Mark Sanguinetti

Happy Birthday Radar. Thanks for all your love and support.

Your college bro,

Mark

I have decided I am going to send my posts on oikonomia with a bit of editing and additional material to John Schoenheit via e-mail. I really do want their ministry to offer good biblical teaching. And frankly if I did not care I would not even bother to send him this.

Tzaia asked for an example of unbiblical teaching and I have produced it. I am sorry about her negative experiences and wish her the best. I think she also does care about CES' practices and wants to help them. That is all I have to say. If someone wants to start another dispensational thread I will participate, but we did have one already not to long ago.

I am not a partner of CES. However, I do know some of the things that they teach. I am not trying to discredit their teaching ministry with my above post. And frankly if I had a little more time I would write John S. and John L. directly and give them some of my views. I have done this in the past with their teaching on personal prophecy. In fact, I wrote them a number of times on this subject and talked to John Schoenheit a few times about this face to face.

I like John and think he is a good bible student and teacher, but he definitely has a group think mentality about him with CES. This means he is very slow to change teachings unless he gets the approval of the other top CES people. I think that would be Mark G. and John L. Even if this would simply mean eliminating teachings that are not biblical such as their view on dispensationalism. Really, it would not hurt them to just not teach this. They have plenty of other material that they can teach that is biblically based. But some how with dispensationalism they have the same mind set with this doctrine that a trinitarian has with the trinity. It appears that some how they think that it is like a stack of cards, that if they lose this doctrine that some how other teachings will have less effect or fall apart. Actually, I think just the opposite is true. If they would simply not teach material that was unsupported from the scriptures this would gain them credibility with their other teachings that they have that are scripturally supported.

Look at it this way. How can they one night tell someone not to teach the trinity because it is not in the bible then turn around the next night and teach people dispensationalism based on "oikonomia" being a period of time? I know they are much smarter than this.

With regard to teaching doctrine that is not biblical. CES makes a big deal about not teaching the Trinity because this word is not in the bible. O.K. I can see their point of view on this. However, they also teach something that is not biblical. They teach an unbiblical usage of the word translated in the King James Version as dispensation or "oikonomia" in the Greek. They teach that this is a period of time. It is not. If you check the usages of this word and look up a lexical definition (see the Thayer's below) you will see that this means stewardship.

So why does CES teach the Trinity because it is not biblical, yet teach an unbiblical usage of the word oikonomia? Perhaps they too have their traditions of men that have been passed down from their forefathers. Just like many denominational churches teach the Trinity because this has been passed down from their forefathers from the 4th century.

NT:3622

oikonomia, oikonomias, hee

the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4

(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft)

Does that mean John Lynn reads this forum? Hey John if you are out there. I invite you to read my posts in the Biblical Universalism thread also in Doctrinal here. Not that you will agree or disagree immediately mind you. You might need to first read and then weigh the material for a few days. Nonetheless, isn't it more rewarding to learn new things from the bible rather than having to constantly work on damage control? Didn't we get enough of that in the Way Denomination?

Wow Evan, that is quite an adventure. I have never been to Africa, but my mother and sister have been to South Africa. They really liked the people. And teaching through an interpreter can be quite a spiritually edifying experience. I have done this a few times with someone translating into Spanish. It makes you slow down and really collect and weigh your thoughts and words. The last time I recall was quite an experience for me. I spoke and then while the person was translating the next words of my teaching came to mind. After the person was finished translating I would again speak the words that just came to mind. The person would translate again and while this was occuring more words and thoughts came to mind. It was very orderly one phrase after the next spoken in English and then translated. It had to have been the work of the Spirit.

And yes I saw your photos today on the Photo section of this site. Thanks for posting them. I hope you have a great time and stay safe.

Thanks again for posting Tzaia. Do you have any tips to share for web sites getting to the top of search engines?

Hmm, Tanzania? Never heard of that country. I had to look it up on the Internet. It looks to be below Kenya in East Africa. What were you doing there Evan?

I have gone to some Presbyterian functions myself. My experience is that they are less fundamentalist than other denominations. When I say fundamentalist I mean having set doctrinal views that a group holds to without compromise. I think the Presbyterians are perhaps less doctrinally dogmatic than other denominations. Hence, by their nature, they are more likely to see and consider differing views.

