The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Scholarly EUs Assemble!


There are various views on that, from all the uses of aionios are of finite duration in ancient Greek or Koine Greek or the New Testament to all the ancient uses of aionios are of infinite or eternal duration (except when used figuratively). Generally universalists are closer to the former position & traditional “hell” advocates lean more the other way.

Greek scholar Marvin Vincent wrote “The same is true of aionios in the Septuagint. Out of 150 instances in the Septuagint, four-fifths imply limited duration”.

"…“The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting.”

“…The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting.”

“… Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods.”

“…Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material can not carry in themselves the sense of endlessness.”

“…There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded.”


I didn’t mention any conspiracy & it doesn’t require a human conspiracy for individuals to do what comes naturally to them, i.e. ignorance, greed, bias, love of filthy lucre (money), prejudice toward their own theological opinions, being men pleasers, seekers of position, fame & the praises of men, lovers of themselves more than lovers of God, etc.

You yourself said you were unaware of one of the aionios references i posted. If you had read the books re aionios on universalist sites like Tentmaker, that wouldn’t have been the case.

Even if pro hell lexicon authors were not ignorant of such references as i’ve listed in this topic, they may have excluded them for reasons i’ve mentioned above.

At least one of the two, the doctrine of endless conscious torments or universalism, is a doctrine of demons. There’s the source of the real conspiracy, assuming demons work together for the purpose of discrediting & dishonoring Love Omnipotent in any way they can. Portraying Him as an absolutely horrific monster beyond people’s wildest imaginations would seem to be an obvious choice.

During the dark & middle ages, & for most of church history, this gospel of the “good news” of endless tortures was proclaimed as truth & the church conspired by means of the sword, the rack & fear to rid the world of all that opposed this great “truth”. That included burning the “heretics” alive along with any writings that would support their views.

"I have further found in the last 5 years in Q & A with those who teach NT Greek at Wheaton, Fuller, and Regent (Vancouver) that all these non-universalist authorities agree that aioniois at least sometimes cannot bear a meaning like “everlasting,”… I know that the Constantinian Roman Church (I think influenced by pagan Greek concepts) institutionalized the idea of infinitely extending torment as the necessity for sins in finite time as a powerfully motivating way to direct people’s lives. It since has been embraced by evangelicals, who often tell me that challenging this traditional reading of aioniois would remove them from their scholarly livlihood. "Talbott on Matthew 25:41, 46?


Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies was published in 1887. Again, just imagine if this were biology, and that instead of using textbooks published in the past few years, students read things from 1887.

Most importantly, if Vincent hadn’t lived in what was tantamount to the dark ages of philology/lexicography – though really, even this isn’t an excuse – he would have realized that we can’t just focus on looking retrospectively at how aionios was employed, so as to say “four-fifths imply limited duration,” etc.

What I mean is that the way that authors used aionios was hardly ever to describe how long something did last, after the fact, but how long something was intended or expected to last – usually from the present onward (“before the fact,” as it were). Again, Diodorus Siculus 17.112.2 is a good example of the rare retrospective usage of aionios, clearly looking at a past event that had already concluded before the present. This is in contrast to most of the uses of it in the Septuagint; or certainly those where it approximates or translates adverbial “forever.”

You yourself said you were unaware of one of the aionios references i posted.

That was an extremely rare and late occurrence, from the Greek Magical Papyri. In fact, it’s so rare that if you search Google for the actual Greek here (“αἰώνιος καὶ ἐπαιώνιος”), there’s apparently only one result on the entire internet: my own post from this thread where I commented on this.

And I don’t have to rely on things like Tentmaker, because they’re extremely amateur-ish sites written by people who for the most part have no scholarly expertise at all, and who regularly misunderstand or misrepresent the data. It’s hard enough to get them to even spell aionios correctly, or to read/translate even the simplest of passages written in Greek script.



