Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Miller]

Hi Ray,
Very interesting insight that you give to God's word! I have a question, I was curious about which word was actually used in the Greek: aidios timoria or aionion kolasin?
Thanks for your help,
Bob
 
AN IMPORTANT WORD CONSIDERED.
 
  There is but one Greek word beside aiónios rendered everlasting, and applied
to punishment, in the New Testament, and that is the word aidios found in Jude 6: "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own
habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great day." This word is found in but one other place in the New Testament, viz. Rom. i:20: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead."
 
  Now it is admitted that this word among the Greeks had the sense of eternal,and should be understood as having that meaning wherever found, unless by express limitation it is shorn of its proper meaning. It is further admitted that had aidios occurred where aiónios does, there would be no escape from the conclusion that the New Testament teaches Endless Punishment. It is further admitted that the word is here used in the exact sense of aiónios, as is seen in the succeeding verse: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
That is to say, the "aidios" chains in verse 6 are "even as" durable as the
aiónion fire" in verse 7. Which word modifies the other?
 
   1. The construction of the language shows that the latter word limits the
former. The aidios chains are even as the aiónion fire. As if one should say "I have been infinitely troubled, I have been vexed for an hour," or "He is an endless talker, he can talk five hours on a stretch." Now while "infinitely" and "endless" convey the sense of unlimited, they are both limited by what follows, as aidios, eternal, is limited by aiónios, indefinitely long.
 
   2. That this is the correct exegesis is evident from still another limitation of the word. "The angels - - - he hath reserved in everlasting chains UNTO the judgement of the great day." Had Jude said that the angels are held in aidios chains, and stopped there, not limiting the word, we should not dare deny that he taught their eternal imprisonment. But when he limits the duration by aiónion and then expressly states that it is only unto a certain date, we understand that the imprisonment will terminate, even though we find applied to it a word that intrinsically signifies eternal duration, and that was used by the Greeks
to convey the idea of eternity, and was attached to punishment by the Greek Jews of our Savior's times, to describe endless punishment, in which they were believers.
 
  But observe, while this word aidios was in universal use among the Greek Jews of our Savior's day, to convey the idea of eternal duration, and was used by them to teach endless punishment, he never allowed himself to use it in connection with punishment, nor did any of his disciples but one, and he but once, and then carefully and expressly limited its meaning. Can demonstration go further than this to show that Jesus carefully avoided the phraseology by which his contemporaries described the doctrine of endless punishment? He never employed it. What ground then is there for saying that he adopted the language
of his day on this subject? Their language was aidios timoria, endless torment.
His language was aionion kolasin, age-lasting correction. They described
unending ruin, he disciplined, resulting in reformation.

[eggi]

Hello all,

I've been looking into Jude 1:6/2 Peter 2:4 and Romans 1:20 recently, because of the use of the word everlasting (aidios). The only translation I have found which does not translate aidios as everlasting is the Concordant Literal New Testament. The CLNT translates it unseen/imperceptible. This is because they claim that aidios is made up of a = not (as in hades), and idien (to see/perceive). The claim for translating aidios as everlasting is that it's made up of aei = always, and idios (the same). You then get always-same which become everlasting.

Do any of you have access to any sources which describe in detail why it must be either unseen/imperceptible or everlasting? I'm looking for verifiable sources.

This is what I have concluded so far:

Aidios is found only one other place in the Greek New Testament; in Romans 1:20. In the KJV it reads:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

If aidios is translated unseen in Romans 1:20 we get:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his unseen power and Godhead (Gk: divinity); so that they are without excuse:

Paul explains that the invisible things of God are clearly visible (evident), when we look at the things that are made, also [even; Gk: both] His unseen power and divinity. These visible things testify to God's unseen power and divinity; there is no excuse for saying that there is no God.