With regard to Orthodoxy, which is defined as conforming to the usual beliefs or established doctrines. This is a nice way of saying religious "group think". I made a mistake when I was in the Way denomination of accepting certain doctrines without checking them for myself through the lense of my bible, reason and gift of holy spirit. Why would I want to return to that with CES or with a fundamentalist denomination? I won't accept any religious groups word as doctrine unless I see if for myself. And I especially would not teach something as God's Word unless I saw it for myself and was willing to rework the subject material from time to time. But then my goals are different than those of a denomination. My goal is for my doctrinal understanding to be as pure as possible. If this means making major or minor changes and not blindly following the status quo then so be it.

And yes I am also a strong believer in fruit and by this I do not mean numbers in ones denomination. I mean fruit of the spirit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control evident in ones life. I strongly believe in Jesus' words with regard to whether our doctrine will be truthful and Godly or corrupt and full of error. If one has good fruit like Jesus and Paul preached I will bet you that their doctrine will turn out good for the most part. I will also bet you that if a group or people evidence bad fruit that their doctrine will end up smelling like a garbage dump.

Matthew 7:15-20

15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

NIV

Thanks for your posts Tzaia.

Praying for you too my friend. Keep up the good fight.

Hello Roy:

I hope all is well with you. In this case I would agree with Def. Yes, Paul likely spoke a few languages and could have written the epistles in Hebrew, Latin or Greek. However, the Greek culture during the first century was very dominant. Greek was clearly the #1 spoken language as English is today. In fact, the Greek language and culture may have been even more dominant in the first century than English is in today's 21st century world. Because of this Paul likely originally wrote the New Testament epistles in Greek. However, soon after they were translated into other languages.

So Def, do you really know some biblical scholars? In my thinking, I would have to associate a New Testament biblical scholar with someone that knows New Testament Koine Greek. Although I am sure there are good bible teachers that don't know Greek.

If you know someone ask them about Greek words Aion, Strong's #165 and Aionios, Strong's #166. The usages for 165 indicate that this word means "age". As I have previously noted a number of these usages clearly show this word to indicate a long period of time with both a beginning and an ending. It also talks about future ages and in the book of Revelation gives usages translated "ever (aion) and ever (aion)". This I would think means "age and age" because how can you have two eternities? Isn't one eternity sufficient? This would also indicate to me that there is more than one age. One writer that I have quoted from noted five distinct ages. "Ever and ever" from the book of Revelation or "age and age" can also indicate both the 1000 year millenial kingdom age and the final age of the New Heaven and earth.

With regard to the Greek word Aionios, Strong's number 166, the usages are not quite as clear. However, many people say that Aionios is simply the adjective form of the noun Aioon. In this case if Aion means age, then Aionios would mean agelasting or age-abiding. In looking at the usages I can see this to be a strong possibility. However, it would be nice to get the opinion of someone that knows biblical Koine Greek.

Thanks again for starting this thread and happy hunting.

Def, I would rather look at the evidence. Wouldn't you? Besides with your conspiracy theory, you may be igoring much spiritual darkness during the middle ages. Or are you in favor of bringing back indulgences in order to get to heaven? Or should we start another crusade and kill a bunch of non-believers in the name of Christ? Are you now implying that the King James Version is a perfect version of God's Word? I think we better instead return to biblical work.

And one more thing. I offer no new light on this subject. I am just one taking the time to read and then explain what is already written in the various biblical texts.

Hi Mike:

No, the political forum is crazy enough as it is. I was just curious.

Mike:

Are you a Republican?

Here is another study. Again the link is at the end.

