What is the 2nd Death? (Annihilationsim vs. Eternal Torment)

[Der Alte]

yet that One, because of His remaining for the eon, has an inviolate priesthood (Heb.7:24, CLV)
Untransmissable is not necessarily eternal:
"hath an unchangeable priesthood] Rather, “hath his priesthood unchangeable” (sempiternum, Vulg.) or perhaps “untransmissible;” “a priesthood that doth not pass to another,” as it is rendered in the margin of our Revised Version."
Will the office of priesthood be even needed or last forever? If not, then it will cease & aion in this verse cannot refer to an endless duration. After God becomes "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) priesthood may no longer serve any purpose. Likewise with kings (cf. 1 Tim.1:17 above).

And who wrote the comment in the margin of the RSV and why is it not supported by any other accredited scholar? Your arguments about "even needed""may no longer serve any purpose" are irrelevant. The question you have to ask yourself is will Jesus ever lose the title of High Priest?

My unrefuted opinion which, along with my other statements, have debunked your aion/ios olam theory in several different ways. And your second statement is a strawman; nobody said it wasn't important.

Actually I have refuted, invalidated, negated, controverted and otherwise disproved your arguments in virtually every post and I have done so from scripture not canned arguments copy/pasted from anonymous websites.
.....This morning I had a sudden inspiration. In Ex 3:15, God, Himself, establishes the meaning of the Hebrew word עולם/Olam.

Exodus 3:15.
(15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, [עולם/Olam] and this is my memorial [לדר דר/l'dor dor. From generation generation.]​

"Olam" clearly means forever. God paired "olam" with "my memorial [לדר דר/l'dor dor.] From generation generation." The generations of God's people will never end. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
.....After a little review I find that the Hebrew of vs. 15 reads לדר דר/l'dor dor. From generation generation. It does not say "unto" generation.

 

[Der Alte]

Six versions plus the Greek-English Interlinear here say you are wrong. None, zero, nada, zilch - say you are right.
1 Timothy 1:17 Interlinear: and to the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, is honour and glory -- to the ages of the ages! Amen.
ClementofA = 7
Der Alter = 0
What else is new. No surprises there. Same old usual bottom line.

While all that is somewhat interesting it is essentially irrelevant. Versions are irrelevant, one can find a "version" which supports almost any heterodox belief. The LDS have their own JST. Jehovah's Witnesses have their own NWT. And there are a bunch of one person "translations" such as Young's, Rotherham's etc. which OBTW just happens to support their beliefs whatever they might be.
.....You might have to educate yourself on some Greek but check out what I said. In 1 Tim 1:17 the Greek word βασιλει/basilei, i.e. king, is in the Dative case which identifies the indirect object. In order to be translated "king of'" the word must be in the genitive case which is written βασιλευς/basileus. "King" in the genitive case occurs 29 times in the NT, where it is always correctly translated "king of."
.....I trust the NIV to be correct one of the translator's of the NIV, Dr. Roger Omanson, was my first Greek professor. I trust the NET to be correct, the senior editor is Dr Daniel Wallace who has taught graduate level Greek for more than 30 years. I own one of his major books, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. And to my knowledge neither has ever been proven wrong.

 

[ClementofA]

While all that is somewhat interesting it is essentially irrelevant. Versions are irrelevant, one can find a "version" which supports almost any heterodox belief. The LDS have their own JST. Jehovah's Witnesses have their own NWT. And there are a bunch of one person "translations" such as Young's, Rotherham's etc. which OBTW just happens to support their beliefs whatever they might be.
.....You might have to educate yourself on some Greek but check out what I said. In 1 Tim 1:17 the Greek word βασιλει/basilei, i.e. king, is in the Dative case which identifies the indirect object. In order to be translated "king of'" the word must be in the genitive case which is written βασιλευς/basileus. "King" in the genitive case occurs 29 times in the NT, where it is always correctly translated "king of."
.....I trust the NIV to be correct one of the translator's of the NIV, Dr. Roger Omanson, was my first Greek professor. I trust the NET to be correct, the senior editor is Dr Daniel Wallace who has taught graduate level Greek for more than 30 years. I own one of his major books, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. And to my knowledge neither has ever been proven wrong.

Since the literal translation of the Greek word is "ages", how would you translate 1 Tim.1:17 literally, using the word "ages"?

As to all your claims in paragraphs 2 & 3 above, they do not count as evidence according to your own definition of evidence, i.e. that can be accessed by the average person. Nor have you supported such with anything besides your word.

