Tentmaker Forum

The late and great Greek scholar and Universalist, William Barclay, understood aionios to be the word of eternity in the sense of timelessness. Wrote Barclay, in his New Testament Words:

"The essence of the word aionios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God. Aionios is the word which describes nothing less and nothing more than the life of God."

Doesn't this make good sense in light of the many verses which contrast things aeonian (the Anglicized form of aionios) with the perishable things of this passing world?

Let's examine some passages in light of what Barclay notes above.

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

Here aionios is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption.

"...because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are aeonian." - 2 Corinthians 4:18

In this verse, aionios describes that which human eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, because they belong to the unseen realm of God.


"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to aeonian life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal." - John 6:27

Aionios here refers to that heavenly life which does not fade nor falter: It is the very life of Christ in contradistinction to the perishable life that humanity has in Adam.

This life that Christ gives - the very life of God - is not of this world, but is of the unseen realm of Spirit:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." - John 3:6

Bishop Westcott gave a similar testimony to this mysterious word:

"In spiritual things we must guard against all conclusions which rest upon the notions of succession and duration. 'Eternal life' is that which St. Paul speaks of as 'e outos Zoe the life which is life indeed, and 'e zoe tou theou, the life of God. It is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure."
Indeed, from its inception in Greek literature (Plato - see Timaeus 37d), aionios was used of that which transcends the world of time. This sense is retained in the New Testament, as is manifest considering that this word is routinely used in the New Testament contexts in which its juxtaposition to things perishable is manifest.

So then, what do we make of those verses which speak of "eternal destruction" and "eternal punishment"? Is it not that sort of destruction/punishment which originates in the eternal God?

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" - 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9

Here we read that the wicked will be destroyed by Heavenly fire (note that the Greek word apo does not signify that the destruction consists in being away from God, but that the destruction comes from God). "Aeonian destruction", evidently, is nonebut divine destruction, just as "aeonian punishment" is simply that sort of perfect parental punishment which originates in the heavenly Father.


Thoughts?

i think aionios is not a mystical word, it's just a word to describe matters of time, the equivalent of hebrew olam, a slave shall serve his master for olam for example

Did you read my post?

Aionios, being an adjective, does not change meaning. It's duty is to inform us of that which pertains to the eon(s).

It cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived.

It (aionios) modifies the noun (i.e., Theos/God) as in Romans 16:26. The noun should never modify the adjective.

QuoteDid you read my post?

yes, but i don't think so, i've read a similar argument once, ainios when concerning God, godly life, godly people means eternal, but when concerning, ungodly things or people means age-lasting, but i think aionios is just an common adjective to describe matter of times, like latin saecularia or hebrew olam

Quote from: Tony NAionios, being an adjective, does not change meaning. It's duty is to inform us of that which pertains to the eon(s).

It cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived.

That your statement is false is obvious when considering the fact that words change meaning over time.  For instance, in English, the word gorgeous means "beautiful".  However, gorgeous derives from the noun gorge, meaning "throat".  By Tony's logic, when I tell my wife she is gorgeous, I really mean that she is "throaty".

Besides, aionios first appears in Plato's writings, where he clearly uses it in reference to timeless eternity.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 23, 2009, 06:42:12 PM

Quote from: Tony NAionios, being an adjective, does not change meaning. It's duty is to inform us of that which pertains to the eon(s).

It cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived.

That your statement is false is obvious when considering the fact that words change meaning over time.  For instance, in English, the word gorgeous means "beautiful".  However, gorgeous derives from the noun gorge, meaning "throat".  By Tony's logic, when I tell my wife she is gorgeous, I really mean that she is "throaty".

Besides, aionios first appears in Plato's writings, where he clearly uses it in reference to timeless eternity.

Just because people TODAY have caused aionios to morph into something altogether different from what which God used in the Bible does not mean that that morphed meaning should be shoved back into the Bible to make aionios mean what God never intended it to mean.

The original meaning of Gorgeous is of French origin (gorrias) and meant "elegant". People wore gorria necklaces around their throat and so they were said to be gorrias or gorgeous. Now it is a faded figure that people themselves are gorgeous due to the quality of their looks just as their necklaces had a beautiful quality about them.

What is the noun of gorrias and how is gorrias greater than that noun?

Plato never used aionias as "timeless eternity." We've been over this time and again.

QuoteThe original meaning of Gorgeous is of French origin (gorrias) and meant "elegant". People wore gorria necklaces around their throat and so they were said to be gorrias or gorgeous. Now it is a faded figure that people themselves are gorgeous due to the quality of their looks just as their necklaces had a beautiful quality about them.

What is the noun of gorrias and how is gorrias greater than that noun?

Get your facts straight.

Quotegorgeous 
c.1495, from M.Fr. gorgias "elegant, fashionable," perhaps lit. "necklace" (and thus "fond of jewelry"), from O.Fr. gorge "bosom, throat," also "something adorning the throat."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gorgeous

QuoteGorgeous is a word whose etymology demonstrates how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, though a little more knowledge is often enough to set you right. In this case, the root gorge- suggests "eating" or "devouring", and so a folk etymology is obvious: gorgeous means "edible beauty", that is, something so pretty you are tempted to eat it. But that would be wrong. The fossil record of words makes clear that the ultimate parent of gorgeous is, indeed, the root gorge-, which does not so much mean "eat" as it does "throat" or "narrow channel". But the descent of meaning is something like the following: gorge is taken to denote the throat, and then various things around the throat get similar names. A gorget is a piece of throat armor, and a gorgias was a neckerchief. Then, the use of fancy, colorful neckerchiefs spawned the word gorgayse, meaning "elegant", "dressy", or "showy", and now the final step to gorgeous, meaning "beautiful" or "captivating", is easy to anticipate.

http://people.scs.fsu.edu/~burkardt/fun/wordplay/weird_words.html


The facts are there for all to see, Tony. Don't try to weasel your way out of this one.  Gorgeous derives from the noun gorge, meaning "throat".

QuotePlato never used aionias as "timeless eternity." We've been over this time and again.

You alone hold this view against all scholarship.  Remember when I invited you to join the classical Greek forum?  Remember how you tried to retranslate Plato's Timaeus?  Let me see if I can dig that up.  It was really, really funny.  So, Tony, why don't you share with the members here your novel translation of Timaeus 37d?

Folks,

Below is a link to a discussion on a Classical Greek translating forum, where Tony tried to push his case for his novel translation of a Platonic text.  Very comical!

http://www.translatum.gr/forum/index.php/topic,5383.0.html

From what I understand

Greek words translated to everlasting and forever have possibly an abstract meaning,  close to something like  "the end is imperceptible" or how it can "seem".   They do not conclusively mean literally never ending or without beginning or end.

God is the God of Ages because thats how he is orchestrating things.  God alone possesses immortality which I have seen that is where we can conclude that God is eternal.

QuoteBesides, aionios first appears in Plato's writings, where he clearly uses it in reference to timeless eternity.

i can't tell if this is true, but as far as I know, many used aidios/aidion to denote eternity, I also have doubts if aionios in the LXX shall mean eternal, eg. Jonah 2,6

QuoteThat your statement is false is obvious when considering the fact that words change meaning over time.

the matter is, what had aionios meant in the time when the NT was written?

what about this:

QuoteBut writing in the very expressive Greek language, Justinian says, "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless eonian (ateleuteetos aiõnios) life for the just, and endless (ateleuteetos) punishment for the wicked."

why should anyone make such a statement if aionios meant eternal?

http://tojuki.tripod.com/id24.htm

in this Link

QuoteHi everyone.  I am currently involved in a discussion concerning Plato's use of aionios in Timaeus.

it seems Plato uses aidion, not aionion - it are not the same words

apêrgazeto, poteron pros to kata tauta kai hôsautôs echon ê pros to gegonos. ei men dê kalos estin hode ho kosmos ho te dêmiourgos agathos, dêlon hôs pros to aidion eblepen: ei de ho mêd' eipein tini themis, pros gegonos. panti dê saphes hoti pros to aidion: ho men gar kallistos tôn gegonotôn, ho d' aristos tôn aitiôn. houtô dê gegenêmenos pros to logôi kai phronêsei perilêpton kai kata tauta echon dedêmiourgêtai

may it be that you mixed up these words:

aidion: αιδιοις
aionios: αιωνιον

2 Peter 1:11 YLT for so, richly shall be superadded to you the entrance into the age-during  reign of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:11 KJV For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

age-during and everlasting are translated from the Greek aionios.
It's clear the Son doesn't reign forever because the Father takes over the reign.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 23, 2009, 06:05:52 PM
just as "aeonian punishment" is simply that sort of perfect parental punishment which originates in the heavenly Father.


Thoughts?

That actually is a great way for things to be.   If the factor of Gods correction is always present, then the issue is if we are subjected to that then it is temporary in the respect that it will not take forever to correct us. 

Apo/Gabe, I knew your original post was a bait post.

I see you have learned nothing whatsoever from the last time we had this conversation. So why do you think you or I will change this time around?

Just because some words morph over time (and they do) does not mean that the morphed meaning of TODAY is the meaning that the words ORIGINALLY meant. Do you understand this?

Also, this is not about morphology. It is about what the meaning of the word was WHEN it was used in the Bible.
There is not one place in all the Bible where aion or olam (olam being it's equivalent) were ever used of the sense of eternal. Therefore it is impossible for its adjectival form of aionios/olam to mean eternal, for the adjective in the bible is NEVER greater than the noun from which it is derived. NEVER.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 23, 2009, 06:42:12 PM
That your statement is false is obvious when considering the fact that words change meaning over time.  For instance, in English, the word gorgeous means "beautiful".  However, gorgeous derives from the noun gorge, meaning "throat".  By Tony's logic, when I tell my wife she is gorgeous, I really mean that she is "throaty".

A word really does not actually change, the common use of a word may, that does not change the contextual meaning nor an origin of a word.

Hell is not actually originated in the meaning of an eternal torture pit or a state of eternal hopelessness  it can be used properly as "conceal or cover".   This does not mean trying to use HELL in that context will be readily understood. If the word Hell was used in a document that was written in the 4th century it is not proper that we should now interpret that document based on how it is now most commonly used.

Is this to say that the flintstone cartoon theme song is about homosexuality because they were having a GAY ole time?

i don't want to push, but im very interested now

did Plato use:

aidion αιδιοις or aionios: αιωνιον do denote eternity?

@ Apocatastasis, is this text in greek letters avaiable online:

apêrgazeto, poteron pros to kata tauta kai hôsautôs echon ê pros to gegonos. ei men dê kalos estin hode ho kosmos ho te dêmiourgos agathos, dêlon hôs pros to aidion eblepen: ei de ho mêd' eipein tini themis, pros gegonos. panti dê saphes hoti pros to aidion: ho men gar kallistos tôn gegonotôn, ho d' aristos tôn aitiôn. houtô dê gegenêmenos pros to logôi kai phronêsei perilêpton kai kata tauta echon dedêmiourgêtai

Quote from: TonyJust because some words morph over time (and they do) does not mean that the morphed meaning of TODAY is the meaning that the words ORIGINALLY meant. Do you understand this?

Of course I understand this.  Just because an adjective is derived from a noun does not mean that the adjective must bear the meaning of the noun.  Besides, aionios has been used of eternity from its inception (Plato's Timaeus 37d), as any Greek scholar will attest to.  Oh, that's right..... you have your own translation of that passage, don't you?  Care to share it with the members here?  Don't be coy now.

QuoteAlso, this is not about morphology. It is about what the meaning of the word was WHEN it was used in the Bible.

Indeed, so why then do you always resort to the root fallacy?  You remember what the root fallacy is, don't you?

QuoteThere is not one place in all the Bible where aion or olam (olam being it's equivalent) were ever used of the sense of eternal.

Why don't you address the evidence I presented to the contrary?

QuoteTherefore it is impossible for its adjectival form of aionios/olam to mean eternal, for the adjective in the bible is NEVER greater than the noun from which it is derived. NEVER.

This is a prime example of the root fallacy. I see you have learned nothing whatsoever from the last time we had this conversation.

Quote from: Tony N on January 23, 2009, 06:30:25 PM
Aionios, being an adjective, does not change meaning. It's duty is to inform us of that which pertains to the eon(s).

It cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived.

It (aionios) modifies the noun (i.e., Theos/God) as in Romans 16:26. The noun should never modify the adjective.

But some words are a bit fuzzy and the context and neighboring words can affect their meaning.

Consider:
The man's license will be suspended indefinitely.
The woman's license will not be suspended indefinitely.

In the first sentence "indefinietly" means for an unspecified period of time.  It does not imply forever.  In the second sentence "not indefinetely" means "not forever".  It does not mean the time period is definite, that anyone knows when the woman's license will be reinstated.

sven

The text is available via Perseus project although the site did not work for me when I tried to go there a minute ago. 

To answer your question, Plato used both aidios and aionios in Timaeus37d.  Both words are in reference to the unchanging realm of the timeless Forms in contradistinction to the transient world of time. 
Are you familiar with Palto's philosophy?

I haven't used the root fallacy. I can tell you must not know what it means or you would not accuse me of using that fallacy.

"When doing biblical exegesis, there are several pitfalls we must be careful to avoid. D. A. Carson calls these 'exegetical fallacies', and they are so prevalent that from what I gather from other's that are more well read on Carson's work than myself, he himself falls into some of them in spite of his having written an entire book on the subject! Rather than look at every single one of these pitfall, I'd just like to make you all aware of four. First, is what Carson calls the 'root fallacy' - often times we'll hear someone refer to the root of a Greek word to make some profound theological statement. In English we know this just isn't true, however: the root of a word may or may not have any real logical connection to it's meaning. For example, the root word for 'nice' is the Latin word meaning 'ignorant'. Or what it, years from now someone applied the 'root-word' theory of linguistics to the word 'butterfly'? A butterfly is neither a fly, nor buttery - the same is true in interpreting Greek. Although sometimes the root of a word does help us get a better idea of what it might mean, that is not necessarily always true." http://heatlight.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/how-to-read-the-word-evangelical-hermeneutics-or-how-to-read-interpret-the-bible/ (http://heatlight.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/how-to-read-the-word-evangelical-hermeneutics-or-how-to-read-interpret-the-bible/)

Now then, had I tried to break down aionios into its parts and tried to come to the meaning of that word by its root meaning then you might have something to stand on in accusing me.

For intance, to say that American is the adjectival form of America and means "pertaining to America" is not using the root falacy. It is an absolute fact that American pertains to that which is of America. Obama is the American president. His presidency pertains to America.
Likewise Aionios is the adjectival form of Aion and means "pertaining to the eon(s)". This is not using the root falacy. It is an absolute fact that aionios pertains to the aion. If a person is punished for the aion and they receive aionion punishing then there punishing is pertaining to the aion.

When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living,
the created image of the imperceptible (aidion) gods, he rejoiced, and in his
joy determined to make
the copy still more like the original; and as this was eonian, (aionios) he
sought to make the
universe so far as might be of a like kind. Now the nature of the ideal being
was eons (or periods of time or cycles),
(aionos) but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was
impossible. Wherefore he
resolved to have a moving image of eonian (aionios), and when he set in order
the heaven, he
made this image the eons or periods of time or cycles (aionos) but moving
according to number, while eonian (aionion) itself rests in
unity; and this image we call time. [Tony's note: Since the image is time (he
just said so) and since that which is "eternal" is *non-time* therefore that
which is eonian is that which deals with time and not eternity. Plato got it
right. I have put the correct transliteration in bold above to correct the
problem. Remember...this is about "time" not "eternity."
Tony
Plato timaeus 37d

Now, then Gabe,
please bring forth in the New Testament where aion or aionios should be translated eternal. Just one verse will do and give your reason why it should be translated eternal.

Tony

if Plato really used aionios to denote eternity we must accept this, but he is only one man, i quess he didn't invent this word, so needn't matter that much, this is an interesting quote:

QuoteUpon a lead tablet found in the necropolis at Adrumetum, in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, belonging to the early third century, the following inscription is scratched in Greek, "I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian and more than eonian (epaiõnion) and almighty, the One up-above the up-above gods." Deissmann requires to render this as follows: "the eternal and more than eternal and almighty, who is exalted above the exalted Gods."

QuoteAre you familiar with Palto's philosophy?

i only know that he believed in immortal soul

Tony,

I'll get to your points later.  For now, why don't you share with the members here your own translation of Timaeus 37d? It was very interesting, if I recall.

QuoteThe original Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, by seventy scholars, and hence called "The
Septuagint," B.C. 200-300,(1) and the Hebrew word Olam is, in almost all cases, translated AiónAiónios
etc., (Aíwv, Aíwvios,) so that the two words may be regarded as synonymous with each other. In the
New Testament the same wordsAión and its derivatives, are the original Greek of the English
words,Eternal, Everlasting, Forever, etc.. So that when we ascertain the real meaning of Aión, we have
settled the sense of those English words in which the doctrine of Endless Punishment is erroneously
taught.

QuoteThe oldest lexicographer, Hesychius, (A. D. 400-600,) definesaión thus: "The life of man, the time of
life." At this early date no theologian had yet imported into the word the meaning of endless duration. It
retained only the sense it had in the classics, and in the Bible.

QuoteTheodoret(9) (A. D. 300-400) "Aión is not any existing thing, but an interval denoting time, sometimes
infinite when spoken of God, sometimes proportioned to the duration of the creation, and sometimes to
the life of man."

QuoteHesiod employs it twice: "To him (the married man) during aiónos (life) evil is constantly striving,
etc.(17) Æschulus has the word nineteen times, after this manner: "This life (aión) seems long, etc.

QuoteAristotle uses aión twelve times. He speaks of the existence or duration (aión) of the earth;(22) of an
unlimited aiónos;(23) and elsewhere, he says: aión sunekes kai aidios, "an eternal aión" (or being)
"pertaining to God." The fact that Aristotle found it necessary to add aidios to aión to ascribe eternity to
God demonstrates that he found no sense of eternity in the word aión, and utterly discards the idea that
he held the word to mean endless duration, even admitting that he derived

Plus reply#11

how did Plato define eternity?, did he maybe define it as the opposite of time?

would eternal times be a contradiction in itself after Platos conception of eternity?

i'm justing asking cause I once read the statement time is the opposite of eternity, and eternal times would be a condradiction in itself

QuoteTHE PLATONIC DERIVATIONS.
We have proceeded on the ground that Aristotle's etymology is authoritative. But nothing is further
from the truth. The scholarship of to-day, possessed by an average educated philologist, is far more
competent to trace this or any Greek word to its real source, than Plato or Aristotle was able to do. In
his analysis of Plato's Cratylus,(8) Grote accurately observes of Plato's etymologies: "Though sometimes
reasonable enough, they are in a far greater number of instances forced, arbitrary, and fanciful. The
transitions of meaning imagined, and the structural transformations of words, are alike strange and
violent. Such is the light in which these Platonic etymologies appear to a modern critic. But such was
not the light in which they appeared either to the ancient Platonists or critics earlier than the last
century. The Platonists even thought then full of mysterious and recondite wisdom. So complete has
been the revolution of opinion that the Platonic etymologies arenow treated by most critics as too absurd
to have been seriously intended by Plato, even as conjectures. It is called 'a valuable discovery of
modern times' (so Schleiermacher terms it) that Plato meant most of them as mere parody and
caricature."
The character of Aristotle as an etymologist is thus stated by Grote: "Nor are they more absurd than
many of the etymologies proposed by Aristotle." A slender hook this, whereon to hang such a doctrine
as that of the immortal wo of countless millions of souls.

QuoteSome years since Rev. Ezra S. Goodwin(13) patiently and candidly traced this word through the
Classics, finding the noun frequently in nearly all the writers, but not meeting the adjective until Plato,
its inventor, used it. He states, as the result of his protracted and exhaustive examination from the
beginning down to Plato, "We have the whole evidence of seven Greek writers, extending through about
six centuries, down to the age of Plato, who make use of Aión, in common with other words; and no one
of them EVER employs it in the sense of eternity."

Plato never used aion nor aionios to stand for eternal. The translators mistranslated aionios and aidios as eternal.
Time is not eternal but the absence of eternity. This is about TIME not eternity . . .

Plato's Timaeus

KRONOS Time

WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal (imperceptible/aidiwn) gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal (aidion/imperceptible), he sought to make the universe eternal (aiwnios/eonian), so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting (aiwnos/eon), but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiwnos/eon), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiwnion/eonian) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time (xronon).[37e] For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidion/imperceptible) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (aiwna/eon) and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of expression. But perhaps this whole subject will be more suitably discussed on some other occasion.


time, then, and the heaven came into being at the same instant in order that, having been created together, if ever there was to be a dissolution of them, they might be dissolved together. It was framed after the pattern of the eternal (diaiwnias/eonian) nature, that it might resemble this as far as was possible; for the pattern exists from eternity (aiwna/eon), and the created heaven has been, and is, and will be, in all time. Such was the mind and thought of God in the creation of time. The sun and moon and five other stars, which are called the planets, were created by him in order to distinguish and preserve the numbers of time; and when he had made-their several bodies, he placed them in the orbits in which the circle of the other was revolving-in seven orbits seven stars. First, there was the moon in the orbit nearest the earth, and next the sun, in the second orbit above the earth; then came the morning star and the star sacred to Hermes, moving in orbits which have an equal swiftness with the sun, but in an opposite direction; and this is the reason why the sun and Hermes and Lucifer overtake and are overtaken by each other. To enumerate the places which he assigned to the other stars, and to give all the reasons why he assigned them, although a secondary matter, would give more trouble than the primary. These things at some future time, when we are at leisure, may have the consideration which they deserve, but not at present.

Now, when all the stars which were necessary to the creation of time had attained a motion suitable to them,-and had become living creatures having bodies fastened by vital chains, and learnt their appointed task, moving in the motion of the diverse, which is diagonal, and passes through and is governed by the motion of the same, they revolved, some in a larger and some in a lesser orbit-those which had the lesser orbit revolving faster, and those which had the larger more slowly. Now by reason of the motion of the same, those which revolved fastest appeared to be overtaken by those which moved slower although they really overtook them; for the motion of the same made them all turn in a spiral, and, because some went one way and some another, that which receded most slowly from the sphere of the same, which was the swiftest, appeared to follow it most nearly. That there might be some visible measure of their relative swiftness and slowness as they proceeded in their eight courses, God lighted a fire, which we now call the sun, in the second from the earth of these orbits, that it might give light to the whole of heaven, and that the animals, as many as nature intended, might participate in number, learning arithmetic from the revolution of the same and the like. Thus then, and for this reason the night and the day were created, being the period of the one most intelligent revolution. And the month is accomplished when the moon has completed her orbit and overtaken the sun, and the year when the sun has completed his own orbit. Mankind, with hardly an exception, have not remarked the periods of the other stars, and they have no name for them, and do not measure them against one another by the help of number, and hence they can scarcely be said to know that their wanderings, being infinite in number and admirable for their variety, make up time. And yet there is no difficulty in seeing that the perfect number of time fulfils the perfect year when all the eight revolutions, having their relative degrees of swiftness, are accomplished together and attain their completion at the same time, measured by the rotation of the same and equally moving. After this manner, and for these reasons, came into being such of the stars as in their heavenly progress received reversals of motion, to the end that the created heaven might imitate the eternal (diaiwnias/eonian) nature, and be as like as possible to the perfect and intelligible animal.

as far as I know the Jews Philo or Flavius Josephus used aidion to denote endless duration and aionios to denote limited duration, i've read it somewhere, there are so many statements outside, some contradicting each other, so you can trust nobody

@ Apocastasis, could you maybe translate some verses of the Septuagint for me, i would post them tomorrow or send them to you per PM, I take your arguments serious but I am not convinced of, I can hardly imagine if aion means age, which I am quite convinced of, why aionios shouldn't mean age-lasting but ever-lasting

All,

Note the bolded portion:

QuotePlato never used aion nor aionios to stand for eternal. The translators mistranslated aionios and aidios as eternal.
Time is not eternal but the absence of eternity. This is about TIME not eternity . . .

Plato's Timaeus

KRONOS Time

WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal (imperceptible/aidiwn) gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal (aidion/imperceptible), he sought to make the universe eternal (aiwnios/eonian), so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting (aiwnos/eon), but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiwnos/eon), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiwnion/eonian) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time (xronon).[37e] For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidion/imperceptible) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (aiwna/eon) and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of expression.

