Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Universal Reconciliation


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#31 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 21 October 2004 - 07:01 PM

I actually have an issue with the assertion that it is an error to claim tht aionios 'must mean eternal', because it's an assertion which is particularly poorly worded. It sounds as if to assert that the word contains that meaning is to assert that it contains only that meaning, and is used in only that way.

But I also took issue with his comment regarding the 'historical significance' of words, as I've shown.


You've done a particularly poor job in explaining what the error is in Lange's comment concerning historical significance of words. Where's the beef?

#32 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 21 October 2004 - 11:15 PM

Fort, I snipped out the nonsense so that we could get right to the real issues.

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I asked:

Ok, let's start with some basics.  Who are the sheep and the goats?  Who are the nations?  And what makes you think that the duration of the life and punishment are being compared?




The sheep and goats are those who are responsible to Christ at his return. The 'nations' do not exist in Matthew 25 - the word should be translated 'peoples'. The duration of the life and punishment are not being 'compared', we are simply told that the duration of the life and punishment are identical (the same word is used to describe the duration of both of them).


I will take issue with you only on your last comment. Why do you think that aionios signfies the duration of both the life and punishment?

Because this is what it says - the duration of the life will be aionian, and the duration of the punishment will be aionian.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#33 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 21 October 2004 - 11:18 PM

I actually have an issue with the assertion that it is an error to claim tht aionios 'must mean eternal', because it's an assertion which is particularly poorly worded. It sounds as if to assert that the word contains that meaning is to assert that it contains only that meaning, and is used in only that way.

But I also took issue with his comment regarding the 'historical significance' of words, as I've shown.


You've done a particularly poor job in explaining what the error is in Lange's comment concerning historical significance of words. Where's the beef?

I'm sorry if you didn't understand me. The issue is that once Lange has ruled out both etymological and historical evidence as the means by which the range of a word's use and meaning is to be determined, what is left? Guesswork?

Lange has to try and dismiss the historical evidence, because it militates against his case. But the historical use of a word is precisely how we come to an understanding of its meaning. We even do this with living languages such as English. I invite you to consult any lexicographer.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#34 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 24 October 2004 - 11:42 PM

I said:

I will take issue with you only on your last comment. Why do you think that aionios signfies the duration of both the life and punishment? 



Fort replied:

Because this is what it says - the duration of the life will be aionian, and the duration of the punishment will be aionian.


What indication is there that aionian here denotes duration? Even the professionals on the Biblical Greek list that you referred me to would agree with me that aionios denotes the quality of the Life which Christ gives to His Saints and not necessarily the duration of such.

#35 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 24 October 2004 - 11:47 PM

I'm sorry if you didn't understand me. The issue is that once Lange has ruled out both etymological and historical evidence as the means by which the range of a word's use and meaning is to be determined, what is left? Guesswork?


Lange neither ruled out etymological nor historical evidence, but simply stated that these alone do not determine the meaning of the word as it appears in any given context.

Lange has to try and dismiss the historical evidence, because it militates against his case.


I don't see that Lange dismissed such evidence, nor how the evidence would militate against his case.

But the historical use of a word is precisely how we come to an understanding of its meaning. We even do this with living languages such as English. I invite you to consult any lexicographer.


Neither I nor Lange is denying the essential role of historical usage of words. I do believe that there is some miscommunication going on here.

Edited by gabe, 25 October 2004 - 02:35 AM.


#36 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 25 October 2004 - 08:10 AM

I said:

I will take issue with you only on your last comment. Why do you think that aionios signfies the duration of both the life and punishment? 



Fort replied:

Because this is what it says - the duration of the life will be aionian, and the duration of the punishment will be aionian.


What indication is there that aionian here denotes duration?

Because that is the common meaning of the word.

Even the professionals on the Biblical Greek list that you referred me to would agree with me that aionios denotes the quality of the Life which Christ gives to His Saints and not necessarily the duration of such.


Surprise me with a flood of quotes.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#37 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 25 October 2004 - 08:12 AM

I'm sorry if you didn't understand me. The issue is that once Lange has ruled out both etymological and historical evidence as the means by which the range of a word's use and meaning is to be determined, what is left? Guesswork?


Lange neither ruled out etymological nor historical evidence, but simply stated that these alone do not determine the meaning of the word as it appears in any given context.

As I have asked before, what else is there?

Lange has to try and dismiss the historical evidence, because it militates against his case.


I don't see that Lange dismissed such evidence, nor how the evidence would militate against his case.


I have provided the historical evidence which militates against his case. He must downplay this or dismiss it in order to make his case.

But the historical use of a word is precisely how we come to an understanding of its meaning. We even do this with living languages such as English. I invite you to consult any lexicographer.


Neither I nor Lange is denying the essential role of historical usage of words. I do believe that there is some miscommunication going on here.


The miscommunication is really a non-communication. You haven't answered the question I've posted - what else is there?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#38 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 26 October 2004 - 12:27 AM

I asked:

What indication is there that aionian here denotes duration? 


Fort replies:

Because that is the common meaning of the word.


Even if it were the common meaning of the word, this does not determine its usage in any given context. We must consider context, co-text, and the relevant ideas at hand. So, what reasons do you see for thinking that aionios here denoted duration?

I said:

Even the professionals on the Biblical Greek list that you referred me to would agree with me that aionios denotes the quality of the Life which Christ gives to His Saints and not necessarily the duration of such.


Fort:

Surprise me with a flood of quotes.


Here's one I received today via email. Tell me what you think.

Dear Gabe,

Yes, you are correct. It is true that AIWNIOS denotes some quality of the noun being modified and not necessarily the duration. The 2 main usages are "having qualities of the present age" and "having qualities of the Messianic Age (that is, qualities
which the bible has stated will be present during the Messianic Age)".

The Lexicons are tied up with 2 problems: 1 is an inherent problem in Lexicography. Although the obvious meanings of a word can be distinguished with enough usages, the nuances cannot (unless someone in antiquity was nice enough to define the nuances to
us). This has made defining a word from a dead leanguage  difficult, yet glossing it with an English eqjuivalent relatively easy. The only problem is that the only obvious meaning for AIWNiOS is "eternal" or "everlasting" which is not always correct! But
traditional interpretation has firmly locked-down "eternal" as the only meaning. Any deviation, such as "qualities of an age", is unorthodox.

The 2nd problem with Lexicons is the fear of censure for being unorthodox. A fine Lexicon which is 100% objective would be a great exegetical tool. If you take away the unorthodox bits, it will make a lot of MONEY! Although AIWN has changed from
"forever" to "an age (the lifetime of something--a man--all mankind--great mountains--God). When referring to God AIWN does mean "forever", but that is not its only meaning!

AIWNIOS ZWH (eternal life) is open ended because we are told in 1Cor 15 that we will never be dying in the resurrection. But the more basic meaning is that we will have life with the qualities of the Messianic Age! That has always been clear enough,
because nobody expects to be digging ditches forever in the resurrection! But lexicographers refuse to make it lexically clear.



#39 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 26 October 2004 - 12:31 AM

I said:

Lange neither ruled out etymological nor historical evidence, but simply stated that these alone do not determine the meaning of the word as it appears in any given context. 



fort:

As I have asked before, what else is there?


How about context, for starters? Besides, aionios has been used in a variety of ways historically...

#40 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 26 October 2004 - 12:47 AM

I asked:

What indication is there that aionian here denotes duration? 


Fort replies:

Because that is the common meaning of the word.


Even if it were the common meaning of the word, this does not determine its usage in any given context. We must consider context, co-text, and the relevant ideas at hand.

You miss my point Not only is duration the common meaning of the word, but 'quality of life' is not. I don't find 'quality of life' listed even as a gloss for the word.

