explain John 10:27-28 from a NON Osas Way!

[agedman]

"eternal - This is a long time", but "a long time", or even " a very very long time", does not have to mean "eternity, endless"? The Greek adjective αἰώνιος, can simply mean, "lasting for an age". It was used as a title for the Roman Emperors.

Actually, “ aiónios “ is unending, without termination, everlasting, perpetual...

It certainly does have to mean endless.

But more, the use in the NT gives the substance that the life given doesn’t have a beginning, but is, presently. It is as God states of His name, “I am”.

The believer has eternal existence while yet encased in that which will pass back into the dust.

One of the evidences (imo) of a believer is that growing desire to be released from the earthy and breath the celestial as one grows and is exercised in the Spiritual.

 

[HankD]

"eternal - This is a long time", but "a long time", or even " a very very long time", does not have to mean "eternity, endless"? The Greek adjective αἰώνιος, can simply mean, "lasting for an age". It was used as a title for the Roman Emperors.

Everyone knew what He meant.

John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Actually, “ aiónios “ is unending, without termination, everlasting, perpetual...

It certainly does have to mean endless.

But more, the use in the NT gives the substance that the life given doesn’t have a beginning, but is, presently. It is as God states of His name, “I am”.

The believer has eternal existence while yet encased in that which will pass back into the dust.

One of the evidences (imo) of a believer is that growing desire to be released from the earthy and breath the celestial as one grows and is exercised in the Spiritual.

αἰώνιος,

"lasting for an age, perpetual, eternal, holding an office or title for life, perpetual" (Liddell and Scott, Greek-English lexicon)

"chiefly for age-long, eternal" (G Abbott-Smith, Greek-English lexicon)

"without beginning or end, eternal; lasting for an indefinitely long period, but not fully eternal" (G W H Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon)

"age-long, and therefore practically eternal, unending" (A Souter, Greek-English lexicon)

I do not deny the fact that αἰώνιος can as does mean "eternal, without end", but, what I am saying, that it is also used in a "limited sense", which does not always include these meanings. I am a firm believer in the ETERNAL, UNENDING future for the saved in heaven, and the lost in hell. We cannot get our conclusions from word meanings only, as they are not always definite, as the above Greek lexicons show the different uses of the word.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Everyone knew what He meant.

John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Believing is one thing, which I do (see #23), but we are told in Scripture to "prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

 

[agedman]

αἰώνιος,

"lasting for an age, perpetual, eternal, holding an office or title for life, perpetual" (Liddell and Scott, Greek-English lexicon)

"chiefly for age-long, eternal" (G Abbott-Smith, Greek-English lexicon)

"without beginning or end, eternal; lasting for an indefinitely long period, but not fully eternal" (G W H Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon)

"age-long, and therefore practically eternal, unending" (A Souter, Greek-English lexicon)

I do not deny the fact that αἰώνιος can as does mean "eternal, without end", but, what I am saying, that it is also used in a "limited sense", which does not always include these meanings. I am a firm believer in the ETERNAL, UNENDING future for the saved in heaven, and the lost in hell. We cannot get our conclusions from word meanings only, as they are not always definite, as the above Greek lexicons show the different uses of the word.

Perhaps then it would be wise to show how such is used in the Scriptures.

Can one actually find the word used in a manner that it is not intended as eternal, unending, without cessation, everlasting, perpetual... and in such a manner as that it does not indicate such also has no beginning but is (as a state of "be")?

I just haven't found such a verse, yet, but that doesn't mean I have exhausted all readings and renderings.

I have found eternal life, eternal punishment, eternal house, eternal plan, eternal purpose, ... and in each statement, the characterization of the use obliges that which has neither beginning or cessation. Not a time I have found that one could ascribe "a long period, but not fully eternal," or even "age-long, practically eternal," nor "lasting for an age."

Perhaps the difference is that the lexicons are giving all uses the word can be found even in the worldly, were the Scriptures do not use all definitional presentations.

But, if you find one, please post so I can see it, too.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Perhaps then it would be wise to show how such is used in the Scriptures.

Can one actually find the word used in a manner that it is not intended as eternal, unending, without cessation, everlasting, perpetual... and in such a manner as that it does not indicate such also has no beginning but is (as a state of "be")?

I just haven't found such a verse, yet, but that doesn't mean I have exhausted all readings and renderings.

I have found eternal life, eternal punishment, eternal house, eternal plan, eternal purpose, ... and in each statement, the characterization of the use obliges that which has neither beginning or cessation. Not a time I have found that one could ascribe "a long period, but not fully eternal," or even "age-long, practically eternal," nor "lasting for an age."

