Aionios: Let's clear the water

[gregoryfl]

Regarding the idea that an adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived, nor can it change the meaning, I am trying to weigh everything as I search all this out. What about these words?

Time=noun

Timeless=adjective

Age-=noun

Ageless=adjective

It seems to me that these similar adjectives both describe something greater than time or age, and also is a change in meaning. So perhaps the above statement can have some truth, but not in every single case?

Ron

Ron, Timeless is not the adjectival form of Time but of Timelessness, its nounal form.
The Declaration of Independence is a timeless document. The document is pertaining to its timelessness in that it spans all different times within the United States.

Ageless is not the adjectival form of Age but of Agelessness its nounal form.
Ageless Mariah Carrey is the epitomy of beauty. Her being ageless pertains to that which is or has agelessness.

So, again, they are not greater than their nounal form.

Tony,

Thanks for that clarification. I will think more on that.

Ron

[gregoryfl]

As I have stepped out of the more agressive type debating it is because I can't debate for the either or anymore.  It's not even about confusion,  it is seeing both and seeing a greater picture; seeing more than one avenue of explanation.

I see where both are correct of you branch out into the perceptive spiritual realm rather than maintaining the literal.  The context between the two will determine what word or phrase is used.

Olam being used in scripture as "time out of mind (past or future)"   actually can broaden the idea that some verses are saying. 

The issue of translation is saying that the study of the ancient languages has caused various definitions to be incorrect.


Here is the strongs notes on Olam

H5769  `owlam  o-lawm'

or lolam {o-lawm'};

from H5956; properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out
of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial
(especially with prepositional prefix) always:--alway(-s), ancient (time), any
more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long
(time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+
without end). Compare H5331, H5703.

Pertaining to an age is not a wrong use of the word based on this. But neither is eternal.   The Rule in english cannot strictly apply to an ancient language, and english rules are broken all the time to convey a "concept".

As I have said before the intentions of scripture get lost in the debate over strict words and terms that some claim MUST be used.   I see the bondage of those debates and it is people who appear to see the spiritual but are trapped in maintaining certain ways of defining something to lock in thier belief.  I was one of them, not entirely believing, not wanting to embrace ET and needing that physical shield to protect me.

Don't need it any more, give me any verse any translation and Gods love is big enough to be seen in it.

If we allow the use of forever then oh, that doesn't support UR and oh no if we make it AGE then we risk leading people astray into hell with false doctrines.


The written word will always be in dispute.  Here is the bottom line to me, if ET is correct, then the type of God that will allow it cannot be trusted, don't care what anyone says the bible says.

If God is a God of Love, then faith is all we truly have to believe that his Love is enough.


It's enough, thats good enough for me.

Paul,

I too am not as heavy into these debates as I used to be. As I am studying more of the concrete meanings of Hebrew words, I am seeing that it has helped me simplify what has become so complicated.

Olam in its original pictographs simply means to have the eyes drawn to the water, speaking of the horizon. This is loosely expressed in strong's first definition, which is something that is concealed, i.e. the vanishing point.

That vanishing point is the point just over the horizon where you cannot see any further. The whole idea simply has to do, not so much with length of time, but with unknown time. The emphasis is on the unknown. For Jonah, his olam was 3 days and nights. For us, it is our lifetime. It could also take up who knows how many millions or more of years. The specific number isn't the focus. Whether it ends or not isn't the focus either. The focus is on the fact that it is unknown time. Time that is like looking to the horizon. Something that we cannot see the other side of. Doesn't answer all of our questions, but I am satisfied with the simplicity of the Hebraic mindset.

Ron

[Paul Hazelwood]

If God loses the majority of humanity to eternal torment, that neither shows a loving God, no matter how you spin it, nor does it show a merciful God, no matter how you spin it, nor a wise God nor a righteous God, no matter how you spin it. If people go to hell for eternity, God and Christ are losers. God is threatened and that's that.

Not spinning anything, your arguing a point I am not making for the most part, so your not refuting what I am saying.   God cannot be threatened.