So, what reasons do you see for thinking that aionios here denoted duration?


Because it's the natural reading, by virtue of the meaning of the word.

Here's one I received today via email.  Tell me what you think.


I think you've jumped onto B-Greek and received an answer from an unorthodox Christian who militates against current scholarship, and is very possibly a Universalist.

I need to see more than that please. In particular I need to see the reasons for discarding the existing body of scholarship on the issue.

I also think it's clear that I'm not going to receive a flood of quotes.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#41 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 26 October 2004 - 12:48 AM

I said:

Lange neither ruled out etymological nor historical evidence, but simply stated that these alone do not determine the meaning of the word as it appears in any given context. 


fort:

As I have asked before, what else is there?


How about context, for starters?

Context is contained in what is referred to as the historical use of the word.

Besides, aionios has been used in a variety of ways historically...


But not in the way you require.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#42 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 26 October 2004 - 04:30 AM

Context is contained in what is referred to as the historical use of the word.


And a variety of contexts provides opportunity for variety in usage. The question of what a word means in a particular context cannot be answered by merely applying the most common historical usage of the word without regard to context. Thsi is the point I thought Lange was making.

I said:

Besides, aionios has been used in a variety of ways historically...




fort remarks:

But not in the way you require.


Before I address this, may I ask what exactly it is that I require? I want to be sure that you aren't attacking a straw man like you have done previously in this debate.

I said:

Even if it were the common meaning of the word, this does not determine its usage in any given context. We must consider context, co-text, and the relevant ideas at hand. 



fort replies:

You miss my point Not only is duration the common meaning of the word, but 'quality of life' is not. I don't find 'quality of life' listed even as a gloss for the word.


You can't? where are you looking? In any case, scholars have attested to the fact that aionios is commonly used in the New Testament to express the quality of the noun being modifies.

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi once said:

The punishment of the wicked is eternal both in QUALITY and QUANTITY. It is 'eternal' in QUALITY because it belongs to the Age to Come. It is 'eternal' in QUANTITY because its results will never end" (Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, page 208).


I asked:

So, what reasons do you see for thinking that aionios here denoted duration?




Fort:

Because it's the natural reading, by virtue of the meaning of the word.


The meaning of the word goes beyond the quantitative (duration) and includes the qualitative (Divine).

Let's look at an instance of Plato's use of aionios. In The Laws he speaks of the soul and the body being indestructible, but not eternal (904a). There is a difference between simple existence for ever and eternity, for eternity is the possession of the gods, not of men. Aionios is a word for deity in contrast with humanity.

Or let's look at Timaeus 37d. There he speaks about the Creator and the universe which he has created, "the created glory of the eternal gods"--The Creator was glad when he saw his universe, and he wished to make it as nearly like the eternal universe as it could be. But "to attach eternity to the created was impossible." So he made time as a moving image of eternity. Aionios goes beyond the durative to convey that which is beyond any measure of time. Aionios transcends time, as another of the experts on the B Greek list confirmed via an email I received today.

But what of the New Testament usage of Aionios? As only God is Eternal in His essence, it follows that finite things, events and persons can only participate in His eternalness and are necessarily without any inherent eternality. Aionios zoe, then, is the Life of God himself; the life that only He is befit to give. Aionios Kolasis is likewise the punishment which has its causal source in God and which is fit for only God to inflict.

A good study here:http://www.kingdomlife.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2376

I suggest you wade through the evidence without letting a dismissive attitude prevent you from objectively analyzing it like before.

I think you've jumped onto B-Greek and received an answer from an unorthodox Christian who militates against current scholarship, and is very possibly a Universalist.


Of course. :smart:

I need to see more than that please. In particular I need to see the reasons for discarding the existing body of scholarship on the issue.


What exactly was discarded?

I also think it's clear that I'm not going to receive a flood of quotes. 


Keep looking. One drop at a time. Soon enough you will be swimming, matey.

Edited by gabe, 26 October 2004 - 05:30 AM.


#43 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 26 October 2004 - 05:45 AM

Context is contained in what is referred to as the historical use of the word.


And a variety of contexts provides opportunity for variety in usage. The question of what a word means in a particular context cannot be answered by merely applying the most common historical usage of the word without regard to context.

I agree. But we use historical reseach to identify how the word is used in a range of contexts. Thus we build up an understanding of the word's meaning.

Thsi is the point I thought Lange was making.


It didn't look like it.

Before I address this, may I ask what exactly it is that I require?  I want to be sure that you aren't attacking a straw man like you have done previously in this debate.


You want to interpret the word as referring to the quality of the life of the age to come. I have not seen that definition in any standard lexical work.

Do you have a list of historical examples (preferably from the 1st century BC to the 2nd century AD), in which it is used consistently in this way?

You can't? where are you looking?


In standard lexical works which quote extensively from historical uses of the word in a range of contexts.

In any case, scholars have attested to the fact that aionios is commonly used in the New Testament to express the quality of the noun being modifies.


How many scholars? Which scholars? By what means do they reach this conclusion? Which historical examples of this use of the word do they advance to justify their definition?

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi once said:

The punishment of the wicked is eternal both in QUALITY and QUANTITY. It is 'eternal' in QUALITY because it belongs to the Age to Come. It is 'eternal' in QUANTITY because its results will never end" (Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, page 208).


By what means did he reach this conclusion? Which historical examples of this use of the word does he advance to justify their definition? Why do I not find his gloss in the standard lexical authorities? Why does he mention 'quality' and 'quantity' (whatever 'quantity' means), but not 'duration'?

The meaning of the word goes beyond the quantitative (duration) and includes the qualitative (Divine).


Why do I not see this gloss in standard lexical works?

Let's look at an instance of Plato's use of aionios. In The Laws he speaks of the soul and the body being indestructible, but not eternal (904a). There is a difference between simple existence for ever and eternity, for eternity is the possession of the gods, not of men.  Aionios is a word for deity in contrast with humanity.


All this shows us is that Plato identified eternality (aionios) as a quality of gods but not men (as your final sentences both say). It is not a historical example of aionios being used to describe 'a certain quality of life'.

Or let's look at Timaeus 37d. There he speaks about the Creator and the universe which he has created, "the created glory of the eternal gods"--The Creator was glad when he saw his universe, and he wished to make it as nearly like the eternal universe as it could be. But "to attach eternity to the created was impossible." So he made time as a moving image of eternity.


See above. All he is doing here is demonstrating that aionios is not a property which can be attached to the creation. He is not using the term as 'a certain quality of life'.

Aionios goes beyond the durative to convey that which is beyond any measure of time.


That is not correct. Philo himself used it of eternality, as I have shown, and there are plenty of other historical examples in the standard lexical works (as I have also shown).

Aionios transcends time, as another of the experts on the B Greek list confirmed via an email I received today.

But what of the New Testament usage of Aionios?  As only God is Eternal in His essence, it follows that finite things, events and persons can only participate in His eternalness and are necessarily without any inherent eternality.  Aionios zoe, then, is the Life of God himself; the life that only He is befit to give.  Aionios Kolasis is likewise the punishment which has its causal source in God and which is fit for only God to inflict.


This is a gloss. Without historical and lexical support, it is mere opinion.

A good study here:http://www.kingdomlife.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2376

I suggest you wade through the evidence without letting a dismissive attitude prevent you from objectively analyzing it like before.


Believe me Gabe, I've been wading through Universalist material for a good three years. I was on Tentmaker's forums for a while. I have read countless articles on their site and on other universalist sites. I've debated Universalism on three different discussion forums, and an email list.

It's precisely because I've read so much of it that I know the usual moves. If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I address directly every single one of your points, because it's material with which I'm very well familiar.

