Ben C Smith

I see absolutely no relationship between the structure of the tabernacle and the structure of the eons.

But then, your mode of inquiry and mine are so diametrically opposed that I would not even be able to see what you are seeing.

Ben.

TonyN

Do you see that "holies of the holies" does not mean "holies tumbling upon holies interminably"?

Ben C Smith

No, I think that is indeed what it means. It means as holy as something can possibly be. Infinite holiness, if you will.

On your chart you have holies of the holies. Where is that expression found, BTW?

Also on your chart you have no term corresponding to eon of the eon. Why is that? What does eon of the eon mean? Which eon is intended?

Ben.

TonyN

It might be just that the term "holy of the holy" is not in the Scriptures.

The eon of the eon is the final eon of or derived from the previous eon. Christ will reign for the final eon which is of or derived from the previous eon which previous eon would be the 1000 year eon.

It is impossible for "eons of the eons" to be "eons tumbling upon eons unendingly" for the simple fact that the Bible states all the eons end.

Now then, if we take your idea, and I think it is correct, that "holies of the holies" "means as holy as something can possibly be," I think we can take "eons of the eons" to mean "the greatest eons of the eons that went before.

Ben C Smith

So it would be the [final] eon of the [previous] eon.

This is why I was trying to wrap this debate up. I cannot even fathom whence you got that idea, nor could I have ever arrived at it independently. It is so clearly ad hoc that it requires no refutation.

This is a non sequitur.

I asked you where the expression holies of the holies is found in the OT. I cannot find it in the Hebrew. I can, however, find it in the Greek. The LXX translates קדש קדשים (holy [singular] of holies) sometimes as holy [singular] of holies and sometimes as holies [plural] of holies.

In other words, the LXX translators did not know what you seem to know, to wit, that the singular version applied to the inner chamber while the plural version applied both to that chamber and the chamber right outside it.

There is a reason the LXX translators did not know that. It is not correct. These kinds of expressions are simply hyperbolic. That is all. The singulars and the plurals, out of which you extract so much latent meaning, mean nothing; they are part of the expression, and are not meant to be counted.

Ben.

TonyN

Ben, you are stuck in your "two eons" understanding. That is why you will not budge. At least that is how I see it. Of course you can deny it but you've already made mention that there are only two ages. Therefore you work from that major premise.

I, however, have biblically proven that there were eons before this one in which we live and that there are eons after this one in which we live. Does that make any impact upon you? No. Why? Because you put more stock in your Jewish devines and extra-biblical "fathers" than you do in the bible itself!

"The holy of holies" is commonly and correctly understood as a single holy place. Since that is the case, "the eon of the eons" is a single eon.

We read that the chief priest entered into "the holies of holies" (Heb.9:25). That is the holiest place inside the tabernacle where the "holy of holies" was behind the curtain which only the high priest could enter once a year.
Just as the last two eons are "of the eons," so the two holy places are "of the holies."
If you go here: http://unbound.biola.edu/
And go to Hebrew: OT (Consonants & Vowels) then enter Old Testament, Exodus then 26:33 and hit "search" then look at the last two Hebrew words to the left on the line. It should look something like this:

קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים׃
And the LXX has: ἁγίου τῶν ἁγίων.
And the Concordant Literal has: holy of holies

Ben C Smith

As I said, our modes of operation are completely different. I always look to the cultural and literary backdrop before committing to any reading within any text. I cannot imagine doing otherwise. If that is a weakness on my part, then so be it; guilty as charged.

Correct. Do you see why I say that our modes of inquiry are diametrically opposed?

What is this trying to show? I have already noted that the LXX translates קדש קדשים (holy [singular] of holies) sometimes as holy [singular] of holies and sometimes as holies [plural] of holies. What I cannot find is the plural form holies of holies in the Hebrew itself. This is now the third time I have asked you: Do you have such an example from the Hebrew? It is not a trick question; I just want to know if my BibleWorks searching has overlooked something.

Another question that you did not answer: Why does the LXX fluctuate when translating the Hebrew singular? Why, for exactly the same Hebrew term, does the LXX sometimes give us holy of holies and other times holies of holies?

Ben.

TonyN

As to your first question, here is "from holies of holies" in Leviticus 21:22:
מִקָּדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים
At least my sublinear says "from holies of holies."

To answer your latter question, I don't know. I am not able at such a late date to ask the LXX translators and get first hand information.

By the way, since you take the words of mere mortals in extra-biblical sources as greater importance than God's Word, why not just toss your Bible in the trash since it has no place in your heart? I don't mean that to be mean. It is just a question.

