"Aionois" Eternal

[Lacy Evans]

"Always" used in a relative sense.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Leviticus 6 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]6:13 The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Exodus 27 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]27:20 And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Titus 1 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]contd.[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HOG: The best translations that I've found are the CLV, Rotherham's, and the NASB.

HP: It is interesting to note that I was not far off in suggesting as I did the Wescott Hort text as being a major source or error. All three of the translations mentioned, according to what I have gathered, were either based largely on that particular text or utilized it and held it and held it and the work of Wescott and Hort in high esteem.

 

[Lacy Evans]

"Shall not be quenched" - relative? these fires have ceased to burn long ago

KJV 2 Kings 22:17 Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched.

KJV 2 Chronicles 34:25 Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched.

KJV Jeremiah 7:20 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

KJV Jeremiah 17:27 But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched

.

 

[Lacy Evans]

"everlasting"

KJV Genesis 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.

KJV Habakkuk 3:6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

This earth and these hills will pass away.

.

KJV Leviticus 16:34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.

Christ is my atonement. This everlasting statute has played out.

 

[Lacy Evans]

KJV Nahum 3:9 Ethiopia and Egypt were her strength, and it was infinite; Put and Lubim were thy helpers.

limited infinity?

KJV Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Eternally or until he dies? "For ever" is relative in Greek, English, Hebrew, and probably in any other language.

KJV Jonah 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.

 

[Lacy Evans]

I do think that contextually, that the word "eternal" can be referring to absolute eternity, but only if the context is the eternal age.

KJV John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

This is the last day (After the millennial 7th day). This is absolute eternity.

KJV John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

KJV John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

But "eternal can also refer contextually to the millennial age. Notice these "eternal" promises that are clearly related to reward and not salvation.

KJV Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

KJV John 4:36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

KJV John 4:36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

KJV John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

KJV 2 Corinthians 4:17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;

KJV 1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

KJV 1 Timothy 6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

 

[Hope of Glory]

HP: It is interesting to note that I was not far off in suggesting as I did the Wescott Hort text as being a major source or error. All three of the translations mentioned, according to what I have gathered, were either based largely on that particular text or utilized it and held it and held it and the work of Wescott and Hort in high esteem.

Then you might want to study up a little more.

Only Rotherham's translation used the W-H at all, and since he started his translation several years before the W-H was available, even that little bit of use of it was limited, and used only for the final edition of the complete translation. Joseph Rotherham, who was thoroughly versed in both Hebrew and Greek, rendered the text as literally as possible, and showed the various shades of meaning with various markings and footnotes. (There are very few things in the W-H that don't belong there; it's quite good, but there is such a rabid hatred of the men themselves that it doesn't matter how good the text is. But, the UBS4 and NA are better, as they've been updated periodically for various reasons, usually when new manuscripts were discovered.)

The only real shortcoming in the NASB is that it retains some of the text that the KJV used that should not be in there, and they didn't always use brackets to denote such. Although the more recent revisions did correct some of these errors. (Well, it does retain the "thees" and "thous", and some people consider this a shortcoming, but it doesn't bother me.)

The CLV doesn't use it at all.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Wickapedia: (NASB)For Greek, Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece was used; the 23rd edition in the 1971 original, and the 26th in the 1995 revision.

In the Introduction of the Nestle –Alund it states, “Nestle created an outstanding text based on the work of the great textual critics if the nineteeth century. It is well known how he compared the the editions of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort……adopting agreements of the two for his text………

HOG, what is apparent to me, is the great influx of new versions developed largely subsequent to the development of the W-H text. I believe the corrupt W-H text is indeed utilized in one degree or another in most new versions. The apparent multitude of omissions is just one clue that one cannot overlook.

