But that’s just it… by implication your reference to Rev 20:11-15 speaks to postmortem conditions… at least according to the typical evangelical standard.
It’s not redundant… rather, a simple recapitulation of the same point; something not unique in its Hebraic use. Example… Jesus’ double “amen amen” of John’s gospel, or God’s “you will surely die” of Gen 2:17 where the repeated “die die” of the Hebrew text gives the emphatic sense and meaning… thus the English rendering “surely”. IOW… without a shadow a doubt, etc.
Again as I understand it… this is NOT new, additional or any other sort of speculative information, but the simple reiterating of the fact that the King of Tyre would live no longerto the eon — which again is restating the previous malediction of Ezek 27:36.
That’s possible, though after saying the King would be “destroyed” & “not be” you already have him being dead twice. If “to the eon” means that’s surely true, that would seem to be overkill (no pun intended). Also, where is “to the eon” ever understood as a surety. For sure he will be dead, but that death is only stated as being until a certain point, the eon. Which, as it so happens, will be, as Scripture reveals elsewhere, till his resurrection.
This is the problem with ultra-literalism, it makes a nonsense of the text AND THEN leads to any amount of other speculations. If I said the likes of… “you’re so dead, I’m going to kill you so help me I’m going to take your off, you’re gone” — I have NOT made mention of multiples deaths, NO, these are all but differing expressions of the ONE end, i.e., I won’t be killing you more than the once.
Of course you are taking my meaning literally, when what was meant was that there are already two references to him being dead. But i suppose as to the label of being an ultra literalist, you are, as they say in the UK, “spot on”. Or is that NZ, S. Africa or Australia? I can never tell their accents apart. Now what does that make you, davo. A follower of that heretic allegorist Origen?
“If the plain senses makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense.”
“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth”. -Albert Einstein
IF ONLY… and yet here you are digging for deeper scenarios within the text of Ezek 28:19 that aren’t there. The phrase <εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα> eis ton aiōna pretty much carries the meaning of “forever” as per… εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
What scenarios. I took Ezek.28:19 literally as it is written.
I look at the following quote in terms of, amongst other things, taking the literal meaning of what Scripture says:
"“If the plain senses makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense.”
So what is contrary to that is to alter what God has literally said (e.g. to the age) & change His words into something much different by translating it (e.g. forever) according to man’s opinions of theology.
I was referring to the connection you made about the King of Tyre’s death as somehow pertinent to the judgement of Rev 20:11-15 as being what εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα means. You say you took it literally but actually imposed something other onto it.
Well, as I understand it… it seems you’re not getting the fact that <εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα> refers to an inordinate amount of time, albeit with limits, but in human appreciation — a long, long time; hence the sense of totality and thus being rendered “forever” or some equivalent etc, which given contexts might also help define further.
IOW… IF <εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα> refers to the Judgement of Rev 20:11-15 — as per your position, THEN how do you make sense of this but one among many examples, according to your scenario?
“Forever” above = <εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα> — you have it referring to the amount of time between death and resurrection (judgement). IF that’s the case then there must be a lot of people walking around still living “forever” UNTIL the Day. Of course that’s ridiculous, BUT IF you demand a literal interpretation ALONG WITH the notion you impose upon <εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα> then anything goes.
This is why I supplied that link in my previous post hoping you’d see (by all those examples) that what you’re proposing is untenable… but that’s just my opinion.
The point of the reference to Revelation 20:11-15 is the resurrection, not judgement. I could have referred to other resurrection passages like John 5:28-19 & Daniel 12:2. All those passages give additional information to Ezek.28:19, rather than interpret it. If Ezek.28:19 informs us that the King is dead “eis ton aiona” or “to the eon” or “until time indefinite”, the resurrection passages give us new & different knowledge re when he will no longer be dead but come back to life, at least as far as his mortal body is concerned. But if you translate “eis ton aiona” in Ezek.28:19, as most versions do, as “forever” or “never”, then you have the King dead forever & a contradiction in the Scriptures. Although, from the Traditionalist commentaries i’ve seen, they generally do not take the verse to refer to the death of the King of Tyre, but the destruction of the city. In which case the rendering “forever” avoids such a contradiction. The same language is used re the destruction of the city of Tyre in the last verse of chapter 27. Some annihilationists, OTOH, argue that the verse refers to Satan, proves his annihilation & proves that his torment in Rev.20:10 is not forever and ever (literally, into the ages of the ages). That could also be an argument that “ages of the ages” is finite in duration.
