As an inclusive prêterist aka a pantelist I’m in the paddock next door, i.e., I agree that humanity has been reconciled to God… I just don’t go along with certain assumed rationales inherent within EU to get there.
The words “In general” allow for exceptions. And the words “For example” are followed by giving one of those exceptions. The words “For example” also refer back to the sentence that you left out which occurs immediately before those you quoted: “The list shows how a Greek-English Interlinear & some versions render the Greek phrase.” And then “…For example”.
The first definition from Webster’s dictionary:
“eternal - having infinite duration”, i.e. endless time, clearly quantitive, not qualitative
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal
Not one of Webster’s definitions has to do with anything qualititive. Only quantities of time.
I have seen the word “quality” associated with the Greek word aionion, especially in regards to John 17:3, but not regarding the passages you have been attributing it to with the phrase “eis ton aiona”. I can see it maybe applying in John 17:3, but not in the contexts you claim it for. Are there any articles, dictionaries, scholars, commentaries, church fathers or lexicons you can offer in support of your viewpoint, that will help me to “get it”?
I was aware that you are not an ECT advocate. Although your comments & versions quoted, aside from the qualitative stuff, reminded me of their viewpoints.
Oops, you are correct. My mistake.
What are the “certain assumed rationales inherent within EU” you don’t go along with?
What is the “paddock next door”?
Is “paddock” an English language word or Australian? 
Even some ECTers believe “that humanity has been reconciled to God”. How do you understand that reconciliation?
I am. I believe the Bible, correctly translated & interpreted, teaches eventual universalism as the final destiny of all human beings since Adam,
after all have been delivered from “hell” & saved through Jesus Christ & Him crucified.
First this with regards to “eternal”…
Then immediately this…
You will have to excuse me if my brain gets a little befuddled with some of what you say. 
Example: 1) you rule out emphatically ANY possibility that “eternal” can have any qualitative application/meaning,
**BUT THEN 2) **immediately agree such CAN be the case as per the likes of Jn 17:3 (which I might add I would agree).
So which is it… are you happy to just let Webster’s English Dictionary define your case for the biblical Greek text, or not; and on what justifiable basis do you make this seemingly arbitrary switch?
I’ve already pointed you in that direction but you dismissed this with disgust and disdain. That the likes of <εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα> can be used as a figure of speech OTHER THAN its strict literal rendering has you up in arms declaring all manner of deception etc.
Even the first examples in that link I gave you shows this…
So it’s your choice… to which particular “until-the-age” would you have this immediately withered fig tree assigned so as to sprout fruit again? — even though Jesus has just declared the total opposite. Can you not see how Jesus’ words are a figure of speech… cursing that which was unproductive — a prophetic word at that time against Israel.
It was a play on words… so quite literally <εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα> could have reference to the DoJ in AD70 (my preference) BUT the fact that “the fig tree immediately withered away” should tell you there is NO resurrection (i.e., the connection you’ve strained to make with regards to the King of Tyre and resurrection) in terms of this prophetic symbol involved; it all happened there and then. It’s what I originally said… you are trying to find in that text (Ezek 28:19) more than is there with regards to <εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα>.
-
I didn’t rule out anything. I simply referred you to Webster’s dictionary definition of “eternal”.
-
I said “I can see it maybe applying in John 17:3”. That means maybe it applies, or maybe it doesn’t. I’ll look into it.
Webster’s dictionary defines English words, not Greek words.
I think the discussion about aion/aionios is too sophisticated, as a translation for aionios I would suggest “perpetual”, for me as a non-native English speaker the term is ambiguous and does not convey the idea of endlessness or timelessness (though not exclude), is this correct? Otherwise I would suggest “lasting”, I do not like the translation age-lasting.
aion/aionios most likely means what olam means, which is a hidden time of whatever length, the translation “for an/the age” is no proper English in the terms that it has no reference to an actual age, though in Latin “in saeculum” would literally exactly mean that but can mean whatever duration too (though not everlasting). Eis ton aiona I would translate as “in perpetuity” as long as this is ambiguous enough not to necessarily mean forever? Otherwise I would suggest “continously”. I think both English and German have limitations to properly translate the Latin and Greek words without conveying false connotations, since the original words appear to be ambiguous, the translation should be equally ambiguous.
