Muslims have no covenant with God.

[CherubRam]

Muslims have no covenant with God.

If you search the Quran you will find no covenant between the Muslim people and God.
And as for the Covenant of Circumcision, that covenant has been revoked by Yahwah.

Zechariah 11:10
Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations.
The Covenant of Circumcision was the covenant made whereby all nations could enter.

Zechariah 11:11
It was revoked on that day, and so the oppressed of the flock who were watching me knew it was The Word (Yahshua) of (the Lord / Yahwah.)
The Covenant of Circumcision was revoked on the day Yahshua died on the stake.

John 1:1. Yahshua is The Word of God.
In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with The Only Divine Eternal, and The Word was divine.
John 1:1. Above is a complete translation of the ancient Greek text. It is not an interpretation.

 

[Vinny37]

As to Zc.11, I tend to limit this in contexts to Yahweh’s covenant with ethnic Israel, divided between Ephraim (North) & Judah (South), similar to Yahweh’s divorce speech of Jr.3. Representing Yahweh, Zechariah “became the shepherd of the sheep earmarked for slaughter and then performed a symbolic action. He took two rods (a less common word than the usual one for shepherds’ staffs), named one ‘Pleasantness’ (NRSV: ‘Favor’) and the other ‘Cords’ (NRSV: ‘Unity’). The connotation of the latter name is intricately related to 11:10 and 14, which explain that the breaking of the rods signifies the breaking of the bonds that unite Yahweh and Israel” (Julia M O’Brien’s Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 2004:250). I don’t see that it ever related to Muslims, who never had a covenant with Yahweh, which is not to say that Yahweh never had links to and authority over the goyim races: Islam is a religion, not a race.

Mere physical circumcision never established covenant with Yahweh, and the practice predated Abraham. I agree that the Sinai covenant, symbolised by physical male circumcision, has ended, and I would date that to the victory cry of τετελεσται, ie Yeshua’s Job Done (Jhn.19:30). That it was valid for the residue of ethnic Israel, ie the C1 Jews of which Yeshua was the messiah born under the covenant, I take as a given. Hence torah laws such as tithing were still valid (Mt.23:3,23).

Words vary according to settings. Eg, εγω ειμι (I, I am), could bespeak Yahweh, and even Yeshua, but it could also bespeak the man born blind (Jhn.9:9). Although the Greek text of Zc.11:11 has λογος, I see no reason to link that to John’s use of λογος as the second person of deity incarnating himself as Yeshua. After all, if Zechariah had meant that the words had come from the Word, rather than from Yahweh, why speak of the λογος κυριου instead of simply the λογος, ie if it was directly the λογος, not indirectly the logos of Yahweh?

BTW, “Above is a complete translation of the ancient Greek text. It is not an interpretation” is incorrect. Translation always involves interpretation, although interpretation can vary between formal and functional equivalence, and translation must vary between these two emphases. Eg, John’s λογος can be put in English as Word, Logic, Voice, Message, and has even been poorly put as Christ. If not interpreting John’s context and theology, we could literally translate αρχῃ here as A beginning, or An origin, or A start. And from θεος to The Only Divine Eternal, is a pretty big jump loaded with interpretation. But given that θεος is a standard Greek way in which elohim was translated, should we say that the gods (θεοι) of Jhn.10:34//Ps.82:6, were The Only Divine Eternals? The Romans actually used divine as a level below deity. Translation is an art and a skill.

 

[CherubRam]

As to Zc.11, I tend to limit this in contexts to Yahweh’s covenant with ethnic Israel, divided between Ephraim (North) & Judah (South), similar to Yahweh’s divorce speech of Jr.3. Representing Yahweh, Zechariah “became the shepherd of the sheep earmarked for slaughter and then performed a symbolic action. He took two rods (a less common word than the usual one for shepherds’ staffs), named one ‘Pleasantness’ (NRSV: ‘Favor’) and the other ‘Cords’ (NRSV: ‘Unity’). The connotation of the latter name is intricately related to 11:10 and 14, which explain that the breaking of the rods signifies the breaking of the bonds that unite Yahweh and Israel” (Julia M O’Brien’s Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 2004:250). I don’t see that it ever related to Muslims, who never had a covenant with Yahweh, which is not to say that Yahweh never had links to and authority over the goyim races: Islam is a religion, not a race.

