Aionios: Let's clear the water

[Paul Hazelwood]

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 of topic for the moment, or is it?

I don't think your off topic, your seeing that there is a broader concept to ancient language words than the singular definition people think must be applied to them.

[reFORMer]

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.

The Holy Spirit is given as both a gift to those that ask and to those that qualify by obeying Him.  Paul was in a race to win a prize.  A gift is not a prize.  He was earnestly pressing toward this one thing, to be raised out of this death realm into a higher dimension in Christ.  In the letters to the seven churches (of Revelation chapter two and three) the promises are made to the Overcomers, those who are victorious, the Conquorers, not to the rest of the church.  There is a qualifying.  There are test to prove the worthiness of those born of God even after resurrection.  Perhaps the Millennium is the initial training period for the young immortals.

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

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. 

Hw 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.

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

LOVE:  its positive opposite is HATE; its negative opposite is FEAR.  There are also contrasts that are not "polar" opposites

[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.

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"?

Gabe, Job's wife said "Bless God and die." Bless is 1288 and "curse is 779"
Gen 12:3  And I will bless¹²⁸⁸ them that bless¹²⁸⁸ thee, and curse⁷⁷⁹ him that curseth⁷⁰⁴³ thee: and in thee shall all3605 families4940 of the earth127 be blessed.¹²⁸⁸

Job 2:9  Then said559 his wife802 unto him, Dost thou still5750 retain2388 thine integrity?8538 bless¹²⁸⁸ God,430 and die.4191

Job 2:9  And his wife saith to him, `Still thou art keeping hold on thine integrity: bless God and die.' Young's Literal

Now Gabe, man up and tell us all which word in a properly translated Bible shows that the adjective is greater than the noun from which it is derived.

Remember Gabe,
American is not greater than America but pertains to America.
Heavenly is not greater than Heaven but pertains to Heaven.
Eonian is not greater than eon but pertains to the eon.

[Tony N]

These two guys are the leading lexical experts in Europe.

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

Indeed

Indeed not. I wasn't saying that if Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann say something it has to be true. If I did that would be appealing to authority and would prove nothing. I was showing that Apo is not right that the most reputed Greek lexicons acknowledge that aionios carries the meaning or "eternal" as he said here:

Apo said: 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 appealing to authority.

[Paul Hazelwood]

These two guys are the leading lexical experts in Europe.

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

Indeed

Indeed not. I wasn't saying that if Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann say something it has to be true. If I did that would be appealing to authority and would prove nothing. I was showing that Apo is not right that the most reputed Greek lexicons acknowledge that aionios carries the meaning or "eternal" as he said here:

Apo said: 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 appealing to authority.

Thanks for clarifying that what you pointed out wasn't necessarily true.

[sven]

to come back to Titus 1,2 and 2 Timothy 1,9

Titus 1,2 in the Vulgata:

in spem vitae aeternae quam promisit qui non mentitur Deus ante tempora saecularia

in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the ages of time
(Darby)

the most translations don't understand this times to have been eternal

2 Timothy 1,9

qui nos liberavit et vocavit vocatione sancta non secundum opera nostra sed secundum propositum suum et gratiam quae data est nobis in Christo Iesu ante tempora saecularia

i'm not sure what saecularia exactly means, but i think it doesn't mean eternal






 

[Paul Hazelwood]

Does this english grammar rule concerning nouns apply to the selected translated word or apply to the ancient language?

The appeal here is aion must be age,  so therefor to say aionios can mean eternal violates the rule.

One problem is that a language that is translated is only translated to the best known "equivalent".   So what is happening is that the english rules are being applied to the selected definition.  However with ancient Greek and Hebrew the issue is not necessarily definitions, but allowable use.

Aion's allowable use is not confined to the word AGE. One use of aion is   "perpetuity of time"

perpetuity can mean  "1. the state or character of being perpetual"

what is perpetual, can perpetual work within the confines of an age?

One use of perpetual

5. a hybrid rose that is perpetual.

No one will agree that a rose is everlasting,  but it can bloom in this manner.

4. blooming almost continuously throughout the season or the year.


When we are dealing with a translation that is the best equivalent, then aionios being used in the sense of pertaining to the perpetuity of time does not violate anything. 

[Tony N]

When we are dealing with a translation that is the best equivalent, then aionios being used in the sense of pertaining to the perpetuity of time does not violate anything. 

Just as long as we know that the definitive usage of aion is that all the eons end.
There were eons before the one in which we live. Now we are living in the current wicked eon. There are eons to come.
Therefore they cannot be endless. For one to come one must end.

According to thefreedictionary.com
perpetuity
Noun
1. eternity
2. the state of being perpetual
3. something perpetual, such as a pension that is payable indefinitely
4. in perpetuity forever [Latin perpetuitas continuity]

per·pet·u·al (pr-pch-l)
adj.
1. Lasting for eternity.
2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.
3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship.
4. Continuing without interruption. See Synonyms at continual.
5. Flowering throughout the growing season.

