In point of fact both do:
No. They don't. Also, You need to read the edit to my post.
No, not "time" (singular). TIMES (plural)! "CHRONON" not "CHRONOS."
"aeonios" (began, ensued, started, perpetuated).
"Began, ensued, started, perpetuated" are all verbs.
AIONION is NOT a verb. It has never BEEN a verb. It never WILL BE a verb.
Therefore it CANNOT by definition mean any of those words.
AIONION in this verse is an adjective. It means "eternal, everlasting, age-long, unending, perpetual, for ever, everlasting, partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age."
The King James translators translated the word AIONION as "eternal" 42 times, and "everlasting" 25 times, and "for ever" 1 time. Contrast that to their wrong, by definition, translation of the word as "the world began" 2 times, and "since the world began" 1 time.
Both are JUST this clear.
Saying it doesn't make it so, and it is clearly, flatly, wrong.
No Open Theist to date is capable:
And yet I, an open theist, which has nothing to do with anything here, just did.
It says literally what it says
INDEED IT DOES!
It just doesn't say what YOU WANT IT to say.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Existed is not needed.
I was quoting you, Lon. YOU'RE the one who said "existed."
He 'is' before all things existed scripture says in more than one place
Thus, "He 'is' before all things existed" IS NOT a phrase found in scripture.
Stop parsing for NO OTHER REASON than to support a premise some other theologian spoon fed.
Says the one who is spouting a premise that was spoon fed to him but cannot be supported by scripture.
Just follow scriptures where they lead.
Take a leaf from your own book. Hypocrite.
Preeminence. Not pre-existence to time.
and (listen): in Him, all things 'exist.'
In Him, All things CONSIST. It's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORD.
Exist is G5607.
Consist is G4921.
We just need to listen and not posture.
Then listen, and stop posturing.
They HAVE to say what you are saying, that is the high bar.
All you have to do to verify what I'm saying is in accordance with scripture is to read and study scripture yourself, and leave your a priori beliefs at the door.
Which you seem to be ignoring.
Let's not settle on what someone else told us to believe, but what the text actually supports.
Beam from eye, Remove it.
Unless "I am before Jim was/existed/consisted" which is what Colossians 1:17 says.
No. Colossians 1:17 says "consists." It does not say "exists." It IS a different word.
And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
kai autos estin pro panton kai ta panta en auto sunesteken
[And] [He] [is] [before] [all things] [and] [-] [all things] [in] [Him] [hold together]
'Before... consisted' is the sentence.
'Before all things and all things hold together in Him' is the sentence.
Aeonois: It means 'ensue, begin, start, perpetuate'
No, Lon, it doesn't, no matter how many times you say it.
2 Timothy 1:9 says chronos aeonios
"Pro chronon aionion" just means "before times age-long."
and Titus 1:2 has them reversed.
It seems different versions of the Greek have it as "pro chronon aionion" or "pro aionion chronon".
Same thing, as far as I'm aware.
... a bad translation. There is no verb "began" in the phrase in EITHER passage.
Adverb and aionios is an adjective describing time,
Yes it is. But it is not a verb.
with pros as literally 'before it began.'
Pros just means "before."
You either see it as a verb, as many translate it, or as a descriptor of the whole: "at a point before time began."
It cannot be a verb. Plain and simple.
It cannot mean "before time began," because there is no "began" or verb in the phrase.
Thus, anyone who says "it means 'at a point before time began' or the phrase is 'before time began'" are wrong, and continuing to hold to the belief that it says such exposes one's commitment to Greek philosophical ideas.
In this case it is a modifier.
"it"? The phrase or the word aionion?
Isn't even a sentence. And "running" is a noun, not an adjective, nor is it a verb. Run is a verb, running is a noun or adjective.
isn't a verb, it is acting as an adjective.
Not just "acting" as an adjective, it IS an adjective.
Began is also, in the same manner, a descriptor of Time.
You're comparing apples to fish. Began is a verb. Run is a verb. Running is a noun/adjective. Began (verb) is not in the phrase. Aionion (adjective) is.
And no, began is not a descriptor of time. And again, in case you needed reminding, "times," not "time."
"Running Bear, loved little White Dove." "Running," a verb,
Running is not a verb.
Run is the verb. Running is a noun or an adjective depending on context.
"Before time began" is the adverbial phrase modifying when Jesus
Wrong. On multiple counts.
First: Again, "began" does not exist in the phrase.
Second: It's not an adverbial phrase, it's a prepositional phrase. Didn't you take grammar classes in school?
Third: You must have forgotten to finish your thought here...
Like it. It says exactly what I am arguing: Before time(s).
As I said, 'Like it.' "Before" time began or before time eternal both work for me.
Cognitive dissonance isn't healthy, Lon.
False. "Before time began" is wrong, for the reasons explained prior.
it is how you translate an adverbial phrase.
Prepositional phrase. Not adverbial.
You are just arguing translation at that point. Most translators put it the way I do.
I'm always fascinated when people who claim to be educated use logical fallacies to argue their beliefs.
The two you are guilty of here are appeal to authority, and appeal to popularity.
