go back and actually read my post for the answer is in there, redhot.
You would do well to take your own advice to others 
John and James? were called sons of thunder, was it because they had a cloud, rain nature?
I don’t think there’s much left to discuss on the OP. Contemporary Greek scholarship says that aionios need not mean “eternal.” Solid scholars see a corrective meaning in kolasis. You insist that they’re wrong. You don’t know Greek. You aren’t a scholar. And you have yet to tell us why we should trust you more than them–only insisting over and over that we should. Until you give even a shred of evidence that aionios must ALWAYS mean eternal in one direction or both–that is, that Thayer’s threefold definition is exhaustive and that all the scholars that say otherwise presently are incorrect–there’s nothing left to say, at least on my end.
Someone will have a rude awakening in the Eschaton, and it’s the same person that had a rude awakening at the Prodigal Son’s celebration: the elder brother.
Paul is addressing believers in the book of Acts church. Acts 17:28 IN HIM we live and move and have our being… that is how you become an offspring of God. You are only in Him by faith not by a natural birthright. You have to be born into the family of God, Urpilgrim. (AKA born again) 
I agree. Neither are you a scholar. You’re right I dont know Greek but Spiros Zodhiates TH.D. does and he was a Greek.
All the OT believers had the sin nature. What do you think they were waiting for? Galatians 4:4-7.
Leifein, Snitz and URpilgrim,
More proof that everyone is not a child or son of God.
Galatians 4:4-7
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Of course this happened after the completed work on the cross. You receive this adoption of sons by faith in the completed work of the cross and when you do that you are born or adopted into the family of God! Good stuff, huh?
Snitz, Leifein and URpilgrim,
Christianity is not a religion but a family! You can’t just join a church to be a child of God or a Christian…you must be born into the family! (AKA born again) 
You didn’t answer my question
I agree. Neither are you a scholar.
You’re right; I haven’t attained the level of skill necessary to that title. I’m a student. I’ve studied Koine formally for about five years now (and informally before that). And you’ve still given me no reason to distrust BADG or Liddell-Scott, both of which offer and allow for a non-eternal aionios and a corrective kolasis.
You’re right I dont know Greek but Spiros Zodhiates TH.D. does and he was a Greek.
Right. “He was a Greek,” meaning everything he said about Koine was automatically right? That’s cool. I’ll await with bated breath your commentary on the original text of Beowulf. English IS your native tongue, after all, right?
At any rate, even Zodhiates admits that kolasis generally refers to corrective punishment. His whole reason for insisting that it means something drastically different in the NT than it does anywhere else appears to be that his theology won’t allow it (he’s not alone in making that mistake; Trench made the same error in 1880).
Your facts are wrong, and therefore, any conclusions you draw from those facts are much more likely to be wrong. But since this isn’t about your conclusions per se but the facts from which you draw them, you’d be well-advised to concede the point and seek to establish foundations for your case elsewhere. Continuing to attempt to establish this particular argument while flying in the face of contemporary scholarship on the matter while not even bothering to really engage the arguments of your opponents strikes me as comically reminiscent of Monty Python’s Black Knight. So until you say something that hasn’t been responded to a dozen times, there’s nothing left to say on the matter.
Aionios very obviously does not always fit into the threefold “eternal” definition.
Kolasis generally refers to corrective punishment, and only context could force it to mean something different.
Those are facts, Revival, substantiated more times on these very forums than I care to count. Your refusal to deal with them has nothing to do with superior argumentation or scholars (even Zodhiates indicates as much about kolasis, after all).
Does “kolasis” refer to corrective punishment when used in 1 John 4:18? Nope! It means tormented! Does fear play a part in having corrective punishment? Of course not! What can fear possibly correct? Likewise the eternal LOF was not created to correct, regenerate, refine or change anyone! It was created to be an eternal torment prison for eternal criminals who are alienated from God and considered His enemies! That is truth trumping your facts, Snitzel.