Tony,

First off, why are you neglecting to post your own translation of Plato?  Don't you remember your silly literal rendering of Timaeus 37d that you were advocating over translations such as the one you quoted above?  I'm sure the readers here would like to see your novel translation. 

Secondly, you mean to tell me that the fact that this chapter is about time means that the concept of eternity is not referenced to?  Is this suppoed to be a logical argument?

Thirdly, it is clear to any competent reader that according to the text time (kronos) is the "moving image" of eternity (aionios).  Tony, you yourself concede as much with this:

Quotewhile eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 24, 2009, 12:33:59 AM
All,

Note the bolded portion:

QuotePlato never used aion nor aionios to stand for eternal. The translators mistranslated aionios and aidios as eternal.
Time is not eternal but the absence of eternity. This is about TIME not eternity . . .
Tony,

QuoteFirst off, why are you neglecting to post your own translation of Plato?  Don't you remember your silly literal rendering of Timaeus 37d that you were advocating over translations such as the one you quoted above?  I'm sure the readers here would like to see your novel translation. 

Secondly, you mean to tell me that the fact that this chapter is about time means that the concept of eternity is not referenced to?  Is this suppoed to be a logical argument?

Thirdly, it is clear to any competent reader that according to the text time (kronos) is the "moving image" of eternity (aionios).  Tony, you yourself concede as much with this:

Quotewhile eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity

[/quote][/quote]

Apoc/Gabe, the word "eternity" in "while eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity" means that "eternity" with a strike through is not proper. It means that "eonian" is the proper word.
Why did you quote what I wrote without "eternity" being with a strike through?

Also, if you could just try to read what Plato wrote you would see he could not possibly be using aiwnios/eonian to mean eternal.

I never did any silly rendering of Plato. You are being mean spirited. Please desist from these attacks.

Furthermore you never answered my question as to what verse in the Bible shows aion or aionios to mean eternal? Just one verse will do.
Tony

Quote from: Paul HazelwoodA word really does not actually change, the common use of a word may, that does not change the contextual meaning nor an origin of a word.

What I said is that the meaning of a word can change over time.  This is indisputable.

Quote from: sven on January 23, 2009, 11:41:11 PM
as far as I know the Jews Philo or Flavius Josephus used aidion to denote endless duration and aionios to denote limited duration, i've read it somewhere, there are so many statements outside, some contradicting each other, so you can trust nobody

@ Apocastasis, could you maybe translate some verses of the Septuagint for me, i would post them tomorrow or send them to you per PM, I take your arguments serious but I am not convinced of, I can hardly imagine if aion means age, which I am quite convinced of, why aionios shouldn't mean age-lasting but ever-lasting

I maintain that we are FINITE, and because of that, ...we cannot behold or COMPREHEND INFINITY... no more than a BLIND man can define the colors and designs found on the shirt you are wearing...  :dontknow:

Therefore any USAGE of a TERM which endeavors to TEACH of INFINITY, is being used by one who has no VIEW of it and is therefore INVALID... One cannot TEACH or DEFINE a concept he truly does not understand... and is UNABLE to convey.

We cannot VALIDLY explain what ETERNITY is, ...for it has NO BEGINNING as WELL as, NO END... whereas ALL things we observe in TIME (including ourselves) are in a REALM which denotes BOTH a BEGINNING ...and... an END... of ALL things within it, ...2 PIVITOL and DEFINING attributes ABSENT in the entity which is called, "ETERNITY"...

We can only envision NO END, for time is marching FORWARD without an observeable boundary to stop it within our vision... (though it SHALL END, as CHRIST plainly noted several times that there would be a LAST DAY -- meaning NO additional "DAYS" can follow it, ...and "the TIME of the END", are both noted in Scripture)

We as FINITES, are UNABLE to behold, nor COMPREHEND the premise of "NO BEGINNING", which is EQUALLY important and MUST be INCLUDED in describing and defining, ETERNITY.



:laughing7:  willieH     :laughing7:

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 24, 2009, 01:31:56 AM

Quote from: Paul HazelwoodA word really does not actually change, the common use of a word may, that does not change the contextual meaning nor an origin of a word.

What I said is that the meaning of a word can change over time.  This is indisputable.

But your inference is bogus because if aion/aionios changed its meaning in the last 2000 years since its usage by the bible writers does not mean that the meaning of today should be foistered upon its meaning of 2000 years ago. So your whole argument that words change meaning has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical meaning/usage of aion/aionion.

Quote from: TonyI haven't used the root fallacy. I can tell you must not know what it means or you would not accuse me of using that fallacy.

Oh you are a hoot! This should be good.....

QuoteFirst, is what Carson calls the 'root fallacy' - often times we'll hear someone refer to the root of a Greek word to make some profound theological statement. In English we know this just isn't true, however: the root of a word may or may not have any real logical connection to it's meaning. For example, the root word for 'nice' is the Latin word meaning 'ignorant'. Or what it, years from now someone applied the 'root-word' theory of linguistics to the word 'butterfly'? A butterfly is neither a fly, nor buttery - the same is true in interpreting Greek. Although sometimes the root of a word does help us get a better idea of what it might mean, that is not necessarily always true." http://heatlight.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/how-to-read-the-word-evangelical-hermeneutics-or-how-to-read-interpret-the-bible/

Oh my.  Tony, did you even read what you quoted?  Why would you post something that completely militates against your argument?  

QuoteNow then, had I tried to break down aionios into its parts and tried to come to the meaning of that word by its root meaning then you might have something to stand on in accusing me.

Tony, don't play obtuse.  The root of aionios is aion.  The noun is the root of the adjective.  You are saying that the meaning of the adjective is neccessarily semantically bound to its nounal root.  This is the root fallacy.
 

QuoteFor intance, to say that American is the adjectival form of America and means "pertaining to America" is not using the root falacy.

True, but to insist that all adjectives are neccessarily bound to their roots is just silly.  I already gave you one example in gorgeous (which you unsuccessfully tried to explain away).  I could make you a list if you want.

QuoteNow, then Gabe,
please bring forth in the New Testament where aion or aionios should be translated eternal. Just one verse will do and give your reason why it should be translated eternal.

Why do you pretend that I didn't present some evidence in my OP?  

Quote
Why did you quote what I wrote without "eternity" being with a strike through?

I simply copied and pasted what you wrote.  I do not know why the strike did not show up in the quote.

QuoteAlso, if you could just try to read what Plato wrote you would see he could not possibly be using aiwnios/eonian to mean eternal.

Why don't you explain?  And why don't you explain what you think Plato meant by this:

"Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting (aiwnos/eon), but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiwnos/eon), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiwnion/eonian) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiwnion/eonian) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time."

QuoteI never did any silly rendering of Plato.

Oh?

http://www.translatum.gr/forum/index.php?topic=5383.15

QuoteFurthermore you never answered my question as to what verse in the Bible shows aion or aionios to mean eternal? Just one verse will do.

I refer you back to the OP.

Quote from: ApocWhat I said is that the meaning of a word can change over time.  This is indisputable.

Quote from: TonyBut your inference is bogus....

What inference?

Quote... because if aion/aionios changed its meaning in the last 2000 years since its usage by the bible writers does not mean that the meaning of today should be foistered upon its meaning of 2000 years ago.

I never argued otherwise.

QuoteSo your whole argument that words change meaning has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical meaning/usage of aion/aionion.

It has everything to do with your persistent use of the root fallacy.

Quote from: sven@ Apocastasis, could you maybe translate some verses of the Septuagint for me, i would post them tomorrow or send them to you per PM, I take your arguments serious but I am not convinced of, I can hardly imagine if aion means age, which I am quite convinced of, why aionios shouldn't mean age-lasting but ever-lasting

I'd be glad to offer any perspective I can lend on the subject.

Quote from: svenhow did Plato define eternity?, did he maybe define it as the opposite of time?

would eternal times be a contradiction in itself after Platos conception of eternity?

i'm justing asking cause I once read the statement time is the opposite of eternity, and eternal times would be a condradiction in itself

Plato envisioned a timeless eternity in which there is no measure of time.  Plato conceived time as cyclical, as was common to ancient Greek thinking.  Thus time was symbolized by the circle which, having no beginning no end, quite aptly conveyed the notion of time as an image of eternity.

Quote from: svenwhat about this:


Quote
But writing in the very expressive Greek language, Justinian says, "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless eonian (ateleuteetos aiõnios) life for the just, and endless (ateleuteetos) punishment for the wicked."

why should anyone make such a statement if aionios meant eternal?

Though it might seem redundant to us, both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek include examples where synonymous and/or closely related words are coupled together for emphasis. Such is the case with snonymous parallelisms.

The important thing to realize is that there are alternative applications of the word "eternal" with regards to eschatological punishment such as that universal salvation is not at stake.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 24, 2009, 02:09:08 AM

Quote from: svenhow did Plato define eternity?, did he maybe define it as the opposite of time?

would eternal times be a contradiction in itself after Platos conception of eternity?

i'm justing asking cause I once read the statement time is the opposite of eternity, and eternal times would be a condradiction in itself

Plato envisioned a timeless eternity in which there is no measure of time.  Plato conceived time as cyclical, as was common to ancient Greek thinking.  Thus time was symbolized by the circle which, having no beginning no end, quite aptly conveyed the notion of time as an image of eternity.

From what I have understood is that the above is true but in realm of a perception.   In otherwords I believe the Greeks knew that they could only really know cycles of time with beginnings and endings but could not perceive a beginning or an ending to certain periods or concepts.

So in my opinion that is where the misunderstandings come from.  I think the ones wanting the bible to read a certain way apply english grammer rules to ancient "concepts" so then the debates rages over terms.   (I.E it MUST literally be ages or it must literally be forever)

There are other areas where the concepts get lost because we have to term something as one or the other and then debate after the term rather than what we can observe or conceptualize.

From what I can gather Time can be measured but we cannot perceive any beginning or ending to time,  or we can see beginning of something and not perceive an ending.

From reading the translated plato's work I try to see past these translational debates and read into what it appeared he was saying by using the rest of the words and concepts being conveyed.  I think from reading the bible there is a intelligent duality to the language where the meaning literally and what is perceived can be contained in the same word.

I wrote you a PM @ Apocastasis,
I can't imagine that "a slave shall serve his master eis ton aion" was used to mean "a slave shall serve his master in eternity"

Plato was a pagan philosoph he might have used soul with a different meaning than the bible meaning of soul, so he also might have used aionios with a different meaning than the bible use of it.

it would interesting which words are used in Jewish background to denote endless duration in the time of Jesus and the time the NT was written.

we shouldn't understand soul with Platos conception of souls when reading the bible, also we maybe shouldn't understand Platos use of aionios the way he used it if not all considered this word to denote endless duration, do you get what i want to say?

Quote from: sven on January 24, 2009, 11:43:39 AM
I wrote you a PM @ Apocastasis,
I can't imagine that "a slave shall serve his master eis ton aion" was used to mean "a slave shall serve his master in eternity"

Plato was a pagan philosoph he might have used soul with a different meaning than the bible meaning of soul, so he also might have used aionios with a different meaning than the bible use of it.

it would interesting which words are used in Jewish background to denote endless duration in the time of Jesus and the time the NT was written.

we shouldn't understand soul with Platos conception of souls when reading the bible, also we maybe shouldn't understand Platos use of aionios the way he used it if not all considered this word to denote endless duration, do you get what i want to say?

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 24, 2009, 02:43:42 AMThough it might seem redundant to us, both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek include examples where synonymous and/or closely related words are coupled together for emphasis. Such is the case with snonymous parallelisms.

Aren't you being contradictory now, calling them synonyms?  If "aionios punishment" means "eternal punishment" but NOT in the sense of unending punishment, rather only in the sense of punishment in/of/fitting the eternal God, then the two words are not synonyms nor was the statement redundant.

Quote from: sven on January 24, 2009, 11:43:39 AM
I wrote you a PM @ Apocastasis,
I can't imagine that "a slave shall serve his master eis ton aion" was used to mean "a slave shall serve his master in eternity"

Plato was a pagan philosoph he might have used soul with a different meaning than the bible meaning of soul, so he also might have used aionios with a different meaning than the bible use of it.

it would interesting which words are used in Jewish background to denote endless duration in the time of Jesus and the time the NT was written.

we shouldn't understand soul with Platos conception of souls when reading the bible, also we maybe shouldn't understand Platos use of aionios the way he used it if not all considered this word to denote endless duration, do you get what i want to say?

Perhaps all these views fit together.

1. aionios = of / through / during / pertaining the aion
2. But which aion is in view that aionios is referring to?  It matters because not all aions have the same characteristics.

If it is the present wicked aions in which we now dwell, then your slave verse makes sense
If it is the aion(s) after the resurrection, God's aion if you will, then Apoc's view takes over

So in any passage using aion or aionious you have to ask WHICH aion is in view.

Apo used this verse I guess to prove that aionios can be used of eternality? . . .

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

But this is not the case. The point is that the body God is giving us will have a functional purpose pertaining to the next two eons. That is all one can say.

Just as God is said to be "the eonian God" in Romans 16:26, this is not telling us how long God lives but is telling us about the relationship He has with the eons. He is the One whose Godness is pertaining to the eons. He rules over them, subjecting people to the goal He has for each eon.

There is no dual meaning for eonian. It just tells us that which pertains to the eons. It can't tell us that which pertains to no beginning and no end, because that would be a contradiction in terms.

Another verse which Apoc started this thread with is this:

"...because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are aeonian." - 2 Corinthians 4:18

And Gabe/Apoc stated:

QuoteIn this verse, aionios describes that which human eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, because they belong to the unseen realm of God.

This verse also does not show an unendingness value to aionios/eonian. The things that are seen are transient (CLNT has "temporary" and means: "for a season") and "what is not being observed is eonian." So the comparison is not between "temporal" and "eternity" but rather, the comparison is between something which is for a season (the afflictions) and that which is pertaining to the oncoming eons (an eonian burden of glory). It is the glory we will have, which is not seen at this point in time in our lives. The "eonian burden of glory" is that glory which is pertaining to the future eons.


Tony

Quote from: svenI can't imagine that "a slave shall serve his master eis ton aion" was used to mean "a slave shall serve his master in eternity"

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that aion and aionios don't also refer to time.

QuotePlato was a pagan philosoph he might have used soul with a different meaning than the bible meaning of soul, so he also might have used aionios with a different meaning than the bible use of it.

I'm not saying that the Bible neccessarily uses aionios in the Platonic sense, although I do think that if often does, especially in the NT.

Quote from: bobfQuote from: Apocatastasis on January 23, 2009, 07:43:42 PM
Though it might seem redundant to us, both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek include examples where synonymous and/or closely related words are coupled together for emphasis. Such is the case with snonymous parallelisms.

Aren't you being contradictory now, calling them synonyms?  If "aionios punishment" means "eternal punishment" but NOT in the sense of unending punishment, rather only in the sense of punishment in/of/fitting the eternal God, then the two words are not synonyms nor was the statement redundant.

Ah, but I do believe that that aionios conveys the idea of timeless eternity which is neccessarily without beginning nor end.  I simply believe that aionios is applied as an epithet to things like life and punishment, thereby conveying the idea of divinity. Does that make sense?

Quote from: bobfPerhaps all these views fit together.

1. aionios = of / through / during / pertaining the aion
2. But which aion is in view that aionios is referring to?  It matters because not all aions have the same characteristics.

If it is the present wicked aions in which we now dwell, then your slave verse makes sense
If it is the aion(s) after the resurrection, God's aion if you will, then Apoc's view takes over

So in any passage using aion or aionious you have to ask WHICH aion is in view.

Interesting perspective, Bob. 

Indeed, I do think that aionios is often used in the NT to convey both time and eternity.  That is to say, aionios life pertains to the coming age, yet also pertains to God (Godly life of the age to come).

maybe we all missunderstand us, i'm just concerned about:

was aionios = eternal, only a possible meaning of many or the most common meaning?

was aionios without doubt used in the sense of limited duration between Platos lifetime and the time the NT was written?

what was the most common meaning of aionios then, ever-lasting or age-lasting / long-time-lasting?

if Plato used aionios to denote eternity we must accept this and can't discuss this away but it doesn't mean that it was the common meaning.

i also think that Hades isn't used in the NT or the LXX with the greek mythology meaning but in the jewish meaning of sheol, so might aionios have been used in the sense of hebrew olam

maybe u wanna read this topic i created, i think it fits well to this topic:

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=4729.0

did the LXX texts help you or have you allready knew them?

Quote from: TonyApo used this verse I guess to prove that aionios can be used of eternality? . . .

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

But this is not the case. The point is that the body God is giving us will have a functional purpose pertaining to the next two eons. That is all one can say.

Dear readers,

Let us examine the context of 2 Corinthians 5:1. Note the contrasts of opposites:

2 Corinthians 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward [man] is renewed day by day.

Here we have a contrast between the perishing outward man and the inward man which is renewed.

2 Corinthians 4:17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding [and] eternal weight of glory;

Here we a contrast between temporary sufferings and aeonian (permanent) glory.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.

Here we have a contrast between temporary things of the visible world and the aeonian (permanent) things of the invisible order.

2 Corinthians 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Here we have a contrast between our earthly, perishable house and our heavenly, indestructible house.

Clearly, aionios here conveys the idea of that which is divine, imperishable and permanent.

QuoteJust as God is said to be "the eonian God" in Romans 16:26, this is not telling us how long God lives but is telling us about the relationship He has with the eons. He is the One whose Godness is pertaining to the eons. He rules over them, subjecting people to the goal He has for each eon.

There is no dual meaning for eonian. It just tells us that which pertains to the eons. It can't tell us that which pertains to no beginning and no end, because that would be a contradiction in terms

Tony, you've parrotted this circular logic for years.  Can't an old dog new learn tricks?  

QuoteAnother verse which Apoc started this thread with is this:

"...because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are aeonian." - 2 Corinthians 4:18

And Gabe/Apoc stated:

Quote
In this verse, aionios describes that which human eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, because they belong to the unseen realm of God.

This verse also does not show an unendingness value to aionios/eonian. The things that are seen are transient (CLNT has "temporary" and means: "for a season") and "what is not being observed is eonian." So the comparison is not between "temporal" and "eternity" but rather, the comparison is between something which is for a season (the afflictions) and that which is pertaining to the oncoming eons (an eonian burden of glory). It is the glory we will have, which is not seen at this point in time in our lives. The "eonian burden of glory" is that glory which is pertaining to the future eons.

You ignore the contrasts of opposites that runs throughout the passage.  

Sven,

Quotewas aionios = eternal, only a possible meaning of many or the most common meaning?

I believe that in the NT, aionios predominantly conveys the notion of eternality. 

Quotewas aionios without doubt used in the sense of limited duration between Platos lifetime and the time the NT was written?

It was used to refer to both limited duration and unlimited duration.

Quotewhat was the most common meaning of aionios then, ever-lasting or age-lasting / long-time-lasting?

I'm not sure.

Quoteif Plato used aionios to denote eternity we must accept this and can't discuss this away but it doesn't mean that it was the common meaning.

Plato did in fact coin the word aionios, and he did in fact use it of eternity.  Of course, Tony N. will deny this, even though he is unable to present a reasonable argument for his novel perspective on this particular issue. 

The Platonic sense is retained in the NT, as I have argued.

Quotei also think that Hades isn't used in the NT or the LXX with the greek mythology meaning but in the jewish meaning of sheol, so might aionios have been used in the sense of hebrew olam

Olam was used at times throughout the OT to refer to time extending into the imperceptible.  Thus, olam could be used figuratively to convey the idea of time being transcended. Jonah attested to being in the belly of the beast "forever". Indeed, Jonah had lost all sense of time and was brought into a timeless state.

Quotemaybe u wanna read this topic i created, i think it fits well to this topic:

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=4729.0

Will do.

Check this out:

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

Gabe, my post stands. Your post does not.

You accuse me of improperly parroting the same ideas for years yet you have used the  same ideas for years as well. Yet I don't use personal attacks on you (as if that proves anything). Gabe, please, dispense with the attacks on me. It only makes you look bad.

Gabe no aion is eternal. Every aion has both a beginning and an end.
Eonian, being the adjective of aion just tells us what pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for eonian to be greater than eon.

Just as America is a noun and American is its adjective, it is impossible for anything American to be greater than America.
For instance, America is basically confined to the United States. Since Obama is the American president, his presidency is not greather than the boundaries of the United States. He is not president of Russia as well. His presidency pertains to America. (period).

Likewise Heaven is a noun. Heavenly is its adjective. The heavenly messenger visited Mary. The messenger is not greater than Heaven. It's realm pertains to that which is of Heaven.

Gabe, when you finally come to see that the adjective cannot be greater than its noun in the Bible, you will finally see things more clearly on this issue.

Besides all this, the ones who wrote and spoke that which we call the Bible had for their use the Greek word "Aperantos" which means "endless." They could have used this word with punishment and all the verses where eonian is used but did not and for good reason. Because those things which are eonian are those things which pertain to the eon or eons and not to endlessness.

2Co 4:16 Wherefore we are not despondent, but even if our outward man is decaying, nevertheless that within us is being renewed day by day."

Notice the contrast is not between decaying and eternal but that which is decaying and that which is being renewed DAY BY DAY.

2Co 4:17 For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory,

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.



2Co 4:18 at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary, yet what is not being observed is eonian."

The word "temporary" is also "for a season" in Greek. So what is being observed is the momentary affliction and decay of our outward man which is for a season. What is not being observed, but which we take by faith is the assurance that in the future eons we will be glorified.
So the contrast really is between what is for a season and what is for the future eons.

Gabe, one last thing. For aionios, being an adjective, to be translated "eternal" its noun must also be eternity because it would have to be telling us of things which pertain to the eternity or eternities (plural). Where is aion ever used for eternity or eternities?

i saw some posts concerning time and eternity just right now

do this verses contradict Platos concept of eternity or would they fit in?

Titus 1:2

επ ελπιδι ζωης αιωνιου ην επηγγειλατο ο αψευδης θεος προ χρονων αιωνιων

on hope of eternal life which the God who does not lie promised before eternal times

2 Timothy 1:9

του σωσαντος ημας και καλεσαντος κλησει αγια ου κατα τα εργα ημων αλλα κατ ιδιαν προθεσιν και χαριν την δοθεισαν ημιν εν χριστω ιησου προ χρονων αιωνιων

the One having saved us and having called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace given to us in Christ Jesus before eternal times

Romans 16:25,26

τω δε δυναμενω υμας στηριξαι κατα το ευαγγελιον μου και το κηρυγμα ιησου χριστου κατα αποκαλυψιν μυστηριου χρονοις αιωνιοις σεσιγημενου
φανερωθεντος δε νυν δια τε γραφων προφητικων κατ επιταγην του αιωνιου θεου εις υπακοην πιστεως εις παντα τα εθνη γνωρισθεντος

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the proclaiming of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery having been kept unvoiced during eternal times, but now has been made plain, and by prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known for obedience of faith to all the nations;


what do u think of Pilemon 15, the NIV translates:

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good - no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.

At least this translation didn't understand eternal here

Green's Literal:

For perhaps for this he was separated for an hour, that you might receive him eternally; no longer as a slave, but beyond a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, and how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

ταχα γαρ δια τουτο εχωρισθη προς ωραν ινα αιωνιον αυτον απεχης

to you think, in this context aionios is used in the sense of eternal or - at least about a time beyond death, or just refering to live time?

you find the textus receptus greek text here:

http://tr.ephesians3seven.com/

i will write more tomorrow to your last post

Plato is the first one that we have record of that started using the adjective "aionios." He only used it a total of 5 times in his writings, and in looking at those instances we see that he never used it by itself to speak of eternity; he always used a stronger word with it, such as aidos.

Ron

QuoteThere is no dual meaning for eonian.

Your entitled to your opinion, but the demand for that is based upon the grammar rules of the translated word.  There is no evidence that our grammar rules were the same for the original language. 

At the same time our own concepts and inferences bias our language all the time.

