sharon45

You keep forgetting that god not only set the game in motion, but the rules as well.

Yeah, a choice akin to either be beaten with a metal pipe or a metal chain.

And as I've said many times before, it is about properly educating his creation, but god as written and witnessed plainly doesn't seem to want to be up for the task.

But of course this is incorrect since what has been laid out across the earth is the extreme case of being anything but equal or consistent. Some nations loaded to the brim with positive abundance and some nations have practically nothing. Sure, some of the biblical messages state to share, but words are meaningless with no reasonable enforcement involved to help the truly suffering. God allows rape to occur of minds, bodies, and homelands belonging to the innocent, just so everyone is believed to be supposedly given a life of free will.

It is a general request, meaning many more people would believe if the real god would just show himself instead of allowing for faulty material and people to speak for him.

No one is able to properly produce that they know since they would have to at least show these supposed originals.

That is the whole point, no one can really know either way so instead we are left without the actual reliable infomation to be able to make a thoughtful sincere decision with.

That is again your conjecture. We can't know again either way without resulting to mere beliefs and assumptions until this god provides the needed infomation to prove the situation right or wrong.

As in food.

Wrong, since you should need to say that some christians may believe this.

And besides the questions asked had to do if there wasn't a god.

Yes, that would constitute as a belief alright, but it did not answer the question that was presented.

Well this response hardly answers for the responsibility that christians should have taken upon themselves in order to bring about an end to such a misery along time ago.

So, IOW, carry on as though god does not exist...

The NT disagrees though with matthew 21:21-22:

21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.
22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Al Fresco

I did not say people should appeal to authorities. I said they should consult the consensus opinion of experts. Your analogy does not apply because the people who promoted the geocentric idea were not experts. They were simply stooges of the religious establishment who were parroting biblical doctrine. The experts who actually examined the situation from a scientific standpoint did not start to voice their opinions until the likes of Copernicus and Galileo entered the scene. The lesson here is that one should not seek advice from those who base their “scientific” opinions on the teachings of the Bible.
Thayer’s “Greek-English Lexicon” and Kittle’s “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (one of the most, if not the most, revered and respected Greek analysis of the N.T.) both translate “aionios” in the eternal sense. John Nelson Darby, Bible commentator and author of the Bible that bears his name, discusses the matter in an article here. In that article he discusses how “aionios” and related Greek words were used by Plato, Aristotle, and Philo to signify unending time periods. Another spirited defense of the eternal meaning of the word can be found here. None of this, however, is likely to convince those who are determined to define it as a finite period of time.
Horrors!
What we have here is a full-blown religious dispute regarding the translation of the Greek word “aion” and its derivatives. Unfortunately, for those who are seeking unambiguous instruction from the Bible, there is no clear consensus (even among the supposed experts) about how these words should be translated in different contexts. (See here for an example of the uncertainty that surrounds this issue.) The word has been translated as meaning everything from “a long period of time” to “a period of time of unending duration.” And, because of the hazy etymology of the word, there is no definitive answer as to how it actually should be translated. Because of this ambiguity, it can be interpreted to mean “age” or “eon” by the universalists such as TonyN. And it can, with equally persuasive argumentation, be interpreted to mean “an eternity” by those who prefer to envision non-Christians suffering forever. It all depends on the theology one is espousing.

TonyN appears to be comfortable with the notion that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are temporally limited to the span of mere eons and that God’s power and glory are restricted to finite time frames. He also doesn’t seem to have any problem accepting the premise that consolation from God, the redemption, the inheritance on Jesus’ return, the house of God in heaven, and salvation are also just temporary conditions. That being the case, I must concede that there appears to be basically the same justification for his rendering of the word as there is for the more orthodox interpretation. By adopting the time-limited definition of these words wherever they appear in the Bible, it can now be made to harmonize reasonably well with his theological viewpoint. (He has still not dealt convincingly with Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43 and those flames of hell that refuse to go out.) While this does make his god appear to be somewhat less of a barbaric sadist in the punishment department, it still does not paint him in a particularly rosy light. The punishment in hell that the Bible talks about involves exposure to fire (whatever that means), lamentation (wailing), gnashing of teeth, and torment (Luke 16:23). Even if such unpleasantries last “only” 1,000 years (or whatever “eonian” time period TonyN has settled on) it would surely seem like an eternity to those people who had to endure it. (What could be left of one’s dental work after 1,000 years of teeth gnashing?) Even with this reduced sentence, this punitive action does not seem to be in keeping with a god who is described elsewhere in the Bible as being merciful, gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness, truth, and loving kindness. (Exod. 34:6; 1 Chr. 16:34, 41; 2 Chr. 5:13; Ps. 103:17, 106:1; etc.)

