I've already done this, I think, but I'm happy to do so again:
- You've claimed that kolasin (sometimes 'kolisin', in your parlance) is a Greek word, but this is false: you won't find an entry for it in the LSJ, to which you've appealed, for example. It's rather an inflection of kolasis, which is indeed a word.
Kolisin was obviously a typo. You can pick any post I've made on this forum (or any other) and even I myself can show you where I make at least one mistake in each one. Maybe insignificant errors of a grammatical or textual nature or it could be important points. For example, I will often type is when I mean isn't. That can be very significant because they mean the opposite of one another. I don't sweat that because these forums are temporal excursions providing me with feedback and instruction. I learn from everyone, even you. About, not only the subjects discussed here, but also about people and what motivates them to participate. You, for example, have, to me, a very interesting motivation. Well, it's not interesting itself but - how should I put this - the motivation behind your motivation is fascinating to me. I'm sort of playing with you. Teasing out that root motivation to see if you are capable of acknowledging it because that motivation, to me, seems really pathetic in a grandiose way.
From the article I linked to: "By the way, you can verify that Aristotle is using
kolasis and
timoria respectively
here in the same way as described above for Plato’s writings. I also think it might be helpful as a reminder to mention that
kolasin and
kolasis have the same meaning and are simply different inflections of the same word. If this seems strange, it must be remembered that English words are inflected in a similar manner without changing meaning. As a simple example, the word “dogs” is a plural inflection of the word “dog” but they both refer to furry canines that bark. For the curious,
kolasin is the accusative feminine singular form of
kolasis. In summary, the meaning is the same."
This source is just some guy explaining something. Much like you and I.
According to Oxford dictionary, in grammar, an inflection is "a change in the form of a word (typically the ending) to express a grammatical function or attribute such as tense, mood, person, number, case, and gender."
This source is just an officious explanation of how words are commonly used. If the common use changes that becomes the definition. Gay, or queer, for example.
God and
hell. The meanings of those words have changed over time, which the links show. To an extent the latter use cancels out the former depending upon the commonality.
You say kolasin isn't a word. I'm completely willing to acknowledge the possibility that you are right and all of the Biblical references I have found over the years are wrong but I need to see reason for it. There also may be some other discrepancy. The only one that you have given, as far as I recall, is your opinion. Since your only motivation in this exchange is egocentric I have to decide how much effort I want to put into it. Generally, in a case like this; one word in 1 or 2 verses which could easily be exchanged for an equally acceptable one (kolasis) by both you and I, the logical recourse would be to do that. But, like I said, your pathetic egocentric motivation is what I'm really looking at here. I'm not judging it, by the way, I'm examining it. In a sense your approach is petty and so, then, is my own. On the other hand it could show me personally how similar my own is to yours and I can then examine that, so in that sense it is very important to me. The point of this examination isn't for me to be right or wrong about anything other than that.
I could say something totally absurd, intentionally or not and learn from it. I often quote Orwell and Picasso. All art is propaganda, the lie that allows us to see the truth. I'm an artist.
Aside from your motivation, it comes down to semantics, really, doesn't it. Weird, huh? This thread, really, is about hell. Okay, let's look at hell if you set aside semantics and doctrine. Really, hell is the proposition that God tortures the immortal souls of the wicked (demonic spirit creatures and human immortal souls) for their sins forever with literal fire in a literal place underground after death. You have to ask yourself a lot of questions about that, but ultimately it is hinged upon the question of how can fire harm a spirit being or immortal soul? Literally.
The question of kolasis (punishment; chastisement) is a question of figurative or literal.
I asked you earlier what the difference between translation and transliteration was and, naturally, you gave a smart ass answer. A translation is where a word in one language is given in another (target) that conveys, as much as possible, the same meaning. Transliteration is, according to the mighty Wikipedia, a type of conversion of a text from one
script to another that involves swapping
letters (thus
trans- +
liter-) in predictable ways, such as Greek ⟨
α⟩ → ⟨
a⟩, Cyrillic ⟨
д⟩ → ⟨
d⟩, Greek ⟨
χ⟩ → the digraph ⟨
ch⟩, Armenian ⟨
ն⟩ → ⟨
n⟩ or Latin ⟨
æ⟩ → ⟨
ae⟩.
[1]
So, then, why do so many Biblical resources use kolasin? The Hebrew word for the Festival of Lights holiday is חנוכה. Why is the English transliteration Hanukkah or Chanukah? If I had to I could look it up. I don't really see any reason why I should care, especially in this case. Just use kolasis.
One thing, though, is this: "The problem can be neatly illustrated by taking a few Greek proper names, either historical or mythological. An exact transliteration of Σωκρατης and Περικλης ought to produce
Sōkratēs and
Periklēs; but because the Latin language knew these two men as
Socrates and
Pericles, their names have been spelled with a
c for over 2,000 years. Nonetheless, there are Greek purists who prefer the English spellings
Sokrates and
Perikles, however pedantic that may seem. What are we to do with Aἰσχυλος —
Aiskhulos or
Aischylos or
Aeschylus? The first version is an exact transliteration; the second can also be described as a transliteration, using Roman alphabet conventions (χ =
ch, υ =
y); but the third is a full-blown LATINIZATION, where a Greek diphthong (αι) has been spelled as its Latin counterpart (
ae), and where the Greek noun ending -ος has been rendered by the equivalent Latin declension form (
-us)." (
Source)
Now, then, what is kolazein?
I really don't care because the issue in this topic is really, quite simply a question of whether or not the punishment is literal. I've shown how you can solve that problem without doctrine and semantics. Like a dictionary you only have to look at what people think the word means and how it is applied. The common use.
Continued