Aionios: Let's clear the water

[Apocatastasis]

I'm not a slobbering idiot!  Some thing concerning a measurement of time of which there are a minimum of five that all come to an end, as well as there being before and after these things, cannot also mean that thing is an infinity of time.  An adjective and a noun are only other forms of the same word.  This is obvious, fall off a log easy kind of obvious.

Who here suggested that a period of time can be endless?  Who here denied that an adjective and a noun are forms of the same word?

[Apocatastasis]

I'm using horizonal as the adjective for horizon, and the Hebrew idea behind the meaning for life was to have one's stomach filled. What one would call eternal life I would call horizonal filled-stomach

And what do you expect an English reader to make of your translation?

[Apocatastasis]

 

...eternal being defined thus, not by time itself, or the lack of it, but of what time consists of, its parameters.

Eternal is defined by times parameters according to Plato?  What do you mean?

[WhiteWings]

So the whole Bible is doctored by scribes? How pathetic. Gabe, quit going to those "scholars" and sit at God's feet and learn what He has to say. If He used "bless" for Barak then that is what He meant, not curse.

Actually, it can be what He said, but not what He meant.  An implicit rolling of the eyes while saying something sarcastically is prevalent in all languages and the implication in Job is very obviously to curse. 

Looking at several commentaries in e-Sword now.
Several think "renounce" "or call upon" would be a better translation.
Most agree the word literally means bless. A few quotes:

The actual word may be taken as a theological euphemism for the verb קִלֵּל (qillel, "curse"). If Job's wife had meant that he was trying to justify himself rather than God, "bless God" might be translated "speak well of God," the resolution accepted by God in Job_42:7-8 following Job's double confession of having spoken wrongly of God (Job_40:3-5; Job_42:1-6).

But although this word sometimes signifies cursing, as Job_1:11 1Ki_21:10, yet most properly and generally it signifies blessing; and so it may very well be understood here as a sarcastical or ironical expression, such as there are many in Scripture, as Ecc_11:9 Lam_4:21, and in all authors. And so the sense may be this, Bless God, and die; i.e. I see thou art set upon blessing of God; thou blessest God for giving, and thou blessest God for taking away, and thou art still blessing of God for thy loathsome and tormenting diseases, and he rewards thee accordingly, giving thee more and more of that kind of mercy for which thou blessest and praisest him.

Die - I see thou art set upon blessing of God, thou blessest God for giving, and thou blessest God for taking away, and thou art still blessing God for thy loathsome diseases, and he rewards thee accordingly, giving thee more and more of that kind of mercy for which thou blessest him. Go on therefore in thy generous course, and bless God, and die as a fool dieth.

"bless God and die" (h); and may be understood either sarcastically, go on blessing God till thou diest; if thou hast not had enough of it, take thy fill of it, and see what will be the issue of it; nothing but death; wilt thou still continue "blessing God and dying?"

We translate ברך אלהים ומת  barech Elohim vamuth, Curse God, and die. The verb ברך  barach is supposed to include in it the ideas of cursing and blessing; but it is not clear that it has the former meaning in any part of the sacred writings, though we sometimes translate it so. Here it seems to be a strong irony. Job was exceedingly afflicted, and apparently dying through sore disease; yet his soul was filled with gratitude to God. His wife, destitute of the salvation which her husband possessed, gave him this ironical reproof. Bless God, and die - What! bless him for his goodness, while he is destroying all that thou hast!

Reading all that IMO the only correct translation is "Bless"
It's sarcasm, but that's what God intended when He inspired the words.
I don't think God wants us to correct His words!

[Paul Hazelwood]

Reading all that IMO the only correct translation is "Bless"
It's sarcasm, but that's what God intended when He inspired the words.
I don't think God wants us to correct His words!

Perhaps sarcasm was meant or the wife was interjecting that she wouldn't continue to love God and suffer that way.    An interjection of how she viewed God.

[Apocatastasis]

Gabe, just citing what someone said is not using the fallacy of appealing to authority.