I would not say that the phrase “eis ton aiona” refers to the judgement of Revelation 20, but that it refers to the aion (i.e. eon) that is in view in each particular context, whether a past eon, the present eon, or one of the future eons or a part of an eon (duration of an unspecified or indefinite length, usually an era or long epoch, in the Scriptures). I can’t recall any context where the phrase must mean “forever”, although it is concievabe it might be best interpreted that way sometimes, even though that is not the literal meaning & IMO misleading as a translation.
58 This is the Bread which descends out of heaven. Not according as the fathers ate and died; he who is masticating this Bread shall be living for the eon. (CLV)
58 this is the bread that came down out of the heaven; not as your fathers did eat the manna, and died; he who is eating this bread shall live—to the age. (YLT)
58 This is the bread, that from the heaven having come down; not as ate the fathers of you, and died; he eating this the bread, shall live into the age. (Diaglott)
Christians who have died did not live “forever” in the mortal flesh. Neither did they live to/into “the eon” of a future Messianic eon (whether temporary or endless) in their mortal body. Though they could be said to live spiritually both now and “into the eon” to come. Alternately, or additionally, we could say when they are resurrected from the dead, they will live “for the eon” of the coming Messianic eon.
Lol, I can’t win… I originally had written “resurrection” but thinking you might nitpick and correct me to “judgement” based on vs. 13.
So this is my opinion… I think you’re looking for information that the passage doesn’t offer, require or indicate. The Greek phrase <εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα> as becomes clear in the NT is variously nuanced and to postulate as you do regarding its application as meaning “…“until time indefinite”—he will no longer be dead but come back to life…” has the text of Ezek 28:19 saying things it is ABSOLUTELY SILENT on. For example…
IF we run with your preferred scenario it makes a complete nonsense of the text, i.e., you have this…
As can be seen… the Greek phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα being understood by the English word “forever” or some equivalent, has NOTHING to do with any essence of resurrection, NO, and in context it is NOT even hamstrung by any sort-after literalism, i.e., it make complete sense in its qualitative rendering. Now THAT is just ONE example from that link I gave you.
All knowing thee among the peoples Have been astonished at thee, Wastes thou hast been, and thou art not – to the age.’ "(Ezek.28:19, YLT)
All knowing you among the peoples Have been astonished at you, Wastes you have been, and you are not–to the eon. (CLV)
All that had known thee among the peoples were astounded over thee,— A terror, hast thou become, And art not Unto times age-abiding. (Ro)
The passage reveals the king is dead…to “the eon”, to an indefinite time period in the future.
The Hebrew confirms the same, saying AD[5704] OLAM[5769], until eon. Rendering that “until forever” would be rather strange, if not nonsensical.
Davo, I prefer the following translations of John 8:35 to the one you have assigned to me:
Jn.8:34 Jesus answered them, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you that everyone who is doing sin, is a slave of sin.”
35 Now the slave is not remaining in the house for the eon. The son is remaining for the eon. (CLV)
35 The but slave not abides in the house to the age; the son abides to the age. (Diaglott)
35 and the servant doth not remain in the house—to the age, the son doth remain—to the age; (YLT)
35 into the age (Greek-English Interlinear, “A Conservative Version Interlinear”)
“But what prospect is there before the slave of sin? Exclusion from the kingdom of the Messiah!” (Meyer’s NT Commentary)
The contrast in Jn.8:35 is between the slave of sin and the son. Compare:
1 Cor.6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
Jn.3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Rev.5:10 You have made them into a kingdom, priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.
