Since "elohim" can be either capitalized or not (god or God) according to what the translator believes it could be . . .
Parkhurst contends, "Thou hast blessed the false gods and Molech," and so based upon that, Naboth was stoned.
From the TSK:
"Some, with Parkhurst, would render the original, bairachta elohim wamailech, ""Thou hast blessed the gods and Molech;"" a sense, however, which seems extremely forced, and is not acknowledged by any of the ancient versions, though the LXX. and Vulgate render bairachta by [eulogese] benedixit, ""blessed."" It is no unusual thing for a word to have opposite senses. Exd 22:28; Lev 24:15; Mat 26:59-66; Jhn 10:33; Act 6:13"
Incidentally, haven't you noticed how selective you are when you appeal to authority? Sure, you'll site Parkhurst as an authority now, but when he tells you that aionios can mean eternal, you'll have nothing of the sort!
Gabe, just citing what someone said is not using the fallacy of appealing to authority. If that's the case you are your own fallacy for you come across as your own authority.
Gabe, it is a fact that elohim can be gods.
Furthermore I checked out your Exd.22:28; Lev.24:15; Mat.26:59-66; Jhn 10:33 and Acts 6:13 above and none of them prove that words can have opposite meanings. The ones who curse God are using qalal (curse) not barach (bless) in the OT citations. And the NT citations have nothing whatesover to do with double meaning of words.
1Ki 21:10 and cause two men--sons of worthlessness--to sit over-against him, and they testify of him, saying, Thou hast blessed God and Melech
; and they have brought him out, and stoned him, and he dieth.'
and two men--sons of worthlessness--come in, and sit over-against him, and the men of worthlessness testify of him, even Naboth, before the people, saying, `Naboth blessed God and Melech
;' and they take him out to the outside of the city, and stone him with stones, and he dieth; (Young's Literal Translation)
You asked yourself why would they kill that guy for blessing God? They wouldn't have. But being a Jew, they would have killed the guy for blessing elohim (with a lowercase e and blessing Moloch (a false god)). They would not have killed him for blessing God. And they would have killed the guy if he blessed GOD AND BLESSED MOLOCH (the false god). So either way, barach is not curse
Clark's commentary states: "Moloch, Milcom, and Melech, in the language of different nations, all signify a king, and imply the sun, which was called the king of heaven; and consequently the addition of אדר adar, which signifies powerful, illustrious, to the one, and of ענה anah, which implies to return, to answer, to the other, means no more than the mighty or the oracular Moloch. And as the children were offered to him, it appears that he was the same with the Moloch of the Ammonites. See Univ. Hist. and Calmet. Mr. Locke is also of opinion that these two names were expressive of one and the same deity."The Parkhurst Lexicon
"Olam (aeon) seems to be used much more for an indefinite than for an infinite time."
Aionion is the word the LXX scholars used to translate Olam in its adjectival form. So they too knew that aionion is never used of infinite time.
The Bible is so against philosophy that by you saying that Plato influenced God's inspired word is so pathetic I hardly have words for your deception. The New Testament is a revelation from God, not Plato. Paul always warned the church against the philosophers. Read 1 Corinthians 1,2 & 3 and see what Paul says about the wisdom of the wise such as Plato and Aristotle. Gabe, why don't you just take the next step and say Satanists influenced the Bible? Besides, Plato never used aion nor aionion for eternal. Again, the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived. I didn't make that rule up Gabe.
Also you keep harping about how a word's meaning is due to its context. So you are saying that a context can force aionios's meaning into a different meaning. But that goes against the laws of language. It is the duty of the adjective to force its meaning upon the object or noun and not the other way around.
For instance "eonian God" in Roman.16:26 and "eonian chastening" of Matthew 25:46 are not telling us that eonian can be longer since the word "God" forces its meaning upon eonian in 16:26 whereas, to uphold Universalism we must say that the eonian of 25:46 must of necessity be shorter since it is not speaking of God. That is dishonest and against the laws of grammar. Both are telling us that God is the God pertaining to the eons and the chastening is pertaining to the eon(s). Nothing more, nothing less.
Read any Greek training books such as by Mounce and look up the rule of the adjective and you will see I am correct. I don't make these things up as I go along Gabe.