Most people have probably implied something along the lines of   "That train took forever"  We know that it couldn't have literally taken forever,  but there we use our language to convey the concept all the time.   And in this case forever indeed does have a dual meaning because we USE the word different ways.


Someone can then post all their technical jargon to say that millions of poeple that talk that way are using the word incorrectly, but none of that changes anything, it is indeed how we use it.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 24, 2009, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: bobfQuote from: Apocatastasis on January 23, 2009, 07:43:42 PM
Though it might seem redundant to us, both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek include examples where synonymous and/or closely related words are coupled together for emphasis. Such is the case with snonymous parallelisms.

Aren't you being contradictory now, calling them synonyms?  If "aionios punishment" means "eternal punishment" but NOT in the sense of unending punishment, rather only in the sense of punishment in/of/fitting the eternal God, then the two words are not synonyms nor was the statement redundant.

Ah, but I do believe that that aionios conveys the idea of timeless eternity which is neccessarily without beginning nor end.  I simply believe that aionios is applied as an epithet to things like life and punishment, thereby conveying the idea of divinity. Does that make sense?

I guess it depends.  When you say that aionios "conveys the idea of.... without beginning or end" do you mean in some cases or always?   Can aionios convey the idea of divinity without conveying the idea of endlessness (as in aionios punsihment)?

If so then I don't see this as being redundant or doubling up for empahsis:

"But writing in the very expressive Greek language, Justinian says, "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless eonian (ateleuteetos aiõnios) life for the just, and endless (ateleuteetos) punishment for the wicked."

The additional adjective would actually be necessary.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 25, 2009, 12:47:57 AM

QuoteThere is no dual meaning for eonian.

QuoteYour entitled to your opinion, but the demand for that is based upon the grammar rules of the translated word.  There is no evidence that our grammar rules were the same for the original language.

No I'm not entitled to my opinion. I can only base what I say upon the facts the Scriptures present us with. For aion being an age or eon to have no beginning and no end would preclude that word from even being used for that purpose. There is no eon or olam in the entire Bible that can mean "eternal." Since that is the case it is impossible for its adjectival form to be translated "eternal."

Show me one word in the Bible, properly translated, in which that word can have two opposite meanings.

You see, Paul, it is not based upon my opinion but facts.

I've already done that  literally "age" and in abstract terms "seeming"  forever since the ending or beginning can be imperceptible.


Either perspective causes no problems of contradiction until the literal is confused with the abstract. 

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 25, 2009, 01:54:09 AM
I've already done that  literally "age" and in abstract terms "seeming"  forever since the ending or beginning can be imperceptible.


Either perspective causes no problems of contradiction until the literal is confused with the abstract. 

Paul, God is not the author of confusion. The Bible says that all the eons end so there can be no unending eon.

If eon can mean forever then it is a contradiction in terms.

Quote from: Tony N on January 25, 2009, 05:24:50 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 25, 2009, 01:54:09 AM
I've already done that  literally "age" and in abstract terms "seeming"  forever since the ending or beginning can be imperceptible.


Either perspective causes no problems of contradiction until the literal is confused with the abstract. 

Paul, God is not the author of confusion. The Bible says that all the eons end so there can be no unending eon.

If eon can mean forever then it is a contradiction in terms.

I am not confused, I explained it clearly.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 25, 2009, 06:11:00 AM

Quote from: Tony N on January 25, 2009, 05:24:50 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 25, 2009, 01:54:09 AM
I've already done that  literally "age" and in abstract terms "seeming"  forever since the ending or beginning can be imperceptible.


Either perspective causes no problems of contradiction until the literal is confused with the abstract. 

Paul, God is not the author of confusion. The Bible says that all the eons end so there can be no unending eon.

If eon can mean forever then it is a contradiction in terms.

I am not confused, I explained it clearly.

Hi brother Paul,
Maybe I just didn't read you right? I have been known to do that. I am human and prone to err.

I am curious what Apoc would say about "the eons of the eons"? Does he believe there is more than one eternity to come? And if there are two eternities to come are we in the present wicked eternity? And if we are, and if there are eternities to come then how can eternity be without end? One has to end for another to take its place. So eternity is not really what we think of eternity.

I am curious if you could give a verse where a Hebrew would use olam/aion in which you know for sure they were using it in an abstract way of "seeming forever"? You might have something to share.

Anyway, bro., if "age" can be "eternal age" then "age" is not a proper word to use in connection with "eternal" because the very word "age" has the understanding of having a beginning and end.

Hi Tony

The problem we will have here is that you will assert that I am saying something about a word that I am not saying. I have never stated that aionios means an eternal age.  Those are not the words I used, those are the words you wrote trying to say that I am not correct about what I DID say.


The spiritual nature beyond the literal is to help us understand that things are not what they appear to our senses, hence the dual nature of what the words can mean.


To me, God is saying,  Yes there is an end to the ages,  but I am sorry, they will seem an eternity so keep running the race because there will be a point where you may want to give up as you cannot percieve the end or while running the race you may not perceive the beginning or the end as if time has vanished.


There are many times where I know I have awakened to Gods chastisement, I wasn't sure how I got to that point only that I never thought it would end.  It was through that experience that scripture opened up to a new level to me.   I am not expecting you to know what I perceive, I just explain it the best I can.

Hi Paul,
Sorry if you misunderstood my previous post. I was just rambling on and not meaning to attribute to you what I was rambling on about. I can see now how you might think I was attributing what I was writing about to you now.

Anyway, I just thought you might have a verse which might show a person was thinking something was going on forever to them.

I am curious if you could give a verse where a Hebrew would use olam/aion in which you know for sure they were using it in an abstract way of "seeming forever"?

I descended to the roots of the mountains, the earth with its bars was around me forever [Hebrew olam / Greek aionios], but You have brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God. (Jonah 2:6)

And, the Law of Moses was to be an everlasting covenant (Leviticus 24:8).

Yet, we read in the New Covenant that the first was done away with, and abolished (2 Corinthians 3:11,13).

God made the first old (Hebrews 8:13).

Let us not forget that Israel's judgment lasts forever. At least until the Spirit is poured out ... (Isaiah 32:13-15).

:2c: :2c: :2c:

peacemaker

Hi Tony,

Jon 2:2 And he is saying, I call, because of my distress, to Yahweh, my Elohim, and He is answering me. From the belly of the unseen I implore; You hear my voice.

Jon 2:4 And I said, I am driven out from in front of Your eyes. Yea, I will continue to look to Your holy temple.

Jon 2:6 I go down to the fashioning points of the mountains; the earth, its bars are about me for the eon, yet You wilt bring up my life from ruin, Yahweh, my Elohim.



Do you think that while Jonah was in the predicament he was believing there would be an end or that he could even perceive it?

The problem as I have pointed out is that we can read this verse in the literal sense and we can apply the literal word EON or the literal word FOREVER and it doesn't tell us the idea completely.

We can see that the account tells us that that it was for limited duration.   But, is it possible to look at this also from the standpoint of "While it was happening?"


If he already knew for certain that it was only going to be for a while, then whats the problem?  There would be no real need for a desperate cry. 

While in verse 4 some can say, well, it didn't last forever so the translation is correct and I do not disagree with that in the literal sense.  But Olam is a conceptual word as well it does not only mean eon  and it does not only mean everlasting, it has a usage that means  the vanishing point; generally, time out
of mind (past or future)


Now, "while" Jonah was in the belly of the whale figuratively or literally, do you think he really thought it was temporary?

peacemaker, the Hebrew people didn't use the English word "forever."

Tony,

What happened to Plato's Timeaus 37d?  Did you come to your senses and realize you weren't going to win that one?

QuoteGabe, my post stands. Your post does not.

Well, there you have it then.

QuoteYou accuse me of improperly parroting the same ideas for years yet you have used the  same ideas for years as well. Yet I don't use personal attacks on you (as if that proves anything). Gabe, please, dispense with the attacks on me. It only makes you look bad.

I didn't personally attack you, Tony.  Or were you offended by the "old dog" comment?  :laughing7:
Remember, Tony, I once argued for the position you are advocating, in much the same manner that you did. 

QuoteGabe no aion is eternal. Every aion has both a beginning and an end.

This is a mere assertion, Tony, and re-asserting it over and over again neither strengthens it nor vindicates it.

QuoteEonian, being the adjective of aion just tells us what pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for eonian to be greater than eon.

This is the root fallacy, as I have already demonstrated. 

QuoteJust as America is a noun and American is its adjective, it is impossible for anything American to be greater than America.
For instance, America is basically confined to the United States. Since Obama is the American president, his presidency is not greather than the boundaries of the United States. He is not president of Russia as well. His presidency pertains to America. (period).

Yes, so?  There are plenty of English adjectives whose meaning cannot be gotten from the noun from which they were derived. Like I said, "gorgeous" does not mean "pertaining to the throat."   Need some more examples of adjectives that are not semanticaly bound to their nounal roots?  :laughing7:

QuoteBesides all this, the ones who wrote and spoke that which we call the Bible had for their use the Greek word "Aperantos" which means "endless." They could have used this word with punishment and all the verses where eonian is used but did not and for good reason. Because those things which are eonian are those things which pertain to the eon or eons and not to endlessness.

Firstly, there are synonyms in Greek, Tony.  Secondly, Jesus said that aeonian life is that sort of life that never perishes (it lasts forever):

Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto aeonian life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Tony, I see that you are having trouble with contrasts, but perhaps you'll notice that aeonian food does not perish?

Quote2Co 4:16 Wherefore we are not despondent, but even if our outward man is decaying, nevertheless that within us is being renewed day by day."

Notice the contrast is not between decaying and eternal but that which is decaying and that which is being renewed DAY BY DAY.

Yes, it is day by day.  This does not change that fact that this verse involves a contrast of opposites (outward/inward, decay/renew).  Address this.

Quote2Co 4:17 For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory,

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.

How did you fail to notice the contrasts of opposites, Tony?  The opposites include: affliction/glory, light/exceeding weight, and momentary/aeonian.   The message Paul is sending is clear:  Our sufferings will not alst forever, but our glory will.

On a side note, what do you think Knoch was trying to get at with "transcendently transcendent"?

Quote2Co 4:18 at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary, yet what is not being observed is eonian."

The word "temporary" is also "for a season" in Greek. So what is being observed is the momentary affliction and decay of our outward man which is for a season. What is not being observed, but which we take by faith is the assurance that in the future eons we will be glorified.
So the contrast really is between what is for a season and what is for the future eons.

The fact that this passage clearly involves the contrasts of opposite is sufficient to expose Tony's reading as  strained beyond recognition, to say the least.

QuoteGabe, one last thing. For aionios, being an adjective, to be translated "eternal" its noun must also be eternity because it would have to be telling us of things which pertain to the eternity or eternities (plural). Where is aion ever used for eternity or eternities?

Root fallacy.  Learn what it is.

But, to answer your question, aion is used of eternity here:

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.

Again, a contrast of opposites:  earthly manna/heavenly manna, and perishable life/immortal life.  You will notice that aion here conveys the notion of the imperishable life of God.

Quote from: gregoryPlato is the first one that we have record of that started using the adjective "aionios." He only used it a total of 5 times in his writings, and in looking at those instances we see that he never used it by itself to speak of eternity; he always used a stronger word with it, such as aidos.

What do you mean when you say "by itself"?

Quote from: bobfI guess it depends.  When you say that aionios "conveys the idea of.... without beginning or end" do you mean in some cases or always? 

In some cases (most cases in the NT).

QuoteCan aionios convey the idea of divinity without conveying the idea of endlessness (as in aionios punsihment)?

I think that aionios functions as an epithet for divinity by virtue of the fact that God alone is truly eternal.  ths, to describe smething as eternal was to describe it as divine.

 

Quote from: svendo this verses contradict Platos concept of eternity or would they fit in?

Titus 1:2

επ ελπιδι ζωης αιωνιου ην επηγγειλατο ο αψευδης θεος προ χρονων αιωνιων

on hope of eternal life which the God who does not lie promised before eternal times

2 Timothy 1:9

του σωσαντος ημας και καλεσαντος κλησει αγια ου κατα τα εργα ημων αλλα κατ ιδιαν προθεσιν και χαριν την δοθεισαν ημιν εν χριστω ιησου προ χρονων αιωνιων

the One having saved us and having called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace given to us in Christ Jesus before eternal times

In these verses, aionios serves as an intensification device, reiterating the notion that God's gracious gift of divine life has always been ours (transcends time).  "Before time" (pro chronos) is an idiomatic expression of timeless eternity.

QuoteRomans 16:25,26

τω δε δυναμενω υμας στηριξαι κατα το ευαγγελιον μου και το κηρυγμα ιησου χριστου κατα αποκαλυψιν μυστηριου χρονοις αιωνιοις σεσιγημενου
φανερωθεντος δε νυν δια τε γραφων προφητικων κατ επιταγην του αιωνιου θεου εις υπακοην πιστεως εις παντα τα εθνη γνωρισθεντος

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the proclaiming of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery having been kept unvoiced during eternal times, but now has been made plain, and by prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known for obedience of faith to all the nations;

Here the more literal meaning of "pertaining to the ages" applies without any connotations of eternality.

Quotewhat do u think of Pilemon 15, the NIV translates:

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good - no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.

At least this translation didn't understand eternal here

Green's Literal:

For perhaps for this he was separated for an hour, that you might receive him eternally; no longer as a slave, but beyond a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, and how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

ταχα γαρ δια τουτο εχωρισθη προς ωραν ινα αιωνιον αυτον απεχης

to you think, in this context aionios is used in the sense of eternal or - at least about a time beyond death, or just refering to live time?

Probably just referring to his lifetime, although a metaphorical application is possible.

You are right, Tony, but age-abiding "seems forever."

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 25, 2009, 05:20:02 PM

The problem we will have here is that you will assert that I am saying something about a word that I am not saying.

And this is understated for effect :gthumbsup:

peacemaker

Peacemaker,

Regarding your question on olam....

Did you give this article a looking at?

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

It's a good read.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 25, 2009, 11:46:50 PM

QuoteTony,

What happened to Plato's Timeaus 37d?  Did you come to your senses and realize you weren't going to win that one?

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.

QuoteGabe, my post stands. Your post does not.

Well, there you have it then.

QuoteYou accuse me of improperly parroting the same ideas for years yet you have used the  same ideas for years as well. Yet I don't use personal attacks on you (as if that proves anything). Gabe, please, dispense with the attacks on me. It only makes you look bad.

QuoteI didn't personally attack you, Tony.  Or were you offended by the "old dog" comment?  :laughing7:
Remember, Tony, I once argued for the position you are advocating, in much the same manner that you did.

Just because you once held to my position and later changed does not mean you changed for the better. It could be that like Eve, you were deluded.

QuoteGabe no aion is eternal. Every aion has both a beginning and an end.

QuoteThis is a mere assertion, Tony, and re-asserting it over and over again neither strengthens it nor vindicates it.

Gabe, just show the viewing audience where aion in the bible is ever used to show eternity. It should be a simple thing to do. But I'll wager you can't because if you could you would have by now. The bible says all the eons end. So either you believe the Bible or you believe your "new found understanding."

QuoteEonian, being the adjective of aion just tells us what pertains to the eon or eons as the case may be. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for eonian to be greater than eon.

QuoteThis is the root fallacy, as I have already demonstrated

. 

Actually, it is not. America is a noun. American is the adjectival form of America. The adjective American only tells us that which pertains to America. That is not using the root fallacy but the law of language. Likewise with aion and aionion. Same thing.

QuoteJust as America is a noun and American is its adjective, it is impossible for anything American to be greater than America.

For instance, America is basically confined to the United States. Since Obama is the American president, his presidency is not greather than the boundaries of the United States. He is not president of Russia as well. His presidency pertains to America. (period).

QuoteYes, so?  There are plenty of English adjectives whose meaning cannot be gotten from the noun from which they were derived. Like I said, "gorgeous" does not mean "pertaining to the throat."   Need some more examples of adjectives that are not semanticaly bound to their nounal roots?  :laughing7:

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.

QuoteBesides all this, the ones who wrote and spoke that which we call the Bible had for their use the Greek word "Aperantos" which means "endless." They could have used this word with punishment and all the verses where eonian is used but did not and for good reason. Because those things which are eonian are those things which pertain to the eon or eons and not to endlessness.

Quote
Firstly, there are synonyms in Greek, Tony.  Secondly, Jesus said that aeonian life is that sort of life that never perishes (it lasts forever):

Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto aeonian life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

QuoteTony, I see that you are having trouble with contrasts, but perhaps you'll notice that aeonian food does not perish?

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.

QuoteTony wrote: 2Co 4:16 Wherefore we are not despondent, but even if our outward man is decaying, nevertheless that within us is being renewed day by day."

Notice the contrast is not between decaying and eternal but that which is decaying and that which is being renewed DAY BY DAY.

QuoteGabe replied: Yes, it is day by day.  This does not change that fact that this verse involves a contrast of opposites (outward/inward, decay/renew).  Address this.

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

QuoteTony wrote: 2Co 4:17 For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory,

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.

QuoteHow did you fail to notice the contrasts of opposites, Tony?  The opposites include: affliction/glory, light/exceeding weight, and momentary/aeonian.   The message Paul is sending is clear:  Our sufferings will not alst forever, but our glory will.

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.

QuoteOn a side note, what do you think Knoch was trying to get at with "transcendently transcendent"?

Because.

QuoteTony wrote 2 Cor. 4:18 at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary, yet what is not being observed is eonian."

The word "temporary" is also "for a season" in Greek. So what is being observed is the momentary affliction and decay of our outward man which is for a season. What is not being observed, but which we take by faith is the assurance that in the future eons we will be glorified.
So the contrast really is between what is for a season and what is for the future eons.

QuoteGabe's reply: The fact that this passage clearly involves the contrasts of opposite is sufficient to expose Tony's reading as  strained beyond recognition, to say the least.

Tony's reply: The fact that this passage clearly involves the contrast between something that lasts for a season and that which is for the remaining eons is sufficient to expose Gabe's reading as strained beyond recognition, to say the lease.

QuoteGabe, one last thing. For aionios, being an adjective, to be translated "eternal" its noun must also be eternity because it would have to be telling us of things which pertain to the eternity or eternities (plural). Where is aion ever used for eternity or eternities?

QuoteRoot fallacy.  Learn what it is.

Take your own medicine and learn what it is and is not.

QuoteBut, to answer your question, aion is used of eternity here:

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.

QuoteGabe wrote: Again, a contrast of opposites:  earthly manna/heavenly manna, and perishable life/immortal life.  You will notice that aion here conveys the notion of the imperishable life of God.

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. The Bible says all the aions end, Gabe, So any translation that puts "for ever" for "aion" is incorrect.
The one who eats of the bread shall live for the eon. That is what Jesus said, Gabe. He never said that that which is for the eon is imperishable life.

We believers put on immortality. We do not have immortality because we have eonian life. Our immortality allows us to live through the coming eons. Those eons will end. Our life will not.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 01:50:08 AM
Peacemaker,

Regarding your question on olam....

Did you give this article a looking at?

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

It's a good read.

No question posed, as my only intent was to put forth a verse which came to mind, regardless of the translation of forever, or age-abiding.

Although when something is hidden from our view, or beyond the horizon of the east – it is out of sight in the sense of the Hebrew word olam.

"Tomorrow or two-three days from now, is also an obscurity at best."

I will read over the site posted when time permits  :yes: and thank you for it, Apocatastasis!

peacemaker

Quote from: TonyI 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.

QuoteGorgeousness 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.

:grin: 

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?

QuoteOh 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.

QuoteI 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. 

QuoteHw 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:

QuoteJhn 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.

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.   

QuoteTony'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.

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

Let's get back to Plato's Timaeus for a bit.

QuoteWherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aiwnos), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aiwnion) but moving according to number, while eternity (aiwnion) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time (xronon).

This quote is akin to a quote from Philo the 1st century Jewish Platonist:

"But in eternity (aiwni) nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only."
The idea is very familiar to anyone who has studied Ancient Greek philosophy.  Tony, care to try to explain this away?

Plato elucidates: 

Quote[37e] For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidion/imperceptible) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (aiwna/eon) and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of expression.

Tell me, Tony, what is Plato basically saying?  :bigGrin:

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 25, 2009, 11:52:30 PM

Quote from: gregoryPlato is the first one that we have record of that started using the adjective "aionios." He only used it a total of 5 times in his writings, and in looking at those instances we see that he never used it by itself to speak of eternity; he always used a stronger word with it, such as aidos.

What do you mean when you say "by itself"?

I made a mistake. It was Aristotle who only used aion, not aionios, in conjunction with a stronger word when he wanted to relate aion to eternity. Too many dang philosophers.  :laughing7:

For example, he wrote "Life, an aión continuous and eternal," speaking of the life that God possesses. He used aion in the sense of existing, but the word in his writings, in and of itself, did not carry the idea of eternity. For he wrote of mans aion as being of short duration, yet, as is seen here, he strenghthens the word aion when speaking of God by describing it as [aidos], or eternal.

Great discussion!

Ron

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

Quote from: gregoryfl on January 26, 2009, 03:04:11 PM
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

Time and Age are also verbs and that is why I have seen that scripture broadens with both translations and causes no contradiction with God causing all men to be saved.   

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

Quote
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.

Then for aionios it is more precise but it still depends on how it is used.

QuoteG166  aionios  ahee-o'-nee-os
from G165;
perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, for
ever, everlasting, world (began).

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".

Ain't Ain't a word and I Ain't gonna use it.


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.

Quote from: gregoryfl on January 26, 2009, 03:04:11 PM
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.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 26, 2009, 04:20:52 PM
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

Quote
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.

Then for aionios it is more precise but it still depends on how it is used.

QuoteG166  aionios  ahee-o'-nee-os
from G165;
perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, for
ever, everlasting, world (began).

Dear Paul,
Strong is not trying to show how olam or aionios should be translated but is just showing its meaning based upon their usages in the Authorized Version. He is really showing what a botched up job the A.V. people did in translating those two words.

QuotePertaining 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".

But there are grammar rules involved which, when broken, involve is in a despicable hodge podge of confusion. You are correct that "pertaining to an age is not a wrong use of the word based on this." But eternal is because for aionios, being an adjective, to be "eternal" its noun form would have to be eternity and we know its noun form can't be eternity because all the aions end. The English rules are broken in order to uphold doctrines of demons such as "eternal torment."

QuoteAin't Ain't a word and I Ain't gonna use it.


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.

[/quote]

Oh, well, then, I can translate "God so hates the world that He gave His Son and if you don't believe in Him you will go to hell forever" New John 3:16.

Hi Tony

First off usage of a word is a large part of translating ancient languages.


Secondly, strongs is not the only source that provides these multiple uses of aion.

QuoteG165  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.

thayer and smith

Quotefor ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
the worlds, universe
period of time, age 

Brewer

 
Æon (Greek, aion),
 

Quote
eternity, an immeasurable length of time; any being that is eternal. Basilids reckons there have been 365 such æons, or gods; but Valentinius restricts the number to 30. Sometimes written "on."    1
        In geology each series of rocks covers an æon, or an indetinite and immeasurable period of time. 

I am not finding any source that demands aion is completely subject to only "age"   do you have such resources of knowledge?


Lets take the word aion and there are other definitions based on the ancient language.  You are implying that the english word EON is the only use for aion then applying it back to the ancient language and making it apply to english rules.


Lets look at John 3:16  and the word loved.

I will post strongs notes, I expect you to refute the strongs notes for this word right?

Quote
G25  agapao  ag-ap-ah'-o

perhaps from agan (much) (or compare G5689);

to love (in a social or moral sense):--(be-)love(-ed). Compare G5368.

I do not see any way to conclude that what is known of the ancient language would let me use the word hate in any context or usage.   However usage and context allows translations to appear to violate grammar rules with aionios because our grammer rules do not dictate the ancient languages in the first place.

Translations become the "closest" we might be able to get into comparisons so you have to apply the preferred translated word back to the ancient language to support the assertion.

The issue I see is that Gods universal love and his plan for all mankind if not threatened by translational difficulties at all.  It is knowledge beyond the literal and physical that will open the eyes of the heart.

gregory,

I encourage you to look into Plato's use of aion and aionios in Timaeus 37D.