Mere physical circumcision never established covenant with Yahweh, and the practice predated Abraham. I agree that the Sinai covenant, symbolised by physical male circumcision, has ended, and I would date that to the victory cry of τετελεσται, ie Yeshua’s Job Done (Jhn.19:30). That it was valid for the residue of ethnic Israel, ie the C1 Jews of which Yeshua was the messiah born under the covenant, I take as a given. Hence torah laws such as tithing were still valid (Mt.23:3,23).

Words vary according to settings. Eg, εγω ειμι (I, I am), could bespeak Yahweh, and even Yeshua, but it could also bespeak the man born blind (Jhn.9:9). Although the Greek text of Zc.11:11 has λογος, I see no reason to link that to John’s use of λογος as the second person of deity incarnating himself as Yeshua. After all, if Zechariah had meant that the words had come from the Word, rather than from Yahweh, why speak of the λογος κυριου instead of simply the λογος, ie if it was directly the λογος, not indirectly the logos of Yahweh?

BTW, “Above is a complete translation of the ancient Greek text. It is not an interpretation” is incorrect. Translation always involves interpretation, although interpretation can vary between formal and functional equivalence, and translation must vary between these two emphases. Eg, John’s λογος can be put in English as Word, Logic, Voice, Message, and has even been poorly put as Christ. If not interpreting John’s context and theology, we could literally translate αρχῃ here as A beginning, or An origin, or A start. And from θεος to The Only Divine Eternal, is a pretty big jump loaded with interpretation. But given that θεος is a standard Greek way in which elohim was translated, should we say that the gods (θεοι) of Jhn.10:34//Ps.82:6, were The Only Divine Eternals? The Romans actually used divine as a level below deity. Translation is an art and a skill.

Parables are not to be interpreted as literal.
Yahshua is called the word of God because he speaks for God.

 

[CherubRam]

John 1:1. In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with The Only Divine Eternal, and The Word was divine.

Pantheion

Greek pantheion, from pan 'all' + theion 'Divine Eternal-s' (from theos 'divine.')
From Greek aion, meaning Eternal, for an infinite amount of time Pantheion: Pan/the/ion. All Divine Eternal-s. The word “All” makes it plural.

aeon or aion or eon
1. An immeasurably long period of time. From Greek, Aion, an infinitely long time.

Greek word TON and THEON.
The Greek word "TON" is translated 1583 times as "the;" And 18 times as "the -one." It is used before nouns to mean a {certain-one-person-s,} or place, or thing. However, different translations of Greek do not always agree. That is the reason for my interpretation of John 1:1 as "the only Divine Eternal." In English the word “one” can also be translated as “only.” TON: The only. The contracted word THEON means: Divine Eternal.

 

[CherubRam]

Yahwah Is The Only True God

2 Chronicles 15:3
For a long time Israel was without the true God, without a priest to teach and without the law.

Isaiah 65:16
Whoever invokes a blessing in the land will do so by the one true God; whoever takes an oath in the land will swear by the one true God. For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes.

Jeremiah 10:10
But [the Lord / Yahwah] is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath.

Yahshua said this about God.
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and [Jesus / Yahshua] Christ, whom you have sent.

1 Thessalonians 1:9
for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,

 

[CherubRam]

Genesis 17:27
And every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.

Exodus 12:48
“A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it.

 

[Who Me]

The word Islam means 'submission to the will of God'. there is no concept of divine love for man, the islamic god loves those he choses to love among those who submit, as a single entity he can have no concept of loving or of being loved. he is arbitrary in all he does, loving for a moment then rejecting for an unknown reason.

It is because of these that the muslim is a fatalists accepting what is written is written.

 

[Vinny37]

...

To your several responses supra...

You said: "Yahshua is called the word of God because he speaks for God."

