Against AK4: Rev. 14:11 and Eternity

[AK4]

oberon
The accusative isn't an eternal motion because the noun "house" indicates the goal. You don't have that with ages, because there is no limit. "Into the ages" goes on and on, unlike into the house, because while "house" ensures a stopping point by virtue of the referent in the accusative, "ages" does not. And this is compounded by the genitive, making the sense of eternity even MORE clear.

Age has no limit? So the bronze age is still going? What about the middle ages? Age of the dinosaurs? Ages have limits. It has a beginning and end. In which of these definitions of age do you not see a beginning and an end?
noun
1.
the length of time during which a being or thing has existed; length of life or existence to the time spoken of or referred to: trees of unknown age; His age is 20 years.


2.
a period of human life, measured by years from birth, usually marked by a certain stage or degree of mental or physical development and involving legal responsibility and capacity: the age of discretion; the age of consent; The state raised the drinking age from 18 to 21 years.

3.
the particular period of life at which a person becomes naturally or conventionally qualified or disqualified for anything: He was over age for military duty.

4.
one of the periods or stages of human life: a person of middle age.


5.
advanced years; old age: His eyes were dim with age.


6.
a particular period of history, as distinguished from others; a historical epoch: the age of Pericles; the Stone Age; the age of electronic communications.


7.
the period of history contemporary with the span of an individual's life: He was the most famous architect of the age.


8.
a generation or a series of generations: ages yet unborn.


9.
a great length of time: I haven't seen you for an age. He's been gone for ages.


10.
the average life expectancy of an individual or of the individuals of a class or species: The age of a horse is from 25 to 30 years.


11.
Psychology. the level of mental, emotional, or educational development of a person, esp. a child, as determined by various tests and based on a comparison of the individual's score with the average score for persons of the same chronological age.


12.
Geology.
a.
a period of the history of the earth distinguished by some special feature: the Ice Age.

b.
a unit of geological time, shorter than an epoch, during which the rocks comprising a stage were formed.



13.
any of the successive periods in human history divided, according to Hesiod, into the golden, silver, bronze, heroic, and iron ages.

First, you are still stuck on English, but for the moment that isn't the problem. If the author had said "into the seven ages" or into "this age" or something like that, then the referent, like "house" would have a clear goal. A single "age" is as you say an undefined length of time (although in greek aion is most typically a lifetime in the singular). But the author did not use the word "age." If the author had, there would be no problem, but instead we have "ages" in the plural without any referent indicating a definite goal.

ages Informal An extended period of time: left ages ago.
To turn ages into eternity is like changing hours into eternity. It makes no sense to do this. You changed the whole meaning of the word. Its like saying black is white, square is circle. If it said into the hours, hours would still say that that means endless. Just like hours, ages have a beginning and end.

A defined stopping point would be required. As for starting, you are mistaking the entire construction. The eis + acc. is only about goal. It simply indicates the "forwardness" and says nothing in and of itself about the start.

God knows when it will stop. We may not know, but doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a stopping point.
[FONT=&apos]Acts 1:6 the apostles asked, Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And His reply was, It is not for you (us)to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power.[/FONT]

Only it doesn't. I gave you several examples where the sense of eternity is clear. Moreover, nothing in the line says anything about ages beginning anew or resurrection. It simply discusses torment FOREVER.

It wouldn’t fit the whole context of not just Revelations but the whole Word of God to say they are tormented forever. Besides have you looked up what that word tormented means. Eternity doesn’t fit with that word in the phrase either.

The "Into the ages" construction could be enough on its own, but to make sure the sense of "forever" is there we have the genitive. Now instead of one line ---------------->
we have multiple endless lines encased within multiple endless lines, each one without an end.

-------------------------------->
--------------------------------->
---------------------------------->

etc.

You lost me here. If time is one line I don’t know where you get multiple lines

A whole slew of endless ages are placed within an even more undefined set of more ages. The whole concept is very clearly eternal.

So if this was the case you are placing/starting a new line on top of the first line that goes on forever with the first line. And they both go on at the same rate forever. But wait you say multilple lines so its something like this huh? The dotted line is the base eternity, where an eternity starts it lies on top of an eternity that already exist.
-------- [an eternity starts] ----------- [an eternity starts] ---------[an eternity starts] ---------- > and so on and so.
You don’t see how that don’t make sense?

You talk about knowing other languages, but then you use an english dictionary to define greek words used in greek constructions. The word "aion" does not correspond exactly to the English word age. In the singular, it can correspond to an age, a lifetime, a generation, etc. In the plural, it can refer to multiple generations, to eternity, to a specific number of ages, etc.

Okay to be more precise its eons and multiple eons does not make eternity. Try this biblical studies: Eon As Indefinite Duration, Part One

 

[AK4]

Again, you are using english. I can't say "name to him John" in English. I can't say "his name was John" in Greek. In greek, you can say "into the eternities of eternities," but just like "name to him John" it doesn't mean anything in English. So a better translation is "forever and ever."

Okay you have ages defined above now lets see aions English equivalent
EONS--
–noun
1.
an indefinitely long period of time; age.


2.
the largest division of geologic time, comprising two or more eras.


3.
Astronomy. one billion years.


e·on also ae·on
n.

1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.

[Late Latin aeōn, from Greek aiōn; see aiw- in Indo-European roots.]
aeon
1647, from L. aeon, from Gk. aion "age, eternity" (see eon).

You are taking a semantic usage of case (goal) and taking it as a talking about literal "goals." That isn't what "goal accusative" means. For example, if I say in English "I am going to the store" I do that without thinking that my grammatical construction is using a present progressive rather than simple present to indicate a particular meaning. These terms like "present progressive" or "goal accusative" are grammatical terms to describe how languages work. In greek, a speaker would say "into the eternities" without thinking "I have to use eis with the accusative to indicate goal." That would come naturally.

I'm not saying anything about God's ultimate plan or goals or whatever. I am simply describing Greek grammar to you.

I understand. The thing is if even what you are saying is 100% correct about genitive and accusative, to say that this phrase is talking of eternity or forever cannot fit into the context of the Word of God at all. See more examples in the link I provided above. Even if it was properly translated into the eternities, it would mean that eternity had to mean something else back then that what we have morphed it into meaning now. If I told a friend I haven’t seen him in for ever or for an eternity, it wouldn’t literally mean that would it. Its natural like you said that it must mean for a long indefinitely time. Change it to present progressive and you still get the same meaning, “it will be an eternity before the next time I see you”.

Again, you are using english. The greek construction doesn't say anything about beginnings, only a limitless motion forward into time ------------------------->

The beginning of this motion is supplied by context (i.e. this punishment will be brought to pass) but the actual "eternity" construction simply refers to an endless motion forward in time, i.e. forever.