AION AND AIONIOS

Let us next consider the true meaning of the words "aion" and aionios.*1 These are the originals of the terms rendered by our translators "everlasting," "for ever and ever:" and on this translations, so misleading, a vast portion of the popular dogma of endless torment is built up. I say, without hesitation, misleading and incorrect; for aion means "an age," a limited period, whether long or short, though often of indefinite length; and the adjective aionios means "of the age," "age-long," "aeonian," and never "everlasting" (of its own proper force), it is true that it may be applied as an epithet to things that rae endless, but the idea of endlessness in all such cases comes not from the epithet, but only because it is inherent in the object to which the epithet is applied, as in the case of God. Much has been written on the import of the aeonian (eternal) life. Altogether to exclude, (with MAURICE) the notion of time seems impracticable, and opposed to the general usage of the New Testament (and of the Septuagint). But while this is so, we may fully recognise that the phrase "eternal life" (aeonian life) does at times pass into a region above time, a region wholly moral and spiritual. Thus, in S. John, the aeonian life (eternal life), of which he speaks, is a life not measured by duration, but a life in the unseen, life in God. Thus, e.g., God's commandment is life eternal. -- John 12:50. To know Him is life eternal, -- John. 17:3, and Christ is the eternal life. -- I John 1:2; 5:20. Admitting, then, the usual reference of aionios to time, we note in the word a tendency to rise above this idea, to denote quality, rather than quantity, to indicate the true, the spiritual, in opposition to the unreal, or the earthly. In this sense the eternal is now and here. Thus "eternal" punishment is one thing, and "everlasting" punishment a very different thing, and so it is that our Revisers have substituted for "everlasting" the word "eternal" in every passage in the New Testament, where aionios is the original word. Further, if we take the term strictly, eternal punishment is impossible, for the "eternal" in strictness has no beginning.

Again, a point of great importance is this, that it would have been impossible for the Jews, as it is impossible for us, to accept Christ, except by assigning a limited -- nay, a very limited duration -- to those Mosaic ordinances which were said in the Old Testament to be "for ever," to be "everlasting" (aeonian). Every line of the New Testament, nay, the very existence of Christianity is thus in fact a proof of the limited sense of aionios in Scripture. Our Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, our Holy Communion, every prayer uttered in a Christian Church, or in our homes, in the name of the Lord Jesus: our hopes of being "for ever with the Lord" -- these contain one and all in an affirmation most real, though tacit, of the temporary sense of aionios.

As a further illustration of the meaning of aion and aionios, let me point out that in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint)--in common use among the Jews in Our Lord's time, from which He and the Apostles usually quoted, and whose authority, therefore, should be decisive on this point -- these terms are repeatedly applied to things that have long ceased to exist. Thus the AARONIC priesthood is said to be "everlasting," Num. 25:13. The land of Canaan is given as an "everlasting" possession, and "for ever," Gen. 17:8, and 13:15. In Deut. 23:3, "for ever" is distinctly made an equivalent to "even to the tenth generation." In Lam. 5:19, "for ever and ever" is the equivalent of from "generation to generation." The inhabitants of Palestine are to be bondsmen "for ever," Lev. 25:46. In Num. 18:19, the heave offerings of the holy things are a covenant "for ever." CALEB obtains his inheritance "for ever," Josh. 14:9. And DAVID'S seed is to endure "for ever," his throne "for ever," his house "for ever;" nay, the passover is to endure "for ever;" and in Isaiah 32:14, the forts and towers shall be "dens for ever, until the spirit be poured upon us." So in Jude 7, Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be suffering the vengeance of eternal (aeonian) fire, i.e., their temporal overthrow by fire, for they have a definite promise of final restoration. -- Ez. 16:55.

And Christ's kingdom is to last "for ever," yet we are distinctly told that this very kingdom is to end. -- I Cor. 15:24. Indeed, quotation might be added to quotation, both from the Bible and from early*2 authors, to prove this limited meaning of aion and its derivatives; but enough has probably been said to prove that it is wholly impossible, and indeed absurd, to contend that any idea of endless duration is necessarily or commonly implied by either aion or aionios.

Further, if this translation of aionios as "eternal," in the sense of endless, be correct, aion must mean eternity, i.e., endless duration. But so to render it would reduce Scripture to an absurdity. In the first place, you would have over and over again to talk of the "eternities." We can comprehend what "eternity" is, but what are the "eternities?" You cannot have more than one eternity.

Let me state the dilemma clearly. Aion either means endless duration as its necessary, or at least its ordinary significance, or it does not. If it does, the following difficulties at once arise;

1 -- How, if it mean an endless period, can aion have a plural?

2 -- How came such phrases to be used as those repeatedly occurring in Scripture, where aion is added to aion, if aion is of itself infinite?

3 -- How come such phrases as for the "aion" or aions and BEYOND? -- ton aiona kai ep aiona kai eti: eis tous aionas kai eti. -- See (Sept.) Ex. 15:18; Dan. 12:3; Micah 4:5.

