Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it is interesting that many are the "scholars" who inform us that aiwnios must be eternal when it is used as the opposite of "temporary." From the KJV we have:
2 Corinthians 4:16-18 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. (17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; (18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
But the Concordant Literal New Testament has it thus:
2 Corinthians 4:16-18 Wherefore we are not despondent, but even if our outward man is decaying, nevertheless that within us is being renewed day by day." (17) For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory, (18) at our not noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is being observed is temporary, yet what is not being observed is eonian."
But is Paul trying to show opposites here? Can it not be logical to suppose Paul was telling the Corinthians that the affliction they were enduring was "temporary" or "for a season" or "toward-seasons" (since proskaira is plural) but what they were not yet observing was "the transcendently transcendent eonian burder of glory"? And that he was informing the Corinthians that the glory they were not yet observing was not just for a season or two but was pertaining to the very long eons to come? Yes, of course he was.
So Paul was showing the relationship between the shorter time span of the seasons and their affliction within those seasons, and the very long, nay, much much longer time frame of the eons of glory in the future. Those eons being the 1000 year reign of Christ and the New Earth eon.
So the contrast is not between the seasons and eternity. The contrast is between that which is of the seasons and the future eons of glory.
In addition to diving into the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words there are other places / stories in the Bible that give us hints as to specific meaning. For instance, the current discussion. God is the same yesterday today and forever. The law is spiritual. The law defines the character of God. God put limits on punishment: eye for eye and 40 lashes.
It simply does not fit that God would burn someone in hell forever and ever. What crime can you commit on earth that would make everlasting torture an equitable punishment.
additionally, God discipline is to restore the victim and to correct the guilty. It's man that like to punish and torment and torture. That is not God's mo.
In addition to diving into the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words there are other places / stories in the Bible that give us hints as to specific meaning. For instance, the current discussion. God is the same yesterday today and forever. The law is spiritual. The law defines the character of God. God put limits on punishment: eye for eye and 40 lashes.
It simply does not fit that God would burn someone in hell forever and ever. What crime can you commit on earth that would make everlasting torture an equitable punishment.
Additionally, God's discipline is to restore the victim and to correct the guilty. It's man that like to punish and torment and torture. That is not God's mo.
I think it is interesting that many are the "scholars" who inform us that
aiwnios must be eternal when it is used as the opposite of "temporary." From the
KJV we have:
2 Corinthians 4:16-18 For which cause we faint not; but
though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. (17)
For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more
exceeding and eternal weight of glory; (18) While we look not at the things
which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which
are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are
eternal.
But the Concordant Literal New Testament has it
thus:
2 Corinthians 4:16-18 Wherefore we are not despondent, but even
if our outward man is decaying, nevertheless that within us is being renewed day
by day." (17) For the momentary lightness of our affliction is producing for
us a transcendently transcendent eonian burden of glory, (18) at our not
noting what is being observed, but what is not being observed, for what is
being observed is temporary, yet what is not being observed is
eonian."
But is Paul trying to show opposites here? Can it not be
logical to suppose Paul was telling the Corinthians that the affliction they
were enduring was "temporary" or "for a season" or "toward-seasons" (since
proskaira is plural) but what they were not yet observing was "the
transcendently transcendent eonian burder of glory"? And that he was informing
the Corinthians that the glory they were not yet observing was not just for a
season or two but was pertaining to the very long eons to come? Yes, of course
he was.
So Paul was showing the relationship between the shorter time
span of the seasons and their affliction within those seasons, and the very
long, nay, much much longer time frame of the eons of glory in the future. Those
eons being the 1000 year reign of Christ and the New Earth eon.
So the
contrast is not between the seasons and eternity. The contrast is between that
which is of the seasons and the future eons of glory
As noted already, Webster's New World Dictionary defines eon as "an extremely long, indefinite period of time; thousands of thousands of years," but then defines eonian as "lasting forever; eternal." Doesn't this seem contradictory considering the same dictionary defines eternal as "without beginning or end; existing through all time; timeless"?