Are you the author (Stewart James Felker) of the following page:

"Afterlife Punishment in the New Testament and the New Academic Apologetics

Stewart Felker, on the page above, appears to refer to himself as the author of the following page which is authored by “u/koine_lingua”. Is the following page also your authorship:αἰώνιος_aiōnios_in_jewish_and_christian/

Ditto with these pages Felker refers to as his own remarks which are full of comments by “u/koine_lingua”:αἰώνιος_aiōnios_in_jewish_and_christian/αἰώνιος_aiōnios_in_jewish_and_christian/αἰώνιος_aiōnios_in_jewish_and_christian/crof5db/αἰώνιος_aiōnios_in_jewish_and_christian/

Are all the comments on this page authored by “av0cadooo”, & which says “Posted by u/koine_lingua”, also authored by you:

And likewise did you post these comments posted by “av0cadooo”:

What is your formal training in ancient Greek & other ancient languages or areas of study? Or are you self taught?


Modern Greek and Hebrew lexicons were written by experts in the Biblical languages. According to Gleason Archer The Hebrew and Greek words are synonymous. It’s meaning isn’t limited to but can be:



long duration

See the KJV, NASB, NIV Strongest Strongs and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Gleason Archer


Yeah those are all me (though a lot of those are older and super messy, and some info needs to be updated).

Yeah I don’t have any pro credentials here to speak of, really. A bachelor’s degree in a related field, and a few papers at academic conferences, but that’s about it.


A modern expert:

The LXX generally translates Olam by Aion which essentially has the same meaning. That neither the Hebrew or Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that it is thought desirable to repeat the word.

Harris, Archer, Waltke Theological Wordbook Of The Old Testament page 673.


I don’t share the same viewpoint as you, but I’ll defend you in this. Credentials are not everything. Don’t sell yourself short. I bet you have a better understanding than some with PhD’s. That said, I do find it interesting you refer to some other professionals as ametuerish when they don’t meet the definition of what an ameteur really is. Also the term seems to carry a negative connotation, but it really shouldn’t. Am vs Pro is really just about getting paid and really doesn’t say much more than that.

In a way, it is just another class system, designed to denigrate the seemingly perceived lower class.

All this to say, there are those with more knowledge than you that a) agree with you, b) disagree with you and c) both agree and disagree with your various views.


The LXX generally translates Olam by Aion which essentially has the same meaning. That neither the Hebrew or Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that it is thought desirable to repeat the word.

One of the overarching themes of this entire debate – or at least one that I’ve been emphasizing – is that there’s a big difference between the connotations of aion and aionios themselves, despite their obvious etymological connections. For the most part, the debate here isn’t over aion at all.

Now it certainly includes debate over 'olam, when it’s used adjectivally and adverbially (and for that matter aion when used adverbially, e.g. in eis ton aiona). But at least at this current juncture, the biggest debate in this thread has been over adjectival aionios.

More specifically though, as for “the fact that it is thought desirable to repeat the word,” this actually doesn’t really do much by way of criticism. And it’s really easy to illustrate this, for example by noting that when modern supporters of eternal torment emphasize that sinners will be tormented “forever and ever,” this (obviously) doesn’t mean anything less than “forever” just because they add “and ever.”


Repetition is often simply employed to intensify the given meaning, i.e., it’s a Hebraism, like Jesus’… ἀμὴν ἀμὴνtruly truly” or quite literally “amen amen” aka “without doubt!” — 23 time in John’s gospel.


Exactly; so it’s a mistake to think that this just because something says “forever and ever,” that “forever” here can’t mean really forever simply because the latter (“and ever”) rhetorically intensifies the former. Actual language usage doesn’t abide by rigid logic.


@Agnostic_Gabe - YESSSSSSSSSS, thank you. You said what I would have already said by now to our brother – in Adam – Mr. Lingua (or any EU/CU/UR skeptic) w/o my normal intimidation of attempting to have an unbiased dialogue (in a tone of agape) with him but didn’t because I initially couldn’t find the words; especially (x3), since I’m not a Greek scholar at friggin’ all (and due to his usual cynical/arrogant word choice & tone backed up by his Greek knowledge). Blessed be all of you.