And of course the new testament writers understood how things may "seem" as opposed to how they "literally" are.   Thats the nature of the ancient greek language. 

Thats human nature to convey those concepts.

Even in the old testament just translating "olam" to only eon misses the concept behind the word.   "A time far off"  " the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future)" 

[bobf]

bobf,

The problem with your argument is that ages are not spoken of as visible creations anywhere else in the Bible.  However, Paul elsewhere speaks of the invisible things of God being made manifest through the visible created world:

Rom 1:20 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; so that they are without excuse:

Let's look at Hebrews 11:3 again.  Note that they are strikingly similari:

"By faith we understand that the aions were formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

It is evident that aion and kosmos are synonymous in these two verses.

Does it really matter if it's only used once that way?  How many examples are there where it looks like "aions" might mean "worlds"?

The way I look at is this:
God created the world in a particular way for a particular purpose.
God created the ages in a particular way for a particular purpose.

The ages and the worlds are an intertwined whole.  The world is not static: it moves through the ages.  The ages are not empty: the worlds move through them according to God's purpose.

To me, both verses you presented say approximately the same thing with emphasis on different aspects of the same whole.

Let's pretend for the moment that the bible was written in English and these two are exactly what God inspired:
1. By faith we understand that the ages were formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
2. The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.

I think the first statement makes perfect sense.  Would a Greek-speaking person reading these two statements be justified in concluding that "ages" really means "worlds" in English?

The times & seasons (ages) are set in place (formed) by God:

Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

These ages have correspondance with physical seasons and those seasons are visible, not on their own, but through changes in the physical world:

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.


God gave us (formed) fruitful seasons (ages) as a witness (visible seasons witnessing to the spiritual seasons making known God's invisible attributes).

Acts 14:15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: 16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

[Apocatastasis]

Gabe, I absolutely and categorically do not agree with Barclay's idea concerning aionion.

I know, which is why I said:

Tony, I know that you don't agree with William Barcaly's understanding of aionios...

Look in any good book that teaches Greek and they all will say that the adjective modifies the noun.

Tony, every single one of the most reputed Greek lexicons in use in the academic world today acknowledge that aionios carries the meaning of "eternal".     

Barclay and others break that rule by having the noun modify aionios. He makes God's life modify the adjective aionios. That's bad. Real bad.

Tony, are you so unfamiliar with language that you do not realize that the context in which a word appears determines the what meaning of the word applies?  Should I gather some examples of English words which mean different things in different contexts?   Perhaps I should not waste my time, seeing that you danced around the fact that the meaning of gorgeous cannot be gotten from the meaning of its nounal root.

You would have us believe that aion and aionios have but one invariable meaning, regardless of the context in which they appear.  This simply isn't the way language works, yet you must deny this because you have a theological axe to grind.   

And besided, the laws of language are compromised.

What do you mean by "compromise"?  The etymology of "compromise" is thus: com ("together") + promittere ("promise").  Or did you have a "compromised" definition of this word in mind? 

[Apocatastasis]

bobf,

Do you agree that Romans 1:20 and Hebrews 11:3 are saying the same thing?  Aren't kosmos and aion serving the same purpose, namely to refer to the visible order of creation? 

[Tony N]

I never lost my senses. The only thing that happened to Plato's Timeaus is God just has not yet given you the grace to see that Plato didn't use aion/aionios as eternal.

Why don't you answer the question I asked you?  What do you think Plato meant when he wrote that time is the moving image of the aeonian order? Don't be shy now

.

Dear Gabe, my reticence to give an answer to Plato's philosophical ideas is not a barometer as to any degree of shyness on my part. As a Christian we are not required to be knowledgeable concerning the philosophers and their philosophies. As a matter of fact, the Bible tells us to . . .