 

[ClementofA]

And who wrote the comment in the margin of the RSV and why is it not supported by any other accredited scholar? Your arguments about "even needed""may no longer serve any purpose" are irrelevant. The question you have to ask yourself is will Jesus ever lose the title of High Priest?

The verse doesn't mention "title". If the "office" of priest is no longer needed and ends, then aion is finite. And the verse proves the opposite of what you think.

 

[ClementofA]

..... In Ex 3:15, God, Himself, establishes the meaning of the Hebrew word עולם/Olam.

Exodus 3:15.
(15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, [עולם/Olam] and this is my memorial [לדר דר/l'dor dor. From generation generation.]​

"Olam" clearly means forever. God paired "olam" with "my memorial [לדר דר/l'dor dor.] From generation generation." The generations of God's people will never end. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
.....After a little review I find that the Hebrew of vs. 15 reads לדר דר/l'dor dor. From generation generation. It does not say "unto" generation.

That's better than the deceptive translation you posted for this verse last time. I see you edited this post a few minutes ago.

Still "from generation generation" does not equate to your interpretation of it as being generations that will never end. The verse does not say how many generations are being referred to. Neither does it speak of a duration "throughout" all generations. Thus it does not prove what you claim it does. Likewise with all the other verses you quoted with the word "generation" & the same fallacious argument.

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[Shempster]

Following this thread but I am not too terribly interested in jumping in because I have read numerous debates made through history just like these for the last 30 years.
There are a few interesting comments by early church fathers who not only had original bible texts but some actually knew some apostles, so we can learn something from them.
Even their ideas vary. It seems this issue has been around for a good while and it also appears that there is no concrete proof of any of the 3 main positions. People just gravitate towards the one that best fits THEIR revelation of God and they go with it and defend it to the T.

Carry on.

 

[ClementofA]

Following this thread but I am not too terribly interested in jumping in because I have read numerous debates made through history just like these for the last 30 years.

Then perhaps you can direct us to some "debates" that are "just like these"? I am always interested in learning more ;

There are a few interesting comments by early church fathers who not only had original bible texts but some actually knew some apostles, so we can learn something from them.

For example?

Even their ideas vary. It seems this issue has been around for a good while and it also appears that there is no concrete proof of any of the 3 main positions. People just gravitate towards the one that best fits THEIR revelation of God and they go with it and defend it to the T.

Is their "concrete proof" of anything?

"I think, therefore i am".

 

[Shempster]

Then perhaps you can direct us to some "debates" that are "just like these"? I am always interested in learning more ;



For example?



Is their "concrete proof" of anything?

"I think, therefore i am".

The debates have happened in churches, bible studies, fireside discussions, formal teacher debates, seminary dissertations, ect. for the last 2,000 years. There are likely millions of them.

So far as early church fathers quotes, here is just one site to look at: Early Church Fathers Quotes by Topic | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
There are too many to mention and I am sure each one is somewhat edited to propagate certain viewpoints, so it is best if you choose one yourself.



BlessUp

 

[Der Alte]

And who wrote the comment in the margin of the RSV and why is it not supported by any other accredited scholar? Your arguments about "even needed""may no longer serve any purpose" are irrelevant. The question you have to ask yourself is will Jesus ever lose the title of High Priest?
Actually I have refuted, invalidated, negated, controverted and otherwise disproved your arguments in virtually every post and I have done so from scripture not canned arguments copy/pasted from anonymous websites.
.....This morning I had a sudden inspiration. In Ex 3:15, God, Himself, establishes the meaning of the Hebrew word עולם/Olam.

Exodus 3:15.
(15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, [עולם/Olam] and this is my memorial [לדר דר/l'dor dor. From generation generation.]​

"Olam" clearly means forever. God paired "olam" with "my memorial [לדר דר/l'dor dor.] From generation generation." The generations of God's people will never end. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
.....After a little review I find that the Hebrew of vs. 15 reads לדר דר/l'dor dor. From generation generation. It does not say "unto" generation.

Since the literal translation of the Greek word is "ages", how would you translate 1 Tim.1:17 literally, using the word "ages"?

Why would I translate aion, ages in 1 Tim 1:17 when I have shown grammatically that is not, cannot be the correct translation, since βασιλει/basilei is not in the genitive case which it must be to be translated "king of.".
You have not proved that "ages" is the literal translation from any credible source. Both BAGD and LSJ include eternal/eternity in their definitions although you have repeatedly misrepresented both

As to all your claims in paragraphs 2 & 3 above, they do not count as evidence according to your own definition of evidence, i.e. that can be accessed by the average person. Nor have you supported such with anything besides your word.

