I read this about a year ago. See, eternities of eternities makes perfect sense 
Seriously though, this alone should be enough to show that in this context, āforeverā makes zero sense as a translation
Hi snitzelhoff
Not bad, possible. Have you read the essay about aionios by Thomas deQuincey? If so, what do you think of his argument(s)?
roof
I have not. Do you have a link?
Romans 16:25-26
25 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,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Paulās point was describing only a āeverlasting or eternalā God that has neither a beginning nor end has the power to manifest and reveal the mystery kept before the world began. Just because Paul had this revelation doesnāt mean the Roman Christians whom he is writing this to understood what an everlasting or eternal God is.
I have had people ask me today āwho is Godās fatherā? How did He come about? Iām sure Paul addressed similar questions in his day.
As to time, the Greek word** āEisā(1519)** implies when, referring to a term or limit, up to, towards, until. The Greek word āAionā(165) refers to an age or time, in contrast toā kosmosā referring to people or space. Derived from the word** āaeiā(104) always, and on, being. Denotes duration or continuance of time, but with great variety. Both in the singular and plural it signifies eternity whether past or come; for the ages of ages,** the duration of this world, since the beginning of this world, the ages of the world, the age, the coming one, an age or dispensation of providence.
So when you understand what the Greek word āEisā means and the word āAionā that derives from the Greek word āAeiā meaning always, and on beingā¦forever and ever makes perfect sense. 
Again read the post. The problem is foreverS and everS or eternitieS of eternitieS. There is no inherent problem with plurality of ages. You cannot have a plurality of eternities without destroying what āeternityā actually denotes.
You appear to be making a rather over enthusiastic use of eis and are proving that you do not really understand koine. With regards aei, your own argumentation can be turned around and used against you. The etymology of hell or hades for instance. But Iām assuming you do not accept those arguments from etymology, as they donāt agree with your presuppositions. Etymology is useful and most definitely interesting but needs a careful combination with the usage of the word. Otherwise, it is meaningless. The history of a word brings more to bear on itās current meaning than mere etymology alone. The term āfaggotā in English came from sticks that were burnt and came to, hideously in my opinion, mean a homosexual. Here the etymology of the word tells you WHY it came to mean homosexual ( because wicked people wanted to burn them) but it does not necessarily indicate that the words meaning has stayed similar. No one who calls a man āfaggotā is thinking of him as a burning stick. And then in the UK a fag is a cigarette and a faggot is a ball of organ meats and onion, cooked in gravy. See, in centuries time you would need evidence of history and usage to discover what people meant when they used those words.
You mention āaeiā as being an origin for aion. Well firstly, that is a possible origin. There are other contenders, such as Aemi, to breathe. And this could make sense, since the age of man or lifespan are often referred to as his ābreathā. But coming on to usage, the context of usage of aei is first century Palestinian Jews, specifically those writing the text of the new testament. I would challenge you Revival to find me a single instance in the NT where aei means anything perpetual, eternal or anything else as strong. Itās usage is not as simple as you would have us believe.
Just out of curiosity, who are you quoting above? Iād like the reference. Or is that your own conclusions, with a bit of assistance from Strongs with the translation. Itās just I wasnāt clear if those were your conclusions or if you were making a citation. Thanks in advance
Revival,
Just because Paul had this revelation doesnāt mean the Roman Christians whom he is writing this to understood what an everlasting or eternal God is.
If theyāre from Jewish descent, they understand there is an everlasting God. If theyāre from Gentile descent, they understand, philosophically, the idea of one. Considering the mixed bag that was the Church of Rome, the odds of someone going, āGodās been around forever? Say what?ā are ludicrously slim and hardly worth mentioning for Paul. Trying to force Paul to make a point he isnāt making in this text, again, demonstrates the gross inadequacy of the lexical work youāre attempting to present, as does the etymological argument you present below. An ounce of usage is worth a pound of etymology in any linguistic study.
