Greek "Eon" and Universal Reconciliation

[RedSearch]

Note: I am a Seventh-Day Adventist and agree with E.G.White's writings. I do not agree with Universal Reconcialiation because I believe most (if not all) of the Bible dissagrees with it.

 

What is an Adventist understanding or position concerning Universal Reconciliation and the use of the Greek word "Eon".

 

I am having a indepth discussion with someone I know and he supports Universal Reconcilliation and

he is using this website (http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/forever2.htm?hc_location=ufi) to support his claims

basing on the meaning of the Greek for "Eon" or "Eonian".

 

He is also a strong supporter of using Literal translations especially this one: http://www.concordant.org/version/

What are your comments on this subject and specifically the "Eon"?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I don't buy into the Universal Reconciliation gambit...  If it were to happen, then the whole creation and procreation of humans on earth was merely a means to populate heaven, and the salvation measures of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were just scenes from an opera... imho

[Gregory Matthews]

Red Search references someone who supports the Concordant  Version of the Bible.  [NOTE:  THE Concordant Version has both the OT & The NT.  Some of my comments will relate to both and others will only relate to the NT.]

 

The Concordant Version (CV) dates to the 1909 work of Adolph E. Knoch.  To read his statement as to what he did and his thinking see:

 

http://www.scripture4all.org/ISA2_help/Articles/The_Concordant_Method/The_Concordant_Method.htm

 

I gave the above URL in the interests of objectivity.  In brief, and going beyond what Knoch said about his work:

 

1) Knoch preferred the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.  I do not necessarily have an issue with this.  It is simply his preference.

 

2) With a 1909 date, his work is clearly dated and lacks current understanding of the meanings of ancient words.  While the Concordant Version may have had some updating, it still lacks in this area. 

 

3) Fundamental problem with the CV is that his translation is NOT based upon the text.  Rather it is based upon an unusual use of a concordance.  This idea of his work being problematic reflects my basic position that a lexicon is what should be used in translation, rather than a concordance.  A lexicon gives word meanings.  A concordance tells us how a word has been translated in the various verses in which that word has been used. 

 

Knoch took each instance of the use of a word and attempted to translate it with one singe English word in every place where it was used.  In actual practice, he was not able to do that.  But, as much as possible, he only translated into one English word.

 

4)  English words, as in other languages, often have multiple meanings.   One  simply can not translate them into one singe word in another language as the other language may not have the same subset of meanings as does the English.  IOW, the work of Knoch has a fundamental flaw. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Red Search commented on the Greek word which he transliterated as "Eon"  [NOTE:  Not translated.], which may also be transliterated as "aion."

 

It may be of interest that in the common English used today the geological time period known as an "eon" may be some 500 million years, or longer.  So, in common English, "Eon" as used may not mean forever, but may mean a very long period of time.

 

Getting back to the Greek word, the 4th edition of the so-called Arndt & Gingrich gives the following meanings for the Greek word transliterated into English as "aion:"

 

A very long time.

Eternity

Earliest known time

A future time that has no end

For evermore

A segment of time, such as "the present age."

A future time, such as the Messianic age.

A spatial concept of the world.  See Hebrews 1:2.

A person--check out Col. 1::26.

 

 

NOTE:  While I have not generally given specific references above, everyone of the above is supported by Biblical references and often secular references to the use of the Greek word.

 

In any case, my point is:  It is not good Biblical scholarship to attempt to translate into one English word as did Knoch. 

[RedSearch]

Is there a Literal version of the Bible which Is properly sourced?

Is there a version which is not literal which has no theological bias?

I prefer the KJV personally, but it was influenced.

"James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy." -- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version[cited src: Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-09930-4.]

[RedSearch]

This is what is being presented with the Eons.

http://www.saviourofall.org/images/EonsSml3.jpg

What are your further comments?

[Gregory Matthews]

RedSearch:

 

God has preserved His word in human form.  He had to do this in order for us to comprehend it.  He had no other choice.  However, that humanity means that it bears the imprint of imperfect humans.

 

In order to take the Bible as an authorative source, which I do, one has to believe that God has preserved His essential truth in a  manner that we can understand and apply to our lives.  But, that does not require that God remove every element of imperfect humanity.  the less essential the truth is for our salvation the less important it is for God to preserve it.  Even the fundamental truths require study from us to get beyond the human to the divine.

 

So, I am not about to tell you that there is one, best, overall translation that everyone should use if they speak English.

[RedSearch]

Also do you have comments about this?