Rev.20:4b And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev.20:6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
“Spiritual regeneration, the one imperative condition, apart from which the kingdom cannot be entered…A new birth will fit them for a life on earth during the millennial eon…” (Concordant Commentary on the New Testament, John’s Gospel)
Well, I only assigned your terminology and reference with regards to what you were saying εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα means relative to what you were applying to the text of Ezek 28:19 and then claiming that as its defined meaning… I simply questioned the validity of that with said explanation and examples, nothing more and nothing less. What you’ve posted since is not really germane to that discussion.
Depends on the language, in German we have “bis in (alle) Ewigkeit” which literally means “till in (all) eternity” which literally means forever, on the other hand we use our word for eternity in a looser sense as English speakers, so the idea of “eternity” is different within languages and cultures and often ambiguous.
The Apostolic interlinear bible is a good source to search words, you can search within the pdf-file:
I’ve been looking for something like that. Also studying the phrase “the ages of the ages” in the book of Revelation where your research on various forums has been helpful, such as the following:
Perhaps you posted before reading my comment of “Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:09 pm” PST that states:
“I would not say that the phrase “eis ton aiona” refers to the judgement of Revelation 20, but that it refers to the aion (i.e. eon) that is in view
in each particular context, whether a past eon, the present eon, or one of the future eons or a part of an eon (duration of an unspecified or indefinite length, usually an era or long epoch, in the Scriptures). I can’t recall any context where the phrase must mean “forever”, although it is conceivable it might be best interpreted that way sometimes, even though that is not the literal meaning & IMO misleading as a translation.”
You said:
“As can be seen… the Greek phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα being understood by the English word “forever” or some equivalent, has NOTHING to do with any essence of resurrection, NO, and in context it is NOT even hamstrung by any sort-after literalism, i.e., it make complete sense in its qualitative rendering. Now THAT is just ONE example from that link I gave you.”
What is a “qualitative rendering” of eis ton aiona? Do you think this phrase should usually be translated “forever”?
It’s like I’ve mentioned earlier… when a boyfriend tells his girlfriend “I love you forever” or “our love is eternal” we know qualitatively what is meant without getting all strung-up on the literality of it all. The ancient’s likewise knew how to speak in kind, even though in its strict literal rendering it appears, as our mate qaz would say, “completely clunky”. There are way too many examples of this qualitative use, but here’s one…
These are qualitative phrases… “everlasting mountains” and “perpetual hills” — quite literally there are no such things; but this is poetic license. Not only this but to make the point… BOTH “perpetual” and the last “everlasting” in this verse are one and the same Hebrew word <עוֹלָ֑ם> olam.
The reference re the Revelation passage had nothing to do with the inherent meaning of “eis ton aiona”, but rather with the king of Tyre being dead in the specific context of the Ezekiel verse under consideration. It seems you assumed otherwise & applied your erroneous assumption to other passages where the phrase occurs.
Your so-called “evidence” list includes NT verses with the phrase “eis ton aiona”. It is merely a list of translations that provide no “evidence”, points, explanations, proofs or arguments in favor of any of the renderings. I’ve already responded to two of the lists’ verses that you posted here in this thread, as well as one OT verse, & expect that my remarks re a number of the rest would be much the same.
The list shows how a Greek-English Interlinear & some versions render the Greek phrase. In general i’d say the Interlinear is more literal & accurate and the versions are misleading & deceptive. For example, re Mk.3:29, even the Interlinear is deceptive, saying “never has forgiveness to the eternity”, whereas everywhere else it renders “eis ton aiona” as to/for the age. Why the inconsistency when it comes to Mark 3:29? Theological bias? A proper literal translation would be into/“to the eon” (or age):
Young’s Literal Translation
but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness – to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;’ (Mk.3:29)
yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin- (CLV)
But, whosoever shall revile against the Holy Spirit, hath no forgiveness, unto times age-abiding,—but is guilty of an age-abiding sin: (Ro)
who but ever may speak evil to the spirit the holy, not has forgiveness to the age, but liable is of age-lasting judgment (Diaglott)
into the age (Greek-English Interlinear, “A Conservative Version Interlinear”, studybible.info/ACVI/Mark%203)
into the eon (Greek-English Interlinear @ scripture4all.org/OnlineInte … f/mar3.pdf
There are many passages of Scripture that speak of multiple future eons (i.e. ages). It is a theological assumption that the age in Mk.3:29 is eternal. ECT dogma is what is behind deceptive anti universalist ECT mis-translations of the phrase “eis ton aiona” in Mk.3:29 by pro ECT versions (e.g. KJV) of the Scriptures.
