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.
Daniel, I'm not sure why you quoted Plato's Timaeus and the KPONOS (Plato's dealing with TIME] section to prove aion or aionios means eternal since Plato used it here in a way proving it did not mean eternal:
Uh, no, ἀϊδίων is the masculine genitive plural of ἀΐδιος, which means everlasting or eternal. It comes from ἀεί, which means "always," "continual," or "eternal." "Imperceptible" is utter nonsense. Here is the TLG entry:
Quote:
ἀΐδιος [ᾱῐδ], ον, also η, ον, Orph.H.10.21, al., (ἀεί):—everlasting, eternal, h.Hom.29.3, Hes.Sc.310; freq. in Prose, χρόνος Antipho 1.21; ἔχθρα Th.4.20; οἴκησις, of a tomb, X.Ages.11.16; ἡ ἀ. οὐσία eternity, Pl.Ti.37e; ἀ. στρατηγία, ἀρχή, βασιλεία, perpetual . . , Arist. Pol.1285a7, 1317b41, 1301b27; ἀ. βασιλεῖς, γέροντες, ib.1284b33, 1306a17; τὰ ἀ., opp. τὰ γενητά and φθαρτά, Id.Metaph.1069a32, EN 1139b23, al.; ἐς ἀΐδιον for ever, Th.4.63; ad infinitum, Arist.PA 640a6; ἐξ ἀϊδίου Plot.2.1.3: Comp. -ώτερος Arist.Cael.284a17:—ἀ. is dist. fr. αἰώνιος as everlasting from timeless, Olymp.in Mete.146.16; but dist. fr. ἀείζωος as eternal (without beginning or end) from ever-living, Corp.Herm.8.2. Adv. ἀϊδ-ίως Sm.Mi.7.18, Iamb.Comm.Math. 1, Hierocl.in CA1p.419M.
Concerning Plato's Timaeus: KPONOS
"WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving
and living, the created image of the AIDION gods, he rejoiced, and in his
joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this
was AIDION, he sought to make the universe EONION, so far as might be.
Now the nature of the ideal being was EONIAN, but to bestow this
attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he
resolved to have a moving image of the EON, and when he set in order the
heaven, he made this image the EON but moving according to number,
while EONIAN itself rests in unity; and this image we call time. For there
were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was
created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time,
which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the AIDION essence; for
we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone
is properly attributed to Him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is
immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did
or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all
to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of
which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates the EON and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover,
when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is
becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the
non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of
expression."
You've completely and totally perverted that text. You don't know Greek at all, so stop pretending to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Please note above that Plato says there is “was,” “is” and
“will be” and that only “was” and “will be” are properly spoken of
time and since the eons and eonian is an image of time
That's not what he says at all. He says eternity exists apart from time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
it is improper,
according to Plato, to ascribe “was” and “will be” to God. Only “is” is
applicable to God since He never changes nor grows old. So “is” is not
applicable to eon or eonian since only “was” and “will be” are applicable to
eon and eonian. Therefore, according to Plato, eon and eonian are not
eternal since they are not applicable to God who is eternal.
No, that's an absolutely ludicrous misreading of the text. Absolutely ludicrous. You would be laughed out of any university on the planet with a Classics program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Also, according to Plato's Timaeus, time was created when the heavens were created: the Sun, moon and stars mark out the times and seasons. And eon and eonian are,
according to Plato a moving image of time. Therefore since the heavens
had a beginning it is impossible for eon or eonian to be eternal (without
beginning). And when the heavens are destroyed time will cease and thus
eon and eonian will cease as well.
Nope. You continue to misunderstand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Nathaniel Scarlett
Nathaniel Scarlett published his translation of the New Testament before the year 1800. His lexicography is phenomenally outdated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
on Jude 1:6 "unseen chains" . . .
"Most Lexicon writers derive the word aidios from aei, ever or always: but
it may have the same etemology as hades, which they derive from a
negative, and idein, to see; and therefore it signifies invisible, unseen, or
unknown. In Romans 1:20 where it is applied to the power of the Deity, it
means unknown; because we see or know only a very small part of God's
power. The word is used in a limited sense by the Greeks: thus
Thucydides has this phrase--othen aidion (imperceptible)
misthophoran uparchein, "from whence he expected a
perpetual salary." But this could only be a salary during his life: therefore
the word here in Thucydides means a period unknown; though it will
certainly end."