I say: the eternal λογος may be called that because he speaks for God, or indeed is God’s core message to us, though he only became Yeshua around 6 BC. Yeshua is his permanent incarnation mode. But you miss my point that when Scripture in Greek used the term λογος it did not always mean the noncarnate second person of deity who became Yeshua. In short, taking its mention in Zc.11 to equate its sense in Jhn.1:1, requires justifying, and I don’t think that your reasoning for it is adequate.

Um, πανθειον is not actually in Jhn.1:1, and indeed would be heretical. Anyway, the point that “Roman emperors generally hoped for death to elevate them to the divine, divinity level (divus), not the deity level (deus)” (Steve Hakes’ Prayer’s Gone Global, 2022:12), argues that the English from Latin term divine is actually poor translation howbeit commonly asserted. Any unfallen angel is divine (Gk. θειον); God is deity (Gk. θεον); Yeshua is deific.

Um, αιων is not in Jhn.1:1. Do you need to revisit the Greek text and your Greek lessons from your Bible college days? I can see that you have knocked something up on this before (https://christianforums.net/threads/commentary-on-john-1-1.98635/), and suspect that you’ve built things up from certain scraps (eg https://pantheon.org/articles/a/aeon.html copy/paste on Homer). Getting back to your claim of literalness, it seems to me that you have built up ideas about θεος, and have pasted them together into that one Greek word. Taking some ideas about God (eg eternal, supreme, omnipotent) and then lumping them into a Greek or Hebrew word, which anyway can vary its meaning according to context, is highly interpretative, so it is facetious to call your paraphrase “not an interpretation”.

Yahweh is in fact NOT the only true god, though he is the being who alone is truly God. I accept that the OT in particular spoke in polytheistic terms, as if Yahweh was Israel’s particular god and other nations had other gods, but can we as Christians not grow up to see that that was a lower level of education, speaking in discarded images, chaff terms? That other beings could be called elohim is clear, but clearly they weren’t deities, for there is only one deity, Yahweh. Incidentally, your “But [the Lord/Yahwah”, depotentiates God’s name to adonai (lord/master) status, as the International Children’s Bible sadly does. Tyndale raised us from Wycliffe, by giving full caps when substituting God’s name, ie the LORD, NOT the Lord: compare say Ps.110:1 in most EVV. The CEV often leads the way in translating true monotheism from the NT text, and I’d translate, say, Jhn.17:3, as “the only one who is truly God”. At the very least, translators should not use artificial capitals when translating in polytheistic terms, so if it must speak of god-types, the NIV should here have “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true god, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” Rightly Christians and Muslims reject polytheism, yet wrongly as polytheists often snipe at one another as if each has a different god—the Muslim ‘god’ vs the Christian (or Judaic) ‘god’! Daft. There are different concepts of God, but only one god, God. Different ‘gods’ don’t exist except in antiquated speech, biblical and otherwise. PS: I also suspect that in Jhn.17:3, “Jesus Christ” (NIV) would be better as per the CJB, “Yeshua the messiah”.

Your bit on physical male circumcision adds no needed data to this discussion, challenges nothing I have said, and is thus irrelevant. We agree (I think) that under Sinai to be recognised within its community, male humans (female humans were exempt) had to be circumcised, and that by messiah’s death Sinai is redundant. But again you misquote Scripture by [the Lord] when it’s about the LORD, ie Yahweh. Copy/paste should be checked even with the NIV.

 

[CherubRam]

To your several responses supra...

You said: "Yahshua is called the word of God because he speaks for God."

I say: the eternal λογος may be called that because he speaks for God, or indeed is God’s core message to us, though he only became Yeshua around 6 BC. Yeshua is his permanent incarnation mode. But you miss my point that when Scripture in Greek used the term λογος it did not always mean the noncarnate second person of deity who became Yeshua. In short, taking its mention in Zc.11 to equate its sense in Jhn.1:1, requires justifying, and I don’t think that your reasoning for it is adequate.