The message that seems to elude all of the Christian combatants in this dispute is that, if the Bible were the divinely-inspired document it is cracked up to be, there should be no serious doubt about what it says about anything. Yet here we have a heated disagreement between sincere Christians over the definition of a word used in the Bible numerous times - a definition that can have profound theological consequences. One would think that any god worthy of the title would transmit his message using words that were much more precise and less prone to conflicting interpretations. Unless, of course, he delights in seeing all the various and diverse Christian sects bickering and squabbling among themselves trying to figure out what he said. Probably the wisest approach would be to back off and let these opposing factions shoot it out and see who is still standing when it is all over. Unfortunately, the conflict is likely to be, well, “eonian.”
Don’t move the goalpost on me now. Your original claim had to do with nouns/adjectives in general, not those found in the scriptures. While I think a supportive argument could be made for some of my previous examples, let me give you another list of word combinations, some of which at least, should meet even your stringent criteria. In all of these combinations, the first word can be used as a noun, and the second word(s) after the slash is a “greater” adjective derived from it. (Despite your claim to the contrary, such words as cold and dark can be used as nouns.) Notch/topnotch, ordinary/extraordinary, flight/topflight, most/topmost, side/topside, grade/upgrade, market/upmarket, scale/upscale, stairs/upstairs, case/uppercase, most/uppermost, cold/colder, coldest, and dark/darker, darkest.
Rev. 22:7 - Behold, I come quickly; blessed is he that keep the sayings of the prophecy of this book. (KJV)

The Greek word "tachu" is translated as "quickly" in this passage? How do you think it should be translated?

TonyN

My very dear DBT,
Thanks for posting the above. Yes, I have heard of the usage of allegory. But it begs the question as to the proof if Christ was using the literal or allegorical in Mark 9:43 and Matthew 25:41. I suggest it is the use of both. By the way, in 9:43 the version you use has "hell" but "hell" was not the word used by Christ. "Gehenna" is the word used. Gehenna is out in the open air. "hell" is of Germanic origin meaning "to cover" as in "I'm going to hell the potatoes with hay" or "I'm going to hell (cover) the roof of the house" or "poor Friedrich died and so we are going to hell him today in the cemetary with 6 feet of dirt.

Also, your Matthew 25:41 translation is bad. Real bad. A couple of key words come to my attention. I'll constipate (malapropism) on one: "everlasting." This words were never spoken by Christ. The Greek word behind the first word "everlasting" is "aionios" and should be understood as "eonian fire" which is the fire pertaining to the eon (or age.)
A much better translation would be:
Mat 25:41 Then shall He be declaring to those also at His left, 'Go from Me, you cursed, into the fire eonian, made ready for the adversary and his messengers."

This should be thought of the adversarial nation(s) and its emmisaries which brought messages of negative import to Christ's brethren thus increasing their tribulation.
The judgment in Matthew 25:31-46 is literal. The fire is allegorical in that it stands for the fiery trials the nations during that age/eon must endure due to their treatment of Christ's brethren.

The Markan passage is mixed with both allegorical and literal as well. Christ did not really expect individual people to cut off their hands and literally pluck out their own personal eyes. Yet the truth of the matter is that it is much better to cut off of what is offending (i.e. the single person within the Hebrew nation) rather than the whole body (the whole nation) be cast into Gehenna (the garbage dump just to the south of Israel in which there literally will be fires and worms therein.

So I think we can both agree as to the literalness and allegoricalness of the passages in question. Yes?

TonyN

Al Fresco, How does it feel to misrepresent my position?

In the first place Plato nor Aristotle nor Philo ever used aionios to mean "eternal." Never. Just because someone MISTRANSLATED aionios as "eternal" in their writings does not mean they used that word to mean "unending."

Plato, the inventor of the word based it on aion (a period). Aionios is just the adjectival form of the noun "aion"! Do you understand this most basic of grammar? It just has the duty of informing us of that which pertains to the aion. Nothing more, nothing less.

American pertains to America.
Heavenly pertains to Heaven.
Soulish pertains to the soul.
Aionion pertains to the aion.

Eonian is not greater than eon.

Since no eon is eternal, it is impossible for eonian to pertain to eternity or be translated "eternal". Do you understand this? Gheesh!

Withered

Hi folks, i have been reading this post, and also reading another similar post about the nature of the biblical god.

