probably?   Here is the problem,  the people who claim this undeniably use a grammar rule that does not exist.

Secondly, no matter how solid a persons argument is,  there are arguments that are reasonable for both sides.

So how does it really end,  how does it get to a point where someone doubts and goes to this side and that side and then actually is shown undeniably one side is correct over another with out "endless" going back and forth with one believing the other does know what they are talking about?

Why is it then, this inerrant word of God is split into two aspects?    The ET side says Gods word is inerrant while we read two totally different translations in that regaurd, and the UR side will say the same thing.

So whether one wants to admit it or not, having to doubt which side is correct is fear,  i do not like fear and will do what I believe removes the question entirely.

[NinjaWizards777]

Well paul, if God wanted us to have a "fool proof" way of knowing everything he intended exactly the way he intended it to mean...he would have provided that. Unfortunately, he did not so he must not intended us to HAVE that.

Once again...this section is for ARGUMENTS AGAINST UNIVERSAL SALVATION. did you catch that paul? arguments against, not arguments for. Just because anyone (particularly, I) make an "argument" does again, not mean I am totally swayed and sad and crying because I dont know what to think because Im a scared little wussy. and the comparison to andromedia whatever her name is I think is completly unfair, because I have a pretty solid idea what I believe, doesnt mean I cant raise questions and thoughts for better understanding.

And I dont think fear and doubt are mutually exclusive to be honest, but feel free to have your own take on that. And if they are well i suppose a little bit is healthy, because had I not..and had YOU not "doubted" something you thought was true for a very long time... you would have never came to the idea known as ultimate reconciliation.

And yeah sure, for everything people will always have an argument against it...no duh. But Not claiming to have proof for anything and raising arguments against what you believe yourself is probably the best thing you can do for yourself, imo. Because if you dont do that how do you know what you REALLY believe at all? How do you even begin to defend your own views and feelings if youve never doubted its own truth?

I spent 6 months doubting ET, doubting the bible, doubting God...doubting alot of things...and finally Im not really doing that anymore because God broke me out of it. But because of it, I became much more sure of what I believe than I had been the entire 7 years I was "saved". My beliefs did change on some things, such as believeing in UR and what not...but I am still so glad that I went through that now.

[IceDash]

Well paul, if God wanted us to have a "fool proof" way of knowing everything he intended exactly the way he intended it to mean...he would have provided that. Unfortunately, he did not so he must not intended us to HAVE that.

Once again...this section is for ARGUMENTS AGAINST UNIVERSAL SALVATION. did you catch that paul? arguments against, not arguments for. Just because anyone (particularly, I) make an "argument" does again, not mean I am totally swayed and sad and crying because I dont know what to think because Im a scared little wussy. and the comparison to andromedia whatever her name is I think is completly unfair, because I have a pretty solid idea what I believe, doesnt mean I cant raise questions and thoughts for better understanding.

And I dont think fear and doubt are mutually exclusive to be honest, but feel free to have your own take on that. And if they are well i suppose a little bit is healthy, because had I not..and had YOU not "doubted" something you thought was true for a very long time... you would have never came to the idea known as ultimate reconciliation.

And yeah sure, for everything people will always have an argument against it...no duh. But Not claiming to have proof for anything and raising arguments against what you believe yourself is probably the best thing you can do for yourself, imo. Because if you dont do that how do you know what you REALLY believe at all? How do you even begin to defend your own views and feelings if youve never doubted its own truth?

I spent 6 months doubting ET, doubting the bible, doubting God...doubting alot of things...and finally Im not really doing that anymore because God broke me out of it. But because of it, I became much more sure of what I believe than I had been the entire 7 years I was "saved". My beliefs did change on some things, such as believeing in UR and what not...but I am still so glad that I went through that now.

I am in your same shoe ninjawizards777, I first learn about God when I was 15 and when I read the bible the first time, I just don't get it why people follow a God who killed children and later in a new testament where god act differant of "love" all I see before when I was young is this: old testament 'wrath of God" while new testament "love of God" they don't match up until I am 22 years where I believe God is alien (don't ask me why lol....) that's when I was wrong because If God is alien, who create the universe in the first place?

After study when I was 24, I gave up God and get mad at him because of so much confusing with all the bible's tranlation, finally when I found this website "what the hell is hell" when I found out the word "hell" should had been "Gehanna", I when on to read some more and I also read the "the hell test" where I found everything make sense, the only thing that bother me is "free wills" one of my biggest challenge because it so hard to see past that


However, I gave up questioning, because there no answer.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Once again...this section is for ARGUMENTS AGAINST UNIVERSAL SALVATION. did you catch that paul? arguments against, not arguments for.

oK mR bLACK pOT,  i GET YA.   

[Paul Hazelwood]

.and had YOU not "doubted" something you thought was true for a very long time... you would have never came to the idea known as ultimate reconciliation.

I've never thought eternal hell was true, I played the part for other reasons.  I grew up being taught things that I internally rejected and outwardly acted out because I feared the rejection of those who said they loved me if I didn't.

I feared that because they taught this rejection of God of me, if I didn't do what he said.

It was not until someone had the balls to get to me telling me how crazy I can make myself being in fear of what someone thinks of me.   It pissed me off too, then, but it worked.

[NinjaWizards777]

.and had YOU not "doubted" something you thought was true for a very long time... you would have never came to the idea known as ultimate reconciliation.

I've never thought eternal hell was true, I played the part for other reasons.  I grew up being taught things that I internally rejected and outwardly acted out because I feared the rejection of those who said they loved me if I didn't.

I feared that because they taught this rejection of God of me, if I didn't do what he said.

It was not until someone had the balls to get to me telling me how crazy I can make myself being in fear of what someone thinks of me.   It pissed me off too, then, but it worked.

Well that was not the case with me, and I doubt your case is how it goes for everyone. Even so...you still doubted the mainstream interpretation for good reason

I also will raise doubts in good reason, at least I feel are good reasons

[Paul Hazelwood]

.and had YOU not "doubted" something you thought was true for a very long time... you would have never came to the idea known as ultimate reconciliation.

I've never thought eternal hell was true, I played the part for other reasons.  I grew up being taught things that I internally rejected and outwardly acted out because I feared the rejection of those who said they loved me if I didn't.

I feared that because they taught this rejection of God of me, if I didn't do what he said.

It was not until someone had the balls to get to me telling me how crazy I can make myself being in fear of what someone thinks of me.   It pissed me off too, then, but it worked.

Well that was not the case with me, and I doubt your case is how it goes for everyone. Even so...you still doubted the mainstream interpretation for good reason

I also will raise doubts in good reason, at least I feel are good reasons

I'm not claiming its that  way with everyone.  I also did not associate the doubts I have concerning spirituality and God with the word disturbing and then act like it's no big deal.

However years ago thinking people I needed would abandon me if I did not act like I had conformed to their way of thinking, did deeply disturb me.  I will never sway from fighting against that, ever.

[NinjaWizards777]

Im not even going to try discussing with you anymore dude, you just think your absolutely right and I dont have time for bigotry

[lookingup]

              ususally i look at things in a simplistic way. there are a number of ways to say the same thing, or to come to the same coclusion. in one example of how my itty bitty mind works is these two pieces of scripture:

                               Rev 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.

                     1 Corinthians 15:23-28 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then 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. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For 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. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

                      if Death and hell are cast into the lake of fire, if the last enemy to be destroyed (some translations say "abolished") is death how is it to be eternal and not for an age or ages? to my thinking it can't be eternal if it is no more

                                                     Peace and Gods' love