The aramaic translation of the bible says torture and not punishment. I have read that this is one of the early translations.
And these will go into eternal torture, and the righteous into eternal life.”
This is from aramaic translation of the bible in biblehub Matthew 25:46. Papias and Irenaeus stated that Matthew was written in Aramaic and then translated todo Greek…
Lamsa’s translation uses “torment” as opposed to torture.
But the case here is that the wicked suffer forever. And there is not aionos here.
That’s interesting, but torture does not fit the simile of a shepherd separating out the kids from the flock. Shepherds aren’t known for “torture”. And Jesus defined aionios life as knowing God, qualitatively not quantitatively.
I suppose Infernalists MUST make much todo over Mt.25:46 because it is the ONLY place in scripture that links a word that is often translated as eternal (whether that’s correct or not) with a word that means punishment. But to me it seems like something so important as Hell, IF it were true, would have at least been warned of and named specifically at least once! But of course it is not. And to me it seems like God would have warned Adam of Hell, if it was true. And Moses would have warned of such in the Law. And Jesus would have named Hell and warned of it specifically, not in hyperbole or metaphor, but in more literal terminology. And most certainly Paul would have warned of Hell repeatedly and specifically in his letters. But of course, they don’t! If Sheol and Hades were translated correctly as grave or realm of the dead, and Gehenna was correctly translated as Hinnom Valley, then it would be much easier to show people that Hell is not a Biblical concept. Just saying.
IF you understand “the destruction” or “the life” as Sherman points out, that is, in terms of qualitative truth then such destruction or life points to the TOTALITY NOT DURATION of either. Certainly that fits with Jesus’ understanding and use of “eternal” as per Jn 17:3 & Jn 10:10 etc.
I know that tradition has it that Matthew wrote his memoirs of Christ in “Hebrew”, that is, Aramaic. What I do know is that the Greek phrase translated as “eternal torment” actually means “lasting correction.”
How do you know that the Aramaic word should be translated as “torture”? I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that English translations of the Aramaic are just as off base as English translations of the Greek. I actually looked at one online English translation of the Aramaic, and it rendered the word as “torment”.
I know several universalists who swear by the Aramaic NT (the Peshitto or Peshitta depending on whether RevJohn and a couple of small epistles are included or not – and I always forget which is which), chief among them Stonehouse back in the early-mid 1800s.
But on the typical modern view that the Syriac/Aramaic texts we have are translations back into Syriac from Greek, I’m not sure I would especially care if a word somehow meaning torment more than punitive discipline was used there: first because by the time the retranslation occurred universalism was going out of fashion anyway, and second because Greek words meaning torment more than punitive discipline are used for eschatological punishment elsewhere even though not described as “eonian”. Also third, I seem to recall that the Syriac term, like Hebrew AHD or OLM, or Greek aiônios, has a wide range of potential meaning which requires context to certify (if possible) – though then again I don’t recall whether that term is being used at Matt 25 in Syriac.
(Incidentally, I regard the translation difference between “torture” and “torment” to be irrelevant – the difference depends totally, so far as I can tell, on whether contextually someone is inflicting the torment, which is usually the case. The negative ethical connotation we apply to the term “torture” is also somewhat irrelevant: either the context shows someone is doing something we would regard as ethically negative, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then by modern western standards we shouldn’t translate it as “torture”, but we ought to recognize that wouldn’t necessarily prevent other people from more-or-less properly translating it that way.)
I think problems like this one tempt me to Christian Deism or maybe flat out Deism. Why does God let God’s Word, which is essentially the primary way we know certain details about God, to contradict itself? Even supposing that these contradictions are resolvable through study, why would God allow many to be misled by them either way (for obv. many people cant study these issues)?
I want Christian universalism to be true (and it likely could be, even on a “Deistic” view in that sense that God could be triune and wanting to give everybody infinite life, though these are certainly harder to deduce without revelation), but given the interminable disputes as to whether we’ve the read the Bible correctly, it might be that the simplest course is one like Thomas Paine’s, who worshiped God, lived by conscience (which, admittedly, can be misleading) and trusted in God’s goodness for the afterlife? At least, then it is just b/w ourselves and God, and not through the intermediary of the Bible, which is so hard to trust given these endless disputes. It would be a shame to lose Christ in the process, but as wonderful as Jesus Christ is, God can love us “directly” (does that make sense?). I sound like a heretic, but, how could a good God blame us for being at agnostic to an apparently contradictory revelation but trying our best to know God directly as through Deism? (By “Deism”, I still mean a personal God who is interested in us, as in Paine’s “Theophilanthropy”, b/c I know many take “Deism” to mean that God superintends the universe merely and is largely indifferent to creation).
