The Dualistic Conditional Immortality View of Hell

[ClementofA]

That scholars have a different interpretation than I do does not prove that I am wrong. That is a logical fallacy, argument from silence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

My comment was a statement of facts, not a logical argument, so logical fallacy doesn't apply & is irrelevant.

Now there is a logical fallacy an argument from silence. I must be wrong because you don't know of any source which disagrees with me. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

No such argument was stated saying you "must be wrong", though what are the odds that you are right when you cannot produce a single lexicon, church father, commentator or any other source supporting your view? We've both read many of these sources over several decades & i've never seen your argument presented by anyone, even in many forum debates re the words aion & aionion. Lexicons disagree with your view. And if you were aware of any source supporting your view, you'ld have posted it. All of this evidence combined together speaks volumes. In a court of law it would be a slam dunk. Your chance of winning would be like winning a 50 million dollar lottery.

Who agrees with you that when Scripture repeatedly speaks of the "end of the age" (e.g. Mt. 24:3) it is not a literal use of aion and is being used as hyperbole (an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally) like references to Herod being a fox or Peter a stone? No lexicon, church father, commentator or forum poster in the past 2000 years has been cited in support of your theory. Except you, yourself & you. It is Der Alter against the world & history of 2000 years. Does anyone agree with your ridiculous theory?

The Scriptural references to the "end of the age"[aion] prove that aion literally is used of, & can mean, a finite period of time that ends, an age, eon, a duration of time, an epoch. As i defined the word (and lexicons agree):

"Aion literally means age, eon. It refers to a duration of time, often an epoch."

Which you said was wrong.

When some duration of time has an "end" it is not endless, but finite. So when aion is in apposition to "end", it is therefore opposed to being endless & cannot mean eternal.

So your view that olam & aion & aionios mean eternal everywhere in the Scriptures (except when used in hyperbole) is proven to be wrong.

Those words often literally refer to, mean & are defined as a finite duration of time, whether of an age, eon, epoch, lifetime, etc. Both lexicons and Scriptural usage concur.

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

The eons of the Bible With Concordance, God’s purpose of the eons.
The Eons
EONS AND WORLDS

forever and ever: a poor translation:

Chapter Five
Why Can't Aionas Ton Aionon Mean Eternity?
Bible Translations That Do Not Teach Eternal Torment


Aeon - Wikipedia
AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS
The Greek Words "aion" and "aionios," do these words mean "eternal" or "everlasting"?

 

[Der Alte]

My comment was a statement of facts, not a logical argument, so logical fallacy doesn't apply & is irrelevant....

Saying something is a fact does not make it so. Many people believe things that are not factual. When heas criticized about how he was conducting the civil war Abraham Lincoln said this.

“If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”​

Rather than quoting and linking to loads of books all saying the same thing post something by scholars showing aion(ios) being defined by other adjectives as I have done.

 

[parousia70]

.
It's okay. If you do not accept that there are two "New Heavens and New Earth", that is your choice. But the text makes more sense in Isaiah by understanding it to be talking about the Millennium and not the Final New Heaven and New Earth.

Well, if you need to invent two New Heavens and Earth's, in the absense of any scriptural instruction to do so, just to make the text fit your paradigm, I guess that is your perogative.

In contrast, I prefer to adjust my paradigm to fit the text.

If Isaiah Lists out certain realities as being present in the New Heavens and Earth Epoch, I expect He is correct, and I find no need to manipulate the text to say something it does not.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, if you need to invent two New Heavens and Earth's, in the absense of any scriptural instruction to do so, just to make the text fit your paradigm, I guess that is your perogative.

In contrast, I prefer to adjust my paradigm to fit the text.

If Isaiah Lists out certain realities as being present in the New Heavens and Earth Epoch, I expect He is correct, and I find no need to manipulate the text to say something it does not.