In Jude 1:6, the angels are reserved unto judgment. There is no mention of everlasting chains in what Peter writes. But Peter does describe the chains, explaining that these chains are “chains of darkness” (chains of thick gloom(Young's Literal Translation)). Peter and Jude both agree that these chains are hard to see (if aidios in Jude should be translated unseen). They are chains of thick gloom (total darkness), says Peter. Peter and Jude both agree about the darkness, they even use the same word; zophon. Gloomy darkness and imperceptible chains makes sense. Peter and Jude both agree that these chains are keeping these angels unto judgment. Saying that the chains are everlasting unto (until) is a bit strange. So, the word aidios

God bless you all,
Eirik

[daywalker]

"Aidios" doesn't mean "eternal or everlasting", it means "imperceptible, unseen". If you read the context of each place it is found, this is clearly understood:


Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his (imperceptible) power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Notice the comparison between things that are "clearly seen" and things that are "invisible" or "imperceptible". This passage has nothing to do with "time" or "endlessness". It's a comparison of "invisible" things that can be understood through things that can be seen. Notice also this passage is against false prophets and teachers (those who "suppress the truth"); not the unbelieving world.


Jude 1:5-7 Now I am intending to remind you, you who once are aware of all, that the Lord, when saving the people out of the land of Egypt, secondly destroys those who believe not. Besides, messengers who keep not their own sovereignty, but leave their own habitation, He has kept in imperceptible bonds under gloom for the judging of the great day. As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner to these committing ultra-prostitution, and coming away after other flesh, are lying before us, a specimen, experiencing the justice of fire eonian.

These "bonds" have nothing to do with "time" or "endlessness". These are "invisible" bonds--that is, invisible to those who wear them. Here's a few scriptural examples:


Rom 9:21-24 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

These "vessels of wrath" are people, and they have (had) no clue that God, the Potter, had molded them into vessels for "dishonorable use". They merely played their part. Notice they were "prepared" for destruction; prepared by the Potter of course! The clay has no authority to mold itself.


John 17:12  While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

By "son of destruction", Jesus is speaking of Judas Iscariot, the betrayer. Another "dishonorable vessel" playing out the part that he was "prepared" for by the Potter, so "that the Scripture might be fulfilled".

So, you see, scripturally speaking, the Greek "aidios" has nothing to do with "time" or "endlessness", but with the "invisible" and "imperceptible" things that God the Potter does with His Creation. Those of us with "ears to hear" and "eyes to see" can SEE (understand) these invisible things through what we have seen (witnessed, learned).

Hope this helps.

Daywalker 

[eggi]

Thanks for your reply Daywalker. I am of the same opinion as you. However, I would like to see some more detailed explanation on why it is correct to translate aidios as unseen.

What I have now is really not proving anything:

Nathaniel Scarlett on Jude 1:6 "unseen chains" . . .
“Most Lexicon writers derive the word aidios from aei, ever or always: but it may have the same etymology as [h]ades, which they derive from a negative, and idein, to see; and therefore it signifies invisible, unseen, or unknown. In Romans 1:20 where it is applied to the power of the Deity, it means unknown; because we see or know only a very small part of God's power.”

A statement like this does not prove. Scarlett himselves says: ... it may have the same etymology ... It doesn't demonstrated why. I'm looking for sources with explanations.

I repeat, I am of the same opinion as you. I think it's very probable that aidios means unseen. I see that the context of both Jude and 2 Peter speaks of dark (unseen) things. Nevertheless, it is not crystal clear that this means unseen. Many sources say that this word comes from aei = always and idios = same. I'm not a Greek scholar, obviously, so I'm looking for something more detailed than Scarlett's quote. Your point about "invisible bonds" is a good observation, but it doesn't quite match. These angels are in restraint, they are kept from doing something they want, whereas the vessels of wrath and the son of destruction voluntereed, and they weren't restrained.

There must be some scholars who can explain why unseen is a probable translation. Does anyone have a concordance or lexicon of any kind which explains the origin of the word in detail?