Okay brought to pass into the eternities, eternities. Okay and then what? Is that the end of the subject? Does God state in other places whats after this? Yes, in countless places. So see that’s why this phrase cannot possibly mean for ever and ever or eternity because that is not the end of what happens to the wicked.

 

[Oberon]

Age has no limit? So the bronze age is still going? What about the middle ages?

Again, you are taking an english term and grammatical construction and applying grammatical terms as if they reflected a outward reality rather than a way to describe speech.

In other words, the phrase "into the eternities/ages" has no "goal limit" as a noun referent, the way that "house" does in the same phrase, or even "aion" in the singular in the phrase "eis ton aion."

To say that in a particular grammatical construction which uses the goal accusative (spatial, temporal, or otherwise) there is no limit is not the same thing as saying that the noun put into the accusative in this construction cannot have a limit.

In simpler terms, just because the construction into the ages doesn't apply any limit to the goal is not the same thing as saying that "age" or aion on their own cannot have a limit.

ages Informal An extended period of time: left ages ago.
To turn ages into eternity is like changing hours into eternity. It makes no sense to do this. You changed the whole meaning of the word. Its like saying black is white, square is circle. If it said into the hours, hours would still say that that means endless. Just like hours, ages have a beginning and end.

Again, you are quoting english constructions. This phrase wasn't written in english, but in greek. I have showed you places where similar constructions (in fact, nearly identical constructions) are used even in biblical greek to mean eternity. You have yet to show me clear evidence of how this construction is meant in any other sense.

It wouldn’t fit the whole context of not just Revelations but the whole Word of God to say they are tormented forever. Besides have you looked up what that word tormented means. Eternity doesn’t fit with that word in the phrase either.

According to you. We disagree as to whether the bible represents a unified vision of god. In any event, what we are left with is the construction itself in the text itself. And as it stands, it clearly means eternity.

You lost me here. If time is one line I don’t know where you get multiple lines

We aren't talking merely about time, but about grammatical constructions. The author of Revelations takes one construction which refers to a temporal movement forward without end (eis aionas) ------------------------------->

and encloses it within a series of similar movements by adding a gentive plural. Obviously, the author is not referring to multiple dimensions of time or to multiple lines of time, but is rather adding emphasis to the "eternity" implied by the accusative goal construction.

You don’t see how that don’t make sense?

You are again applying grammatical constructions to reality. If I say "that guy is as big as a house" I don't really mean that he is the size of a house, whatever that is. I am using english to get a particular point across. Although it is not clear from this phrase exactly how big the guy is, what is clear is that he is very large.

Likewise, the author of revelations uses a phrase to mean eternity, and encases that phrase within a genitive construction to add emphasis (into the ages of the ages). Into the ages would have been enough, but to add emphasis the genitive is used. This doesn't mean the author is positing multiple eternities, however, or that I am saying s/he is.

Okay to be more precise its eons and multiple eons does not make eternity. Try this biblical studies: Eon As Indefinite Duration, Part One

Multiple eons/aions by itself does not make eternity. But I never said it did. What is important is the grammatical construction as a whole. If the construction is eis pollas aionas (for/into many ages) than it is clear that eternity is NOT meant. Rather, the referent makes clear that it is simply an number of ages.

In revelations, we don't have that. There is no referent "end" to the goal accusative. It is limitless. And to add to the limitless eternity, the author adds the genitive plural.

Okay you have ages defined above now lets see aions English equivalent

There is no exact english equivalent. Moreover, what is important is not simply the word itself but the grammatical construction in which it is used. The greek aion, even in the plural, does not have to mean eternities. It does here because of the particular way it is used (with a limitless motion forward emphasized by the genitive plural).

I understand. The thing is if even what you are saying is 100% correct about genitive and accusative, to say that this phrase is talking of eternity or forever cannot fit into the context of the Word of God at all. See more examples in the link I provided above. Even if it was properly translated into the eternities, it would mean that eternity had to mean something else back then that what we have morphed it into meaning now. If I told a friend I haven’t seen him in for ever or for an eternity, it wouldn’t literally mean that would it. Its natural like you said that it must mean for a long indefinitely time. Change it to present progressive and you still get the same meaning, “it will be an eternity before the next time I see you”.

Well, we are starting from different places when it comes to the "word of god" and all. The greek means what it means. However, you could always argue that the author meant "eternity" but meant it metaphorically, and not literally. I disagree, but I can't prove I am right. If you believe that the bible is the word of god, and therefore is without inconsistencies, there are always ways to get around what appear to be inconsistencies. You could, as you say, simply argue here that the author meant "eternity" but meant it in a metaphorical way to mean "a reeeaaaallllyyyy long time."

 

[AK4]

Well, we are starting from different places when it comes to the "word of god" and all. The greek means what it means. However, you could always argue that the author meant "eternity" but meant it metaphorically, and not literally. I disagree, but I can't prove I am right. If you believe that the bible is the word of god, and therefore is without inconsistencies, there are always ways to get around what appear to be inconsistencies. You could, as you say, simply argue here that the author meant "eternity" but meant it in a metaphorical way to mean "a reeeaaaallllyyyy long time."

i will comment on this section real quick, i dont have much time today.

I agree the greek means what it means--- eis aiōnas aiōnōn and the closest we get to a literal translation is for the eons of the eons. To get around the "inconsistency of the dubious translations of this phrase is to let scripture (not bible(s)) define the word or phrase, not what people/theologians/church etc try to interpret or translate. Even going back to olam the septugiant translated this word and "for ever/everlasting/eternal" phrases. When this is done, an honest person should easily see how God never said anything thrrough out His Word about eternity (the way we think of eternity).

 

[Oberon]

i will comment on this section real quick, i dont have much time today.

I hope you will have the time later to comment more.

I agree the greek means what it means--- eis aiōnas aiōnōn and the closest we get to a literal translation is for the eons of the eons.

What does literal translation mean, though? If it means, find a word or morpheme for every word or morpheme in the passage, then yes. However, if you want to get the MEANING of the phrase across, then a great deal is lost if you say "eons of the eons" which is not only bad english, it doesn't get the point across. Forever and ever does. It is a far better translation.

 

[TashaN]

**MOD POST**

This thread has been moved to the One on One Debates Forum.

Only Oberon and AK4 are allowed to post in here now.
​

 

[AK4]

Heres some things to think on

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.
Ephesians 3:21: eis pasas tas geneas tou aionos ton aionon, "for all the generations of the eon of the eons." KJV: "throughout all the ages, world without end." ASV margin: "unto all the generations of the age of the ages." Young's Literal Translation: "into the age of the ages." The "eon of the eons" refers to a crowning eon of another which precedes it.
Windet, in De Vita Functor Statu, states, "However you understand the phrase, it could not be used unless it signified something less than endlessness; for 'completion' does not accord with true endlessness." Therefore, the expression "eon of the eons" and "eon of the eon" mean the last and crowning eon in which Christ will hand everything to His Father, entirely subjected (1 Cor. 15:22-28).