Not at all. The New Testament is a second witness to Isaiah 65. 2 Peter 3:10 talks about the “Day of the Lord” (Which is a period of time that is clearly in the second half of the Tribulation) and it says that after this world is destroyed by fire it will then usher in a New Heavens and New Earth (2 Peter 3:13) (i.e. the Millennium). 2 Peter 3:13 is clearly not the same passing away of the Earth mentioned in Revelation 21:1. For the signs mentioned in the breaking of the 6th seal matches up with the signs given to us in the period of time known as the “Day of the Lord” (that ends with this world being purified by fire - similar to the global flood, but more effective). In fact, 2 Peter 3:6 talks about the global flood.

 

[ClementofA]

Saying something is a fact does not make it so. Many people believe things that are not factual. When heas criticized about how he was conducting the civil war Abraham Lincoln said this.

“If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”
​

Here again are the facts:

This relates to your view that when Jesus speaks of the "end of the age" that He didn't mean that literally, but it was hyperbole. But you have looked and haven't found a single scholar, lexicon or commentator in the past 2000 years who agrees with you. Instead it is agreed that "age" in "end of the age" defines "age" as a finite use of the word "age", which is aion in the Greek. So it's Der Alter vs everyone. I'm sure you know which side i side with.

​

Rather than quoting and linking to loads of books all saying the same thing post something by scholars showing aion(ios) being defined by other adjectives as I have done.

Scholars? What did you post by scholars? This is your own pet theory, which is in opposition to scholars, as per my remark above.

A verse or verses which define/describe olam or ad as eternal/eternity with another adjective, noun or phrase. .

To use your type of reasoning, in Psa.77:5 olam/aionia is opposite "old[qedem]/ancient=744/Gk. Old & ancient are not eternal, but finite. Therefore Olam/aionia are defined/described as finite.

Similarly in Deut.32:7 olam/aion is opposite generations of generations past which are finite. So olam/aion are finite.

Likewise in Isa.51:9 olam is opposite "of old" which is finite. And aion is opposite the "early time"/"days" past, which is finite.



I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times. (Psa.77:5)
I have reckoned the days of old,[qedem/6924] The years of the ages.[owlam im] (Psa.77:5)
I considered the days of old, and remembered ancient years.[αἰώνια/166] (Psa.77:5, LXX, Brenton)

Deuteronomy 32:7
"Remember the days of old,[owlam] Consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you, Your elders, and they will tell you.
Remember the days of old,[αἰῶνος/165] consider the years for past ages: ask thy father, and he shall relate to thee, thine elders, and they shall tell thee. (Dt.32:7, LXX, Brenton)

Isaiah 51:9
Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; Awake as in the days of old,[qedem] the generations of long ago[owlam-im]. Was it not You who cut Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the dragon?
Awake, awake, O Jerusalem, and put on the strength of thine arm; awake as in the early time, as the ancient[αἰῶνος/165] generation. (Isa.51:9, LXX, Brenton)

ἐξεγείρου ἐξεγείρου Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἔνδυσαι τὴν ἰσχὺν τοῦ βραχίονός σου ἐξεγείρου ὡς ἐν ἀρχῇ ἡμέρας ὡς γενεὰαἰῶνος οὐ σὺ εἶ

"...as in [the] beginning of days[2250], as a generation of an eon[165]" (Isa.51:9b, The Apostolic Bible Polygot: Greek English Intelinear [of the LXX], p.968).

 

[ClementofA]

More logical fallacy. I have not found any occurrence of aion(ios) where the word is "defined." That either word refers to something which is obviously not eternal is not defining or describing the words. See my examples of "world," above. In those vss. "kosmos"/world refers to something other than the entire earth but none of the vss. actually define "kosmos." Here are some examples where aion(ios) are defined by association with other words such as "permanent" and "unchangeable."

NIV Heb 7:24 but because Jesus lives forever [αἰών/aion] he has a permanent [ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos] priesthood.​

In this verse “aion” is paired with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.” And FYI your previous argument about unchangeable has been refuted from the lexicon

The word "permanent" by definition does not necessarily mean to last forever, but can be lasting & finite. KJV, ASV, DBY translate it "unchangeble", JB has "intransmissable", WEY "does not pass to any successor", YLT "not transient", CLV "inviolate", Strongs, NAS concordances "inviolable", GLT "not to be passed on".