Deism may be a rash solution to these interpretative problems but I can’t see how a good God can fault one for it… I know, too, there are Christian Deists it just may be difficult given that our knowledge of Jesus is through revelation. I know that Quakers believe that Christ is the “Inner Light”, but how would they know about Christ in the first place without the Bible? Deism, or God’s existence, can be known to anybody through reason, and hopefully, God’s goodness can be deduced through hope and faith, though sometimes suffering can obscure this or call it into doubt. Jesus Christ, or that God Incarnated God’s self, secures God’s goodness; I just can’t see why God lets the all-important Incarnation be distorted by the Bible (again, this problem still holds even if Christian universalism is the true reading of the Bible, b/c so many people are kept from it due to the ambiguity of the Bible; yes, God will ultimately redeem them in UR, but wasn’t it cruel to keep many from the message their whole lives but entrusting it to an apparently contradictory revelation?)
Sorry if this seems a non sequitur or a tangent to the Aramaic question, but in IMO this issue is where all translation/interpretation problems ultimately lead… God forgive me if I am asserting heresy.
What specific “problems” do you have in mind? Translation problems? Does inspiration of the Biblical writers require God to prevent any translation problems? Or are you thinking of the Bible itself being somehow dictated by God?
Suppose the Bible (or at least the New Testament) is regarded as a record of God’s work among mankind or some subset of mankind? Surely that would conflict with the thinking of a deist.
PM - it would help, I think, for you to state what you think the contradictions within the bible are. Maybe a short list to get us started?
I would think this question of whether Mt 25:46 reads “torture” or “punishment”, perhaps not a flat contradiction, but contrary meanings to be sure, is a good example, and why I am asking this metaquestion.
I am asking: given that there all these debates throughout the history of Christianity as to the true meaning of the Bible, and since this controversy stems from issues like the above question of the correct translation (e.g. the current ? Mt 25:46), isn’t Deism, or Paine’s “Theophilanthropy” (a personal God, though not revealed through texts), tempting? How can God expect the average person to know the answer to whether the Bible is indeed Calvinist, Arm, Univ, Annihil., etc? Even if there are only apparent contradictions in the Bible, it is enough to wonder why God would let God’s message (I think this would be relevant whether one believed inerrancy, infallibility or almost on any theory of inspiration, so long as the Bible is the only way we can know specific details about God, as to whether God double predestines, saves all, gives us free choice to be saved or damned, etc.) to be so malleable and misunderstood, .esp the more we presume a universalist God who loves all and wants all to come to saving knowledge of Him.
Does this clarify my ?s
Thank you PM.
Pretty sure the scriptures don’t say God primarily works through the scriptures. 
(Despite what various post-Temple rabbis tried REALLY REALLY HARD to teach. 
)
The scriptures are mainly useful for tracking a particular story about God’s operations in history; and the “culture” of both Israel and primitive Christianity (by which I’m including developing Catholic rituals for several centuries, so don’t mean ‘simple’ by ‘primitive’) are based on religiously participating in various important promises as well as participating in that historical movement.
Beyond that the scriptures give theological data to work with (the “faithful deposit”), and I gather there are at least two reasons it isn’t given in systematic fashions:
1.) As personal exercise (mental pushups anyone can work on regardless of their vocation);
2.) As a corporate testing method for sifting whether persons and groups will be charitable to others or not. (Here I’m following Lewis’ thesis from The Screwtape Letters that differences of belief in the church could have and should have been a “hotbed of charity”. I’m pleased to see that the ancient catholic groups are beginning to work along that line at long last during the past few decades, more-or-less in the span of my lifetime! Maybe that and the increase of Christian universalism is a sign the end is coming… )
Good stuff Jason, and can i say that your last comment made me feel really happy. i used to fear the day of the Lord as it’s always linked to destruction and death…yes, of the wicked who reject Him, but i always pitied them. Now the end is without fear, and rather it is full of hope.
PM…it sounds like you’re being driven to a form of despair by the often contradictory nature of the Bible. That’s understandable. At the end of the day, it is possibly to draw so many theories from this vast body of data…and sometimes it seems unreliable due to the way it was cobbled together, poorly translated, etc etc.
i don’t have an answer, but i think there are helpful hints along the way. the Bible to me is a human set of documents. i think God inspired it, and God can use it for great good, if we allow Him. but i think we have to judge the Bible itself by what we know of God’s character, both drawn from the Bible [yes, this is a bit circular] but also from our experience and common sense.
Can UR be arrived at if one doesn’t rely on the Bible: can we sort of deduce from reason that God - assuming one buy’s the arguments for the existence of God - grants His creatures infinite life? I think in an earlier thread, Jason, you said you had a metaphysical arg for this, but I can’t remember…
As far as I know the Aramaic (Syriac) language has no word meaning “eternal”:
alexanderthomson.blogspot.de/200 … rnity.html
The formatation is a bit messed up and hard to read.
Myshkin, in case Jason doesn’t see this (he’s pretty busy with his work right now), if you want to read his metaphysical argument, just click on and download his Sword to the Heart link – it’s in his signature line, and you can find it in his post a few spots up from here.