I don't have a dismissive attitude which prevents me analysing it objectively. I've analysed it objectively in detail, which is why I don't agree with it.

Of course.  :smart:


Well Gabe, your source himself stated very clearly that he was unorthodox.

What exactly was discarded?  That is quite a bold claim you are making.


I'll identify the unsubstantiated claims, and place what is discarded in large type:

Dear Gabe,

Yes, you are correct. It is true that AIWNIOS denotes some quality of the noun being modified and not necessarily the duration. The 2 main usages are "having qualities of the present age" and "having qualities of the Messianic Age (that is, qualities which the bible has stated will be present during the Messianic Age)".

The Lexicons are tied up with 2 problems: 1 is an inherent problem in Lexicography. Although the obvious meanings of a word can be distinguished with enough usages, the nuances cannot (unless someone in antiquity was nice enough to define the nuances to us). This has made defining a word from a dead leanguage  difficult, yet glossing it with an English eqjuivalent relatively easy. The only problem is that the only obvious meaning for AIWNiOS is "eternal" or "everlasting" which is not always correct!

But traditional interpretation has firmly locked-down "eternal" as the only meaning. Any deviation, such as "qualities of an age", is unorthodox.

The 2nd problem with Lexicons is the fear of censure for being unorthodox. A fine Lexicon which is 100% objective would be a great exegetical tool. If you take away the unorthodox bits, it will make a lot of MONEY! Although AIWN has changed from "forever" to "an age (the lifetime of something--a man--all mankind--great mountains--God). When referring to God AIWN does mean "forever", but that is not its only meaning!

AIWNIOS ZWH (eternal life) is open ended because we are told in 1Cor 15 that we will never be dying in the resurrection. But the more basic meaning is that we will have life with the qualities of the Messianic Age! That has always been clear enough, because nobody expects to be digging ditches forever in the resurrection!

But lexicographers refuse to make it lexically clear.


Finally:

Keep looking.  One drop at a time.  Soon enough you will be swimming, matey.


I can't wait. We've had two so far. How many more do you expect we'll find? And how will you deal with the data I have given you which contradicts these assertions?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#44 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 26 October 2004 - 06:39 AM

I said:

Aionios goes beyond the durative to convey that which is beyond any measure of time.




fort replies:

That is not correct. Philo himself used it of eternality, as I have shown, and there are plenty of other historical examples in the standard lexical works (as I have also shown).


This is a fine example of a straw man, for I am not suggesting that eternality is not expressed by aionios. The meaning of aionios in the quote by Philo which I provided is in contrast with time (duration). Whcih quote by Philo did you have in mind which is at odds with this usage?

I said:

As only God is Eternal in His essence, it follows that finite things, events and persons can only participate in His eternalness and are necessarily without any inherent eternality. Aionios zoe, then, is the Life of God himself; the life that only He is befit to give. Aionios Kolasis is likewise the punishment which has its causal source in God and which is fit for only God to inflict.


Fort remarked:

This is a gloss. Without historical and lexical support, it is mere opinion.


Please address the evidence given by Dr. Barclay in the article I provided a link for.

As for your evidence, I'm glad to sort through it. Let's start with this:

But in eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only.

EN AIWNI DE OUTE PARELHLUTHEN, OUTE MELLEI, ALLA MONON hUPSESTHKEN.

Philo, De Mundo, 7, 1st century AD


This is perfectly compatible with my suggested interpretation of athe usual usage of aionios in the N.T. This eternality transcends the durative - transcends time.

#45 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 26 October 2004 - 06:51 AM

I said:

Aionios goes beyond the durative to convey that which is beyond any measure of time.




fort replies:

That is not correct. Philo himself used it of eternality, as I have shown, and there are plenty of other historical examples in the standard lexical works (as I have also shown).


This is a fine example of a straw man, for I am not suggesting that eternality is not expressed by aionios.

It is not a strawman, because you stated expressly that the word is used beyond 'the durative' to convey that which is beyond any measure of time.

I didn't say you were denying that eternality is expressed by aionios.

The meaning of aionios in the quote by Philo which I provided is in contrast with time (duration).


No it isn't. He is simply saying that eternality is a property which is possessed by the gods and not men.

Whcih quote by Philo did you have in mind which is at odds with this usage?


Please read my earlier posts, it's in there.

Please address the evidence given by Dr. Barclay in the article I provided a link for.


Please post the evidence right here next time. But that aside, I see no evidence given by Dr Barclay to support his assertion that:

The punishment of the wicked is eternal both in QUALITY and QUANTITY. It is 'eternal' in QUALITY because it belongs to the Age to Come. It is 'eternal' in QUANTITY because its results will never end" (Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, page 208).


None at all. I didn't even find that quote in the link you provided.

As for your evidence, I'm glad to sort through it. Let's start with this:

But in eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only.

EN AIWNI DE OUTE PARELHLUTHEN, OUTE MELLEI, ALLA MONON hUPSESTHKEN.

Philo, De Mundo, 7, 1st century AD


This is perfectly compatible with my suggested interpretation of athe usual usage of aionios in the N.T. This eternality transcends the durative - transcends time.


Philo does not say that here. He simply points out that eternality means that nothing passes away. He says nothing about it 'transcending the durative' or 'transcending time'.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#46 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 27 October 2004 - 02:14 AM

It is not a strawman, because you stated expressly that the word is used beyond 'the durative' to convey that which is beyond any measure of time.

I didn't say you were denying that eternality is expressed by aionios.


Eternality is beyond the measure of time, so I'm not seeing your point.


i said:

The meaning of aionios in the quote by Philo which I provided is in contrast with time (duration).




fort:

No it isn't. He is simply saying that eternality is a property which is possessed by the gods and not men

.

Let's take another look. "But in eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only."

Duration involves passing and becoming.



i asked:

Whcih quote by Philo did you have in mind which is at odds with this usage?




fort answers:

Please read my earlier posts, it's in there.


Oh you! Digging now....


QUOTE
Please address the evidence given by Dr. Barclay in the article I provided a link for.



Please post the evidence right here next time. But that aside, I see no evidence given by Dr Barclay to support his assertion that:


QUOTE 
The punishment of the wicked is eternal both in QUALITY and QUANTITY. It is 'eternal' in QUALITY because it belongs to the Age to Come. It is 'eternal' in QUANTITY because its results will never end" (Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, page 208).



None at all. I didn't even find that quote in the link you provided.


I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but that quote was not Barclay's but rather someone's from the B Greek list. Anyhow, I'm becoming more and more convinced that you will brush aside any evidence I present. I'm not even sure what you consider evidence anymore. What do you consider as valid evidence? A general consensus amongst scholars?


BTW, what does "pro aionios chronos" mean in titus 1:2?

#47 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 27 October 2004 - 03:50 AM

Fortigurn,

I couldn't locate the other quote by Philo which you provided.

Some historical usages of aionios:

Herodian described the Roman games with the word aionios. What do you make of this?

In the Apostolical Constitutions, it is said, kai touto humin esto nomimon aionion hos tes suntleias to aionos, "And let this be to you an eonian ordinance until the consummation of the eon." What is your take on this?

St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of aionios diastęma, "an eonian interval." An endless interval?

St. Chrysostum, in his homily on Eph. 2:1-3, says that "Satan's kingdom is ćonian; that is, it will cease with the present world." Comments?

St. Justin Martyr repeatedly used the word aionios as in the Apol. (p. 57), aionion kolasin ...all ouchi chiliontaetę periodon, "eonian chastening ...but a period, not a thousand years." Or, as some translate the last clause: "but a period of a thousand years only."

Wuzzup wid dis?