LSJ Gloss: ἀπαράβατο not passing over to
Strong's: not passing away, i.e. untransferable
G531 ἀπαράβατος - Strong's Greek Lexicon

" from the phrase παραβαίνειννόμον to transgress i. e. to violate, signifying either unviolated, or not to be violated, inviolable: ἱερωσύνη unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor, Hebrews 7:24; cf. Bleek and Delitzsch at the passage(A later word, cf. Lob. ad Phryn., p. 313; in Josephus, Plutarch, others.) " (Thayer's lexicon) Strong's Greek: 531. ἀπαράβατος (aparabatos) -- inviolable

24 yet that One, because of His remaining for the eon, has an inviolate priesthood. (CLV)
24 and he, because of his remaining -- to the age, hath the priesthood not transient, (YLT)
24 But, he, by reason of his remaining age-abidingly, untransmissible, holdeth, the priesthood(Ro)
24 he but, on account of the to continue him for the age, unchangeable he has the priesthood(ED)
24 to the age...permanent (Greek-English Interlinear @)
Hebrews 7:24 Interlinear: and he, because of his remaining -- to the age, hath the priesthood not transient,
24 into the age...unchangeable (Greek-English Interlinear @ )
Study Bible - Online Greek Hebrew KJV Parallel Interlinear Tools

"Hath an unchangeable priesthood - Margin, "or, "which passeth not from one to another." The margin expresses the sense of the passage. The idea is not strictly that it was "unchangable," but that "it did not pass over into other hands." The Levitical priesthood passed from one to another as successive generations came on the stage of action. This reasoning is not designed to prove that the priesthood of Christ will be literally "eternal" - for its necessity may cease when all the redeemed are in heaven - but that it is permanent, and does not pass from hand to hand," Barnes' Notes on the Bible


"Rend. hath his priesthood unchangeable. The A.V. misses the possessive force of the article, his priesthood, and the emphasis is on unchangeable ἀπαράβατος, N.T.o. olxx. This may be explained either as inviolable, or which does not pass over to another. Comp. Exodus 32:8; Sir. 23:18. Usage is in favor of the former meaning, but the other falls in better with the course of thought."
Vincent's Word Studies


"Hebrews 7:24. Μένειν, because that He continueth) in life and in the priesthood.—αὐτὸν) because He Himselfcontinues: Σὺ, Thou art a Priest, in the singular.—ἀπαράβατον, not passing away) into the hands of successors." Bengel's Gnomen

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

​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, if you need to invent two New Heavens and Earth's, in the absense of any scriptural instruction to do so, just to make the text fit your paradigm, I guess that is your perogative.

In contrast, I prefer to adjust my paradigm to fit the text.

If Isaiah Lists out certain realities as being present in the New Heavens and Earth Epoch, I expect He is correct, and I find no need to manipulate the text to say something it does not.

Do a key word search for the “Day of the Lord” at my End Times Chronology here:

Pre-Trib Only - A Chronology of the End Times

 

[ClementofA]

I have not found any occurrence of aion(ios) where the word is "defined."

Did you mean to add something to that, like "as finite duration"?

The guy who knows some Greek, unlike you, apparently, says re your comment, with the words i've added:

"I have never seen ANY word in the New Testament defined by some other word. The writers simply used the words; they didn't define them."

Here are some examples where aion(ios) are defined by association with other words such as "permanent" and "unchangeable."

​

"Association with other words does NOT define a word."​

 

[ClementofA]

Irrelevant consider the NT uses of "kosmos." Did any of those vss. quoted above make any sense if we consider "kosmos"/world meant the entire earth?

You haven't shown anything to be irrelevant by asking a question & saying "consider" this. If you have a point to make, then make it. Asking a question & saying "consider" something doesn't state a point.