Again you're appealing to dogmatism that finds a theological problem with eternal punishment and so makes up lexicographical excuses for rejecting it. He provides no argument whatsoever for his entirely indefensible alternative etymology, and he himself can't even subscribe wholly to it. He must only say it "may have the same etymology as hades." Fortunately, we know it doesn't.
Uh, no, ἀϊδίων is the masculine genitive plural of ἀΐδιος, which means everlasting or eternal. It comes from ἀεί, which means "always," "continual," or "eternal." "Imperceptible" is utter nonsense. Here is the TLG entry:
You've completely and totally perverted that text. You don't know Greek at all, so stop pretending to.
That's not what he says at all. He says eternity exists apart from time.
No, that's an absolutely ludicrous misreading of the text. Absolutely ludicrous. You would be laughed out of any university on the planet with a Classics program.
Nope. You continue to misunderstand.
Nathaniel Scarlett published his translation of the New Testament before the year 1800. His lexicography is phenomenally outdated.
Again you're appealing to dogmatism that finds a theological problem with eternal punishment and so makes up lexicographical excuses for rejecting it. He provides no argument whatsoever for his entirely indefensible alternative etymology, and he himself can't even subscribe wholly to it. He must only say it "may have the same etymology as hades." Fortunately, we know it doesn't.
Wow! I can't believe you stated what you did above.
Of course it is completely and totally true. Plato is writing concerning KPONOS (TIME) not eternity.
And he proved it in that text. It is so painfully obvious you don't really know Greek nor can you understand even what Plato was writing about.
He stated there is "is," "was" and "will be" but that "was" and "will be" should not be used of God. Only "is" is to be used of God, Plato wrote. And he wrote "was" and "will be" are applicable to TIME. And since aiwn and aiwnion are forms of time, they, according to Plato should not be used of God since God is eternal.
Daniel, please, for the love of God, quit with your knee-jerk reactions. They make you look foolish.
Daniel replied:
Uh, no, ἀϊδίων is the masculine genitive plural of ἀΐδιος, which means everlasting or eternal. It comes from ἀεί, which means "always," "continual," or "eternal." "Imperceptible" is utter nonsense.
No it doesn't come from aei. The reason aidiwn is plural is to agree with the plural form of Thewn. The Greeks knew nothing of "eternities" as if one eternity could follow another eternity. If that were the case it couldn't really be "eternity" since, according to some, "eternity" is supposed to be endless. IF we translate it according to your idea, using the genitive and plural form it would be "eternities of the gods" which is ludicrous.
What did they teach you in those classes anyway?
"Aidion is usually derived from another source than the one we have suggested. It is usually traced back to aei, translated "ever" (Mark 15:8) and "always" (Acts 7:51; 2 Cor.4:11; 6:10; Titus 1:12; Heb.3:10; 1 Peter 3:15; 2 Peter 1:12). Not one of these passages can refer to eternity in any sense. Pilate had not released a prisoner to the Jews throughout eternity past or future. A dissection of this word into its elements will guide us to its true meaning. It is from a, un and ei, if. Pilate had always granted a prisoner without an if. It was a matter of course. So that, even if we are inclined to follow the ordinary etymology and derive aidion from aei, we must stretch the use of the words "ever" and "always" altogether out of their proper limits before we get the thought of endlessness.
"In Greek, as in Hebrew, the most stable letters are the consonants. The vowels vary much and form no sure sign of the relationship of one word to another. It is a difficult matter to see how aidion could ever be derived from aei. That the a in one carries the same force as the a in the other is freely admitted. But then the likeness ceases. Id cannot be found in ei even if they have one common vowel. The only reason they were ever associated was a supposed identity in meaning" (Unsearchable Riches magazine, vol.8).
First let me say thank you for answering, I do appreciate it.
Originally Posted by pneuma Here are the 3 questions again Daniel.
1. Can you prove aionios means eternal (without beginning and without end) in scripture?
Quote:
Nothing in lexicography is proven. It is all a balance of probabilities, and semantic sense is relative and dynamic.
I agree, nothing is proven with the writing and editing of dictionaries.
Quote:
The notion that anything can be "proven" betrays your ignorance of the nature and function of lexicography.
Now wait a minute, I have never said I can prove anything from lexicography, I have maintained and still maintain that the scriptures and only the scriptures can prove the scriptures.