#48 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 27 October 2004 - 06:51 AM

The passage in Ezekiel 16:55 is actually speaking of Judah and Israel, under the figure of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is part of an extended parable which covers a few chapters, which is why people invariably miss this.


Fort, can you prove this to me? Thanks

#49 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 28 October 2004 - 04:41 AM

More quotes from the experts on the B Greek List.

One professional said:

Let me try to explain by example. If a man on his wedding day says to his bride: "I will love you with an eternal love" this implies that somehow he will love her even beyond death. But if he says "I will love you for ever", he just means that he cannot imagine an end to his love, but obviously it
will not go beyond death. It is this last sense that is closest to the
Hebrew olam and Greek AIWNIOS. It is unlimited without a specified end, but
it does not have to be "eternal" in the English sense of that word.


Another stated:

Gabe, (1) there's no root fallacy involved here; there's no grounds to doubt that AIWNIOS derives directly from AIWN and is formed with the
adjectival suffix -IOS, the suffix bearing the sense "related to," "having
to do with," "pertaining to";


comments?

#50 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 28 October 2004 - 06:23 AM

It is not a strawman, because you stated expressly that the word is used beyond 'the durative' to convey that which is beyond any measure of time.

I didn't say you were denying that eternality is expressed by aionios.


Eternality is beyond the measure of time, so I'm not seeing your point.

Eternality is not 'beyond the measure of time'. It is 'forever'. And that word is used to express something which continues for all time.

i said:

The meaning of aionios in the quote by Philo which I provided is in contrast with time (duration).


fort:

No it isn't. He is simply saying that eternality is a property which is possessed by the gods and not men

.

Let's take another look. "But in eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only."

Duration involves passing and becoming.


But Philo is not contrasting duration with eternatlity, as you seem to think. He is pointing out that those things which are eternal, ever exist. They do not pass away, they do not come into being, they simply continue forever.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but that quote was not Barclay's but rather someone's from the B Greek list.


Did he provide any evidence for it?

Anyhow, I'm becoming more and more convinced that you will brush aside any evidence I present.


You haven't even started yet, you've just given me quotes from Universalists providing their opinions. None of those quotes provide me with any actual data.

I'm not even sure what you consider evidence anymore.  What do you consider as valid evidence?  A general consensus amongst scholars?


I want what I've always asked you for:

  • Lexical support


  • Textual evidence (historical use of the word in a range of contexts

BTW, what does "pro aionios chronos" mean in titus 1:2?


Eternal life.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#51 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 28 October 2004 - 06:25 AM

More quotes from the experts on the B Greek List.

One professional said:

Let me try to explain by example. If a man on his wedding day says to his bride: "I will love you with an eternal love" this implies that somehow he will love her even beyond death. But if he says "I will love you for ever", he just means that he cannot imagine an end to his love, but obviously it
will not go beyond death. It is this last sense that is closest to the
Hebrew olam and Greek AIWNIOS. It is unlimited without a specified end, but
it does not have to be "eternal" in the English sense of that word.


Another stated:

Gabe, (1) there's no root fallacy involved here; there's no grounds to doubt that AIWNIOS derives directly from AIWN and is formed with the
adjectival suffix -IOS, the suffix bearing the sense "related to," "having
to do with," "pertaining to";


comments?

Yes:
  • You refer to these as quotes from 'experts' - I wish to see their names and qualifications

  • I see no evidence supplied to support their claims - what lexical and textual evidence do they provide?

  • What is their opinion of the standard lexical authorities on this issue, the lexical authorities which do actually provide textual support for their definitions?

  • How many of the other 'experts' on the list agree with them?

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#52 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 28 October 2004 - 06:42 AM

Fortigurn,

I couldn't locate the other quote by Philo which you provided.

I wasn't aware that I had provided more than one quote from Philo. I thought I had directed you to the fact that I had supplied more quotes than just Philo.

I supplied Aristotle (De Coelo, I, 9, c. 350 BC), the LXX, Philo (De Mundo, 7, 1st century AD), Josephus, (1st century AD), and Jerome's Vulgate (5th century AD).

Herodian described the Roman games with the word aionios.  What do you make of this?


He is referring to them as being held perpetually, in the same way that the Olympic games were referred to by the Greeks. Or perhaps, if your view is correct, he is describing them as 'the games of the age', that is to say, the games which we will play in the age to come.

In the Apostolical Constitutions, it is said, kai touto humin esto nomimon aionion hos tes suntleias to aionos, "And let this be to you an eonian ordinance until the consummation of the eon."  What is your take on this?


It is an ordinance which is ever applicable, until a certain time is reached.

St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of aionios diastęma, "an eonian interval." An endless interval?


I would like to see the quote in context, please.

St. Chrysostum, in his homily on Eph. 2:1-3, says that "Satan's kingdom is ćonian; that is, it will cease with the present world."  Comments?


He is simply using the word in its sense of 'a space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age' (LSJ 9).

St. Justin Martyr repeatedly used the word aionios as in the Apol. (p. 57), aionion kolasin ...all ouchi chiliontaetę periodon, "eonian chastening ...but a period, not a thousand years." Or, as some translate the last clause: "but a period of a thousand years only."


I would like to see the quote in context, please. It's interesting enough to me that translators interpret this last clause in two mutually conflicting ways.

Wuzzup wid dis?


Some of them I can't comment on yet. Others of them simply use the word in its sense of 'a space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age' (LSJ 9).

None of these contradict the meaning 'eternal' or 'perpetual', which is well attested and supported by standard lexical authorities.

I return you to its meaning as described in a reputable lexicon, citing relevant historical sources:

aiônios , on, also a, on Pl. Ti.37d, Ep.Heb.9.12:--lasting for an age (aiôn 11 ), perpetual, eternal (but dist. fr. aďdios, Plot.3.7.3), methę Pl.R. 363d ; anôlethron . . all' ouk aiônion Id.Lg.904a , cf. Epicur. Sent.28; ai. kata psuchęn ochlęsis Id.Nat.131 G.; kaka, deina, Phld.Herc. 1251.18, D.1.13; ai. amoibais basanisthęsomenoi ib.19; tou ai. theou Ep.Rom. 16.26 , Ti.Locr.96c; ou chronię mounon . . all' aiônię Aret.CA1.5 ; ai. diathękę, nomimon, prostagma, LXX Ge.9.16, Ex.27.21, To.1.6; zôę Ev.Matt.25.46 , Porph.Abst.4.20; kolasis Ev.Matt. l.c., Olymp. in Grg.p.278J.; pro chronôn ai.2 Ep.Tim. 1.9 : opp. proskairos, 2 Ep.Cor. 4.18.

2. holding an office or title for life, perpetual, gumnasiarchos CPHerm.62.

3. = Lat. saecularis, Phleg.Macr.4.

4. Adv. -iôs eternally, nous akinętos ai. panta ôn Procl.Inst.172 , cf. Simp. in Epict.p.77D.; perpetually, misein Sch.E.Alc.338.

5. aiônion, to, = aeizôon to mega, Ps.-Dsc.4.88.


You can see that the meaning 'lasting for an age', whilst being noted, is by far the least common and least attested sense. The overwhelming usage refers to eternity, to eternality, to perpetuity.

You will note that the word aionios is described as having a sense which is the opposite to the word proskairos, which means 'for a time, temporary', and that it is used in this sense in 2 Corinthians 4:18.

Let's go there:

2 Corinthians 4:
18 because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.


The contrast is manifest - that which is aionian here is that which is not temporary or limited in duration. It is eternal.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#53 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 02 November 2004 - 05:05 AM

Fortigurn says:

It is not a strawman, because you stated expressly that the word is used beyond 'the durative' to convey that which is beyond any measure of time.

I didn't say you were denying that eternality is expressed by aionios.