Um, πανθειον is not actually in Jhn.1:1, and indeed would be heretical. Anyway, the point that “Roman emperors generally hoped for death to elevate them to the divine, divinity level (divus), not the deity level (deus)” (Steve Hakes’ Prayer’s Gone Global, 2022:12), argues that the English from Latin term divine is actually poor translation howbeit commonly asserted. Any unfallen angel is divine (Gk. θειον); God is deity (Gk. θεον); Yeshua is deific.

Um, αιων is not in Jhn.1:1. Do you need to revisit the Greek text and your Greek lessons from your Bible college days? I can see that you have knocked something up on this before (https://christianforums.net/threads/commentary-on-john-1-1.98635/), and suspect that you’ve built things up from certain scraps (eg https://pantheon.org/articles/a/aeon.html copy/paste on Homer). Getting back to your claim of literalness, it seems to me that you have built up ideas about θεος, and have pasted them together into that one Greek word. Taking some ideas about God (eg eternal, supreme, omnipotent) and then lumping them into a Greek or Hebrew word, which anyway can vary its meaning according to context, is highly interpretative, so it is facetious to call your paraphrase “not an interpretation”.

Yahweh is in fact NOT the only true god, though he is the being who alone is truly God. I accept that the OT in particular spoke in polytheistic terms, as if Yahweh was Israel’s particular god and other nations had other gods, but can we as Christians not grow up to see that that was a lower level of education, speaking in discarded images, chaff terms? That other beings could be called elohim is clear, but clearly they weren’t deities, for there is only one deity, Yahweh. Incidentally, your “But [the Lord/Yahwah”, depotentiates God’s name to adonai (lord/master) status, as the International Children’s Bible sadly does. Tyndale raised us from Wycliffe, by giving full caps when substituting God’s name, ie the LORD, NOT the Lord: compare say Ps.110:1 in most EVV. The CEV often leads the way in translating true monotheism from the NT text, and I’d translate, say, Jhn.17:3, as “the only one who is truly God”. At the very least, translators should not use artificial capitals when translating in polytheistic terms, so if it must speak of god-types, the NIV should here have “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true god, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” Rightly Christians and Muslims reject polytheism, yet wrongly as polytheists often snipe at one another as if each has a different god—the Muslim ‘god’ vs the Christian (or Judaic) ‘god’! Daft. There are different concepts of God, but only one god, God. Different ‘gods’ don’t exist except in antiquated speech, biblical and otherwise. PS: I also suspect that in Jhn.17:3, “Jesus Christ” (NIV) would be better as per the CJB, “Yeshua the messiah”.

Your bit on physical male circumcision adds no needed data to this discussion, challenges nothing I have said, and is thus irrelevant. We agree (I think) that under Sinai to be recognised within its community, male humans (female humans were exempt) had to be circumcised, and that by messiah’s death Sinai is redundant. But again you misquote Scripture by [the Lord] when it’s about the LORD, ie Yahweh. Copy/paste should be checked even with the NIV.

LOL. Have a nice day.

 

[Free]

John 1:1. In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with The Only Divine Eternal, and The Word was divine.

Pantheion

Greek pantheion, from pan 'all' + theion 'Divine Eternal-s' (from theos 'divine.')
From Greek aion, meaning Eternal, for an infinite amount of time Pantheion: Pan/the/ion. All Divine Eternal-s. The word “All” makes it plural.

aeon or aion or eon
1. An immeasurably long period of time. From Greek, Aion, an infinitely long time.

Greek word TON and THEON.
The Greek word "TON" is translated 1583 times as "the;" And 18 times as "the -one." It is used before nouns to mean a {certain-one-person-s,} or place, or thing. However, different translations of Greek do not always agree. That is the reason for my interpretation of John 1:1 as "the only Divine Eternal." In English the word “one” can also be translated as “only.” TON: The only. The contracted word THEON means: Divine Eternal.

"Pantheion" has nothing to do with anything in John 1:1, nor does "aion." This is what happens when you simply make things up and don't look to legitimate sources to help understand the Greek. The Greek word ton is simply the definite article and theon is "God." That's it and that is why every translation says "and the Word was with God" in 1:1b. In English it is grammatically awkward to say "the God," so the definite article is left out.