4 -- How is it that we repeatedly read of the end of the aion? -- Matt. 13:39,40,49; 24:3; 28:20; I Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26.

5 -- Finally, if aion be infinite, why is it applied over and over to what is strictly finite? e.g., Mark 4:19; Acts 3:21; Rom. 12:2; I Cor. 1:20, 2:20, 2:6, 3:18, 10:11, etc. But if an aion be not definite, what right have we to render the adjective aionios (which depends for its meaning on aion) by the terms "eternal" (when used as the equivalent of "endless") and "everlasting?"

Indeed our translators have really done further hurt to those who can only read their English Bible. They have, wholly obscured a very important doctrine, that of "the ages." This when fully understood throws a flood of light on the plan of redemption, and the method of the divine working.

In these repeated instances [of the different combinations of the terms aion and aionios in the Greek] there must be some definite purpose in the use of these peculiar terms; and we must deeply regret the unfairness and inconsistency which in the case of aion mars and renders unfair our versions. Thus it would be interesting to ask on what principle our Revisers have in one brief epistle employed FIVE different words (or phrases) to translate this one word, aion, e.g., Eph. i. 21; ii. 2,7; iii. 11, 21, e.g., "world," "course," "age," "eternal," "for ever." Such are the devious ways of our teachers, and our translators.

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

*1"The word by itself, whether adjective or substantive, never means endless." -- Canon FARRAR.

"The conception of eternity, in the Semitic languages, is that of a long duration and series of ages." -- Rev J. S. BLUNT -- Dictionary of Theology.

"'Tis notoriously known," says Bishop Rust, "that the Jews, whether writing in Hebrew or Greek, do by olam (the Hebrew word corresponding to aion), and aion mean any remarkable period and duration, whether it be of life, or dispensation, or polity." "The word aion is never used in Scripture, or anywhere else, in the sense of endlessness (vulgarly called eternity, it always meant, both in Scripture and out, a period of time; else how could it have a plural -- how could you talk of the aeons and aeons of aeons as the Scripture does? -- C. KINGSLEY.

So the secular games, celebrated every century were called "eternal" by the Greeks. -- See HUET, Orig. ii. pg. 162.

*2Thus JOSEPHUS calls "aeonian," the temple of Herod, which was actually destroyed when he wrote. PHILO never uses aionios of endless duration.

http://www.heavendwellers.com/aion_and_aionios.html

I am back from my business trip. I was in Fresno at the Northern California Youth Soccer Annual Meeting where I had a booth promoting my company which sells and distributes athletic uniforms and equipment. Here is a link to my company web site. Garth has worked on it some.

http://dynamoathletic.com/

With regard to the present study of aion and aionios, here is an additional study. The web site link is at the end.

Have a Pattern of Sound Words

Concerning Aion and Aionios

by Dean Hough

The most commonly used Greek-English lexicons used today by Christians are those by Thayer (1886) and by Arndt and Gingrich (1957). The definitions given for the noun, aion, and the adjective, aionios, are widely accepted as authoritative and determinative for the teaching of everlasting punishment. This becomes for many believers a strong bulwark against taking scriptural passages such as John 12:32; Romans 5:18,19; 11:32-36; 1 Corinthians 15:22-28; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Ephesians 1:10,11; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 1:20; 1 Timothy 2:4; 4:9,10; and 1 John 2:2, at face value. What is claimed for Matthew 25:46 or 2 Thessalonians 1:9, for example, is seen as limiting the meaning of the former passages.

Concerning the noun, aion, however, both lexicons (and all other such works) allow for an interpretation that would harmonize with the teaching of eventual, universal salvation. Thayer's lexicon gives as its first definition of aion the sense of "age." This is the second definition (of four) given in the more recent lexicon edited by Arndt and Gingrich. Hence a passage such as Matthew 12:32 could be understood as referring to the present age and the age to come, which would not, in itself, keep us from taking Romans 3:21-24 and 5:12-19 in reference to universal justification.

But in both of these lexicons, the adjective, aionios, is presented as having three meanings, in none of which the limiting sense of "age" is carried over from the noun. The adjective, it is claimed, means: (1) without beginning; or (2) without end; or (3) without beginning or end.

This may strike others, as it does me, as a rather dubious development of an adjective's meaning in relation to its noun form. But apart from that, this threefold definition simply does not work in several New Testament passages (and many other passages in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint).