Quote:
If you're asking whether I can show it likely means "eternal," of course I can. First, we can show that in non-biblical Greek literature the term referred to eternity in the philosophical sense. Plato's Timaeus (37c–39e) shows this:
So you are saying then that it cannot be proven that aion means eternal, but that in your opinion there is a high likelihood that it means eternal.
So you will now go outside the scriptures to show this likelihood.
Quote:
Quote:
When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal, he sought to make the universe eternal, so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting, but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity, and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal but moving according to number, while eternity itself rests in unity; and this image we call time. For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of expression. But perhaps this whole subject will be more suitably discussed on some other occasion.
Ok so what this shows is that Plato used aion as both eternal and time or duration. That hardly proves that it was used both ways in scripture. Which as you said you cannot prove but believe it is in high likelihood.
However scripture says the aions come to an end. Now would you make an argument that if the scriptures stated the ages come to an end that there is an age that is eternal?
Now you might make the argument that aions spoken of in those scriptures is actually referring to an age, but this is not something you can prove, it is just something that you believe. A belief that is based on a certain dogma, for if it cannot be proven why do you believe it?
Quote:
Then we can point to parallel usages in the New Testament like 1 Tim 1:17, where the author refers to glory and honor offered to τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ σοφῶ θεῷ, "the king, eternal, immortal, invisible––the only wise God." The juxtaposition of αἰώνων and ἀφθάρτῳ is not accidental.
1 Timothy 1:17
17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
I agree it is not accidental, they are put side by side to emphasize the contrast between them.
Thus aion and immortal are put side by side to show the contrast between them.
As immortal deals with that which is eternal then aion cannot mean eternal also or there is no contrast between them. One deals with that which is eternal; therefore the other one cannot.
Throughout scripture God is spoken of as the God of the ages, thus a better translation to show the contrast would be " Now unto the King of the ages"
Quote:
John 3:15–16 similarly places "eternal life" twice in apposition to a promise that someone would μὴ ἀπόληται, or "not perish." Someone who does not perish is someone who lives forever.
John 3:15-16
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Your taking it for granted that everlasting life means eternal here.
However scriptures will not allow that translation.
Paul states that there are yet ages/aions to come. In other words more the ONE age to come.
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus
And Jesus tells us that in the age (singular) to come aionios life.
30But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Now as world here means age then the adjective aionios here must pertain to that age. Thus it is speaking of the life of the age to come. Which age cannot be eternal as Paul tells us that there are ages to come.
So the contrast that is being shown in John 3:15-16 is not pertaining to the loss of eternal life but rather is pertaining to the loss of life in the age to come. The time of the first resurrection where the believer will rule and reign with Christ.
Quote:
In John 10:28 we read that Jesus will give them ζωὴν αἰώνιον, clarifying that οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, "you will never die." εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα means "through eternity."
John 10:28
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
I disagree Daniel, as I showed above Paul speaks of ages to come, and Jesus speaks of aionios as only pertaining to the age to come. Thus Jesus gives them the life of the age to come and they will not perish into/unto that age.
Quote:
I know you all assert this silly notion of "into the ages," but that's just a result of your lexicographic harmonization and homogenization, which is just laughable for anyone who knows anything about linguistics.
Are you so sure that this is referring to me and not you?
Quote:
It also makes no sense in this context.
It absolutely does make sense Daniel. What makes no sense is to say that the age to come is eternal when there are more ages to come afterword's.Which is what you are saying.
Quote:
The consistent and emphatic contrast of death and destruction with "eternal life" leaves absolutely no room for insisting the latter actually does not preclude death.
No one said anything about it precluding death. However the contrast is between the life of the age to come and death, not between eternal life and eternal death.
Quote:
I know the foundation of your whole case is rejection of the notion of eternal punishment, but theological dogamtism is not how you determine semantic sense.
Daniel my foundation is based solely on what the scriptures say. Not on a dogma. Scripture tells us what we are commanded to teach, which is, Jesus Christ is the saviour of ALL MEN, specially of those that believe; this command and teach. Eternal punishment simply is not compatible with what we are commanded to teach. Thus the ones who are using theological dogmatism are those who believe in eternal punishment.
Originally Posted by pneuma 2. Can you give me a scripture where aionios means without beginning and without end/eternal? You said all of them in your reply to E, which is hardly the case. If you are following this thread you will see that I supplied scripture that states aionios has a beginning.
Quote:
Yes, the word has different meanings. See above for scriptures where the meaning is most likely "eternal."