@ Apocastasis your concept of eternity is kind of interesting cause it allows UR even if aionios really ment eternal, though i can't follow completely as english is not my mother tonque and it's a very complex topic, but interesting that you understand Philemon 15 aionios as refering only to life time, while i think it can mean eternal there - i don't think before eternal times fit in the concept of timeless eternity

Quote from: svenApocastasis your concept of eternity is kind of interesting cause it allows UR even if aionios really ment eternal

I get the sense that most Christian Universalists who insist that aionios never meaning "eternal" are so adamant simply because they cannot reconcile UR with the idea that aionios means "eternal".  If they thought it through, they would not think that way.

Quotebut interesting that you understand Philemon 15 aionios as refering only to life time, while i think it can mean eternal there -

I can see it either way, really.

Quotei don't think before eternal times fit in the concept of timeless eternity

Let me try to explain.  The gracious gift of God's life transcends all time (is timeless).  We were promised life "before time"; it is eternal. 

In other words, I do not think that aionios is modifying chronos (time).  Rather, I think aionios expresses the same idea as pro chronos (before time).  Does that make sense?

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 26, 2009, 05:57:56 PM
Hi Tony

First off usage of a word is a large part of translating ancient languages.


Secondly, strongs is not the only source that provides these multiple uses of aion.

QuoteG165  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.

thayer and smith

Quotefor ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
the worlds, universe
period of time, age 

Brewer

 
Æon (Greek, aion),
 

Quote
eternity, an immeasurable length of time; any being that is eternal. Basilids reckons there have been 365 such æons, or gods; but Valentinius restricts the number to 30. Sometimes written "on."    1
        In geology each series of rocks covers an æon, or an indetinite and immeasurable period of time. 

QuoteI am not finding any source that demands aion is completely subject to only "age"   do you have such resources of knowledge?

Dear Paul,
In the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, published by Hendrickson Publishers, under the heading of Olam, Eternity we have this:
Olam, eternity

"The Eng. translation "eternity" used in the heading is inappropriate for a number of OT passages with olam, and, even when it seems appropriate, it may not be permitted to introduce a preconceived concept of eternity, burdened with all manner of later philosophical or theological content.

"Except for a few late passages in Eccl, olam in the OT (as in the contemporary NWSem. inscriptions) has the basic meaning "most distant time," either with a view to the past, to the future, or to both." (end of quote).

These two guys are the leading lexical experts in Europe.

In the New Testament aiwn/aion/eon is only used as the longest segment of time in the Scriptures. It is never used for any other kind of idea. It is never used for unendingness or timelessness or eternity. Again, I guess I have to repeat myself: It is impossible for an aiwn/aion/aeon/eon to be eternal because the Bible says the eons end. Besides that is a contradiction in terms or an oxymoron to state an age can be eternal.
Some examples of oxymorons or contradiction in terms would be:

Deafening silence
Forward retreat
Accidentally on Purpose
Little Big Man
Eternal Age

Either I believe the Bible **properly translated** or I believe those whom you quote who only are telling us how some Bible mis-translated aion or olam. Do you understand that their findings do not prove anything except that is how the translation they researched for olam/aion gave those renderings?

In the Old Testament the basic meaning for olam is "obscure" or "obscurity."  In other words, the time span in view was obscure to the observer but not ever thought to be eternal! The LXX (Greek, Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew into Greek used aion for olam for its noun and aionion for its adjectival forms. They never thought of aion nor aionion as endlessness or eternity.

QuoteLets take the word aion and there are other definitions based on the ancient language.  You are implying that the english word EON is the only use for aion then applying it back to the ancient language and making it apply to english rules.

The word eon is just aion transliterated into its Anglicized form much like we did with baptizo for baptize, Christos for Christ etc. Eon works perfectly for aion in every occurrence in the New Testament. In the New Testament there is no other word that works perfectly like eon and eonian does for aion and aionion.

Quote
Lets look at John 3:16  and the word loved.

I will post strongs notes, I expect you to refute the strongs notes for this word right?

Quote
G25  agapao  ag-ap-ah'-o

perhaps from agan (much) (or compare G5689);

to love (in a social or moral sense):--(be-)love(-ed). Compare G5368.

I do not see any way to conclude that what is known of the ancient language would let me use the word hate in any context or usage.   However usage and context allows translations to appear to violate grammar rules with aionios because our grammer rules do not dictate the ancient languages in the first place.

If your quoted ones (scholars) can tell me aion can be having a beginning and an end and also having no beginning and no end then I have perfect license to say love can at times be translated hate just because I say so.

QuoteTranslations become the "closest" we might be able to get into comparisons so you have to apply the preferred translated word back to the ancient language to support the assertion.

The issue I see is that Gods universal love and his plan for all mankind is not threatened by translational difficulties at all.  It is knowledge beyond the literal and physical that will open the eyes of the heart.

No, sorry friend, but this is just plain incorrect. God's love and righteousness are most definately threatened if we allow "eternal" for "aionian" or for "aion"  and translate certain verses "eternal torment" etc. Also, it is imperative to not go beyond the literal and physical Word to understand God's revelation to us. The only way we can be saved is if the one whom God sends to us has THE evangel and tells us what THAT evangel is. The evangelist can't just give us something outside the scope of what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures. "How can they hear if one is not sent?" Rom 10:17  "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." It doesn't say faith cometh by going above what is written.

Tony, are you unable to intelligently rebut my points?   

BTW, I'm still getting belly laughs from your gorgeousness argument.

Tony, you do so well until you get to this point . . .you do the opposite of what Jesus said we're to do . .man can not live on bread alone . . .yet you embrace the bread as if it's the final word . . .and it's not.  It's a sign that points to the final word . . Jesus also said to the pharisees "you search the scriptures because in them you THINK is eternal life . . .but they point to me . . ."

Scripture has a very powerful place . . . but it's simply a sign that points to the source of that power and if you live on the literal word and not be open to the spirit of what lies beneath, you are stunting your own maturity in the process.

God's purpose is going to advance with or without me . . .but how much better if I let him advance "through" me . . .which comes through the process of laying my mind down at the conception of spiritual truths, which then birth life into my mind, which produces then, fruits of freedom and liberty rather than limitations and conformity.

Quote from: tonyGod's love and righteousness are most definately threatened if we allow "eternal" for "aionian" or for "aion"  and translate certain verses "eternal torment" etc.

You see folks, the only reason Tony is so adamant about this is because he thinks universal salvation hinges upon it.  Rather than letting the lexical evidence shape his conclusions on lexical issues, Tony quite simply is out to grind is theological axe.  However, his persistent use of the root fallacy only serves to make Christian Universalism look easily refutable.

I once agreed with Tony that aionios never means "eternal".  However, the more I studied this word, the clearer it became that I had to abandon such a rigid stance in order to embrace the facts as they were being revelealed to me.  With just a little thought, I could see that universal salvation was never at stake.  For example, the Bible talks about "eternal (aeonian) redemption".  We know that the redemption is eternal, but we also know that the redemptive process is not eternal.  Likewise, "eternal punishment" need not refer to the idea of an unending punitive process, even though aionios does mean "eternal" in this instance.

Quote from: Tony N on January 26, 2009, 06:43:42 PM
If your quoted ones (scholars) can tell me aion can be having a beginning and an end and also having no beginning and no end then I have perfect license to say love can at times be translated hate just because I say so.

Well, Tony, if the evidence was just someone saying "I say so" then you would be right, but that is not the issue at all and is an invalid point.

Lets look at the english definition of forever.   The problem again is you want a word to only mean one thing and that one thing supports your point of view.   

forever - 4 dictionary results
for⋅ev⋅er   /fɔrˈɛvər, fər-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [fawr-ev-er, fer-] Show IPA Pronunciation 

–adverb 1. without ever ending; eternally: to last forever. 
2. continually; incessantly; always: He's forever complaining. 
–noun 3. an endless or seemingly endless period of time: It took them forever to make up their minds. 
—Idiom4. forever and a day, eternally; always: They pledged to love each other forever and a day. 


Now are you going to refute the accepted usage of the word forever here that I highlighted in red just because you say so? 

QuoteNo, sorry friend, but this is just plain incorrect. God's love and righteousness are most definately threatened if we allow "eternal" for "aionian" or for "aion"  and translate certain verses "eternal torment" etc.

It threatens you and how you believe, thats it.   God cannot be threatened, it is impossible.

When you realize the conceptual nature of words that can provide an opposite but non contradictory meaning then you will understand that your points are not valid to what I am saying.


I can say  "That stop light took forever"  not only am I conveying a concept, I am accuratly using the word for what I want to convey.   If you want to say that  "Well, that stop light didn't really take forever"  You would also be correct, but your statement does not contradict what I "MEANT".

Paul, you got right to the crux of the issue.  Though, will Tony offer an intelligent reply?  Or will he remain content parroting the same old stuff, thereby effectively ignoring everything you just wrote? 

– Eternal And The Q Factor –
Forever and Everlasting


Just a few thoughts regarding the various aspects of the words: eternal, everlasting and forever. It is possible to misconstrue certain passages of Scripture by reading such LANGUAGE in quantitative terms of much-ness, many-ness or longevity i.e., the quantity or length of linear time as in endless duration; instead of in a qualitative sense of total-ness, or that of wholeness, fullness and completion i.e., the full measure. Jesus said: "...you shall have LIFE! and have it more abundantly" [Jn 10:10] – to the FULL!! This fullness equates to eternal life and is more akin to quality in life now, as opposed to quantity of life to come.

Example: An older couple were celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary, and when asked about the success and longevity [quantity] of their relationship, in joyous unison responded "it seems but as yesterday" – they exuded such vitality, freshness and love it was plain to all present that they had such a depth [quality] of relationship built over the years that it was not to be measured by the distance or passage of time [quantity], but by the joy they shared along the way [quality].

Apart from direct references to God, His nature or His attributes etc, eternal, everlasting and forever, in relation to 'man' in most cases, does not carry the meaning of endlessness of duration. In other words, concerning the eternal – the traditional quantitative approach tends to furnish a future SPATIAL context view: a place to go – Heaven beyond. Whereas a textually understood qualitative approach points to a present RELATIONAL condition "in Christ" view: our standing in God – Heaven now. The qualitative view while not negating quantitative aspects of "eternal" better qualifies it. So, eternal, everlasting or forever are better determined by the subject to which it is applied, i.e., context. Thus these words only express the idea of endlessness of duration when connected with what is endless – the infinite Creator Himself.

We further find that John likewise supports this qualitative or relational understanding of eternal:

Jn 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

1Jn 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. cf. Jn 20:31.

We see connotations of this eternal also in Paul's thoughts when he says "even so we also should walk in newness of life" Rom 6:4. This newness of life is that ever-present abundant life promised by Jesus, and is NOT speaking of some ageless sweet by and by, but our present walk in Christ's righteousness. Even the "eternal life" of Jn 3:16 being in the aorist tense, is a presently accomplished reality. Likewise those finding "the way which leads to life" of Mt 7:14 – this is not speaking in terms of post death destiny, but is in the present tense and in the same vein as Jn 10:10. As with the "fullness of the Gentiles" [Rom 11:25] being qualitative and NOT quantitative, so too is eternal life i.e., it is covenantal and relational – something to be experienced in life, this life.

There is also the issue of God's covenantal dealings with Israel most of which are stated as being eternal, everlasting or forever, none of which however in their redemptive settings necessitates an endlessness of duration requirement; but are indicative of God's dealings with His specific people for a specific purpose, in a specific way, according to a specific period, epoch, era or age; thus longevity when dealing with man does NOT necessitate endlessness nor timelessness.

We have for example 'Sodom and Gomorrah' – Jude 1:7 tells us that these cities and their surrounds would suffer "the vengeance of eternal fire" yet none of these are still burning today – eternally. Clearly the unquenchable fire was indicative of the TOTALITY of destruction that was wrought upon them.

Isa 34:8-10 For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, the year of recompense for the cause of Zion. Its streams shall be turned into pitch, and its dust into brimstone; its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day; its smoke shall ascend forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; no one shall pass through it forever and ever.

Some suppose such words as "shall not be quenched" or "unquenchable fire" to mean such fire of endless duration, yet in the Scriptures such as an unquenchable fire is one that cannot be quenched nor extinguished until its full purpose has been reached and accomplished. If for instance a house has been totally consumed by fire, the fire it is said, strictly speaking, was unquenchable, and no effort made to put it out could extinguish it; yet no one would contend that the fire, left to itself, would never expire of itself – there was totality of destruction but not ongoing destruction.

To labour the point; these words eternal, everlasting and forever need not always be locked to the meaning of endlessness or longevity. Scripture gives many examples of life, land, laws, circumcision and time as being forever and ever, everlasting or eternal, yet in many of these instances they are governed or determined by a definitive period or time frame in which God is dealing with a specific people in a specific way for a specific purpose – and can in no way be seen as meaning ageless or ceaseless.

The following table shows this to be the case; promises are made "eternally" yet with a Divinely predetermined end or fulfilment in view:

FOREVER:         ß  EVERLASTING COVENANTS   à       CEASE:

Gen 17:10-13                 – CIRCUMCISION –                   Gal 5:1-6; 6:15

Ex 12:14, 17, 24             – PASSOVER –                          Col 2:16-17

Ex 29:9; 40:15               – AARONIC PRIESTHOOD –        Heb 7:11-17           

Lev 16:29, 31, 34; 23:31 – DAY OF ATONEMENT –             Heb 9:23-28; 10:1-18

Psa 119:151-152, 160     – RIGHTEOUS ORDINANCES –    Gal 3:24-25; Heb 9:10

Ex 31:16-17                   – THE SABBATH –                      Col 2:16-17

Further we must consider "how" language is used in the Bible – if we stick dogmatically with what is called a "wooden literalism" modality for understanding Scripture, then we will invariably become hamstrung in our understanding of truth, as these examples will demonstrate:

Psa 21:4 He asked life from You, and You gave it to him-- Length of days forever and ever. ["Length of days" is a reference to physicality – hence limited]

Psa 119:44 So shall I keep Your law continually, forever and ever. [Poetic licence]

Isa 30:8 Now go, write it before them on a tablet, And note it on a scroll, That it may be for time to come, forever and ever: [Time, epochs i.e., eras]

Jer 7:7 ...then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.

[Continuance in the Land was always conditional upon Israel's obedience, even though initially all these promises were fulfilled Josh 21:43-45]

Gen 17:8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." [As above]

Gen 17:13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. [Are we bound to this everlasting type? – as someone once said: "well it's no skin off my nose". Deut 30:6 shows circumcision's true intent in]

Lev 16:34 This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year." And he did as the LORD commanded Moses. [Fortunately for us, Jesus was the everlasting or ultimate sacrifice Heb 9:26; 10:12]

Num 25:13 ...and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel." [What a difference a new covenant makes – Heb 7:12]

Isa 24:5 The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. [Can logic allow for that which is "eternal" if that's what "everlasting" means, to be broken?]

Lastly we come to the literal text, for although it can be abused it certainly carries clout and cannot be ignored. Again, from the pantelistic perspective when it comes to life eternal, everlasting or forever it is NOT speaking post mortem existence, but as the apostle John clearly signified it relates to the totality and comprehensive nature of our vital relationship with God in this present life. Conversely, John's everlasting "condemnation" of Jn 5:29 speaks of the total and comprehensive nature and gravity of the historic shame experienced in this life by those who were thus "judged" [same Greek word as "condemned"] in that "end of the age" period culminating in the AD70 Parousia. For them this was their perpetual shame or historical contempt as is testified in this life. This however in no way takes away from the fact that where sin abounded, grace, mercy and peace much more abounded in forgiveness from God toward them in Christ – God above all remained and remains faithful to His Word, Rom 3:3-4a; 11:32-33.

When speaking of the nature and attributes of God we speak in terms of His "eternal love" etc, and understand such qualitatively so, i.e., the comprehensive or total extent and reach of His love – in other words it is not limited by measurable or fathomable human terms and definitions. Yet even in the hidden-ness of the eternal can a sense of finite-ness be understood as reaching both backward and forward, from time immemorial into the far reaching future, and can possibly be illustrated accordingly:

Antiquity   ß =  ETERNAL  = à   Perpetuity

And in capturing this thought the Psalmist so simply and succinctly says: ...even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. Psa 90:2

Now when speaking of "eternal" as it relates to man this "qualitative" nature of "eternal" always fits within man's earthly timeframe – thus "eternal" can rightly be understood as "unto or into the age" as it is often rendered in 'Young's Literal Translation' when translating the words "eternal" or "everlasting". This is further evidenced in the following Old and New Testament Greek texts where "forever" [eternal] and "the age" are both designated by the one Greek word aionos:

Gen 13:15 ...for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.

Gen13:15 οτι πασαν την γην ην συ ορας σοι δωσω αυτην και τω σπερματι σου εως του αιωνος.

And:

Mt 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Mt 24:3 καθημενου δε αυτου επι του ορους των ελαιων προσηλθον αυτω οι μαθηται κατ ιδιαν λεγοντες ειπε ημιν ποτε ταυτα εσται και τι το σημειον της σης παρουσιας και της συντελειας του αιωνος.

So we have the literal Greek text tou aionos – του αιωνος, being variously translated as above and unmistakably indicative of the limited or defined nature that the words "forever", "everlasting" and "eternal" can have when ascribed to man and his age of existence, i.e., aionos fits within a specified era relative to the subject matter at hand.

And lastly; in the bible the notion of "unending" or "endlessness" can be expressed either by the use of particular negatives such as "not", "no not", "un" or "less", or more directly by specific Greek words meaning such. There are a number of examples to draw from: Lk 1:33 "...and of His kingdom there will be no end." – ouk estai telos [ουκ εσται τελος]; Heb 7:16 ...according to the power of an endless life. – akatalutou [ακαταλου]; ...nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies... 1Tim 1:4 – aperantois [απεραντοις]; and Rev 18:21-23 "...shall not be ...anymore" – ou mē ...eti [ου μη ...ετι].

Not one of these specific words are ever used in the context of punishment beyond the grave, and certainly these could have been used IF such was the case; they were not for there is not



http://www.pantelism.com/EternalAndTheQFactor.htm

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 24, 2009, 10:47:42 PMCheck this out:

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

I believe his argument here is flawed:

Secondly aion is used to mean world. Some people say that aion always means age, but that is clearly not so from the following two scriptures:

He has spoken to us by his Son, through whom he made the aions (Heb 1: 2).
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 (Heb 11: 3).

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.

Just because the defintiion of "age" is "a period of time" that does not mean that we can not talk about ages as if they were visible tangible objects.  Consider these phrases:
- dark ages
- bronze age
- the present wicked age

Are we going to say that since time periods can not literally be dark or metallic or wicked that "age" does not mean "time period" in the above phrases?  The ages are visible by virtue of what we see taking place within them.

I'm not aware of any place in scripture that aion can not be translated age and make sense.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 26, 2009, 07:10:51 PM

Quote from: Tony N on January 26, 2009, 06:43:42 PM
If your quoted ones (scholars) can tell me aion can be having a beginning and an end and also having no beginning and no end then I have perfect license to say love can at times be translated hate just because I say so.

Well, Tony, if the evidence was just someone saying "I say so" then you would be right, but that is not the issue at all and is an invalid point.

Lets look at the english definition of forever.   The problem again is you want a word to only mean one thing and that one thing supports your point of view.   

forever - 4 dictionary results
for⋅ev⋅er   /fɔrˈɛvər, fər-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [fawr-ev-er, fer-] Show IPA Pronunciation 

–adverb 1. without ever ending; eternally: to last forever. 
2. continually; incessantly; always: He's forever complaining. 
–noun 3. an endless or seemingly endless period of time: It took them forever to make up their minds. 
—Idiom4. forever and a day, eternally; always: They pledged to love each other forever and a day. 


Now are you going to refute the accepted usage of the word forever here that I highlighted in red just because you say so? 

[/quote]

Paul, Paul, Paul, *sigh* what am I going to do with you?  :dontknow:
The accepted used of TODAY in TODAY'S dictionary is not the accepted usage 2000 years ago. No eon is forever. No eon is eternal. No eon is unending. So it is impossible for someone in the New Testament to even use aion in a highly figurative usage such as we do today with the word "forever." In the New Testament neither eon nor eonian was ever used in the sense of "He's forever complaining."

QuoteNo, sorry friend, but this is just plain incorrect. God's love and righteousness are most definately threatened if we allow "eternal" for "aionian" or for "aion"  and translate certain verses "eternal torment" etc.

QuoteIt threatens you and how you believe, thats it.   God cannot be threatened, it is impossible.

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.

QuoteWhen you realize the conceptual nature of words that can provide an opposite but non contradictory meaning then you will understand that your points are not valid to what I am saying.

Sorry but that kind of reasoning is only to be found in the Wonderland Alice visited. I like normalcy.

QuoteI can say  "That stop light took forever"  not only am I conveying a concept, I am accuratly using the word for what I want to convey.   If you want to say that  "Well, that stop light didn't really take forever"  You would also be correct, but your statement does not contradict what I "MEANT".

No one in the New Testament ever used aion nor aionion in the way we do today for forever. So it's a moot point.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 06:54:48 PM
Tony, are you unable to intelligently rebut my points?   

BTW, I'm still getting belly laughs from your gorgeousness argument.

Are you unable to read? I already did.

Just because you are a mocker does not mean you are correct.

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.

Quote from: TonyAre you unable to read? I already did.

Does anyone else here feel that Tony rebutted my points? 

Tony, I understand that you are frustrated. You cannot intelligently counter the points that Paul, myself and others have made.  All you can do is repeat what you've already said, even though what you've said does not address the challenges that have been put forth to you.

QuoteJust because you are a mocker does not mean you are correct.

A mocker?  A mocker of what?

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 08:27:31 PM
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.

The eons and worlds are not synonymous but they what often happens to the world and ends a world also ends the eon. But you wouldn't say that the two are synonymous.

And your verses are poorly translated.

Rom 1:20 For His invisible attributes are descried from the creation of the world, being apprehended by His achievements, besides His imperceptible (aidios) power and divinity, for them to be defenseless,

Heb 11:3 By faith we are apprehending the eons to adjust to a declaration of God, so that what is being observed has not come out of what is appearing."

Quote from: TonyIf people go to hell for eternity, God and Christ are losers. God is threatened and that's that.

Tony, I know that you don't agree with William Barcaly's understanding of aionios, but don't you at least see that his understanding of the word is compatible with universal salvation? Don't you realize that here are other viable applications of the word eternal such that UR is not compromised?

QuotePaul, Paul, Paul, *sigh* what am I going to do with you? 
The accepted used of TODAY in TODAY'S dictionary is not the accepted usage 2000 years ago. No eon is forever. No eon is eternal. No eon is unending. So it is impossible for someone in the New Testament to even use aion in a highly figurative usage such as we do today with the word "forever." In the New Testament neither eon nor eonian was ever used in the sense of "He's forever complaining."

You completely missed Paul's point, but I'll let him explain. Paul,  the floor is yours.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 08:31:31 PM

Quote from: TonyAre you unable to read? I already did.

QuoteDoes anyone else here feel that Tony rebutted my points? 

Tony, I understand that you are frustrated. You cannot intelligently counter the points that Paul, myself and others have made.  All you can do is repeat what you've already said, even though what you've said does not address the challenges that have been put forth to you.

But that is your own uderstanding and is not shared by me that I am frustrated. Just because you think I am does not make it so. It just means you are as wrong about that as you are about the eons and eonian.

QuoteJust because you are a mocker does not mean you are correct.

QuoteA mocker?  A mocker of what?

[/quote]

One who laughs at what others write is a mocker.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 08:46:33 PM

Quote from: TonyIf people go to hell for eternity, God and Christ are losers. God is threatened and that's that.

Tony, I know that you don't agree with William Barcaly's understanding of aionios, but don't you at least see that his understanding of the word is compatible with universal salvation? Don't you realize that here are other viable applications of the word eternal such that UR is not compromised?

QuotePaul, Paul, Paul, *sigh* what am I going to do with you? 
The accepted used of TODAY in TODAY'S dictionary is not the accepted usage 2000 years ago. No eon is forever. No eon is eternal. No eon is unending. So it is impossible for someone in the New Testament to even use aion in a highly figurative usage such as we do today with the word "forever." In the New Testament neither eon nor eonian was ever used in the sense of "He's forever complaining."