Robertson and Vincent.

The verse doesn't mention "title". If the "office" of priest is no longer needed and ends, then aion is finite. And the verse proves the opposite of what you think.

More "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" I have no interest in your assumptions/presuppositions about the priesthood. How about dealing with Rom 1:20 and Rom 16:26.

Romans 1:20
(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 [ἀΐ́διος] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αἰώνιος] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In Rom 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” “Aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26 Paul refers to God as “aionios,” therefore Paul considers “aidios” and “aionios” to be synonymous.

 

[ClementofA]

And
....Why would I translate aion ages in 1 Tm 1:17 when I have shown grammatically that is not, cannot be the correct translation, since βασιλει/basilei is not in the genitive case which it must be to be translated "king of.".

You are confusing two different things, namely "ages" and "king of". Even if it can't be translated "king of", the literal translation is of the aion plural in 1 Tim.1:17 is "ages".

You have not proved that ages is the literal translation from any credible source.

I gave you 7 translations. Secondly, aion is well known to be literally rendered "age". Hence the plural is literally "ages". You don't know this fact?

Your other points which you keep spamming have already been answered. Try reading the posts of the past day or two in response to you. For example:

Exodus 3:15
(15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever,[עולם/olam] and this is my memorial unto all generations.
In this vs. “olam” is paired with “unto all generations.” “Age(s),”a finite period, does not equate to “unto all generations,”“for ever” does.

A finite eon, age or ages is perfectly harmonious with generations.

Your translation misrepresents the Hebrew. There's no "all" in the Hebrew text, not that it would matter, since even that would not say 'throughout all' generations. Even yours says only "unto", not 'throughout'.

Young's Literal Translation
this is My name -- to the age, and this My memorial, to generation -- generation.

This is My name for the eon, and this the remembrance of Me for generation after generation. (CLV)

Contrary to your opinion, aion is defined (as lexicons agree), as a finite duration, age, eon, epoch. And Scripture proves it:

"Consider the N. T. use of aion. Does “eternity” make any sense in the following passages? To make my point unmistakable, I have translated the Greek word aion with the English word “eternity.”

¨ What will be the sign…of the end of the eternity (Mt. 24:3)?

¨ I am with you…to the end of the eternity (Mt. 28:20).

¨ The sons of this eternity are more shrewd (Lu. 16:8).

¨ The sons of this eternity marry (Lu. 20:34).

¨ Worthy to attain that eternity (Lu. 20:35).

¨ Since the eternity began (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21).

¨ Conformed to this eternity (Ro. 12:2).

¨ Mystery kept secret since the eternity began but now made manifest (Ro. 16:25-26).

¨ Where is the disputer of this eternity (1Co. 1:20)?

¨ Wisdom of this eternity, nor of the rulers of this eternity…ordained before the eternities…which none of the rulers of this eternity…(1Co. 2:6-8)

¨ Wise in this eternity (1Co. 3:18).

¨ Upon whom the ends of the eternities have come.
(1Co. 10:11)

¨ God of this eternity has blinded (2Co. 4:4).

¨ Deliver us from this present evil eternity (Ga. 1:4).

¨ Not only in this eternity but also in that which is to come (Ep. 1:21).

¨ Walked according to the eternity of this world (Ep. 2:2).

¨ In the eternities to come (Ep. 2:7).

¨ From the beginnings of the eternities (Ep. 3:9).

¨ Hidden from eternities…but now…revealed (Col. 1:26).

¨ Loved this present eternity (2Ti. 4:10).

¨ Receive him for eternity (Ph.1:15). Does this mean forever or only until Onesimus dies?

¨ Powers of the eternity to come (He. 6:5).

¨ At the end of the eternities (He. 9:26).

¨ We understand the eternities have been prepared by a saying of God (He. 11:3).

How can we say…

¨ “Before eternity” or “eternity began”? Eternity has no beginning (Jn. 9:32; Ac. 3:21; 1Co. 2:7; Ep. 3:9).

¨ “Present eternity,” “eternity to come,” and “end of eternity?” Eternity transcends time. Only God is eternal (Mt. 24:3; 28:20; 1Co. 10:11; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 6:5; 9:26).