Perhaps the difference is that the lexicons are giving all uses the word can be found even in the worldly, were the Scriptures do not use all definitional presentations.

But, if you find one, please post so I can see it, too.

sure, there is an example from Philemon 15, where Paul writes, "For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that you should receive him forever", where αἰώνιος can hardly mean "eternally, without end", but "during their lifetime". Here it is used in a limited sense. When the writers of both Testaments wrote in Hebrew and Greek, they did not invent the languages, nor change the uses or meanings of them, but used them as they are. Like the noun θεός , it is used for the One True God of the Bible, but also for humans and even the devil! Christians must not be found to change the meaning of words to suite themselves, lest the be charged of change for their theological purposes, and therefore cannot prove their beliefs by honest means. I believe that all that the Bible teaches to be true, and can be understood and defended against any charges of dishonesty or tampering or twisting.

 

[HankD]

sure, there is an example from Philemon 15, where Paul writes, "For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that you should receive him forever", where αἰώνιος can hardly mean "eternally, without end", but "during their lifetime". Here it is used in a limited sense. When the writers of both Testaments wrote in Hebrew and Greek, they did not invent the languages, nor change the uses or meanings of them, but used them as they are. Like the noun θεός , it is used for the One True God of the Bible, but also for humans and even the devil! Christians must not be found to change the meaning of words to suite themselves, lest the be charged of change for their theological purposes, and therefore cannot prove their beliefs by honest means. I believe that all that the Bible teaches to be true, and can be understood and defended against any charges of dishonesty or tampering or twisting.

Philemon 1:15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;

I beg the differ, Philemon left him for a season so that he and they could be together in heaven forever.

 

[HankD]

Believing is one thing, which I do (see #23), but we are told in Scripture to "prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Uh, "Shall never die" is another way of saying to live forever.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Philemon 1:15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;

I beg the differ, Philemon left him for a season so that he and they could be together in heaven forever.

Are you suggesting that Philemon's "departing for a short while", is speaking of his death? As both "season" and "forever" are contrasted. There is no reference or hint anywhere in this Epistle of the eternity of the believer, unless I have missed it?

Verses 11-13 shows that the earthly friendship of these men is in view. As I have shown from the Greek lexical use, αἰώνιος does not always mean "eternally, without end".

"Who in time past was to you unprofitable, but now profitable to you and to me: Whom I have sent again: you therefore receive him, that is, my own heart: Whom I would have retained with me, that in your stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel"

 

[agedman]

Ok let's work through your post and see how it stands. You state:

sure, there is an example from Philemon 15, where Paul writes, "For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that you should receive him forever", where αἰώνιος can hardly mean "eternally, without end", but "during their lifetime". Here it is used in a limited sense.

And I agree that there are some that place "quality" as the consideration of the word. However, the "eternal, without end" definition fits perfectly, and more precisely with the balance of the use in the Scriptures.

When Philemon returned as a brother, and not as a slave, it was not a temporary relationship that Philemon would enjoy, but that estate established by the Lord for eternity. All believers are adopted as sons of God and eternally so without beginning or end.

Philemon and his former owner were united forever as relatives, and not as owner/slave.


So, although your example is precious, and can be seen in the light you presented, it can also be shown that it fits more perfectly into the eternal without end definition.

When the writers of both Testaments wrote in Hebrew and Greek, they did not invent the languages, nor change the uses or meanings of them, but used them as they are. Like the noun θεός , it is used for the One True God of the Bible, but also for humans and even the devil! Christians must not be found to change the meaning of words to suite themselves, lest the be charged of change for their theological purposes, and therefore cannot prove their beliefs by honest means. I believe that all that the Bible teaches to be true, and can be understood and defended against any charges of dishonesty or tampering or twisting.

Let me give you this about accountability in which I humble myself and submit.

Truly, I often and I regularly post on the BB. Typically when working in the ancient languages, I openly call for others, on the BB who remain intellectually sound and are well schooled in the languages to review what I have written and make any correction to what I render.

Truly, it is a great honor to have them take the time and I trust that when the time comes that my work becomes questionable, they will gently prod me to understand that I no longer participate in discussions in which the languages are a matter of importance. These are long BB friends who I hold in highest esteem and am honored that they regard me in such a manner as to be worthy of inspection and correction.

Considering the intellectual frailty that I push against every moment it is foolish not to rely upon those good and kind people to be as a guard so that I never post the Scriptures with a rendering of error.

In previous posts, you have accused me of twisting the Scriptures. It was shown not to be true.

Here you seem to imply the same. Again, it is shown not to be true.

