Johnny Skeptic

But why is the Bible good enough for you? Are you an inerrantist or not?

But why does God allow women to be raped?

Surely many did. Today, it would be easy to find a lot of people who have given up Christianity because God refused to heal them of an illness, or refused to become Christians because of God's poor and unexplained behavior.

That is one of the things that makes God so unattractive to so many people.

Where is your evidence that such is the case?

One million people died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians. In your opinion, why did God refuse to give food to those people? James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. This means that God is not merciful, and that he is a hypocrite. It is my position that a loving God would be concerned with peoples' spiritual needs AND their tangible needs. Today, do you have any evidence that all tangible needs are not distributed indiscriminately at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs or worldview? If God does not exist, that is the way that all tangible benefits would be distributed. Regarding the people who Jesus supposedly healed, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why do you believe that it was any different back then? The simple truth is that you cannot ask God for any tangible benefit such as food, clothing, or healing and be assured that you will receive it.

No rational, loving being would ever do anything that he did not intend to benefit himself or someone else. Many of God's detestable actions and allowances could not possibly benefit him or anyone else.

Is it your position that the world would not have been much better off if the Bible clearly opposed slavery? The largest colonial empire in history under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property. The victors frequently warred among themselves for the spoils of victory. Is if your position that it would not have been better if God had showed up tangibly, in person, and told the Christian colonizers that colonization is wrong?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to TonyN: Do you by any chance have any evidence that God is perfect? If so, what is your evidence? Please give us your definition of the word "perfect" as it applies to God.

Al Fresco

Here is a classic example of a Christian apologist rewriting the Bible to conform to his (probably Jehovah’s Witness or Seventh-Day Adventist ) spin on the subject. As shown on this website the word translated as “everlasting” in Matt. 25:46 is “anionios.” This word is used 71 times in the Bible. In the Authorized Version, it is translated as follows: “eternal” 42 times, “everlasting” 25 times, “forever” one time, in the context of since “the world began” two times, and “since the world began” one time. This information comes from Strong’s Concordance of the Bible, one of the most respected and authoritative sources on the subject.

The same word is used numerous times in reference to the eternal life that believing Christians will supposedly inherit sometime in the future. A few examples: it is translated as “eternal life” in Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:30; John 3:15, 16, 36; 6:54; and 10:28, as “life everlasting” in Luke 18:30, as “everlasting life” in John 4:14; 5:24; 6:27, 40, and 47, and as “life eternal” in John 4:36.

Elsewhere in this thread, TonyN has stated, “Wherever you see the word "eternal" or "forever" in your bible, kindly mark it out and put in the word 'eonian' in its place. It is an adjective. It does the duty of informing us of that which pertains to the noun from which it is derived (eon). Therefore the eonian chastening of Matthew 25:46 is the chastening pertaining to the eon as is the life.” If we are consistent in following this advice, then all those promises of eternal life must only be referring to a finite time represented by mere “eons.” Is this how TonyN really thinks the aforementioned scriptures should be understood? Does he really think his translation should be consistently applied, or does it only pertain to those verses he wishes to sanitize?

Apologists can always find some off-the-wall, self-serving translation to support what they want the Bible to say in specific instances. Unfortunately for them, such a practice usually comes back to bite them when they extend that same interpretation to other parts of the Bible. I recommend that, when apologists offer nonstandard translations of Bible verses, the the Blue Letter Bible website should be consulted to determine if their interpretations are consistent with those of authorities on such matters. Many, if not most, times you will find that they have simply pulled their interpretations out of the distal end of their alimentary canal.

TonyN

Ah yes, the ole "guilt by association" and "dirtying the well" argument. You can always tell when one is a newbie by using such fallacies of argumentation. I could just as easily say that your post is a classic example of a Satanist or Paganism but I won't stoop as low as you nor do I need to use fallacies to make up for any weeknesses in my arguments like yours. By the way, I am neither a J.W. nor 7th day Adventist but if they do believe the way I do as it regards eonian then they are correct concerning this regardless of their other beliefs.