I should not have phrased it that way, Tony. I was only pointing out that you are very selective when you use authorities to support your case.  You sited Parkhurt as an authority, the same guy who defined aionios as "eternal, having neither beginning nor end."   Does anyone else sense the irony here?  

One should not say that since "all" (overstatement on Gabe's part) Bible translators translated barak as "curse" in some passages in Job that they therefore must be correct and that I must be wrong. That is appealing to authority.

Firstly, I already conceded that I was mistaken about there being no translations which render barakh "curse" in the relevant passages (although I was only wrong by two!).
Secondly, I never said that you were wrong simply because you are pitting yourself against the vast majority of Hebrew scholars.  I merely noted the fact that you have your work cut out for you.

And the article also stated that accusing someone of not having authority therefore their stance must be wrong is an ad hominem attack such as Gabe also loves to use.

Which article are you referring to?

So the whole Bible is doctored by scribes? How pathetic.

Not sure how you are using the term "doctored", but its extremely well-known that the OT was subjected to centuries of editing. Why do you deem this fact pathetic?

Satan was telling God to put His hand against Job and then we'll see if he will bless (barak) you.

Tony, while that is true, it is not all Satan was saying.  Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense to bless someone to their face.  It does make sense to curse someone to their face (as opposed to behind their back).  Use common sense, Tony.  

Job's wife was not telling Job to "curse God and die." She said to Job "bless God and die." In other words, Job, say your final blessings and just die.

Just die?  How does one just die?  By killing oneself?

It makes no sense to think in terms of "from eternity to eternity." How can one get past one eternity for another to begin? It is just philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Even in English, we say things like "forever and ever".  Literally it makes no sense, but its not supposed to.  You see, Tonester, it's an idiom.

That said, "eternity to eternity" is a pitiful translation on that we'd agree.  

More later...


 

 

[Apocatastasis]

Reading all that IMO the only correct translation is "Bless"
It's sarcasm, but that's what God intended when He inspired the words.
I don't think God wants us to correct His words!

Sarcasm?  Doesn't make sense.  Satan said Job would barakh God to his face were God to take away all that he had.  This doesn't mean that Job would sarcastically bless God to his face.  It means that Job would be so angry a God that he would "renounce" Him to His face (as opposed to behind His back).

[legoman]

 

In your view does aion always refer to an "age"? 

 
No.  It refers to eternity in John 6, for example, where it refers to eternity.  That aion and aionios refer to eternity is evident considering that they are juxtaposed with perishable, mortal life.

Which verse in John 6 uses "aion" specifically?  I only see "aionios" in there.  My question was specifically about "aion" meaning something other than "age".

Do you have any links/articles which more fully explain this viewpoint?  I always welcome other viewpoints.  As I have learned, its best to evaluate all angles when searching for the truth.

Did you read through this?

http://www.growthingod.org.uk/AeonRelm.HTM

I read through it last night, and will have to read it a few more times.

But so far I'm not convinced... for example he says that aion can mean 'world' as in Heb 1:2 and 11:3 ...

Hebrews 1:2
KJV: Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds [aions];
YLT: in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages [aions];

Hebrews 11:3
KJV: Through faith we understand that the worlds [aions] were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
YLT: by faith we understand the ages [aions] to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing;


He then goes on to say: "It is certainly true that God created the ages, but it is clear that ages cannot be the right translation of the word aion in these contexts. Whatever aion means was visible, and that excludes periods of time. "

But I disagree here.  God certainly created the ages (we all agree on that).  The ages, while time periods (which are not strictly visible), can also be thought of as visible, if you think of an age as a period of time, and include all the moments of time that play out to make up that age.  We see this current age around us every day in every moment that occurs.  God created it all and planned for this age to play out in the way we see it happening around us.

In this one instance at least, using "age" makes much more sense than "world" - especially since aion is plural in the above verses.  What are the worlds (plural) that God created?  The world now and the next world?  What about worlds past?  Worlds to come?

No.  It is much more consistent to apply that aion always means age.  I mean sure we could translate aion as many different words in the above verses.  We could say that God created the "waters" or the "mountains" or something else (in Heb 1:2).  And he then made that visible out of things which do not appear (as in Heb 11:3).  Sure those words ie waters, mountains, whatever could fit as a translation for "aion", but it doesn't mean it is the correct translation.