God bless you,
Eirik

[Kat]

Hi eggi,

You are going to have a really hard time finding any scholars that will speak of aidios meaning anything but eternal. But here are a few more places where Ray says something about it.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=2657.0 ---------

"Aidios" assuredly DOES NOT mean "eternal." It means imperceptible or invisable.  It has two elements "A"  = not, and "idios" = see or perceive. Hence "not see or not perceive."  What can BE seen in creation attests to what CANNOT BE SEEN in God's achievements.  The bonds of the angels are not visible and literal physical chains, but "imperceptible" chains. It is very similar to the word "h - ades," which is also un perceive, hence unseen or imperceptible.


http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=733.0 ------------

The word AIDIOS appears only twice, in Rom 1:20, Jude 6 and ALL lexicons (Greek Dictionaries) call it a synonym for AIONIOS.


COMMENT:  I am not sure that "ALL lecions" say aidios is synonymous with aionios.  "aidion = UN-PERCEIVED, IMPERCEPTIBLE: Rom. 1:20 & Jude 6" (Concordant Greek-English Keyword Concordance, page 154).  Read Rom. 1:20: "For the INVISISLBE things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly SEEN [invisible things can be seen? Yes], being understoodby the things that are MADE, EVEN HIS IMPERCEPTIBLE ['invisible'--SAME THOUGHT] and Godhead [Divinity"..." Actually a little  elementary logic coupled with the context will clearly show any rational mind that the chains or bonds spoken of in this verse cannot possibly be "eternal" as the context clearly shows that these chains or bons  are only, "...UNTO the judgment of the great day [which 'great day' is a designated "aionion" judgment of Jesus Christ (Acts 17:39--a period of lesser and greater chastisement, but a day nonetheless of "ASASURANCE" for all man kind because Jesus has paid the penalty for all sin).


http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=11016.0 --------

The Greek word translated "eternal" in Rom. 1:20 and  "everlasting" in Jude 6,  is aidios, and is very similar
to the word "hades" translated "hell" in many English Bibles.  Hades is a compount of ha and des.  Ha means not or no--it is a negative.  And des means to see or perceive.
When put together it means "unseen" or "imperceptible."  Same is true of the word aidios.  It is a compount of "a or ha" and "idios."  Once again, "a or ha" is a negative meaning no or not, and idios likewise means to see or perceive.  When put together the word means to  not be able to see or imperceptible.  This is further verified by its usage in Rom.
1:20.  Notice that verse 20 starts off with, "for the INISIBLE things of Him [that would be things that are NOT made, NOT visible] from the creation of the world are clearly SEEN, being understood by the THINGS THAT ARE MADE [that would be things that ARE visible], even His IMPERCEPTIBLE power, and Divinity; so that they are without excuse."
There is little sense in telling us that God is eternal. If He weren't eternal, He wouldn't be God.  No, Paul is telling us that we can understand some of God's great power even though it is invisible by itself.  And we can do this by looking at the things God made, that ARE VISIBLE.  The visible universe points to God's INvisible (imperceptible) POWER and DIVINITY.  Hope this helps your understanding.  There is no word in Scripture which means by definition: "eternal," or "endless time."


http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=6581.0 -----------

The word translated "eternal" in Rom. 1:20 and Jude 6 is "aidion."  The "a" is a prefix meaning "un" or "no" or "not."  It is a negative just as in the word "hades" which Dr. Strong correctly informs us is made up of  "G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen"  UN-seen, or NOT-seen--IMperceptible.