Just because it is translated thus in the AV does not make it right. That proves nothing. It does not prove that is what it really means. It actually goes to prove the AV translators didn't really know what aionios meant since they gave the word such crazy translations into English: "eternal" "world began" and "for ever." Let's just plug in "world began" where aionion is in a couple verses shall we? "according to the world began God" (Romans 16:26) or how about "And these shall be going into world began chastening yet the just into world began life" (Matthew 25:46). Shuuuuuur .. . makes perfect sense to me! Why not! Oh we could have loads of fun with how the AV mistranslated the nounal form aion.
Here is how they translated aion:
age 2 (hey, they at least got it right two times!)
beginning o fthe world 2
course 1
eternal 2
ever 2
for ever 7
for ever and ever 21
for evermore 3
never 7
world 32
world began 1
world without end 1
while the world standeth 1

Yea, now that is what I call a Bible anyone can trust!

But AF, just saying so does not prove so. As I said before, it is impossible for aionios to have the meaning "eternal" since it is derived from the noun aion. No aion is eternal. Therefore its adjective cannot pertain to eternity. You don't get it do you?
Tell me, does American (adj.) pertain to Russia?
Does Heavenly (adj.) pertain to hell?
Does soulish (adj.) pertain to house?
No, American pertains its noun America, Heavenly pertains to its noun heaven and soulish pertains to its noun soul. Eonian pertains to eon(s). Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course it is how they should be understood. Why else would you think I would write that? My Bible in every place puts "eonian" where aionios is. It doesn't need to sanitize anything. It makes perfect sense. We don't get "eternal life" because we get "eonian life" which is life pertaining to the eon(s). We get unending life by putting on immortality and incorruption (1 Cor.15). The eons will end but we keep living due to having immortality.

See what happens when a tiro debates? They are bankrupt for proofs and so they must use childish things like using body parts to get their immature ideas across. And what does he do to try to PROVE aionios should be translated like the AV? He sends us to a blue letter bible web site as if that proves anything. Do me a favor AF, next time you want to debate with me, bring some real hard proofs rather than some second hand information. And try to learn how to debate without using ad mominums and all the other fallacies you impose upon your readers.

Al Fresco

The word “anionios” in Matt. 25:46 (as it modifies punishment) is translated as “eternal,” “lasts forever,” or “everlasting” in the following Bibles:

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation Bible
King James Version
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
The Living Bible
21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Darby Translation Bible
New Life Version
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Readers Version
Wycliffe New Testament Bible
World Wide English New Testament Bible
New International Version
Today’s New International Version

Are we, therefore, to assume from your comments that all the individuals who composed these Bibles got it wrong?

Your Bible can replace “anionios” with “eonian” anywhere it wants, but that does not change the fact that the Greek word used in the New Testament was “anionios.”

Consider the following verses where “anionios” is used to convey the meaning of eternal life. John 3:15 says, “That whosever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” An individual who does not perish will not live just for eons, he will live forever. John 10:28 says, “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never persish…” Again, a person who never perishes is not just going to survive a few eons, they are going to have eternal life. Luke 18:30 says, “Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.” Is life in the “world to come” after the judgment day going to persist for only eons, or is it going to last an eternity? When these, and the other verses are read in context, the straightforward interpretation is that they are referring to an eternal, everlasting life. That is why all those Bibles I listed translate it that way.

You say we don’t get eternal life because we get “eonian” life. Therefore, according to your way of thinking, “anionios” cannot be referring to eternal life. However, you also say, “We get unending life by putting on immortality and incorruption.” What ever that is supposed to mean, you have not made a cogent argument that “anionios” cannot be referring to this “unending life” you are talking about. If there is an “unending life” then there is no logical reason to assume that when “anionios” was used in the verses I quoted, it was not referring to that very same unending, eternal, everlasting life you speak about.