 

[Der Alte]

The word "permanent" by definition does not necessarily mean to last forever, but can be lasting & finite. KJV, ASV, DBY translate it "unchangeble", JB has "intransmissable", WEY "does not pass to any successor", YLT "not transient", CLV "inviolate", Strongs, NAS concordances "inviolable", GLT "not to be passed on".
LSJ Gloss: ἀπαράβατο not passing over to
Strong's: not passing away, i.e. untransferable
G531 ἀπαράβατος - Strong's Greek Lexicon
" from the phrase παραβαίνειννόμον to transgress i. e. to violate, signifying either unviolated, or not to be violated, inviolable: ἱερωσύνη unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor, Hebrews 7:24; cf. Bleek and Delitzsch at the passage(A later word, cf. Lob. ad Phryn., p. 313; in Josephus, Plutarch, others.) " (Thayer's lexicon) Strong's Greek: 531. ἀπαράβατος (aparabatos) -- inviolable
24 yet that One, because of His remaining for the eon, has an inviolate priesthood. (CLV)
24 and he, because of his remaining -- to the age, hath the priesthood not transient, (YLT)
24 But, he, by reason of his remaining age-abidingly, untransmissible, holdeth, the priesthood(Ro)
24 he but, on account of the to continue him for the age, unchangeable he has the priesthood(ED)
24 to the age...permanent (Greek-English Interlinear @)
Hebrews 7:24 Interlinear: and he, because of his remaining -- to the age, hath the priesthood not transient,
24 into the age...unchangeable (Greek-English Interlinear @ )
Study Bible - Online Greek Hebrew KJV Parallel Interlinear Tools
"Hath an unchangeable priesthood - Margin, "or, "which passeth not from one to another." The margin expresses the sense of the passage. The idea is not strictly that it was "unchangable," but that "it did not pass over into other hands." The Levitical priesthood passed from one to another as successive generations came on the stage of action. This reasoning is not designed to prove that the priesthood of Christ will be literally "eternal" - for its necessity may cease when all the redeemed are in heaven - but that it is permanent, and does not pass from hand to hand," Barnes' Notes on the Bible
"Rend. hath his priesthood unchangeable. The A.V. misses the possessive force of the article, his priesthood, and the emphasis is on unchangeable ἀπαράβατος, N.T.o. olxx. This may be explained either as inviolable, or which does not pass over to another. Comp. Exodus 32:8; Sir. 23:18. Usage is in favor of the former meaning, but the other falls in better with the course of thought."
Vincent's Word Studies
"Hebrews 7:24. Μένειν, because that He continueth) in life and in the priesthood.—αὐτὸν) because He Himselfcontinues: Σὺ, Thou art a Priest, in the singular.—ἀπαράβατον, not passing away) into the hands of successors." Bengel's Gnomen

I prefer quoting primary sources vice second hand quotes from amateur websites with an agenda.

--Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Lexicon of NT Greek ἀπαρά-βᾰτος, ον (belonging to H.Gk. [ Phryn. p. 313 L. ]; not LXX ) in Hb 7:24 is usu. interpr. without a successor. But this mng. is found nowhere else. aj . rather has the sense permanent, unchangeable ( Stoic. II 266; 293; Plut. , Mor. 410 F ; 745 D ; Epict. 2, 15, 1, Ench. 51, 2; Herm. Wr. 494, 26 Sc. ; Philo , Aet. M. 112; Jos. , Ant. 18, 266, C. Ap. 2, 293; PRyl. 65, 18 [I BC ]; PLond. 1015, 12 a[trwta kai; ajsavleuta kai; ajparavbata ). M-M. *
A Greek-English Lexicon Gingrich & Danker
--Strong's G531 ἀπαράβατος aparabatos
ap-ar-ab'-at-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G3845; not passing away, that is, untransferable (perpetual): - unchangeable.
Total KJV occurrences: 1
--Vincent Word Studies G531 ἀπαράβατος aparabatos ap-ar-ab'-at-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G3845; not passing away, that is, untransferable (perpetual): - unchangeable.
Thayer G531 ἀπαράβατος aparabatos
--Thayer Definition:
1) unviolated, not to be violated, inviolable
2) unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G3845
Citing in TDNT: 5:742, 772
--Liddell, Scott, Jones lexicon of classical Greek G531 ἀπαρά-βᾰτος, ον,
1. unalterable, εἱρμὸς αἰτιῶν Stoic. 2.266; ἐπιπλοκή, of causation, Chrysipp.ib.293; τάξις Plu. 2.410f; ἡ τῆς κινήσεως ἰδέα Ocell. 1.15; infallible, προρρήσεις Iamb. VP 28.135, cf. Philum. Ven. 4.14; also of persons, Cat.Cod.Astr. 8(4).215. Adv. -τως Chrysippsipp. Stoic. 2.279.
2. inviolable, κύρια καὶ ἀ. PRyl. 65.18 (i B.C.), cf. PGrenf. 1.60.7 (vi A.D.).
3. permanent, perpetual, ἱερωσύνη Heb_7:24.
4. Act., not transgressing, J. AJ 18.8.2; ἀ. τῶν καθηκόντων Hierocl. in CA 10p.435M. Adv. -τως Arr. Epict. 2.15.1.
--A. T Robertson Hebrews 7:24
Because he abideth (dia to menein auton). Same idiom as in Heb_7:23, “because of the abiding as to him” (accusative of general reference, auton).
Unchangeable (aparabaton). Predicate adjective in the accusative (feminine of compound adjective like masculine), late double compound verbal adjective in Plutarch and papyri, from alpha privative and parabainō, valid or inviolate. The same idea in Heb_7:3. God placed Christ in this priesthood and no one else can step into it. See Heb_7:11 for hierōsunē.​

 

[Der Alte]

You haven't shown anything to be irrelevant by asking a question & saying "consider" this. If you have a point to make, then make it. Asking a question & saying "consider" something doesn't state a point.

But you seemed to think that was a valid argument when you said it in the post I quoted.

"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.

Pot-kettle.

 

[Der Alte]

Scholars? What did you post by scholars? This is your own pet theory, which is in opposition to scholars, as per my remark above.

Your have been vainly trying to disprove my argument(s) by quoting googol books which do not directly address anything I have posted. If you are going to quote something then quote something which directly addresses what I post, preferably by an accredited scholar vice an anonymous "guy who knows some Greek."

To use your type of reasoning, in Psa.77:5 olam/aionia is opposite "old[qedem]/ancient=744/Gk. Old & ancient are not eternal, but finite. Therefore Olam/aionia are defined/described as finite.
Similarly in Deut.32:7 olam/aion is opposite generations of generations past which are finite. So olam/aion are finite.
Likewise in Isa.51:9 olam is opposite "of old" which is finite. And aion is opposite the "early time"/"days" past, which is finite....

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! There is nothing "opposite" in these verses. And there is no defining or describing in your vss. Here are the first three from my list of 36 verses.

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.

Psalms 21:4
(4) He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever [עולם/olam] and ever.[עד/ad]​

In this vs. “olam” is paired with “length of days”. “Age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to length of days, “for ever and ever” does.

Psalms 45:17
(17) I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever [עולם/olam] and ever:[עד/ad]​

In this vs. “olam” is paired with “in all generations,” “Age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “in all generations”, “for ever and ever” does.

 

[Der Alte]

Did you mean to add something to that, like "as finite duration"?
The guy who knows some Greek, unlike you, apparently, says re your comment, with the words i've added:

Address what I say not what some anonymous "guy who knows some Greek" thinks I should have said.

"I have never seen ANY word in the New Testament defined by some other word. The writers simply used the words; they didn't define them."

What anonymous guy may or may not have seen is irrelevant.

"Association with other words does NOT define a word."

I said define or describe. Let me know when "anonymous guy" becomes a peer reviewed and published author of Greek then his opinion might have some validity. Here is another vs. where association with another adjective helps describe or define "aion."

1 Peter 1:23
(23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, ̓αφθαρτος/aphthartos] by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, .[αἰών/aion] ​

In this verse “aion” is paired with “incorruptible.” The seed of God cannot be “incorruptible” and only for “a finite period” at the same time. Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternal.”