Windet, in De Vita Functora Statu, of 1633 says (p. 170), "eis tous aionas ton aionon, of the New Testament meant a finite period."

At 1 Cor. 15:25, where the Greek text shows, dei gar auton basileuein achri hou thê pantas tous echthrous hupo tous podas autou, "For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet." This clearly states that Christ's reigning is limited. There is no Scripture to contradict the statement when aion and aionios are correctly translated.

Eis tous aionas is accusative plural, "for the eons," or "for the ages," and these words are not "forever and ever," which are in the singular. The word ton is the genitive plural article, and in our syntax should be translated "of the." In this Greek clause, there is no word that means "and," as the Greek conjunction kai; "and," is not in this clause. The word aionon is the genitive plural of the noun aion, and the genitive plural in this syntax should be translated "eons," or "ages;" hence ton aionon, "of the eons." Anyone can study these words and see that "forever and ever" is not a good translation of these Greek words. As eis is used in this clause and as eis involves a movement or development toward a goal, this clause cannot mean endlessness.

Eph. 1:9-11. Salvation for all is God's plan for the eons.

Here is the stated goal/movement. Therefore it cant mean eternities, eternities. You are basically saying God will never accomplished His goal

Luke 1:50 says, kai to eleos autou eis geneas kai geneas tois phoboumenois auton, "and His mercy is for generations and generations, for those who are fearing Him." In the phrase, "for generations and generations," there is an example of two plural nouns being used with the conjunction kai, "and;" but in the expression aionas ton aionon, there is no conjunction. The word ton, "of the," is the genitive plural article, and should not be translated "and," as is done in the KJV's "forever and ever." The LXX, at Psa. 90:1, states, en genea kai genea, "in generation and generation." Another example of the use of the conjunction kai, "and," between the two words for "generation" in the singular. At Heb. 1:8 the noun aion, "eon," is used twice in the singular form, but with no "and" between. At Ex. 15:18, kurios basileuon ton aiona kai ep aiona kai eti, "the Lord is reigning the eon and upon eon and longer." Eon, as used here, cannot refer to time without end, for there could be nothing beyond, or longer than, endless time. Here the Latin Vulgate says, Dominus regnabit in aeturnum et ultra, "The Lord will reign unto [or into] eternity and beyond." The Latin word in, when used with an accusative aeturnum, has the meaning of placing His reign in eternity, but the ultra, "beyond," shows it did not stop when it was placed there, but continued beyond the time of the placing. The English words, "forever and ever," unfortunately, do not convey the same meaning.

 

[AK4]

Obviously, the author is not referring to multiple dimensions of time or to multiple lines of time, but is rather adding emphasis to the "eternity" implied by the accusative goal construction.

What does literal translation mean, though? If it means, find a word or morpheme for every word or morpheme in the passage, then yes. However, if you want to get the MEANING of the phrase across, then a great deal is lost if you say "eons of the eons" which is not only bad english, it doesn't get the point across. Forever and ever does. It is a far better translation.

Remember The greek means what it means or better stated the words mean what they mean. You are taking the phrase for the eons of eons and interpreting it, not translating it by saying eternities of eternities.

You used the example name to him John/his name was John and said In greek, you can say "into the eternities of eternities," but just like "name to him John" it doesn't mean anything in English. So a better translation is "forever and ever." You are making an argument on the wrong premise and misrepresenting aions and aionios The difference in those examples is that in “name to him John/his name is John” and “for the eons of eons/into the eternities of eternities” is that in the latter you used words that have different meanings than what the original words are.

Aion – noun--- age/eons does not mean/translate eternity---noun---infinite time

Aionios---adjective—belong TO the ages does not mean/translate eternities---noun????---infinite time(s)

Aioniosis the adjective of the noun aion, and as such it must mean "that which pertains to ages." It could be one or many ages, just as the adjective "hourly" pertains to hours. It could be pertaining to only one, but it could also be pertaining to very many hours. But it must pertain to hours, and not weeks, months, or centuries.

Comment: Some argue that "eon" in the singular means "age," but in the plural it means "forever" or "eternal." Let’s see how the Greek Septuagint uses both the singular and plural forms in these two verses"

Singular: Micah 4:5—"ets ton aiona kai epekeina….for the eon and BEYOND." Well that can’t possibly mean forever for eternal, as there can be nothing "beyond" eternity.

Plural: Dan. 12:3, "eis tous aionas kai eti….for the eons and LONGER." Once again, there can be nothing "longer" than eternity Besides, how is it possible to have a plurality of "eternities?"

Here are just a few scriptures in which "aionios" cannot possibly mean ETERNAL:

1. Rom. 16:25—"…according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world [Gk: aionios] began." You have attempted time and again to set up a straw man by insisting that if "aionios" is "eonian," then it must be changed to a noun and translated as "of the ages." Well check this bit of translating genius out. We have the ADJECTIVE word "aionios" and the KJV translators changed it to a NOUN, "world."

Well guess what? The word "world" (kosmos) is not found in this verse, furthermore, neither is the word "began." The Greek reads: "…in times eonian." Do we really believe in "times eternal." What does "time," let along "timeS" have to do with "eternity?" And as Paul speaks of the "revelation" of this secret, how could it EVER be revealed if it was kept secret ‘ETERNALLY?’ Do you not see a problem—a CONTRADICTION in all of this?

2. II Thes. 2:16—"…and has given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace." "Console" is defined as, "To allay sorrow or grief of." "Hope" is defined as, "To wish for something with expectations of its fulfillment." Now then, according to this inane KJV translation of this verse, just how long are we going to have our "SORROW AND GRIEF ALLAYED?" How long must we "HOPE" before we have our hope fulfilled? For ALL ETERNITY? Nonsense.

3. II Tim. 1:9—"…according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." The word "world" is not found in the Greek manuscripts, the word "began" is not found in the Greek manuscripts. Here is what the Greek says: "…before TIMES EONIAN." So where is the consistency with these translators? Could they not deceive the readers by translating this verse properly? If "aionios" means "eternal" or "evermore" then HOW, pray tell, can there be "TIMES" "BEFORF" "ETERNITY?" Give me a break. This is not translating; this is out and out planned deception! They change an adjective into a noun, then change the noun to a different word, then completely leave out the word "times." This total lack of scholarship and honesty is reprehensible!

4. Jude 7—"Even as Sodom and Gomorha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." The Greek reads: "…experiencing the justice of fire eonian." Well just how long does this "eonian/aionios fire last? Is it really "eternal" as the Authorized Version and you, contend?