What is seeming to be uncovered is were you might render what is more liberal and I take the more conservative used meanings.

For example, you use θεός as if what you present is disagreeable.

It is not, for like most words, the definition is determined not by a dictionary, but by contextual usage.

Just as in the Philemon 15 verse, you took what was the earthy temporal and I took that estate of the celestial eternal.

You selected one definition and I selected another when it came to aiónios.

I viewed the context showing the estate of adopted into the family that had no beginning nor never ends.

Perhaps when you find another place in which you can ascribe the earthy termination, you might reconsider just how more perfectly the word fits in the eternal.

Ultimately, to take the use as temporary, even if highlighting the quality, it would (imo) weaken the actual message given, that eternal is not just no beginning, no ending, but of the highest estate possible when associated with plan, life, purpose, judgment, ...

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Uh, "Shall never die" is another way of saying to live forever.

yes, I have already said this was the case. Again, my point being, that we cannot build a whole doctrine based on a meaning of a word!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Ok let's work through your post and see how it stands. You state:



And I agree that there are some that place "quality" as the consideration of the word. However, the "eternal, without end" definition fits perfectly, and more precisely with the balance of the use in the Scriptures.

When Philemon returned as a brother, and not as a slave, it was not a temporary relationship that Philemon would enjoy, but that estate established by the Lord for eternity. All believers are adopted as sons of God and eternally so without beginning or end.

Philemon and his former owner were united forever as relatives, and not as owner/slave.


So, although your example is precious, and can be seen in the light you presented, it can also be shown that it fits more perfectly into the eternal without end definition.



Let me give you this about accountability in which I humble myself and submit.

Truly, I often and I regularly post on the BB. Typically when working in the ancient languages, I openly call for others, on the BB who remain intellectually sound and are well schooled in the languages to review what I have written and make any correction to what I render.

Truly, it is a great honor to have them take the time and I trust that when the time comes that my work becomes questionable, they will gently prod me to understand that I no longer participate in discussions in which the languages are a matter of importance. These are long BB friends who I hold in highest esteem and am honored that they regard me in such a manner as to be worthy of inspection and correction.

Considering the intellectual frailty that I push against every moment it is foolish not to rely upon those good and kind people to be as a guard so that I never post the Scriptures with a rendering of error.

In previous posts, you have accused me of twisting the Scriptures. It was shown not to be true.

Here you seem to imply the same. Again, it is shown not to be true.

What is seeming to be uncovered is were you might render what is more liberal and I take the more conservative used meanings.

For example, you use θεός as if what you present is disagreeable.

It is not, for like most words, the definition is determined not by a dictionary, but by contextual usage.

Just as in the Philemon 15 verse, you took what was the earthy temporal and I took that estate of the celestial eternal.

You selected one definition and I selected another when it came to aiónios.

I viewed the context showing the estate of adopted into the family that had no beginning nor never ends.

Perhaps when you find another place in which you can ascribe the earthy termination, you might reconsider just how more perfectly the word fits in the eternal.

Ultimately, to take the use as temporary, even if highlighting the quality, it would (imo) weaken the actual message given, that eternal is not just no beginning, no ending, but of the highest estate possible when associated with plan, life, purpose, judgment, ...

My friend, I do NOT accuse you here of any twisting of the Word, but merely point the fact that we must all be seen to be whiter than white in our handling of the Word of God, so that none can accuse us of anything. I very much include myself in this.

At least you admit that what I have said is a possibility, which means that you accept that in every use, αἰώνιος, does not have to mean "without end, eternal", as the lexical data shows, which we cannot honestly ignore or reject

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Ok let's work through your post and see how it stands. You state:



And I agree that there are some that place "quality" as the consideration of the word. However, the "eternal, without end" definition fits perfectly, and more precisely with the balance of the use in the Scriptures.

When Philemon returned as a brother, and not as a slave, it was not a temporary relationship that Philemon would enjoy, but that estate established by the Lord for eternity. All believers are adopted as sons of God and eternally so without beginning or end.

Philemon and his former owner were united forever as relatives, and not as owner/slave.


So, although your example is precious, and can be seen in the light you presented, it can also be shown that it fits more perfectly into the eternal without end definition.



Let me give you this about accountability in which I humble myself and submit.

Truly, I often and I regularly post on the BB. Typically when working in the ancient languages, I openly call for others, on the BB who remain intellectually sound and are well schooled in the languages to review what I have written and make any correction to what I render.

Truly, it is a great honor to have them take the time and I trust that when the time comes that my work becomes questionable, they will gently prod me to understand that I no longer participate in discussions in which the languages are a matter of importance. These are long BB friends who I hold in highest esteem and am honored that they regard me in such a manner as to be worthy of inspection and correction.