 

[ClementofA]

But you seemed to think that was a valid argument when you said it in the post I quoted.

Pot-kettle.

You evidently overlooked what was said about making his point unmistakable, something you haven't done:

""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." "

 

[ClementofA]

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! There is nothing "opposite" in these verses. And there is no defining or describing in your vss.

Of course there is. Your theory is proven false again, in yet another way. It must be about half a dozen ways now, at least. No lexicon, church father or commentator in 2000 years agrees with you. Give it up!

 

[ClementofA]

I prefer quoting primary sources vice second hand quotes from amateur websites with an agenda.

--Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Lexicon of NT Greek ἀπαρά-βᾰτος, ον (belonging to H.Gk. [ Phryn. p. 313 L. ]; not LXX ) in Hb 7:24 is usu. interpr. without a successor. But this mng. is found nowhere else. aj . rather has the sense permanent, unchangeable ( Stoic. II 266; 293; Plut. , Mor. 410 F ; 745 D ; Epict. 2, 15, 1, Ench. 51, 2; Herm. Wr. 494, 26 Sc. ; Philo , Aet. M. 112; Jos. , Ant. 18, 266, C. Ap. 2, 293; PRyl. 65, 18 [I BC ]; PLond. 1015, 12 a[trwta kai; ajsavleuta kai; ajparavbata ). M-M. *
A Greek-English Lexicon Gingrich & Danker
--Strong's G531 ἀπαράβατος aparabatos
ap-ar-ab'-at-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G3845; not passing away, that is, untransferable (perpetual): - unchangeable.
Total KJV occurrences: 1
--Vincent Word Studies G531 ἀπαράβατος aparabatos ap-ar-ab'-at-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G3845; not passing away, that is, untransferable (perpetual): - unchangeable.
Thayer G531 ἀπαράβατος aparabatos
--Thayer Definition:
1) unviolated, not to be violated, inviolable
2) unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G3845
Citing in TDNT: 5:742, 772
--Liddell, Scott, Jones lexicon of classical Greek G531 ἀπαρά-βᾰτος, ον,
1. unalterable, εἱρμὸς αἰτιῶν Stoic. 2.266; ἐπιπλοκή, of causation, Chrysipp.ib.293; τάξις Plu. 2.410f; ἡ τῆς κινήσεως ἰδέα Ocell. 1.15; infallible, προρρήσεις Iamb. VP 28.135, cf. Philum. Ven. 4.14; also of persons, Cat.Cod.Astr. 8(4).215. Adv. -τως Chrysippsipp. Stoic. 2.279.
2. inviolable, κύρια καὶ ἀ. PRyl. 65.18 (i B.C.), cf. PGrenf. 1.60.7 (vi A.D.).
3. permanent, perpetual, ἱερωσύνη Heb_7:24.
4. Act., not transgressing, J. AJ 18.8.2; ἀ. τῶν καθηκόντων Hierocl. in CA 10p.435M. Adv. -τως Arr. Epict. 2.15.1.
--A. T Robertson Hebrews 7:24
Because he abideth (dia to menein auton). Same idiom as in Heb_7:23, “because of the abiding as to him” (accusative of general reference, auton).
Unchangeable (aparabaton). Predicate adjective in the accusative (feminine of compound adjective like masculine), late double compound verbal adjective in Plutarch and papyri, from alpha privative and parabainō, valid or inviolate. The same idea in Heb_7:3. God placed Christ in this priesthood and no one else can step into it. See Heb_7:11 for hierōsunē.​

Clearly your position doesn't have half a leg to stand on re the meaning of the word in question.

Furthermore, secondly, you've never refuted my argument which is also stated here:

"Hath an unchangeable priesthood - Margin, "or, "which passeth not from one to another." The margin expresses the sense of the passage. The idea is not strictly that it was "unchangable," but that "it did not pass over into other hands." The Levitical priesthood passed from one to another as successive generations came on the stage of action. This reasoning is not designed to prove that the priesthood of Christ will be literally "eternal" - for its necessity may cease when all the redeemed are in heaven - but that it is permanent, and does not pass from hand to hand," Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Many people have what's called a "permanent" driver's license. That doesn't make it 'eternal' no matter how much you wish it did!