Well, aidion is very close to being the same word and means "IMperceptible, and this is precisely what the context of these two Scriptural usages prove.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known [something perceivable] of God is manifest [made perceivable] in them; for God hath showed [made perceivable] it unto them.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible [IMperceivable] things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made [what is NOT perceivable, NOT seen, CAN be seen by things that ARE SEEN, namely "the THINGS that are made], even His eternal power [yes, "even His UNseen, NOT seen, IMperceptable power" can BE SEEN by things that CAN BE SEEN, namely "the things that are made] and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

There is the contextual proof of the word, plain and simple. Now Jude:

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting [Gk: 'aidion'] chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

 Once more, let's look at the context:  Notice that these angels are "reserved."  Here is the definition of "reserve"--"1. To keep back, as for FUTURE USE or for a special purpose" (American Heritage College Dictionary).  How can some that is "everlasting" as the King James suggests, be "kept back for FUTURE USE?"  That is nonsense! That is terrible translating.   Other translations use the words "to" and "for" in place of the King James "unto the judgment." In other words these restraining chains last only "till" "to" or "for" another day.  These chains are not "everlasting," but rather they are "imperceptible."  How does one "chain" a spirit being with "visible iron chains made with matter?"

Hope this helps your understanding. I have been answering this same question  on aiodion for years now.

God be with you,

Ray

[eggi]

Thank you for your links to posts, Kat - I already read those.
What I'm saying is, there must be some sources where this is explained in detail. I've found sources (a 100$ book) which explains why aidios is derived from aei = always and idios = same, although not in a very convincing way, so there must exist a SCHOLAR who can explain why aidios should be translated unsee, DESPITE the fact that Plato uses aidios in the sense of eternal.

Hi eggi,

You are going to have a really hard time finding any scholars that will speak of aidios meaning anything but eternal. But here are a few more places where Ray says something about it.

I'm beginning to think I will have a really hard time finding scholars too. I know that they won't say that in theological seminaries. However, I've found some theologians who admit that aion/aionios does not mean eternal, but they say that aidios is the only word in the Scriptures which means eternal.

I thank you again for your replies.

God bless you all,
Eirik

[daywalker]

Thanks for your reply Daywalker. I am of the same opinion as you. However, I would like to see some more detailed explanation on why it is correct to translate aidios as unseen.

What I have now is really not proving anything:

Nathaniel Scarlett on Jude 1:6 "unseen chains" . . .
“Most Lexicon writers derive the word aidios from aei, ever or always: but it may have the same etymology as [h]ades, which they derive from a negative, and idein, to see; and therefore it signifies invisible, unseen, or unknown. In Romans 1:20 where it is applied to the power of the Deity, it means unknown; because we see or know only a very small part of God's power.”

A statement like this does not prove. Scarlett himselves says: ... it may have the same etymology ... It doesn't demonstrated why. I'm looking for sources with explanations.

I repeat, I am of the same opinion as you. I think it's very probable that aidios means unseen. I see that the context of both Jude and 2 Peter speaks of dark (unseen) things. Nevertheless, it is not crystal clear that this means unseen. Many sources say that this word comes from aei = always and idios = same. I'm not a Greek scholar, obviously, so I'm looking for something more detailed than Scarlett's quote. Your point about "invisible bonds" is a good observation, but it doesn't quite match. These angels are in restraint, they are kept from doing something they want, whereas the vessels of wrath and the son of destruction voluntereed, and they weren't restrained.

There must be some scholars who can explain why unseen is a probable translation. Does anyone have a concordance or lexicon of any kind which explains the origin of the word in detail?

God bless you,
Eirik

I don't understand, Eirik, what more do you need? Words in any language can vary in meaning. It's the context that defines the usage. Take "Hades" for example. The Scriptures use "Hades" 12 times. In Ancient Greek mythology, Hades was both a place and a god. Does this mean the Scriptures teach that there's a real place called Hades and a god named Hades that runs it? Of course not. The Scriptural usage clearly shows that Hades has the same meaning that "Sheol" in the Hebrew Scripture means--the unseen realm of the dead, essentially "unconsciousness". Likewise, the Scriptural usage of "aidios" shows clearly what it means--Scripturally speaking--and that is "invisible, imperceptible".