Most likely, but not absolutely, I can appreciate you leaving it open for the possibility of it meaning something else. However as I have shared via scripture I cannot see it meaning eternal as Paul speaks of ages to come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma 3. Can you explain from the scripture you use to show aionios means without beginning and without end/eternal and why it must mean without beginning and without end/eternal?
Quote:
Because it's repeatedly contrasted with death and destruction. A life that does not end is eternal.
So is a life that is for the age to come is also in contrast to death and destruction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma In other word what criteria do you use that makes the aion eternal.
Quote:
First, I consider extra-biblical usage. The Bible would be absolutely meaningless if its languages were not based in some way on contemporary common usage. Plato's Timaeus demonstrates that the term has reference to timelessness and no end/beginning.
Going outside the scriptures to define a word in the scriptures is never a good idea imo, as the scriptures do a fine job of defining the words they use.
Quote:
Second, I look at the contexts in which the word occurs. The only keys to the specific usage consistently and emphatically contrast the meaning with ending and destruction, which makes it clear the sense is consonant with the usage in Plato.
I also look at the context in which the word occurs and see the contrast between life and death. The only difference here between us is that you see the contrast between life and death as eternal; whereas I see the contrast between life and death for the age to come.
Quote:
Third, I know about lexicography and am not so ridiculously uninformed as to think each word can only have one unilateral meaning.
Well like you said you cannot prove anything by lexicography. However I agree that words can have more then one meaning. But when scripture tells us the aions come to an end that pretty much tells me that aion cannot mean eternal.
Quote:
Fourth, I am not bound by theological sensitivities or dogmas, so I'm not forced into certain readings only because my theology won't let me interpret the words correctly.
I hope that is the case Daniel, and as you leave aion open to another possibility in meaning, it would seem to be the case. I gave you my reasons via scripture why I see aion and its adjective to mean age and pertaining to the age. I am not asking you to agree with my assessment, but will ask you if my assessment is a possibility? If it is not a possibility can you explain why it is not?
Wow! I can't believe you stated what you did above.
Of course it is completely and totally true. Plato is writing concerning KPONOS (TIME) not eternity.
And he proved it in that text. It is so painfully obvious you don't really know Greek nor can you understand even what Plato was writing about.
He stated there is "is," "was" and "will be" but that "was" and "will be" should not be used of God.
This relates to his doctrine of being and becoming. Entities outside of time are not "becoming," but just "being." They are eternally the same. Entities inside of time are "becoming," meaning they are changing. Time has a beginning and an end, meaning it's not eternal. God exists outside of time, and is thus eternal. This is simple and basic platonic ontology, and you obviously know slightly less than jack about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Only "is" is to be used of God, Plato wrote. And he wrote "was" and "will be" are applicable to TIME. And since aiwn and aiwnion are forms of time,
No, he clearly states that the "eternal gods" wanted to make the creatures more like the original (the eternal gods), which were eternal. As he states, to bestow this attribute onto a created entity existing within time was impossible. The image of eternity was time, changing and moving, while eternity itself "rests in unity." The past and the future are "created species of time," which are wrongly thought to be eternal. Finally:
Quote:
that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (χρόνου ταῦτα αἰῶνα μιμουμένου) and revolves according to a law of number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
they, according to Plato should not be used of God since God is eternal.
You can't even understand English. This is a grotesque misreading of Plato.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Daniel, please, for the love of God, quit with your knee-jerk reactions. They make you look foolish.
You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, and your histrionics here aren't helping your case at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The reason aidiwn is plural is to agree with the plural form of Thewn.
I don't recall saying otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The Greeks know nothing of "eternities" as if one eternity could follow another eternity.
It's a figure of speech, Eusebius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
If that were the case it couldn't really be "eternity" since, according to some, "eternity" is supposed to be endless. IF we translate it according to your idea, using the genitive and plural form it would be "eternities of the gods" which is ludicrous.
What did they teach you in those classes anyway?
No one buys your attempts to speak down to me, Eusebius.
I agree, nothing is proven with the writing and editing of dictionaries.
I don't think you understand what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Now wait a minute, I have never said I can prove anything from lexicography, I have maintained and still maintain that the scriptures and only the scriptures can prove the scriptures.
And that's a terrible fallacy called the hermeneutic circle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
So you are saying then that it cannot be proven that aion means eternal, but that in your opinion there is a high likelihood that it means eternal.