Take another look at what was said.

I said:

Aionios goes beyond the durative to convey that which is beyond any measure of time. 


you replied:

That is not correct. Philo himself used it of eternality, as I have shown, and there are plenty of other historical examples in the standard lexical works (as I have also shown).


You see, my very argument is that the sense of eternality which AIONIOS conveys does not necessarily encompass endless time, but can strictly refer to that which is beyond time. Philo's quote is a case in point. Dr. Carl Conrad, an expert Professor of Classics, wrote to me:

I think you could make that: "In eternity there is neither past nor future, but only being." But you need to appreciate that the underlying foundation of Philo's thinking is Platonic metaphysics into which he is interpreting the five books of Moses. So here there is the Platonic antithesis of time and timelessness/eternity, of becoming and being.



you said:

Eternality is not 'beyond the measure of time'. It is 'forever'. And that word is used to express something which continues for all time.


That you limit the word 'eternality', let alone AIONIOS, to never mean "pertaining to that which is beyond the measure of time" is proof that you yourself are guilty of the illegitimate lexigraphy that you accuse me of.

I also find it odd that you would quote Philo, who held to a Platonic view of eternity, to support your claim that the word generally denotes unlimited duration.

I said:

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but that quote was not Barclay's but rather someone's from the B Greek list.



You asked in turn:

Did he provide any evidence for it?


Yes. Check out Timeaus 37d8, which you have yet to adequately address. Eternity cannot be reduced to time, as time is but a moving image.

This is Platonic philosophy, Fort: There can be no duration without change.


I asked:

BTW, what does "pro aionios chronos" mean in titus 1:2?




You replied:

Eternal life.


I didn't ask the meaning of AIONIOS ZOE. Read my question again.

Edited by gabe, 02 November 2004 - 05:51 AM.


#54 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 02 November 2004 - 05:14 AM

I said:

More quotes from the experts on the B Greek List.

One professional said:
QUOTE 
Let me try to explain by example. If a man on his wedding day says to his bride: "I will love you with an eternal love" this implies that somehow he will love her even beyond death. But if he says "I will love you for ever", he just means that he cannot imagine an end to his love, but obviously it
will not go beyond death. It is this last sense that is closest to the
Hebrew olam and Greek AIWNIOS. It is unlimited without a specified end, but
it does not have to be "eternal" in the English sense of that word.



Another stated:
QUOTE 
Gabe, (1) there's no root fallacy involved here; there's no grounds to doubt that AIWNIOS derives directly from AIWN and is formed with the
adjectival suffix -IOS, the suffix bearing the sense "related to," "having
to do with," "pertaining to";



comments? 


Fort responds:

Yes:

You refer to these as quotes from 'experts' - I wish to see their names and qualifications


Oh, what's in a name? And what determines whether or not one is a qualified expert? No doubt, an expert must have extensive knowledge of his field, but there must be something more to your criterion for what is to be considered as qualification. So let me ask you, what qualification have you got to vindicate your criterion for qualification? :confused:

But, to answer your question, here are the names and qualification behind the two quotes I provided above.

First quote: Iver Larsen - Bible Translation Consultant

Second: The very person who maintains the B-Greek mailing list...Carl W. Conrad. I invite you to take the issue up with the experts.


Fort asked:

How many of the other 'experts' on the list agree with them?


I don't know. Should we take a poll? What's the use? I mean, is a majority vote your criterion now, or what? :P

Edited by gabe, 02 November 2004 - 05:53 AM.


#55 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 02 November 2004 - 05:47 AM

I supplied Aristotle (De Coelo, I, 9, c. 350 BC), the LXX, Philo (De Mundo, 7, 1st century AD), Josephus, (1st century AD), and Jerome's Vulgate (5th century AD).


Unfortunately, I have not access anymore to the library which I used to frequent, and thus very limited access to the Classics to which you have referred. What's also unfortunate, but certainly much less so, is that I have not access to the first page of this debate in which you provided these quotes.

I asked:

Herodian described the Roman games with the word aionios.  What do you make of this?



You responded:

He is referring to them as being held perpetually, in the same way that the Olympic games were referred to by the Greeks.


That's fine, but even this sense of the word does not involve unlimited duration, and thus not eternity.

Fort:

Or perhaps, if your view is correct, he is describing them as 'the games of the age', that is to say, the games which we will play in the age to come.


You know that my view entails no such nonsense. Let's not get silly, Fortigurn.



I said:

In the Apostolical Constitutions, it is said, kai touto humin esto nomimon aionion hos tes suntleias to aionos, "And let this be to you an eonian ordinance until the consummation of the eon."  What is your take on this?




You reply:

It is an ordinance which is ever applicable, until a certain time is reached.


Sounds good to me. AIONIOS here denotes a period of time.


I wrote:

St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of aionios diastęma, "an eonian interval." An endless interval?


I would like to see the quote in context, please.


As would I. When I can get a hold of it, I will bring this back to the table.


I said:

St. Chrysostum, in his homily on Eph. 2:1-3, says that "Satan's kingdom is ćonian; that is, it will cease with the present world."  Comments?


You replied:

He is simply using the word in its sense of 'a space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age' (LSJ 9).


All is good. :confused:

I said:

St. Justin Martyr repeatedly used the word aionios as in the Apol. (p. 57), aionion kolasin ...all ouchi chiliontaetę periodon, "eonian chastening ...but a period, not a thousand years." Or, as some translate the last clause: "but a period of a thousand years only."



You reply:

I would like to see the quote in context, please. It's interesting enough to me that translators interpret this last clause in two mutually conflicting ways.



Although it is certainly curious that these two translations conflict with regards to the period of the chastening, they are both very clear on the fact that a period of time is in view.

Some of them I can't comment on yet. Others of them simply use the word in its sense of 'a space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age' (LSJ 9).  None of these contradict the meaning 'eternal' or 'perpetual', which is well attested and supported by standard lexical authorities.


I agree.

You said:

I return you to its meaning as described in a reputable lexicon, citing relevant historical sources:


QUOTE 
aiônios , on, also a, on Pl. Ti.37d, Ep.Heb.9.12:--lasting for an age (aiôn 11 ), perpetual, eternal (but dist. fr. aďdios, Plot.3.7.3), methę Pl.R. 363d ; anôlethron . . all' ouk aiônion Id.Lg.904a , cf. Epicur. Sent.28; ai. kata psuchęn ochlęsis Id.Nat.131 G.; kaka, deina, Phld.Herc. 1251.18, D.1.13; ai. amoibais basanisthęsomenoi ib.19; tou ai. theou Ep.Rom. 16.26 , Ti.Locr.96c; ou chronię mounon . . all' aiônię Aret.CA1.5 ; ai. diathękę, nomimon, prostagma, LXX Ge.9.16, Ex.27.21, To.1.6; zôę Ev.Matt.25.46 , Porph.Abst.4.20; kolasis Ev.Matt. l.c., Olymp. in Grg.p.278J.; pro chronôn ai.2 Ep.Tim. 1.9 : opp. proskairos, 2 Ep.Cor. 4.18.

2. holding an office or title for life, perpetual, gumnasiarchos CPHerm.62.

3. = Lat. saecularis, Phleg.Macr.4.

4. Adv. -iôs eternally, nous akinętos ai. panta ôn Procl.Inst.172 , cf. Simp. in Epict.p.77D.; perpetually, misein Sch.E.Alc.338.

5. aiônion, to, = aeizôon to mega, Ps.-Dsc.4.88.



You can see that the meaning 'lasting for an age', whilst being noted, is by far the least common and least attested sense. The overwhelming usage refers to eternity, to eternality, to perpetuity.