That being the case, "perpetuity of time" is a contradiction in terms since that which is eternal is absent of time.
So mixing "perpetual" with the idea of eon is not good.

[Apocatastasis]

Folks,

Tony demanded that I find an example of a contronym (a word that can take on opposite meanings) in the Bible.  I pointed to Job 2:9, which reads:

"Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die."

Tony, however, denies that the Hebrew word barak, which usually means "to bless", here means "curse", even though every translation renders it "curse".

However, Tony is only denying the facts.  Let us consider Job 1:5, wich reads:

"And when the days of the feast had run their course, Job would send and consecrate them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, ;It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed* God in their hearts.' Thus Job did continually."

The ESV includes this foot note:

* The Hebrew word bless is used euphemistically for curse in 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9

Yet, Tony would have us think that the text should read, "For Job said, It may be that my children have sinned, and b blessed God in their hearts."   However, this clearly makes no sense in light of the context.  Tony would have us believe that he is right and the world of bible translators has got this wrong for centuries.  Why does Tony want us to believe that barak is not a contronym?  Because in his mind, the fact threatens his theology. 

Tony, do you have an honest bone in your body?
 

[Apocatastasis]

Indeed not. I wasn't saying that if Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann say something it has to be true. If I did that would be appealing to authority and would prove nothing. I was showing that Apo is not right that the most reputed Greek lexicons acknowledge that aionios carries the meaning or "eternal" as he said here:

Apo said: 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 appealing to authority.

Actually Tony, the only reason I noted the fact that all reputable modern lexicons include "eternal" as a definition for aionios was to remind you that you hold a position at odds with the "good books that teach Greek" that you advised me to read.  In other words, I was calling you out for your double-standard.  I was not saying that aionios must mean "eternal" simply because the relevant authorities say it does. 

Get it?

[Paul Hazelwood]

Yes, you are right Tony, an age cannot be endless, but that has never been my argument concerning the hebrew or greek language or how the words are used.

I am not interested in proving the narrow point of view that you keep inferring wrong, because ages of time is a message in some translations, never have tried to say it is not.

I point out the broader nature of perception that is converyed through the languages as well and I have explained how that does not contradict or cause a problem with Gods righteousness or Love.  I am not threatened by that and neither is God since God cannot be threatened.

I simply see that God has allowed his word to be translated into two entirely different perspectives and he has done that for a reason.  I am studying to learn more about why that is.

[Tony N]

Folks,

Tony demanded that I find an example of a contronym (a word that can take on opposite meanings) in the Bible.  I pointed to Job 2:9, which reads:

"Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die."

Tony, however, denies that the Hebrew word barak, which usually means "to bless", here means "curse", even though every translation renders it "curse".

Gabe, that is just not true that "every translation renders it 'curse'". Since you did not tell the truth about that, how can we trust you to tell the truth about other things?

The Darby translation has it this:
(DRB)  "And his wife said to him: Dost thou still continue in thy simplicity? bless God and die." (Job.2:9).

Young's Literal, which I quoted before said:
(YLT)  And his wife saith to him, `Still thou art keeping hold on thine integrity: bless God and die.'

Douay-Rheims Bible has it:
And his wife said to him: Dost thou still continue in thy simplicity? bless God and die.

The Hebrew text has her saying "bless God and die."

Gabe wrote:
However, Tony is only denying the facts.  Let us consider Job 1:5, wich reads:

"And when the days of the feast had run their course, Job would send and consecrate them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, ;It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed* God in their hearts.' Thus Job did continually."

No, sorry, I'm not denying any facts. The Hebrew word used in Job 1:5 is "bless," not "curse."
John Darby's translation has it:
(DRB)  And when the days of their feasting were gone about, Job sent to them, and sanctified them: and rising up early, offered holocausts for every one of them. For he said: Lest perhaps my sons have sinned, and have blessed God in their hearts. So did Job all days.

Young's literal has it:
(YLT)  and it cometh to pass, when they have gone round the days of the banquet, that Job doth send and sanctify them, and hath risen early in the morning, and caused to ascend burnt-offerings--the number of them all--for Job said, `Perhaps my sons have sinned, yet blessed God in their heart.' Thus doth Job all the days.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And when the days of their feasting were gone about, Job sent to them, and sanctified them: and rising up early offered holocausts for every one of them. For he said: Lest perhaps my sons have sinned, and have blessed God in their hearts. So did Job all days"

The Hebrew text has "blessed God in their heart."