Ben C Smith

Ah, good. Not sure why I could not find that.

A problem here is that this phrase, of course, cannot refer to the place known as the holy of holies. It is referring to the sacred food of the altar. Leviticus 21.22-23:

He may eat of the food of his God, both from the holies of the holies and from the holies, but he shall not go into the veil or approach the altar, because he has a defect....

Here is a fellow who, because of some physical defect, can eat of the sacred food but cannot actually perform any of the rites (entering the holy place, using the altar).

This verse tears your view of these expressions (holy of holies and holies of holies) to pieces. Can you not see that? The person cannot eat of the holies of holies, according to this verse. That should cover both of the holies, whatever they are, right? But then it goes on to say that he cannot eat of the holies either.

Why? Because the first expression (holies of holies) was basically a superlative (most holy, as in most translations, including even the literalistic YLT).

This is just how this Hebraism works. One is not supposed to count the holies in these expressions. The holy place is one place, and the holy of holies is another, more holy than the first.

Then let me answer it for you. The LXX translators knew what this Hebrew idiom meant; they knew it was just a way of expressing a superlative, and that both holy of holies and holies of holies meant the same thing, in real terms, just as our English phrases forever and ever and forever and ever and ever mean the same thing, in real terms.

I see here that I did not read your question quite correctly. I did not mean to say that I take extrabiblical sources as of greater importance than biblical sources. All my sources stand on equal ground until they prove their historical merits one way or another. I do not care very much about canonical lines.

I do not, BTW, equate the biblical books with the word of God.

No place in my heart? You could not be more mistaken.

I told you, I am not a very good theologian. I simply do not care much for it one way or another.

And theology and history are two different things.

Ben.

DBT

Quote;

"Usage is always the decisive thing in determining the meanings of words."

"Over time, words often change meaning, sometimes even taking on an opposite one."


New World Dictionary: Eon: Period of immense duration; an age; endless; for eternity.

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Eon (n.): An immeasurable or indefinite period of time; incessantly; synonym of constantly, continuously, always, perpetually, unceasingly, everlastingly, endlessly.

Standard Unabridged Dictionary: Eon: An age of the universe; an incalculable period, constituting one of the longest conceivable divisions of time; a cosmic or geological cycle; an eternity, or eternity. The present age, or eon, is time; the future age, or eon, is eternity.
Shedd Theological Dictionary (vol. II, p. 683): Eonian: pertaining to, or lasting for eons; everlasting; eternal.

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon: Aion: A period of existence; one's lifetime; life; an age; a generation; a long space of time; an age. A space of time clearly defined and marked out; an era, epoch, age, period or dispensation.
Thesaurus Dictionary of the English Language: Eon: An age of the universe.
Earnest Weekly's Etymological Dictionary of Modern English: Aeon: Age.
Universal Dictionary: Aeon: A period of immense duration; an age.

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon: Aionios: (1) without beginning or end; that which has been and always will be. (2) without beginning. (3) without end, never to cease, everlasting.

The New Testament in Modern Speech, by Dr. R. F. Weymouth: Eternal: Greek: "aeonion," i.e., "of the ages." Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly formed, does not signify "during," but "belonging to" the aeons or ages.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (vol. IV, p. 643): Time: The O.T. and the N.T are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as timelessness. The O.T. has not developed a special term for "eternity." The word aion originally meant "vital force," "life;" then "age," "lifetime." It is, however, also used generally of a (limited or unlimited) long space of time. The use of the word aion is determined very much by the O.T. and the LXX. Aion means "long distant uninterrupted time" in the past (Luke 1:10), as well as in the future (John 4:14).

Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Matt. 25:46): Everlasting punishment-life eternal. The two adjectives represent the same Greek word, aionios-it must be admitted (1) that the Greek word which is rendered "eternal" does not, in itself, involve endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the N.T. to periods of time that have had both a beginning and ending (Rom. 16:25), where the Greek is "from aeonian times;" our version giving "since the world began." (Comp. 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:3) -strictly speaking, therefore, the word, as such, apart from its association with any qualifying substantive, implies a vast undefined duration, rather than one in the full sense of the word "infinite."

A Greek-English Lexicon, by Arndt and Gingrich: (1) Aion: time; age; very long time; eternity. (2) A segment of time; age. (3) The world. (4) The aion as a person: aionios, eternal. 1. Without beginning. 2. Without beginning or end. 3. Without end.

Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, by Abbott-Smith: Aion: A space of time, as a lifetime, generation, period of history, an indefinitely long period-an age, eternity.