ALSO, Gabe, you’re like the inverse of Linuga rofl, seriously broski.


If the biology textbooks of 1987 thought very highly of the theories of evolution & completely ignored the theories of creation, while the textbooks of 1887 were more accurate in that regard, then i’d have to say that older is better, as it certainly is in the case of many things. While modern pro ECT biased lexicons like BDAG failed miserably & shamefully in leaving out aionios references i’ve posted in this thread, such references can be found in older books found on sites such as Tentmaker.

What gives you the notion Vincent is “looking retrospectively at how aionios was employed, say as to say “four-fifths imply limited duration,” etc.”? Even if he were, the Divine author of Scripture was well aware of what the future would bring & therefore had the restrospective view of things before they occurred. If He knew that 40% or 80% or 100% of the things referred to would be of finite duration, He could have chosen to employ a word, namely aionios, for the very reason that He knew in advance it would be the case they would be of finite duration.

In the LXX there are quite a few occurrences of aionios referring to the past that are translated variously in English Bible versions as “ancient”, “old”, “perpetual”, “lasting”, etc.

In addition to ignoring (or being ignorant of) the aionios references in this thread, pro hell biased modern lexicons tend to ignore those as well & the LXX uses in general.

Here is an English (and Greek) translation of Diodorus Siculus 17.112.2 in context for those wondering about that:

17.112.1 After the conclusion of his war with the Cossaeans, Alexander set his army in motion and marched towards Babylon in easy stages, interrupting the march frequently and resting the army. [Note] 17.112.2 While he was still three hundred furlongs from the city, the scholars called Chaldaeans, who have gained a great reputation in astrology and are accustomed to predict future events by a method based on age-long observations, chose from their number the eldest and most experienced. By the configuration of the stars they had learned of the coming death of the king in Babylon, and they instructed their representatives to report to the king the danger which threatened. They told their envoys also to urge upon the king that he must under no circumstances make his entry into the city; 17.112.3 that he could escape the danger if he re-erected the tomb of Belus which had been demolished by the Persians, [Note] but he must abandon his intended route and pass the city by.

17.112.1Ἀλέξανδρος καταπεπολεμηκὼς τὸ τῶν Κοσσαίων ἔθνος ἀνέζευξε μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ προῆγεν ἐπὶ Βαβυλῶνος, ἀεὶ δὲ κατὰ τὰς στρατοπεδείας διαλείπων καὶ τὴν δύναμιν ἀναλαμβάνων ἡσυχῇ προῆγεν. 17.112.2ἀπέχοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τριακοσίους σταδίους τῆς Βαβυλῶνος οἱ Χαλδαῖοι καλούμενοι, μεγίστην μὲν δόξαν ἐν ἀστρολογίᾳ περιπεποιημένοι, διὰ δέ τινος αἰωνίου παρατηρήσεως προλέγειν εἰωθότες τὰ μέλλοντα, προεχειρίσαντο μὲν ἐξ ἑαυτῶν τοὺς πρεσβυτάτους καὶ μεγίστην ἐμπειρίαν ἔχοντας, διὰ δὲ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων μαντείας γνόντες τὴν μέλλουσαν γίνεσθαι τοῦ βασιλέως τελευτὴν ἐν Βαβυλῶνι προσέταξαν μηνῦσαι τῷ βασιλεῖ τὸν κίνδυνον καὶ παρακελεύσασθαι μηδενὶ τρόπῳ τὴν εἰς τὴν πόλιν εἴσοδον ποιήσασθαι· 17.112.3δύνασθαι δὲ αὐτὸν ἐκφυγεῖν τὸν κίνδυνον, ἐὰν ἀναστήσῃ τὸν καθῃρημένον ὑπὸ Περσῶν τοῦ Βήλου τάφον καὶ τὴν βεβουλευμένην ὁδὸν ἐπιστήσας παρέλθῃ τὴν πόλιν. τῶν δὲ ἀποσταλέντων Χαλδαίων ὁ προκριθείς, ὄνομα Βελεφάντης, τῷ μὲν βασιλεῖ συνελθεῖν




I think one very important thing to remember here is that there’s a religion which follows the Hebrew Bible – in fact, this religion spawned the Hebrew Bible – that really does accept that the covenants and Law, etc. are genuinely still intended to be permanent/eternal.

