Did the English Bible INVENT the phrase "forever and ever?"

[Paul]

I was just thinking, is the mistranslation the origin of that phrase?

[james.goetz]

There is no mistranslation, definite misinterpretation, but no mistranslation. For example, we should never insist upon a literal interpretation of apocalyptic symbols. And Jesus used hyperbole in various situations. Claiming mistranslation of "forever and ever" won't help many Bible believers see the Biblical truth that God never gives up on anybody in hell.

[Paul]

Huh?

[martincisneros]

Hi Paul,

I ran into that in an 18th Century book called "Calvinism Improved: Or the Gospel Illustrated As A System Of Real Grace Issuing In The Salvation Of All Men" by Joseph Huntington from 1796.  I understand it partially, but there wasn't really much explanation in the book either regarding that.  The emphasis does need to be on the specific promises of Scripture that talk about the Universal Restoration.  And then when the "yeah, but..." comes up, to me that's the time to get into the translational issue.  Joseph Huntington taught in his book almost a Calvinist version of the Universal Restoration, which I know has got to sound like a total contradiction at first.  He'd use the "smoke of their torment ascending before the Lord and His angels for ever and ever" to be something that would happen in heaven with momentary flashes of periodic grief that would occur from time to time as people would reflect upon their previous sins and the depth of the grace of God.  I've heard a similar argument used by Calvinists who believed in ET who believed that Christians in heaven would still eternally bare a certain level of grief over their former hardnesses of heart in those areas where it was hard.  So, if that was floating around back then, I guess it's easy to see how Joseph would have simply applied that to everyone since he believed that it was a part of the record that God had given of the testimony of His Son that His Son had victoriously taken away the sin of the world.  Basically where that concept comes from is passages in Ezekiel where people won't be able to open their mouths because of their shame because of the redemptive works of God in their behalf and how they treated Him the whole time He was acheiving these eternal victories for them.  That's the only specific Scripture that I've ever been able to tie that to.  There is a way of teaching the Universal Restoration where the "for ever and ever" never comes up.  But for me, it comes up with enough regularity that although it's possible to teach UR without going there, I still find myself having to stay fresh on the translational issues.  That book is where I got that phrase that I'll often use about "all of the promises of both destruction and restoration have to be fulfilled."

[james.goetz]

Paul, I'm sorry that you have no idea what I writing.: )

Let me try to put it another way. The correction translation of Revelation 19:3 may say "smoke from her goes up for ever and ever" while it's incorrect to teach that we must interpret this verse literally.

[joyful1]

James--
Here is an excerpt that may be helpful? I like your tenacity. I like it when a person is persistant in trying to truthfully put forth their ideas!
Joyce  :icon_flower:

http://bible-truths.com/hagee1.htm

First of all, the Greek in Rev. 11:15 is not "for ever and ever," but "aions of the aions." The Greek is not "and," it is "of." It's in the genitive. Check this out for yourself. "Of" contrasts one thing with another. It does not "add" one thing to another. ...

This alone proves that "aion" cannot be translated "eternal." There can be no plurality of eternity. Whatever "aion" means, it cannot mean "eternal."

"Eon" is the closest English equivalent to the Greek word "aion." Age is close, but has no adjective form, as eon does (eonian).

[joyful1]

Paul--
This excerpt, I believe, also jives, if you will, with Mr. Arnault's stand on this issue--correct me if I am wrong here.... I'm more familiar with this one, so I'll quote it:

http://bible-truths.com/bible.htm (*the 2 "additions" that he mentions are the KJ translators' additions of 2 scriptures and/or portions of those scriptures)...

"But these two "additions" to God's Word pale into little or no significance compared to the ONE GIANT INEXCUSABLE, "adding to" God's word wherein the Translators turn Greek "aions" (periods of time as short as a few years) into English "eternities." This one gross error has turned into the most devastating botch of translating in the history of the world. Which consequently brought about the most damnable heresy in the history of the world—"Eternal Punishment."

Early translations of the Greek Scriptures into English did not use the words "everlasting," "evermore," "for ever and ever" or "eternal" in their versions. Maybe the very oldest English related tongue was the Ancient Gothic Version by Wulfila, which was a language spoken about 350 AD, closely akin to the Old German and Old English spoken at that time. This version translated from the Greek, as well as later Old English versions between 680 and 995 translated from the Latin, did not use any words that meant "everlasting" or "eternal."