Have a look how Rashi defines olam here in Exodus 21:5.6
and he shall serve him forever: Heb. לְעֹלָם, until the Jubilee year [the fiftieth year of the cycle]. Or perhaps it means literally forever, as its apparent meaning? Therefore, the Torah states [in reference to the Jubilee year]: “and each man to his family you shall return” (Lev. 25:10). [This] informs [us] that fifty years are called עֹלָם. But [this does] not [mean] that he must serve him [his master] the entire fifty years, but he must serve him until the Jubilee year, regardless of whether it is near or far off. — [From Mechilta, Kid. 15a]
chabad.org/library/bible_cdo … rashi=true
Scholars should study more the meanings of olam and also Hebrew phrases like “generations of generations”.
I object to changing the words of God into the words of man based on ECT theology & then calling that a faithful translation of the original Scriptures. Instead of calling it KJV it should be called the “KJ ECT commentary-opinion of the dark ages”. And it’s many ECT zombie-cloned paraphrases, erroneously called versions, should be named likewise.
There’s nothing in the following more honest, faithful and literal translations either affirming, or denying, the tree would sprout fruit again:
And, perceiving one fig tree on the roadside, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only. And He is saying to it, “No longer, by any means, may fruit be coming of you for the eon. And withered instantly is the fig tree.” (Mt.21:19, CLV)
`No more from thee may fruit be—to the age;’ (YLT)
“into the age” (Greek-English Interlinear, “A Conservative Version Interlinear” @ studybible.info/ACVI/Matthew%2021)
How is it that Jesus’ words are a “figure of speech”? There was a literal fig tree that He literally came to, literally cursed & it literally withered up. Literally instantly. Even if you want to apply the fig tree to Israel, as some commentators do, how does that effect the phrase “eis ton aiona” or make it a figure of speech, or something qualitative instead of quantitative, or justify changing the literal inspired word “eon” & rendering it idiomatically as “ever”? Is Israel to be cursed for ever? Or until Jesus saves His people Israel from their sins (Mt.1:21 + 2:6), even “all Israel” (Rom.11:26)? So far your examples of “eis ton aiona” have shown that it should not be altered into “for ever” but left literally as God gave it.
IMO, sven, the words perpetual, lasting & continuous would be a great improvement upon the usual translations of olam & aion/ios as everlasting & forever. There are versions that sometimes use the words you suggested. The following url, for example, shows in what verses the word “perpetual” occurs in various Bibles as a translation of olam and aionios:
“Perpetual is usually the translation of `olam, properly, “a wrapping up” or “hiding,” used often of time indefinitely long, and of eternity when applied to God; hence, we have, “for perpetual generations” (Genesis 9:12); “the priesthood by a perpetual statute” (Exodus 29:9; compare Exodus 31:16 Leviticus 3:17; Leviticus 24:9, etc.); “placed the sand for the bound of the sea, by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it” (Jeremiah 5:22, the Revised Version margin “an everlasting ordinance which it cannot pass”); “sleep a perpetual sleep” (Jeremiah 51:39, 57); “Moab shall be… a perpetual desolation” (Zechariah 2:9), etc.”
“…Perpetual is frequent in the Apocrypha, most often as the translation of aionios and kindred words, e.g. Judith 13:20, “a perpetual praise”; The Wisdom of Solomon 10:14, “perpetual glory,” the Revised Version (British and American) “eternal”; Ecclesiasticus 11:33, “a perpetual blot,” the Revised Version (British and American) “blame for ever”; 1 Maccabees 6:44, “a perpetual name,” the Revised Version (British and American) “everlasting”…”
And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.
LXX- καί δίδωμι αὐτός ἐξουσία καί πᾶς ὁ ἔθνος ὁ γῆ κατά γένος καί πᾶς δόξα αὐτός λατρεύω καί ὁ ἐξουσία αὐτός ἐξουσία αἰώνιος ὅστις οὐ μή αἴρω καί ὁ βασιλεία αὐτός ὅστις οὐ μή φθείρω
αἰώνιος = noun
Trying to figure this one out!
Figure out? At Dan.7:14 aionios is an adjective, not a noun.
to Him is granted jurisdiction and esteem and a kingdom, and all the peoples and leagues and language-groups shall serve Him; His jurisdiction, as an eonian jurisdiction, will not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be confined.
Well is the eonian jurisdiction temporal?
That’s one interpretation. Based on 1 Cor.15:25, & the view that Christ’s reign ends, as all rule ends (v.24).
