1.. I'm afraid "equivalent" is yet another synonym for the term "synonym". source
That’s a synonym, not a definition. I never argued they weren’t similar, I’m arguing they are not equivalent.
Look, I have a $20.00 bill that I printed in my garage. Is it similar to other $20.00 bills?
Yes.
Is it equivalent?
No.
2. No. He merely provided another bible version's translation of the term.
Didn't you do the same?
3. I believe God the Father has lived forever in the past, not the Son. However, you have yet to prove from the scriptures the difference between the terms everlasting and eternal life.
You have yet to prove why we need to go to scripture rather than a good English lexicon to find the difference between “eternal” and “everlasting”. Etymologically, “eternal” and “everlasting” are sourced from Latin, not Koine Greek.
4. I believe the scriptures correctly reflect this belief. And no, I am not nor have I ever been a Mormon.
I do not understand how scripture can "correctly reflect" “eternal” and “everlasting” as interchangeable when the New Testament is written in Koine Greek and not English. The question is whether “eternal” and “everlasting” can be used interchangeably and they cannot. Eternal is defined as no beginning or end. Everlasting is defined as without end, but
never as “without beginning”, so while the terms are similar they are not equivalent.
When defining Greek words we go to a Greek dictionary, for Spanish a Spanish dictionary, and for English words we go to an English dictionary. No one goes to a Spanish dictionary to define English terms any more than they go to a Greek dictionary to define Italian. Words, concepts, and ideas have to be translated first, which is the objection you raised to URAVIPTOME and me in point #2, above.
I believe the thrust of your argument is how “aionios” was used interchangeably to convey different concepts by the Greeks. But how “aion” or “aionios” was defined or used by the ancient Greeks is a separate issue from how “eternal” and “everlasting” is defined or used in English. Theologically, I believe the only being with eternal life is God, regardless of how the Greeks (or our translators) use the term. Lexicologically, the words are different in English.
5. Thanks for the link. I'm not a fan of biblical philosophy. Neither was Paul (Col 2:8). I'm only interested on extracting the theology of the definition based on its use in the scriptures. Unfortunately, the Philosophical Theologian (I'm guessing that's a title) in your link did not utilize the scriptures to prove his "philosophy".
This simply means that he has a doctorate in Philosophy and Theology, and he didn’t simply give the “philosophical” but the lexicological and theological difference between the terms. In fact, he left the philosophical out of his summary altogether, so I do not understand your objection. Are you basing your objection on his credentials rather than his statement? I don’t believe that’s what Paul or Col 2:8 is asking us to do.
As a student of Greek grammar, you already know “aion” and the adverbial “aionios” are Greek words which can convey multiple meanings in English. Exactly which English word conveyed is dependent upon the translator. Once translated, it’s possible the translated word will convey meanings in English never envisaged by the original Greek. It’s the nature of language.
Since English words can have nuanced meaning not evidenced in Greek, I believe it poor exegesis to reverse engineer a translated English word back into Greek and allow the Greek word to define what the English word should mean. Otherwise we could very well end up in the absurd position that sometime in the future we will gain “eternal life”, extending not only forever into the future but back beyond God’s inception of time itself, and I don’t think anyone here believes that.
Rather, it is better to take the Greek word and find the most appropriate English word based on the meaning and contextual usage of the Greek word being translated. The same goes when translating English to Greek…it’s better to find the best Greek word based on the meaning and contextual usage of the English word, and not redefine the English based on what it means in Greek.
I am simply unaware of any body of scholars who will take English words, translate them into Greek, and then allow the Greek word to define the English word just translated. IMO, such an approach lends itself to unorthodox exegesis. So “everlasting” can only mean eternal in its colloquial or informal sense, but never in its literal sense of “without beginning”. Everlasting starts from a point in time. Eternal
can start from a point in time in a colloquial sense. In its literal sense “eternal” extends back beyond time’s beginning:
so you are interpreting Jesus Christ is the Spirit literally.