So you will now go outside the scriptures to show this likelihood.
If one is not allowed to go outside the scriptures, one cannot read a word of the scriptures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Ok so what this shows is that Plato used aion as both eternal and time or duration.
It doesn't show that at all. It shows that aion exists apart from time, since time was a creation that has a beginning and end. It unequivocally and directly states that aion is timeless and eternal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
That hardly proves that it was used both ways in scripture. Which as you said you cannot prove but believe it is in high likelihood.
However scripture says the aions come to an end.
There are occurrences of the word that reflect that usage, but as has already been well established, words have different meanings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Now would you make an argument that if the scriptures stated the ages come to an end that there is an age that is eternal?
You're still presupposing that the word can only mean one thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Now you might make the argument that aions spoken of in those scriptures is actually referring to an age, but this is not something you can prove, it is just something that you believe. A belief that is based on a certain dogma,
No, it's a conclusion based on evidence. The only ones here spouting dogmatism are the people who don't know Greek and are still trying to lecture people on Greek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
for if it cannot be proven why do you believe it?
A laughable question. The vast majority of what you believe cannot be proved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I agree it is not accidental, they are put side by side to emphasize the contrast between them.
Thus aion and immortal are put side by side to show the contrast between them.
How do you figure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
As immortal deals with that which is eternal then aion cannot mean eternal also or there is no contrast between them. One deals with that which is eternal; therefore the other one cannot.
It's called apposition. The words agree. They're not contrastive. Why on earth would someone think these words are meant to be contrasted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Throughout scripture God is spoken of as the God of the ages, thus a better translation to show the contrast would be " Now unto the King of the ages"
But this is just begging the question. You're presupposing your conclusion in the premise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Your taking it for granted that everlasting life means eternal here.
No, I'm showing it's what the context indicates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
However scriptures will not allow that translation.
Paul states that there are yet ages/aions to come. In other words more the ONE age to come.
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus
And Jesus tells us that in the age (singular) to come aionios life.
30But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Now as world here means age then the adjective aionios here must pertain to that age. Thus it is speaking of the life of the age to come. Which age cannot be eternal as Paul tells us that there are ages to come
You're still begging the question. You're presupposing that the word can only have one meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
So the contrast that is being shown in John 3:15-16 is not pertaining to the loss of eternal life but rather is pertaining to the loss of life in the age to come. The time of the first resurrection where the believer will rule and reign with Christ.
I disagree Daniel, as I showed above Paul speaks of ages to come, and Jesus speaks of aionios as only pertaining to the age to come. Thus Jesus gives them the life of the age to come and they will not perish into/unto that age.
Ok, you are not capable of making a coherent argument. I cannot engage this irrationality any further. I'm not wasting my time. You obviously do not understand what I'm saying, and you obviously understand Greek and linguistics even less. I'm done.
Concerning Plato's Timaeus: KPONOS
"WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving
and living, the created image of the AIDION gods, he rejoiced, and in his
joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this
was AIDION, he sought to make the universe EONION, so far as might be.
Now the nature of the ideal being was EONIAN, but to bestow this
attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he
resolved to have a moving image of the EON, and when he set in order the
heaven, he made this image the EON but moving according to number,
while EONIAN itself rests in unity; and this image we call time. For there
were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was
created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also.They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time,
which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the AIDION essence; for
we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone
is properly attributed to Him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is
immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did
or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all
to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of
which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates the EON and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover,
when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is
becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the
non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of
expression."
And neither do you even remotely understand what Plato was saying above.
It is dealing with TIME, not ETERNITY. It is dealing with the EONS and that
which is pertaining to the EONS (i.e. eonian).
Here is a major hint for you oh great and wise one:
The heading of this section is KRONOS. That means "TIME" not Eternity.
He likewise is saying the eons and eonian is "was and will be" but God is "is."
Therefore he was stating the eons and eonian are not representative of eternity.
Please tell my you are just pulling my leg on this matter.
Could you get your money back from Brigham Young U.?
Ok, you are not capable of making a coherent argument. I cannot engage this irrationality any further. I'm not wasting my time. You obviously do not understand what I'm saying, and you obviously understand Greek and linguistics even less. I'm done.
Yay! Hooray! He's done! Now he can get back into his chariot and be whisked away to his make-believe kingdom of one where he alone understands himself and how dare pneuma even ask him a question.
Bye bye! We won't miss you oh king of the lexicon.
