So Tony N. tells us that an adjective can't modify a noun. Well, can an adjective qualify a noun?
Please re-read what I wrote.
I never said that an adjective can't modify a noun.
In fact I stated just the opposite.
I state that it is the duty of the adjective to modify the noun,
as do the books that teach Greek say the duty of the adjective is to modify the noun.
I state that the noun does not modify the adjective
To state that eonian can mean eternal because God is eternal is
to cause the noun "God" to modify the adjective "eonian." That is wrong.
The adjective "eonian" modifies the noun "God" In Romans 16:26.
Also I read Talbott's idea from the supplied URL and found it to be wrong.
The fire of Matthew 25:46 is not "everlasting" because, according to Talbott, the effects last for ever.
Talbott says of the usage of aionios in Romans 16:26:On other occasions, its use seems roughly Platonic in this sense: Whether God is eternal (that is, timeless, outside of time) in a purely Platonic sense or everlasting in the sense that he endures throughout all of the ages, nothing other than God is eternal in the primary sense (see the reference to 'the eternal God' in Rom. 16:26). The judgements, gifts, and actions of God are eternal in the secondary sense that their causal source lies in the eternal character and purpose God.
But that is incorrect. The noun "God" does not modify the adjective "aionios" in Romans 16:26. It is not telling us how long God lives but is in fact telling us that God, being the "eonian God" is the God pertaining to the eons. He is over them, directing them, subjecting mankind to the goals He has for each eon.
Both the chastening and the life of Matthew 25:46 is eonian, i.e. pertaining to that eon. One does not change the meaning of an adjective based upon a noun connected with it. Rather, the adjective modifies the noun.
I stated earlier I was done with this topic but I feel I've been baited once again. We'll see if this fish can reel in the fisher.