It has been some time since I tried to read concerning the development of the higher criticism employed in the development of many if not all of the versions developed subsequent to the W-H text. I remember that I had listened to a man on the radio concerning translations by the name of David Otis Fuller. He had written several books on the dangers and fallacies of many versions and texts. “Which Bible”, “True or False?” “Countereit or Genuine” are three that I know of. They are excellent books to read. I also have a more scholarly work by Herman C. Hoskier entitled Codex B and its Allies, A Study and Indictment “ in two volumes which goes into much detail of the text and the details surrounding not only the men but the methods employed in critical detail. It is available online I believe.

Let me ask you what the Codex B is, and ask you if it was utilized in the development of the CLV? What did the Wescott Hort text have in common with it? Is not the CLV based upon the Wescott Hort, or its twin the Codex B, and in fact was clearly used in the development of the CLV? I admit that I might be wrong in this. This whole textual thing is indeed quite confusing to me.

On the website introducing the CLV and expalining it’s development, it states the following. “This volume of the Concordant Library contains every word and letter of A, B, s, Codex Vaticanus 2066 (046) for the Apocalypse, and some recently discovered fragments of Papyri.”

With the Codex B and the Westctt Hort text being said to be almost identical, how could one deny that in essence if not in actuality, the W-H was indeed utilized in its development? I am just asking.

I can tell that I for one have become ever more convinced that the KJV is God’s Word to me. Let everyman be assured in their own mind.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I will have to break out my book version of the CLV to use. I use the electronic version, and it uses both the NA and the WH. You can choose either one or both for the main text, and compare the variants.

But, when we know that something was added, why would we want to leave it in?

I've never found anything in the WH that was added, but there are several things in the KJV that we know for a fact were added.

Why is it evil to take them back out?

My wife reminded me of something last night. I've tried to find it, but I don't know if it's in a box here or in storage. But, a Baptist preacher once gave me several commentaries "from a reputable Baptist source" to help "straighten me out".

One of the things that several of the commentaries said that made me laugh out loud (not necessarily because of the comedic value) was their explanation for "aionios".

To condense what was said, "'Aionios' means 'age-lasting' which obviously means 'forever' because God didn't have the way to explain 'forever' to ancient peoples."

I say God was smart enough to use the words at hand to say what he meant, personally, and I don't think he's the author of confusion. The Greek has a way of saying "forever", and it has a way of saying "eternal"; why would God use a word for limited duration to mean either of those?

 

[Hope of Glory]

BTW, have you ever compared a WH to the NA27? There's a pretty big difference. Saying that the NASB is based on the WH because the original Nestles' was based on the WH is like saying last year's F1 champion car was based on the Edsel because they both have four wheels.

Just lik the KJV translators, WH expected others to continue their work and update and improve it, which is what has been done throughout the years.

But, the NASB kept a lot of the KJV passages that don't belong, without even bracketing them, which is one shortcoming when studying literal translations.

In spite of that, it's the most literal common translation available, but is not as smooth flowing as the ESV.

 

[BobRyan]

In addition to the question about what "aidios" means, let me ask you: OK, if you claim that the Millennial Kingdom is not 1000 years, how long is it?

good question.

I believe "1000 years is exactly 1000 years" as odd as that may sound to some.

 

[BobRyan]

In this context, it's also important to remember that at the end of the 1000 years, the Christ will hand rule back over to God the Father. We find this in 1 Corinthians 15:24. If his Kingdom is "forever", we have another contradiction in Scriptures.

1Cor 15 refers to "His coming" but not the millennial kingdom.

At His coming all is completed.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HOG: In this context, it's also important to remember that at the end of the 1000 years, the Christ will hand rule back over to God the Father. We find this in 1 Corinthians 15:24. If his Kingdom is "forever", we have another contradiction in Scriptures.

HP: Christ spoke often of His kingdom, and Gods kingdom and gave many illustrations of it. Are you suggesting that His kingdom only exists in the specific time period of a thousand year millennial reign?

I do not know anything about the contradictions you are speaking about, but I do believe Scripture when it says that His Kingdom endureth for ever, i.e., eternal. There is such a thing as using words in a sense you now. You don’t have to kill the word or change its meaning, or cut out portions of Scripture to use a word in a different sense. You just have to use a bit of common sense.