[i like your responses so far.]

 

This is what is being presented with the Eons.

http://www.saviourofall.org/images/EonsSml3.jpg

What are your further comments?

[8thdaypriest]

There is a study at my website titled "Universalism - Will God save everyone?"   It is not as technical as the posts left by Gregory, concerning translations, but it may give you an argument or two for your discussion. 

 

Here's the link:

http://prophecyviewpoint.co/

 

The best book I've read on translations is "The Journey from Texts to Translations" by Paul D. Wegner. 

It lists every source document, and details the "journey" from those source documents to our present English translations. 

I especially appreciated the lists of Apocryphal documents, with the reasons listed as to why those were NOT accepted into the Canon. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel mentions a book by Wegner.  I have not read that book, but it seems to have some value, but probably is not perfect, as nothing human is perfect.  For a review kof it see:

 

http://www.deanbibleministries.org/dbmfiles/notes/2012-Chafer-NTTextualCriticism-6-ReviewArticleOfPaulWegner.pdf

 

However, when Rachel states that the book lists "Every source document" I have either misunderstood her, or she has overstated the case.

 

If her reference is to the MSS that lie behind the Biblical translations, there are literally thousands of such documents.  I doubt that Dr. Wegner has actually listed all.  It may be that I have misunderstood Rachel, or perhaps she has misunderstood Dr. Wegner.

[phkrause]

I don't think the argument centers around the word "eons". The chart uses other texts as well. 

I haven't yet looked at the website, but there are other texts besides the ones from Paul shown on that chart.  One which comes to mind is:

• Psalm 110.1  The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

This implies that the enemies will, at some time in the future, become servants ("footstools") - not that they will be destroyed or be forever burning in hell.

- joe

​No one will be burning in hell forever!!!!!!!!!! Not Biblical for one second!!!!!

[Lauralea]

Universalism makes the Gospel meaningless. Its central thesis is we can be saved in our sins. The soul that sinneth it shall die. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life eternal. It makes the Gospel superfluous. No wonder they need to use their own Bible. I would be suspect of anyone who insists on using their own unusual version of the Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses also do this. 

[LifeHiscost]

​No one will be burning in hell forever!!!!!!!!!! Not Biblical for one second!!!!!

​As an addendum,

…15.....He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen....1 Timothy 6

50What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever.

51But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed! 52It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed. 53For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies.

54Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die,^j this Scripture will be fulfilled:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.^k

55O death, where is your victory?

O death, where is your sting?^l”

56For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power. 57But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58So, my dear brothers and sisters, be strong and immovable. Always work enthusiastically for the Lord, for you know that nothing you do for the Lord is ever useless....

1 Corinthians 15

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

---

 

 

[Lauralea]

How so?

- joe

"​God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. "

No need to believe. Or change. Would you want to live next to an unrepentant Adolf Hitler in Heaven? And to his ilk, being forced to not do evil would be making them automatons.

 

[phkrause]

What is the fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 (quoted in my first post above, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.")?

 

 

​Again here are 2 translations: One from the CJB and one from the Online Jewish Bible with Rashi's Commentary on this verse:

First the CJB: A psalm of David: ADONAI says to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool."

Second the online Tanakh w/Rashi's Commentary: 1Of David a psalm. The word of the Lord to my master; "Wait for My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."

and the verse in Hebrew:

אלְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר נְאֻם יְהֹוָה | לַאדֹנִי שֵׁב לִימִינִי עַד אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ:

Rashi's Commentary of verse: The word of the Lord to my master: Our Rabbis interpreted it as referring to Abraham our father, and I shall explain it according to their words (Mid. Ps. 110:1): The word of the Lord to Abraham, whom the world called “my master,” as it is written (Gen. 23: 6): “Hearken to us, my master.”
“Wait for My right hand”: Wait for My salvation and hope for the Lord. [The root] ישיבה means only waiting, as Scripture states (Deut. 1:46): “And you stayed (ותשבו) in Kadesh for many days.”
for My right hand: For the salvation of My right hand.
until I make your enemies: Amraphel and his allies.

