I find it very difficult to believe that whichever deluded mammal who used the term 'eonian' when writing that part of the bible intended for it to mean some undefined yet definitely finite span.
It is obvious that the term was used to mean 'forever'. Or something so close that it makes no difference. This is why it has consistently been translated as such.
If catfish believes it is intended to be a finite span, the burden of proof lies upon him to prove that this was the intent. Otherwise, he is just another theist making baseless assertions.
It is obvious that the term was used to mean 'forever'. Or something so close that it makes no difference. This is why it has consistently been translated as such.
If catfish believes it is intended to be a finite span, the burden of proof lies upon him to prove that this was the intent. Otherwise, he is just another theist making baseless assertions.