'pantheon (n.)

early 15c., Panteon "the Pantheon in Rome," from Latin Pantheon, name of a temple dedicated to all the gods built in Rome c. 25 B.C.E. by Agrippa (since 609 C.E. made into the Christian church of Santa Maria Rotonda), from Greek Pantheion (hieron) "(shrine) of all the gods," from pantheion, neuter of pantheios, from pan- "all" (see pan-) + theios "of or for the gods," from theos "god".'

https://www.etymonline.com/word/pantheon

"The change in the noun in John 1:1, from Θεόν (Theon) to Θεὸς (Theos) for God in Greek is not because of any difference in meaning, but simply because the word was playing two different functions in the sentence.

In the text under consideration, the word for God was spelt differently in the two instances because in the first instance, Θεόν (Theon), the word was functioning in the accusative case whereas in the second occurrence, Θεὸς (Theos), it was in the predicate nominative."

https://seasonedapologist.com/2021/11/06/john-11-theon-vs-theos/

So, you have no basis for such an interpretation, but at least you admit it is your interpretation. But what does this have to do with Islam?

 

[CherubRam]

"Pantheion" has nothing to do with anything in John 1:1, nor does "aion." This is what happens when you simply make things up and don't look to legitimate sources to help understand the Greek. The Greek word ton is simply the definite article and theon is "God." That's it and that is why every translation says "and the Word was with God" in 1:1b. In English it is grammatically awkward to say "the God," so the definite article is left out.

'pantheon (n.)

early 15c., Panteon "the Pantheon in Rome," from Latin Pantheon, name of a temple dedicated to all the gods built in Rome c. 25 B.C.E. by Agrippa (since 609 C.E. made into the Christian church of Santa Maria Rotonda), from Greek Pantheion (hieron) "(shrine) of all the gods," from pantheion, neuter of pantheios, from pan- "all" (see pan-) + theios "of or for the gods," from theos "god".'

https://www.etymonline.com/word/pantheon

"The change in the noun in John 1:1, from Θεόν (Theon) to Θεὸς (Theos) for God in Greek is not because of any difference in meaning, but simply because the word was playing two different functions in the sentence.

In the text under consideration, the word for God was spelt differently in the two instances because in the first instance, Θεόν (Theon), the word was functioning in the accusative case whereas in the second occurrence, Θεὸς (Theos), it was in the predicate nominative."

https://seasonedapologist.com/2021/11/06/john-11-theon-vs-theos/

So, you have no basis for such an interpretation, but at least you admit it is your interpretation. But what does this have to do with Islam?

Pan is "all," Theo is (God / "Divine," and aion is "Eternal."
Thea is a female divine.
Theos is a male divine.
Theo is gender neutral.
Theion is "Divine Eternal." The word Theion is a contraction and is spelled more than one way.
Theiou is Sulfur. Also known as brimstone.
Hieron is shrine.
The word "GOD" is a modern day word.
The word God is a interpretation and the word Divine is a translation.

 

[Free]

Theion is "Divine Eternal."

Provide at least one legitimate source for this.

The word Theion is a contraction

Provide at least one legitimate source for this.

The word "GOD" is a modern day word.

"Divine" (ca. 14th c.) is likely a newer word than "God."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/divine

https://www.etymonline.com/word/god

The word God is a interpretation and the word Divine is a translation.

Please define "interpretation" and "translation."

And, again, what does this have to do with Islam?

 

[CherubRam]

Provide at least one legitimate source for this.


Provide at least one legitimate source for this.


"Divine" (ca. 14th c.) is likely a newer word than "God."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/divine

https://www.etymonline.com/word/god


Please define "interpretation" and "translation."

And, again, what does this have to do with Islam?

Theion is "Divine Eternal." - Google Search

 

[CherubRam]

Provide at least one legitimate source for this.


Provide at least one legitimate source for this.


"Divine" (ca. 14th c.) is likely a newer word than "God."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/divine

https://www.etymonline.com/word/god


Please define "interpretation" and "translation."