It is good to debate words. However, it is equally good to look for context in other parts of the Bible.
The Restoration of the Iron Axe Head
The prophet Elisha was the head of a school of prophets in ancient Israel. Elisha was the successor to Elijah. He had asked for, and received, the double portion of the Spirit that had been upon Elijah (2 Kings 2:9). As a consequence, whereas there are eight miracles recorded and attributed to Elijah, there are sixteen attributed to Elisha. Eight is the number of new beginnings, but sixteen is the number of love. Elijah prepared the way for Elisha, even as John prepared the way for Jesus to establish a new beginning in the earth. Yet the way is prepared so that the love of God to be extended in the salvation of all men.
One of Elisha's miracles was to restore an iron ax head that had been lost in the Jordan River. The story is found in 2 Kings 6:1-7.
1 Now the sons of the prophets said to Elisha, "Behold now, the place before you where we are living is too limited for us. 2 Please let us go to the Jordan, and each of us take from there a beam, and let us make a place there for ourselves where we may live." So he said, "Go." 3 Then one said, "Please be willing to go with your servants." And he answered, "I shall go." 4 So he went with them; and when they came to the Jordan, they cut down trees. 5 But as one was felling a beam, the axe head fell into the water; and he cried out and said, "Alas, my master! For it was borrowed." 6 Then the man of God said, "Where did it fall?" And when he showed him the place, he cut off a stick, and threw it in there, and made the iron float.
7 And he said, "Take it up for yourself." So he put out his hand and took it.
I believe the iron in this story represents not only the iron kingdom of Rome, but by extension the entire Babylonian succession of empires. Even as the iron axe had cut down trees, so also the Roman Empire subdued many nations. Nations are often symbolized by trees in the Scriptures. One of the "trees" that Rome subdued was the nation of Judah. But out of that tree came forth a Branch-Jesus Christ-who would be cast into the Jordan River (death) in order to restore the iron, the kingdoms of this world.
The kingdoms of this world are devoted to destruction, even as the iron axe head fell into the Jordan River. But they are saved by Jesus Christ, represented in the story by Elisha, a type of Christ. He saves them by applying the wooden branch, or tree, to the river. This signifies the Cross, with Jesus' death being applied to the waters, which represent "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." Revelation 17:15 says,
15. . . The waters which thou sawest, where the ***** sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
This brief story of Elisha is a beautiful picture of the restoration of all things and the subduing of all nations under the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. In that it is miracle twelve out of the sixteen that Elisha performed, it deals with the establishment of divine government in the earth.
Concerning Plato's Timaeus: KPONOS
"WHEN the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving
and living, the created image of the AIDION gods, he rejoiced, and in his
joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this
was AIDION, he sought to make the universe EONION, so far as might be.
Now the nature of the ideal being was EONIAN, but to bestow this
attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he
resolved to have a moving image of the EON, and when he set in order the
heaven, he made this image the EON but moving according to number,
while EONIAN itself rests in unity; and this image we call time. For there
were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was
created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also.They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time,
which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the AIDION essence; for
we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone
is properly attributed to Him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is
immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did
or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all
to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of
which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates the EON and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover,
when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is
becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the
non-existent is non-existent-all these are inaccurate modes of
expression."
And neither do you even remotely understand what Plato was saying above.
It is dealing with TIME, not ETERNITY. It is dealing with the EONS and that
which is pertaining to the EONS (i.e. eonian).
Here is a major hint for you oh great and wise one:
The heading of this section is KRONOS. That means "TIME" not Eternity.
He likewise is saying the eons and eonian is "was and will be" but God is "is."
Therefore he was stating the eons and eonian are not representative of eternity.
Please tell my you are just pulling my leg on this matter.
Could you get your money back from Brigham Young U.?
All you're doing is repeating your previous assertions without engaging my concerns.
Originally Posted by pneuma Now wait a minute, I have never said I can prove anything from lexicography, I have maintained and still maintain that the scriptures and only the scriptures can prove the scriptures.
Quote:
Daniel replied:
And that's a terrible fallacy called the hermeneutic circle.
"The hermeneutic circle (German: hermeneutischer Zirkel) describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text; rather, it stresses that the meaning of a text must be found within its cultural, historical, and literary context."
The above definition was not what pneuma was doing as you suggested.
pneuma's understanding that only the Scriptures can prove the Scriptures is not the fallacy you attribute.
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.