Col 2:8 Beware that no one shall be despoiling you through philosophy and empty seduction, in accord with human tradition, in accord with the elements of the world, and not in accord with Christ,

But like O.J. Simpson, I can take a stab in the dark at it.
According to Plato, God put the planets, sun and moon in the heavens as a means to show us a picture of the eons. The planets have their yearly cycles and, as Plato said in His Xronos part of Timeaus that the heavens and time were created at the same instant and that their marking out of time is an image of the eons just as the eons mark out time. Eons don't mark out eternity. They come and go just as the planets, sun and moon comes and goes. Just as the planets had a beginning so do the eons. They are not eternal.

Tony wrote: Gorgeousness is the noun. Gorgeous is the adjectival form of Gorgeousness. Gorgeous is that which pertains to that which has gorgeousness. It is not greater than its nounal form.

  

Gave replied: The noun gorgeousness is derived from the adjective gorgeous.  The adjective gorgeous is derived from the noun gorge, meaning "throat".  As I demonstrated earlier, gorgeous is an example of an adjective that is not semantically bound to its nounal root.   Tony, why bother trying to snake your way out of this?

Dear Adversary, If you will look in the dictionary you will note that Gorgeousness is the noun and Gorgeous is its adjectival form. Gorgeous is not pertaining to gorge. You are using the root word fallacy. Now slither to your next question.

Oh dear, Gabe, I think you need to rethink your position on that passage. Jesus never said that aeonian life is immortality or that that life lasts forever. That life He spoke of would allow His follower to live for the duration of the eon to come. The meat which endureth unto eonian life is the meat which endureth to the life pertaining to the eon.

Oh dear, Tony, Jesus clearly contrasted between the sort of life that dies, and the sort of life that never dies. Once again, you are failing to see the contrasts of opposites.  Aeonian life is the immortal life of the Heavenly Father in contradistinction to the perishable life of this passing world. Tony, there is no reason to keep your eyes wide shut.  Universal Salvation is not at all at stake here.

Tony's reply: Wrong Gabe. Every time something is contrasted it need not be between temporary and eternal in the bible. The Bible often contrasts seasons with eras, days with hours, months with years. Christ was contrasting the food which doesn't last very long with food that lasts a lot longer. It's not that difficult a concept.

Here is the verse again:
Joh 6:27 Do not work for the food which is perishing, but for the food which is remaining for life eonian, which the Son of Mankind will be giving to you, for this One God, the Father, seals."
The food which is perishing does not last long. The food the Son of Mankind is giving is "remaining for life pertaining to the eon." No eon is eternal. The bible says they all end. So the food Christ is giving will, instead of you living a short life, allow you to live for the duration of the eon to come. So you see it is not a contrast between that which perishes and eternity but that which perishes and that which last for an eon.

No, Universal Salvation may not be at stake but our sanity is: 2Ti 1:7 for God gives us, not a spirit of timidity, but of power and of love and of sanity."

Furthermore we are to be "fond of that which is good, sane, just, benign, self-controlled;" (Titus 1:8)" So I cannot be fond of what you are teaching.

And "The younger men, similarly, entreat to be sane as to all things," (Titus 2:8).
Your teaching is not a part of the "all things" we are to be sane about.

So you see, it may not hurt Universal Reconciliation but it does hurt our proper thinking for the minds God has given us.

I never said there was no contrasts involved. You are setting up a straw man argument.

Gabe wrote: You are not acknowledging the fact that each of these contrasts involves opposites. The opposite of earthly life is heavenly life.  The opposite of perishable life is immortal life. The opposite of temporary is permanent. 

Tony's reply: How can I acknowledge that which does not exist? If Jesus wanted to contrast between perishable life and immortal life He could have done so. The contrast is between that which perishes and that which lasts for the coming eon. The opposite of perishing for this eon is not perishing for the next eon.

Tony wrote: How did you fail to notice the contrasts of opposites, Gabe? Notice the contrast is not between momentary and eternal but between momentary and eonian or that which is pertaining to the future eons which we look forward to.