Please, let's look at each example very carefully. If you are able, please provide them for me, one by one. I do find it quite interesting that these scholars take the pains to differentiate between the meaning of AIDIOS and AIONIOS. Care to comment? And I am admittedly confused as to what they have in mind regarding Timeaus 37d. Could you assist me with this?

You will note that the word aionios is described as having a sense which is the opposite to the word proskairos, which means 'for a time, temporary', and that it is used in this sense in 2 Corinthians 4:18.

Let's go there:


QUOTE 
2 Corinthians 4:
18 because we are not looking at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen. For what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.



The contrast is manifest - that which is aionian here is that which is not temporary or limited in duration. It is eternal.


Although one could argue that PROSKAIROS here signifies an indefinitely short duration whereas AIONIOS signifies an indefinitely long duration, I will not argue such, as I agree with you that it would be counter-intuitive to assert this (although both you and I would have to defend our criterion for determining what is intuitive).

But let me ask you, why would I be incorrect in understanding the contrast to be between that which is subjected to change (and thus time) and that which is not?


And I would like to further ask you what you make of Gregory of Nyssa's usage of AIONIOS?

"Whoever considers the divine power will plainly perceive that it is able at length to restore by means of the aionion purgation and expiatory sufferings, those who have gone even to this extremity of wickedness."

And what of Origen's usage? Or will you dismiss these on account of their universalist beliefs?

Edited by gabe, 02 November 2004 - 06:39 AM.


#56 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 08:01 AM

Fortigurn says:

It is not a strawman, because you stated expressly that the word is used beyond 'the durative' to convey that which is beyond any measure of time.

I didn't say you were denying that eternality is expressed by aionios.


Take another look at what was said.

I said:

Aionios goes beyond the durative to convey that which is beyond any measure of time. 


you replied:

That is not correct. Philo himself used it of eternality, as I have shown, and there are plenty of other historical examples in the standard lexical works (as I have also shown).


You see, my very argument is that the sense of eternality which AIONIOS conveys does not necessarily encompass endless time, but can strictly refer to that which is beyond time.

This is neither here nor there. You are supposed to be disproving the idea that AIONIOS can refer to eternality. I do not find 'that which is beyond time' as a definition or even gloss for AIONIOS in any of the standard lexical authorities.

Philo's quote is a case in point.  Dr. Carl Conrad, an expert Professor of Classics, wrote to me:

I think you could make that: "In eternity there is neither past nor future, but only being." But you need to appreciate that the underlying foundation of Philo's thinking is Platonic metaphysics into which he is interpreting the five books of Moses. So here there is the Platonic antithesis of time and timelessness/eternity, of becoming and being.


I see the word eternity very clearly there. Whether you describe eternity as being inside time or outside time, the fact is that Plato was referring to eternity.

you said:

Eternality is not 'beyond the measure of time'. It is 'forever'. And that word is used to express something which continues for all time.


That you limit the word 'eternality', let alone AIONIOS, to never mean "pertaining to that which is beyond the measure of time" is proof that you yourself are guilty of the illegitimate lexigraphy that you accuse me of.


Please illustrate why. I do not find 'that which is beyond time' as a definition or even gloss for AIONIOS in any of the standard lexical authorities. If you do, please show me which authorities you are using.

I also find it odd that you would quote Philo, who held to a Platonic view of eternity, to support your claim that the word generally denotes unlimited duration.


His particular view of eternity (Platonic or otherwise), makes no difference to me. The fact of the matter is that he understood the word AIONIOS to refer to eternity, and he understood eternity to be permanence. You reject the idea that AIONIOS refers to eternity, and you reject the idea that eternity is permanence.

I said:

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but that quote was not Barclay's but rather someone's from the B Greek list.



You asked in turn:

Did he provide any evidence for it?


Yes. Check out Timeaus 37d8, which you have yet to adequately address. Eternity cannot be reduced to time, as time is but a moving image.


Let's look at Timaeus 37d:

When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal [AIODION gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal, [AIONIOS] he sought to make the universe so far as might be of a like kind. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting, [AIONOS] but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible.

Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity [AIONIOS], and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal [AIONIOS] but moving according to number, while eternity [AIONION] itself rests in unity; and this image we call time.


What is it there which suggests to you that AIONION or AINOS or AIONIOS is not everlasting?

How about Timaeus 38b:

...that what is become is become, and what is becoming is becoming, and what is about to become is about to become, and what is non-existent is non-existent; but none of these expressions is accurate. But the present is not, perhaps, a fitting occasion for an exact discussion of these matters.

Time, then, came into existence along with the Heaven, to the end that having been generated together they might also be dissolved together, if ever a dissolution of them should take place; and it was made after the pattern of the Eternal [DI AIONIOS] Nature, to the end that it might be as like thereto as possible; for whereas the pattern is existent through all eternity...  [AIONIA]


What is it there which suggests to you that AIONION or AINOS or AIONIOS or AIONIA is not everlasting?

This is Platonic philosophy, Fort:  There can be no duration without change.


But there can be eternity without change. All eternity requires is permanence.

I asked:

BTW, what does "pro aionios chronos" mean in titus 1:2?




You replied:

Eternal life.


I didn't ask the meaning of AIONIOS ZOE. Read my question again.


I do beg your pardon. It means 'before the ages began'.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#57 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 08:03 AM

Oh, what's in a name? And what determines whether or not one is a qualified expert? No doubt, an expert must have extensive knowledge of his field, but there must be something more to your criterion for what is to be considered as qualification. So let me ask you, what qualification have you got to vindicate your criterion for qualification? :whistling:

All I want to be sure of is that you're not simply quoting some Universalist who is giving his own spin on the issue without reference to standard research procedure and evidence.

But, to answer your question, here are the names and qualification behind the two quotes I provided above.

First quote: Iver Larsen  - Bible Translation Consultant

Second:  The very person who maintains the B-Greek mailing list...Carl W. Conrad.


Thank you, that's what I needed to know.

I invite you to take the issue up with the experts.


It has already been done - I gave you about four different quotes from that same list earlier in this discussion. You haven't addressed any of them yet.

Fort asked:

How many of the other 'experts' on the list agree with them?


I don't know. Should we take a poll? What's the use? I mean, is a majority vote your criterion now, or what? :(


All I want to be sure of is that you're not simply quoting some Universalist who is giving his own spin on the issue without reference to standard research procedure and evidence.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#58 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 08:34 AM

[quote name='gabe' date='Nov 2 2004, 01:14 PM'] I said: [QUOTE]More quotes from the experts on the B Greek List.

One professional said:
QUOTE
Let me try to explain by example. If a man on his wedding day says to his bride: "I will love you with an eternal love" this implies that somehow he will love her even beyond death. But if he says "I will love you for ever", he just means that he cannot imagine an end to his love, but obviously it
will not go beyond death. It is this last sense that is closest to the
Hebrew olam and Greek AIWNIOS. It is unlimited without a specified end, but
it does not have to be "eternal" in the English sense of that word. [/quote]
This doesn't actually disagree with what I am arguing.

[quote]Another stated:

[quote]Gabe, (1) there's no root fallacy involved here; there's no grounds to doubt that AIWNIOS derives directly from AIWN and is formed with the
adjectival suffix -IOS, the suffix bearing the sense "related to," "having
to do with," "pertaining to";[/quote]

comments?[/quote]

Yes, my comment on this is that you don't appear to have quoted all of what he said. Would you mind doing that please?

In addition, I would like to see the question you posed.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#59 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 08:35 AM

I supplied Aristotle (De Coelo, I, 9, c. 350 BC), the LXX, Philo (De Mundo, 7, 1st century AD), Josephus, (1st century AD), and Jerome's Vulgate (5th century AD).