And to maybe help you see its perspective better – or, rather, to see the faults of the other perspective – consider an analogy: a future U.S. president decrees that some military monument should be constructed, and says that it will “be symbolic that the might of the U.S. military will remain forever.” Now imagine some thousand years in the future after that, where we have total world peace, and all militaries are disbanded. Imagine a U.S. president during this time removing the older monument, on the basis that it’s no longer relevant or appropriate.

Yeah, the monument is taken down. But does that mean that the original “forever” proclamation (“symbolic that the might of the U.S. military will remain forever”) was intended to mean anything less than forever? Does the fact that it was later removed somehow make the original proclamation mean “symbolic that the might of the U.S. military will remain for a finite time” or something like that?


How did you know my reference to Deismann’s tablet discovery was authentic, or that i wasn’t just making it up, or regurgitating something from a website that i hadn’t verified myself as being real?

I read about it, not in any biased pro ECT lexicon, but here in a book on the Tentmaker site:

"Adolph Deissman gives this account: “Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: ‘I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty…’ If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?” "

And verified that by the following:

The original Greek he copied from the tablet is given at the url above, along with an English translation which was, in this case, “eternal and more than eternal and almighty…”

"Keeping up the formal peculiarities of the text, we may, perhaps, translate it as follows:…

“…I adjure thee by the great God, the eternal and more than eternal and almighty, who is
exalted above the exalted Gods.”

“…The tablet, as is shown not only by its place of origin (the Necropolis of Adrumetum belongs to the second and third centuries, A.D. ; the part in which the tablet was found is fixed in the third), but also by the character of the lettering, is to be assigned to the third century, that is to determine it by a date in the history of the Greek Bible about the time of Origen.” [page 275ff]

Some other quotes from the first url above are as follows. Unlike others i’ve posted in this thread, i haven’t yet been able to verify them, though i’d note that Keiser refers to the Nyssa quote in her dissertation. Do you have any comments about them:

“In the Apostolical Constitutions, a work of the fourth century A.D., it is said, kai touto humin esto nomimon aionion hos tes suntleias to aionos, “And let this be to you an eonian ordinance until the consummation of the eon.” Obviously there was no thought in the author’s mind of endless time…”

"St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of aionios diastêma, “an eonian interval.” It would be absurd to call an interval “endless.”

“Long ago in Rome, periodic games were held. These were referred to as “secular” games. Herodian, who wrote in Greek about the end of the second century A.D., called these aionios, “eonian,” games. In no sense could those games have been eternal.”

What i’ve found useful there are various references to aionios which have been shamefully omitted by the hell biased lexicons that are popular amongst the very large body of the pro eternal hell book buyers club. Which means they’ll be buying a lot of those lexicons. Cha ching.

To err is human, so we all make mistakes, such as the spelling errors you refer to above. For example at the following url, is that you speaking of aionios occurring in Lev.25:46 & Exo.21:6:

“For example, when it comes to the Septuagint’s use of aiōnios when translating, say, texts referring to the permanence of a slave’s bondage in particular Old Testament laws (Leviticus 25:46; Exodus 21:6), we say that the permanence here—which really does suggest a true endlessness, at least in potential—is nonetheless naturally limited by the length of the slave’s life.”

Is, then, my Apostolic Bible Polygot (Greek-English Interlinear) LXX in error when it has Strongs # 165 (aion) in those verses & not #166 (aionios)?