A.There is NO FIRE burning in Palestine since the days of Sodom anywhere, let along in the vicinity of these ancient cities. The best archaeologists can discern, Sodom is located at the bottom of what is now a sea.

B.Ezekiel 16:55—"When your sisters, SODOM and her daughters, shall RETURN TO THEIR FORMER ESTATE, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then you [Jerusalem] shall return to your former estate."

 

[Oberon]

Here is the stated goal/movement. Therefore it cant mean eternities, eternities. You are basically saying God will never accomplished His goal

No I am not saying that. "goal accusative" is a desciptive term used to clarify constructions in greek. What I AM saying is that the "into the ages of the ages" clearly means eternity.

Remember The greek means what it means or better stated the words mean what they mean.

This simply isn't true. "Name to him john" is incomprehensible in english. You can't always simply take each word in a clause and find the nearest equivalent in english. This is not good translating. English does not use cases or accusative constructions to indicate anything. We lost our case system after the infusion of Old French due to the Norman Conquest.

A word for word translation loses the meaning of the phrase, which is clearly eternity.

You are making an argument on the wrong premise and misrepresenting aions and aionios

You don't know greek. How could you possibly determine what I am or am not misrepresenting?

The difference in those examples is that in “name to him John/his name is John” and “for the eons of eons/into the eternities of eternities” is that in the latter you used words that have different meanings than what the original words are.

So does "eon" and "aion." The latter usually refers to a lifetime, and has a different semantic range than the english "eon."

Aion – noun--- age/eons does not mean/translate eternity---noun---infinite time
Aionios---adjective—belong TO the ages does not mean/translate eternities---noun????---infinite time(s)

Again, your problem is an inability to recognize grammatical constructions. "aions" in the plural does not HAVE to mean eternity. It DOES in this construction because of the way greek works. Greek uses a case system which english lost centuries ago, and temporal clauses in both classical and koine greek use particular phrases and cases. This phrase in Rev. clearly means eternity because of the preposition which begins the clause, the case of aionas, and finally the genitive which encases the entire clause.

 

[AK4]

If the movement doesn't stop at the edge, it goes 'into' or ]eis. (Draw an arrow from the left and on through the perimeter.)
"He walked toward the door and then into the room."

I forget where i got that quote from. I do agree with what eis means (not with what you say as that it is making this phrase into eternity), but I do not agree with your interpretation that that phrase indicates or even has the meaning eternal. The concept of "eternity" is foreign to the Holy Scriptures. There is virtually nothing that is outside of the time periods known as aions. There are just a couple of hints regarding life beyond the ages of time. The aions come to an end. So therefore as you are suggesting the writer was indicating eternity cannot be. I believe the scriptures can not contradict, my God is not a God of confusion. In fact, He is the true Author behind it all--dictating what "His secretaries" should write. So to have this phrase to mean eternity can not stand to other scriptures and the whole context of Word. The Word of God is one. Here are so more things to consider:

Aeternum [eternalis, eterne, etc.] had virtually the identical mean of the Greek word "aeonian." They both represented that which is temporal with a beginning and an end. Actually aeternum and age are the SAME WORD! "The Latin word "aevum" is the equivalent of the Greek word "aion." Aevum produced "aevitas," which became shortened to "aetas. From this was formed another form, "aetaticum, a Low Latin term. In France this was slurred into "edage, then into aage, which arried in England as AGE" (From WHENCE ETERNITY? By Alexander Thomason). The Latin "aeviternus" [adjective--aeternus] is the original source of our English word "eternal." And so "eternal" meant "AGE." Aetum never meant "eternal" in Latin.

It was the Catholics who invented "ENDLESS ages." And why would they attach the word "endless" to the word ages? Because the word age, aevum, aeternus, etc., NEVER MEANT ENDLESS.

But here it is in a nutshell.

First you state: "I believe these adjectives do take on a greater meaning than their nouns: time/timeless, super/superior, age/ageless, ETC." No, Wes, there is NO "ETC." to it. "Age and time" is IT, there is no "etc., etc., etc."

This Holding fellow is as deceived as the rest of the Christian world.

The word "superior" is NOT SUPERIOR to the word "super." You merely took this guy's word for it without checking. Look up the word "superior" in a dictionary, and you will find that the definition is "SUPER" Super and Superior have the same meaning, it's just that one is a noun and one is an adjective. The same is true with a few other words which people think mean more than they do.
Example: "priceless" does not mean THE LARGEST PRICE POSSIBLE, or higher than ANY price. It means that it HAS NO PRICE--NONE, it is said to be "priceLESS." Most things do or can have a price, but something that is "priceLESS" DOESN'T HAVE A PRICE!!

Now then, to tell me that "ageless" and "timeless" take on a GREATER MEANING that "age" or "time," makes about as much sense as to prove to me that "aionion" mean "eternity," by showing me how the King James TRANSLATES IT!!

That is the point of my papers. There words have been TAMPERED with by the theologians. The Latin "Eternus" which is used exactly the same way that "world," "age," and "seculum" is used by Jerome proves that even He did not believe this word had to mean "endless." It was the theologians who changed the meaning of these words. It was the Christian theologians that began speaking of ENDLESS ages/ENDLESS eons/ENDLESS aionios.

Just where do you think modern dictionaries got their definitions for words? Where do you suppose they go to find the definition of a Christian "hell?" To some pagan or heathen? To the scholars of Russia? The dictionaries got their definition of "timeless" and "ageless" (whether they know it or not) through CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Technically and according to ALL dictionary definitions of words, "ageless" does NOT mean never ending time, nor does "timeless."

The suffix "-less" NEVER means MORE!! And that is the end of your "Etc."

Look up ANY word ending in "less" and see what the definition is. "Less" means "not as much as," not "MORE than."

What does it mean to be "homeless?" Do the homeless have homes or do they not?
What does "hopeless" mean? "clueless?" "meaningless?" "penniless?" ETC., ETC., ETC.

Here you can use you "Etc." because there are many many of them, and they all mean "LESS THAN," not "MORE THAN."

Eis aions, aionios--- into eons --- and the genitive produces the "of" before the next eons

H. Genitive of Time (kind of time) - In keeping with the basic meaning of the genitive, the genitive with words of time indicate the kind of time in which something occurs. That is, it indicates the time within which an event occurs (i.e. at nighttime as opposed to in the daytime). The normally inserted word ‘of’ for the genitive, could instead be translated ‘during’, ‘at’, or ‘within’.
E.g. John 3:2
"h\lqen proV aujto;n nukto;V"
"he came to Jesus during the night"

1 Thessalonians 2:9
"nukto;" kai; hJmevra" ejrgazovmenoi"
"working at night and at day"
i.e. ‘during the night and during the day’, not really ‘all through the night and day’

There is no way that into the eons of eons can ever mean eternity. It just doesnt make sense.

