I haven't used the root fallacy. I can tell you must not know what it means or you would not accuse me of using that fallacy.
"When doing biblical exegesis, there are several pitfalls we must be careful to avoid. D. A. Carson calls these 'exegetical fallacies', and they are so prevalent that from what I gather from other's that are more well read on Carson's work than myself, he himself falls into some of them in spite of his having written an entire book on the subject! Rather than look at every single one of these pitfall, I'd just like to make you all aware of four. First, is what Carson calls the 'root fallacy' - often times we'll hear someone refer to the root of a Greek word to make some profound theological statement. In English we know this just isn't true, however: the root of a word may or may not have any real logical connection to it's meaning. For example, the root word for 'nice' is the Latin word meaning 'ignorant'. Or what it, years from now someone applied the 'root-word' theory of linguistics to the word 'butterfly'?
A butterfly is neither a fly, nor buttery - the same is true in interpreting Greek. Although sometimes the root of a word does help us get a better idea of what it might mean, that is not necessarily always true."
http://heatlight.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/how-to-read-the-word-evangelical-hermeneutics-or-how-to-read-interpret-the-bible/Now then, had I tried to break down aionios into its parts and tried to come to the meaning of that word by its root meaning then you might have something to stand on in accusing me.
For intance, to say that American is the adjectival form of America and means "pertaining to America" is not using the root falacy. It is an absolute fact that American pertains to that which is of America. Obama is the American president. His presidency pertains to America.
Likewise Aionios is the adjectival form of Aion and means "pertaining to the eon(s)". This is not using the root falacy. It is an absolute fact that aionios pertains to the aion. If a person is punished for the aion and they receive aionion punishing then there punishing is pertaining to the aion.
When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living,
the created image of the
imperceptible (aidion) gods, he rejoiced, and in his
joy determined to make
the copy still more like the original; and as this was
eonian, (aionios) he
sought to make the
universe so far as might be of a like kind. Now the nature of the ideal being
was
eons (or periods of time or cycles),
(
aionos) but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was
impossible. Wherefore he
resolved to have a moving image of
eonian (aionios), and when he set in order
the heaven, he
made this image the
eons or periods of time or cycles (aionos) but moving
according to number, while
eonian (aionion) itself rests in
unity; and this image we call time. [Tony's note: Since the image is time (he
just said so) and since that which is "eternal" is *non-time* therefore that
which is eonian is that which deals with time and not eternity. Plato got it
right. I have put the correct transliteration in bold above to correct the
problem. Remember...this is about "time" not "eternity."
Tony
Plato timaeus 37d
Now, then Gabe,
please bring forth in the New Testament where aion or aionios should be translated eternal. Just one verse will do and give your reason why it should be translated eternal.
Tony