And, again, what does this have to do with Islam?

The word "divine" comes from the Latin word dīvīnus, which is made up of dīv(us) meaning "god" and -īnus meaning "-ine". The word was first recorded in Middle English in the 1300s–1350s.
Unknown date.
Etymology. From Old Latin deivos, from Proto-Italic *deiwos, the same source as deus.

The word dīvīnus has many descendants, including:

• Galician: divino
  

• Italian: divino
  
  
• Mozarabic: dbynh
  
  
• Old Occitan: devin, divin
  
  
• Catalan: diví
  
  
• Piedmontese: divin
  
  
• Vulgar Latin: devīnus
  
  
• Old French: devin
  
  
• Middle French: devin
  
  
• French: devin
  
  

 

[Free]

Theion is "Divine Eternal." - Google Search

Uh, no. This is not providing sources for anything. Please provide legitimate sources for what I asked. You have a very long track record of making claims without ever providing any actual support when asked. Don't try to get others to do the work for you.

 

[CherubRam]

Uh, no. This is not providing sources for anything. Please provide legitimate sources for what I asked. You have a very long track record of making claims without ever providing any actual support when asked. Don't try to get others to do the work for you.

Sorry, sometimes the links change from what they were. Here is a AI Overview. Also, Plato used the term "Divine Eternal.


The "Divine Eternal."
AI Overview

Yes, "Theion" is considered to be a Greek word that translates to "Divine" or "Divine Eternal," depending on the context, as it directly relates to the Greek god Zeus and signifies a concept of divine power that transcends time and space.
Key points about "Theion":

Origin: Derived from the Greek word "Theos" which means "God." (Actually it means "Divine male.")
Meaning: When used as "Theion," it emphasizes the divine nature, often implying an eternal or everlasting quality associated with the gods.

Yahwah was known as The Eternal God.

• Genesis 21:33
  Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Eternal God.
  I
• Deuteronomy 33:27
  The eternal Godis your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemies before you, saying, ‘Destroy them!’
  
  
• Romans 16:26
  but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith—

 

[Free]

Sorry, sometimes the links change from what they were. Here is a AI Overview. Also, Plato used the term "Divine Eternal.


The "Divine Eternal."
AI Overview

Yes, "Theion" is considered to be a Greek word that translates to "Divine" or "Divine Eternal," depending on the context, as it directly relates to the Greek god Zeus and signifies a concept of divine power that transcends time and space.
Key points about "Theion":

Origin: Derived from the Greek word "Theos" which means "God." (Actually it means "Divine male.")
Meaning: When used as "Theion," it emphasizes the divine nature, often implying an eternal or everlasting quality associated with the gods.

One of the things I asked for evidence for is your claim that 'Theion is "Divine Eternal".' You have not provided any supporting evidence. If you want to use AI, maybe learn to use it better. Here is ChatGPT's response when I asked if theion can ever be translated as "divine eternal":

'The word "theion" (θεῖον) in Koine Greek can be translated as "divine" or "pertaining to divinity," but it does not inherently include the concept of "eternal" in its meaning. However, in certain theological or philosophical contexts, the word theion could be understood to imply attributes often associated with divinity, such as eternity, depending on the broader discussion.'

So, that would be a no, since theion 'does not inherently include the concept of "eternal" in its meaning.'

The other claim I asked evidence for was: "The word Theion is a contraction." You have yet to provide any. However, I'll save you time and let you know what ChatGPT says:

'No, "Theion" (θεῖον) is not a contraction in Koine Greek; it is a standalone word. Its origins depend on the specific meaning:

1. When referring to the "divine" (θεῖον as divine essence or nature):
   The word comes from the root theos (θεός), meaning "god" or "deity." It is not a contraction but rather a derivative form, often used in philosophical or theological contexts to describe something pertaining to divinity or the divine nature.
2. When referring to "sulfur" (θειον as brimstone):
   This meaning is unrelated to theos and has its own etymological history. The word theion as sulfur/brimstone comes from ancient associations of sulfur with sacred rituals, as sulfur was used in purification practices in religious ceremonies.