Wiclif' finished his translation in 1382. A hundred and fifty years later came Tyndale, then Coverdale (1535), Cranmer's (1539), the Genevan (1557), Rheims (1582), and finally The King James Authorized (1611). It was in these well-known English translations that the words "forever and ever" "everlasting" and "eternal" come before us."  

[Paul]

Paul--
This excerpt, I believe, also jives, if you will, with Mr. Arnault's stand on this issue--correct me if I am wrong here....

Oh yeah.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter10.html

[WhiteWings]

First of all, the Greek in Rev. 11:15 is not "for ever and ever," but "aions of the aions." The Greek is not "and," it is "of." It's in the genitive. Check this out for yourself. "Of" contrasts one thing with another. It does not "add" one thing to another. ...

This alone proves that "aion" cannot be translated "eternal." There can be no plurality of eternity. Whatever "aion" means, it cannot mean "eternal."

So it means age of ages.
Can we compare that to "king of kings" and "lord of lords"?
The king and lord are much bigger (in power) than the other kings and lords.
Does that also mean the age is the longest age ever? Or just that it is of most importance?

[Paul]

I was under the impression aion didn't have an English version. I was under the impression aion had a much more complex meaning.

[WhiteWings]

Hi Paul,

I'm sure you will get a lengthy answer from one of the in-house experts on greek.
Personally I think some things can't be translated 100% correctly. So you have to pick a word that is the most close an use it with slightly diffrent meaning as you would fdind in a modern dictionary.
And then just start to read the Bible and replace all the evers with ages. I'm still not 100% convinced but I have to admit it does fit perfectly in the verses. It also fits better in love and punishment message of the Bible. But that's just a feeling I have from the Bible. And it can't be really proved with verses.

[WhiteWings]

Paul this post by Craig helped me a lot. Maybe it's of some use for you too.

So does that same word equally apply (it's the same in the greek) to those going into "everlasting life"? Does that mean we only go into life for a while? or an age lasting?

Yes, but not how most people think and perhaps what you initially thought by asking this question.

Augustine, an early church theologian, demonstrates a stubborn common fallacy in which he compared an adjective to an adjective. In other words he saw this Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." and concluded that the we must compare the eternals, if eternal in eternal life is perpetual, then so to is the eternal in eternal punishment.  On the surface such bold conclusion does seem completely logically and sense, though it is actually a fallacy. The comparison of adjectives, does not make the adjectives equal.

EXAMPLE 1
If everyone was asked to perform objective A. Those who did not, will go away to a huge loss, those who did to a huge gain.

Is the measurement of the adjective "huge" equal? If the loss was a million dollars, but the gain was a billion dollars, would both the loss and the gain still not be huge?

Let us get even deeper.

EXAMPLE 2
We live in a big solar system in a big universe.

Is the measurement of the adjective "big" equal? Is the "big" in "big solar system" equal to the "big" in "big universe"? Both our solar system and the universe is big, but our solar system is not as big as our universe.

Therefore we recognize that is it not true, an adjective does not equally apply across the board to it's usage to another noun. It is in fact the combination of an adjective & noun which needs to be compared. This is called a 'noun phrase'.

Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Revisiting the examples:

EXAMPLE 1
If everyone was asked to perform objective A. Those who did not, will go away to a huge loss, those who did to a huge gain.

Compare the noun phrase "huge loss" and "huge gain" and find they are not equal.

EXAMPLE 2
We live in a big solar system in a big universe.

Compare the noun phrase "big solar system" and "big universe" and find they are not equal.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of the matter is the usage of the adjective "eternal" applies only the intrinsic nature of the noun it is describing otherwise known as a noun phrase and not to the "eternal" mentioned elsewhere. It is this concept which is applied to both words. Therefore eternal punishment is not equal to eternal life; the eternal sin is not equal to eternal kingdom; and so on.

Anyone who thinks differently is either deceived or purposely lying.

All this, and I haven't even touched definition of AIONIOS yet.

So speaking of definitions... Let us discuss them:


DEFINITIONS

What are AION and AIONIOS? In case you are not aware, these words are translated (sometimes erroneously) as forever, eternity, and eternal in Scripture.