Here is where I’m trying to figure out:
His jurisdiction, as an eonian jurisdiction-temporal
will not pass away-permanent/never ending
That doesn’t make sense to me.
James, I think this is how some have interpreted it:
As an - eonian jurisdiction (or kingdom) - it will not pass away. So while it continues through the millennium age eon and the following eon of the 2nd death, until death is abolished & God becomes “all in all” (1 Cor.15:25-28), it will not pass away. Because Christ lives through all that time, and no one will have the power to take the rule or kingdom away from Him. Instead, He voluntarily hands the kingdom over to the Father (v.24-28) at the end of the eonian times (2 Tim.1:9) when the eons end (1 Cor.10:11; Heb.9:26). If the eonian times end, then an eonian kingdom cannot be never ending, although the kingdom itself can continue after the eonian times end. Just as a person of the 1800’s did not die when the 1800’s ended if he lived into the 1900’s, but his life of the 1800’s has ended. Or just as your teenage years ended, but you did not, but continued into your adult years. As a teenage person you did not pass away, that is, during your teens, but your teenage years did [thank God] end. Does that make any sense? Maybe i’ll email a brilliant scholar acquaintance familiar with this stuff & see what he says.
God’s purpose of the eons is to head up all in Christ (Eph.1:9-10; 3:11). Some would view that as being the time when the eons end. When God becomes “all in all” (1 Cor.15:28).
If sometime you feel like reading some more related to eons ending, i’d suggest points 7-9 in this post:
Here’s another, somewhat related, thought:
God as “all in all” (1 Cor.15:28) has nothing to do with authority, but God “in” every being who ever lived. “To say that “all in all” signifies “the manifestation of God’s supremacy”…is very far indeed from the truth…When we say “Christ is my all,” what do we mean? That He is our Lord? Yes, and our Saviour and Friend and our Lover, our Wisdom and our Righteousness, and our Holiness–He is everything to us!..And that is just what God wishes to be and what He will be!..Will He be this only in some? No! He will be All in all!..we have said that when the last enemy [death] is abolished, then the Son abdicates and God becomes All in all. If there were still enmity we might imagine God being over all, but with all enmity gone, it is easy to see how He can become All in all…The “kingdom” is given up to the Father, after all sovereignty and authority and power have been abrogated. What kind of a “supremacy” will God “fully manifest” which has no power, no authority, no sovereignty? Thank God, all these elements, which characterized government during the eons, will be utterly unnecessary when the Son of God is finished with His “mediatorial” work. Instead of God’s supremacy being fully manifested at that time, it will be entirely absent, and God, as Father, will guide His family by the sweet constraint of love.” (AE Knoch).
Another interpretation of Dan.7:14 is that Christ’s aionios kingdom is endless. And that sometimes aionios refers to infinite duration and other times to finite duration, depending on the context.
Paidon translates aionios as “lasting”. In some contexts it may be intepretaed as ever-lasting, while in others it is long-lasting or short-lasting. But in all cases lasting, i.e. for a duration of time.
[size=150]**All eonian is is an adjective. This adjective is just derived from its noun form “eon”. The Bible says all the eons end. Eonian is that which pertains to the eons. Therefore, that which is eonian is pertaining to a set amount of time.
Examples of adjectives related to their nouns are:
America = noun
American = adjective
Bush was the American president. His presidency pertained to America.
Heaven = noun
Heavenly = adjective
The heavenly angel visited Mary. The angel’s realm pertains to heaven.
Eon = noun
Eonian = adjective
These shall go away into eonian chastening, yet the just into eonian life. Both the chastening and the life pertain to the eons.
Let’s take one example of eonian. In Romans 16:26 it is stated that “God is the eonian God.” Now some scholars state that a noun (God) can modify the adjective (eonian) and since God is eternal, in this verse eonian means eternal. But that is reversing the laws of grammar where the adjective modifies the noun.
Look in any Greek grammar instruction book and you will note that for “adjective” it is stated “the adjective modifies the noun.”
So what is Romans 16:26 telling us if eonian does not mean eternal? It is telling is that God is the God pertaining to the eons. He is over the eons, directing each eon to the goal He has in mind. He is subjecting mankind to the goal of each eon.
“Eonian jurisdiction” is likewise a jurisdiction pertaining to the eons. Once the eons have run their course, Christ quits reigning for 1 Corinthians 15:25 informs us “[Christ] reigns UNTIL . . . .” If I am at a job and I work until I retire, when I reach retirement age, I quit working. Christ reigns UNTIL certain things come to pass. Then He subjects Himself to God and God then becomes All in all (1 Cor.15:22-28).