You completely missed Paul's point, but I'll let him explain. Paul,  the floor is yours.

Gabe, I absolutely and categorically do not agree with Barclay's idea concerning aionion.
Look in any good book that teaches Greek and they all will say that the adjective modifies the noun. 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.
Other instance of where they make the noun modify the adjective is Romans 16:26. There they say that aionios must be eternal because God is eternal. But that is reversing the law of the adjective that it modifies the noun and not the other way around.
So, no, I do not agree in any way, shape or form with Barclay.
Even if universalism is not compromised a sane and sound mind is compromised. And besided, the laws of language are compromised. If we can do that with eonian then we have license to do it with other words. It then becomes a wild west of translators. Oh, wait, that's been going on already for hundreds of years. Time for the sheriff to put an end to the lawlessness.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 06:16:16 PM
gregory,

I encourage you to look into Plato's use of aion and aionios in Timaeus 37D.

Apoc,

I am looking at this on this site:

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

Quote from: Tony N on January 26, 2009, 05:05:56 PM

Quote from: gregoryfl on January 26, 2009, 03:04:11 PM
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

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 26, 2009, 04:20:52 PM
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

Quote
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

Quote
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)" 

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 08:27:31 PM
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.

Quote from: tonyGabe, I absolutely and categorically do not agree with Barclay's idea concerning aionion.

I know, which is why I said:

Quote from: apocTony, I know that you don't agree with William Barcaly's understanding of aionios...

QuoteLook 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".  :thumbsup:   

QuoteBarclay 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.   

QuoteAnd 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?  :grin:

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? 

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 03:41:33 AM

Quote from: TonyI 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.

QuoteWhy 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.

QuoteTony 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.

:grin: 

QuoteGave 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.

QuoteOh 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.

QuoteOh 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.

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

QuoteGabe 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.

QuoteTony 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.

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

QuoteJhn 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.

QuoteGabe 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.

QuoteTony'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.

QuoteGabe 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

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 27, 2009, 02:08:17 AM
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.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 27, 2009, 02:04:24 AM

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".  :thumbsup:   

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

Quote from: Tony N on January 26, 2009, 06:43:42 PM
These two guys are the leading lexical experts in Europe.

Quote from: Tony N on January 27, 2009, 02:45:07 AM

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

Indeed

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:

Quote from: TonyAmerica 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:

QuoteIf 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?

QuoteGorgeous is not pertaining to gorge.

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

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

.

Does anyone here take Tony seriously?

Getting back to Timaeus 37D.

Quote from: TonyAccording 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? 

Quote from: tonyLook in any good book that teaches Greek and they all will say that the adjective modifies the noun.

Quote from: tony
That is the fallacy of appealing to authority. It proves nothing.

Why the double-standards, Tony?   :laughing7:

Quote from: gregoryApoc,

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?

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 27, 2009, 03:16:50 AM

Quote from: tonyLook in any good book that teaches Greek and they all will say that the adjective modifies the noun.

Quote from: tony
That is the fallacy of appealing to authority. It proves nothing.

Why the double-standards, Tony?   :laughing7:

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.

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. 

QuoteEnough of your philosophies.

What philosophies?

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,

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. 

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.

Quote from: tonyJust 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"?

"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

Quote from: TonyI 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?  

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?

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.

:laughing7:

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?

Quote from: peacemaker on January 27, 2009, 06:56:47 AM
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.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 03:41:33 AM

QuoteOh 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.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 26, 2009, 03:41:33 AM

QuoteI 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. 

QuoteHw 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

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 27, 2009, 05:10:52 AM

Quote from: tonyJust 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.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 27, 2009, 02:51:36 AM

Quote from: Tony N on January 26, 2009, 06:43:42 PM
These two guys are the leading lexical experts in Europe.

Quote from: Tony N on January 27, 2009, 02:45:07 AM

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.

Quote from: Tony N on January 27, 2009, 03:36:20 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 27, 2009, 02:51:36 AM

Quote from: Tony N on January 26, 2009, 06:43:42 PM
These two guys are the leading lexical experts in Europe.

Quote from: Tony N on January 27, 2009, 02:45:07 AM

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.

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

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. 

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 27, 2009, 04:32:15 PM
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.

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:

Quote* 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?

Quote from: TonyIndeed 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?

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.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 27, 2009, 05:54:16 PM

QuoteFolks,

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."

QuoteGabe 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."

QuoteGabe wrote: The ESV includes this foot note:

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

QuoteYet, 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.

Quote from: TonyThe 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.

QuoteYoung'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. 

Quote
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"?

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:

QuoteThis 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.

QuoteGabe 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?

Quote from: TonyI 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?

QuoteGabe, 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.).  :Sparkletooth:

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?

Gabe qrote:

QuoteYou 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.

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...  :thumbsup:

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.

Quote from: docI 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.

QuoteThe 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.

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,

Quote from: Doc on January 27, 2009, 10:30:08 PM
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...  :thumbsup:

:goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :ty: :Urock: :iagree: :iagree: :goodone: :Peace:

Quote from: Doc on January 27, 2009, 10:30:08 PM
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...  :thumbsup:

(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.

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  :happy3:

Always learning,
Legoman

 :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:

What verse states God can be threatened?

Quote from: legoman on January 27, 2009, 11:48:12 PM
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  :happy3:

Always learning,
Legoman

It's true that Tony is not the only one arguing from the position he holds. It's also true that Apo is not the only one arguing from the position he holds. Both arguments I have seen come from universalists.

If I understand correctly, Apo's point is that; even if Aionios can sometimes be understood as "eternal" (Barclay), the words' connotation does not necessarily or even probably carry the sense of absolute "endlessness", as we typically understand the English word "eternal"; particularly with respect to certain referents like punishment, etc. An argument can be made that aionios as "eternal" means something approximating, "pertaining to 'eternity'", or "coming from the eternal One."


My point is that the truth of UR doesn't ultimately come down solely to the meaning of one word, regardless of your take on Aionios. If it did, I would still be on the fence regarding UR.

Agreed Doc,  it's the confidence beyond the written word that I see, it's simple as that for me.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 28, 2009, 12:49:15 AM


Agreed Doc,  it's the confidence beyond the written word that I see, it's simple as that for me.

That's certainly part of it, but for me, it's also confidence in the rest of the written word as well.  :thumbsup:

There are too many clear things in scripture that point to UR to dispute it over the precise meaning(s) of one word.  :cloud9:

Quote from: Doc on January 28, 2009, 12:58:29 AM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 28, 2009, 12:49:15 AM


Agreed Doc,  it's the confidence beyond the written word that I see, it's simple as that for me.

That's certainly part of it, but for me, it's also confidence in the rest of the written word as well.  :thumbsup:

There are too many clear things in scripture that point to UR to dispute it over the precise meaning(s) of one word.  :cloud9:

For sure.

Quote from: DocMy point is that the truth of UR doesn't ultimately come down solely to the meaning of one word, regardless of your take on Aionios. If it did, I would still be on the fence regarding UR.

My sentiments exactly.  It is a shame that folks like Tony will place way too much emphasis on aion/aionios.  It really undermines their witness to UR.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 02:54:13 AM

Quote from: DocMy point is that the truth of UR doesn't ultimately come down solely to the meaning of one word, regardless of your take on Aionios. If it did, I would still be on the fence regarding UR.

My sentiments exactly.  It is a shame that folks like Tony will place way too much emphasis on aion/aionios.  It really undermines their witness to UR.

It's not a shame, it's what led me to believe in UR. 

This whole thread to me, looks like two egos going at it, based on unreleased history.

Quote from: legomanNow if you are saying that aionios could mean "forever/eternal" in some cases, that seems to weaken the case for UR quite a bit...

It does not weaken it at all, my friend.  With time I think you will see this.  And remember, there are other folks who are not URists who argue that aionios does not mean "eternal".

QuoteI'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.

Yes, I think you have a handle on what I'm saying.  

QuoteHowever 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.

It is not uncommon in the Bible for a word to mean different things in different contexts.  Moreover, the Bible is no less consistent if aio/aionios do not eternity/eternal.  More complex?  Yes.  Less consistent? No.

QuoteI thought this was the fundamental premise behind UR.

The fundamental premise behind UR involves the nature of God, not the meaning of aion/aionios.

QuoteTo 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 on Tony simply because his arguments are disengenuous.  Recall his arguments regarding Timaeus 37d, "gorgeous", and the root fallacy.  I'd like to get your opinion on those.

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

Amen.

Quote from: ZeekIt's not a shame, it's what led me to believe in UR. 

It no more leads to UR than to annihilationism.  I encourage you to rethink your statement.

Quote
This whole thread to me, looks like two egos going at it, based on unreleased history.

Oh, there are egos involved..and history...but there are also arguments being presented that ought to be analyzed by the reader.  Let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 03:05:09 AM

Quote from: ZeekIt's not a shame, it's what led me to believe in UR. 

It no more leads to UR than to annihilationism.  I encourage you to rethink your statement.

Quote
This whole thread to me, looks like two egos going at it, based on unreleased history.

Oh, there are egos involved..and history...but there are also arguments being presented that ought to be analyzed by the reader.  Let me know if you have any comments or questions.

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.

Quote from: zeekBUT IT LED ME TO UR, NOT ANNIH. SO NOT A SHAME, BUT A PRAISE GOD.

Does that make it true?

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 03:10:03 AM

Quote from: zeekBUT IT LED ME TO UR, NOT ANNIH. SO NOT A SHAME, BUT A PRAISE GOD.

Does that make it true?

does it matter.  It was God's method for opening my eyes to TRUTH/HIM/LOVE

Quote1. Euphemistic Usage Outside Job: The number of passages in which we find the phenomenon just described is very limited. One of the best examples is recorded in 1 Kings 21:10, 13. Jezebel asked for false witnesses to testify against Naboth saying that they heard him "cursing [blessing]" God and the king. On that basis Naboth received the death penalty. Obviously, no one is to be stoned for blessing God;

You really ought to read through this, Tony:

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Biblequestions/jobs%20wife.pdf

Here's another bit:

Quote3. Euphemistic Usage in the Speech of Job's Wife: Did Job's wife say "Curse" or "Bless God and die"? Job's answer seems to support the idea that "bless" is being used here as a euphemism for "curse." If she is encouraging him to bless God and die, why did Job say to her "You are talking like a foolish woman" (Job 2:10, NIV)? Whatever she was trying to say, Job found it inconsistent with devotion to God

Zeek, and for others who know better (such as most who know something about Biblical Greek), your position on aionios is either dishonest or uninformed.  Either way, many people are turned off from UR in this way.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 03:13:28 AM
Zeek, and for others who know better (such as most who know something about Biblical Greek), your position on aionios is either dishonest or uninformed.  Either way, many people are turned off from UR in this way.

but don't dismiss that many are turned onto UR this way

Tony,

You know what you ought to do, just for shoots and giggles?  Find me one Hebrew scholar who would deny that barakh is a euphemism for "curse".  Just do it, Tony.  Just find me one scholar.  Just do it.

Here is another article that assisted in my belief in UR. 

http://www.mercifultruth.com/eternity.htm

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 03:20:14 AM
Tony,

You know what you ought to do, just for shoots and giggles?  Find me one Hebrew scholar who would deny that barakh is a euphemism for "curse".  Just do it, Tony.  Just find me one scholar.  Just do it.

Lazarus, just find me one priest, just one high priest, just one rabbi who will tell you that Jesus is the Messiah. Just one Lazarus. Just do it. Just find me one. Just do it. Caiaphas 34 A.D.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 03:20:14 AM
Tony,

You know what you ought to do, just for shoots and giggles?  Find me one Hebrew scholar who would deny that barakh is a euphemism for "curse".  Just do it, Tony.  Just find me one scholar.  Just do it.

Oh great;

So, our new president could be a blessing or a curse?... :mshock:
Let's hope he's not a euphemism, eh?  :laughing7:

Tony!  How ya doing, ol pal?  Care to address this?

1. Euphemistic Usage Outside Job: The number of passages in which we find the phenomenon just described is very limited. One of the best examples is recorded in 1 Kings 21:10, 13. Jezebel asked for false witnesses to testify against Naboth saying that they heard him "cursing [blessing]" God and the king. On that basis Naboth received the death penalty. Obviously, no one is to be stoned for blessing God;

Quote from: TonyLazarus,

Oh, I like that!

QuoteLazarus, just find me one priest, just one high priest, just one rabbi who will tell you that Jesus is the Messiah. Just one Lazarus. Just do it. Just find me one. Just do it. Caiaphas 34 A.D.

Oh I forgot.  Jews are not able to translate their own language unless they accept Jesus.

Silly me......

Doc, Gabe, A.K.A apokatastasis believes that words can have two completely opposite meanings in the Bible. He believes that eonian can stand for something having a beginning and an end and also stand for something having no beginning and no end (eternal).

So I asked him to show me a word in the Bible where this could be true. He showed me Job where the Hebrew word barak is translated as "curse."

He then quoted these passages:

(Job 1:11)  But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

(Job 2:5)  But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.

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

But Satan did not use the English word "curse" but the Hebrew word "barak" in Job 1:11.
Satan did not use the English word "curse" but the Hebrew word "barak" in Job 2:5.
Job's wife did not use the English word "curse" but the Hebrew word "barak" in Job 2:9.

Curse is qalal in Hebrew and is first used in Genesis 8:1
Gen 8:21  And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

God did not say He would not again bless the ground.

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!"

Tony,

Don't sell yourself short!

Address this:

QuoteEuphemistic Usage Outside Job: The number of passages in which we find the phenomenon just described is very limited. One of the best examples is recorded in 1 Kings 21:10, 13. Jezebel asked for false witnesses to testify against Naboth saying that they heard him "cursing [blessing]" God and the king. On that basis Naboth received the death penalty. Obviously, no one is to be stoned for blessing God;

And this:

QuoteEuphemistic Usage in the Speech of Job's Wife: Did Job's wife say "Curse" or "Bless God and die"? Job's answer seems to support the idea that "bless" is being used here as a euphemism for "curse." If she is encouraging him to bless God and die, why did Job say to her "You are talking like a foolish woman" (Job 2:10, NIV)? Whatever she was trying to say, Job found it inconsistent with devotion to God

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 03:44:15 AM
Doc, Gabe, A.K.A apokatastasis believes that words can have two completely opposite meanings in the Bible. He believes that eonian can stand for something having a beginning and an end and also stand for something having no beginning and no end (eternal).

So I asked him to show me a word in the Bible where this could be true. He showed me Job where the Hebrew word barak is translated as "curse."

He then quoted these passages:

(Job 1:11)  But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

(Job 2:5)  But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.

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

But Satan did not use the English word "curse" but the Hebrew word "barak" in Job 1:11.
Satan did not use the English word "curse" but the Hebrew word "barak" in Job 2:5.
Job's wife did not use the English word "curse" but the Hebrew word "barak" in Job 2:9.

Curse is qalal in Hebrew and is first used in Genesis 8:1
Gen 8:21  And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

God did not say He would not again bless the ground.

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!"

I understand where you're coming from, Tony.
I am having trouble figuring out how "bless" makes sense in the context of Job 2:5. I'm not arguing with you here: I'm genuinely puzzled...

Here is the definition that I pulled from an online interlinear of Barak

   
to bless, kneel
(Qal)
to kneel
to bless
(Niphal) to be blessed, bless oneself
(Piel) to bless
(Pual) to be blessed, be adored
(Hiphil) to cause to kneel
(Hithpael) to bless oneself
to praise, salute, curse

The last definition here is listed as a secondary definition.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 03:03:23 AM

Quote from: legomanNow if you are saying that aionios could mean "forever/eternal" in some cases, that seems to weaken the case for UR quite a bit...

It does not weaken it at all, my friend.  With time I think you will see this.  And remember, there are other folks who are not URists who argue that aionios does not mean "eternal".

QuoteI'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.

Yes, I think you have a handle on what I'm saying.  

QuoteHowever 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.

It is not uncommon in the Bible for a word to mean different things in different contexts.  Moreover, the Bible is no less consistent if aio/aionios do not eternity/eternal.  More complex?  Yes.  Less consistent? No.

QuoteI thought this was the fundamental premise behind UR.

The fundamental premise behind UR involves the nature of God, not the meaning of aion/aionios.

QuoteTo 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 on Tony simply because his arguments are disengenuous.  Recall his arguments regarding Timaeus 37d, "gorgeous", and the root fallacy.  I'd like to get your opinion on those.

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

Amen.

Thanks everyone for your responses.

Apocastasis, yes I agree the fundamental premise of UR is about God and his love - "premise" was not the right word in my original statement.  But for me it was one of the fundamental concepts that caused me to question ET and really investigate UR.

So yes - whether aionios refers to "pertaining to the ages" or "eternalness" - that is up for debate, but in general we can agree on UR.  In your view does aion always refer to an "age"?  

I will continue further research into the matter, as I continue to research all things that lead to the truth, although it will probably take me some time (possibly years).  Is the Plato stuff really required reading to fully understand this?  I have read mixed reviews on Plato - some say its good, others say its irrelevant as he didn't write/influence the bible - biblical words gain their meaning based on their contextual usage in the scriptures.

Personally, at this point in time for me, it seems to make the most sense aionios always means "pertaining to the aions" - this seems the most consistent way to apply the word based on context and meaning of the root word (perhaps this is a root fallacy - I don't know).  Anyway I would have to see some research based on scriptures that supports the other view.

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.

Thanks,
Legoman

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 03:32:29 AM
Tony!  How ya doing, ol pal?  Care to address this?

1. Euphemistic Usage Outside Job: The number of passages in which we find the phenomenon just described is very limited. One of the best examples is recorded in 1 Kings 21:10, 13. Jezebel asked for false witnesses to testify against Naboth saying that they heard him "cursing [blessing]" God and the king. On that basis Naboth received the death penalty. Obviously, no one is to be stoned for blessing God;

Gabe, if that is your best example then it is still lacking in trying to prove your point that words in the Bible can have two opposite meanings and thus hope to prove that eonian can have two completely disparate meanings.

1Ki 21:10 and cause two men--sons of worthlessness--to sit over-against him, and they testify of him, saying, You have blessed Elohim and Melech; and they have brought him out, and stoned him, and he dies..
1Ki 21:13 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 Elohim and Melech;' and they take him out to the outside of the city, and stone him with stones, and he dies;" (Concordant Literal)

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)

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.

Quote from: legomanApocastasis, yes I agree the fundamental premise of UR is about God and his love - "premise" was not the right word in my original statement.  But for me it was one of the fundamental concepts that caused me to question ET and really investigate UR.

I do not question this.

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteI will continue further research into the matter, as I continue to research all things that lead to the truth, although it will probably take me some time (possibly years).  Is the Plato stuff really required reading to fully understand this?  I have read mixed reviews on Plato - some say its good, others say its irrelevant as he didn't write/influence the bible - biblical words gain their meaning based on their contextual usage in the scriptures.

Indeed, meaning is gotten from their contextual usage in the Bible.  This is something that Tony's viewpoint does not account for, which is why his position is so easily refuted.

To say that Plato did not influence New Testament thought is to contradict the plain evidence.  John's gospel, for instance, is heavily influenced by Plato and ancient Greek philosophy in general. 

Study the word aionios further, legoman.  Study its etymology and its semantical evolution.  Good stuff.

QuoteDo 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

Quote from: Tony
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:

Quote"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! 

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 04:16:52 AM

Quote from: legomanApocastasis, yes I agree the fundamental premise of UR is about God and his love - "premise" was not the right word in my original statement.  But for me it was one of the fundamental concepts that caused me to question ET and really investigate UR.

I do not question this.

QuoteIn 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.

QuoteI will continue further research into the matter, as I continue to research all things that lead to the truth, although it will probably take me some time (possibly years).  Is the Plato stuff really required reading to fully understand this?  I have read mixed reviews on Plato - some say its good, others say its irrelevant as he didn't write/influence the bible - biblical words gain their meaning based on their contextual usage in the scriptures.

Indeed, meaning is gotten from their contextual usage in the Bible.  This is something that Tony's viewpoint does not account for, which is why his position is so easily refuted.

To say that Plato did not influence New Testament thought is to contradict the plain evidence.  John's gospel, for instance, is heavily influenced by Plato and ancient Greek philosophy in general. 

Study the word aionios further, legoman.  Study its etymology and its semantical evolution.  Good stuff.

QuoteDo 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 agree with the premise that is brought out here about the meaning of Olam. In the translation I am working on I translate it as "to the horizon," for "to everlasting", "from the horizon," for "from everlasting", and "horizonal filled-stomach" for eternal life, which shows the concrete terms which are conveyed by the world Olam, meaning literally:

Eye led to water

This is speaking of the horizon you can see from looking out over the sea.

Ron

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 27, 2009, 03:18:16 AM

Quote from: gregoryApoc,

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?

What I see Plato saying is that the physical creation is a physical copy of things that are hidden, things beyond our view, not time per se, but the state of being, that which is spiritual.

Time itself, things that are moving as "was" and "will be", all imitate aiona [38a], that which is hidden from view, that which is beyond our view; again, that which is spiritual in nature. That is the sense in which time relates to aionios, from what I can tell from his writings there. God alone, who is spiritual, aidos in nature, is he who "is", which is the state of being that does not change or move.

Ron

Quote from: Ron"horizonal filled-stomach"

You'l have to explain that one to me, Ron.

Quote from: RonWhat I see Plato saying is that the physical creation is a physical copy of things that are hidden, things beyond our view, not time per se, but the state of being, that which is spiritual.

Time itself, things that are moving as "was" and "will be", all imitate aiona [38a], that which is hidden from view, that which is beyond our view; again, that which is spiritual in nature. That is the sense in which time relates to aionios, from what I can tell from his writings there. God alone, who is spiritual, aidos in nature, is he who "is", which is the state of being that does not change or move.

So then you can see that aion/aionios is here used of timelessness?

And he took a potsherd to scrape himself while he was sitting among the ashes.

Then his wife said to him, "Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse (bless) God and die!"

But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and not accept adversity?"

In all this Job did not sin with his lips. (Job 2:8-10)

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (although I am not a big fan of Strong's)

1288 barak (baw-rak') a primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also by euphemism to curse (God or the king, as treason):--X abundantly, X altogether, X at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, X greatly, X indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, X still, thank.

By implication or substitution, neither is explicit; fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated. Thus, an argument on this would seem to be an unwise investment or expenditure for anyone.
   
"Do you still hold fast your integrity?

Go ahead and die!"

Now, this leaves nothing to speculation. Whereas, the former is merely an expression, but the latter is truly from the heart of his wife – die!

Just tossing this out there for thought and consideration.

Although, most of the translations in my possession (a dozen, or so) say: Curse

As an example: The Emphasized Bible by J. B. Rotherham

And so it was, when the days of the banquet came round, that Job sent and hallowed them, and rising early in the morning offered ascending-sacrifices according to the number of them all; for Job said, Peradventure (by chance, with doubt or uncertainty) my sons have sinned, and have cursed God in their hearts. (Job 1:5)

peacemaker

There is an email list devoted to translating Biblical Hebrew, which can be found at b-hebrew@lists.biblio.org. 

A scholar on that list had this to say about the matter:

QuoteThe Hebrew words "if not" are part of an idiomatic development from a oath formula to the idea of "surely." The idea is, "May God do so-and-so to me if he does not . . . ." So Satan was saying that Job would surely "bless" God to his face. This is the tip off that the words have been adjusted by the scribes to avoid the offensive thought of "cursing" God. But the rewrite with "bless" is so obvious that readers would know the change was made for reverential reasons. That is why the scribes could afford to make such a change; it is so obviously a doctoring.

The idea of blessing someone to their face seems pretty meaningless. If one blessed them behind their back, it would still be a blessing and in that sense would not differ much from blessing them to their face. Usually the temptation is to speak better of someone in their presence than away from them, so blessing God to his face seems "easier" than blessing him behind his back. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who might curse someone behind their back but would not curse them to their face. If you curse someone to their face, you are really angry and rejecting. Just as improbable as Job's wife telling Job to bless God and die is the idea of blessing here.

Comments? 

For years I've read everything in English that I could find on eon/olam and some of it repeatedly.  Hanson is superlative.