If you really NEED a bunch of scholar's opinions, then you can find them everywhere on the Internet, in a library, etc. Problem is "scholarly opinion" won't help you much if you're looking for "debating material" because for every scholar that supports your beliefs, there are scholars that support those of your opposition. So, in other words, the opinion of scholars won't do you much good. That's why I go straight to the source: the Scriptures. Who cares what some great scholarly man with 6 doctorate degrees says? Was Jesus impressed by the wise men of His day? Nope. Were the Apostles impressed? Nope. So, why should we? Most of the deception that has come from the Church was because of what "scholars" claimed to be true.

I'm no scholar myself. I have a Hebrew/Greek dictionary and a few Bible Concordances. I use them often; but even I (being a "non-scholar") can see various errors and mistakes made by the "scholars" who wrote these dictionaries and concordances because I compare what they say with the Scriptures and can clearly see they fall short....often.


Just sayin... Daywalker 

[sansmile]

ONLY  the Holy  Spirit  will reveal, until then you will keep searching .............i saY this in  LOVE  XX

[markn902]

Hi
A quick word on aidos as it is used in Jude. I believe it is correct to translate this word as eternal or at least it has that meaning way back when. And it is used in the same sense that aionios is used in other parts of the scripture HOWEVER I believe that ,like aionios, it can be limited by what it is describing and quite simply this is the case in Jude.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness UNTILthe judgment of the great day.  (kjv)

Had it said kept in aidios chains and simply left it at that then I think the argument for eternal could be made. But these angels are kept in chains UNTIL something else happens. If it was eternal then there would be no "something else"

I believe in this sense it is merely a figure of speech. Like " I was at the DMV forever" not really because if you were at the DMV "forever you would still be there.  As for translating it "unseen" I think that is reaching a bit and for no good reason. There were plenty of words to describe unseen/imperceptible at the time and I think there is a ton of evidence to that suggests the ancients had the idea of forever when they said aidios. But in this sense, in this verse, it is limited by an event that happens in the future

[daywalker]

Hi
A quick word on aidos as it is used in Jude. I believe it is correct to translate this word as eternal or at least it has that meaning way back when. And it is used in the same sense that aionios is used in other parts of the scripture HOWEVER I believe that ,like aionios, it can be limited by what it is describing and quite simply this is the case in Jude.

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness UNTILthe judgment of the great day.  (kjv)

Had it said kept in aidios chains and simply left it at that then I think the argument for eternal could be made. But these angels are kept in chains UNTIL something else happens. If it was eternal then there would be no "something else"

I believe in this sense it is merely a figure of speech. Like " I was at the DMV forever" not really because if you were at the DMV "forever you would still be there.  As for translating it "unseen" I think that is reaching a bit and for no good reason. There were plenty of words to describe unseen/imperceptible at the time and I think there is a ton of evidence to that suggests the ancients had the idea of forever when they said aidios. But in this sense, in this verse, it is limited by an event that happens in the future

Hey Mark,

Let's not forget that 1st part of the definition of "eternal" is "without beginning"; it doesn't just mean endless time. From what I understand, the Latin word "aeternus" used to carry the same basic meaning as the Greek "aionios" - pertaining to an eon/age (a period of time with beginning and ending). But thanks to religion that is no longer the case, and therefore eternal is no longer an accurate translation of aion/aionios. Aidios, on the other hand is more similar to Hades than it is to aion/aionios. It has nothing to do with time as I showed in my previous post where I presented the two verses in which it is found.


Daywalker 

[daywalker]

Sorry, Eirik, I missed this part of your reply yesterday:

Your point about "invisible bonds" is a good observation, but it doesn't quite match. These angels are in restraint, they are kept from doing something they want, whereas the vessels of wrath and the son of destruction voluntereed, and they weren't restrained.

God bless you,
Eirik

So, you suggest that these angels did not volunteer like the vessels of wrath and son of destruction did? Let's double-check that:


"Besides, messengers who keep not their own sovereignty, but leave their own habitation, He has kept in imperceptible bonds ..."