Just my current thoughts.  One could change the meaning of "aion" to be any word that fit the context, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.  Words have limited meanings based on usage.  For example read this short article (everyone here is probably already familiar with its concepts - it is the position Tony is presenting):

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/EternalPunishmentNotTrueToGreek.html

The article very quickly points out:
- aions begin
- aions end
- the aions were created by God
- we are living in an aion currently and there are aions to come
- all the aions will end eventually

AND this meaning can be applied for every case where "aion" is used in the bible.  So how can one argue that "aion" can mean "forever" in some places, just because it "fits"?  ...especially when the one definition "finite time period" can be applied properly in all places.

I don't get it - it just seems to be muddying the water.  Please help me out here.

Legoman

[Apocatastasis]

Legoman, see John 6:51.  Note that througought the chapter, aion/aionios is contrasted with that which comes to an end.  The implication is clear:  Aeonian life is immortal life.

I'll get to the rest of your post later.

Peace

[Tony N]

Legoman, see John 6:51.  Note that througought the chapter, aion/aionios is contrasted with that which comes to an end.  The implication is clear:  Aeonian life is immortal life.

I'll get to the rest of your post later.

Peace

Joh 6:51-63  I am the living Bread which descends out of heaven. If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall be living for the eon. Now the Bread also, which I shall be giving for the sake of the life of the world, is My flesh."  (52)  The Jews, then, fought with one another, saying, "How then can this one give us his flesh to eat?  (53)  Jesus, then, said to them, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, If you should not be eating the flesh of the Son of Mankind and drinking His blood, you have no eonian life in yourselves."  (54)  He who is masticating My flesh and drinking My blood has life eonian, and I shall be raising him in the last day,  (55)  for My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."  (56)  He who is masticating My flesh and drinking My blood is remaining in Me, and I in him."  (57)  According as the living Father commissions Me, I, also, am living because of the Father. And he who is masticating Me, he also will be living because of Me."  (58)  This is the Bread which descends out of heaven. Not according as the fathers ate and died; he who is masticating this Bread shall be living for the eon."  (59)  These things He said, teaching in a synagogue in Capernaum."  (60)  Many of His disciples, then, hearing it, said, "Hard is this saying! Who can hear it?  (61)  Now Jesus, being aware in Himself that His disciples are murmuring concerning this, said to them, "This is snaring you?  (62)  If, then, you should be beholding the Son of Mankind ascending where He was formerly - ?  (63)  The Spirit is that which is vivifying. The flesh is not benefiting anything. The declarations which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Dear Gabe,
"Living for the eon" and "eonian life" refer to the same thing. The eonian life is the life pertaining to the eon in which they shall be living for.
The contrast is not between death and immortality. The contrast is between death and living for the eon to come which is 1000 years duration.

Immortality is a subject never taught by Jesus.

One might suppose by this verse that Jesus taught immortality:

Joh 11:26  And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

But upon closer inspection of the Greek the translators left out a couple of key words. I'll bold them:

Joh 11:26 And everyone who is living and believing in Me, should by no means be dying for the eon. Are you believing this?

"They live and reign with Christ a thousand years" (Rev.20:4).

No one would try to make "a thousand years" be "eternal" just so they can keep Christ and His followers alive if the thousand years should end. Neither should one change "eon" to "eternity" just so one can keep His followers alive.

[Tony N]

Legoman, I like how you think. And you are humble about it.

[Paul Hazelwood]

One could change the meaning of "aion" to be any word that fit the context, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.

No one is advocating or presenting an argument for such ambiguous reasoning.   Just because people disagree on the nature of the two words does not mean that opens the pandoras box for making aion just any word we please.   

The points are remaining within the concepts of time and how the "ancient" languages may have portrayed them apart from the arguments that use their preferred english word to make assertions.

[Tony N]

One could change the meaning of "aion" to be any word that fit the context, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.