It has become very apparent that usually translators are hired by some source of money.  Like the KJV has:  "...mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.  I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man..." (Ho 11:8-9)  It is not God's heart that is turned, but His womb is trembling within Him.  But, unbearably radical, rather than compare the human and the Divine, He actually says:  "I Elohim am not male."  These world class Hebrew scholars keep making the same error into our times.  Unlike most men I've asked, most thinking women can immediately tell you why it was mistranslated.  Today they actually translate Scripture to sell to a target group.

Kittel was for the last half of the 20th Century, and only recently being supplanted, as the foremost authority in English for N.T. Greek.  Yet, he didn't even begin his multi-volumed Theological Dictionary until after he became a Nazi.  Strong's only tells you how it has been translated in the KJV, though there are recent altered versions.  We aren't supposed to lean very much on other authorities anyway.  God wants us to grow up and understand for ourselves.  You don't need to be an expert on an entire language to be an authority on some of it by doing exhaustive studies on certain important words.

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.  I don't care who or how many are saying otherwise, other than that they too should acknowledge the truth.  I have read the Scripture for myself.  I must stand before God and give an answer for the things done in the body some day.  The thoughts and intents of my heart will be examined.  Unless I want to offend God, I cannot deny what is clearly written.  I will teach it until or unless I do become a slobbering idiot.  Well, David saved his own life by drooling in his beard.  Who knows...?  Lay this truth of God aside and bow to their other mediators, their perverse practice of men over other men defying the kingdom of God which is in direct relationship with me and each of His children and I could get a job preaching in the whorehouses of Babylon.  Since not, they spread lies against me and use the full force of the arm of the flesh that they think they can get by with.  These things have been and are happening.  God says only so far and no more.  God has the keys to even fire out of heaven for the worhty.

I don't have to use the knowledge of eon/olam so much anymore.  Most people I meet are simply so lazy, coupled with the working of the cherebim to make them feel revulsion to the words of life they can't endure a five minute explanation.  So it's good I discovered that they can't show me a single place, there simply isn't any statement whatsoever, never even once in the KJV Bible stating unequivocally any humans at all are or ever will be in the lake of fire!  Of course most have the problem of not being able to even find one verse on "hell" or much of anything else on their own.  They are so well informed that they are at least sure I'm headed to hell because I'm trying to get them to read Scripture for themselves.  What a perfect world! and in all it's gorgousness!

Tony, you're supposed to offer the Emperor his pinch of incense.  He wants to "gorge" on your "root fallacy!"

Quote from: Doc on January 28, 2009, 12:40:46 AM
It's true that Tony is not the only one arguing from the position he holds. It's also true that Apo is not the only one arguing from the position he holds. Both arguments I have seen come from universalists.

I think it's also true they will never agree....
Perhaps a closer study of the word Olam could help. For example asking Jewish scholars what it means.
Then compare the use/translation of olam into aion(ios) in the LXX.
The translators of the LXX most likely had a very good understanding of both words as used during translation.
Of cource you can argue the meaning of the words changed afterwards. But still it may be a good step?

@ Apocastasis, what do you think about Markus 10,30:

εαν μη λαβη εκατονταπλασιονα νυν εν τω καιρω τουτω οικιας και αδελφους και αδελφας και μητερας και τεκνα και αγρους μετα διωγμων και εν τω αιωνι τω ερχομενω ζωην αιωνιον

that shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time: houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions, and in the coming age life eternal. (Darby)

for me it seems aionios life is connected here primarilly to the age to come

who shall not receive a hundredfold, now, in this season, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, - with persecutions, and, in the age that is coming, life age-abiding. (Rotherham)

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 04:25:16 AM

Quote from: Tony
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:

Quote"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.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 05:42:21 AM

Quote from: Ron"horizonal filled-stomach"

You'l have to explain that one to me, Ron.

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, meaning to have a fullness of life that is spiritual, in another realm, life that is not bound by or affected by time. It is unchanging like the one to whom it is derived, namely, Jesus Christ. Truly as He said, we will never hunger again nor be thirsty again. That state is what will be our spiritual existence, which is unseeable to the senses, because of it's being of a different realm.

Ron

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 05:43:20 AM

Quote from: RonWhat I see Plato saying is that the physical creation is a physical copy of things that are hidden, things beyond our view, not time per se, but the state of being, that which is spiritual.

Time itself, things that are moving as "was" and "will be", all imitate aiona [38a], that which is hidden from view, that which is beyond our view; again, that which is spiritual in nature. That is the sense in which time relates to aionios, from what I can tell from his writings there. God alone, who is spiritual, aidos in nature, is he who "is", which is the state of being that does not change or move.

So then you can see that aion/aionios is here used of timelessness?

Timelessness? I can see how someone could understand it that way. I also can see though, that perhaps Plato isn't speaking about aiona as timelessness, but as an always present state of being, one that "cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause."

I see him speaking about the creation, that which is constantly in a state of change, belonging to the physical realm, as being an image of Himself, who does not. So when he says: "Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity," I understand him to be saying that God made a moving image of what is unmoving, eternal being defined thus, not by time itself, or the lack of it, but of what time consists of, its parameters. God is not confined to the parameters of the time he created. When he created time, he entered into it and has complete control of it, not being subject to it nor affected by it as his creation is.

Ron

Appeal to Authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

here in Germany we use eternal (ewig) for both limited (more in common language) and unlimited duration and we use eternity in the plural

Daniel 7,18 is translated in some German bibles:

But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom in eternity, even for the eternity of the eternities.

from Eternity to Eternity is a common phrase in German bibles, this phrase is unknown in English language, isn't it?

i think every language has it's specialities

Quote from: sven on January 28, 2009, 04:18:41 PM
here in Germany we use eternal (ewig) for both limited (more in common language) and unlimited duration and we use eternity in the plural

Daniel 7,18 is translated in some German bibles:

But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom in eternity, even for the eternity of the eternities.

from Eternity to Eternity is a common phrase in German bibles, this phrase is unknown in English language, isn't it?

i think every language has it's specialities

Dear sven,
Have you checked out the Concordant Version in German/Deutch?
You can write to: Konkordanter Verlag, Buchenbronner Str. 16 D-75172 Pforzheim. Or call: Phone 07252-80166 for the version.

http://www.konkordanterverlag.de/

Does it really make sense to you that that which has no beginning and no end can end and be taken over by another span which has no beginning and no end? It clouds the truth to me.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 28, 2009, 03:54:23 PM
Appeal to Authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Exactly. 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.

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.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 07:32:53 AM
There is an email list devoted to translating Biblical Hebrew, which can be found at b-hebrew@lists.biblio.org. 

A scholar on that list had this to say about the matter:

QuoteThe Hebrew words "if not" are part of an idiomatic development from a oath formula to the idea of "surely." The idea is, "May God do so-and-so to me if he does not . . . ." So Satan was saying that Job would surely "bless" God to his face. This is the tip off that the words have been adjusted by the scribes to avoid the offensive thought of "cursing" God. But the rewrite with "bless" is so obvious that readers would know the change was made for reverential reasons. That is why the scribes could afford to make such a change; it is so obviously a doctoring.

The idea of blessing someone to their face seems pretty meaningless. If one blessed them behind their back, it would still be a blessing and in that sense would not differ much from blessing them to their face. Usually the temptation is to speak better of someone in their presence than away from them, so blessing God to his face seems "easier" than blessing him behind his back. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who might curse someone behind their back but would not curse them to their face. If you curse someone to their face, you are really angry and rejecting. Just as improbable as Job's wife telling Job to bless God and die is the idea of blessing here.

Comments? 

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.

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 05:23:38 PM
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.  Context and usage are just as important in discerning the meaning of a text and not just a strict word for word parody.  Bless would be a more precise translation, but those that translate it as curse aren't in error although it's yielding to the temptation to interpret in the translation work which should almost never happen.

QuoteDear sven,
Have you checked out the Concordant Version in German/Deutch?

yes i own this translation and some other writings from the "friends of concordant publishing"

QuoteDoes it really make sense to you that that which has no beginning and no end can end and be taken over by another span which has no beginning and no end? It clouds the truth to me.

no it doesn't, aion in the sense of age, makes sense in every occurrence in my opinion; while aion translated as eternity would seem obviously wrong in many occurrences

but my question really is:

from Eternity to Eternity does this make any sense in English language - is it even "possible" to say so?, have you ever heard this phrase before i mentioned it?

Quote from: martincisneros on January 28, 2009, 05:34:50 PM

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 05:23:38 PM
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.  Context and usage are just as important in discerning the meaning of a text and not just a strict word for word parody.  Bless would be a more precise translation, but those that translate it as curse aren't in error although it's yielding to the temptation to interpret in the translation work which should almost never happen.

But Martin, not all translators translated barak as curse in Job. So it is not obvious as you might suspect.
Satan was telling God to put His hand against Job and then we'll see if he will bless (barak) you.
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.

So it is simple to suggest that scribes doctored God's word but quite another matter to prove it. The ones who doctored it are the ones who mistranslated barak as curse because they did not think God knew what He was talking about.

Quote from: sven on January 28, 2009, 05:44:16 PM

QuoteDear sven,
Have you checked out the Concordant Version in German/Deutch?

yes i own this translation and some other writings from the "friends of concordant publishing"

QuoteDoes it really make sense to you that that which has no beginning and no end can end and be taken over by another span which has no beginning and no end? It clouds the truth to me.

no it doesn't, aion in the sense of age, makes sense in every occurrence in my opinion; while aion translated as eternity would seem obviously wrong in many occurrences

but my question really is:

from Eternity to Eternity does this make any sense in English language - is it even "possible" to say so?, have you ever heard this phrase before i mentioned it?

Only in the comic movie called "Toy Story" with Tom Hanks where the good toy often said "to infinity and beyond!" As if one can get beyond infinity!
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.

Besides the more literal translation of the Greek is "for the eons of the eons" where eons is plural and in the genitive case (of) such as "God's Son" is genitive and can be written "Son of God."  So it would have to be "eternities OF the eternities." But "eons of the eons" makes much better sense. They are the two greatest eons out of all the eons which went before.

QuoteSo it would have to be "eternities OF the eternities."

there is a German translation that translates it exactly this way

QuoteOnly in the comic movie called "Toy Story" with Tom Hanks where the good toy often said "to infinity and beyond!" As if one can get beyond infinity!

i maybe already mentioned it sometimes, the vulgata has in aeternum et ultra, in eternity and beyond

The problem can be trying to refute a philosophical point or metaphorical outlook by determining that two words together doesn't make sense. 

It's not about taking the translated text and comparing it, it is taking the concept behind the words.   I would say that translators who use words in such a manner is not about bad scholarship as is often asserted by those who argue for their point of view over words.  I would say that translators are trying their best not to interject their bias and opinion into it.

When we study, then we can delve in to the definitions, usages and reason for ourselves.

God  intended to be that way,  "let us reason together",  God cannot be threatened, sorry, no offense, but he cannot.

Whether the two translated words together make sense or not does not change the meaning behind what was being told in the language being translated.



Both can be correct when looking at the literal and metaphorical value.


It is said Gods correction is temporary....  Really?   Explain when Gods corrective value stops?

Quote from: reFORMerI'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?

Quote from: RonI'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? :laughing7:

 

Quote from: Ron...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?

Quote from: martincisneros on January 28, 2009, 05:34:50 PM

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 05:23:38 PM
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:

QuoteThe 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).

QuoteBut 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.

QuoteDie - 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.

Quote"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?"

QuoteWe 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!

Quote from: WhiteWings on January 28, 2009, 07:12:26 PM
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.

Quote from: TonyGabe, 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?  :grin:

QuoteOne 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.

QuoteAnd 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?

QuoteSo 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?

QuoteSatan 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.  

QuoteJob'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?

QuoteIt 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...

Quote from: white wingsReading 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).

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 04:16:52 AM

QuoteIn 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".

Quote

QuoteDo 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

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

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 08:05:02 PM
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.

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

Quote from: legoman on January 28, 2009, 07:44:59 PM
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.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 28, 2009, 08:48:30 PM

Quote from: legoman on January 28, 2009, 07:44:59 PM
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.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: RonI'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? :laughing7:

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.  :laughing7:

Ron

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:

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).

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

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 09:03:19 PM
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?

Quote from: legoman on January 28, 2009, 09:17:57 PM
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.

Quote from: Zeek on January 28, 2009, 03:08:56 AM
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!

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 07:08:15 PM

Quote from: Ron...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

Quote from: RonThis 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.

QuoteI'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.

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 09:03:19 PMBut 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.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 09:47:59 PM

Quote from: RonThis 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.

QuoteI'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

Quote from: bobf on January 28, 2009, 09:31:44 PM

Quote from: Zeek on January 28, 2009, 03:08:56 AM
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.

Quote from: legoman...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.  

QuoteTony 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.

QuoteAnyway, 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.

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?

Quote from: RonAs for your point about timelessness, I can see where if timelessness is something that by its nature, transcends time, yet, being a part of it, then yes, I can agree with that.

For Plato, time, like all things having to do with the created world, has its ontological basis in the eternal Forms.  So yes, his notion of eternity/eternal (aion/aionios) was that while it transcends time, it is also immanent in time just as the idea of "the good" is immanent in all things good.  I think this idea is retained in he NT, in that "aeonian life" refers to the eternal life of God as experienced in the world of time.  Hence, the literal meaning of "age"  is conveyed even though the connotations of eternity are still present.

 

Quote from: gregoryfl on January 28, 2009, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: RonI'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? :laughing7:

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.  :laughing7:

Ron

This is an interesting way to look at it. With the connotation of the horizon being "as far as I can see", put together with "filled stomach". Then you could transliterate that concept of aionion/ aionios life as; "having your needs met/ "life" as far as is forseeable." I kind of like that, actually.  :winkgrin:

Quote from: 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?

It is certainly true that aionios is used in the Bible in reference to the Divine, which is described as invisible, intanible, incorporeal, permament, etc.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 10:09:30 PM

Quote from: legoman...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. 
...
That which is perishable can only logically be contrasted with that which is perishable.  Mortal life can only be logically contrasted with immortal life.

Hi Apo,

Yes I agree translation of language is very complex, and not always straightforward. But I don't see the problem of the logical "contrast" in the verses you point out.

Here are the verses [NIV]:

John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal [aionios] life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever (for the eons). This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

I don't see it as a contrast between mortal life and immortal life.  I view it as a contrast between the physical and the spiritual.

Verse 27: Don't work for physical food that spoils, but instead for spiritual food - which will lead you to eonion life.  Likewise in verse 51 we learn that Jesus is the spiritual food that will give us life for the eons.

This is my understanding, and with this understanding, there is no confusion in using the words "age" or "pertaining to the ages".  Jesus is simply talking about the spiritual food (his body) that we must eat in order to gain life for the ages (the millenium and the remaining ages).

Perfectly fine and consistent IMHO.

Cheers,
Legoman

Quote from: legoman on January 28, 2009, 10:29:02 PM

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 10:09:30 PM

Quote from: legoman...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. 
...
That which is perishable can only logically be contrasted with that which is perishable.  Mortal life can only be logically contrasted with immortal life.

Hi Apo,

Yes I agree translation of language is very complex, and not always straightforward. But I don't see the problem of the logical "contrast" in the verses you point out.

Here are the verses [NIV]:

John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal [aionios] life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever (for the eons). This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

I don't see it as a contrast between mortal life and immortal life.  I view it as a contrast between the physical and the spiritual.

Verse 27: Don't work for physical food that spoils, but instead for spiritual food - which will lead you to eonion life.  Likewise in verse 51 we learn that Jesus is the spiritual food that will give us life for the eons.

This is my understanding, and with this understanding, there is no confusion in using the words "age" or "pertaining to the ages".  Jesus is simply talking about the spiritual food (his body) that we must eat in order to gain life for the ages (the millenium and the remaining ages).

Perfectly fine and consistent IMHO.

Cheers,
Legoman

Yes, and the Greek does already have words for incorruptible and imperishable that are more specific to those concepts than aionios/ aionion.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 28, 2009, 09:20:21 PM

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 09:03:19 PM
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, I will boldly declare that in the New Testament aion can only have the idea of a time with a beginning and an end. It has no secret, spiritual, different meaning.
In the OT, it is difficult to put aion into every occurrence where olam is because in one verse it says that "God puts obscurity (olam) in the hearts of man so they can't find out what He is up to" (I can't remember exactly how it goes.
In the O.T. olam/aion is used for the duration of a generation. It is never used of no beginning and no end though. Never.

God will no longer need a correcive nature (made up theological term) when God is All in all (1 Cor.15:28).

Found this when searching for Olam:

QuoteThe word aion has been used by Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek classical writers to mean "limited duration" and not "eternal."  There was one word used in classical Greek which was the closest to our English word eternity—and that word was aidios.  Aidios is found in only two places in the New Testament (Rom 1:20, Jude 6).  And in neither of these two cases are the Scriptures talking of man.  Jesus very carefully chose the word aion when talking about the future punishment of man.

He could have used the word aidios if He wanted to convey the idea of eternal.  But instead He chose to use a word meaning "age."

To Sven:

QuoteA note: It is thought that olam (owlam) was related to alam which apparently meant something like "to hide from sight". The idiomatic meaning of olam perhaps was "of long duration, so that the beginning or end of the matter cannot be seen" - on the relatively short, human point of view.

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 10:41:33 PM
Paul, I will boldly declare that in the New Testament aion can only have the idea of a time with a beginning and an end. It has no secret, spiritual, different meaning.

Ok.  that bold declaration doesn't change anything.

Quote
God will no longer need a corrective nature (made up theological term) when God is All in all (1 Cor.15:28).

Gods nature (whatever term you think is not made up) is to correct those he loves.  When God is all in all, that nature (whatever term you think is not made up) will not change.

Quote from: bobf on January 28, 2009, 09:52:41 PM

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 09:03:19 PMBut 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.

Bob in your examples below:
- 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.

neither "mountains" nor "aspirations" nor "looks" modify the adjective lofty. Rather, "lofty" modifies those nouns.

Just as the nouns in "beautiful boy," beautiful girl, beautiful horse, beautiful sun set do not modify the adjective "beautiful."

And neither does "God" in "eonian God" and "chastening" in "eonian chastening" modify the adjective "eonian."

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 11:26:59 PMBob in your examples below:
- 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.

neither "mountains" nor "aspirations" nor "looks" modify the adjective lofty. Rather, "lofty" modifies those nouns.

Then how is it that sense in which each noun is lofty is not the same in each phrase?

Quote from: bobf on January 28, 2009, 11:40:34 PM

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 11:26:59 PMBob in your examples below:
- 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.

neither "mountains" nor "aspirations" nor "looks" modify the adjective lofty. Rather, "lofty" modifies those nouns.

Then how is it that sense in which each noun is lofty is not the same in each phrase?

Each noun is lofty. The idea of "lofty" is already set in stone, so to speak.
The adjective modifies the noun. Look in any good grammar.

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 10:41:33 PM
In the OT, it is difficult to put aion into every occurrence where olam is because in one verse it says that "God puts obscurity (olam) in the hearts of man so they can't find out what He is up to" (I can't remember exactly how it goes.

Aion is not a part of the ancient Hebrew language.  Aion is an Ancient Greek word.  And there is my point.   If a person was to translate ancient hebrew into ancient greek then you would have to approximate the closest word, but you may not get it exact.  If there were people who still lived in a culture that readily used what "we" know to be Ancient Greek then those people might try to declare that OLAM must mean one certain word in their language and they would be in error.

Tony, no one here has suggested that the noun modifies the adjective.  Rather, when an adjective (or any kind of word) has more than one meaning, then we need to look at the context (such as the relevant nouns) in order to determine which meaning is in view.  This is elementary stuff, Tony. 

Quote from: legomanI don't see it as a contrast between mortal life and immortal life.  I view it as a contrast between the physical and the spiritual.

Indeed, the contrast is between the physical and the spiritual, and we are told that the physical perishes as opposed to the spiritual which does not perish.

Quote from: doc
Yes, and the Greek does already have words for incorruptible and imperishable that are more specific to those concepts than aionios/ aionion.

And this means that aionios never carry these connotations? 

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 12:50:03 AM
Tony, no one here has suggested that the noun modifies the adjective.  Rather, when an adjective (or any kind of word) has more than one meaning, then we need to look at the context (such as the relevant nouns) in order to determine which meaning is in view.  This is elementary stuff, Tony. 

Gabe, you started this thread with this in italic:

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

Here aionios is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption.

You are making the noun modify aionion/eonian. So in fact you are advocating that eonian can be modified by its context which is being modified by the noun it is supposed to be modifying. This is elementary stuff, Gabe.

Quote from: TonyEach noun is lofty. The idea of "lofty" is already set in stone, so to speak.
The adjective modifies the noun. Look in any good grammar.

:laughing7: You are a riot, man!

Tony, as bobf pointed out to you already, "lofty" carries the meaning of "pompous" and "tall".  You would like to think that "lofty" can only have one meaning, but you are clearly mistaken.  The truth is that context determines which meaning is in view, and in the examples bob used, it is the relevant nouns which indicate to us which definition is applicable.

Sorry Gabe but you are just plain wrong.

Lofty is already known what it is as to its meaning.

Attitude does not change the definition of lofty.
Mountains does not change the definition of lofty.

Lofty modifies the noun. period.

Quote from: tonyGabe, you started this thread with this in italic:

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

Here aionios is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption.

You are making the noun modify aionion/eonian. So in fact you are advocating that eonian can be modified by its context which is being modified by the noun it is supposed to be modifying. This is elementary stuff, Gabe.

Nouns don't modify context.  Nouns may help to determine context, however.  For instance, if I say "HIV infects a large number of gay males," I am clearly using the term "gay" as a synonym of "homosexual".  If, however, I say "Tony N. is a gay and cheerful man," I am using the term "gay" as a synonym of "happy"....unless there is something I don't know about Tony N.  :laughing7:



 

Tony, are you playing obtuse?

Lofty can mean "pompous".  It can also mean "tall".  "Tall" does not mean "pompous". 

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 12:54:52 AM

Quote from: doc
Yes, and the Greek does already have words for incorruptible and imperishable that are more specific to those concepts than aionios/ aionion.

And this means that aionios never carry these connotations? 

Not necessarily; it just means that you have to do a lot more work to demonstrate convincingly that it does carry those connotations, let alone as a primary meaning. This can be especially difficult across culture and language barriers, particularly when there is a long gap of time to account for as well. My point in the comment you quoted was; why not use clearer words (because they were readily available) if there was a danger of the terminology being misunderstood?

As I'm sure you know, one of the problems with translation is that the translators not only have to pick the closest approximate word across languages (and sometimes it is very approximate); they also have to account for cultural differences and have a good handle on what the original author's intent was. Even with modern English, you can have two English-speaking readers read the same sentence and come away with different conclusions regarding what the sentence was conveying.

I guess my point is that connotation is much more difficult to prove than denotation, especially when we're dealing with something as fuzzy as eschatological words and terms can be. Plato was not a believer, so he may have used the terms somewhat differently than a biblical writer would have, particularly if he was one of the first to use that terminology. In addition, we all know that what we call mainstream Christianity today has been heavily influenced by pagan ideas throughout the centuries.

I mean, just look at the differences in scholarly opinion on the words aion, aionion and aionios. There is quite a bit of disagreement even among Greek scholars, who should theoretically know what they're talking about.

Quote from: tonyGabe, it is a fact that elohim can be gods.

Yes, I'm aware of that, Tony.  Thanks.

QuoteFurthermore 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.

You misunderstood. The TKS did not site those verses as examples where a word can carry opposite meanings.

Quote
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."

Tony, where are false gods mentioned in this context?  Elohim should have its usual meaning here.

QuoteThe Bible is so against philosophy....

I do wonder what definition of "philosophy" you have in mind.  Philosophy in itself is not bad, or to be avoided, Tonester.  Indeed, Paul himself was a philosopher.

Quote.... that by you saying that Plato influenced God's inspired word is so pathetic I hardly have words for your deception.

Ok, Tony.

Quote
The New Testament is a revelation from God, not Plato.