"the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home..." NIV

"the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling..." ESV

"has also held in eternal chains those angels who did not keep their own position but abandoned their assigned place..." ISV

"I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged..." NLV


I would have to disagree with you. It seems clear these angels/messengers willingly (voluntarily) left their own place, and therefore as a result were placed in "imperceptible bonds".


Daywalker 

[John from Kentucky]

Sorry, Eirik, I missed this part of your reply yesterday:

Your point about "invisible bonds" is a good observation, but it doesn't quite match. These angels are in restraint, they are kept from doing something they want, whereas the vessels of wrath and the son of destruction voluntereed, and they weren't restrained.

God bless you,
Eirik

So, you suggest that these angels did not volunteer like the vessels of wrath and son of destruction did? Let's double-check that:


"Besides, messengers who keep not their own sovereignty, but leave their own habitation, He has kept in imperceptible bonds ..."

"the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home..." NIV

"the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling..." ESV

"has also held in eternal chains those angels who did not keep their own position but abandoned their assigned place..." ISV

"I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged..." NLV


I would have to disagree with you. It seems clear these angels/messengers willingly (voluntarily) left their own place, and therefore as a result were placed in "imperceptible bonds".


Daywalker 

Hi Daywalker,

I don't know if I understand what I highlighted in your above comments.

If these angels willingly or voluntarily left their own place, then it means they had free will and God is not sovereign.

Since only God has a free will, then it must have been the Father's will that these angels rebelled and left their appointed places.

Why did the Father will that they disobey Him is another mystery of the scriptures that will one day be revealed to us.

John

[Craig]

I don't think that is right John.  When I sin it is voluntary, I'm not being forced too and I do it willingly.  That is the way God created me a broken sinning machine.  God is not dragging me kicking and screaming to sin or anyone else.

Craig

[mharrell08]

If these angels willingly or voluntarily left their own place, then it means they had free will and God is not sovereign.

No it doesn't. People willingly sin all day long but that doesn't mean they have free will. We all have a will and things we volunteer to do. But our will is not free of cause and circumstances that we cannot control. God is the author of all causes & circumstance in everyone's life.

Since only God has a free will, then it must have been the Father's will that these angels rebelled and left their appointed places.

Free will does not exist, so no one has it. It's a myth, similar to a rock so heavy even God can't lift it...no such thing exists.



Marques

[John from Kentucky]

I don't think that is right John.  When I sin it is voluntary, I'm not being forced too and I do it willingly.  That is the way God created me a broken sinning machine.  God is not dragging me kicking and screaming to sin or anyone else.

Craig

I agree Craig.  God made us sinning machines.

It therefore follows that He created those angels sinning machines too.  We sin.  Angels sin.  We are physical.  Angels are spiritual.

Which raises the question of why both a physical creation and a spiritual creation?  I think this is where Ray's studies are headed.  Why did the Father need a physical creation?

[daywalker]

I don't think that is right John.  When I sin it is voluntary, I'm not being forced too and I do it willingly.  That is the way God created me a broken sinning machine.  God is not dragging me kicking and screaming to sin or anyone else.

Craig

I agree Craig.  God made us sinning machines.

It therefore follows that He created those angels sinning machines too.  We sin.  Angels sin.  We are physical.  Angels are spiritual.

Which raises the question of why both a physical creation and a spiritual creation?  I think this is where Ray's studies are headed.  Why did the Father need a physical creation?

Both Marques and Craig have responded the same way I would have regarding free will, so I won't repeat it. (thanks guys!)

I would like to add, in response to this particular comment, that I am of the "opinion" that the messengers spoken of in Jude are not spirit beings, but humans (notice that in the very next verse Jude mentions the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah). I hold the same "opinion" regarding the messengers spoken of in 2 Peter 2 (again, notice in the very next verse Peter mentions the sins of the ancient world who were killed in the Flood).


Daywalker 


PS: I said "opinion", so if you don't agree that's fine.