In neither case is theion a shortened or contracted form of another word. It stands as a complete and distinct term in Koine Greek.'
As I knew already, theion is not a contraction and doesn't have the meaning "eternal" in it. It is used three times in the NT and is translated as "divine being" (Acts 17:29) and "divine" (2 Pet. 1:3-4).

https://biblehub.com/greek/2304.htm

Looking further at biblical sources:

Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary

theios
3x: divine, pertaining to God, 2Pe_1:3-4; τὸ θεῖον, the divine nature, divinity, Act_17:29.


New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance

theios; from G2316; divine: — divine (2), divine nature (1).

It is simply derived from theos (G2316).

Yahwah was known as The Eternal God.

• Genesis 21:33
  Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Eternal God.
  I
• Deuteronomy 33:27
  The eternal Godis your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemies before you, saying, ‘Destroy them!’
  
  
• Romans 16:26
  but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith—

Right, but what does this have to do with the discussion?

 

[CherubRam]

One of the things I asked for evidence for is your claim that 'Theion is "Divine Eternal".' You have not provided any supporting evidence. If you want to use AI, maybe learn to use it better. Here is ChatGPT's response when I asked if theion can ever be translated as "divine eternal":

'The word "theion" (θεῖον) in Koine Greek can be translated as "divine" or "pertaining to divinity," but it does not inherently include the concept of "eternal" in its meaning. However, in certain theological or philosophical contexts, the word theion could be understood to imply attributes often associated with divinity, such as eternity, depending on the broader discussion.'

So, that would be a no, since theion 'does not inherently include the concept of "eternal" in its meaning.'

The other claim I asked evidence for was: "The word Theion is a contraction." You have yet to provide any. However, I'll save you time and let you know what ChatGPT says:

'No, "Theion" (θεῖον) is not a contraction in Koine Greek; it is a standalone word. Its origins depend on the specific meaning:

1. When referring to the "divine" (θεῖον as divine essence or nature):
   The word comes from the root theos (θεός), meaning "god" or "deity." It is not a contraction but rather a derivative form, often used in philosophical or theological contexts to describe something pertaining to divinity or the divine nature.
2. When referring to "sulfur" (θειον as brimstone):
   This meaning is unrelated to theos and has its own etymological history. The word theion as sulfur/brimstone comes from ancient associations of sulfur with sacred rituals, as sulfur was used in purification practices in religious ceremonies.

In neither case is theion a shortened or contracted form of another word. It stands as a complete and distinct term in Koine Greek.'
As I knew already, theion is not a contraction and doesn't have the meaning "eternal" in it. It is used three times in the NT and is translated as "divine being" (Acts 17:29) and "divine" (2 Pet. 1:3-4).

https://biblehub.com/greek/2304.htm

Looking further at biblical sources:

Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary

theios
3x: divine, pertaining to God, 2Pe_1:3-4; τὸ θεῖον, the divine nature, divinity, Act_17:29.


New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance

theios; from G2316; divine: — divine (2), divine nature (1).

It is simply derived from theos (G2316).


Right, but what does this have to do with the discussion?

I do not know why the goofy AI is giving different answers.
Theo means Divine.
Theos means Divine and that the person is male.
Thea means Divine and the person is female.

That means Theion is a compound word that is saying something in addition to Divine.
Often compound words are a contraction of two words, but not always.

So what do you think the last part of the word Theion is?

Did you know that the word Vati/can means prophetic serpent?

These quotes are from the Encyclopedia Americana,1961 edition.
"Words are frequently changed in an entirely arbitrary way, just for the sake of change, as is the case with taboo, and cant. The purpose is to deform the word in any possible way and render it unrecognizable."
"Cant ,the secret language of a corporation or class of persons, such as criminals, hoboes, students, soldiers, railroaders, conspirators, and the like." This quote should have also included secret societies.
"Canopus. In Egyptian mythology, a water god, represented on vessels of a spherical shape." That is, the shape of a serpent.
"Cannibalism, Kan/i/bal/ism, a customary, socially approved practice, among certain barbarous peoples, of eating human flesh." "The fact that the older, learned term "anthropophagy" derives from the classic Greek anthropos (man) , and phagein (eat), suggests that from ancient times barbarous peoples were known to eat human flesh, or at least were accused of doing so."