¨ “This eternity,” “that eternity,” or “eternities”? There is only one eternity (Lu. 16:8; 20:34-35; Ro. 12:2; 1Co. 1:20; 2:6-8; 3:18; 10:11; 2Co. 4:4; Ga. 1:4; Ep. 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9; Col. 1:26; 2Ti. 4:10; He. 11:3).

¨ “Eternal secret” if the secret is revealed? (Ro. 16:25-26; Col. 1:26). It is no longer a “secret” at that point."

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

 

[ClementofA]

.....You might have to educate yourself on some Greek but check out what I said. In 1 Tim 1:17 the Greek word βασιλει/basilei, i.e. king, is in the Dative case which identifies the indirect object. In order to be translated "king of'" the word must be in the genitive case which is written βασιλευς/basileus. "King" in the genitive case occurs 29 times in the NT, where it is always correctly translated "king of."
.....

I asked someone who knows some Greek. He said in reply to your comment:

"There is no such thing as a Greek phrase that is translated as "king of." It is not "king" that needs to be in the genitive; it is "ages." AND IT IS."

"The Greek for "of the ages" is "των αιωνιον" ( in English characters "tōn aiōnion"). Both "tōn" (the) and "aiōnion" (ages) are in the genitive case, and they are plural. Therefore the translation is "of the ages." "

"The preceding Greek words are "τω δε βασιλει" (tō de basilei). "de" is a little word that always takes second place in a Greek sentence. It is sometimes translated as "and" and sometimes as "but" and sometimes as "now." Not "now" in the sense of time, but when introducing a sentence. For example, "Now this is what I think." The word "tō" (the) and "basilei" (king) are in the dative case, and are singular. Therefore the meaning is "to the king." Thus "to the king of the ages" is a correct translation."

One of the two of you has no clue about the Greek or what he is talking about. I'm betting it's you.

 

[Der Alte]

None of this repetitious argumentation addresses or disproves that Paul used “aidios” and “aionios” interchangeably in Rom 1:20 and Rom 16:26.

Where did Paul say they are "interchangable"?

Paul did not have to say "Hey I'm using aiodios and aionios synonymously/interchangeably." for it to be true. Did or did not Paul use "aidios" and "aionios" to refer to God?

In Rom 1:20 Paul uses “aidios” to refer to the Godhead. “Aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending. In Rom 16:26 Paul uses “aionios” to refer to God therefore Paul considers the two words to be synonymous.

Many words are applied to God. That doesn't make them all synonymous with each other.

Even if this is correct it is a meaningless "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" argument which does not prove anything about Rom 1:20 or Rom 16:26

Context. Romans 1 is speaking about God's attributes. OTOH, Romans 16 refers to times long ago, eonian times past. Context, context, context.

Irrelevant simply saying "context, context, context" proves absolutely nothing.
Rom 1:20 "God's invisible qualities—his eternal [αιδιος/aidios] power and divine nature" "Rom 16:26 the eternal [αιωνιον/aionion] God," If God's power and Godhead are "aidios" then God is "aidios."

according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, (Rom.16:25b, NASB)
but has now been brought fully to light, and by the command of the God of the Ages (Rom.16:26a, WEY)
Romans 16:25-26 uses aionios twice. Do you suppose one time it means eternal & the other time it doesn't. Or that it consistently relates to an eon or eons, duration which is often very long, eras, epochs, ages. . . .

Did Paul mean that the faith of the Roman Christians was literally spoken of throughout the entire world? What is it called when a word is used in the way "world" is used in Rom 1:8?

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.​

of a secret hushed in times eonian, 26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God (Rom.16:25b-26a, CLV)
"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?" "
The Greek text is on p.275ff. The English translation follows it.
"I adjure thee by the great God, the eternal and more than eternal and almighty, who is exalted above the exalted Gods." (p.277)...

All irrelevant! That one 3d century lead tablet, written by some anonymous person, was found which uses "aionion and more than aionian" while somewhat interesting historically proves absolutely nothing about Paul's synonymous usage of "aidios" and "aionion." Your only hope of refuting my argument is to somehow prove that Paul did not use "aidios" in Rom 1:20. Bon chance.

 

[ClementofA]

Even if this is correct it is a meaningless "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" argument which does not prove anything about Rom 1:20 or Rom 16:26

Since that is what your argument boils down to, it shows that it is unproven and untenable:

Many words are applied to God. That doesn't make them all synonymous with each other.

Did Paul mean that the faith of the Roman Christians was literally spoken of throughout the entire world? What is it called when a word is used in the way "world" is used in Rom 1:8?

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.​

And? Do you have a point in all this?

