When the father creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal (aidos: imperceptible) gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original; and as this was eternal (aidios: imperceptible), he sought to make the universe eternal (aionios: age-enduring/pertaining to ages), so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting (aionios: age-enduring/pertaining to ages), but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible. Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity (aion: the ages), and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal (aion: ages), but moving according to number, while eternity (aionios: pertaining to the ages/the ages as a whole) itself rests in unity; and this image we call time. For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also. They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal (aidios: imperceptible) essence; for we say that he "was," he "is," he "will be," but the truth is that "is" alone is properly attributed to him, and that "was" and "will be" only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause. These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity (aion: the ages) and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the non-existent is non-existent- all these are inaccurate modes of expression. But perhaps this whole subject will be more suitably discussed on some other occasion."
https://books.google.com/books?id=i...father saw what he had created moving&f=false
According to the theologians, Plato used aidios, aionios, and aion to all mean eternal. I believe what Plato is actually saying already contradicts itself (which Timaeus admits in his dialogue), but I have to give him at least a little credit. If all these words mean eternal, this is incomprehensible and the dumbest thing Plato ever wrote.
Plato is saying the creator is aidios (which means imperceptible, but is probably the closest word Plato could use to mean eternal), and he wanted to make an image of the imperceptible gods. Time began when the creator created the heavens, so he was happy when he saw his creation moving, because he himself was unable to move. The ideal creature was aionios (age-enduring/pertaining to the ages), but this was impossible. So the creator made an image of the ages. The ages move according to number, but aionios (pertaining to the ages/the ages as a whole) rest in unity (they are set and determined).
He then says aionios and the aions are parts of time, but we unconsciously and incorrectly attribute these words to the aidios (imperceptible) creator. We say things like "he was" or "he will be", but the correct attribute should be "he is", because "was" and "will be" can only be attributed to that which moves. Plato literally says that aionios and aion do not mean aidios because they are parts of time and movement!
If this is not the correct interpretation, and Plato meant eternal for every aion, aionios, and aidios, then he is saying we wrongly transfer the "eternal which moves and is a part of time" with the "eternal that is unmovable and exists outside of time".
He would also be saying that the creator, who is eternal, sought to make his creation eternal, "but this is impossible". So the creator made an image of eternity, and when he set everything in order, he made the image eternal. How? Plato just said this was impossible even for the creator to do.
I asked a similar question at Biblical Hermeneutics and it was suggested I ask it here. So I have a few questions:
If Plato understood aion, aionios, and aidios to all mean eternal, then how is this not a contradiction?
If he did not understand aion, aionios, and aidios to mean eternal, how can the word "when" be applied to the unmovable creator, and how can this unmovable/unchangeable creator be in a state where he doesn't desire to create, and then change to have a desire to create?