It’s not that hard to understand. But one must throw off the shackles of poor teachings of well meaning theologians in order to wrap one’s mind around these things.
**[/size]
Making a silly baseless charge is no way to answer let alone challenge an opposing view… what you’ve said above simply isn’t true.
“some commentators”!? JESUS was using the fig tree as a metaphor, i.e., a figure of speech, against Israel — THAT you can’t see this very basic of truths doesn’t alter this facts one iota — Jesus was applying this useless tree to unproductive Israel. Unless of course you simply believe this was a typical random act of Jesus just to safe some farmer some time; go figure?
BECAUSE… that’s what “eis ton aiona” means, period! Context determines translation, pure and simple. Your literal-ONLY approach makes a total mockery of common sense… do you suppose there was a HUGE rock, i.e., Jesus actually literally following Israel around the desert 40yrs, as per?? 1Cor 10:4 
THAT’S what DID happen, not will happen. Jesus redeemed his people ALREADY and in consequence the world of man HAS BEEN reconciled.
I don’t see how that remark answers the questions.
As to the meaning of eis ton aiona:
Greek scholar Marvin Vincent said:
“Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus the phrase eis ton aiona, habitually rendered forever, is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, LXX, Exod 21:6; 29:9; 32:13; Josh. 14:9 1 Sam 8:13; Lev. 25:46; Deut. 15:17; 1 Chron. 28:4;. See also Matt. 21:19; John 13:8 1 Cor. 8:13. The same is true of aionios. Out of 150 instances in LXX, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Gen. 48:4; Num. 10:8; 15:15; Prov. 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Hab. 3:6; Isa. 61:17.”
[by Marvin R. Vincent, from Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1973, p.58f).]
what-the-hell-is-hell.com/2011/n … struction/
books.google.ca/books?id=1eCBAA … on&f=false
Exodus 21:6:
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. (KJV)
Then he will be his servant for life. (NIV)
and he shall serve him permanently. (NASB)
Exodus 21:6, LXX has “eis ton aionas”, clearly using it of finite duration. The phrase “eis ton aionas” does not mean forever in Exo.21:6.
The LXX scholars translated the Hebrew “le olam” as “eis ton aionas” in Exo.21:6. Obviously “le olam” does not mean forever or endless duration there (in the Hebrew) either.
The book “Life Time Entirety” refers on p.134 to the following passage where “eis ton aiona” is finite:
I Maccabees 14:41
καὶ ὅτι οἱ Ιουδαῖοι καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς εὐδόκησαν τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῶν Σιμωνα ἡγούμενον καὶ ἀρχιερέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἕως τοῦ ἀναστῆναι προφήτην πιστὸν
Also that the Jews and priests were well pleased that Simon should be their governor and high priest for ever [eis ton aióna], until [eós]there should arise a faithful prophet
Likewise on p.133 it gives the same type of example of “eis ton aióna” being of finite duration in Isa.32:14-17.
books.google.ca/books?id=l-Smsh … &q&f=false
My approach isn’t “literal only”. Neither is it allegorical only, with which one can make Scripture say that God is the tooth fairy, Hitler, a Zombie or anything you are feeling or fancy at the moment.
Of course you don’t Origen because this old maxim states in spades your mentality on this… “you will not see what you don’t want to believe.”
Just because <εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα> CAN be understood according to a restricted meaning, because it can, does NOT mean it cannot be applied in an unending sense, because it can … again CONTEXT helps see how that works. Someone’s lasting love CAN rightly, qualitatively, be understood as limited to the period whereby the one being held with said affection exists, and YET EXPRESS qualitatively the fullness or eternalness of that love…
God’s love was everlasting / forever / eternal regardless of the fact that it was lasting only as long as the age wherein the recipient existed — it was truly everlasting regardless.
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.
It’s fine to say that here and now BUT everything you’ve written up the page and on other threads screams the opposite… your approach IMO is simply too inconsistent.
That remark could be applied to anyone. Jesus spoke of first pulling the beam out of one’s own eye.
Who denies that context determines meaning? Yet there are still 100’s of doctrinal & denominational divisions.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you define the “literal only” approach you refer to. Does anyone you’ve ever met believe that? Consider this quote:
“And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”
How many Christians do you personally know walking around with one or two blind eyes because they took that statement literally?