Did I say that the NT is a revelation from Plato? No, I didn't.  I merely acknowledged a fact that has been acknowledge for centuries, namely that Plato's philosophy (and that of other ancient Greek philosophers') had an influence on NT thought.  For instance, John's treatment of the Logos is decidedly Greek, as anyone familiar with ancient Greek philosophy will tell you. If this is news to you, then you ought to get out more.

QuotePaul 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.

The "wisdom of the world" does not refer to philosophy in general, or science in general.   You include all of Plato and Aritotle's philosophy in the category of the world's widsom, yet Christians throughout the ages have seen in them gems of God's wisdom.  

Quote
Gabe, why don't you just take the next step and say Satanists influenced the Bible?

Tony, remember what I told you about people taking you seriously?

QuoteBesides, Plato never used aion nor aionion for eternal.

Tony, you know you don't want to go there.  You refuse to address my points on this issue.  Let's see how well you can dance.

In Timaeus 37d, Plato contrast time (chronos), which moves according to number, with aion/aionios, whch rests in unity. Do you acknowledge this? Do you acknowledge that this same thought was expressed by Philo (the Platonist) when he wrote in De Mundo 7, "but in eternity (aion) nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only" ?  Don't evade this any more, Tony.

QuoteAgain, the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived. I didn't make that rule up Gabe.

Again, this rule is broken routinely.  Gorgeous was derived from its nounal root, gorge ("throat").  Gorgeous does not mean "pertaining to the throat".  Sure, gorgeous now pertains to gorgeousness, but this is entirely irrelevant due to the fact that gorgeous is not derived from gorgeousness (in fact, its the other way around). Tony, do you get your kicks by making ridiculous assertions and then watching others invest time and energy refuting them?

Quote from: docit just means that you have to do a lot more work to demonstrate convincingly that it does carry those connotations....

If it doesn't carry those connotations, then why is it used in contrast to that which perishes (John 6)?

Quote from: Doc on January 29, 2009, 01:39:35 AM
I mean, just look at the differences in scholarly opinion on the words aion, aionion and aionios. There is quite a bit of disagreement even among Greek scholars, who should theoretically know what they're talking about.

Here is the problem with that.

Here is the "approximation" you speak of.

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.



The opinion isn't over scripture per sey,  it is the debate to narrow the above approximation so that it can be said with a sense of exactness what the language should say.  

So to say that exactness exists is an error.   When a person learns to understand "how" the approximation actually uplifts scripture, then there is no concern who has to win the debate over terms.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 01:46:31 AM

Quote from: docit just means that you have to do a lot more work to demonstrate convincingly that it does carry those connotations....

If it doesn't carry those connotations, then why is it used in contrast to that which perishes (John 6)?

Hmm. I said, not necessarily, it just means you have to do a lot more work to demonstrate...

So where did I emphatically state that it doesn't carry those connotations?  :dontknow:

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 29, 2009, 01:50:47 AM

Quote from: Doc on January 29, 2009, 01:39:35 AM
I mean, just look at the differences in scholarly opinion on the words aion, aionion and aionios. There is quite a bit of disagreement even among Greek scholars, who should theoretically know what they're talking about.

Here is the problem with that.

Here is the "approximation" you speak of.

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.



The opinion isn't over scripture per sey,  it is the debate to narrow the above approximation so that it can be said with a sense of exactness what the language should say.  

So to say that exactness exists is an error.   When a person learns to understand "how" the approximation actually uplifts scripture, then there is no concern who has to win the debate over terms.

I see what you're saying, but that wasn't really the point I was making. And, that is only one example from one scholar.

Doc,

Are you not convinced that aionios is used as a contrast to perishable things in say, John 6:27?  If not, why not?  Let's chat.

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 11:46:38 PMEach noun is lofty. The idea of "lofty" is already set in stone, so to speak.
The adjective modifies the noun. Look in any good grammar.

But Tony, "lofty" is not modifying the noun in the same way in each case.  So the noun is modifying how "lofty" modifies it!  It's a two way street.

Why would I need to look at a grammar - I'm looking right at some actual sentences with actual nouns and adjectives behaving in certain ways.

Tony wrote: 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

Gabe replied: You misunderstood. The TKS did not site those verses as examples where a word can carry opposite meanings.

Tony's reply:
No, I did not misunderstand.
Here is the exact quote you posted earlier. Note the bold below:

"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"

Quote from: bobf on January 29, 2009, 02:17:24 AM

Quote from: Tony N on January 28, 2009, 11:46:38 PMEach noun is lofty. The idea of "lofty" is already set in stone, so to speak.
The adjective modifies the noun. Look in any good grammar.

But Tony, "lofty" is not modifying the noun in the same way in each case.  So the noun is modifying how "lofty" modifies it!  It's a two way street.

Why would I need to look at a grammar - I'm looking right at some actual sentences with actual nouns and adjectives behaving in certain ways.

No, Bob, you are just playing word games now.
Why look at a grammar? Because grammar gives us rules to live by. Of course grammar rules are always being broken in our English language but that doesn't make it right.

Lofty mountains
Lofty ideals
Lofty looks

In each case above the adjective "lofty" is not modified by the noun.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 01:46:31 AM

Quote from: docit just means that you have to do a lot more work to demonstrate convincingly that it does carry those connotations....

If it doesn't carry those connotations, then why is it used in contrast to that which perishes (John 6)?

This must be the John 6 passage you were talking about: (From CLNT)

26 Jesus answered them and said, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, You are seeking Me, not that you perceived signs, but that you ate of the bread and are satisfied.
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."

See, I don't read the contrast there in the emphasis you are placing on it. Jesus is talking about perishable physical food versus the spiritual food that "is remaining for life eonian". So the contrast is between what is perishable and what is spiritual, which remains for (unto) aionian life. What is being contrasted is the natural and spiritual food (perishable and imperishable), not the life aionian itself. Apples and Oranges, Gabe.

I didn't see your other post before I wrote this one, but there's the answer to your question.  :thumbsup:

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 10:20:46 PM

Quote from: RonAs for your point about timelessness, I can see where if timelessness is something that by its nature, transcends time, yet, being a part of it, then yes, I can agree with that.

For Plato, time, like all things having to do with the created world, has its ontological basis in the eternal Forms.  So yes, his notion of eternity/eternal (aion/aionios) was that while it transcends time, it is also immanent in time just as the idea of "the good" is immanent in all things good.  I think this idea is retained in he NT, in that "aeonian life" refers to the eternal life of God as experienced in the world of time.  Hence, the literal meaning of "age"  is conveyed even though the connotations of eternity are still present.

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,

Quote from: TonyNo, I did not misunderstand.
Here is the exact quote you posted earlier. Note the bold below:

"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; Acts 6:13

No, Tony, these verses are cited in support of the idea that blaspheming God, not the gods, in in view.  You can figure that out.

Quote from: TonyNo, Bob, you are just playing word games now.
Why look at a grammar? Because grammar gives us rules to live by. Of course grammar rules are always being broken in our English language but that doesn't make it right.

Lofty mountains
Lofty ideals
Lofty looks

In each case above the adjective "lofty" is not modified by the noun.

Tony, lofty can mean "pompous" and lofty can mean "tall".  Tall does not mean "pompous" and pompous does not mean "tall".  Do you understand that, Tony?  Don't be afraid to ask questions if you don't.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 02:16:12 AM
Doc,

Are you not convinced that aionios is used as a contrast to perishable things in say, John 6:27?  If not, why not?  Let's chat.

In case you didn't see it, I answered your question here in my last post.

Tony,

Colossians 2:8 does not say that philosophy is inherently bad, or that all philosophy is vain deceit. Paul is rather emploring his listeners and readers not to be spoiled by ungodly philosophy.  He is not saying that all philosophy is ungodly.

similarly, doctrine in itself is not bad, although peoplecan be spoiled by doctrine, i.e. bad doctrine.

Get it?

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 02:34:06 AM
Tony,

Colossians 2:8 does not say that philosophy is inherently bad, or that all philosophy is vain deceit. Paul is rather emploring his listeners and readers not to be spoiled by ungodly philosophy.  He is not saying that all philosophy is ungodly.

similarly, doctrine in itself is not bad, although peoplecan be spoiled by doctrine, i.e. bad doctrine.

Get it?

Wrong. The philosophy known to the Greeks and Paul's listeners was that of the Greeks such as Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy. Paul was telling them beware that the believers would be despoiled by philosophy. They knew what he was talking about. The philosophy of their day and the philosophers you are citing to try to make the Bible better understood is part of the despoiling of the true faith.

Doc,

I did miss your post.  Thanks for pointing that out.

QuoteSee, I don't read the contrast there in the emphasis you are placing on it. Jesus is talking about perishable physical food versus the spiritual food that "is remaining for life eonian". So the contrast is between what is perishable and what is spiritual, which remains for (unto) aionian life. What is being contrasted is the natural and spiritual food (perishable and imperishable), not the life aionian itself.

Let's see if we can get to the bottom of our different readings. In John 6:27 and 51, aion/aionios is contrasted with "perish" and is equated with the notion of immortal life.  Do you agree to this, or is this where we begin to diverge?

Quote from: TonyWrong. The philosophy known to the Greeks and Paul's listeners was that of the Greeks such as Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy. Paul was telling them beware that the believers would be despoiled by philosophy. They knew what he was talking about. The philosophy of their day and the philosophers you are citing to try to make the Bible better understood is part of the despoiling of the true faith.

If youare suggesting that Paul regarded ancient Greek philosophy as utterly wrong, then I'd like to see some evidence for your claim.

I'd also like to see you start addressing more my points. Haven't I addressed all of yours, irrespective of whether you agree with me or not?

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 02:30:59 AM

Quote from: TonyNo, Bob, you are just playing word games now.
Why look at a grammar? Because grammar gives us rules to live by. Of course grammar rules are always being broken in our English language but that doesn't make it right.

Lofty mountains
Lofty ideals
Lofty looks

In each case above the adjective "lofty" is not modified by the noun.

Tony, lofty can mean "pompous" and lofty can mean "tall".  Tall does not mean "pompous" and pompous does not mean "tall".  Do you understand that, Tony?  Don't be afraid to ask questions if you don't.

Give an example of lofty meaning pompous.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 02:41:39 AM
Doc,

I did miss your post.  Thanks for pointing that out.

QuoteSee, I don't read the contrast there in the emphasis you are placing on it. Jesus is talking about perishable physical food versus the spiritual food that "is remaining for life eonian". So the contrast is between what is perishable and what is spiritual, which remains for (unto) aionian life. What is being contrasted is the natural and spiritual food (perishable and imperishable), not the life aionian itself.

Let's see if we can get to the bottom of our different readings. In John 6:27 and 51, aion/aionios is contrasted with "perish" and is equated with the notion of immortal life.  Do you agree to this, or is this where we begin to diverge?

Hmm. No, I guess that would be where we begin to diverge. To avoid repeating myself, just go ahead and go back to my previous post where I cut/ pasted the verse in question. I think if you read it again, you'll see that I don't think aion/aionios itself is what's being contrasted with perish/ perishable, but rather perishable food being contrasted with imperishable (spiritual) food. It's a bit confusing, because the way the sentence in John is structured, it's easy to drag the aionion into the comparison as what the perishable food is being compared to.

Another way to put it is: The word Aionian modifies life in that passage. What is being contrasted is the perishable physical food and the "imperishable" spiritual food that has application in the aionian life. The aionian life is not the point of comparison. I hope that helps you see where I see it differently.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 02:44:03 AM

Quote from: TonyWrong. The philosophy known to the Greeks and Paul's listeners was that of the Greeks such as Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy. Paul was telling them beware that the believers would be despoiled by philosophy. They knew what he was talking about. The philosophy of their day and the philosophers you are citing to try to make the Bible better understood is part of the despoiling of the true faith.

If youare suggesting that Paul regarded ancient Greek philosophy as utterly wrong, then I'd like to see some evidence for your claim.

I'd also like to see you start addressing more my points. Haven't I addressed all of yours, irrespective of whether you agree with me or not?

I just did show philosophy is just plain bad. The philosophers of Paul's day were those of Plato and Aristotle, Epicurean and Stoci philosophers as well. It was also knows as "the wisdom of this world."

1Co 1:18-25  For the word of the cross is stupidity, indeed, to those who are perishing, yet to us who are being saved it is the power of God."  (19)  For it is written, I shall be destroying the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the intelligent shall I be repudiating."  (20)  Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the discusser of this eon? Does not God make stupid the wisdom of this world?  (21)  For since, in fact, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom knew not God, God delights, through the stupidity of the heralding, to save those who are believing,  (22)  since, in fact, Jews signs are requesting, and Greeks wisdom are seeking,  (23)  yet we are heralding Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a snare, yet to the nations stupidity,  (24)  yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God,  (25)  for the stupidity of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

I have been addressing your points.

Tony, are you serious?  Have you resorted to arguing with English dictionaries in order to defend your paradigm?  You poor thing...



Main Entry: lofty
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: arrogant, high and mighty
Synonyms: ambitious, cavalier, condescending, disdainful, grandiose, haughty, high-minded, immodest, insolent, overbearing, patronizing, pretentious, proud, snooty, supercilious

Gabe, I'm serious.

You told me to ask if I had any questions. Now answer the question.

Give an example of lofty meaning pompous.

Gabe, the answer to your second question is in a post above. I think our conversation is getting lost in the back and forth between you and Tony.   :laughing7:

Quote from: TonyI just did show philosophy is just plain bad. The philosophers of Paul's day were those of Plato and Aristotle, Epicurean and Stoci philosophers as well. It was also knows as "the wisdom of this world."

You showed no such thing. I can think of a number of ancient Greek ideas which harmonize with NT teaching. I already cited John's use of logos as an example.  Like I said, Christian theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries.  Is this news to you, Tony?

QuoteI have been addressing your points.

Did you miss posts 243 and 246?

Quote
Give an example of lofty meaning pompous.

Here is an example from an English translation of Isaiah 2:11.   I used  Douay-Rheims Bible, since you appealed to it earlier.

"The lofty eyes of man are humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be made to stoop: and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day."

Quote from: doc26 Jesus answered them and said, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, You are seeking Me, not that you perceived signs, but that you ate of the bread and are satisfied.
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."

See, I don't read the contrast there in the emphasis you are placing on it. Jesus is talking about perishable physical food versus the spiritual food that "is remaining for life eonian". So the contrast is between what is perishable and what is spiritual, which remains for (unto) aionian life. What is being contrasted is the natural and spiritual food (perishable and imperishable), not the life aionian itself.

Doc, what do you make of this?

Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 03:30:40 AM

Quote from: doc26 Jesus answered them and said, "Verily, verily, I am saying to you, You are seeking Me, not that you perceived signs, but that you ate of the bread and are satisfied.
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."

See, I don't read the contrast there in the emphasis you are placing on it. Jesus is talking about perishable physical food versus the spiritual food that "is remaining for life eonian". So the contrast is between what is perishable and what is spiritual, which remains for (unto) aionian life. What is being contrasted is the natural and spiritual food (perishable and imperishable), not the life aionian itself.

Doc, what do you make of this?

Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die

There is no reference in that verse to aionian anything, which is the point of contention, so I don't see it as directly relevant to our discussion of the John 6:27 comparison.  :2c:

Look at the next verse, doc.   :happygrin:

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 03:15:55 AM

Quote from: TonyI just did show philosophy is just plain bad. The philosophers of Paul's day were those of Plato and Aristotle, Epicurean and Stoci philosophers as well. It was also knows as "the wisdom of this world."

QuoteYou showed no such thing. I can think of a number of ancient Greek ideas which harmonize with NT teaching. I already cited John's use of logos as an example.  Like I said, Christian theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries.  Is this news to you, Tony?

John did not get the truth of the Logos from the philosophers. So Christians theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries. There are glimmers of truth in Satanism and witchcraft too I bet. In the Scritpures Satan uses glimmers of truth. And just because theologians through the centuries have seen glimmers of truth in the philosophers does not mean they are right to go to them for glimmers of truth. Their wisdom is the wisdom God has set aside. Do you understand this? If God set it aside and made it look stupid then we should have nothing to do with it as well.

QuoteI have been addressing your points.

Did you miss posts 243 and 246?

Quote
Give an example of lofty meaning pompous.

Here is an example from an English translation of Isaiah 2:11.   I used  Douay-Rheims Bible, since you appealed to it earlier.

"The lofty eyes of man are humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be made to stoop: and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day."
[/quote]

"eyes" does not modify "lofty." "lofty" modifies "eyes." Also, "lofty" in that verse does not change its meaning to "pompous."

Gabe, you told me to answer your question to posts 243 and 246. Here is 243:

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 01:14:42 AM

Quote from: tonyGabe, you started this thread with this in italic:

"For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, aeonian in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1

Here aionios is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption.

You are making the noun modify aionion/eonian. So in fact you are advocating that eonian can be modified by its context which is being modified by the noun it is supposed to be modifying. This is elementary stuff, Gabe.

Nouns don't modify context.  Nouns may help to determine context, however.  For instance, if I say "HIV infects a large number of gay males," I am clearly using the term "gay" as a synonym of "homosexual".  If, however, I say "Tony N. is a gay and cheerful man," I am using the term "gay" as a synonym of "happy"....unless there is something I don't know about Tony N.  :laughing7:

I see no question to answer. But I'll make a statement about your sad humor. The two "gays" in your example above are not opposite in meaning. Gay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.
Eonian cannot mean eternal in one verse and pertaining to what is not eternal in another verse.
Context does not modify the meaning of eonian. In the New Testament context does not alter the meaning of eon either.

Furthermore, this is not about a word having different meanings. The point is this: Does aionion/eonian have two opposite meanings in the Bible.

I'm not homosexual, Gabe. Now you know, quit with the stupid stuff.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 03:40:28 AM
Look at the next verse, doc.   :happygrin:

Oh, Ok. Would've been easier if you had just posted the next verse, since you were trying to make a point involving it:

50 This is the Bread which is descending out of heaven that anyone may be eating of it and may not be dying.
51 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."

The verses are saying that those eating of the bread descending out of heaven "may not be dying", and shall "be living for the eon", but I am not seeing how that is really relevant to our discussion of contrasting things perishable and imperishable from v. 27 .

"Living for the eon" here is the result of eating of Christ. Aionian life however, is something more than simply 'living for the eon'. Notice the verse doesn't say, "If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall have aionian life." which seems to be a different concept. Aionian life has qualities that transcend time. Living for the eon denotes simply 'living for the age'.

:dontknow:

Quote from: Tony"eyes" does not modify "lofty." "lofty" modifies "eyes." Also, "lofty" in that verse does not change its meaning to "pompous."

What do you think lofty means here, if not arrogant, proud, conceited, etc. etc. ?

I never said that the noun acts as modifier of the adjective.  I made this clear already.  What I have argued is that if an adjective (or any word) has more than one meaning, then we have to let the context determine the meaning. Why are you having so much trouble grasping this most basic of concepts?

QuoteSo Christians theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries.

Ok, so then will you retract your earlier comment about ancient Greek philosophy being entirely bad? Besides, what are you trying to get at with this?

QuoteAnd just because theologians through the centuries have seen glimmers of truth in the philosophers does not mean they are right to go to them for glimmers of truth. Their wisdom is the wisdom God has set aside. Do you understand this? If God set it aside and made it look stupid then we should have nothing to do with it as well.

Truth is truth, dude, no matter who tells it.  The bible nowhere categorically condemns philosophy.  Or do you have some strange definition of "philosophy" that you'd like to share?

But maybe we can get back on topic here....

QuoteI see no question to answer. But I'll make a statement about your sad humor. The two "gays" in your example above are not opposite in meaning. Gay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.

I wasn't using gay as an example of a word with oppositemeanings.  Again, pay attention, Tony.  I used it as an example of how context determines which meaning of a word is in view. Simple stuff.  Ya dig?

And here is post 246 Gabe said I didn't answer so I'm answering it. I've bolded my replies so Gabe will quit saying I never answer his questions.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 01:44:52 AM

Quote from: tonyGabe, it is a fact that elohim can be gods.

Yes, I'm aware of that, Tony.  Thanks.

QuoteFurthermore 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.

You misunderstood. The TKS did not site those verses as examples where a word can carry opposite meanings.

Quote
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."

Gabe replied: Tony, where are false gods mentioned in this context?  Elohim should have its usual meaning here.

Tony's reply: I thought I made it quite clear after quoting Clark's commentary and the Hebrew meaning of elohim. If the two worthless men heard Naboth blessing Elohim and Moloch (the false sun king god) then he is worthy of the death penalty.
If the two worthless men heard Naboth blessing **elohim** and Moloch then he is worthy of the death penalty. Either way he is worthy of the death penalty. He is not worthy of the death penalty for blessing God.

QuoteTony wrote: The Bible is so against philosophy....

Gabe replied: I wonder what definition of "philosophy" you have in mind.  Philosophy in itself is not bad, or to be avoided, Tonester.  Indeed, Paul himself was a philosopher.

Tony's reply:
No, Paul was not a philosopher. That is patently wrong. How many different definitions of philosophy are there?

Quote.... that by you saying that Plato influenced God's inspired word is so pathetic I hardly have words for your deception.

Ok, Tony.

Quote
The New Testament is a revelation from God, not Plato.

QuoteDid I say that the NT is a revelation from Plato? No, I didn't.  I merely acknowledged a fact that has been acknowledge for centuries, namely that Plato's philosophy (and that of other ancient Greek philosophers') had an influence on NT thought.  For instance, John's treatment of the Logos is decidedly Greek, as anyone familiar with ancient Greek philosophy will tell you. If this is news to you, then you ought to get out more.

Wrong! John was not influenced to write his gospel due to reading Plato and other philosophers. I think you need to stay in more.

QuoteTony wrote: 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.

[/quote]

QuoteGabe replied: The "wisdom of the world" does not refer to philosophy in general, or science in general.   You include all of Plato and Aritotle's philosophy in the category of the world's widsom, yet Christians throughout the ages have seen in them gems of God's wisdom.  

Tony's reply:
And they were wrong to do so. The wisdom of the word does indeed refer to the philosophers of the world. It does indeed include Plato and Aristotle's philosophies.


Gabe, why don't you just take the next step and say Satanists influenced the Bible?[/quote]

QuoteTony, remember what I told you about people taking you seriously?

Gabe, do you think that I care what your opinion of me is?

QuoteBesides, Plato never used aion nor aionion for eternal.

Tony, you know you don't want to go there.  You refuse to address my points on this issue.  Let's see how well you can dance.

Translators mistranslated Plato's usage of aionios as "eternal." But Plato never spoke English and never used the word "eternal." It is impossible for him to have used aion and aionion as eternal because he used it in reference to Xronos (Time) not eternity.

Gabe wrote: In Timaeus 37d, Plato contrast time (chronos), which moves according to number, with aion/aionios, whch rests in unity. Do you acknowledge this? Do you acknowledge that this same thought was expressed by Philo (the Platonist) when he wrote in De Mundo 7, "but in eternity (aion) nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only" ?  Don't evade this any more, Tony.

Tony's reply: Just goes to show what you know of Timaeus. Plato was not contrasting time with aion/aionion but was showing their likeness you nitwit. Learn to read the philosophy Paul told us to avoid.

QuoteAgain, the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived. I didn't make that rule up Gabe.

QuoteAgain, this rule is broken routinely.  Gorgeous was derived from its nounal root, gorge ("throat").  Gorgeous does not mean "pertaining to the throat".  Sure, gorgeous now pertains to gorgeousness, but this is entirely irrelevant due to the fact that gorgeous is not derived from gorgeousness (in fact, its the other way around). Tony, do you get your kicks by making ridiculous assertions and then watching others invest time and energy refuting them?

Tony's reply:
That rule is never broken in the Bible. Maybe in your alice in wonderland world but not the bible.

Quote from: docThe verses are saying that those eating of the bread descending out of heaven "may not be dying", and shall "be living for the eon", but I am not seeing how that is really relevant to our discussion of contrasting things perishable and imperishable from v. 27 .

The relevance? "Perishable" describes earthly food and life whereas "imperishable" describes heavenly food and life.

Quote

"Living for the eon" here is the result of eating of Christ. Aionian life however, is something more than simply 'living for the eon'. Notice the verse doesn't say, "If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall have aionian life." which seems to be a different concept. Aionian life has qualities that transcend time. Living for the eon denotes simply 'living for the age'.