I feel there are issues in both threads that can be pertinent to both discussions.

In this instance i would like to thank TonyN for pointing out to me in the other thread chronicles I chapter 21. In that particular piece of text, god seems to be responsible for the murder of 70,000 people, all based on gods perception of mankind's pride.

Now, if we return to the point of the thread, we can ask ourselves some pretty reasonable questions about the nature of god.

In chronicles I chapter 21, god was offended by the pride of a nation, and manipulated that nation's leader into provoking him. He then kills 70 thousand people, while ordering the destruction of their community.

How is that, in any definition of the word, in any language on this earth, merciful?

How can any person, with any real honesty, declare that an individual that murders people for an offense he/she/it manufactured in the first place, is a merciful being?

Johnny Skeptic

Your argument is not valid. If the God of the Bible exists, if he created a new galaxy, that would not prove who he is, but surely some people would by faith believe that he was who he said he was and become Christians. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than God creating a new galaxy. If Jesus returned to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, are you going to tell us that not one single person in the world would become a Christian who was not previously convinced?

Regarding "It's more likely that people like you will never be satisfied with any amount of information", you are in no position to guess what my decision would be, or what anyone else's decision would be out of the billions of non-Christians in the world. I would certainly need to ask God some questions about his behavior and get answers that I was satisfied with. I would start out by asking God why he killed babies at Sodom and Gomorrah, why he killed all of the first born males in Egypt, why he created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans, and why he has historically refused to make frequent tangible appearances, in person, and answer some questions. I couldn't be sure if he was who he said he was, but sure is not the issue. The Bible requires faith, not proof. If God's answers met my satisfaction, I would by faith become a Christian.

Do you believe that the world would have been much better off if the Bible clearly opposed slavery?

Since God is a sinner according to his own standards, he cannot fairly judge anyone else. God told Christians via James that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. That means that God is vain, and that he is a hypocrite. Since you do not object that God sometimes breaks his own rules, you shouldn't object if he violated his commands not to tell lies and told some lies, right?

Johnny Skeptic

Everyone already knows that. What we need are some examples that intercessory prayer works so we can have some extra-Biblical evidence that confirms what the Bible says. If the only evidence that you have is faith, just say so.

There you go again stating what everyone already knows. Please answer my question. A simple yes or not will do.

Valuable experiences for whom? For the babies who God killed at Sodom and Gomorrah, and for all of the first born males in Egypt who God killed? Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer needlessly for a few days, and die. Sometimes, a baby's parents give up Christianity as a result. Surely such circumstances are not valuable for the babies and their parents, and do not work for the greater good.

God is definitely evil for refusing to protect women from rapists.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Consider the following Scriptures:

Leviticus 25:45-46 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Johnny: Now are you going to tell us that that was moral behavior?

By the way, would you like to debate the Tyre prophecy some more at the BC&H Forum? The Tyre prophecy is a very poor example of a divinely inspired prophecy. Your only evidence that the prophecy was divinely inspired is faith, right? If so, why did you bother to debate it for months? Do you by any chance have any evidence other than faith regarding any issue?

DBT

Nothing was spoken by Christ, as everything we have on the life of Christ was based on oral tradition, and written down at least 60 years after the events were supposed to have occurred.
We've been over the "aionios" issue. It is obviously used in that manner in certain verses, but others, due to the context in which it is used, it can only be taken to mean eternal - as in everlasting, without end, infinite time.

Words with multiple meanings are a common thing in language, Tony....

Example;
1. I watched the bat flitting through the trees.

2. Raymond gripped the bat tightly as he waited for the pitch.

3. I hope I can bat a home run!

TonyN

And where is your PROOF everything was written down at least 60 years after the events happened? Did you ask Matthew if he wrote it down 60 years later? I have read that they wrote these words of Christ as He spoke them. But I have no firsthand PROOF as neither do you.


Are you prepared to PROVE such an assertion? How can a word in God's revelation to us have contradictory meanings? How can anyone understand God's revelation if the same word means the exact opposite in one passage and opposite in another? How can aionion be pertaining to a period of time having a beginning and an end in one passage and then "pertaining to no time having no beginning and no end" in another? That is insanity.

That is English with is formed by many different languages. Please show me in the Bible where aion can mean a period of time and then no time. Can you do this?

You really do not understand the grammar for adjectives, do you?

Please go here to wikipedia and review what the role of the adjective is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective

Next apply that to the adjective aionios.

Remember, the noun does not modify the adjective. That is important to remember.