 

[Oberon]

AK4, I hate to be picky, but nothing you have posted in your response actually addresses any of the arguments I made.

The aions come to an end. So therefore as you are suggesting the writer was indicating eternity cannot be.

Not true. The aions do not come to an end, nor is eternity a foreign concept to the authors of the various biblical texts. Moreover, I gave you quotes where this phrase can only mean "forever," unless you assume that god will not be around forever.

Eis aions, aionios--- into eons --- and the genitive produces the "of" before the next eons

Again, word for word translations miss the important of grammatical constructions. Constructions are language specific. In greek, I can't say "His name is John." It doesn't work, even though it works well in english. I have to say "name to him John." In German, I can't say "I helped him." I have to say "I helped to/for him." In French, I can't say "I'm taking a course" I have to say "I follow a course."

Just because you can make a word for word translation which seems to make sense in english doesn't mean you get the meaning of the construction of the greek across. The eis + acc.pl. +gen encases a never ending line inside multiple never-ending lines. The point of the construction is quite clearly eternity.

There is no way that into the eons of eons can ever mean eternity. It just doesnt make sense.

To you maybe. To anyone who reads greek it does. As a matter of fact, even "into the eons of eons" isn't a good english sentence. The point is, the greeks did not have a single word like our "eternity." In this case, the author wants to get the eternal nature across, so he uses a particular construction to do so.

[/quote]

 

[AK4]

I will respond to your post shorlty. Here is something interesting though on how the origin of the concept of eternity crept its way into scripture.

THE INFLUENCE OF TERTULLIAN​

All this has been leading up to Tertullian, a Latin of Carthage, who lived from about 160 to 220 A.D. To him we are indebted for our first knowledge of the existence of the Old Latin version of the Bible. He was the earliest of the Latin Fathers. The Latin of this version was very different from the classical Latin, being more vigorous, yet marked by solecisms or irregularities in the use of words. So long as the Old Latin Scriptures remained in North Africa, they continued with little or no change. But immediately they arrived on the soil of Italy, a great disturbance took place. Old words used in Carthage were found to be unintelligible to the Romans, while new words coined there were not understood. The provincial solecisms and roughnesses of the African version were palched up and corrected by means of the Greek version current in Italy, and in course of time the result came to be indescribable confusion. There were said to be as many versions as manuscripts. To Jerome fell the arduous task of attempting to bring about harmony from this confusion, and the outcome was his version of the Latin scriptures which came to be known as the Vulgate. Hitherto, for about six hundred years the Greek Septuagint version had held the field, and there was intense and prolonged opposition to Jerome's version. This was the Bible which was to dominate most of Christendom for a thousand years, right up to the Reformation. While Jerome, however, corrected obvious errors and set right what seemed to be bad Latin, he was otherwise very conservative. Many expressions he left as he found them. Whatever may have been his own views regarding the future, he does not appear to have revised two Latin words, fraught with profound significance, which he found in the old version. These are both words used to render the Greek word eon (aiOn), as Latin, like Gothic and Armenian and English, found two words necessary. There were seculum, from which our word secular and aeternus, from which have descended the fateful words eternal and eternity. Sometimes, as we shall see, the Greek aiOn was rendered by one of these two Latin words, sometimes by the other. Not only so, but when the Greek shews the word eon twice or thrice in one clause (as in "for the eon, and for the eon of the eon ") the Latin frequently shews both aeternus and seculum. This alone should be sufficient to prove that the two Latin words could have the same meaning, more or less, and it is our present purpose to demonstrate that originally the two words differed little in meaning, but that theology, chiefly through the dominating influence of one man, imparted to aeternus a nuance alien to its derivation and original usage. We shall now examine the derivation of these two Latin words, one of which was destined to exercise such a profound influence over the minds of men for so long, an influence not in accord with truth, and by no means for the glory of God, but greatly strengthening the cunning deceits of the Evil One.​

​

 

[AK4]

continued from last post

ETERNAL AND SECULAR​

Seculum is defined in Latin dictionaries as meaning a generation, an age, the world, the times, the spirit of the times, and a period of a hundred years. That which is secular pertains to the present world, especially as not spiritual. Wharton derives the word from a root signifying connection, mankind as connected or bound together. The original form he takes as saitlom, and the only congener he shews is Welsh hoedl (i.e. soedl) meaning "duration of life." In French the word came to mean a century, besides meaning age, time, period, and world (siecle). The future siecle is the "life to come." In the French Bible, "for the eons of the eons" is rendered as "to the siecles of the siecles," following the Latin Vulgate. The other Romance languages follow the same construction, Italian using secoli, the Spanish siglos; while Irish and Gaelic use saoghal, and Romanian seculi. That is to say, Bibles in these languages render the corrupt "for ever and ever" correctly, or nearly so.