καὶ καταμεριεῖτε αὐτοὺς τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν μεθ᾽ ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔσονται ὑμῖν κατόχιμοι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ οὐ κατατενεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς μόχθοις


Okay, I’ll take the Apostolic Constitutions passage as a starting-point. (This post has already become super long, so I may try to get to the other things you mentioned in a follow-up.)

This reads καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν ἔστω νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, μέχρις ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ Κύριος.

In context, what this is saying is that the command for Eucharistic memorial/sacrifice (Luke 22:19) is an ordinance that’s to be observed permanently, a νόμιμος αἰώνιος; and it’s described here as “permanent” precisely because it’s designed to cover the maximum amount of time possible from its present going forward. Of course, here, it does have a potential end in mind: when the Second Coming actually takes place, at the end of time. (Though obviously here we are nearly 2,000 years later, still waiting for this; and for all we know it could never happen.)

Interestingly though, just a couple of lines later, we also have another use of αἰώνιος: that faith in Christ yields ἀθάνατος ζωὴ καὶ αἰώνιος, “life that is immortal, everlasting.” This is clear appositional synonymy, where two adjectives are used together to mean the same thing.

But I wanna get back to νόμιμος αἰώνιος briefly. This phrase has its origin in the Hebrew Bible, where it’s used to describe various ordinances in the Torah like Leviticus 6:18; 10:9, where חק־עולם לדרתיכם is translated as νόμιμον αἰώνιον εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν (see also Leviticus 3:17, νόμιμον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν). Here, the permanence of the statute(s) is followed by a clause that seems to orient this span of time particularly toward the longevity of the Israelites’ descendants – which may be taken as loosely analogous to what we found in the Apostolic Constitutions. (See also Exodus 12:14 for an even closer parallel.)

But in line with some of the other things I’ve suggested, the idea here in Leviticus is almost certainly not just that this applies permanently throughout all the time the lineage continues, as if it foresaw some actual finite end to the lineage, but rather “permanently – that is, throughout all the time that it’s possible for the lineage to continue.” (The collocation of various uses of -לדר as in לדרתם or לדרתיכם, which are then followed by a noun modified by עולם, is suggestive here. See more on this below, e.g. in the section that mentions “close apposition of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν.”)

This gains additional support from how elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible/Septuagint, in phrases similar to לדרתיכם/εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν, the pronoun at the end is dropped (Genesis 9:12?), and thus what we might more literally gloss as “throughout [all] generations” is no longer attached to anything more specific like “your generations,” “their generations,” etc. In these instances, “throughout [all] generations” clearly becomes synonymous with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, attaining the simple meaning “forever” and “permanently.”

For that matter, interestingly, Philo of Alexandria, at Ebr. 141, interpreting Leviticus 10:9, glosses the substantive νόμιμος αἰώνιος, “permanent/everlasting ordinance,” as νόμος ἀθάνατος, “immortal law” – incidentally, using the same word for “immortal” here as in the Apostolic Constitutions passage.

Another instructive example is Leviticus 3:17, where חקת עולם לדרתיכם is glossed as νόμιμον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν. What’s interesting here is that adjectival עולם (which in context we would otherwise translate as αἰώνιος) is glossed as adverbial εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, creating a close apposition of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν. (See also Exodus 40:15, עולם לדרתם/εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν.) Again though, there are instances where the pronominal suffix/modifier in phrases like לדרתיכם/εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν is dropped where we might otherwise expect it, like in Genesis 9:12. (Actually לדרת עולם/εἰς γενεὰς αἰωνίους here.)

In terms of this phrase without any pronominal suffix, LXX Isaiah 51:8 is a particularly instructive example – where צדקתי לעולם תהיה וישועתי לדור דורים is translated ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔσται, τὸ δὲ σωτήριόν μου εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν. Here we have a perfect apposition/doublet, where God’s righteousness lasts forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), and his salvation forever (εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν), too. (See also two verses prior to this, וישועתי לעולם תהיה וצדקתי לא תחת.)