[eggi]

Sorry, Eirik, I missed this part of your reply yesterday:

Your point about "invisible bonds" is a good observation, but it doesn't quite match. These angels are in restraint, they are kept from doing something they want, whereas the vessels of wrath and the son of destruction voluntereed, and they weren't restrained.

God bless you,
Eirik

So, you suggest that these angels did not volunteer like the vessels of wrath and son of destruction did? Let's double-check that:


"Besides, messengers who keep not their own sovereignty, but leave their own habitation, He has kept in imperceptible bonds ..."

"the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home..." NIV

"the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling..." ESV

"has also held in eternal chains those angels who did not keep their own position but abandoned their assigned place..." ISV

"I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged..." NLV


I would have to disagree with you. It seems clear these angels/messengers willingly (voluntarily) left their own place, and therefore as a result were placed in "imperceptible bonds".


Daywalker 

I expressed myself in a clumsy way. What I meant is that NOW these angels are in restraints, and they cannot do what they want to do. Of course, they sinned voluntarily. By the way, if these angels/messengers are humans as you pointed out, could it be that the chains that bind them is death?

This thread headed exactly where I was hoping for. Quite a few pearls here. I'm just trying to have as much information as I can, so that I can be able to explain (better and better) why I believe the way I do. However, you are all absolutely right in what you say, if God doesn't reveal this to someone, they won't get it.

God bless you all,
Eirik

[daywalker]

I expressed myself in a clumsy way. What I meant is that NOW these angels are in restraints, and they cannot do what they want to do. Of course, they sinned voluntarily. By the way, if these angels/messengers are humans as you pointed out, could it be that the chains that bind them is death?

This thread headed exactly where I was hoping for. Quite a few pearls here. I'm just trying to have as much information as I can, so that I can be able to explain (better and better) why I believe the way I do. However, you are all absolutely right in what you say, if God doesn't reveal this to someone, they won't get it.

God bless you all,
Eirik

I think it has more to do with blindness or deception, but now that you mention it, I think you could include death in there as well ("For to set the mind on the flesh is death" Romans 8:6). For example, a televangelist on TBN, whose mind is set on money and materialism, rather than on preaching the Gospel Truth, has "abandoned his assigned place" as a preacher of Christ and instead is "dead in his trespasses" Ephesians 2:5. Therefore, his "imperceptible bonds" that blind/deceive him are money, materialism (not to mention pride and self-gratification as a result of all the many followers he has that practically worship him).


Something like that... Daywalker 

PS: Paul also says in Romans 1, that God gives those who "suppress the truth" over to the "lusts of their own hearts". So we know that even though it's the "money" that drives the televangelist, it's also (still) God behind the curtain.

[markn902]

Hey Mark,

Let's not forget that 1st part of the definition of "eternal" is "without beginning"; it doesn't just mean endless time. From what I understand, the Latin word "aeternus" used to carry the same basic meaning as the Greek "aionios" - pertaining to an eon/age (a period of time with beginning and ending). But thanks to religion that is no longer the case, and therefore eternal is no longer an accurate translation of aion/aionios. Aidios, on the other hand is more similar to Hades than it is to aion/aionios. It has nothing to do with time as I showed in my previous post where I presented the two verses in which it is found.


Daywalker  
 

Excellent point 

[Joel]

I haven't had any problem with the words, forever, ever and ever, evermore, and everlasting at all for some 35 years now. Back when I learned to my satisfaction that they are all "periods of time" when used in context with what the scriptures are saying.

I also think that when Eternal is used it is referring to God, seeing he is the invisible one, and has all power to give us his life, that is "eternal". We are not eternal but he gives us his life that is, He is the only one that has life without intermission. And the damnation to those that don't have his life, are receiving a judgement that is in effect a "dam" that is holding them back and preventing them from doing more of their wickedness for a everlasting period of time, All that comes from an Eternal God.

Luke 18:18
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to "inherit" eternal life?

Rays does the best job of anyone I know, when it comes to standing toe to toe and teaching the way he does concerning these related subjects, it has to be a gift of God.

Joel