Seculum is sometimes derived from the Latin root which gives "sequel," meaning time as "following." In ancient times time was viewed as flowing onwards, generation after generation, into the dim future.
Long ago in Rome, periodic games were held, called "secular" games. Herodian, the historian, writing in Greek about the end of the second century, calls these "eonian" games. In no sense were these games eternal. Eonian did not mean eternal any more than a seculum meant eternity.
Among the many inscriptions in the Catacombs of Rome is Dne to the memory of a girl of fifteen years who had died. It is inscribed to "Aurelia, our sweetest daughter, who departed from the seculum" (or world, quae de saeculo recessit). Some of the old Roman writers use the word in the sense of the utmost lifetime of man, a century. It may be said that every hundred years the race of man is completely changed. Some people change little within a generation, but after a hundred years, the entire physical appearance of the individuals of the race has altered.
The famous Council of Trent, in Italy, sitting from 1545 to 1563, decreed that "This same ancient and Vulgate edition, which by the long use of so many centuries has been approved in the Church itself, is to be held authentic in public readings, disputations, sermons and expositions; and no one is to dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever." The word used for "centuries" is saeculorum, seculums.
Trajan, Emperor of Rome from 98 to 117 A.D., wrote Pliny regarding the conviction of Christians, who were not to be hunted out, but if convicted, must bear the punishment. He adds that accusations which were not signed must not be accepted at all, as this was the "very worst example that could be shewn, and pertains not to our seculum." In one of his many writings, Tertullian referred to "a mighty shock impending over the entire world, and the conclusion of the seculum, itself."
Lactantius, born about 260 A.D., speaks of the "learned ones of this seculum." Writing about "Our Lord's Miracles," Eusebius, historian of the early Church, born about 265. A.D., alludes to "magicians who have ever existed throughout the seculums." This is a reference to past ages.
Seculum, therefore, was used very much like the Greek aiOn. No case can be cited in which it refers to endless time.
We shall now consider its usage by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate. Those who maintain that Greek aiOn means eternity or "for ever" would do well to consider very carefully Jerome's renderings from Greek into Latin. Out of about 130 occurrences of eon in the Greek New Testament; Jerome renders by seculum 101 times, while he uses aeternum 27 times. If by the latter word he meant eternity, he is very inconsistent. It is to the Latin versions that we must look for the origin of the pernicious system, or lack of system, of giving to the Greek eon two diverse meanings; In every occurrence in the Revelation of the expression "for the eons of the eons" (for ever and ever) Jerome has, "for the seculums of the seculums." Wiclif, with studied carefulness and caution, follows this by putting "in to worldis of worldis," just as five hundred years before Wiclit's time the Old English glosses of Latin MSS. gave "world" for seculum.
Jerome uses the following expressions: "from the seculum," "from the seculums," "for the seculum," "for the seculums," "before the seculums," "this seculum," "that seculum," "the consummation of the seculum," "the consummation of the seculums," "the ends of the seculums," "in the seculum of the seculum," "the future seculum," "the coming seculum," "the impending seculums," "the seculum of this world." In Jude 25 he Tenders, "before the entire seculum, and now, and for all the seculums of the seculums." Wiclif here has, "bifor alle worldis and now and in to alle worldis of worldis." Tyndale, coming one hundred and fifty years after Wiclif, has the utterly bald and inadequate and totally erroneous "now and for ever." Evidently he abandoned the Greek text which puzzled him. The Rheims version (1582), however, reads, "befoer al worldes, and now and for al worldes evermore," which is a compromise.
In Eph. 2:2 Jerome has "the seculum of this world" (saeculum mundi hiuus) which Wiclif could not understand, so he originated the guess, "the course of this world," which has been slavishly copied by those who followed him. This should be, "the eon of this world."
Turning to the Greek adjective eonian, occurring seventy times in the New Testament, we do not find Jerome translating about three-quarters of these by the word secular, and one quarter by eternal, but no less than sixty-five times does he use aeternum, while secular he uses only twice (2. Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2), "before times secular" (ante temp ora saecularia). As forty-three of the seventy occurrences refer to life, he was unable to say, "secular life," and therefore invariably he put "eternal life."
Thus Jerome's renderings of the Greek aiOn completely shake our confidence in him here. By his inconsistency he really contradicts himself. Had he been as consistent in Tendering the Greek into Latin as Wiclif was in rendering Jerome into English, we should never have had our Authorized version of 1611 in its present form. In every case where Jerome uses seculum to represent aiOn, Wiclif uses "world," while in place of Jerome's eternum for this word, Wiclif always has "without end." For the adjective eonian, Wic1if well nigh invariably for Jerome's eternum puts "everlasting."
An examination of Jerome's (Gallican) version of the Psalms from the Greek Septuagint reveals further strange inconsistencies. Generally speaking, he renders the Greek "for the eon" (eis ton aiOna) by "into eternity" (in aeternum), while the compound occurrences of eon, such as "for the eon of the eon" he renders by "for the seculum of the seculum." It was not expedient for him to put, "into the eternity of the eternity," or "into eternity of eternity," or "into the eternities." He was obliged to render "for the eons" (eis tous aiOnas) by "for the seculums," as in Psalm 61:4; 72:17. In the same way, in Psalm 145:13 he renders by "a kingdom of all seculums" (not "all eternities"), which corresponds with the Hebrew and the Greek an,d the A.V. margin. In keeping with these apparent rules, he renders the compound Greek expression, "for the eon and for the eon of the eon" by the Latin, "into eternity and into the seculum of the seculum" (in aeternum et in saeculum saeculi), as in Psalm 9:5; 10:16; 45:17; 48:14; 52:8, and 148:6. Yet in Psalm 72:19 he renders the Greek "for the eon and for the eon of the eon." simply by "into eternity." While in Psalm 119:44; 145:1,2,21, the same expression is rendered as "into the seculum, and into the seculum of the seculum." At Psalm 73:12 Jerome found he could not bring himself to believe that the ungodly or wrongdoers prospered "for eternity," so he put in seculum, "for the eon." Psalm 90:2 tells us that "from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God." The Greek version. says, "from the eon and till the eon. Thou art God." Jerome rendered this as "from seculum and till seculum." Yet at Psalm. 103:17 he rendered the very same Greek expression as "from eternity and till eternity" (ab aeterno et usque in aeternum). Probably he was only translating after the system of the Old Latin. version, which had existed for two hundred years before his time. If so, he must have had serious misgivings, if in aeternum meant "for eternity." Whereas at Micah 5:2 the Old Latin read "from the days of seculum," Jerome altered: this to "from the days of eternity."

 

[Oberon]

I will respond to your post shorlty. Here is something interesting though on how the origin of the concept of eternity crept its way into scripture.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of all this is. I am not basing my translation or my argument off of the vulgate or off of long traditions of translation.

 

[AK4]

Didnt mean to keep you waiting because i know i had you on the edge of your seat lol but here ya go for right now

I'm not entirely sure what the point of all this is. I am not basing my translation or my argument off of the vulgate or off of long traditions of translation.

But you are interpreting and not translating by saying into the eternities of eternities. When There is nothing in the scriptures that even hint at eternity then how can you interpret it that way. You can not translate aions into eternities. If aions is the equivalent of olam and olam doesn’t even translate to eternity or everlasting or eternal then how can it be changed to another meaning. Olam doesn’t mean eternity in any way and neither does aions. Yet somehow instead of translating you are interpreting aions into eternities. In the OT where the Septuagint translated olam into aions it never meant eternities. How many examples in the OT can be shown that something wasn’t everlasting or eternal or eternity. Only through corrupt theology has the meaning of the these words been changed.

Not true. The aions do not come to an end, nor is eternity a foreign concept to the authors of the various biblical texts. Moreover, I gave you quotes where this phrase can only mean "forever," unless you assume that god will not be around forever.

How do you figure aions do not come to an end? Once again look to the OT and see where
Mountains
Slaves
Covenant
Sicknesses
Diseases
Etc etc
All came to an end with the words olam and aions in the same verse.

I love that argument “unless you assume that God will not be around for ever”. It states that He is aionian and that in no way takes away from Him being "eternal".
The Scriptures have long ago told us that God's life has no end (Psalm 102:27). Paul is telling us that God is not off in a corner somewhere unconcerned with mankind, but that He is " ... the eonian God" That is, He is God of the eons in which we live (Rev. 15:8). This does not say God ceases to exist at the end of the eons any more than Christ ceases to exist after He is no longer "King of the eons (Rev. 5:3)."

When there are no more eons, Christ ceases to be the King of the eons (I Cor. 15:24). He certainly doesn't cease to exist. When the eons end (and they all will), then God will be the same God He has always been. It's just that there will be no more eons or ages. Consider: the Scriptures tell us that God is "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Would we deduce from this that God is not the God of Noah, King David, the Apostles, or even you or me? To suggest that a simple statement of fact limits either God or Christ to that fact.

