"Aionois" Eternal

What does "aidios" mean?

I wonder why God would author confusion by taking two completely different words and twisting them to mean the exact same thing?

BTW, it's only the age to come that is 1000 years. How long is the current age? (Did you even read the part about "without specific limits" that you yourself typed?)

In addition to the question about what "aidios" means, let me ask you: OK, if you claim that the Millennial Kingdom is not 1000 years, how long is it?

 

I have always understood there to be a literal 1000 year period in which Satan is bound and this is called the millenium. Christ will reign on the earth for the 1000 years.

 

Sorry, no. I didn't mean to butt in. I've never done any greek word studies. I will leave you to your discussion.

 

First of all, there's a reason that most literal translations simply transliterate some words. For example, "baptism" is transliteration because everyone "knows" that it can mean "sprinkle" or "pour". (It doesn't; it means to immerse; we con prove that from ancient writings, but the traditions of men and all that...)

"Aidios" is the closest that the Greek comes to "eternal" in the way we use it today. I have a friend of mine who is a retired astronaut, and he will tell you that scientifically "eternal" means "without beginning or ending" or "existing outside of time". However, modern common usage has made it come to mean "without ending". It's used twice in the NT. "Perpetual" or "imperceptible" or "always" are some of the ways that literal translations translate it, and the way that it is translated in secular writings.

Well, "canine" means "any of various fissiped mammals with nonretractile claws and typically long muzzles". This includes wolves and other similar animals. A "dog" is more specific. "Collie" is even more specific. A Collie is both a canine and a dog; a dog is a canine, but not necessarily a Collie; a canine is not even necessarily a dog.

Fornication is having illicit sexual relations. Adultery is when a married woman has sexual relations with someone other than her husband. Adultery is fornication, but fornication is not necessarily adultery. They're different, with different rules and consequences.

Another example that I used elsewhere: A sofa is a couch, but a couch is not necessarily a sofa.

Words mean things.

God used specific words for a reason.

Read Revelation 20. In the NT there are 5 verses that those who don't believe in a literal and future Kingdom try to use to "prove" there is no literal and future Kingdom. All 5 are exceptional passages, and are easily shown to not be valid arguments for that line of reasoning.

But, based on Revelation 20, we see that the Kingdom is future and literal and will last 1000 years.

However, "aionios" is "agelasting". It has limits, but without the limits being set inherently in the word. What is the context? If the context is the future Kingdom, it's 1000 years. If it's the present age, it's different. If it's referring to the age of a specific king, it could be 20 years.

But, it's from "aiOn", which is "age". It's an adjective.

It's found in 2 Timothy 1:9: Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

 

In this context, it's also important to remember that at the end of the 1000 years, the Christ will hand rule back over to God the Father. We find this in 1 Corinthians 15:24. If his Kingdom is "forever", we have another contradiction in Scriptures.

 

Ok, I'll be the judge. :laugh: Seriously, I will have to leave the greek studies to more accomplished people than me. I will continue to read and learn from you guys.

 

Yes. I see that.

 

I believe this is talking about the Kingdom of God, not the millennial reign.

 

The Doxology seems to have been added at some point. It is wanting in the oldest and and what most consider the best Greek manuscripts. The earliest forms of the doxology vary very much; some are shorter and some are longer than the one in the KJV. The use of a doxology arose when this prayer began to be used as a liturgy to be recited or to be chanted in public worship. It was not an original part of the model prayer as given by Jesus.

So, it should simply be "and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from [the] evil [one]."

"Evil", which should actually be "evil one" is interesting. The Greek obscures the gender. It can be "ho ponēros" (the evil one) or "to ponēron" (the evil thing). If it is masculine (ho ponēros), it can either refer to the devil as the Evil One or the evil man whoever he may be who seeks to do us ill.

"Ponēros" has an interesting history coming from "ponos" (toil) and "poneō" (to work). It reflects the idea either that work is bad or that this particular work is bad. So the bad idea drives out the good in work or toil, which is an example of human depravity.

 

If you're talking about Matthew 5:3 and 19:9, first of all, there is much doubt about the authenticity of the exception, and even if it is authentic, "fornication" would cover adultery within the marriage, as well as other things.

One is a subset of the other, but not vice versa, and they are not synonymous.

When "discovering" what a word means in English, what higher authority are you going to use than a dictionary and an etymology dictionary? When choosing a dictionary, what higher authority than the Oxford English dictionary? When choosing an etymology dictionary, what higher authority than Klein's or Barnhart's?

Words mean things.

What's the difference between an engine and a motor?

By common usage, they have become interchangeable. But, that is not correct, except by common usage. When I was going through my certification classes to become certified by Honda for racing engines, if someone called an internal combustion engine a "motor", they failed the class.

Words change meanings over time, words are used incorrectly, etc., but that doesn't change what a word means.

I agree with your statement, but you stopped a bit short. The Holy Spirit will not interpret in contradiction to what is written. That would be some other spirit.