No one is advocating or presenting an argument for such ambiguous reasoning.   Just because people disagree on the nature of the two words does not mean that opens the pandoras box for making aion just any word we please.   

The points are remaining within the concepts of time and how the "ancient" languages may have portrayed them apart from the arguments that use their preferred english word to make assertions.

Dear Paul,
Gabe/Apo is advocating that context gives the meaning of aionion. He advocates that eonian is not eternal in some passages but when used of life it is eternal since it is the life of God (according to him).

But the problem with that is that it is the duty of the adjective to modify the noun. Gabe is reversing this law and making the noun or whatever modify the adjective. That's a big no no.

So legoman I think is refering to Gabe's position but I believe Gabe's position is concerning aionion, not aion.

[gregoryfl]

I'm using horizonal as the adjective for horizon, and the Hebrew idea behind the meaning for life was to have one's stomach filled. What one would call eternal life I would call horizonal filled-stomach

And what do you expect an English reader to make of your translation?

This is mainly for myself actually. I don't intend on selling it, but mainly to be used for anyone wanting to see the words from the Hebraic mindset. Of course as with anything new it will take getting used to. Because of it's very nature I do not see it, nor do I intend for it to be considered something everyone would want. But there are people who are interested in tracing the pictographic meanings of the words. That's all I'm trying to do. But to answer your question, most would probably take one look at it, think it wierd, and put it right down. 

Ron

[legoman]

Yes the point is just because "eternal" makes sense in some cases as a translation for aion/aionios, doesn't mean it is the correct translation.

Tony wrote:

Immortality is a subject never taught by Jesus.

I think that is possibly a fair assessment, but it is one that is hard to get out of your head after years of listening to the church teach.  I know it was for me (and still is).

I believe Jesus is mostly talking about eonian life - that is the period of time when the chosen will have the honor of reigining with Christ - also known as the 1000 years or the millenium.  And it may also include the eon after that - it could be summed up as life for the eons, as opposed to punishment for the eons.

Anyway, I just have a hard time seeing one word "aion" can have multiple meanings, when one meaning will do just fine.  And yes I understand that there are many english words that have multiple meanings.

But with something as simple as aion-age, why is there a need to complicate it by adding additional meanings, especially when it is not required or warranted?  Perhaps that is my question.  Why do you believe aion has multiple meanings, when (to me at least) it seems all that is required is one plain meaning of "age".  And what is the evidence that aion does indeed have more than one meaning?

From the article link I posted above (and other articles) it seems plain that one meaning is all that is needed and is in fact the evidence supports one meaning.  AION = AGE.

There can be more debate about AIONIOS, whether it actually means "pertaining to ages".  But even in that case there is plenty of evidence to support that AIONIOS life means the same thing as life for the AIONS, as Tony pointed out one example above.

Cheers,
Legoman

[Paul Hazelwood]

Dear Paul,
Gabe/Apo is advocating that context gives the meaning of aionion. He advocates that eonian is not eternal in some passages but when used of life it is eternal since it is the life of God (according to him).

But the problem with that is that it is the duty of the adjective to modify the noun. Gabe is reversing this law and making the noun or whatever modify the adjective. That's a big no no.

So legoman I think is refering to Gabe's position but I believe Gabe's position is concerning aionion, not aion.

But the assertion is valid only if aion can "only" mean age.


G165  aion  ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the
world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age,
course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world
(began, without end). Compare G5550.



You can dispute the definitions if you like, that is your preogative,  but the aspect of ancient language translation is that we have found the best known "approximation"


The issue is if the spiritual nature of Gods Character love and righteousness is actually threatened by the use of either word,  or whether God intended for both perspectives to be given to us for a reason.

I contend that God gave them both for a reason because they both harmonize between the physical and the spiritual.

This has strengthened my faith because I am no longer threatened by the translation of either word.


As I asked previously


When will Gods corrective nature end?

[Paul Hazelwood]

Yes the point is just because "eternal" makes sense in some cases as a translation for aion/aionios, doesn't mean it is the correct translation.