Here are the definitions:

What is AION?
In Classical, Ancient, Higher and Lower forms of Greek have consistently defined AION as:
(A noun)
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity.
2) period of time, age.
3) the worlds*, universe.*
*This one is contested

Now remember these definition of AION to find out what the definition of AIONIOS is. The adjective AIONIOS is the adjective form of the noun AION. Just like the adjective 'heavenly' is the adjective form of the noun 'heaven' or the adjective 'cicular' is the adjective form of the noun 'circle'. That means knowing the definition of AION, we know the definition of AIONIOS.

AIONIOS
(Adjective)
1) of or in the AION.
2) of, belonging to, or coming from the AION.
3) resembling or befitting AION.

CONCLUSION

AION may or may not mean indefinite time even up to perpetually; or may or may not mean definitive time with absolute beginning and end.

AIONIOS may or may not describe a noun as of, in, belonging to, coming from, resembling or befitting an indefinite time even up to perpetually; or may or may not describe a noun as of, in, belonging to, coming from, resembling or befitting a definitive time with absolute beginning and end.


NOW THE TRANSLATION

Now we know the logic of an adjective, and now know the definition of the adjective, now we can know what exactly is being said in Matthew 25:46 and other places where AIONIOS has been used.

A famous French theologian, at the end of his life wrote: AIONIOS is "An indeterminate duration of which the maximum is fixed by the intrinsic nature of the persons or things. Or they last ever so long - so long as they last!"  -Pétavel-Olliff, Emmanuel, (1836-1910), The Problem of Immortality.

We must conclude that AIONIOS means simply that, the AIONIOS is an adjective which explains a duration or quality dependent upon the noun it describes. In order to find out the duration or the quality of the noun AIONIOS describes, we need to know definition of the noun.

Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

There are two nouns in this phrase with the adjective AIONIOS preceding them,  they are punishment and life. These words in Greek are, KOLASIS and ZOE.

KOLASIS

What is KOLASIS
(noun)
correction, punishment, penalty

This is the simple one. KOLASIS a punishment for the purpose of correction. It is quite literally a corrective punishment.

How long does it last? It lasts as long as it lasts, until the individual subjected to it, is now corrected. Once correction has been established then KOLASIS ends.

ZOE

What is ZOE
(a noun)
1) life
....a) the state of one who is possessed of vitality or is animate
....b) every living soul
2) life
....a) of the absolute fullness of life, both essential and ethical, which belongs to God, and through him both to the hypostatic "logos" and to Christ in whom the "logos" put on human nature.
....b) life real and genuine, a life active and vigorous, devoted to God, blessed, in the portion even in this world of those who put their trust in Christ, but after the resurrection to be consummated by new accessions (among them a more perfect body), and to last for ever.

Since there are other words used in Scripture to describe the state of one possessing vitality, that is called "BIOS" (good, life, living); and "PSUCHE" (breathe, life, vital force which animates the body of animals and men, living being, living soul, emotions) we must conclude that ZOE represents the second definition: The absolute fullness of life, life which is real and genuine with purpose. It is quite literally a life that belongs to God.

How long does that life last? It lasts as long as it lasts and if it is a life that belongs to God, it most certainly will exist far after we have expired and perished due to our mortality.

Craig Nolin
www.studentoftheword.com

[martincisneros]

For example, we should never insist upon a literal interpretation of apocalyptic symbols.

Was this ever a belief of the ancients?  It's an honest question 'cause I've never been able to find it.  I've always found among the Rabbis and Christian teachers of the early centuries an attempt at understanding the significance of each symbol.  But was there ever an attitude of "blow it off, it was merely the prophets being 'drama queens' about stuff!"?  Is there anything tying this belief to any age prior to the introduction of "Higher Criticism" type beliefs that grew from the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment?  Quite a few people at these boards have this belief, and I'm wondering if anyone's able to find it in antiquity.

[joyful1]

Hi Martin--
I hear you. And all I can say is that Jesus often used phrases such as:

"if anyone has ears to hear, let him hear..."

and

"if you can accept it, then such and such...etc."

He didn't answer every question put to Him and sometimes answered a question by ASKING a question. He spoke of secrets of the kingdom, hidden knowledge, hidden manna.