Considering the intellectual frailty that I push against every moment it is foolish not to rely upon those good and kind people to be as a guard so that I never post the Scriptures with a rendering of error.

In previous posts, you have accused me of twisting the Scriptures. It was shown not to be true.

Here you seem to imply the same. Again, it is shown not to be true.

What is seeming to be uncovered is were you might render what is more liberal and I take the more conservative used meanings.

For example, you use θεός as if what you present is disagreeable.

It is not, for like most words, the definition is determined not by a dictionary, but by contextual usage.

Just as in the Philemon 15 verse, you took what was the earthy temporal and I took that estate of the celestial eternal.

You selected one definition and I selected another when it came to aiónios.

I viewed the context showing the estate of adopted into the family that had no beginning nor never ends.

Perhaps when you find another place in which you can ascribe the earthy termination, you might reconsider just how more perfectly the word fits in the eternal.

Ultimately, to take the use as temporary, even if highlighting the quality, it would (imo) weaken the actual message given, that eternal is not just no beginning, no ending, but of the highest estate possible when associated with plan, life, purpose, judgment, ...

I had to laugh out very LOUD!!! Me a liberal??? you know nothing of me! I am not afraid of the Truth of the Word, nor ever use it for my own gain. I will change when the Word shows me to be in error, as I have done on OSAS, where I was shown by the Lord to be WRONG for over 20 years!

 

[agedman]

My friend, I do NOT accuse you here of any twisting of the Word, but merely point the fact that we must all be seen to be whiter than white in our handling of the Word of God, so that none can accuse us of anything. I very much include myself in this.

At least you admit that what I have said is a possibility, which means that you accept that in every use, αἰώνιος, does not have to mean "without end, eternal", as the lexical data shows, which we cannot honestly ignore or reject

But you missed the point.

By adopting such a definition, you then have the ability to redefine even eternal judgement to that which the RCC allows is not really eternal, but a temporary estate for that final cleansing necessary.

Rather, the more conservative render would be to discard such as you ascribe, and see all the uses are in fact a never ending quality of celestial importance.

This means, frankly, that I have ultimately rejected your more excessive allowance, for the more conservative and (imo) honorable consistent defining.

Do not forget, that all dictionaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, ... are typically presenting all possible uses and applications. Such range from the more inconsistent with Scriptures to the most consistent.

It is inconsistent to allow for some temporariness to be considered within the use of the word eternal in the Scriptures.

Especially, when the ability to use the more conservative, the more consistent, can be used as I demonstrated with your reference to Philemon and his former owner's relationship. It was in fact not a mere temporal change, but a celestial - eternal - everlasting - forever - change.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Ok let's work through your post and see how it stands. You state:



And I agree that there are some that place "quality" as the consideration of the word. However, the "eternal, without end" definition fits perfectly, and more precisely with the balance of the use in the Scriptures.

When Philemon returned as a brother, and not as a slave, it was not a temporary relationship that Philemon would enjoy, but that estate established by the Lord for eternity. All believers are adopted as sons of God and eternally so without beginning or end.

Philemon and his former owner were united forever as relatives, and not as owner/slave.


So, although your example is precious, and can be seen in the light you presented, it can also be shown that it fits more perfectly into the eternal without end definition.



Let me give you this about accountability in which I humble myself and submit.

Truly, I often and I regularly post on the BB. Typically when working in the ancient languages, I openly call for others, on the BB who remain intellectually sound and are well schooled in the languages to review what I have written and make any correction to what I render.

Truly, it is a great honor to have them take the time and I trust that when the time comes that my work becomes questionable, they will gently prod me to understand that I no longer participate in discussions in which the languages are a matter of importance. These are long BB friends who I hold in highest esteem and am honored that they regard me in such a manner as to be worthy of inspection and correction.

Considering the intellectual frailty that I push against every moment it is foolish not to rely upon those good and kind people to be as a guard so that I never post the Scriptures with a rendering of error.

In previous posts, you have accused me of twisting the Scriptures. It was shown not to be true.

Here you seem to imply the same. Again, it is shown not to be true.

What is seeming to be uncovered is were you might render what is more liberal and I take the more conservative used meanings.

For example, you use θεός as if what you present is disagreeable.

It is not, for like most words, the definition is determined not by a dictionary, but by contextual usage.

Just as in the Philemon 15 verse, you took what was the earthy temporal and I took that estate of the celestial eternal.

You selected one definition and I selected another when it came to aiónios.

I viewed the context showing the estate of adopted into the family that had no beginning nor never ends.