Gabe replied: Verse 18 makes it quite clear that the contrast is between that which is passing and that which lasts forever:

Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Tony's reply:
Well, sure, according to King James mistranslation you might have a leg to stand on. But the problem is that "for ever" is not in the Greek. It is "for the eon." They shall live for the eon, Gabe. No eon is "for ever." All the eons end.

Gabe replied: The earthly bread is perishable and can sustain only mortal life.  The heavenly bread is imperishable and can sustain immortal life. It is clear: The contrast is between perishable life and imperishable life.

 

Jesus never said it was immortal life. He surely knew the Greek word "thnetos," the word for immortal. Since He did not use it neither did He mean it. He told His hearers to "work for . . . the food which is remaining for life eonian," in John 6:27. That is the life pertaining to the eon to come.

Tony's reply:
I have a passage that applied to you, Gabe:

Isa 5:20-21  Woe to those saying for evil, good, and for good, evil, placing darkness for light and light for darkness, placing bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"  (21)  Woe to those wise in their own eyes, and in front of their own face have understanding!"

You are one who says a word can have two completely opposite meanings.

Gabe replied: Actually, a word can take on opposing meanings.  Such words are known as contronyms, or antagonyms.

http://www.rinkworks.com/words/contronyms.shtml

The semantic evolution of aion/aionios is not so astounding, however

[/quote]

Please, Gabe, enough of your philosophy. Just give me a word in a properly translated Bible which means two completely opposite meanings.

Does hate mean love? Does light mean darkness? Wow! Isaiah 5:20,21 really does apply to you! Woe to you!

Tony

[bobf]

bobf,

Do you agree that Romans 1:20 and Hebrews 11:3 are saying the same thing?  Aren't kosmos and aion serving the same purpose, namely to refer to the visible order of creation? 

Similar but not the same.  No, I don't think aions refers to physical things like the moon and stars and flowers.  It refers to the times & seasons that the kosmos is ordered by God to pass through.

[Tony N]

Tony, every single one of the most reputed Greek lexicons in use in the academic world today acknowledge that aionios carries the meaning of "eternal".     

That is the fallacy of appealing to authority. It proves nothing.

[Paul Hazelwood]

These two guys are the leading lexical experts in Europe.

That is the fallacy of appealing to authority. It proves nothing.

Indeed

[Apocatastasis]

Tony, at this point I'd like to get others here to chime in on something.

Readers,

Tony, as you know, likes to think that adjectives cannot go beyond the meaning of the nouns from which they are derived. As an example, he wrote:

America is a noun. American is the adjectival form of America. The adjective American only tells us that which pertains to America.

I countered by pointing out that there are a number of adjectives that do indeed go beyond the meaning of their parent nouns.  As an example, I used the word gorgeous, which was derived from gorge, meaning "throat".  Surely, when we use the word gorgeous, we do not have in mind "pertaining to the throat" as the meaning.

To this, Tony replied:

If you will look in the dictionary you will note that Gorgeousness is the noun and Gorgeous is its adjectival form.

Priceless! Aionios was derived from aion, not from "aioniosness".  Gorgeous was derived from gorge, not "gorgeousness".  Is Tony trying to be funny?

Gorgeous is not pertaining to gorge.

That's my point. Is Tony pretending to be obtuse?

You are using the root word fallacy. Now slither to your next question

.

Does anyone here take Tony seriously?

[Apocatastasis]

Getting back to Timaeus 37D.

According to Plato, God put the planets, sun and moon in the heavens as a means to show us a picture of the eons. The planets have their yearly cycles and, as Plato said in His Xronos part of Timeaus that the heavens and time were created at the same instant and that their marking out of time is an image of the eons just as the eons mark out time. Eons don't mark out eternity. They come and go just as the planets, sun and moon comes and goes. Just as the planets had a beginning so do the eons. They are not eternal.

Let's see if you can actually answer the question.  Plato says that time moves according to number, where as aion/aionios rests in unity.  What does this mean?

So, Tony, are you trying to tell me that Philo's quote does not read along the same lines as Timaeus 37D? 

[Apocatastasis]

Look in any good book that teaches Greek and they all will say that the adjective modifies the noun.