You wrote

To err is human, so we all make mistakes, such as the spelling errors you refer to above. For example at the following url, is that you speaking of aionios occurring in Lev.25:46 & Exo.21:6:

You’re certainly correct. Rereading what I wrote, I gave the mistaken impression that instead of adverbial εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in Leviticus 25:46 and Exodus 21:6, we have adjectival αἰώνιος.

Of course, my point isn’t that people’s arguments are invalidated by innocent mistakes like accidentally writing αἰώνιος for αἰών (or, as I did, referring to αἰώνιος instead εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in alluding to those Torah passages). Rather, I criticize people who don’t even have the knowledge to recognize that there’s a huge difference between αἰών and αἰώνιος in the first place – not that they simply mistakenly misread one for the other, but that they don’t recognize the difference to begin with. (Incidentally, that’s precisely what seems to be happening in a discussion in the comment section of another post that I’m currently taking part in. See here:

On one last note though, you wrote

What i’ve found useful there are various references to aionios which have been shamefully omitted by the hell biased lexicons that are popular amongst the very large body of the pro eternal hell book buyers club. Which means they’ll be buying a lot of those lexicons. Cha ching.

There is no such thing as a “pro eternal hell book buyers club.” Nothing remotely like it exists, even figuratively speaking. For one, lexicons like this are extremely expensive, and so very few non-scholars own them in the first place. Second, these are extremely lengthy works – thousands of pages with thousands of individual entries – for which an absolutely enormous amount of work has gone into producing them; and if you think that people are attracted to them just because of one little entry for one word that you don’t like, you’d be gravely mistaken.

And as always, if you have some criticism about the translation/interpretation of particular texts that appear in the controversial “pert. to a period of unending duration, without end” sub-entry for αἰώνιος in, say, BDAG, you’re free to elaborate on this. Again, here it is in full:

③ pert. to a period of unending duration, without end (Diod S 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 δόξα αἰ. everlasting fame; in Diod S 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their αἰ. οἴκησις; Arrian, Peripl. 1, 4 ἐς μνήμην αἰ.; Jos., Bell. 4, 461 αἰ. χάρις=a benefaction for all future time; OGI 383, 10 [I b.c.] εἰς χρόνον αἰ.; EOwen, οἶκος αἰ.: JTS 38, ’37, 248–50; EStommel, Domus Aeterna: RAC IV 109–28) of the next life σκηναὶ αἰ. Lk 16:9 (cp. En 39:5). οἰκία, contrasted w. the οἰκία ἐπίγειος, of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1. διαθήκη (Gen 9:16; 17:7; Lev 24:8; 2 Km 23:5 al.; PsSol 10:4 al.) Hb 13:20. εὐαγγέλιον Rv 14:6; κράτος in a doxolog. formula (=εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) 1 Ti 6:16. παράκλησις 2 Th 2:16. λύτρωσις Hb 9:12. κληρονομία (Esth 4:17m) vs. 15; AcPl Ha 8, 21. αἰ. ἀπέχειν τινά (opp. πρὸς ὥραν) keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cp. Job 40:28). Very often of God’s judgment (Diod S 4, 63, 4 διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐν ᾅδου διατελεῖν τιμωρίας αἰωνίου τυγχάνοντα; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40; Da 12:2; Ps 76:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 13:15) κόλασις αἰ. (TestReub 5:5) Mt 25:46; 2 Cl 6:7; κρίμα αἰ. Hb 6:2 (cp. κρίσις αἰ. En 104:5). θάνατος B 20:1. ὄλεθρον (4 Macc 10:15) 2 Th 1:9. πῦρ (4 Macc 12:12; GrBar 4:16.—SibOr 8, 401 φῶς αἰ.) Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jd 7; Dg 10:7 (cp. 1QS 2:8). ἁμάρτημα Mk 3:29 (v.l. κρίσεως, κολάσεω, and ἁμαρτίας). On the other hand, of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰ.; Diod S 8, 15, 3 life μετὰ τὸν θάνατον lasts εἰς ἅπαντα αἰῶνα; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3;PsSol PsSol:3, 12; OdeSol 11:16c; JosAs 8:11 cod. A [p. 50, 2 Bat.]; Philo, Fuga 78; Jos., Bell. 1, 650; SibOr 2, 336) in the Reign of God: ζωὴ αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3) Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30; J 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2f; Ac 13:46, 48; Ro 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f; Gal 6:8; 1 Ti 1:16; 6:12; Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1J 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jd 21; D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also βασιλεία αἰ. 2 Pt 1:11 (ApcPt Rainer 9; cp. Da 4:3; 7:27; Philo, Somn. 2, 285; Mel., P. 68, 493; OGI 569, 24 ὑπὲρ τῆς αἰωνίου καὶ ἀφθάρτου βασιλείας ὑμῶν; Dssm. B 279f, BS 363). Of the glory in the next life δόξα αἰ. 2 Ti 2:10; 1 Pt 5:10 (cp. Wsd 10:14; Jos., Ant. 15, 376.—SibOr 8, 410 φῶς αἰῶνιον). αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης 2 Cor 4:17; σωτηρία αἰ. (Is 45:17; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9; short ending of Mk. Of unseen glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια 2 Cor 4:18.—χαρά IPhld ins; δοξάζεσθαι αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186–201; JvanderWatt, NovT 31, ’89, 217–28 (J).—DELG s.v. αἰών. M-M. TW. Sv.