Well we agree on one important thing, namely that aionian life has qualities that transcend time.  But if I understand you, you are saying that aion/aionios does not itself carry the connotations of temporal-transcendence?

 

Quote from: TonyJust goes to show what you know of Timaeus. Plato was not contrasting time with aion/aionion but was showing their likeness you nitwit. Learn to read the philosophy Paul told us to avoid.

Are you feeling cranky, Tony boy?  We'll chat tommorrow/

A pompous proclamation, ostentatiously lofty ...

"Wherever you are, death will overtake you, although you be in lofty towers; puffed up with vanity."

There is a generation, O how full of pride are their eyes! O how their brows are lifted up!

Like lofty mountains or an eminent peak, these towers are hollowness; all is vanity.  :popout:

peacemaker

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 28, 2009, 10:23:46 PM
It is certainly true that aionios is used in the Bible in reference to the Divine, which is described as invisible, intanible, incorporeal, permament, etc.

God is invisible and visible.  "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."  I see Him in various ways.  From clouds, not of smoke, but glory of His presence to in and through a stranger at the market that, after a few words, begins to dance with me because we see Him; it's not like that song "We Shall Behold Him."  What are you beholding now!?

God is intangible and felt.  I feel Him in various ways.  His anointing is sometimes like electric rain upon my body, seen and felt.  There is a tangible peace.  He sometimes feels like warm oil in healings.

He is said to be incorporeal; but, He also has embodiment, both of spirit substance and physically.  "Sacrifice and approach present Thou dost not will, Yet a body dost Thou adapt to Me." (Hb 10:5)

God is permanent; yet, what we call the gifts of the Holy Spirit are temporary.  God truly heals; but, one day there will be nothing to get sick, so nothing more to heal. 

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 12:52:37 AM
Indeed, the contrast is between the physical and the spiritual, and we are told that the physical perishes as opposed to the spiritual which does not perish.

Spirit can perish.  When we were dead in our tresspasses and sins what was dead?  Never the less, spirit is more durable than anything in the present physical dimension except for the resurrection body.

Quote from: reFORMer on January 29, 2009, 08:33:23 AM

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 12:52:37 AM
Indeed, the contrast is between the physical and the spiritual, and we are told that the physical perishes as opposed to the spiritual which does not perish.

Spirit can perish.  When we were dead in our tresspasses and sins what was dead?  Never the less, spirit is more durable than anything in the present physical dimension except for the resurrection body.

Yes, it happened to Adam.

10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

--Gen 3


Faith without works is dead.  Therefore, ..


... be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. [Jam1:22]

Gabe quoted only part of what I wrote here:
"So Christians theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries."

Then he has the audacity to ask me this:
Ok, so then will you retract your earlier comment about ancient Greek philosophy being entirely bad? Besides, what are you trying to get at with this?


Here is what I actually wrote:

"John did not get the truth of the Logos from the philosophers. So Christians theologians have seen glimmers of truth in Greek philosophy for centuries. There are glimmers of truth in Satanism and witchcraft too I bet. In the Scritpures Satan uses glimmers of truth. And just because theologians through the centuries have seen glimmers of truth in the philosophers does not mean they are right to go to them for glimmers of truth. Their wisdom is the wisdom God has set aside. Do you understand this? If God set it aside and made it look stupid then we should have nothing to do with it as well."

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the discusser of this eon? Does not God make stupid the wisdom of this world?

The wisdom of the Greeks is the wisdom God made stupid.

Gabe, do you honestly believe that is right to just partially quote me like you did above?

Also, Gabe, no one said words don't have different meanings. They do. But in the New Testament aion/eon does not have different meanings and neither does aionios/eonian.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 04:46:19 AM

Quote from: TonyJust goes to show what you know of Timaeus. Plato was not contrasting time with aion/aionion but was showing their likeness you nitwit. Learn to read the philosophy Paul told us to avoid.

Are you feeling cranky, Tony boy?  We'll chat tommorrow/

What does "feeling cranky" have to do with anything? Please quit deflecting the issue from you to me.
The fact is that Plato was saying that in his Xronos (Time) section of Timeaus that time, the planets etc. are a moving image of the eons and what is eonian. They are not contrasted.
And don't call me Tony boy. I'm not your boy and don't even know you.

Quote from: Tony boyWhat does "feeling cranky" have to do with anything?

You called me a nitwit, which indicated to me that you were in a bad mood.  I hope you are feeling better today.

QuotePlato was not contrasting time with aion/aionion but was showing their likeness you nitwit.

He was both contrasting and comparing time and aion/aionios, Tony boy.  Time moves according to number whereas aion/aionios rests in unity.  Plato explains that time consists in movement from one moment to the next, whereas aion/aionios transcends the passing of time: "They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidion/imperceptible) essence."  I just had my nephew, who is in 5th grade, read 37d and 37e.  He had no trouble comprehending what is plainly written.  Why are you having such a difficult time with this, Tony boy?

As for the aside we've been having concerning "philosophy", why don't we save that for another thread. Let's try to stick to discussing aion/aionios in this thread.

Quote from: TonyGay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.

So gay only means "happy", Tony boy?  Gay doesn't also mean "homosexual"?

Quote from: TonyI thought I made it quite clear after quoting Clark's commentary and the Hebrew meaning of elohim. If the two worthless men heard Naboth blessing Elohim and Moloch (the false sun king god) then he is worthy of the death penalty.
If the two worthless men heard Naboth blessing **elohim** and Moloch then he is worthy of the death penalty. Either way he is worthy of the death penalty. He is not worthy of the death penalty for blessing God.

There is nothing in the context to indicate that elohim here has its more unusual meaning of "gods", Tony boy. 

So, about "lofty".....  if it does not mean "arrogant/conceited/pompous/proud in Isaiah 2:11, then what does it mean?

Quotethe adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived.

Any online references to this specific grammar rule?

 n - Super   adj - Superior

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 06:11:12 PM

Quote from: TonyGay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.

So gay only means "happy", Tony boy?  Gay doesn't also mean "homosexual"?

Gabe, did I say Gay does not have different meanings? Did I not say words often have more than one meaning?
Didn't I say aion and aionion have only one meaning in the New Testament? Yes, I did.

As to "lofty" the noun does not modify lofty. Lofty modifies the noun.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 29, 2009, 06:46:04 PM

Quotethe adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived.

Any online references to this specific grammar rule?

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ303975&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ303975 (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ303975&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ303975)

Am I looking at the wrong spot in that page?   I see  An Adjective Modifies a Noun.


I do not see the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived   


Superior

Origin:
1350–1400; ME (adj.) < L, equiv. to super(us) situated above (adj. deriv. of super; see super- ) + -ior comp. suffix; see -er 4

Quote from: TonyGabe, did I say Gay does not have different meanings? Did I not say words often have more than one meaning?
Didn't I say aion and aionion have only one meaning in the New Testament? Yes, I did.

As to "lofty" the noun does not modify lofty. Lofty modifies the noun.

Tony, how many times must I tell you that I'm not arguing that the noun modifies the adjective?  Again, what I am arguing is that the context determines which meaning of a word is n view.  You would have us believe that aion/aionios does not carry the meaning of eternity/eternal, but this is a mere assertion on your part.  I have demonstrated that aionios, from its inception, carried the meaning of eternity, and I have shown where it must carry this meaning in the NT where it is contrasted with that which perishes.

And if you're not arguing that "gay" does not also mean "homosexual", then why did you bother writing this silly bit:

Quote from: Tony boyGay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 07:16:53 PM

Quote from: TonyGabe, did I say Gay does not have different meanings? Did I not say words often have more than one meaning?
Didn't I say aion and aionion have only one meaning in the New Testament? Yes, I did.

As to "lofty" the noun does not modify lofty. Lofty modifies the noun.

Tony, how many times must I tell you that I'm not arguing that the noun modifies the adjective?  Again, what I am arguing is that the context determines which meaning of a word is n view.  You would have us believe that aion/aionios does not carry the meaning of eternity/eternal, but this is a mere assertion on your part.  I have demonstrated that aionios, from its inception, carried the meaning of eternity, and I have shown where it must carry this meaning in the NT where it is contrasted with that which perishes.

And if you're not arguing that "gay" does not also mean "homosexual", then why did you bother writing this silly bit:

Quote from: Tony boyGay people are happy about being homosexual and gay people are just, well, gay.

If you demonstrated that aionios from its inception carried the meaning of eternity why do I disagree with you. Obviously you have deceived yourself because you have demonstrated no such thing. It is impossible for aionios to be greater than its noun form. Plato never used aionios as "eternal." Just because some nit wit mistranslated Plato's use of aion and aionios as eternal does not mean Plato used it to mean eternal.

As to the gay bit, I already told you I believe that words have more than one meaning but that aion/aionion in the NT do not have more than one meaning. So why continue it on? Gay homo's are happy about being homo and gay straight people are happy being straight. And gay can mean homo and gay can mean happy. So what's the problem? Gheesh!

what to you all think of this statement from German universalist Stroeter, i think it has a deep logic, cause only God himself is the real Eternal One

All adjectives that refer to God and His life get their true meaning from there, but not the way round. Wherever the word translated "eternal" (Greek: aionios, eonian or age-lasting), refers to creature, men or mere human conditions or circumstances it never has the meaning of infinity cause nothing creatural can be thought of beeing infinite, unless it partook in the divine nature of divine life and entity.

Quote from: sven on January 29, 2009, 08:05:28 PM
what to you all think of this statement from German universalist Stroeter, i think it has a deep logic, cause only God himself is the real Eternal One

All adjectives that refer to God and His life get their true meaning from there, but not the way round. Wherever the word translated "eternal" (Greek: aionios, eonian or age-lasting), refers to creature, men or mere human conditions or circumstances it never has the meaning of infinity cause nothing creatural can be thought of beeing infinite, unless it partook in the divine nature of divine life and entity.

Sven that is what we have been arguing about. This thread started with this:

The late and great Greek scholar and Universalist, William Barclay, understood aionios to be the word of eternity in the sense of timelessness. Wrote Barclay, in his New Testament Words:

"The essence of the word aionios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God. Aionios is the word which describes nothing less and nothing more than the life of God."

It is incorrect. Nouns do not modify the adjectives. The duty of the adjective is to modify the noun. Aionion/Eonian just means "pertaining to the aion(as) eon(s).

"God" in "eonian God" (Rom.16:26) does not modify "eonian." Eonian modifies God. It tells us of a God pertaining to the eons. When the eons end, and they will, God will no longer be the eonian God for He will no longer have eons to be God over. He will be "God" when that happens.

Likewise "life" in "eonian life" (Matt.25:46) and "chastening" in "eonian chastening" does not modify "eonian." Rather, eonian modifies both the life and the chastening. Some will argue that in this case the chastening and the life when connected with eonian does not take on a durative aspect but a spiritual or a kind of chastening, life aspect. But this is just done because they fear if eonian is eternal they will be in hot water as to UR being correct or not.

But it is the life and the chastening pertaining to that eon.

Quote from: sven on January 29, 2009, 08:05:28 PM
what to you all think of this statement from German universalist Stroeter, i think it has a deep logic, cause only God himself is the real Eternal One

All adjectives that refer to God and His life get their true meaning from there, but not the way round. Wherever the word translated "eternal" (Greek: aionios, eonian or age-lasting), refers to creature, men or mere human conditions or circumstances it never has the meaning of infinity cause nothing creatural can be thought of beeing infinite, unless it partook in the divine nature of divine life and entity.

God is the God of ages,  God does not change,  he is infinite and the God of the ages at the same time. Whether the ages end for ever or not is beside the point.   How does it change the fact that he is both NOW? 

According to some of the assertions in this thread he is either the infinite God or a God who's description is dependant upon circumstance. 

If God is infinite and never changing then we have to consider the meaning behind God being ALL in ALL.  If God is not ALL in ALL now then is God incomplete?   If God is not ALL in ALL now then does that mean when God is ALL in ALL then the unchanging God then changes?

Is God being ALL in ALL a statement to US and our destiny?   

I do not see the bible prohibiting God from creating a new batch of creatures at any time he chooses.   

God will ALWAYS be the God of AGES and infinite at the same time. 

Paul, the term "infinite God" is not in the Bible. "infinite" is an unsound word.

If I am manager of the car lot and the car lot ceases to exist am I still manager of the car lot?
Likewise God is the God pertaining to the ages or eons. When the eons cease to exist (they can't be eternal) then God will cease being the eonian God. He will then become God All in all.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 04:42:44 AM

Quote from: docThe verses are saying that those eating of the bread descending out of heaven "may not be dying", and shall "be living for the eon", but I am not seeing how that is really relevant to our discussion of contrasting things perishable and imperishable from v. 27 .

The relevance? "Perishable" describes earthly food and life whereas "imperishable" describes heavenly food and life.

Quote

"Living for the eon" here is the result of eating of Christ. Aionian life however, is something more than simply 'living for the eon'. Notice the verse doesn't say, "If anyone should be eating of this Bread, he shall have aionian life." which seems to be a different concept. Aionian life has qualities that transcend time. Living for the eon denotes simply 'living for the age'.

Well we agree on one important thing, namely that aionian life has qualities that transcend time.  But if I understand you, you are saying that aion/aionios does not itself carry the connotations of temporal-transcendence?

Yes, I guess I'd say that my understanding is that aion/ aionios doesn't necessarily carry the connotations of temporal transcendence, particularly aion.

Quote from: Tony N on January 29, 2009, 10:21:25 PM
Paul, the term "infinite God" is not in the Bible. "infinite" is an unsound word.

If I am manager of the car lot and the car lot ceases to exist am I still manager of the car lot?
Likewise God is the God pertaining to the ages or eons. When the eons cease to exist (they can't be eternal) then God will cease being the eonian God. He will then become God All in all.

Hi Tony,

Your example is inadequate.   God is the creator of what ages of time are and he will rule over any age of time that exists.

God will always be the God of Ages.

Quote from: Apocatastasis on January 29, 2009, 04:42:44 AM

Quote from: docThe verses are saying that those eating of the bread descending out of heaven "may not be dying", and shall "be living for the eon", but I am not seeing how that is really relevant to our discussion of contrasting things perishable and imperishable from v. 27 .

The relevance? "Perishable" describes earthly food and life whereas "imperishable" describes heavenly food and life.

Quote

Whoops, forgot this part.

Perishable is referring to earthly food specifically in v. 27, whereas imperishable in that passage is referring specifically to imperishable "food" (spiritual food). But it does not directly contrast perishable food with "imperishable" life. Remember that imperishable is a different word than aionion. Aionion life is mentioned in the passage, but again, the things being compared are natural and spiritual food. It's a subtle distinction perhaps, but an important one.

I gotta tell ya . . .I've been reading all the responses and posts on this thread and in the end . . .it's pretty much the opposite than what the title is insinuating for me.  It's clear that you have strong points of view . . .but nobody is willing to be the first to let it go at this point.  I do find it intriguing that there can be such a contrast over one simple word and after all these posts and comments . . . it doesn't seem to be any further along than it was at the first post.

How is it that we can't seem to get past this?

What would satisfy you Nathan?

Hmm. I'm not sure why my last post is appearing that way, but my response is the paragraph at the bottom of the blue quote section. There is no "/quote" at the end of my reply, so I'm not sure why it's showing up in the blue quote box.  :dontknow:

Gabe believes:
that aion/ aionios carries the connotations of temporal transcendence


Tony's reply:
Why is it that these things are so:

American is a noun.
American is the adjective.
Obama is the American president. His presidency pertains to America. It is not America transcending.

Heaven is a noun.
Heavenly is the adjective.
The heavenly angel visited Mary. The angel's realm pertains to Heaven. It is not heaven transcending.

But all of a sudden you go against all logic and state:
Aion is a noun.
Aionion is the adjective.
"These shall be going away into aionion life." The life does not pertain to the eon, it transcends the eon.

Welcome to Wonderland where anything goes!

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 29, 2009, 10:37:36 PM

Quote from: Tony N on January 29, 2009, 10:21:25 PM
Paul, the term "infinite God" is not in the Bible. "infinite" is an unsound word.

If I am manager of the car lot and the car lot ceases to exist am I still manager of the car lot?
Likewise God is the God pertaining to the ages or eons. When the eons cease to exist (they can't be eternal) then God will cease being the eonian God. He will then become God All in all.

Hi Tony,

Your example is inadequate.   God is the creator of what ages of time are and he will rule over any age of time that exists.

God will always be the God of Ages.

Paul, you are correct that God will rule over any age of time that exists. I have no problem with that. But there will come a time when there are no longer any ages because the Bible says all the ages will end. So how can God be over what no longer exists?

Quote from: Tony N on January 29, 2009, 11:16:53 PM
Doc wrote:
Yes, I guess I'd say that my understanding is that aion/ aionios doesn't necessarily carry the connotations of temporal transcendence, particularly aion.


Tony's reply:
Why is it that these things are so:

American is a noun.
American is the adjective.
Obama is the American president. His presidency pertains to America. It is not America transcending.

Heaven is a noun.
Heavenly is the adjective.
The heavenly angel visited Mary. The angel's realm pertains to Heaven. It is not heaven transcending.

But all of a sudden you go against all logic and state:
Aion is a noun.
Aionion is the adjective.
"These shall be going away into aionion life." The life does not pertain to the eon, it transcends the eon.

Welcome to Wonderland where anything goes!

Er, I didn't think I was arguing with you Tony. Unless I misunderstood what I wrote there, which I suppose is possible...  :mblush:

Doc, sorry, re-read my post. I reworded the beginning.

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 29, 2009, 11:03:33 PM


What would satisfy you Nathan?

Hi Paul..

Tis a Striving over words while the bigger picture remains lost..ITs like the saducees and Pharisees....is there a Resurrection OR not?.. Both FAILING to see WHO is the Resurrection to begin WITH... :sigh:


Its Nothing personal Bro....Tis what I see in the striving....ONE WORD\s...yikes. :icon_flower

ya Carry on ya all.. :icon_flower:

Just my two pennies..cents count for nothing here..less of course you exchange em... :icon_flower:

Quote from: Taffy on January 29, 2009, 11:39:10 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 29, 2009, 11:03:33 PM


What would satisfy you Nathan?

Hi Paul..

Tis a Striving over words while the bigger picture remains lost..ITs like the saducees and Pharisees....is there a Resurrection OR not?.. Both FAILING to see WHO is the Resurrection to begin WITH... :sigh:


Its Nothing personal Bro....Tis what I see in the striving....ONE WORD\s...yikes. :icon_flower

ya Carry on ya all.. :icon_flower:

Just my two pennies..cents count for nothing here..less of course you exchange em... :icon_flower:

Taffy, I enjoy your sentiments. They are appropriate to what is going on. Yet . . . yea, you knew that was coming, didn't you? Yet what is really at stake here is, do we let the philosophers change our view of God and His goals or do we let the Scriptures shape our thinking?

Words are not unimportant. "Thy word have I hid in my heart."
And Paul spoke about approaching with sound words, you can tell who the conceited ones are, those of a decadent mind, deprived of the truth:

(1Ti 6:3)  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,
(1Ti 6:4)  he is conceited, versed in nothing, but morbid about questionings and controversies, out of which is coming envy, strife, calumnies, wicked suspicions,
(1Ti 6:5)  altercations of men of a decadent mind and deprived of the truth, inferring that devoutness is capital."


(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."

So it is important to establish these sound words such as aion and aionion.

Quote from: Tony N on January 30, 2009, 12:00:38 AM

Quote from: Taffy on January 29, 2009, 11:39:10 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 29, 2009, 11:03:33 PM


What would satisfy you Nathan?

Hi Paul..

Tis a Striving over words while the bigger picture remains lost..ITs like the saducees and Pharisees....is there a Resurrection OR not?.. Both FAILING to see WHO is the Resurrection to begin WITH... :sigh:


Its Nothing personal Bro....Tis what I see in the striving....ONE WORD\s...yikes. :icon_flower

ya Carry on ya all.. :icon_flower:

Just my two pennies..cents count for nothing here..less of course you exchange em... :icon_flower:

Taffy, I enjoy your sentiments. They are appropriate to what is going on. Yet . . . yea, you knew that was coming, didn't you? Yet what is really at stake here is, do we let the philosophers change our view of God and His goals or do we let the Scriptures shape our thinking?

Words are not unimportant. "Thy word have I hid in my heart."
And Paul spoke about approaching with sound words, you can tell who the conceited ones are, those of a decadent mind, deprived of the truth:

(1Ti 6:3)  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,
(1Ti 6:4)  he is conceited, versed in nothing, but morbid about questionings and controversies, out of which is coming envy, strife, calumnies, wicked suspicions,
(1Ti 6:5)  altercations of men of a decadent mind and deprived of the truth, inferring that devoutness is capital."


(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."

So it is important to establish these sound words such as aion and aionion.

Hey Bud .. :icon_flower:
ya carry on ya all!   :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower: :icon_flower:

A wholesome Tongue speaks wholesome word\s

Pro 15:4 A wholesome tongue [is] a tree of life: but perverseness therein [is] a breach in the spirit.

Pro 18:21 Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof. 

ya Have fun now T...Love ya bro :HeartThrob:

Quote from: Tony N on January 29, 2009, 11:20:26 PM

Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on January 29, 2009, 10:37:36 PM

Quote from: Tony N on January 29, 2009, 10:21:25 PM
Paul, the term "infinite God" is not in the Bible. "infinite" is an unsound word.

If I am manager of the car lot and the car lot ceases to exist am I still manager of the car lot?
Likewise God is the God pertaining to the ages or eons. When the eons cease to exist (they can't be eternal) then God will cease being the eonian God. He will then become God All in all.

Hi Tony,

Your example is inadequate.   God is the creator of what ages of time are and he will rule over any age of time that exists.

God will always be the God of Ages.

Paul, you are correct that God will rule over any age of time that exists. I have no problem with that. But there will come a time when there are no longer any ages because the Bible says all the ages will end. So how can God be over what no longer exists?

Your using words I do not use Tony.   I never said God can rule over something that no longer exists, whether or not that can be possible with God is not my point.   I am saying that God IS  the GOD OF AGES and always will be because He is the Creator of them.   

Paul, I can't seem to find that phrase "God of ages" in my bible. Can you give me the reference for that?

Let's think of this a minute.
Let's think of "God of ages" and an equivalent phrase "superintendent of schools."

This man is the superintendent of schools in our town.

Would he still be superintendent of schools if there were no schools to be superintendent over? if all the schools closed down and the town closed down and became a ghost town?

Quote from: Tony boyDidn't I say aion and aionion have only one meaning in the New Testament? Yes, I did.

Yes, you did, and it remains a mere assertion.  The only reasoning you have used to support this assertion has been debunked since the first page of this thread (gorgeous).

QuoteIf you demonstrated that aionios from its inception carried the meaning of eternity why do I disagree with you.

Because you won't let the facts get in your way.

Quote
It is impossible for aionios to be greater than its noun form.

1. The noun aion does refer to eternity at times (see John 6:27 where it is used to convey the idea of imperishability).
2. It is not impossible for an adjective to go beyond the meaning of its noun form. For instance, "hideous" derives from "hisda", meaning "fear".  However, when someone calls something hideous, they don't have in mind "pertaining to fear" as the meaning.

QuotePlato never used aionios as "eternal." Just because some nit wit mistranslated Plato's use of aion and aionios as eternal does not mean Plato used it to mean eternal.

No need to personally attack the vast majority of Classical Greek scholars, Tony boy.  I've been trying to get you to actually analyze and discuss Timeaus 37d-e, but you keep evading the issue.  Why is that?  Is it because you don't have a leg to stand on? 

Tony, what did Plato mean by this:

"...the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidion/imperceptible) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause."

Anyone else want to take a stab at it?

QuoteGay homo's are happy about being homo...

How would you know? :laughing7:

QuoteThe late and great Greek scholar and Universalist, William Barclay, understood aionios to be the word of eternity in the sense of timelessness. Wrote Barclay, in his New Testament Words:

"The essence of the word aionios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God. Aionios is the word which describes nothing less and nothing more than the life of God."

It is incorrect. Nouns do not modify the adjectives.

Barclay was not implying that nouns modify adjectives, you silly man.