Again, word for word translations miss the important of grammatical constructions. Constructions are language specific. In greek, I can't say "His name is John." It doesn't work, even though it works well in english. I have to say "name to him John." In German, I can't say "I helped him." I have to say "I helped to/for him." In French, I can't say "I'm taking a course" I have to say "I follow a course."

Right and from Hebrew to greek then to eventually English you cant go from something that denotes a beginning and a end to something that by definition has no beginning or end and still yet have multiple of those.

Just because you can make a word for word translation which seems to make sense in english doesn't mean you get the meaning of the construction of the greek across.

I know this, that is why people believe Christ was made sin because the KJV didn’t put “a sin offering” when clearly by scriptural evidence and just plain common sense one should know He was made a sin offering and not sin.

The hebrew phrases never meant eternity or eternities of eternities so neither can the greek which means neither can the english or any other language.

 

[Oberon]

Didnt mean to keep you waiting because i know i had you on the edge of your seat lol but here ya go for right now

My hands were gripping the armrests!

But you are interpreting and not translating by saying into the eternities of eternities.

Translation is interpreting. Words are language specific references. Often, a word in one language covers some or even most of the semantic range of another lanuage. Often, however, this is not the case. Sometimes there are several words which could be used, and you have to pick the best one. Sometimes a word for word translation misses the point.

You have to understand that languages do not just use words to convey meanings. Meanings are conveyed by both smaller and by larger units than words. For example, a lot of the prepositions you find in english translations of the NT aren't in the greek. The greek uses a case system which conveys these meanings, but it doesn't do so precisely in the same way.

Likewise, sometimes there is no word which will get across the meaning of a word in another language, like schadenfreude in german. We have a construction, a larger unit of multiple words/morphemes, to get accross the meaning of the german schadenfreude.

Greek is the same way. In english, we have a single word meaning "eternity." Greek doesn't have that words. Instead, they use a construction, just like english does with the german schadenfreude. Rather than trying to fit each part of this construction into english, a good translation will simply take the meaning of the construction.

When There is nothing in the scriptures that even hint at eternity then how can you interpret it that way.

Rom. 1:25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

Tob. 13:4 …he is our Lord and God, he is our Father for ever and ever

4 Macc. 18:24 – The glory to him [God] forever. Amen.[/QUOTE]

All of the "forevers" above are translations of constructions using aion. Would it make any sense for Paul to say that god is only blessed for a number of ages, or for Macc. to say that the glory of god has a time limit? The meaning is clearly forever.

If aions is the equivalent of olam

It isn't, any more than it is the equivalent of eon. Both words have a different semantic range.

Right and from Hebrew to greek then to eventually English you cant go from something that denotes a beginning and a end to something that by definition has no beginning or end and still yet have multiple of those.

Yes you can. The word "year" in english has a beginning and end. Yet if I say "and it will be this way for years beyond count" or something similar I can very easily mean forever.

The hebrew phrases never meant eternity or eternities of eternities so neither can the greek which means neither can the english or any other language.

Only there are phrases in both hebrew and in greek that mean forever.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Oberon, I hope it is OK to ask you a question concerning this thread.
1) Do you believe that this verse in Rev 14 says torment will go on forever and ever? It appears you do, I just wanted to be sure.
2) What would your opinion be of it if you were a Christian?
3) I wanted to offer a slightly different view point on the subject. Suppose when I eat a cookie and swallow it, that cookie goes through my system and out my bowels, right? That cookie will never be the same for eternity, for ever and ever.

Now add to that the cookie before being eaten was aware of its existence, and was told if you would like you can stay alive for ever and ever. However, if you don't like life you are going to be eaten and you will never experience life ever again for eternity. By approaching the verses this way it brings new light to what is being referred to. Where traditionally we associate torment with conscious pain and suffering.

Instead, the reader of this verse that wants life is aware and awake to read it today and see there is life, or there is eternal nothingness. Now to the ones that want to stay alive forever, the idea of this eternal nothingness is torment and anguish, because they can not image not being with God and not being alive.

I think the reason the arguments from your perspective bother me, is because the book is said of itself to be parabolic. Approaching the work from a purely scholarly point of view seems to be inadequate by its own definitions within the text.

I have seen you interpret some parables before, and have done so for me. However I am not seeing it applied to this verse, and I am just not sure of the reason for the thread, other than argue if something is eternal or not.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, I hope it is OK to ask you a question concerning this thread.

No problem.

1) Do you believe that this verse in Rev 14 says torment will go on forever and ever? It appears you do, I just wanted to be sure.

Yes.

2) What would your opinion be of it if you were a Christian?

That's really hard to say. I guess I would hope that the passage was metaphorical. They idea of eternal torment certaintly isn't very pleasant.

I think the reason the arguments from your perspective bother me, is because the book is said of itself to be parabolic.

I don't know about parabolic. Cryptic, metaphorical, yes, but I'm a parable is something different.

Approaching the work from a purely scholarly point of view seems to be inadequate by its own definitions within the text.

I certainly won't pretend that I'm not biased in favor of scholarly approaches. However, no text exists outside the cultural background which produced it. Every author brings her or his cultural awareness into the world of the text. Unfortunately, so does every reader. Which means that if one wants to avoid reading one's own cultural background into the text, one has to be familiar with the cultural background of the text. This is particularly true with Revelations, because it is so cryptic and so easy to read into.

However, the purpose of this thread was even more basic. Before we can get into what a text means, we have to know what it says.

I have seen you interpret some parables before, and have done so for me. However I am not seeing it applied to this verse, and I am just not sure of the reason for the thread, other than argue if something is eternal or not.

The purpose of the thread goes back to a problem that I have encountered before: namely, the idea that translators are corrupting scripture by "interpreting" rather than just "translating" as if that was possible. I am using this one line as an example where what appears to be a "literal" word for word translation actually misses the meaning of the phrase.

The point is more than just whether the line means eternity or not. It is meant to address the idea that one can have any translation which doesn't involve interpretation.

 

[AK4]

I may be all over the place because i started typing then stopped for a couple days and so---(could that mean for eternities LOL, just kidding)

Translation is interpreting.
The purpose of the thread goes back to a problem that I have encountered before: namely, the idea that translators are corrupting scripture by "interpreting" rather than just "translating" as if that was possible. I am using this one line as an example where what appears to be a "literal" word for word translation actually misses the meaning of the phrase.

The point is more than just whether the line means eternity or not. It is meant to address the idea that one can have any translation which doesn't involve interpretation.