Yes, kolasis does mean corrective punishment, especially in 1 John 4:18; just substitute “corrective punishment” in its place and it makes plenty sense.
“17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves corrective punishment”. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. 19 We love Him because He first loved us."
John is speaking specifically to Believers, challenging them to be perfected in love so that they might be free from fear, especially the fear of judgment and corrective punishment. God chastizes those whom he loves. And whether that punishment comes in this life or the next, this passage does not say. I suspect it’s recognizing the possibility of both.
We as believers know how we should live, and even more so the Spirit within us convicts us of sin. If we continue to sin though having been convicted by the Holy Spirit, we naturally fear our Father’s corrective punishment. And the reason we continue to sin and thus fear is because we have not been perfected, made completly whole in our love for God.
Sherman
That is absolutely absurd! I like how you add the word “involves” to the verse. What do you call that “eisegsis” or something. God warns people of consequences of adding words to His word (Rev 22:18-19) Kolasis in context to this verse means torment. What can fear possibly correct? It torments people and is not used for correction. Fear is demonic and the devil uses it to torment people. God does not use fear to correct people. 
Fear is the opposite of faith. Likewise the eternal LOF was not created to correct, regenerate, refine or change anyone! It was created to be an eternal torment prison for eternal criminals who are alienated from God and considered His enemies!
I’ll give you this Revival… 
your tenacious 
PS… as I was checking my dictionary that I had tenacious spelled right, I notice their use of the word in an example.
“He’s so TENACIOUS in his beliefs that he refuses to listen to anyone else”
I just about fell off my chair laughing I thought of you Revival
I guess they could have used your picture in stead
I edited the post and added this: That is absolutely absurd! I like how you add “involves” to 1 John 4:18. What do you call that “eisegsis” or something. God warns people of consequences of adding words to His word (Rev 22:18-19)
Urpilgrim
Just giving you the truth of what **DAD **has already said in His word, brother. Off to work. God bless.
In your most humble opinion… right?
Does “kolasis” refer to corrective punishment when used in 1 John 4:18?
In fact, it does.
Nope! It means tormented!
Because the KJV says so, right?
Does fear play a part in having corrective punishment? Of course not!
Being “turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (an undeniably corrective punishment) sounds pretty scary to me. How 'bout you?
What can fear possibly correct?
I’ve been told by many that they try not to sin because they’re afraid of Hell and that the removal of eternal Hell would remove any impetus to struggle against sin. Maybe you should ask them what fear could possibly correct.
Likewise the eternal LOF was not created to correct, regenerate, refine or change anyone! It was created to be an eternal torment prison for eternal criminals who are alienated from God and considered His enemies! That is truth trumping your facts, Snitzel.
What I see is not “truth” but your assertions being replayed over and over and over without substantiation. It’s like a mantra. Is that how you keep believing it in spite of the facts? By repeating it to yourself over and over? Does that work on you? Because it doesn’t work on us.
Oh Revival, Thank you for blatantly ignoring my post up there - again. That’s very loving and Christian like of you. 
Wow, so quick to judge. 
Excuse me but Sherman did NOT add the word involve. The New King James Version uses the word ‘involved’ and perhaps others. Not sure what version Sherman is using.
You tell me. Christendom has been using it for YEARS!
Well…apparently he uses it to scare everyone of eternal damnation and having them tormented with Satan for all eternity. So are you saying that God is using something demonic? 
Poor God, he loses billions of people to Satan. Satan wins!
Amen. 
Yep! apparently…fear DOES correct. Yes, many people come to the Lord out of FEAR! Many people get corrected out of FEAR! Fear is a great motivator. Guess God uses fear to correct people.
It’s really strange, having not participated in this thread I finally decided to post a few comments and each time the post did not appear in the thread. So I tried another one just a few minutes ago and it did. Strange. Anyhow I’d like to address the OP (if it actually posts this time).