[Lauralea]

^{Hi Joe, I do not do long posts it is just not what I do but briefly. What I said had not been directly responded to either.}

^{​Who said they would not repent? Who said that they would not feel the Wrath of God? What really happens in the Lake of Fire?}

^{Paul did in Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:}

Jesus did  in John 5:28

28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.…

^{Ellen White concurs by the way- not sure if you are an Adventist but it is fine to post either way.}

^{They do not get another chance because after they are resurrected comes judgement. Wrath of God, Lake of Fire come after. There is  no repentance after lake of fire. It destroys them.} 

And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.  Rev 20:9

^{Did all die in Adam? Will all be made alive in Christ?}

^{Yes but "It is appointed to man once to die but after that the judgement" The wicked will be resurrected for the judgement executed upon them, , the righteous, to eternal life.}

^{In the above, who is the firstfruit? Who after that? Then what happens? What is the last thing that happens?}

^{"But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him."}

^{"Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power."} 

^{I Cor 15 23-24}

^{Destruction of wicked above is included. Then many things happen but we are focusing here on whether salvation is universal.}

What is the fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 (quoted in my first post above, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.")?

Resurrection and destruction of the wicked. Footstool is metaphorical I believe. It compares with other verses that Satan will be bruised under foot, also that the wicked will be ashes under our feet, which is kind of literal except the ashes will be incorporated into the soil. They cant be ashes and a literal footstool simultaneously.

The destruction of the wicked takes place after the New Jerusalem descends to earth and the wicked encompass it after which fire descends on them from God and destroys them. Revelation 20:9

Who is reconciled now? Who will be reconciled later?

We are reconciled now. No one will be given another probation to be reconciled later. It is appointed to man once to die, but after that the judgement. Fire makes ashes- not literal footstools.

 

 

 

​

[Lauralea]

Joe I think the key difference between this idea and what I believe the Bible teaches is that there is no second chance to repent after Jesus comes again. In Revelation the rest of the dead live not until after the thousand years are past, then they compass the saints and are destroyed by fire coming down from God out of Heaven. Revelation 20 teaches this.

I believe the OP was asking for Bible evidence about the Adventist view on Universal Reconciliation.

Revelation 20 Now the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. ⁶ Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. ow when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison ⁸ and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. ⁹ They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. ¹⁰ The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where^[b] the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

¹¹ Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. ¹² And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,^[c] and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. ¹³ The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. ¹⁴ Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.^{[d] 15} And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

[RedSearch]

.

>> "What I said had not been directly responded to either." <<

OK, then you want me to make a long post. My direct response is in red below.

>> "Universalism makes the Gospel meaningless. Its central thesis is we can be saved in our sins. " <<

"Universalism" teaches something like "everyone goes to Heaven when they die".  The chart referred to in the saviourforall website does not present that claim.  It teaches "Universal Reconciliation at the end of the age (eon)".  It includes judgement, punishment, and repentance - just not during this present eon.

>> "The soul that sinneth it shall die. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life eternal."  <<

You would have an argument there, if it wasn't for the words that follow the word "but".

>> " It makes the Gospel superfluous." <<

No, the Gospel applies to the present age, and it will enable those who believe to be priests in the future age, as well as to escape the lake of fire.

>> "No wonder they need to use their own Bible. I would be suspect of anyone who insists on using their own unusual version of the Bible." <<

The texts I quoted were from the KJV.

>> "The Jehovah's Witnesses also do this." <<

One could say that the SDAs have the "Clear Word".   But that is a different topic.

>> "​God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. " <<

Yes.

>> "No need to believe. Or change." <<

Not true for the future age.

>> "Would you want to live next to an unrepentant Adolf Hitler in Heaven? And to his ilk, being forced to not do evil would be making them automatons." <<

It would be the New Earth, not Heaven. How do you know that Hitler can not and will not repent?

Do you believe that "it is appointed unto men once to die"?  Most SDAs do not, as they believe Enoch and Elijah did not die, although Hebrews 11:13 says "These all died in faith, not having received the promises".

Do you think "it is appointed unto men once to die" means only die one time? Then what about the son of the widow of Nain?  And how can there even be a "second death", if it only means die one time?

That is the chronology presented in "Great Controversy", in which the events of chapter 21:2 occur before those of chapter 20:9.  The error which EGW and her followers make is to think that the "camp of the saints / beloved city" of chapter 20:9 is the New Jerusalem. It is not.  (Rachel has written extensively about this point on this board.)

So "until I make thine enemies thy footstool" means something like "even though they are already dead and buried under your feet, I will raise them up so I can kill them again, and only then they will be your footstool"?

(Remember, I am only describing what the doctrine that is the subject of the OP teaches; I am neither agreeing or disagreeing.)

- joe

 

 

​

 

Interesting how this thread has expanded.
I made a post in "Theological Townhall" about my My objection to the idea of "Universal Reconciliation and Universalism". 
Genesis7, feel free to read it.