Okay so now we are getting to the nitty gritty
This best describes what I have to say:

TRANSLATION VERSUS INTERPRETATION
To "translate," is to express in another language. To the degree that, in our version, we have conveyed or reflected the vocabulary terms and grammatical forms of the original writing within the corresponding document in the receptor language, we have made a translation. To the degree that we have done so accurately, we have made an accurate translation. Because of differences in idiom between languages, a strictly literal translation is impractical if not

page 4: TRUE TO THE SENSE OF THE ORIGINAL​

impossible. What is needed, then, is a version that is translated in such a way so as to be true to the original yet readable in itself as a literary work.
Such a work must, first of all, be faithful to the original. For this it must be practically "literal," even where, to preserve good diction and afford readability, it cannot be actually literal. In most cases, however, substantially literal renderings can be both understandable and true to the sense of the original. Where idiom demands, synonymical variants in vocabulary and alternative means of grammatical reflection can still preserve substantial accuracy while permitting necessary latitude in expression. The translators of the Concordant Version have endeavored to translate according to these principles, thus seeking to provide a uniform and accurate, substantially literal work.
The Concordant Version, in conjunction with its Greek-English Keyword Concordance, together with the companion volume, the CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT, reflects many facts inherent in the original texts. Much of this information is presented in the translation itself, through the use of boldface type for words in the original and lightface type for words or parts of words added for readability, besides through the implementation of superior, abbreviation characters and grammatical symbols. Through various features of the Concordance even as of the Greek Text's English sublinear, much additional invaluable information is provided as well.
Faithful translation requires the establishing of standard equivalents between the vocabulary and grammar of the original writing and that of the translated work. When possible, these standards must be used in translation; where this is impracticable, a faithful translation must provide a consistent vocabulary which is as concordant as idiom will allow. There must be a correspondency, as uniformly expressed as possible, between the translated words and

page 5: YET READABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE​

the original words. Where variants in translation are necessary, so long as the members of any certain synonymical group are used solely to represent a single word in the original, practical correspondency may still be preserved. But, wherever possible, what must be avoided is the use of any certain word in translation as the representative of two or more words in the original.
Contrary to popular opinion, faithful translation is not a matter of employing whatever word "seems to make the most sense, according to the context." First of all, what "seems to make sense" may not be the true sense at all, but sensible only according to our own erroneous presuppositions. Yet even where one's suppositions and conclusions are substantially correct, the idea conceived to be that of the author, may be a connotative one in the original, perhaps expressed as a figure of speech, not as a literal declaration. In such a case, though we may have grasped the author's thought, we will fail to translate his words unless we render his words by words which, in essential meaning, correspond to his.*
Translation is not interpretation. An interpretation, even if correct, is still not a faithful translation. Interpretation is the province of the exegete; it is the realm of the expositor, not that of the translator. We cannot judge the sense of what is said until we know what is said; yet we cannot express what is said in the original unless we possess an essentially equivalent expression thereof in translated form. We cannot determine the correct sense of a word apart from a valid basis upon which to form such a conclusion. Translation must come first; only then may interpretation follow.
*We may, for example, be correct in judging that a writer's thought when saying the equivalent of "turn off the light," is actually "turn off the lamp." But even if so, if we would translate, not interpret, our rendering must be, "turn off the light."

 

[AK4]

Greek is the same way. In english, we have a single word meaning "eternity." Greek doesn't have that words. Instead, they use a construction,

Yes they have a construction for meaning everlasting or eternal it goes something like this--
No end, fades not away or something like the word aidios
Ages/eons/aions all deal with time. Eternity/eternities/eternal has nothing to do with time because once something changes in eternity then you have a beginning of something and a end of something. Eternity has no beginning or ending. Eternity is a constant state of just IS---meaning you are there and nothing ever happens, nothing, and if it did, you like “being tormented DAY AND NIGHT”, then you have something happen—a change from day to night back to day then night, smoke rising from 1 foot to 2 foot. Etc etc

just like english does with the german schadenfreude. Rather than trying to fit each part of this construction into english, a good translation will simply take the meaning of the construction.

Let me guess,if translation and interpreting are the same to you, then where they translate/interpret this one word in so many places and in so many in different ways is right to you? We are told to have a pattern of sound words yet this is how “they” have translated/interpreted--'
aion--- in well-known English versions,the following forty different renderings appear: Age, eon, time, period, today, the future, universe, course, world, worldly, world without end, since the world began, from the beginning of the world, ever, evermore, for ever and ever, end of my days, eternal, everlasting, always, permanently, constantly, of old, ancient times, all time (since) time was, (since) time began, (before) time began, all time, (since) the beginning of time, eternal ages, eternal life, eternity, course of eternity, utter (darkness), (the son) does (remain), ages of the eternities, (in and through) the eternities of the eternities, etc.
For 'aionios" the English versions use:- everlasting, eternal, eonian, age lasting, age during, age duringly, age abiding, (in) the time of the ages, age times, (before) the ages of time, of the ages, (in) the periods of past ages, (before) the ages began, for the ages of time, (before) the beginning of time, since the world began, (before) the times of the world, (before) times eternal, from eternity, from all eternity, for ever, unfailing, final, unending, permanent, immemorial, enduring, lasting, eternally, long, perpetual, an immeasurable eternity, last, heavenly.

And this seems right to you? Let alone the verses they come from it makes it all confusing.
But what your are trying to do is two things:

• make a phrase mean something by changing the words
• Change the meaning of the words into something completely opposite of what they meant in the first place or even conveyed.

Aions deal with time, eternity doesnt

​

FOREVER AND EVER. ​

​

Heb. vi:2. "The doctrine of the aionian, (aiónion) judgment." We make no special explanation of this passage. Whether the judgment of that age or the age to come, the Christian is meant, matters not. "The judgement of the age" is the full force of the phrase aionion judgment. Rev. xiv:11. "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." xix:3. "And her smoke rose up forever and ever." xx:10. "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Attempts have been made to show that these [are - editor] reduplications, if no other forms of the word convey the idea of eternity. But the literal meaning of aiónas aiónon, in the first text above, is ages of ages, and of tous aiónas ton aiónon, in the other two, is the ages of the ages. It is thus rendered in the Emphatic Diaglot. It is perfectly manifest to the commonest mind that if one age is limited, no number can be unlimited. Ages of ages is an intense expression of long duration, and if the word aión should be eternity, "eternities of eternities" ought to be the translation, an expression too absurd to require comment. If aión means eternity, any number of reduplications would weaken it. But while ages of ages is proper enough, eternity of eternities would be ridiculous. On this phraseology Sir Isaac Newton(69) says: "The ascending of the smoke of any burning thing forever and ever, is put for the continuation of a conquered people under the misery of perpetual subjection and slavery." The thought of eternal duration was not in the mind of Jesus or his apostles in any of these texts, but long duration, to be determined by the subject.

​

​

​

​