All irrelevant! That one 3d century lead tablet, written by some anonymous person, was found which uses "aionion and more than aionian" while somewhat interesting historically proves absolutely nothing about Paul's synonymous usage of "aidios" and "aionion."

It shows that there is a reasonable alternative view to yours that is supported by evidence.

With you almost anything that opposes your opinion you often called "irrelevant". That's a given. Though i doubt that it convinces anyone of level headedness, an open mind or objectivity. Quite the opposite.

Your only hope of refuting my argument is to somehow prove that Paul did not use "aidios" in Rom 1:20. Bon chance.

What a silly thing to say.

Christian universalism--Ultimate Reconcilation: The True "Good News" Gospel of the Bible

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

Universalism – The Truth Shall Make You Free

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

 

[Der Alte]

Since that is what your argument boils down to, it shows that it is unproven and untenable:

Nothing you have posted shows in any way shape or form that my point on Rom 1:20 and Rom 16:26 is untenable.

Many words are applied to God. That doesn't make them all synonymous with each other.

That some other unspecified words might not be synonymous is about as irrelevant as one can get. Even if you found some words which describe God which are not synonymous that would prove absolutely nothing about Rom 1:20 and Rom 16:26.

And? Do you have a point in all this?

My question "What is it called when a word is used in the way "world" is used in Rom 1:8?" Which is an example of Paul using the word "world" hyperbolically. But of course Paul does not use any other words hyberbolically and certainly not aion/aionios.

It shows that there is a reasonable alternative view to yours that is supported by evidence.

That one anonymous person used a word in a certain way only shows that one anonymous person did that. It does not show anything about what I posted.

With you almost anything that opposes your opinion you often called "irrelevant". That's a given. Though i doubt that it convinces anyone of level headedness, an open mind or objectivity. Quite the opposite.

When I say one of your arguments is irrelevant you should demonstrate how it is relevant. For example your argument about other words referring to God not being synonymous.

What a silly thing to say.

No it is not. I will repeat it "Your only hope of refuting my argument is to somehow prove that Paul did not use "aidios" in Rom 1:20." Without question Paul uses both "aidios" and "aionios" to refer to God. Just for grins find out what your "friend who knows some Greek" says about Rom 1:20 and Rom 16:26 and the other 19 verses I quoted.

 

[ClementofA]

Nothing you have posted shows in any way shape or form that my point on Rom 1:20 and Rom 16:26 is untenable.

The fact that there is at least one reasobable alternate view shows that yours is not the only view, i.e. not necessarily correct. Therefore, in that sense, i say it is untenable. At least until you can prove the alternate interpretation is wrong. All you have is a theory or interpretation, not proof.

That some other unspecified words might not be synonymous is about as irrelevant as one can get. Even if you found some words which describe God which are not synonymous that would prove absolutely nothing about Rom 1:20 and Rom 16:26.

The argument is aionios & aidios both refer to God. And since aidios means eternal, so must aionios. That's silly. If that were true then dozens of other Greek terms applied to God also mean eternal, such as the Greek words for "King", "Lord", etc. That is ridiculous.

Moreover aion/ios is equivalent to olam. Yet when Scripture says God is from olam to olam, the first olam cannot be eternal or endless. For the olam/aions had a beginning (1 Cor.2:7). This proves that aion/ios in reference to God need not be eternal, e.g. as in Romans 16:25-26. Even your favorite translation, JPS, translates olam as "of old" [not "eternal"] when applied to God's goings (Hab.3:6).

My question "What is it called when a word is used in the way "world" is used in Rom 1:8?" Which is an example of Paul using the word "world" hyperbolically. But of course Paul does not use any other words hyberbolically and certainly not aion/aionios.

What does hyperbole have to do with Romans 16:25-26? When Jesus says "end of the aion" did He mean "end of the eternity"? Or was He defining aion as having an end and not being eternal, as lexicons concur & are opposed to you?

That one anonymous person used a word in a certain way only shows that one anonymous person did that. It does not show anything about what I posted.

It shows an opposing view to your unproven opinion.

When I say one of your arguments is irrelevant you should demonstrate how it is relevant. For example your argument about other words referring to God not being synonymous.

You should show how it is irrelevant, since you made that claim. Or if you don't understand the point, ask how it is relevant. Rather than just saying "Irrelevant!" without any evidence to support your claim.

No it is not. I will repeat it "Your only hope of refuting my argument is to somehow prove that Paul did not use "aidios" in Rom 1:20."