The larger problem I see is that some claim that it must one or the other in every case.   As far as I know, there is no work being done concerning the translation of either Ancient Hebrew or Ancient Greek that does not consider context and usage as the best determining factor to find all the definitions of an ancient word that approximate to the language it is being translated too.


I will read and consider any sources that say that there is any other way to translate them.



Hebrew or Greek does not actually contain the literal word EON or FOREVER.  It contains a unique word that translators have had to approximate and determine what can be rightly associated to that word.


It is a huge undertaking and it is not as simple as saying aion only means age.

[bobf]

BUT IT LED ME TO UR, NOT ANNIH. SO NOT A SHAME, BUT A PRAISE GOD.

and here is the article that led me down the path.

http://www.savior-of-all.com/aionian.html

GOD WORKS IN MANY WAYS.

Same guy led me to UR... well kind of.  I was a push-over.  I was debating against him on another forum... I thought I was going to show him that that the LOF is pure wrath & vengeance from God so I looked up every single usage of fire as judgment in scripture and related passages, and while doing so I came to see the real purpose of God's judgments which caused me to believe UR.  He probably thought I was pulling his leg because on one post I was telling him he was all wrong and about 5 hours later I was posting some UR passages and asking "...is this what you're talking about?"

Praise God!

[gregoryfl]

...eternal being defined thus, not by time itself, or the lack of it, but of what time consists of, its parameters.

Eternal is defined by times parameters according to Plato?  What do you mean?

I'm not very eloquent in my writing, so I may not be using the best of words to communicate, but what I mean is that I can see where Plato might be using the word eternal, not to mean outside of time, timelessness, nor time without end, but rather as a contrast to what time's parameters are, or the nature of time.

The parameters of time are that it is moving, that it involves change, that it involves that which is physical (meaning time is perceived and measured by things such as sun, moon, stars, seasons, decay, etc.)

That which is eternal can exist in the parameters of time, but is not subject to it. A similar idea is that believers are in the world, but not of it. God does not change. He is eternal, not because he exists outside of time, but because he is not defined by time. He is of the realm of reality, out of which the physical was made a shadow of it.

Ron

[Apocatastasis]

This is mainly for myself actually. I don't intend on selling it, but mainly to be used for anyone wanting to see the words from the Hebraic mindset. Of course as with anything new it will take getting used to. Because of it's very nature I do not see it, nor do I intend for it to be considered something everyone would want. But there are people who are interested in tracing the pictographic meanings of the words. That's all I'm trying to do. But to answer your question, most would probably take one look at it, think it wierd, and put it right down. 

Pictographs, eh?  Actually, I think that's fascinating.  I might have some questions for you down the road.

I'm not very eloquent in my writing, so I may not be using the best of words to communicate, but what I mean is that I can see where Plato might be using the word eternal, not to mean outside of time, timelessness, nor time without end, but rather as a contrast to what time's parameters are, or the nature of time.

The parameters of time are that it is moving, that it involves change, that it involves that which is physical (meaning time is perceived and measured by things such as sun, moon, stars, seasons, decay, etc.)

That which is eternal can exist in the parameters of time, but is not subject to it. A similar idea is that believers are in the world, but not of it. God does not change. He is eternal, not because he exists outside of time, but because he is not defined by time. He is of the realm of reality, out of which the physical was made a shadow of it.

I'm not sure I'm seeing a difference between our readings.  The difference between what we're saying seems to be merely semantical. Timelessness transcends time; it is not subject to the sequential passing of one moment to the next.

[bobf]

But the problem with that is that it is the duty of the adjective to modify the noun. Gabe is reversing this law and making the noun or whatever modify the adjective. That's a big no no.

But adjectives have a broad range of usage and meaning and it's the context that determines what is meant.

For example "lofty" means "high up" but there are many ways something can be high up.

1. physically high up
2. conceptually high up in a good way.
3. conceptually high up in a bad way.

- the lofty mountains overlooked the pristine lake.
- the studious young man had lofty apsirations for his life.
- the lofty looks of the wicked will be humbled.
 
loft·y (lôft, lf-)
adj. loft·i·er, loft·i·est
1. Of imposing height.
2. Elevated in character; exalted.
3. Affecting grandness; pompous.
4. Arrogant; haughty.