Unfortunately, I have not access anymore to the library which I used to frequent, and thus very limited access to the Classics to which you have referred. What's also unfortunate, but certainly much less so, is that I have not access to the first page of this debate in which you provided these quotes.

I'll repost them here.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#60 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 15 November 2004 - 08:37 AM

There are a couple of professional email lists which deal with Biblical Greek, and with Bible translation. They are called 'B-Greek' and 'B-Trans' respectively. I have been a member of both of them over the years. I'm still on B-Trans.

You will find, if you search their archives, that the classic Universalist questions have been posted there, and answered. Let's see a few examples.

In this first example, someone has posted questions from their friend. I have placed them in italics. The answer given is in normal text:

And (even though my Hebrew is so poor as to not be worth mentioning, your friend's understanding of "Holy of holies" and "King of Kings" reflects complete ignorance of Hebrew idioms, IMHO.

> Hi, > > I have a friend.... > > 2. He says that AION cannot ever mean "eternal" in the NT – that it is > an AGE, with an unspecified amount of time, but having a definite > beginning and end. An example of his reasoning is the question that > the disciples asked Jesus: "What will be the sign of the end of the > age".

If this is translated here as "eternity/forever" (as it is in > many other passages in several popular translations), it would not > make any sense at all (what will be the sign of the end of eternity). > I think he has a good point with that word, but what I’m really > interested in are the phrases "AION of AIONS", or "AIONS of AIONS" > (note the plural for both aion's in the last one). My friend would say > these should be taken literally, like the Holy of Holies, and King of > Kings – that they should be understood as "an age apart from all the > other ages", and "two ages apart from all other ages".


"Holy of holies" does NOT mean "a holy place apart from all other holy places." It means "The Most Holy place" or "The Holiest Place.". Hebrew lacks adjectives, and uses construct chains as a way of expressing things like "holier," "holiest." Likewise, "King of Kings" means "The Greatest King" or "King over all other kings."

As I said, my Hebrew is very poor, but I believe this is somewhat correct. Either way (i.e., whether I'm right or wrong), these phrases are definitely IDIOMS and to translate/treat them "literally" is to mistranslate them.

Hebrew has a phrase AD OLAM ("to the age") which I believe idiomatically can mean what we mean by "forever" as opposed to "unto a definite/specific age." The NT translates this Hebrew phrase with the AIWN usages you mention.

Look at how various scholars/translators translate Hebrews 1:2 for the different possible meanings/understandings of AIWNAS (accusative plural of AIWN). Most translators who translate AIWN here do not have an agenda -- they seek as best they can to translate what they believe the Greek means, based on their decades of study of the language.

I was raised Jewish and many prayers begin: "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, king of HA-OLAM." There is no exact English equivalent to this word, just as there is no exact Greek equivalent. We used the words "universe," "eternity," "the ages," "Sovereign Lord" to translate "melech ha-olam"/"olam" in these prayers. Likewise, I don't think Greek had an exact equivalent for the Hebrew OLAM, but AIWN was their closest word to it.

The Greek AIWN loses some of the meaning of the Hebrew OLAM it's translating, but also adds some of the semantic range of AIWN in the uses/appearances of this word in the New Testament. This can complicate the translator's and the reader's task.

Recommend to your friend that he take at least 1-1/2 years (i.e., 3 seminary semesters) of NT Greek before he makes the kinds of pronouncements about Greek that he seems to be wanting to make. If his commitment to integrity in teaching/preaching the Word of God is real, he should be willing to do this.

If he doesn't do this, but continues to make the kinds of statements you claim he is making, then he will more quickly and more greatly than he may realize end up teaching error -- the very thing he seems intent on exposing.


In the second example, someone asks the questions themselves (in italics), and receives the same kind of answers as we saw previously (in normal text):

Blair Neil Davis wrote;

>First I would like to say hello to the people on this list. I just >subscribed and have read several of the posts. Congradulations on the kind >mannor of discussion this list seems to maintain.

Thanks, we are trying.

>I have never had any formal training in NT Greek. I have been using >lexicons and comparing the use of Greek words in the NT using my >Englishmans Concordance.

> >This works well in most cases but I am having some trouble with >conflicting evidence on how AIONIAN ZOE can be translated. As I understand >the term it means exactly what the KJV translates "everlasting life".I am >finding some scholars that want to translate AIONIAN ZOE as "life of the >age [to come]". I am trying to find someone to explain this conflict at a >beginners level that I can understand.


I would say the word "well" may be strained in this paragraph. I would encourage you to work with a good beginning grammar and continue to master basics of Greek grammar.

>Question; >1. Is "life of the age" a possible translation for AIONIAN ZOE?

First the adjective AIWNIOS (see fac for transliteration scheme) is an adjective of the second declension only and rarely takes a first declension form (AIWNIAN see below) which you give. There are three places in the NT where it precedes the noun ZWH. Most often it follows ZWH as in Matt.19:29 ZWHN AIWNION. "Life of the age" would have to be written ZWH TOU AIWNOS. I don't think that that appears in the NT. I did not check.


Fortigun interjects: For the record, I checked. The phrase does not appear in the New Testament at all.

Continued:

The adjective is AIWNIOS. The noun is AIWN (nom) AIWNOS (gen).

>2. Is "of the age" a way of making AION into an adjective?[/]i

Yes, but it would mean something different from ZWH AIWNIOS.

> >3. How would "of the age" normaly be written in Greek.

TOU AIWNOS (using the noun)

>4. Is AIONIAN a word that deals only with matters concerning the age to >come?

I haven't looked up the adjective AIWNIOS, but I really think that it deals more with the kind of life than just the idea of beyond death or futuristic. Also there are two places in the NT where you do have a first declension form of the adjective in the accusative, 2 Th. 2:16 PARAKLHSIN AIWNIAN and Heb. 9:12 AIWNIAN LUTRWSIN.

Grace and Peace, Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Prof. of Religion Louisiana College Box 612 Pineville, LA 71359 winbery at andria.lacollege.edu winberyc at speedgate.net Phones 318 487 7241, Home 318 448 6103


In the third example, we find specific reference made to EIS TON AIWNA as an idiom:

On Fri 20 Jun 2003 (13:41:18), markosl80 at yahoo.com wrote: > John 8:51-52 [snippage] >

In both these passage there are Greek words untranslated in most > versions: "eis aion" never see death "for ever", never taste of death > "to the age". > > In your view.. > > What is the significance of these two words, in this passage, and also > John 11:26, in terms of .. translation > doctrine > idiomatic usage

In terms of Greek, EIS TON AIWNA in both verses 51 and 52 appear to be a Hebraism rendering `aD `oWLaM, "to eternity".

This adverbial phrase of time is found in Psalms 41:14, 90:2, 103:17, and 106:48. In Psalm 41:14 we have "Blessed be the LORD God of Israel Me`Ha`oWLaM W:`aD Ha`oWLaM 'aMeN W:'aMeN From [the] everlasting and to [the] everlasting Amen and Amen". The `oWLaM is "the age" or "eternity"; that is, eternity past and eternity future.

You'll notice that Jesus starts his saying in John 8:51 AMHN AMHN LEGW hUMIN: the doubled Amen with which Psalm 41:14 ends. EIS TON AIWNA reinforces the double negative OU MH in verses 51 and 52: "No not for ever" or "never ever for all eternity". Doctrine is a No-no for B-Greek; I'll refer you to the commentators for that.

Idiomatic Usage is the Hebrew idiomatic usage, somewhat woodenly translated into Greek. Compare Psalm 41:14 (40:13 in LXX) EULOGHTOS KURIOS hO QEOS ISRAHL *APO TOU AIWNOS KAI EIS TON AIWNA*: GENOITO, GENOITO.