Okay, I'll try to keep the "ad mominums" to a minimum.

DBT

Considering the sheer diversity of belief found in christian doctrine, how do you determine what is, or what isn't, inspired?
What exactly seperates your doctrine from those based on the words of uninspired men?

What does the bible prove? It is undeniable that it does use 'aionios' to mean 'eternal' as well as refering an indefinite period of time. There is no contradiction as context strongly determines the meaning of eternity/eternal, whether it be "for an extremely long time" or "forever." A common practice in language.

Otherwise how does your set interpretation of 'aionios' fit into this particular context?....
Aionus used in regard to heaven:
Luke 18:30 "in the age to come, eternal life."

TonyN

Are we, therefore, to assume from your comments above that if an authority says it, it must be true? That is a fallacy of "appealing to authority." It proves nothing! It was not that long ago when all the "authorities" said the solar system was a geocentric cosmology (going round the earth) in spite of the proof it was heliocentric (going round the sun). You can't always prove things by appealing to authority. The authorities in Christ's day said He had a demon. Dear AF, appealing to them is not PROOF aionios means "eternal." All it proves is that they translated the word that way. There are plenty of bibles out there that did not translate it "eternal," or "everlasting." Does that prove that the ones that did not are correct? No. It just proves that not all translators agree. How can one know for sure what it should be? If it contradicts any Scripture it is false. That is a great test. It is impossible for aionios to be eternal for the sheer fact that many things in the Old Testament that were called "eternal" or "everlasting" ended many thousands of years ago. In the New Testament it is also impossible for aionios to be eternal because it would contradict too many Scriptures as well.

I agree. As long as we understand the rules of grammar which we must abide by or chaos ensues. I wish I could get this through to you AF. The adjective is never greater than the noun from which it is derived. It is impossible for aionios to be greater than aion. No aion is eternal. Now can you take the next logical step? Since no aion is eternal and since no adjective is greater than the noun from which it is derived . . . what is the next logical step to take AF? Please tell me.

Joh 3:15 "that everyone believing on Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian." (Concordant Literal New Testament) They will not be perishing for the eon. They will have life pertaining to the eon. These Jewish believers do not have "eternal life" because they have aionios zoe. Also, if they had eternal life resident within their bodies then why do they have to have the crutch of having to eat fruit from the tree of life as in Revelation 22:14 to stay alive?


Hmm, I wonder why you didn't continue your quote of John 10:28 . . . "And I am giving them life eonian, and they should by no means be perishing for the eon, and no one shall be snatching them out of My hand." (Concordant Literal New Testament) They won't be perishing for the eon AF. It could be re-written: "And I am giving them life pertaining to the eon, and they should by no means be perishing for the eon."



Your translation screwed up AF. It translated "world" for "aion." In Greek, "world" is "kosmos" not aion. But what would you expect from a company that mistranslated aionios and many other words too? Here it is properly translated:
Luk 18:30 "who may not by all means be getting back manyfold in this era, and in the coming eon, life eonian." (Concordant Literal New Testament)
Young's Literal New Testament has it thus: "Luk 18:30 who may not receive back manifold more in this time, and in the coming age, life age-during.'"

How can you put eternity into an eon to come? Especially when the eon to come ends and is taken over by the new earth eon?

Aionios was never used to give the idea of unending life. There were other Greek words at the disposal of the ones who originally put the words in the New Testament if they wanted to show life was unending. Ateloutetos is one of them. Aperantos is another one of them for "endless." If they wanted to make absolutely sure it was to be endless they could have used aperantos.

Again, I repeat, it is impossible for aionios to be "eternal" since it is the adjective derived from the noun aion. No adjective in the Bible is greater than the noun from which it is derived. no aion is eternal. Therefore it is impossible for aionios to be greater than a duration which has a beginning and an end.