Gabe wrote: The ESV includes this foot note:

* The Hebrew word bless is used euphemistically for curse in 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9

Yet, Tony would have us think that the text should read, "For Job said, It may be that my children have sinned, and b blessed God in their hearts."   However, this clearly makes no sense in light of the context.  Tony would have us believe that he is right and the world of bible translators has got this wrong for centuries.  Why does Tony want us to believe that barak is not a contronym?  Because in his mind, the fact threatens his theology. 

Tony, do you have an honest bone in your body?

Just as the world of bible translators got it wrong for centuries that aionios should be translated "eternal" for "eternal torment" thus they got it wrong with "bless."


You are the one that should check your bones, not me.

[Apocatastasis]

The Darby translation has it this:
(DRB)  "And his wife said to him: Dost thou still continue in thy simplicity? bless God and die." (Job.2:9).

Er, you might want to actually check Darby's translation, for he translated barak as "curse" in both 1:5 and 2:9.

Young's literal has it:
(YLT)  and it cometh to pass, when they have gone round the days of the banquet, that Job doth send and sanctify them, and hath risen early in the morning, and caused to ascend burnt-offerings--the number of them all--for Job said, `Perhaps my sons have sinned, yet blessed God in their heart.' Thus doth Job all the days.

This translation make no sense. Job regularly offered up sacrifices to God because his sons had sinned and cursed God.  Burnt offerings are not made because God has been blessed.  They are made because God has been sinned against. 

Just as the world of bible translators got it wrong for centuries that aionios should be translated "eternal" for "eternal torment" thus they got it wrong with "bless."

I'm curious, do you think that the translators were acting according to a conspiracy, or do you suppose that tey actually had a lexical reason to translate barak as "curse"?

[Tony N]

Sorry, I saw "DRB" on the translation and thought it was Darby but it is actually the Douay-Rheims Bible.

Young's literal has it:
(YLT)  and it cometh to pass, when they have gone round the days of the banquet, that Job doth send and sanctify them, and hath risen early in the morning, and caused to ascend burnt-offerings--the number of them all--for Job said, `Perhaps my sons have sinned, yet blessed God in their heart.' Thus doth Job all the days.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And when the days of their feasting were gone about, Job sent to them, and sanctified them: and rising up early offered holocausts for every one of them. For he said: Lest perhaps my sons have sinned, and have blessed God in their hearts. So did Job all days"

Gabe replied:

This translation make no sense. Job regularly offered up sacrifices to God because his sons had sinned and cursed God.  Burnt offerings are not made because God has been blessed.  They are made because God has been sinned against.

Tony's reply:
I think you got the story wrong. Job didn't say he was regulary offering up sacrifices to God because his sons had sinned and cursed God. That is not what he said was the reason. He did it because he said: "perhaps" they sinned and blessed God in their hearts." He didn't know if they did or not. It is very possible to sin while, at the same time, blessing God in your heart.

Gabe asked: I'm curious, do you think that the translators were acting according to a conspiracy, or do you suppose that tey actually had a lexical reason to translate barak as "curse"?

How could I know that? I would have to have inside information as to their motive or some document which they passed around that they were conspiring to mess up God's word.
As to them having a lexical reaon why they mistranslated barak "curse," I'm sure they had their reason. Just as they had their reason to mistranslate "anathema" as "eternally condemned" etc. etc.

And I would ask you the same question as to why you think  the translators of Young's and Douay-Rheims had a lexical reaon to translate barak as "bless"?

Gabe, why did you say that "every translation renders it curse" when that is patently false?

[Apocatastasis]

I think you got the story wrong. Job didn't say he was regulary offering up sacrifices to God because his sons had sinned and cursed God. That is not what he said was the reason. He did it because he said: "perhaps" they sinned and blessed God in their hearts." He didn't know if they did or not. It is very possible to sin while, at the same time, blessing God in your heart.

I don't know what you mean when you say one can sin and bless God at the same time. Care to expound?

Gabe, why did you say that "every translation renders it curse" when that is patently false?

I was mistaken about that, and I admit it.  You would do well to admit your mistakes too (gorgeous, Timaeus 37d, root fallacy, etc.). 

So you have two translations that agree with your rendering.  One of these translations, the Douay-Rheims Bible, you think is a generally bad translation, no?

So you have two translations vs. virtually every other translation.  But the bottom line is this:

You have to make sense out of Job 1:5, 1:11, 2:5 and 2:9.  For instance, 2:9 relates to us Satan's desire to see Job lose his faith and curse (bless???) God.  If barak indeed means "bless" here, then it makes no sense.  Or can you make sense out of this?

[Tony N]

Gabe qrote:

You have to make sense out of Job 1:5, 1:11, 2:5 and 2:9.  For instance, 2:9 relates to us Satan's desire to see Job lose his faith and curse (bless???) God.  If barak indeed means "bless" here, then it makes no sense.  Or can you make sense out of this?