Why would the Father send the Holy Spirit/ Spirit of Truth to a believer to "show him things to come" if the man, could of his own self, understand plainly what was being said in Scripture by accepting the literal interpretation of it or the "most obvious" meanings to passages? God seems to want man to understand that "without Him" they can do nothing. IMO without the Spirit of Truth explaining the meaning to our hearts, our minds will never get understanding.
The whole of the Bible, to me, presents as a treasure to be found....but that we are assured that at some point, if we persist, with all our might...we WILL find!

[martincisneros]

He didn't answer every question put to Him and sometimes answered a question by ASKING a question.

:mshock: So, He's where I get that from! :Sparkletooth:

[Nathan]

Joyful1,
AMEN TO THAT!!!

I think the understanding comes through our maturity in relationship to the Father.  I see Peter as one of the first who experienced "seeing" something that had never been said.  When Jesus asked him "who do YOU say that I am"  With that question came the revelation through the Spirit into Peter.  Jesus "first" asked him "Who do MEN say that I am" and there were all kinds of opinions of what others thought and Jesus didn't ask Peter which of those opinions did he agree with . .he made it personal.  And to me, THAT is the difference between spiritually seeing and naturally reasoning out what you read.

The simplicity of the Gospel is that there is Christ and there is the corporate man.  Christ has redeemed the mind of the man, but man must lay it down in order to experience the fullness of the resurrection.

He that hath an ear . . . it's almost a code-word for "Hey, I'm not talking natural here".  

What you're also saying . .to me . .is that man can not live on bread alone . .but on every PROCEEDING word . .it's a word that "flows" and it's fresh.  It's not embracing a Word written 2000 years ago, but it's being able to see the spiritual application "in me" TODAY from what was written 2000 years ago.  To do that, you need to read the Word, but hold on to the literal meaning loosely.

The more I read what you all know about the origin of translations and such, the more I can see the importance of that statment . . .read the Word, but hold on the literal meaning loosely.

There are many interpretations, many opinions, but there is only "one" Truth.  And it doesn't come through opinion or interpretation, but it comes through revelation through relationship.  That's the beauty of seeing spiritual truth.  It doesn't really matter what the translation is, the spiritual picture is still able to come through because it is the Holy Spirit doing the revealing to our understanding, not the translations.

I've said it before, I'll say it again . .the Bible's most have in their homes is not the inspired Word of God . . .but rather, it's an INTERPREATION, a TRANSLATION of the inspired Word of God.  Only the Spirit can illuminate the meaning beneath the words written on the surface.  It's only through relationship that the illumination can come into us . . . not through gaining more knowledge, memorizing the verses, wearing out the sermon tapes . . . relationships . .not religion.  Thus saith a pastor. :happygrin:

[james.goetz]

For example, we should never insist upon a literal interpretation of apocalyptic symbols.

Was this ever a belief of the ancients?  It's an honest question 'cause I've never been able to find it.  I've always found among the Rabbis and Christian teachers of the early centuries an attempt at understanding the significance of each symbol.  But was there ever an attitude of "blow it off, it was merely the prophets being 'drama queens' about stuff!"?  Is there anything tying this belief to any age prior to the introduction of "Higher Criticism" type beliefs that grew from the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment?  Quite a few people at these boards have this belief, and I'm wondering if anyone's able to find it in antiquity.

Well, the Book of Revelation clearly describes nonliteral interpretations of some of its symbols, so I see a biblical precedent for not insisting upon a literal interpretation of apocalyptic symbols.

This question was never raised by the ancients. And I've never read about ancient insisting upon a literal interpretation of apocalyptic symbols. And many ancients went into what I believe was an excess by insisting on an allegorical interpretation for every scripture verse.

[Nathan]

Who's to make that distinction then?  Leave it up to man?  Which verse is to be literally applied and which verse is to be a metaphor?  Even though EVERYTHING Jesus said was allegorical.  Of course there are physical applications to everything, it's just not nearly as beneficial as the spiritual application, which means there is another meaning lying beneath.  The flesh profits very little . . . but the spirit gives life.