Here is a list of proper names of some snakes.
Apostolepis: nick name, messenger snake.
Acanthophis: Adder's.
Canna, Pseudaspis: Mole snake.
Candidus, Bungarus.
Candoia: #1. Aspera, #2. Bibroni, #3. Carinata.
Caninus, Corallas: Emerald tree boa.
Cantherigerus, Alsophis.
Cantil, Agkistrodon bilineatus.
Cantori, Trimeresurus.
Canum, Gyalopion: Western hook-nosed.
Canus, Tropidophis.

Vatican
The word Vatican is a compound word, but you will not find a dictionary that tells you that. Have you ever given any thought to the term, social engineering?

 

[Free]

I do not know why the goofy AI is giving different answers.
Theo means Divine.
Theos means Divine and that the person is male.
Thea means Divine and the person is female.

That means Theion is a compound word that is saying something in addition to Divine.
Often compound words are a contraction of two words, but not always.

No, it is neither a contraction nor a compound word. It is a standalone word derived from theos. That is what the Greek lexicons and dictionaries show. You’re making unwarranted assumptions about an ancient language that you have (likely) not been formally educated in, and that is dangerous, as it can, and clearly does, lead to all manner of incorrect conclusions.

Stick to legitimate Greek sources and learning materials, such as lexicons and dictionaries, from those who have relevant expertise.

So what do you think the last part of the word Theion is?

There is no “last part.”

Did you know that the word Vati/can means prophetic serpent?

These quotes are from the Encyclopedia Americana,1961 edition.
"Words are frequently changed in an entirely arbitrary way, just for the sake of change, as is the case with taboo, and cant. The purpose is to deform the word in any possible way and render it unrecognizable."
"Cant ,the secret language of a corporation or class of persons, such as criminals, hoboes, students, soldiers, railroaders, conspirators, and the like." This quote should have also included secret societies.
"Canopus. In Egyptian mythology, a water god, represented on vessels of a spherical shape." That is, the shape of a serpent.
"Cannibalism, Kan/i/bal/ism, a customary, socially approved practice, among certain barbarous peoples, of eating human flesh." "The fact that the older, learned term "anthropophagy" derives from the classic Greek anthropos (man) , and phagein (eat), suggests that from ancient times barbarous peoples were known to eat human flesh, or at least were accused of doing so."

Here is a list of proper names of some snakes.
Apostolepis: nick name, messenger snake.
Acanthophis: Adder's.
Canna, Pseudaspis: Mole snake.
Candidus, Bungarus.
Candoia: #1. Aspera, #2. Bibroni, #3. Carinata.
Caninus, Corallas: Emerald tree boa.
Cantherigerus, Alsophis.
Cantil, Agkistrodon bilineatus.
Cantori, Trimeresurus.
Canum, Gyalopion: Western hook-nosed.
Canus, Tropidophis.

Vatican
The word Vatican is a compound word, but you will not find a dictionary that tells you that. Have you ever given any thought to the term, social engineering?

None of this is relevant. There are compound words in Greek, but theion is not one of them.

 

[CherubRam]

The dynamic nature of language means that words can change in pronunciation, meaning, or even be replaced entirely by new terms. Changes in language often happen gradually, with new variations emerging from shifts in pronunciation or the dropping of certain sounds. linguistic shifts can leave an audible trace of a word’s origin, even as it morphs into something else. Sometimes, entirely new words replace old ones with no phonetic or visual resemblance to their predecessors.

This phenomenon often results from the presence of synonyms in the language, offering multiple ways to express a concept. Each synonym carries its nuances and contexts where it might be preferred over its counterparts, leading to varied usage among speakers.

The evolution of language through the adoption, modification, and sometimes the complete replacement of words reflects the ever-changing landscape of thought and society.