Long posts are fine, though i may at times respond to them with a series of shorter posts.

Regarding the quote above, i’m wondering if you can provide a reference. A link to a source with Greek & an English translation, such as i’ve done above re Diodorus Siculus 17.112.2, would also be helpful. Then those here who read Greek can weigh the validity of your comments based on their Greek context, while others can do so re the English context.


Sure, that’s fine.

In the Apostolic Constitutions, it’s from the fifth book, 19th section – at the end of the second-to-last section here:

Διὰ τοῦτο οὖν καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἀναστάντος τοῦ Κυρίου, προσενέγκατε τὴν θυσίαν ὑμῶν, περὶ ἧς ὑμῖν διετάξατο δι᾿ ἡμῶν λέγων· Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, καὶ λοιπὸν ἀπονηστεύετε, εὐφραι νόμενοι καὶ ἑορτάζοντες, ὅτι ἀρραβὼν τῆς ἀναστάσεως ὑμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν ἔστω νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, μέχρις ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ Κύριος. Ἰουδαίοις γὰρ ὁ Κύριος ἔτι τέθνηκεν, Χριστιανοῖς δὲ ἐγήγερται, τοῖς μὲν δι᾿ ἀπιστίαν, τοῖς δὲ διὰ πληροφορίαν, ὅτι ἡ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλπὶς ἀθάνατος ζωὴ καὶ αἰώνιος

For this reason you should also, now that the Lord is risen, offer your sacrifice, concerning which He made a constitution by us, saying, “Do this for a remembrance of me;” Luke 22:19 and thenceforward leave off your fasting, and rejoice, and keep a festival, because Jesus Christ, the pledge of our resurrection, is risen from the dead. And let this be an everlasting ordinance till the consummation of the world, until the Lord come. For to Jews the Lord is still dead, but to Christians He is risen: to the former, by their unbelief; to the latter, by their full assurance of faith. For the hope in Him is immortal and eternal life.

(For the English, I just grabbed the first translation I came across.)


I take the position that it is God who authored the Hebrew Scriptures (OT/39 books). Since He knew the future, the end from the beginning, He knew in advance what things would be finite. Therefore, of such things, He wouldn’t use a word that must mean eternal, but a word (aionios) that can refer to a finite duration, even if it can also refer to an eternal duration in other contexts. Otherwise He would make Himself a liar. But that is not possible.

A mere human president, if he knew the future as God does & that something would be of finite duration, would not declare that finite thing to be eternal. Well, not unless he was a liar, as all politicians are.