Concerning the title of this thread, it comes across to me as disrespectful, inaccurate, and misleading. It would be similar to asking, “Why do Infernalists misinterpret Gehenna?” It assumes 1) Infernalists are misinterpreting Gehenna, 2) Gehenna does not mean Hell, and 3) implies that Infernalists are purposefully doing so, likely for illegitimate reasons. Of course, as most scholars readily recognize, Gehenna does not mean “Hell” but is a transliteration of the Hebrew Ga Hinnom which referenced a valley, actually more of a ravine SSW of Jerusalem. It would best be translated as Hinnom Valley, or Hinnom Ravine, or valley of Hinnom. Sadly, Gehenna was mistranslated as Hell in the earliest of English translations, even the 1396 Wycliff translation. Why it is continued to be mistranslated as Hell, I do not know for I assume that most Greek and Hebrew scholars are aware that Gehenna referenced Hinnom Valley.
Anyhow, my point is simply that it would have been better to ask, “Why do URs understand and interpret “Aionion” differently than Infernalists, or differently than how it is traditionally understood and interpreted?” Simply put, URs do not “change the meaning of Aionion”; rather, they understand and interpret it different from Infernalists.
As to why I understand and interpret aionios different from how it has traditionally been interpreted in English as “eternal” or “endless” is because:
- It was used in Hebrews and James to modify judgment and the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, neither of which are endless. The fire that destroyed Sodom is certainly no longer burning. And I don’t see God endlessly judging people, or the judgment lasting forever.
- aionios is rooted in aion which means age, which is a period of time indefinitely long, not necessarily endless.
- Aionios was used to translate Hebrew word Olam in the LXX which spoke of that which is on the horizon, beyond site and metaphorically beyond understanding. Olam was also used to reference the coming age of the Messiah.
- Even Vine’s recognizes that aionios can speak of duration that is undefined but not endless.
- There are many scholars, much more knowledgeable than I, who also interpret aionios not as endless or eternal, even some Infernalists.
Most words have multiple meanings and even more nuances. And of course, words can be used in many different ways and types of literature, for example in hyperbole (overstatement), in poetic, artistic literature, etc. It thus behooves us as students of scripture to study passages to as best we can determine what the author meant by what he wrote, taking into consideration especially the context and it’s literary style.
In short, I’ve come to believe that aionios often used as a means of referencing the kingdom of God, the messianic age to come, that which is spiritual which sometimes invades the physical, that which transcends time but also sometimes effects the present, that which is to come but is also present now. It’s a word with a wide range of meanings and nuances. We should thus give due diligence when interpreting it to do our best to determine what the author meant in each passage. To always interpret aionios as endless, eternal, or forever is not doing this and often conveys a meaning not intended by the author, imo.
Mt.25.46 is one such example. To me the metaphor of the shepherd separating the kids from the flock, and the use of the word kolasis, which I understand to mean “corrective punishment”, and the purpose of the passage being meant, I believe, to bring believers to repentance, informs me that aionios would best be interpreted as conveying the concept that both the punishment and life are from God and have to do with both the present and the messianic age to come. The passage, I believe, was meant to encourage believers to look after the needs of those less fortunate (the poor, the hungry, strangers, inmates, etc.). This passage also affirms to me that judgment is based on works, not on just what we believe or profess to believe. Frankly, it gives me pause to examine my life, how I live and especially how I treat others less fortunate than me.
By taking this passage and misinterpreting it to speak of God separating out the saved from the unsaved, resulting in the saved being rewarded and the unsaved being damned to ECT, it nullifies the power of this passage to call anyone to righteousness, right living. The saved dismiss it because they say, I’m saved by grace through faith so no worries for me, it matters little if any how I treat those less fortunate than I. And the unsaved dismiss it because they do not believe anyhow - thus nullifying the power of this passage to call anyone to repentance and life.
Well, I’m way off topic so I’ll stop. URs do not “change the meaning of Aionion”; we do understand and interpret it differently.