Sure. It is not a question of whether barak should be translated "bless" or not. It should:

Job 1:11  The work of his hands Thou hast blessed, and his substance hath spread in the land, and yet, put forth, I pray Thee, Thy hand, and strike against anything that he hath--if not: to Thy face he doth bless Thee!' Young's Literal

Job 1:11  But stretch forth thy hand a little, and touch all that he hath, and see if he bless thee not to thy face.

Satan could be asking  God a question that if He put forth His hand against Job
"Will he then, indeed, bless Thee to thy face?" Or as in 2:5 Satan was telling God: to put forth His hand and touch all Job has and then let's see if He will still bless Thee to Thy face.

Job 2:5  But put forth thy hand, and touch his bone and his flesh, and then thou shalt see that he will bless thee to thy face.
Makes perfect sense to me. Satan wants God to touch Job's bone and flesh and after You do that, then we will see if Job will still bless thee to Thy face.


Job 2:9  And his wife said to him: Dost thou still continue in thy simplicity? bless God and die.

Job's wife was not telling Job to curse God so He would kill him. She was telling him he suffered enough. She was saying: Now, Job, as your final thing in life just bless God and die. Get it over with.

[Doc]

I think this thread is a good example of why the Apostle Paul exhorts us not to have disputes over words.

The one thing I want everyone here to remember is that UR does not hinge solely on the meaning of one word and its adjectival forms anyway... 

[Apocatastasis]

Tony,

We all know the story of Job.  He was a good man that avoided evil.  He was blessed with family and fortune.  Satan thought that Job would renounce God were God to take away his family, fortune and health.  However, admist his trials, Job kept his integrity and "did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing."  Young's translation makes absolutely no sense in this regard.
 

[Apocatastasis]

I think this thread is a good example of why the Apostle Paul exhorts us not to have disputes over words.

The thing is, doc, that Tony gives a bad impression of URists by going to various boards and arguing the meanings of words that he has no business arguing.

The one thing I want everyone here to remember is that UR does not hinge solely on the meaning of one word and its adjectival forms anyway...

Amen.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I think the point is being missed.

Not sure what translation writes Job 2:9  with any use of H1288 other than "curse"

Not sure what translation writes Job 31:20 with any use of H1288 other than "bless"

Jb 2:9 Then his wife said to him, Are you still holding fast to your integrity? Scorn Elohim and die.


Jb 31:20 If his loins did not bless me, Since he was warmed with the fleece of my lambs,

[Nathan]

I think this thread is a good example of why the Apostle Paul exhorts us not to have disputes over words.

The one thing I want everyone here to remember is that UR does not hinge solely on the meaning of one word and its adjectival forms anyway... 

 

[Tony N]

I think this thread is a good example of why the Apostle Paul exhorts us not to have disputes over words.

The one thing I want everyone here to remember is that UR does not hinge solely on the meaning of one word and its adjectival forms anyway... 

(1Ti 6:3,4)  If anyone is teaching differently and is not approaching with sound words, even those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the teaching in accord with devoutness, he is conceited, versed in nothing, but morbid about questionings and controversies, out of which is coming envy, strife, calumnies, wicked suspicions,

(2Ti 1:13)  Have a pattern of sound words, which you hear from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus."

(Tit 2:8)  with words sound, uncensurable, that the contrary one may be abashed, having nothing bad to say concerning us."

If God is going to eternally torture people then UR is threatened and so is God's love and God's righteousness. Not only that but we are to have sound words. Eternal is not a sound word.

[legoman]

Hi all,

Yes this thread has been a bit puzzling to me... what turned me on to UR was learning the fact that aion was mistranslated as "forever" and likewise with aionios.  Now if you are saying that aionios could mean "forever/eternal" in some cases, that seems to weaken the case for UR quite a bit, although I would agree the whole bible in general supports UR.

I'm not sure of your arguments exactly, but it seems you are saying aionios could mean eternal, in the fact that it is describing something put forth by God.  ie. punishment is eternal in the way that it is God's punishment, and the effects of it will be eternal.  Or aionios could mean "forever" in sort of an imprecise "slang" way: ie. I might say "it took me forever to get home last night" - clearly I didn't mean literally forever, just a long time.

However it seems to me the bible is fairly precise in all of its words, and is much more consistent when:
- aion always means age
- aionios always means pertaining to the age.

That seems logical to me.  I thought this was the fundamental premise behind UR.  I'm no greek scholar, and have not studied any of plato's writings, but many other UR authors take this position:  Ray Smith (bible-truths), Martin Zender, many articles here on tentmaker etc.

To be honest I'm not quite sure why you guys are slagging on Tony so hard - he only seems to be presenting the position that I have seen many other authors take.  But I don't know the past history of what was discussed before, here and on other boards.

I'm sure I don't have the whole picture here, but I hope we can get to the bottom of the truth peacefully 

Always learning,
Legoman

[Tony N]

 

[Paul Hazelwood]

What verse states God can be threatened?