>Believers and Supporters of Christian Universalism

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism

Universalism – The Truth Shall Make You Free

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell


"The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell
It goes beyond the highest star
And reaches to the lowest hell"

 

[ClementofA]

I said define or describe. Let me know when "anonymous guy" becomes a peer reviewed and published author of Greek then his opinion might have some validity.

Let me know when you do. Or can find anyone accredited (that means not you) who can refute this:

"I have never seen ANY word in the New Testament defined by some other word. The writers simply used the words; they didn't define them."

Here is another vs. where association with another adjective helps describe or define "aion."

1 Peter 1:23
​

The best MSS don't have aion there.

"I have never seen ANY word in the New Testament defined by some other word. The writers simply used the words; they didn't define them."

Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell

The eons of the Bible With Concordance, God’s purpose of the eons.
The Eons
EONS AND WORLDS

forever and ever: a poor translation:

Chapter Five
Why Can't Aionas Ton Aionon Mean Eternity?
Bible Translations That Do Not Teach Eternal Torment


Aeon - Wikipedia
AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS
The Greek Words "aion" and "aionios," do these words mean "eternal" or "everlasting"?
​

 

[Der Alte]

Clearly your position doesn't have half a leg to stand on re the meaning of the word in question.

This statement is in the category of something I heard on a playground, "Neener, neener, neener I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!

Furthermore, secondly, you've never refuted my argument which is also stated here: Barnes notes....

When you ignore BAGD, Strong's, Thayer, LSJ, Vincent, and Robertson which I posted.

Many people have what's called a "permanent" driver's license. That doesn't make it 'eternal' no matter how much you wish it did!

Seriously, that's your evidence, a permanent driver's license? You want to argue that Jesus priesthood only lasts as long as someone's driver's license? Check the sources I quoted. The definition for απαραβατον is not "as long as someon'e's driver's license." But of course to make it fit assumptions/presuppositions cherry pick a meaning.

 

[Der Alte]

Let me know when you do. Or can find anyone accredited (that means not you) who can refute this:

Logical fallacy, argument from silence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The best MSS don't have aion there.

True but irrelevant. This was in response to my argument about 1 Pet 1:23.

1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable,[̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos] through the living and enduring word of God.​

In this verse “aion” is paired with incorruptible.” The seed of God cannot be “incorruptible” and only for “a finite period” at the same time. Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternal.”
.....In response to your objection. While aion does not occur in 1 Pet 1:23, it does in vs. 25 where it refers to "the word of God" which is paired with "incorruptible seed," vs. 23.

1 Peter 1:25
(25) but the word of the Lord endures forever.[αἰών/aion]" And this is the word that was preached to you.​

My argument stands unscathed

"I have never seen ANY word in the New Testament defined by some other word. The writers simply used the words; they didn't define them."

Now you have, see 1 Pet 1:23 above..

 

[ClementofA]

When you ignore BAGD, Strong's, Thayer, LSJ, Vincent, and Robertson which I posted.

Speaking of ignoring, I posted Vincent's comment in my post you responded to with your list, except not in the abbreviated version of Vincent that you did. And he supports my position.

Seriously, that's your evidence, a permanent driver's license? You want to argue that Jesus priesthood only lasts as long as someone's driver's license?

Nobody said it did. It could last thousands or trillions of years. That's still not endless & neither is the meaning of the word "permanent". If you'ld consult some dictionaries, it would be clear. And this has never been refuted:

"Hath an unchangeable priesthood - Margin, "or, "which passeth not from one to another." The margin expresses the sense of the passage. The idea is not strictly that it was "unchangable," but that "it did not pass over into other hands." The Levitical priesthood passed from one to another as successive generations came on the stage of action. This reasoning is not designed to prove that the priesthood of Christ will be literally "eternal" - for its necessity may cease when all the redeemed are in heaven - but that it is permanent, and does not pass from hand to hand," Barnes' Notes on the Bible

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