The usages of aionios in Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; and Philemon 15, seem especially puzzling in view of the claims of these two lexicons.

It certainly is difficult to understand how the keeping of a secret can have no beginning, and indeed if the secret is revealed, we must assume its being kept as a secret has come to an end. No wonder the KJV of Romans 16:25 reads "since the world began," even though the Greek speaks of "times" described as aionios. The RV is more faithful to the threefold definition, referring to a mystery kept "through times eternal" but now manifested, but that has the great disadvantage of making no sense whatever if these times are to be understood as either without beginning or without end, or, even more puzzling, without beginning and end.

In such cases, Bible commentators generally ignore the threefold definition given in the lexicons and make their own for these particular passages. In the NICNT volume on Romans, John Murray explains that "times eternal" refers "to the earlier ages of this world's history" (THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, vol.2, p.241). Such ages would obviously have both a beginning and end.

Notice how A. T. Robertson handles the adjective in his WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In commenting on Matthew 25:46 he follows the threefold definition given above, writing: "The word aionios . . . means either without beginning or without end or both" (vol.1, p.202). But in commenting on Titus 1:2 he insists that the words "before times eternal" refer "Not to God's purpose before time began . . . but to definite promises (Rom.9:4) made in time." Here he explains Paul's words as signifying "Long ages ago" (vol.4, p.597). Some other commentators may try to explain that Paul is referring to something that God promised in "eternity past" but for most of us it does seem difficult to grasp any meaning in the idea of a promise being made and kept without any beginning of its being made.

In the multivolume THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (begun in German under the editorship of Gerhard Kittel) Hermann Sasse admits, "The concept of eternity [in aionios] is weakened" in Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 (vol.1. p.209). He explains that these passages use "the eternity formulae" which he had previously explained as "the course of the world" perceived as "a series of smaller aiones" (p.203). Sasse also refers to the use of aionios in Philemon 15, which he feels "reminds us of the non-biblical usage" of this word, which he had earlier found to signify "lifelong" or "enduring" (p.208).

This is not to suggest any particular agreement with all these various attempts to define aion and aionios. In fact, the confusion created by these attempts to preserve some sense of everlastingness in these terms makes the attempts rather suspicious. Putting all the evidence of the usage of these terms in the New Testament together, it seems to me that the threefold definition of aionios as signifying without beginning, or without end, or without begining and end, must be dismissed as inadequate at the very least. Furthermore, to add further definitions that are not at all clear in themselves, as Sasse does, only adds to the confusion.

Of all widely used, modern attempts to define these terms, I have found the concluding definition given in THE VOCABULARY OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT (edited by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan) most helpful. Concerning ai?s we read, "In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view . . . (p.16). If the horizon of the extermination spoken of by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is simply not in view, then we can see that what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:22 can truly occur. The same all who are dying in Adam, which includes some who incur eonian extermination, can indeed eventually be vivified in Christ. The Bible, in fact, does not speak of judgment and condemnation, death and destruction, hades and Gehenna, or any of these serious consequences of sin, as unending. It may refer to them as not having the end in view, but none of these fearful works of God can keep Him from achieving His will (1Tim.2:4); reconciling all through the blood of Christ's cross (Col.1:20, and becoming All in all (1 Cor.15:28).

http://www.saviour-of-all.org/aion.html

Thank you Steve Lortz for participating in this forum. Def59, it is not my job to publicly repremand people in this forum. I must admit though, occasionally I do this. Yes, Chuck has reacted emotionally in this forum and this is mixed in with some good well researched material by him. If you have been offended by his emotional outbursts, I am sure in his heart he is sorry for this. However, Chuck has confided to me by private message that he has been condemned and tortured by people in his life and in his impressionable youth preaching hell fire. Perhaps he is now experiencing an emotional flash back of sorts. Chuck now and over the last number of years upon looking at their position of hell fire and comparing it to other biblical material now disagrees with their basic premises as do I.

As far as my participation in this thread is concerned, I will continue to post information. However, my work schedule will not allow me to post again today. I have a business trip for the weekend, leave tomorrow morning and I have to be ready. However, I will look at more material that may be pertinent to this thread tonight with some friends at our weekly bible study. If we come up with anything of interest I may be able to post it over the weekend from my hotel room while I am on the road.

