TonyN

[Quote]
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith
Julian, did you mean to say that DBT never gave an example of a noun modifying an adjective? Because his examples did in fact have an adjective (eternal) modifying a noun (God).


Here is what TonyN responded to when he said that DBT had a noun modifying an adjective:

[Quote]
Dear Julian,
I bolded the offending area above. Do you not see it? He says "aioniou (the adjective) strongly modifies Theou (a noun). This is correct. But then he reverses himself in the very next sentence by stating that since the noun "God" has a certain quality, this noun "God" makes the noun "aioniou" change from "pertaining to the eons" to "eternal."

That is incorrect. He had the first part right but the second part wrong.

Here is a case in point:
The small giant.
The small midget.

Should we change "small" to something different since it is attached to "giant" but keep the word "small" when attached to the noun "midget"? No, both are small. The giant, when viewed in relation to other giants is small.

Now look at this:
The eonian God.
The eonian covenant.

The first covenant God made with Israel was eonian. It ended and was superceded by the new covenant.
Should we change "eonian" when attached to God? No. Both are eonian. By that I mean God is the eonian God in that He is the God pertaining to the eons. Likewise the covenant was pertaining to the eon(s) as well. One can't go changing the basic meaning of an adjective just because it is attached to different nouns! At least they shouldn't!

Does this make sense?

TonyN

Your point is well taken Ben! Thanks for pointing that out. So many things I take for granted that people see things as I see them. By "modify" I was taking it to mean that "God being eternal" was modifying "eonian" to mean something alltogether different from its basic meaning. But since it is causing confusion, I should do as you state and say it changes eonian into something different.

Julian

Like I already pointed out, the last sentence in that quote is pure rubbish, the finest in circular reasoning. However, it doesn't make a grammatical argument, it makes some bizarre semantical/translational leap that has nothing to do with the grammatical construction. It says that aioniou must be translated eternal because god is eternal, that's all. The quote already correctly described the grammatical relationship of the words, it is when it comes to determining the semantical idea expressed by the adjective that the author drops his stash of LSD and proceeds to an explanation of how he is translating this. He has already made his correct (albeit limited) grammatical observation on the construction to which, it seems, there is no objection. He never says that the noun modifies (sorry, Ben) the adjective only that he can infer the meaning of that adjective because he knows the quality in god that it describes.

Julian

TonyN

I see that you see it, Julian. Thanks.
I wouldn't go so far though to use an ad-hominum by attributing the use of LSD to the one who sees differently than you or I.

This is the thing I hate:
Just so Christians can get people to burn unceasingly, they must resort to mental gymnastics and grammatical trickery to make it so. No one every used aionios before Christ or during Christ's time as meaning "eternal" or "unending." There is not one place in all the bible where this is the case either. Here are some examples of usage:

"Stephens, in his Thesaurus, quotes from a Jewish work, [Solom. Parab.] "These they called aiónios, hearing that they had performed the sacred rites for three entire generations." This shows conclusively that the expression "three generations" was then one full equivalent of aiónion. Now these eminent scholars were Jews who wrote in Greek, and who certainly knew the meaning of the words they employed,... "

"Josephus applies the word to the imprisonment to which John the tyrant was condemned by the Romans; to the reputation of Herod; to the everlasting memorial erected in re-building the temple, already destroyed, when he wrote; to the everlasting worship in the temple which, in the same sentence he says was destroyed; and he styles the time between the promulgation of the law and his writing a long aión. To accuse him of attaching any other meaning than that of indefinite duration to the word, is to accuse him of stultifying himself."

"Dr. Mangey, in his edition of Philo, says he never used aiónion of interminable duration. He uses the exact phraseology of Matthew, xxv:46, precisely as Christ used it. "It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment [kolasis aiónios] from such as are more powerful." Here we have the exact terms employed by our Lord, to show that aiónion did not mean endless but did mean limited duration in the time of Christ."

And yet Christians say aionion, when used of God, must mean eternal because God is eternal. Rubbish! They are trying to get people to burn for eternity through the back door. If they can get aionion to mean "eternal" in Romans 16:26 then the next logical step (or actually illogical) is to state that the torment is also eternal. They can't find any place where aionion was used to denote eternity so they have to make up things to force the meaning into the word.

DBT

Hmm, I don't want to derail this thread, but I think that claim would make for a rather interesting discussion as well.

TonyN

Can we say that since no one has proved me wrong that there is no such thing as eternal torment, that aiwn and aiwnios should not be translated eternal, that I am declared the winner of this debate?

jgibson000

No. The issue of whether or not there is no such thing as. let alone whether 1st century Jews did or did not believe in, "eternal torment" (the answers to which you've arrived at on dogmatic, not linguisitc grounds)l, has nothing to do with the question of whether AIWNIOS was ever used in antiquity to mean "eternal".

And your criterion for determining "winning" is just another version of the appeal to personal incredulity. Besides that, people have proved you wrong.

JG

TonyN

JG,
First of all, I believe you got it wrong as to the first sentence in that last paragraph.
Why would I appeal to my own personal incredulity? I am appealing to my own personal credulity. It is your job to appeal to my incredulity.

Secondly, no one has PROVEN me wrong. No one has brought forth any evidence that aiwnios can mean "eternal."

Thirdly, it is not germain to the proving of aiwnios if it means eternal or "pertaining to the eon(s)" whether 1st century Jews believed in eternal torment or not. If we have to go by what 1st century Jews believed to prove anything then we'd have to say Christ was not the promised Messiah and one group believed in anihilation while the other group believed in eternal torment while the Christian group of Jews believed in chastening pertaining to the eon.

I have actually arrived at my conclusions on historic, linguistic and biblical theological grounds that aiwnios cannot mean eternal.

Ben C Smith

The appeal to personal incredulity (also known as the argument from personal incredulity) is the name of a common logical fallacy of the non sequiter variety. Jeffrey is saying, I believe, that you find eternal torment hard to believe on its own merits (God being merciful and just, not cruel, and so forth), and are using your own inability to believe it as an argument against it.

Ben.

TonyN

Ben, ole buddy ole pal,

What do you think about the chart I provided on the tabernacle and the relation it shares with the eons?