I don't need to refute it. I need only to present any number of reasonable options, or evidences. I have. That puts your interpretation into doubt.

Just for grins find out what your "friend who knows some Greek" says about Rom 1:20 and Rom 16:26 and the other 19 verses I quoted.

There is no comment yet on all 19, though he appears to think you are wrong about 1 Tim.1:17, i.e. aion in "King of the eons" & immortal are not in "apposition":

"However των αιωνων is NOT the same in case and number. Both words are PLURAL rather than singular. And both words are in the GENITIVE case rather than the DATIVE case, and so they are NOT in apposition. Together these words form an adjective phrase that modifies τῳ βασιλει (to the king). That adjective phrase is translated as "of the ages" and should not be translated as the singular adjective "eternal" whether or not it means "eternal." "

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[Der Alte]

. . . "However των αιωνων is NOT the same in case and number. Both words are PLURAL rather than singular. And both words are in the GENITIVE case rather than the DATIVE case, and so they are NOT in apposition. Together these words form an adjective phrase that modifies τῳ βασιλει (to the king). That adjective phrase is translated as "of the ages" and should not be translated as the singular adjective "eternal" whether or not it means "eternal." . . .

Please cite a credible grammar for this?

 

[ClementofA]

Please cite a credible grammar for this?

I asked him about that & await his response.

He also commented:

"You may want to examine this Wikipedia article. It gives many examples. It is noun phrases that are in apposition to each other." Apposition - Wikipedia

"I gave the example from the text "only God" being in apposition to "the King," simply because the King IS the only God."

"And no "the King" is not in apposition to"incorruptible" OR "invisible" simply because "the King" is a noun phase, whereas "incorruptible" and "invisible" are adjectives. These adjectives MODIFY "King." The same with "of the ages." It is an adjective phrase that modifies "King." "

"I think your correspondent needs to engage in further study of English grammar."

 

[ClementofA]

Please cite a credible grammar for this?

He says:

"William D. Mounce in The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament lists βαισιλει as dative singular masculine (page 113) and also indicates that the article τω (the) is in the dative singular form. In Greek the article must be in the same number, case, and gender as the noun to which it refers. Therefore τω βαισιλει, both words being in the dative form, together mean "to the king" or in a few instances might mean "for the king." In English, we have the prepositions "to" or "for" but not in Greek. The dative case takes care of that.

"As for the article των and the noun αιωνων, Mounce lists both as genitive plural masculine. Words in the genitive case are preceded in English with the preposition "of." If you wanted to say, "piece of cake" in Greek, the word for "cake" would have to be in the genitive case. There is NO separate word for "of." The genitive case takes care of that. So των αιωνιον means "of the ages."

"Also we can look up Timothy 1:17 in the Analytical Greek New Testament, Analysis by Barbara and Timothy Friberg. Each word of the text has a grammatical analysis below it. Both τω and βαισιλει are given as dative masculine singular just as Mounce gave it. And the words των and αιωνων are given as genitive plural masculine just as Mounce does.

"Exactly the same thing with this same Greek text associated with the Online Bible program that I am privileged to have on my computer.

"If the apostle Paul had wanted to write "to the king eternal" in Greek he would have written "τω βαισιλει αιδιω" where αιδιω is the adjective for "eternal" and would modify the noun βαισιλει, all three words being in the dative masculine singular.

"As for apposition, again a noun or noun phrase can be in apposition to a different noun or noun phrase. You can look up "apposition" in an internet search to verify this. For example: "I visited Mexico, a beautiful country." In this case, the noun phrase "a beautiful country" is in apposition to the noun "Mexico." Adjectives are not in apposition to nouns; they modify nouns, or describe the meaning of the nominal word. For example in the phrase "beautiful country" the adjective "beautiful" modifies the meaning of "country." It is not merely a country but a beautiful country. The word "beautiful" describes the country itself. All of this is simple grammar. If you have studied grammar, you will be effective in the use of the English language as well as that of other languages.

"There is no grammatical reason for translating τω βασιλει των αιωνιων other than "to the king of the ages." It seems that the only reason some translate it as "to the king eternal" is a theological preference. They want to believe that "of the ages" MEANS "eternal." "

 

[Mark Corbett]

The discussion on this thread has included the meaning of the Greek word aionios.

I have started on new thread specifically on this topic. It sounds very technical, but I have tried to present the topic in a way that special training in Greek or linguistics is not necessary to understand it. Here is the thread:

What does Aionios Mean? Part 1