Until I write again please play nicely everyone. Also remember as 1 Corin. 13 says "we see through a glass darkly" and this can be especially true with regard to prophetic knowledge.

Def, you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty in comprehending this material presented here. Much more so than other posters. This may be different than what you have been previously taught at your church, but there is enough simple word studies and the like on this forum thread for you to have at least learned something.

Nevertheless you still seem to be having a great deal of difficulty with even the more simpler explanations here. Hence, this is what I recommend for you. Copy and paste my posts here which should total about 20 pages, to your word processing software. Print out one or more paper copies of this. Then take this copy to church with you this Sunday. Have your pastor or someone else that you value the scriptural opinion of look it over for you. Yes, they will need to actually read the material including the word studies and articles. Get their opinion. Then get back to us here on what you and your church representative(s) learn. Def, I may be reading you wrong, but you strike me as the type of person that is afraid to believe anything as Christian doctrine that is not the status quo for your church or immediate circle. Hence, here is your opportunity to get the support or feedback that you seem to need.

quote:

---

But for this argument to be consistent, we would be forced to say that God shouldn’t extend eternal bliss to finite creatures.

---

Are you now denying the work of Jesus Christ in saving man with Jesus' life, death and resurrection? What is the point of Jesus Christ's life at all? Was it all for naught? Are you learning anything at all on this forum? Do you want to learn anything?

Sure there is consequences for unbelief Def. Being part of the 1000 year millennial kingdom should be a lot better than your typical 70 years of existence now. If people miss out on this it is going to be a great loss. I want to be part of this even if I only shine shoes or fix sandals.

However, as Chuck said how is an eternity of torment a just penalty for 70 years of sin? Even under the Old Testament Law the amount of lashes with a wip a person was given as a penalty was strictly limited to 40. Someone giving more lashes than this prescribed amount had to face the same penalty of 40 lashes as the person originally receiving the lashes. Even in the case of those receiving the death penalty, under the Old Testament Law this was to be relatively quick and not drawn out over days and days of agony. As I recall it was only the heathen nations that practiced torture and combined this with the death penalty. Perhaps we should become better acquainted with the Old Testament law in seeing what was prescribed as a death penalty. Why do you think God would grant more mercy now in this imperfect and sometimes heathenistic world than one would receive in his future kingdom and New Heaven and Earth?

O.K. Def. That sounds reasonable. Spend some time studying the material on this thread. There has been quite a bit already. I would especially recommend that you participate in some of the word studies that I have offered. For example, the words "fire" (Strong's number 4442) and "age" (Strong's numbers 165 and 166). Do you have any bible study software or biblical reference books to help you with your study? This should give you some kind of a background for the other material. If you have any more questions I will try to help you.

Thank you Steve. Coming from you, someone who is as spiritually insightful as anyone on this board, that is a compliment.

CWF, did you know that the Thayer's lexicon definition of the Greek word translated as punishment in Matthew 25:46 is first listed as "correction"? Here is the word from the Thayer's lexicon.

NT:2851

kolasis, kolaseoos, hee

correction, punishment, penalty: Matt 25:46

(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft)

There are only 2 usages of this Greek word for "punishment" in the New Testament so we don't have a lot to go by. However, from the above this could mean correction first and foremost and only secondarily punishment or penalty. This should be a considerable distinction.

CWF, I have already offered 15 pages of material and bible verses to look at. Chuck has already offered over 20 pages. Sorry we don't have a nice neat little formula for you like "Believing equals Receiving" or "Needs and Wants Parallel". Instead we have offered a number of verses with explanations for yours and others consideration on this subject. I was saving the writing below because I thought there was already enough material on this thread to digest for awhile and perhaps people should reread some of the posts.

Nevertheless below is something on a verse (Matthew 25:46) that is used to try to prove eternal torment for most of the population. The link to this is below.

An Analytical Study of Words

Chapter Ten

Bibles Without

"Everlasting Punishment"

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

"And these shall go away into punishment of the ages, but the righteous into life of the ages."

-New Testament in Modern Speech

"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

-Concordant Literal Translation

"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."