[brotherly love]

Note: I am a Seventh-Day Adventist and agree with E.G.White's writings. I do not agree with Universal Reconcialiation because I believe most (if not all) of the Bible dissagrees with it.

 

What is an Adventist understanding or position concerning Universal Reconciliation and the use of the Greek word "Eon".

 

I am having a indepth discussion with someone I know and he supports Universal Reconcilliation and

he is using this website (http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/forever2.htm?hc_location=ufi) to support his claims

basing on the meaning of the Greek for "Eon" or "Eonian".

 

He is also a strong supporter of using Literal translations especially this one: http://www.concordant.org/version/

What are your comments on this subject and specifically the "Eon"?

​I read your friends website for 2 minutes and I recognized his glaring mistake. He is trying to make the Greek word eon and the Hebrew word Olam mean the same thing. Words gain their meaning in context, not in isolation.

The use of a lexicon can be misleading to some because they will take a specific meaning and then press it into every text to facilitate a predetermined idea. words gain meaning by context.

He makes the same mistake with the word "all'. what is all? It can mean all of a specific group, it can mean the every human-again context determines the meaning.

Olam can mean a long time, a period of time, and it can  mean forever-context is key

Before the mountains were born
    or you brought forth the whole world,
    from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Would this mean that God is only God for a long time by your friends understanding of the word olam? The contrast with God being forever is with mountains (which last a long time) and the immortality of God.

 

[RedSearch]

Thanks for your reply. He does say that Eon is a long period of time with an end.

Eon and All in All are the main pillars for what he believes. (Except i think he chooses to believe what he wants rather than what the Bible states.)

[brotherly love]

Thanks for your reply. He does say that Eon is a long period of time with an end.

Eon and All in All are the main pillars for what he believes. (Except i think he chooses to believe what he wants rather than what the Bible states.)

​Not much you can do about changing his mind.Universalism is usually believed because of an emotional response to hell fire or eternal death. I believe all three are incorrect, and just are a tug of war of prooftexts

Edited May 17, 2015 by brotherly love

[Robert]

God has universally saved the human race in Christ Jesus.  Now if you can comprehend this truth called the gospel, what are you going to do with it?  

Read:  http://www.jacksequeira.org/2phases.htm

Note that Jack is not addressing those who have not reached the age of accountability.

[Robert]

"I know that some questioned whether the little children of even believing parents should be saved, because they have had no test of character and all must be tested and their character determined by trial. The question is asked, 'How can little children have this test and trial?' I answer that the faith of the believing parents covers the children" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 313).

Question:  Is Ellen White infallible?  You know the answer to that question for she says "no".  Does that make her a false messenger? No...

Eze 18:20 (NIV) The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him (Ezekiel 18:20).

The faith of another, in my opinion, cannot be exercised for another. Faith is a personal act done by the individual who has heard (either indirectly or directly) the gospel. Remember that faith is not the Savior.  Faith is in the Savior.  Faith of itself doesn't save.

 

[RedSearch]

​Not much you can do about changing his mind.Universalism is usually believed because of an emotional response to hell fire or eternal death. I believe all three are incorrect, and just are a tug of war of prooftexts

I believe you are hitting the nail on the head.

He believe if God was to distroy all the wicked people it would be a mass genocide.

i have caught him in a logical error though. He says he believes in the law of love for God and others, not any laws recorded in OT. So, i asked him if it is sin to break this law he believes in and he said "no."

[brotherly love]

I believe you are hitting the nail on the head.

He believe if God was to distroy all the wicked people it would be a mass genocide.

i have caught him in a logical error though. He says he believes in the law of love for God and others, not any laws recorded in OT. So, i asked him if it is sin to break this law he believes in and he said "no."

​The problem with universalism is that it promotes a weak cross.

The problem with annihilation is that it tramples the fact that Jesus will put His final enemy at beneath His feet-death! But actually has Jesus killing the majority of humanity who has ever existed. This is not putting death at His feet, but has Jesus being the wellspring of death.

The problem with eternal hellfire is that it has God acting as a cosmic rapist who tortures those who don't identify with him and love Him.

All three of these paradigms all have a prooftexts, but they also ignore the text as a whole, that is why you will see points and counterpoints to each point. You just have to watch and learn from all of these tug of wars. A person does not have to choose a paradigm camp, a wise student of the bible will use these arguments and look for the common denominator that brings it all together.