In the Appendix to the Emphatic Diaglott [WED], Benjamin Wilson explains the word Age as follows: "AGE, aioon, an indefinite period of time, past, present or future. This is the proper translation of aioon, which in the common version is often improperly rendered world, always, and forever.
How can the noun form be a long period of time and the adjective form be eternal or timeless, when the adjective derives its meaning from the noun? Some would say, and do say, that the adjective cannot properly go beyond the meaning of the noun.]we accept that eonian must be derived from its root word eon then its meaning must also be related to its root word. If , the noun, speaks of an age or eon, then, the adjective, should also speak of an age or eon as a qualifier of whatever subject [noun] is attached to it. This is vital because, contrary to logic, many who see as an see as or meaning endless or, even, outside of time altogether .
Whoa...people who speak Greek and Hebrew that actually disagree with Daniel?!...(and all the traiditionist's scream) NOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooo!!
...Honestly, this whole "if you don't speak these languages well enough to read the bible in them, then your opinion on certain Greek and Hebrew words is worthless" argument is snobbish and bull. Yes, speaking the languages helps the understanding well beyond the lay persons, but if certain words are showing different meanings where it is impossible for it to mean what its translated as in another verse, one can use commonsense to see that there is an issue there.
Yes, it's possible to have words that have more than one meaning, but if some of those words are translated to favor a particular theology when there is a fair amount of proof against that meaning, that should be a red flag to any person regardless of their understanding of the original language. All that being said, given that most people don't speak the original languages here, Daniels input should still be seen as valuble, but certainly not unbiased...but it will likely just go back to one of those "my Greek scholars can beat up your Greek scholars" debates ;p
Scary ain't it
I agree, I hate the argument while my scholar says this and my scholar says that. That is why I wanted to speak to Daneil directly about this issue. I want to see what reason he has for translating any scripture of his choosing to mean without beginning and without end, what criteria does he use to draw this conclussion.
The only reason I post those scholars was to show Daneil (because he seems to hate E favorite scholar) and others that there is qualified scholars, much like Daneil himself, that disagree with him.
It really is to bad Daneil does not want to discuss this issue, I really was looking for a good discussion with him.
As noted already,
Webster's New World Dictionary defines eon as "an extremely long, indefinite period of time; thousands of thousands of years," but then defines eonian as "lasting forever; eternal." Doesn't this seem contradictory considering the same dictionary defines eternal as "without beginning or end; existing through all time; timeless"?
Not at all. The editors obviously understood people to use "eonian" to mean "eternal." The OED has the following:
Quote:
eon: An age of the universe, an immeasurable period of time; the whole duration of the world, or of the universe; eternity.
Quote:
eonian: Of or relating to an aeon; lasting an aeon; eternal, everlasting.
Dictionary semantics aren't really a help, here. They're descriptive, not prescriptive, and they're quite limited in their ability not only to delineate the semantic domain of a lexeme, but to account for contours and pluriformity. Dictionaries are for high school students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShanaBrown
In the Appendix to the Emphatic Diaglott [WED], Benjamin Wilson explains the word Age as follows: "AGE, aioon, an indefinite period of time, past, present or future. This is the proper translation of aioon, which in the common version is often improperly rendered world, always, and forever.
Yeah, that was written in the mid-nineteenth century. Greek lexicography has progressed quite a bit since then, as you're surely aware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShanaBrown
How can the noun form be a long period of time and the adjective form be eternal or timeless, when the adjective derives its meaning from the noun?
Adjectives derive their meaning from usage. Usage is usually related to lexical root, but it doesn't have to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShanaBrown
Some would say, and do say, that the adjective cannot properly go beyond the meaning of the noun.
And those people would be ignorant and wrong. There is no such standard anywhere in linguistics, and if you wish to insist otherwise, I would ask for a peer-reviewed publications that states as much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShanaBrown
we accept that eonian must be derived from its root word eon then its meaning must also be related to its root word.
