Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context.
What biased scholars who agreed with the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" (of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning opposers to death with fire & their writings) have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.
"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)
"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."
What biased scholars who agreed with the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" (of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning opposers to death with fire & their writings) have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.
"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)
"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."