That's why so many churches are so adamant that "they" are right about their perceptions of the Bible . . . . they're all looking at it literally . . .with natural reasoning . .and because we all have different natural upbrinings, our natural reasoning reflects those differences and it affects our conclusions as well.  In one church, women are not allowed to talk.  The other churches scoff at the narrow-mindedness of that, but "those" same churches won't allow you to carry a Pastor's license if you've been divorced.

That becomes a very long and slippery road one gets on when attempting to decide what verse is literal and what verse is not.  The church becomes dependant once again on men to interpret the Bible for them, when it's the Spirit that is to do the revealing "within you" as an individual because your/my relationship with God is not according to a denomination, but it's according to me "personally".

For me, there is a literal understanding for everything written . .but the days of applying it literally went with the generation to who it was originally written to.

There is a moral understanding that can still be applied to all the generations following, including mine and the generations after me as well.  But the key is, the application of the moral value needs to be kept in the proper perspective.  It's for "me" to apply to "me".  It's not for me to guilt others to take action.  It's not for me to enforce on others.  And, it's not for me to use as a club or a badge to prove to others how wrong they are.  If everyone would simply apply the Word of God to themselves on their own level of maturity, on their own terms of relationship, there'd be no need for overseers to be doing that for them.

But the most important is the spiritual perspective . .and yes, that does mean it becomes metaphoric, but that's OK.  Jesus spent his entire ministry establishing the patterns ahead of us.  It's the spiritual meaning that is beneath the surface of the visible words being said that brings life to our spirit.  If my mind is not in a submissive state when knowledge is being received, the focus becomes all about me and my reputation instead of me being invisible and God manifesting his purpose on this earth "through" me.

Spiritual truth should always supercede natural reasoning, hands down.

[Tony N]

Dear WhiteWings,
I, um, LOL, don't mean to be a fly in the ointment but . . . I think both Craig and Augustine are incorrect. Please bear with me on this.

Augustine stated that since the life of the believer is eternal therefore the punishment of the unbeliever must be eternal as it relates to Matthew 25:46.

Now then Craig basically said Augustine was wrong (and he is, to a degree) but Craig's understanding is wrong as well. The adjective "aionion" of "aionion zoe" (eonian life) is not unending or longer due to it being the "life of God" as opposed to aionion kolasin (temporary chastening) since the chastening is not of a duration like God is. Craig's idea is just taking a stick in the mud puddle and stirring it up. There is no verse in the Bible where "aionion zoe" is "the life of God." It is a made up idea.

The setting of the judgment of Matthew 25:46 is verses 31-46. In it Christ physically comes back, and judges the nations as to how they treated His brethren during their tribulation. Augustine improperly treated vs. 46 as if it were believers vs. unbelievers. Augustine did get it right that the chastening is just as long as the life but not correct as to the duration thereof. The judgment precedes the 1000 year reign. The result of the judgment is pertaining to THAT eon and that eon only. Therefore, the aionion zoe and aionion kolasin is of equal duration . . . pertaining to the 1000 year eon.

Paul this post by Craig helped me a lot. Maybe it's of some use for you too.

So does that same word equally apply (it's the same in the greek) to those going into "everlasting life"? Does that mean we only go into life for a while? or an age lasting?

Yes, but not how most people think and perhaps what you initially thought by asking this question.

Augustine, an early church theologian, demonstrates a stubborn common fallacy in which he compared an adjective to an adjective. In other words he saw this Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." and concluded that the we must compare the eternals, if eternal in eternal life is perpetual, then so to is the eternal in eternal punishment.  On the surface such bold conclusion does seem completely logically and sense, though it is actually a fallacy. The comparison of adjectives, does not make the adjectives equal.

EXAMPLE 1
If everyone was asked to perform objective A. Those who did not, will go away to a huge loss, those who did to a huge gain.

Is the measurement of the adjective "huge" equal? If the loss was a million dollars, but the gain was a billion dollars, would both the loss and the gain still not be huge?

Let us get even deeper.

EXAMPLE 2
We live in a big solar system in a big universe.

Is the measurement of the adjective "big" equal? Is the "big" in "big solar system" equal to the "big" in "big universe"? Both our solar system and the universe is big, but our solar system is not as big as our universe.

Therefore we recognize that is it not true, an adjective does not equally apply across the board to it's usage to another noun. It is in fact the combination of an adjective & noun which needs to be compared. This is called a 'noun phrase'.

Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Revisiting the examples:

EXAMPLE 1
If everyone was asked to perform objective A. Those who did not, will go away to a huge loss, those who did to a huge gain.

Compare the noun phrase "huge loss" and "huge gain" and find they are not equal.

EXAMPLE 2
We live in a big solar system in a big universe.

Compare the noun phrase "big solar system" and "big universe" and find they are not equal.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of the matter is the usage of the adjective "eternal" applies only the intrinsic nature of the noun it is describing otherwise known as a noun phrase and not to the "eternal" mentioned elsewhere. It is this concept which is applied to both words. Therefore eternal punishment is not equal to eternal life; the eternal sin is not equal to eternal kingdom; and so on.

Anyone who thinks differently is either deceived or purposely lying.

All this, and I haven't even touched definition of AIONIOS yet.

So speaking of definitions... Let us discuss them:


DEFINITIONS

What are AION and AIONIOS? In case you are not aware, these words are translated (sometimes erroneously) as forever, eternity, and eternal in Scripture.

Here are the definitions:

What is AION?
In Classical, Ancient, Higher and Lower forms of Greek have consistently defined AION as:
(A noun)
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity.
2) period of time, age.
3) the worlds*, universe.*
*This one is contested

Now remember these definition of AION to find out what the definition of AIONIOS is. The adjective AIONIOS is the adjective form of the noun AION. Just like the adjective 'heavenly' is the adjective form of the noun 'heaven' or the adjective 'cicular' is the adjective form of the noun 'circle'. That means knowing the definition of AION, we know the definition of AIONIOS.

AIONIOS
(Adjective)
1) of or in the AION.
2) of, belonging to, or coming from the AION.
3) resembling or befitting AION.

CONCLUSION

AION may or may not mean indefinite time even up to perpetually; or may or may not mean definitive time with absolute beginning and end.

AIONIOS may or may not describe a noun as of, in, belonging to, coming from, resembling or befitting an indefinite time even up to perpetually; or may or may not describe a noun as of, in, belonging to, coming from, resembling or befitting a definitive time with absolute beginning and end.


NOW THE TRANSLATION

Now we know the logic of an adjective, and now know the definition of the adjective, now we can know what exactly is being said in Matthew 25:46 and other places where AIONIOS has been used.

A famous French theologian, at the end of his life wrote: AIONIOS is "An indeterminate duration of which the maximum is fixed by the intrinsic nature of the persons or things. Or they last ever so long - so long as they last!"  -Pétavel-Olliff, Emmanuel, (1836-1910), The Problem of Immortality.

We must conclude that AIONIOS means simply that, the AIONIOS is an adjective which explains a duration or quality dependent upon the noun it describes. In order to find out the duration or the quality of the noun AIONIOS describes, we need to know definition of the noun.

Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

There are two nouns in this phrase with the adjective AIONIOS preceding them,  they are punishment and life. These words in Greek are, KOLASIS and ZOE.

KOLASIS

What is KOLASIS
(noun)
correction, punishment, penalty

This is the simple one. KOLASIS a punishment for the purpose of correction. It is quite literally a corrective punishment.

How long does it last? It lasts as long as it lasts, until the individual subjected to it, is now corrected. Once correction has been established then KOLASIS ends.

ZOE

What is ZOE
(a noun)
1) life
....a) the state of one who is possessed of vitality or is animate
....b) every living soul
2) life
....a) of the absolute fullness of life, both essential and ethical, which belongs to God, and through him both to the hypostatic "logos" and to Christ in whom the "logos" put on human nature.
....b) life real and genuine, a life active and vigorous, devoted to God, blessed, in the portion even in this world of those who put their trust in Christ, but after the resurrection to be consummated by new accessions (among them a more perfect body), and to last for ever.

Since there are other words used in Scripture to describe the state of one possessing vitality, that is called "BIOS" (good, life, living); and "PSUCHE" (breathe, life, vital force which animates the body of animals and men, living being, living soul, emotions) we must conclude that ZOE represents the second definition: The absolute fullness of life, life which is real and genuine with purpose. It is quite literally a life that belongs to God.

How long does that life last? It lasts as long as it lasts and if it is a life that belongs to God, it most certainly will exist far after we have expired and perished due to our mortality.