That is the fallacy of appealing to authority. It proves nothing.

Why the double-standards, Tony?   

[Apocatastasis]

Apoc,

I am looking at this on this site:

http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/plato-timaeus/time.asp

Cool.  Let me know what you think Plato is saying in Timaeus 37D.  How is he using the term aionios, and how does it relate to time?

[Tony N]

Look in any good book that teaches Greek and they all will say that the adjective modifies the noun.

That is the fallacy of appealing to authority. It proves nothing.

Why the double-standards, Tony?   

Dear Gabe, if I am wrong just show me in a properly translated bible how the noun modifies the adjective.
Just do it Gabe. Enough of your philosophies. Just do it Gabe. Just do it.

[Apocatastasis]

Tony,

You have failed to address my rebuttals and have neglected to concede anything.  I'm waiting for you to put some integrity and effort into this discussion. 

Enough of your philosophies.

What philosophies?

[Tony N]

Just do it Gabe. Quit stalling. Give me one word in a properly translated Bible that means two completely opposite meanings. Just come clean Gabe and tell us you are in error.

[Apocatastasis]

Tony,

You've been making alot of assertions, but you don't seem to want to offer anything of subtance to defend these assertions. 

You made the claim that Plato did not use aionios of eternity.  I took you to task on this, but you don't want to follow up on it. 

You made the claim that all adjectives cannot go beyond the meaning of their parent nouns.  I took you to task on this  by citing an example of an English adjective that indeed goes beyond the meaning of its parent noun, but you don't want to address this intelligently (Gorgeousness? Get serious).

Man up and address these points. 

[Tony N]

Man up Gabe and just tell us all just one word in a properly translated Bible that can have two opposite meanings.

I answered your questions. Now quit deflecting the attention to me and keep it on yourself.

Man up Gabe and just give us one word that can have two opposite meanings in the Bible. Just one Gabe. You started this whole thing now finish it.

[Apocatastasis]

Just do it Gabe. Quit stalling. Give me one word in a properly translated Bible that means two completely opposite meanings. Just come clean Gabe and tell us you are in error.

Tony wants an example of a contronym in the Bible.  Tony, remember when Job's wife told him to curse God and die?  What is that Hebrew word translated "curse"?

[peacemaker]

"All eternal quarreling is not subject to change within the fabric of time"

A temporal concept, as true rest cannot be defined in terms of the relative position of other bodies, nor the essential nature of a thing; time and space.

Sorry folks, couldn't resist the temptation!

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once" -- Albert Einstein

Please continue …

peacemaker

[Apocatastasis]

I answered your questions.

Oh?  

Plato says that time moves according to number, where as aion/aionios rests in unity.  What does this mean?

So, Tony, are you trying to tell me that Philo's quote does not read along the same lines as Timaeus 37D?  

[Apocatastasis]

Peacemaker and others that are not Tony,

It would be great were some of you to chime in on the debate between Tony and I.  What do you make of his arguments concerning gorgeous and Timaeus 37d?

[Apocatastasis]

Tony, in case you missed it....

Remember when Job's wife told him to curse God and die?  What is that Hebrew word translated "curse"?

Job 2:9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

The Hebrew word is barak, which usually means "to bless", but in this case means the opposite.

Just come clean Tony and tell us you are in error.

 

[peacemaker]

One of the difficulties in discussing eternal is in how it relates to the temporal (ever flowing present), like a perpetual snow that continues without intermission or interruption. Thus, although many can distinguish the seasons, they cannot the times, as the eternal/temporal are a hybrid of different languages.

Therefore, many are still waiting for a sign having missed seeing the Spirit within. And they merely act according to their own spirit, thinking that it is HIS – as they wait for Him.

I have fallen on that road to Damascus, and was thrown in the fiery furnace within His Presence.

Now, here is a can of worms that will not be quenched:

"Being and becoming, ever-present!"

peacemaker

 *** testing the water, per se, although a little off-topic for the moment, or is it?