-Young's Literal Translation

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

It is sad to note, but nevertheless true, that most Christians do not realize there are very dramatic differences in translation from one Bible to another. We have heard so often that the "inspired" or "inerrant" Word of God is basically the same in all translations. This is just not true. But one will not see this unless they place several side by side and make some comparisons. Listed below are a few translations which we will compare to the King James Bible on the verse Matthew 25:46.

Concerning the duration of chastening, Matt. 25:46 says (KJV),

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal."

Scarlett's New Testament written in 1792 has "aeonian punishment" in place to "everlasting punishment."

"And these will go away into aeonian punishment: but the righteous into aeonian life."

The New Covenant by Dr. J.W. Hanson written in 1884 renders Matt. 25:46:

"And these shall go away into aeonian chastisement, and the just into aeonian life."

Young's Literal Translation first published in 1898 and reprinted many times since uses the following words:

"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."

Professor Young also compiled Young's Concordance, wherewith one can check the translation of each Hebrew or Greek word as translated in the KJV.

The Twentieth Century New Testament first printed in the year 1900 has:

"And these last will go away 'into aeonian punishment,' but the righteous 'into aeonian life.'"

The Holy Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton first published in 1903 gives the rendering:

"And these He will dismiss into a long correction, but the well-doers to an enduring life.

The New Testament in Modern Speech, by Dr. Weymouth, says:

"And these shall go away into punishment of the ages, but the righteous into life of the ages."

Dr. Weymouth most frequently adopts such terms as "life of the ages," "fire of the ages;" and in Rev. 14:6, "The good news of the ages." It is a matter to regret that the editors of the most recent edition of Dr. Weymouth's version have reverted to the KJV renderings for the passages containing the Greek word aion, eon, or age.

The Western New Testament published in 1926 renders Matt. 25:46 as follows:

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal."

The translation, however, has a footnote on Matthew 21:19 on the word "forever" which is the same word for "eternal" which says: "Literally, for the age (and elsewhere) This Bible does not use the word "Hell" at all.

Clementson's The New Testament (1938) shows,

"And these shall go away into eonian correction, but the righteous into eonian life."

Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott (1942 edition) translates the verse,

"And these shall go forth to the aionian cutting-off; but the righteous to aionian life."

It should be noted that the "cutting-off" refers to pruning a fruit tree to make it bear more fruit. The idea behind the word is not destructive but productive! Had Jesus wanted to emphasize a destructive end, He would have used the word "timoria."

The Concordant Version (1930):

"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed printed in 1958 says:

"And these shall go away into agelasting cutting-off and the just into agelasting life."

Rotherham, in his Emphasized Bible (1959), translates this verse,

"and these shall go away into age-abiding correction, but the righteous into age-abiding life."

The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible copyrighted in 1976 has "age-abiding correction" instead of the incorrect and quite frankly, blasphemous "everlasting punishment." This phrase "everlasting punishment," when one really thinks about it, renders the work of Christ worthless. It says that His forgiveness, His love, His grace, His mercy, the power of His blood, all these and more become limited when one translates "aionion kolasin" as "everlasting punishment."

"And these shall go away -abiding correction, but the righteous into age-abiding life."

There are other Bible translations besides these which have either completely eliminated the concept of eternal punishment from their pages, or have made great strides towards wiping this pagan concept off God's Word. Even some King James Study Bibles will show the reader in the margins or appendixes that the King's translators were incorrect in their rendering of "eternal punishment" and "Hell." The great Companion Bible by Dr. Bullinger is an example of that.

In summary, then, as we gain more knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages, the pagan concept of "eternal punishment" is becoming manifest as a pagan concept which cannot be found in the original languages of the Bible. Therefore, more and more of the translations printed since the King James Bible of 1611 have dramatically departed from the King's translators translations for words closer to the actual Greek and Hebrew meanings rather than "tradition." The word "Hell," for example, has almost completely disappeared from most translations in the Old Testament. It occurs in most translations only 11 to 14 times and not at all in many translations. The day will come when the pagan concept of "Hell" will no longer be found in any Bible translation. It wasn't in the original languages. The foundation of the Bible, that is, the Old Testament, knows of no such place. Why should we perpetuate Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Angle-Saxon mythology? This is where the concept came from. Here is where the word "Hell," the goddess of the underworld, came from. Leave it there. This idea does not belong on the previous pages of our Bibles.

http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/abbott/abbot10.htm