If you read my posts, it states this explicitly. "Age-lasting" has limits; it's not limitless, but the limits are not inherent in the word itself. I even gave an example of one society that set a specific time period. But, even that is not inherent in the word itself.

You're the only one who has said that we don't (or didn't) have the ability to grasp the concept of "eternal" or "forever". I stated explicitly that we have that ability, man has always had that ability, God certainly has that ability, but those concepts are not present in "age-lasting".

Even the KJV translators had the concept down with the expression "forever and ever". But, "eternal" was not the word employed in the English language at the time to mean "forever".

The Hebrew and the Greek both use a similar expression (when translated) to mean "eternal" and "forever". In Greek, "aionios" isn't it.

Every case that uses "aionios" is limited in duration.

1 Corinthians 2:7 is a good example that there's no way you can twist to mean "forever": But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

Oops, sorry. That's the noun form. Romans 16:25 uses the adjective form in a very similar passage: Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

As to using it for a specific time period for a king, the only one that I can think of right off hand is used in Plato. Oh, and Josephus. And Athenagorus. But, I don't have them readily available to cut and paste, and I don't feel like using the Greek keys to input that much text. I'm not aware of any biblical cases of it, except for the Lord Jesus Christ, when he is one day King.

Oh, and you can also find non-biblical references to the word being used as an epithet to represent imperial power, but AFAIK, it's always directed at the individual, not the kingdom of the individual.

But, 2 Peter 1:11 points quite well to it being 1000 years: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:24 tells us that his Kingdom is limited in duration.

The book of the Revelation tells us that it will be for 1000 years.

Now, for "eternal" in the modern sense, which is without beginning or ending, or existing outside of time, (or even a long period of time without specific limits), there is the word "aidios". (It can also be used of something that is recurring episodic action, which can be found in 4 Maccabees.) It's found twice in the NT, and used quite frequently by Aristotle.

Once is in Jude: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

The other is in Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

It's his power that is eternal. It's the Godhead that is eternal. ("Godhead" is a better term than "trinity", IMO; it's actually in the Bible, and describes the situation a little more easily and accurately.)

"God" is a title. This title is applied to many different persons at different times, not all of whom are deity, although we tend to equate the word "God" with deity. (The Godhead is deity, but there are humans that are god, Satan is the god of this age, etc. The word "god" is not inherently deity.)

But, the Godhead (theiOtes; this is divinity) is eternal, in spite of the fact that Jesus is the god of the age to come. Satan, the god of this age, is not deity. He was created. And he will be in the lake of fire forever and ever when he's thrown in.

 

You're at it again!

Mind showing me where I once mentioned the W-H text?

But, adding things in is not evil, as the KJV has done?

We're told to neither add, nor take away. So, when we can clearly see that something has been added, what's the rationale for leaving it there?

Well, I wasn't "choosing a version" so much as looking at the Greek text. The TR is the only major text that I can find that includes the doxology. (I had only looked at the NA-27 until you made your claim.) You are correct that the W-H says it doesn't belong, but after looking at a dozen others, none of them do either.

So, are you KJVO?

I haven't looked at any other translation either. Why don't we do so? The ASV doesn't, nor the CLV, ESV, Weymouth, Rotherham, NET, Darby's, ISV, NASB (but it's in brackets), New Century Version, NIV, NLV, NRSV, or Today's English Version.

The KJV has it, the NKJV has it but includes a note, and Young's has it, but it's based on the TR as well.

I cannot find anything other than the TR and translations based upon it that include it, except for some later manuscripts. (Much later.)

 

I've never even mentioned an "older" text, only older manuscripts, although the W-H is older than the NA-27. When reading the Greek, I use the NA-27, but compare it to older NA versions whenever I can. The liner notes change sometimes.

When preaching, I use the KJV because a) I like it and b) it's the one that I'm most familiar with. However, it's far from the best translation. The best translations that I've found are the CLV, Rotherham's, and the NASB. The CLV is stilted reading, and Rotherham's is not as readily available. I finally got a paper copy of the NASB, but it's loose-leaf, which is great for notes, but lousy for turning pages.

My KJV is an interleaved version, which is great for notes. They used to be readily available, but now, as far as I can tell, there is only one publisher making an interleaved KJV without Schofield's (sp?) notes, and they include the sinner's prayer on the back page that I had to tear out. (They should include a warning in their advertising.)

Oh, I also found an Oxford KJV interleaved Bible recently, with no references, but it's $100. (I just found out this moment that the one that I own is now $100 also.)

I found an NIV interleaved Bible, but I'm not particularly fond of the NIV.

I use the KJV when I preach, but I realize that just like the translators themselves, they were not perfect. They expected others to do what they had done: Take a translation and build upon as new discoveries were made, language changed, etc. Why, if you see italics in your Bible, it's words they added that aren't even in the Greek! That doesn't even count the words that were added into the faulty Greek text they used.