The only reason one gets unending life is because they will put on immortality and incorruption (1 Corinthians 15:53,54).

Let's look at it this way. Suppose I somehow wave a magic wand over your head and give you immortality. Now suppose I tell you that you will be living for the next decade (that's ten years). Should we now make decadian life be eternal since I gave you immortality to allow you to live through the decade?

Wolfie

What!!!!???

Have you ever actually read the Bible?

The Bible is FULL of contradictions, some only verses apart in the same book/chapter, (see here for a fairly lengthy list).

For example, this is a classic case of one line contradicting its immediate predecessor:

Johnny Skeptic

Message to TonyN: Please reply to my posts #31 and #32.

TonyN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a believer who believes a properly translated Bible.




Why does God allow anyone to live? He doesn't have to you know. We are all here by His mercy. God doesn't have to bend people's arms to get them to rape someone. When Adam sinned death began its work in him and subsequent generations causing mankind to sin. Some sin greater than others. Some murder while some only tell white lies. But all sin. The question should be: Why doesn't God stop all rapists from raping women? He will, in due time. For now, during this, what the bible calls "the present wicked eon" it is supposed to be a wicked eon. It is not supposed to be a righteous eon.


But many did not. We walk by faith and not by sight or by healings. God is not into revealing Himself for the past 2000 years since it is a different administration of grace and faith. When Christ walked the earth God revealed Himself by many outward signs. When God would not take the splinter out of Paul did Paul accuse God of having poor and unexplained behaviour? Did any of the leaders in the early Christian church in the bible complain? So why should you? Not greater than them are you!

God doesn't need PR men to make Him look attractive.


Romans 8 and Romans 9.

Paul had many problems too. Look at his life:
"In weariness more exceedingly, in jails more exceedingly, in blows inordinatley, in deaths often. " By Jews five times I got forty save one. Thrice am I flogged with rods, once am I stoned, thrice am I shipwrecked, a night and a day have I spent in a swamp, " in journeys often, in dangers of rivers, in dangers of robbers, in dangers of my race, in dangers of the nations, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers in the sea, in dangers among false brethren; " in toil and labor, in vigils often, in famine and thirst, in fasts often, in cold and nakedness; " apart from what is outside, that which is coming upon me daily, the solicitude for all the ecclesias. " Who is weak and I am not weak? Who is snared and I am not on fire? If I must boast, I will be boasting in that which is of my weakness. " The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, Who is blessed for the eons, is aware that I am not lying. " In Damascus the ethnarch of Aretas, the king, garrisoned the city of the Damascenes, wanting to arrest me, " and I am lowered in a wicker basket through a window through the wall, and escaped his hands."
(2Co 11:23-33)

And yet Paul still glorified God. Job is another fitting example of glorifying God in the face of adversity. Did Paul or Job accuse God as you would? No. Paul realized as do I that we have been given such a grand allotment of the future that everything that happens in this life, both good and evil, are what is needed. There is, in the bible, what can be described as human to human responsibilities such as you describe in the James account of feeding a poor person. James was not telling believers that they must feed every poor person in the world. But if a poor person comes to them to take care of them. "God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust." It is what they do with it that is the problem.


What you say cannot be proven biblically. Yet it can be proven biblically that "God is working all together for good." What you call "detestable" is the best thing a loving God could do to bring out the greatest good possible.

Slavery is not bad. In a sense we are all enslaved to the system. If we don't work we don't eat or have a roof over our heads. In a society where slavery was done properly, people who had nothing and would have starved to death otherwise were bought and served their master until they got back on their feet. In Israel if one was sold into slavery they could be ransomed by a next of kin. If not, they would be freed in the year of Jubilee. They weren't just freed either. They got their land back and had riches given to them by their master so they could have a fresh start.
What you call "Christian" was just organized religion of a state much like the Catholic Church is today. It does not mean that the people that run it are really "Christians." It is a business to them, a corporation. As then, thus so now.