Perhaps when you find another place in which you can ascribe the earthy termination, you might reconsider just how more perfectly the word fits in the eternal.

Ultimately, to take the use as temporary, even if highlighting the quality, it would (imo) weaken the actual message given, that eternal is not just no beginning, no ending, but of the highest estate possible when associated with plan, life, purpose, judgment, ...

Romans 16:25, "Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began"

2 Timothy 1:9, "Who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"

In both these verses, the Greek αἰώνιος, has been translated "began". the word "world" in the Greek is χρόνος, which has it primary meaning "time". You can see how the various English versions choose to translate this, which the majority use not for "eternity past", Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,

 

[agedman]

Romans 16:25, "Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began"

2 Timothy 1:9, "Who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"

In both these verses, the Greek αἰώνιος, has been translated "began". the word "world" in the Greek is χρόνος, which has it primary meaning "time". You can see how the various English versions choose to translate this, which the majority use not for "eternity past", Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,

I think your work with αἰώνιος and χρόνος is confusing you.

One means eternal, the other means began, seasonal, period, age...

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

But you missed the point.

By adopting such a definition, you then have the ability to redefine even eternal judgement to that which the RCC allows is not really eternal, but a temporary estate for that final cleansing necessary.

Rather, the more conservative render would be to discard such as you ascribe, and see all the uses are in fact a never ending quality of celestial importance.

This means, frankly, that I have ultimately rejected your more excessive allowance, for the more conservative and (imo) honorable consistent defining.

Do not forget, that all dictionaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, ... are typically presenting all possible uses and applications. Such range from the more inconsistent with Scriptures to the most consistent.

It is inconsistent to allow for some temporariness to be considered within the use of the word eternal in the Scriptures.

Especially, when the ability to use the more conservative, the more consistent, can be used as I demonstrated with your reference to Philemon and his former owner's relationship. It was in fact not a mere temporal change, but a celestial - eternal - everlasting - forever - change.

It has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal", but dealing with the data as it is without the need to modify meanings just because they do not agree with our thinking. We must not be afraid to deal with truth the way it is, even when it challenges our personal theology. I am showing from authorities that are used daily by those who translate the Word of God, that meanings are not always what we think or like them to be. You are free to reject anything you wish, but by doing so, you build upon sand, as you dismiss truth because it disagrees with your thinking. Did you know that ALL Bible translations use the very Hebrew and Greek authorities that I refer to, and the same you reject? The KJV and all are included. Theses are facts.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I think your work with αἰώνιος and χρόνος is confusing you.

One means eternal, the other means began, seasonal, period, age...

you read Greek? this is how it reads, "χρόνος αἰώνιος", please give your translation.

 

[agedman]

It has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal", but dealing with the data as it is without the need to modify meanings just because they do not agree with our thinking. We must not be afraid to deal with truth the way it is, even when it challenges our personal theology. I am showing from authorities that are used daily by those who translate the Word of God, that meanings are not always what we think or like them to be. You are free to reject anything you wish, but by doing so, you build upon sand, as you dismiss truth because it disagrees with your thinking. Did you know that ALL Bible translations use the very Hebrew and Greek authorities that I refer to, and the same you reject? The KJV and all are included. Theses are facts.

Frankly, your claims of greater authority ring hollow.

I demonstrated from your own presentation how you were adopting what I rejected because it was weak and not used. I showed that which was well used and based upon that which was well used how Philemon can be seen in that light.

That you reject such is not obliging me to be dismissing the truth, or that I present what is built upon sand.

Such is statements out of desperation, because again you are obliged out of the psychological makeup to reject what you ascribe as uncomfortable or not conforming to your preconceptions.

Fact.

Philemon had eternal life.

Fact.

Philemon's owner had eternal life.

Fact.

Because BOTH are the adopted children of God, they have an eternal relationship.

Fact.

Such a relationship was without beginning and without ending for it is based upon God and not humankind.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Frankly, your claims of greater authority ring hollow.

I demonstrated from your own presentation how you were adopting what I rejected because it was weak and not used. I showed that which was well used and based upon that which was well used how Philemon can be seen in that light.

That you reject such is not obliging me to be dismissing the truth, or that I present what is built upon sand.

Such is statements out of desperation, because again you are obliged out of the psychological makeup to reject what you ascribe as uncomfortable or not conforming to your preconceptions.

Fact.

Philemon had eternal life.

Fact.

Philemon's owner had eternal life.

Fact.

Because BOTH are the adopted children of God, they have an eternal relationship.

Fact.

Such a relationship was without beginning and without ending for it is based upon God and not humankind.

ok, that all folks!