With GENOITO for 'aMeN, compare MH GENOITO in Romans 6:2, 7:7,13, 9:14, 11:1, 11:11 and elsewhere, rendered "God forbid" in the KJV and "by no means" in later versions. You can hardly get more idiomatic than that! The emphatic negative MH plus the Optative implies "may it never ever be even an option!".


As you can see, we're getting a very consistent set of answers here.

In the fourth example, we have another respondent replying to some of the same questions we read earlier:

[i]> 2. He says that AION cannot ever mean “eternal” in the NT – that it is  an AGE, with an unspecified amount of time, but having a definite beginning and end. An example of his reasoning is the question that  the disciples asked Jesus: “What will be the sign of the end of the  age”. If this is translated here as “eternity/forever” (as it is in  many other passages in several popular translations), it would not  make any sense at all (what will be the sign of the end of eternity).  I think he has a good point with that word, but what I’m really> interested in are the phrases “AION of AIONS”, or “AIONS of AIONS” (note the plural for both aion's in the last one). My friend would  say these should be taken literally, like the Holy of Holies, and King  of Kings – that they should be understood as “an age apart from all  the other ages”, and “two ages apart from all other ages”. Most  translations use “forever” or “forever and ever” for these phrases.  Which is right? Are both translations legitimate (for the phrases)?  Bill Mounce makes reference to the Jewish concept of time in Basics of  Biblical Greek, but he doesn't go into detail. Did the Septuagint  translate Hebrew terms for "everlasting" as "age of ages",... or, in other words, is the phrase "age of ages" a Greek idiom meaning  forever? Does Koine Greek have idioms?

Of course Greek has idioms, and NT Greek includes idioms influenced Semitic modes of expression, not the least of which are those idioms including the word AIWN, as has been pointed out already.

While AIWN **may** refer to an age with a definite beginning and end, the context determines whether or not this is so. Apparently your friend would have us believe that the very fig tree Jesus cursed EIS TON AIWONA (Matt 21.19) will indeed grow fruit once this specified "age" comes to its conclusion!

Or that when Jesus promised the woman at the well that she would not thirst EIS TON AIWNA (John 4.14) he meant only for a limited time, after which she would be thirsty again!

Or that when Jesus promised in John 6.51 that if anyone ate the bread he was talking about he would live EIS TON AIWNA, he simply meant for a limited period of time, even though the context makes it abundantly obvious that this is not the case?

What can EIS TON AIWNA mean in John 6.58 if not "forever"? Is Jesus there saying that the fathers ate manna and eventually died, and whoever eats the bread Jesus offers will likewise eventually expire once this "age" is over?

Did the Jews indicate by EIS TON AIWNA in John 12.34 their belief that the Messiah would remain only for a specified age with a beginning and an end?

When Paul says in Rom 1.25 that God is blessed EIS TOUS AIWNAS does he really mean only for a limited number of ages? Or does he mean to tell his readers with the same prepositional phrase in Rom 11.36 that God deserves glory for a limited number of ages?

Or--silliest of all--should we take the angel of Rev 10.6 to mean by EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN that God lives only for two ages apart from all other ages? We could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Let's look at this from another angle. Mark 3.29 says:

hOS D' AN BLASFHMHSHi EIS TO PNEUMA TO hAGION, OUK ECEI AFESIN EIS TON AIWNA, ALLA ENOCOS ESTIN AIWNIOU hAMARTHMATOS.

Note here that the person who commits blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not have forgiveness EIS TON AIWNA precisely because he is guilty of an eternal sin (AIWNIOU hAMARTHMATOS). Why would such a person have forgiveness withheld for only a limited period of time when his sin is an eternal one?

Is Jesus really saying, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, does not have forgiveness for a limited amount of time, but is guilty of an eternal sin"? What sense does ALLA ("but") make here if this is so? Or would your friend suggest that the cognate adjective of AIWN here, namely AIWNIOS, be taken to mean "lasting for an age with a beginning and an end."

If so, I wonder how the NT has anything at all to say about anything truly eternal. In this case we would have to assume that when the man of Mark 10.17 runs up to Jesus and asks him what he must do to inherit eternal life (ZWHN AIWNION), what he really had in mind was not everlasting life, but a temporary life confined to a limited age!

One more example taken from Luke 1.33:

KAI BASILEUSEI EPI TON OIKON IAKWB EIS TOUS AIWNAS KAI THS BASILEIAS AUTOU OUK ESTAI TELOS.

What is immediately apparent from this example is that when Luke says that the Messiah will reign into the ages (BASILEUSEI ... EIS TOUS AIWNAS) he means that his kingdom will have **no end** (THS BASILEIAS AUTOU OUK ESTAI TELOS). Thus, the reign that lasts EIS TOUS AIWNAS is the rule that will have no end.

Note how EIS TOUS AIWNAS is clearly characterized as being endless
.


I invite you to take up the issue on B-Greek and B-Trans.

You said:

Moreover, the phrase itself indicates that endless time is not in view:

Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, LXX, where the Greek text says, eis ton aiona tou aionos, "into the eon of the eon,"-the singular form for eon in both occurrences. The preposition eis is translated "into" or "unto;" idiomatically, "for." Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon and Concordance defines it: "eis, into, to as far as, to the extent of."

Dr. E.W. Bullinger's Lexicon and Concordance says (p. 804), "eis, unto, when referring to time, denoting either the interval up to a certain point, during; or the point itself as the object or aim of some purpose, up to, for."

Dr. Nigel Turner, in his book, Grammatical Insights into the N.T., says (p. 91), "eis involves a movement for development toward a goal." If eis means as far as, to the extent of, or a movement or development toward a goal, then it cannot be used with words meaning endless or unlimited time.


I reponded:

You are committing the root word fallacy by dividing up an idiom into its discrete units. The meaning of the entire idiom is not to be governed by one particular application of one particular part of the semantic range of any of its constituent words. It needs to be translated as an idiom, not broken up.


You replied:

Again, you baselessly assert that this phrase, which makes fine sense as it stands literally, is idiomatic.


I'm not asserting it baselessly. Have a look at any number of Bible translations - you'll find it consistently translated as an idiom. Examine the lexical, historical, and textual data, and you'll find the same - it's an idiom.

Have a look at literal word for word translations, which do not take regard for idioms, and you'll find it translated as you do. What is this telling you?

You're going to have to give some reasons for disregarding the plain meaning of the phrase.


The plain meaning of the phrase is derived from understanding that it is an idiom.

Moreover, I do not see how I have committed the root fallacy. Could you explain? Thanks.


You have committed the root word fallacy by dividing up an idiom into its discrete units. You are not treating the phrase as an idiom.

I also wrote:

In addition, you are committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer. The word eis as an individual word bears the semantic range mentioned here, but its precise meaning in a given context is not to be represented as the entire semantic range in any context.


You replied:

If you can think of a more appropriate rendering of the word 'eis', I'd be happy to learn of it. No fallacy here.


Certainly - the more appropriate rendering is 'for'. Hence for ever and ever.

You cited this rendering yourself, when you wrote:

The preposition eis is translated "into" or "unto;" idiomatically, "for."


I wrote:

And once more, I note that you are translating the phrase 'eis tous aionas ton aionon' as a time duration having a specific termination point. I know of no reputable lexical or translation authority which interprets the phrase in this way. I know of none which interpret it as meaning 'the final ages' as opposed to timelessness.


You replied:

You know of no reputable lexical or translation authority which interprets the phrase in WHAT way, exactly?


In this way:

Into the eon of the eon.


...or:

As far as the age of the age.


...or:

Up to the goal of the eon.


...or:

Into the ages of the ages.


...or:

Unto the ages of the ages.


Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users