Have you been reading JW Hanson ?!
And I couldnāt agree more. Making the case that the first century church were too thick to understand what an eternal God means, strikes as desperation. And again, couldnāt we turn this argument on its head? Paul clearly taught universalism and never taught hell once. Yet some (notice SOME Revival, not all) church fathers taught eternal damnation. Clearly, they just didnāt understand Paulās revelation.
I would think that a supposition that some people just didnāt get it, would require some sort of proof. And since ideas of eternity were not foreign to Greco-roman culture, I donāt think itās that convincing
That is not the only point Paul described God as everlasting. Regardless if the Roman Christians understood if God has been around forever Paul used the word āaioniosā to describe one of His attributes being **everlasting or eternal having no beginning nor end. ** Because only a God that has this attribute could have the power to manifest and reveal the mystery that was kept before the world began.
Coeval? Coeval? Who says ācoevalā? lol
Blessings, Revival!
Roofus,
āCoevalā isnāt his word. Revival just failed to cite his source. This quote:
Contextually there is not the slightest indication in the words of Jesus here that the punishment is not coeval with the life.
Is from Robertsonās Word Pictures. Minus the ācontextually,ā which is Revivalās.
I know, I was teasing him!
Had a brainstormā¦
Daniel 12:2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake:some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Matthew 25:46 " And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Since there is the resurrection of both the believers and the unbelievers and if God is eternal, maybe it means that ALL will enter that same āeternityā but in a different āstateā.
ALL will be in the presence of the Lord, who is in/and āeternityāā¦
The unbelievers tho will be thrown in the Lake of Fire/Godās purifying presenceā¦the second deathā¦which of course wont harm believersā¦ Then at the very end of all the unbelievers being purified, God will finally be ALL in ALL.
A possibility perhaps?
Roofus (and Revival, since Iām responding to your argument here),
Well, that makes more sense. 
Incidentally, Robertsonās (but not Revivalās) argument has some merit: there isnāt, in that verse, any indication of different durations for ālifeā and āpunishment.ā However, to that, three responses might be made offhand:
-
If aionios does not bear a durative sense here and isnāt intended to tell us how long the life/punishment will last, as weāve been arguing, then while there is no indication that they are different lengths, neither is there any indication that theyāre the same length. If, that is, aionios ought to be seen as qualitative rather than quantitative, then drawing a quantitative conclusion from it is fallacious.
-
If aionios does bear a durative sense here, then its lexical range is still broad enough to make it indefinite rather than necessarily eternal (Revival appears to want to argue otherwise, but even BDAG 3rd Edition and Liddell-Scott say heās wrong, and guess whom I trust more), so the same argument applies. Iāve made the argument elsewhere (though I donāt believe Iāve done it here) that if a teacher holds back the unruly portion of her class for ācorrection for a timeā while the rest of her class gets to enjoy ārecess for a timeā and then, halfway through recess, allows the unruly half to go outside and join their classmates, she hasnāt been deceptive in any way.
-
Contextually, there does appear to be some indication that the punishment is for the benefit of the goats, which would be contextual indication that the two are ānot coeval.ā
Sister,
Have you been reading JW Hanson ?!
Iāve read some of his stuff, but I got the quote from my Greek professor in college.
Sister,
Have you been reading JW Hanson ?!
Iāve read some of his stuff, but I got the quote from my Greek professor in college.
Ahh, I was reading Hanson last week and read that exact quote. It must be a Greek professor thing!
I would agree with what you say. I would also point out that this scripture at face value, cannot teach what Revival wants. He is hanging on to it, as he feels eternal damnation is taught there. Problem is, this interpretation when taken to its logical conclusion, undermines Revivalās understanding of the gospel.