They're fallacies for a reason, Lon.
I'm fine with the way you've done it as well. It does literally mean what we both agree on:
More cognitive dissonance.
That there was an existence prior to time.
There is no such thing as "prior to time."
I meant the Enyart article, it doesn't address our concern here.
Then why did you say "you cannot" when you weren't talking about me, but rather about Bob?
Either way, neither I nor Bob appealed to authority on this.
As I said, I like your translation just fine.
Supra, cognitive dissonance.
We differ because causing it to be a verb is within the description of 'time' as it relates to 'before.'
Saying it doesn't make it so, and is a commitment to Greek philosophy.
You're literally forcing the text to say "before time began," rather than what it actually says, which is "before times eternal."
It seems that you're ignoring the context of the passage:
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 to us in Christ Jesus before time began
2 Timothy 1:9 (NKJV)
The idea Paul is conveying is that before God created the universe, He purposed that by his grace, anyone who would be "in Christ Jesus" would be saved and called with a holy calling.
That means He was doing things that require sequence, of which time is a prerequisite. Thus, "before time began" is excluded not only because there's no verb, there's no "began," in the passage, but because it is a logical impossibility for there to be a "before time began" where God is planning out His creation.
No, Lon, you cannot. It's not there. You cannot argue that it is.
Anything 'before time' is related to it not being there before.
Question begging. You're assuming that time had a beginning, where there is no indication in scripture that it did, and scripture indicates that God DID do things PRIOR to the creation of the universe.
If you don't like "even started" choose an honoring translation descriptor.
Why are you asking me to defend YOUR false beliefs? Choose whatever you want. It's NOT. IN. THE. TEXT. PERIOD.
Such is within the meaning of the passage.
Saying it doesn't make it so, and I have SHOWN it NOT to be so.
"Perpetuated" means began.
Neither are present in the text.
You know it is the Strong's definition. Aionios.
It's not what the word means, despite James Strong's commitment to reformed beliefs.
While I have no problem with aeon translated as a verb,
You should, because it's not a verb, nor is it ever used as one, let alone translated as one (except by those who have a commitment to Greek philosophy, such as yourself).
The fact of the matter is that it doesn't say what you want it to say, nor does it say what you claim it says.
when it is a modifier of time in an adverbial phrase, I can agree with you (and do) that it is an adjective that carries an adverbial intent concerning time. "Everlasting" is a durative word thus acts as a an adjective, but within an adverbial phrase, modifies the verb in this case.
There. Is. No. Verb. In. The. Phrase: pro chronon aionion.
There is a preposition, a noun, and an adjective.
Yes, you are, because there IS NO "BEGAN," "STARTED," or ANY OTHER VERB in the prepositional phrase "pro chronos aionion." Please acknowledge that fact.
'before" is from "pro" and means "before"
in conjunction with time.
Again, times, not time. as in, ages.
No. Literally, "before times eternal."
Yep. Agree "Before time."
I don't know what you're agreeing with, but it isn't with what I said. That, or your cognitive dissonance is showing again.
Let's let you have it your way for a moment: "Before time" is good enough.
No, it's not, because the phrase isn't "before time," nor have I argued such.
It says "before times eternal."
Again, 'began' can be a point later:
No. It cannot, for the reasons stated above.
It gets very far from it.
Again: Bob points out that the two scriptures that people such as yourself use to claim God is outside of time don't actually say "before time began" and shows that there is no word "began," or any verb, for that matter, in the relevant part, and you claim he's trying to distance from scripture?
Make the argument, Lon. Don't bear false witness.
I've read it and believe it gets very far off the beaten path.
So make the argument. Because all you're doing here is posturing.
While I have given it to you for sake of argument, that "Before Time" is clear enough,
Except it doesn't say "before time." It doesn't say "before time began."
It says "before times eternal."
I will still remind you and thread that 'began, perpetuated, started' is well within the parameters as a descriptor of time.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
It doesn't matter too much because the verse already says before time anyway.
No, it doesn't, Lon.
It says "before times
Neither you nor Enyart's paper addressed that other than to argue 'pro' doesn't always have to mean 'before'
Cite, please, as neither I NOR BOB have ever made that argument (as far as I'm aware), and CERTAINLY NOT in the kgov.com/time article.
I just searched (CTRL + F) for both "pro" and "before," and neither search turned up anywhere in the article that Bob made that argument. Please retract your claim, or cite to where he makes that argument, because bearing false witness is a sin, Lon.
Bob doesn't say anything about "before." He's talking about "began" being absent from the verse.
|"Before time began" (2 Tim. 1:9 & Titus 1:2) is widely quoted yet in the Greek text of the New Testament there is no verb "began" in the original language. And the singular word "time" does not appear. Instead, Paul wrote, "before the times of the ages," which is very different from the way many of our Bible versions render this phrase, which translations do not flow from the grammar but from the translators' commitment to Greek philosophy.|
but in context in these two verses, it is evident it does.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
The KJV in both instances says 'began' for instance.
Again, the KJV translators had a commitment to Greek philosophy. The Greek doesn't allow "began," because "began" isn't in the verse. Stop trying to claim that it is.