The words “In general” allow for exceptions. And the words “For example” are followed by giving one of those exceptions. The words “For example” also refer back to the sentence that you left out which occurs immediately before those you quoted: “The list shows how a Greek-English Interlinear & some versions render the Greek phrase.” And then “…For example”.
Still you don’t get it… if one partner says to another “my love for you is eternal” there is NO skerrick of literalistic quantitative intent, NO… what is being reflected by that phrase is the depth and strength of feeling owned by one for and towards the other, i.e., this is the QUALITY of their love. Surely that’s not too hard to grasp?
Qualitative: Describes a statement, or analysis, which gives the composition of an item, not the amounts present.
The first definition from Webster’s dictionary:
“eternal - having infinite duration”, i.e. endless time, clearly quantitive, not qualitative
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal
Not one of Webster’s definitions has to do with anything qualititive. Only quantities of time.
Ok so your desperation is showing. It’s the mere FACT that you are unable to conceive the qualitative aspects relative to the likes of “forever” or “eternal” that leads to such churlish responses.
I have seen the word “quality” associated with the Greek word aionion, especially in regards to John 17:3, but not regarding the passages you have been attributing it to with the phrase “eis ton aiona”. I can see it maybe applying in John 17:3, but not in the contexts you claim it for. Are there any articles, dictionaries, scholars, commentaries, church fathers or lexicons you can offer in support of your viewpoint, that will help me to “get it”?
FACT… I absolutely have NO place for the likes of ECT. Your problem however is you can’t conceive of any other ECT opposing rational that doesn’t fall in line with your own rigid dogmatism… being aptly demonstrated by your diatribe above.
I was aware that you are not an ECT advocate. Although your comments & versions quoted, aside from the qualitative stuff, reminded me of their viewpoints.
I spelt it out quite PLAINLY for you and yep in you eager-tism you read right past the bleeding obvious.
Oops, you are correct. My mistake.