"Elevated in character" is far from "pompous" yet it's the context around "lofty" that determines which of these opposing ideas in intended.

[gregoryfl]

This is mainly for myself actually. I don't intend on selling it, but mainly to be used for anyone wanting to see the words from the Hebraic mindset. Of course as with anything new it will take getting used to. Because of it's very nature I do not see it, nor do I intend for it to be considered something everyone would want. But there are people who are interested in tracing the pictographic meanings of the words. That's all I'm trying to do. But to answer your question, most would probably take one look at it, think it wierd, and put it right down. 

Pictographs, eh?  Actually, I think that's fascinating.  I might have some questions for you down the road.

I'm not very eloquent in my writing, so I may not be using the best of words to communicate, but what I mean is that I can see where Plato might be using the word eternal, not to mean outside of time, timelessness, nor time without end, but rather as a contrast to what time's parameters are, or the nature of time.

The parameters of time are that it is moving, that it involves change, that it involves that which is physical (meaning time is perceived and measured by things such as sun, moon, stars, seasons, decay, etc.)

That which is eternal can exist in the parameters of time, but is not subject to it. A similar idea is that believers are in the world, but not of it. God does not change. He is eternal, not because he exists outside of time, but because he is not defined by time. He is of the realm of reality, out of which the physical was made a shadow of it.

I'm not sure I'm seeing a difference between our readings.  The difference between what we're saying seems to be merely semantical. Timelessness transcends time; it is not subject to the sequential passing of one moment to the next.

If you have any questions about that, I would be happy to try to answer. While not a replacement for the truths of scripture, it does serve to illustrate scripture, making things easy to remember, since we relate to pictures.

As for your point about timelessness, I can see where if timelessness is something that by its nature, transcends time, yet, is able to be a part of it, participating in it, then yes, I can agree with that. I just do not currently see the commonly understood definition of God as totally outside of time. I would liken it as well to God being outside of his creation in the sense of his creating all things, yet becoming part of creation in the person of his son Jesus, who was the epitome of being in the world, but not of it.

Ron

[Doc]

BUT IT LED ME TO UR, NOT ANNIH. SO NOT A SHAME, BUT A PRAISE GOD.

and here is the article that led me down the path.

http://www.savior-of-all.com/aionian.html

GOD WORKS IN MANY WAYS.

Same guy led me to UR... well kind of.  I was a push-over.  I was debating against him on another forum... I thought I was going to show him that that the LOF is pure wrath & vengeance from God so I looked up every single usage of fire as judgment in scripture and related passages, and while doing so I came to see the real purpose of God's judgments which caused me to believe UR.  He probably thought I was pulling his leg because on one post I was telling him he was all wrong and about 5 hours later I was posting some UR passages and asking "...is this what you're talking about?"

Praise God!

Yeah, I've really appreciated Ken Eckerty's writings myself. We've e-mailed a few times over some questions I had. Good guy.

[Apocatastasis]

...just because "eternal" makes sense in some cases as a translation for aion/aionios, doesn't mean it is the correct translation.

No one here has argued otherwise.  My argument is that if aion/aionios does not convey the idea of endlessness in verses like John 6:27 and 6:51, where these words are used in contrast with the kind of life that perishes.  

Tony wrote:

Quote
Immortality is a subject never taught by Jesus.


I think that is possibly a fair assessment, but it is one that is hard to get out of your head after years of listening to the church teach.  I know it was for me (and still is).

See John 6.  That which is perishable can only logically be contrasted with that which is perishable.  Mortal life can only be logically contrasted with immortal life.

Anyway, I just have a hard time seeing one word "aion" can have multiple meanings, when one meaning will do just fine.

It doesn't do fine in verses like the two I just referred you to.  Besides, language is often complex, and this is certainly the case with Biblical Hebrew and Greek, as any  whonest person who studies it will tell you.

[sven]

as far is I know olam has the root of hidden/unseen and can literally be translated "hidden time", maybe the main contrast of aionios is not limited/unlimited duration, but visible/invisible?