The story speaks of the nations being gathered together and separated according to what they had done. No mention of faith in the Saviour, belief in God, any type of repentance or religion, are mentioned. What is mentioned are our deeds to others and how Christ sees them as deeds done to Him. So it is not Christians or even the Christ following Jews, who were entering āeternalā life. In fact, the text seems to indicate the goats were even surprised to be considered as having not cared for Christ, so there is a possibility that they themselves were some sort of believer. So, read in the fashion Revival uses, we would have to conclude that it is our good deeds that save us for all time and not our faith. Of course, if you believe we will all be judged according to our works and refined accordingly, that issue disappears. It is not our works that save us but rather they are what defines if there is anything left to be salted with fire. Also Revival, which Kingdom was He referring to? The Kingdom of Heaven that was at hand? That was inside of you? The Kingdom coming on earth? The millennial Kingdom? All this is relevant to accurate interpretation.
Roofus:
Thanks for the heads up re the citation that our friend decided not to provide
Sister
Matt 25:31-46 is the same judgment that happens in Rev 20:11-15. You will be judged by your works. Rev 20:12. and whether your found recorded in the book of life determines where you spend eternity.
Iām assuming youāre a busy man Revival. And since Iām not back to work till tomorrow, I thought Iād post the verses that use aei.
Mark 15:8 And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them
Acts 7:51 You stiff necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit
2 Corinthians 4:11 for we who live are always being given over to death for Jesusā sake
2 Corinthians 6:10 as sorrowful yet always rejoicing
Context of both these verses was the persecution and treatment Christians receive.
Titus 1:12 one of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said " Cretans are always liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons."
Hebrews 3:10 therefore I was provoked with that generation, and said " they always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways"
1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you
2 Peter 1:12 therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have
Nowhere in these verses do I see aei being used to denote that which is truly perpetual or eternal. Could it? Of course it could be used in this manner, given the right context, but that is obviously not its primary use. Maybe there is another verse Iāve forgotten that youāre aware of?
But given this, if aei is the source of aion, I fail to see how that proves its primary meaning is that pertaining to the eternal. But with regards Romans 16, I fear you are reading your own assumptions into Paulās intent. The primary meaning of aionios is ā of the agesā or āage lastingā. Does that mean that sometimes in English we may need to use different words to make context clear? Of course, since different cultures do not use concepts the same way and a linear translation could therefore prove deceiving.
Is this such a case? It would seem not. Translating the first instance as eternity, makes no logical sense " kept secret from eternity but now disclosed" would only make sense if eternity was being used in a poetic sense, rather than literal. I have no objection to the second sense being translated as eternal, but I do object to you insisting that it must be so, because that is clearly what Paul was teaching. Really? And how do you know that? It makes perfect sense to say that the mystery that was kept secret for long ages has been revealed according to the command of the God of the ages. In fact, it seems to make a great point that nothing of the ages is hidden from Him because He is the God of them.
He is the God of the Ages is He not? This is not a comment that He isnāt eternal. It is not a name that says He is JUST the God of the ages. It is simply a name that recalls one of His attributes. Like being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, does not denote Him as having begun with Abraham or ONLY being the God of the patriarchs. Or, having the name āthe ancient of daysā does not mean God began with the days or exists within days.
I understand your fervour for your position and your desire to defend what you believe to be truth. But we URs have that same desire for truth. It would be good if you could at least understand that, while you disagree with us, our position is not unreasonable. And also, would you want to know if UR is the truth? Could you honestly seek it and objectively assess if it is correct or not? You could ask me the same about ECT, except I believed ECT for years and viewed UR with deep suspicion when I first encountered it.
So are you now saying that it is your works and not your faith in Christ that determines where you spend eternity? You cannot have it both ways. You are making many assumptions in this but not provided a single thing to back it up.
So far we have no evidence that the book of life determines where we spend eternity, merely your assertion. But supposing this is true, if you take Matthew as it is and apply it to this judgement, your name is apparently in there based on your good works. Not faith in God. If you cannot see the inconsistency of this approach to the text or how it undermines the gospel, then I really might as well talk to the wall instead.