I don’t see what’s qualitative about the word “forever” there. Normally the word “forever” speaks of endless time: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forever. Hence quantity of time, not quality of time. Your use of the English word “forever” in your example is what is called hyperbolic usage, or non literal. Even there the word speaks of a quantity, not quality, of time.
Also the modern English word “forever” does not define the ancient Greek phrase “eis ton aiona”. To understand the meaning of ancient Greek words one must study ancient Greek words in their ancient context, not modern English words which have nothing whatsoever to do with ancient Greek words and did not even exist in the ancient world of ancient Koine NT Greek.
You know this how? By travelling back in a time machine to 30 AD & speaking to the ancient Greeks in the native tongue? Or by being brainwashed by modern English language culture, including a millennium of ECT traditions, plus decades of the influence of ECT versions & propaganda so that you read the Bible through the spectacles of ECT lenses re phrases like “eis ton aiona” & words like “olam”, “aion” & “aionios”?
The word OLAM is twice deceptively rendered “everlasting” there in that pro ECT [mis]translation. The Hebrew word OLAM generally corresponds to the Greek words AION & AIONION meaning -to put it briefly - “eon” (i.e. age) or “eonian”. Paidon’s rendering of aionion as “lasting” is much better than “everlasting”. Compare:
6 He hath stood, and He measureth earth, He hath seen, and He shaketh off nations, And scatter themselves do mountains of antiquity, Bowed have the hills of old, The ways of old are His.(YLT)
6 He hath stood and measured the earth, he hath looked, and caused nations to tremble, and, scattered as dust, are the perpetual mountains, and, sunk, are the age-abiding hills,—Forthgoings age-abiding, are his. (Ro)
6 He stands and is measuring the earth; he sees and is letting loose the nations. And the mountain ranges of futurity are scattering; the eonian hills bow down; his goings are eonian. (CLV)
6 He standeth, and shaketh the earth, He beholdeth, and maketh the nations to tremble; And the everlasting mountains are dashed in pieces, The ancient hills do bow; His goings are as of old. (JPS)
6 His goings were as of old. (ASV)
6 his goings were as of old. (ERV)
Yet more oddities in your argumentive logic… within the mere blink of an eye your favoured ‘Interlinear’ goes from “more literal & accurate” to “the Interlinear is deceptive” — go figure
Still you don’t get it… if one partner says to another “my love for you is eternal” there is NO skerrick of literalistic quantitative intent, NO… what is being reflected by that phrase is the depth and strength of feeling owned by one for and towards the other, i.e., this is the QUALITY of their love. Surely that’s not too hard to grasp?
Qualitative:Describes a statement, or analysis, which gives the composition of an item, not the amounts present.
Ok so your desperation is showing. It’s the mere FACT that you are unable to conceive the qualitative aspects relative to the likes of “forever” or “eternal” that leads to such churlish responses.
FACT… I absolutely have NO place for the likes of ECT. Your problem however is you can’t conceive of any other ECT opposing rational that doesn’t fall in line with your own rigid dogmatism… being aptly demonstrated by your diatribe above.
Amazing
I spelt it out quite PLAINLY for you and yep in you eager-tism you read right past the bleeding obvious. The word <עוֹלָ֑ם> olam rendered perpetual AND THE LAST eternal referencing GOD — you know, the one you say is “deceptively rendered” and a “[mis]translation” — well they are indeed ONE AND THE SAME WORD in the Hebrew text, so the ill-informed slur you attribute to “the perpetual hills” you are attributing likewise to the “His ways are everlasting.” This is not a good standard you are setting if you hope to convince anyone of your position, IMO.
But that’s not what you said back here…