Related? Sure. Restricted by the semantic breadth of? No way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShanaBrown
If , the noun, speaks of an age or eon, then, the adjective, should also speak of an age or eon as a qualifier of whatever subject [noun] is attached to it.
Unless it is used to refer to something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShanaBrown
This is vital because, contrary to logic, many who see as an see as or meaning endless or, even, outside of time altogether .
I agree, I hate the argument while my scholar says this and my scholar says that. That is why I wanted to speak to Daneil directly about this issue. I want to see what reason he has for translating any scripture of his choosing to mean without beginning and without end, what criteria does he use to draw this conclussion.
I use the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
The only reason I post those scholars was to show Daneil (because he seems to hate E favorite scholar) and others that there is qualified scholars, much like Daneil himself, that disagree with him.
No, those scholars have been dead for decades to centuries, and all you did was copy and paste that list from a post from some amateur apologist named L. Ray Smith that basically just confronts the theological position that there is eternal torment. You even reproduced his misspelling of "dictionary" as "dictionry." This theological concern is really the source of all the outdated lexicography to which you're pointing in support of your argument. Of course, the linguistic rules that you all have fabricated have nothing whatsoever to do with these long-dead theologians. Also, you're misrepresenting my position.
Weymouth died over 100 years ago and a was schoolmaster, not a Bible scholar. Marvin Vincent died in 1922. F. W. Farrar died in 1903. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible is more correct in stating that there was no real philosophical concept of eternity in Old Testament times, but the appeal to what "aion originally meant" is an etymological fallacy. It doesn't matter what the word originally meant. It matters what it was used to mean in the text itself. "Elliot’s Commentary on the Whole Bible" should actually be "Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible," and Charles Ellicott died in 1905. Hopefully you can see how these theologians were responding to a specific theological controversy dating to a specific period. The appeal to these lexicographers is uninformed and dilettantish. Look at LSJ, BDAG, Muraoka's Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, or any respected contemporary lexicon and you'll see what people without an ax to grind have to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
It really is to bad Daneil does not want to discuss this issue, I really was looking for a good discussion with him.
I don't think you were. You were looking to argue for a dogma of yours that you cannot understand or defend. You have no idea how Greek lexicography works, and you don't know Greek. All you know is that you arbitrarily accept this one concept and are willing to fight tooth and nail for it based on your own naive assumptions and inferences drawn from you own incomplete knowledge of English lexicography and semantics. I will not engage any further in this silly conversation with anyone who cannot show they at least have a rudimentary understanding of the Greek language. If you appeal to scholars and are then unable to engage the technical discussion I produce in response (and all of you are unable to do so), then you can't engage the argument adequately.
No, those scholars have been dead for decades to centuries,
That does not logically follow that since some scholars have been dead for decades that therefore what they said is to be discounted.
I bet I can find scholars who stated eonian can mean "eternal" who have been dead for decades to centuries. Therefore if we use your fallacious argument, they have to be incorrect since they died so long ago.
And what is wrong with pneuma copying and pasting from someone on the internet concerning aionios not being eternal? Again, you use fallacious arguments. Why should pneuma re-invent the wheel?
Not only that, but those scholars who told us what they know about aionios not being eternal were correct no matter if they lived one hour ago or fifty of a hundred years ago.
Here is something on Olam from The Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann:
First printing: 1997
The heading on page 852 is:
עולם olam eternity
"The Eng. translation "eternity" used in the heading is inappropriate
for a number of OT passages with olam, and, even when it seem appropriate,
it may not be permitted to introduce a preconceived concept of eternity,
burdened with all manner of later philosophical or theological content."
The Septuagint translators who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek translated Olam in its adjectival form as "aiwnion" and in its noun form as "aiwn."
Last edited by Sons of Zadok; 11-06-2014 at 08:56 AM..
Reason: choppy format
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
