They Know Greek Too

[Jerm]

Something I'm trying to figure out is how is it that there are people who can read and write in Greek, yet they believe in eternal hell.  I have seen this firsthand at the university I attend.  There are two professors who teach Greek there.  One of the them believes in ET, whereas the other one believes in UR.  They are both experts in the language, yet they each hold to different views.  Like I said, this is somewhat confusing.  Any thoughts?

[Pierac]

Words change meaning over time!

Paul

[Paul Hazelwood]

Because reading and writing greek directly is irrevalent in the sense that anything read or written still must be translated.

So it may appear to be a milestone of greatness that someone has learned to read and write greek directly this is a facade to what is really going on.

Reading or Writing a Greek word such as aionos is only going to be understood as far as what they believe the proper translation is.  

The greek is an ancient language that had to be translated to begin with.

[Jerm]

Because reading and writing greek directly is irrevalent in the sense that anything read or written still must be translated.

So it may appear to be a milestone of greatness that someone has learned to read and write greek directly this is a facade to what is really going on.

Reading or Writing a Greek word such as aionos is only going to be understood as far as what they believe the proper translation is.  

The greek is an ancient language that had to be translated to begin with.

Yeah, that makes sense.  I guess following those lines means that the professor who believes in ET was taught that aionios means eternal.  Come to think of it, the text book we used for the class listed eternal as the meaning for aionios.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Because reading and writing greek directly is irrevalent in the sense that anything read or written still must be translated.

So it may appear to be a milestone of greatness that someone has learned to read and write greek directly this is a facade to what is really going on.

Reading or Writing a Greek word such as aionos is only going to be understood as far as what they believe the proper translation is.  

The greek is an ancient language that had to be translated to begin with.

Yeah, that makes sense.  I guess following those lines means that the professor who believes in ET was taught that aionios means eternal.  Come to think of it, the text book we used for the class listed eternal as the meaning for aionios.

Well, the problem is that Greek is not often presented as the abstract language that it is.  I neglected to add that to my previous post, sorry. 

Eternal is a proper abstract term for aionios such as  "that stoplight took forever"  but physically literal it means a period of time with a beginning and end.   Thats my understanding of it. 

The sad thing is that ministers in religious organizations seem to be the only ones I am aware of (someone correct me if I am wrong) that present their ability to read and pronounce greek or hebrew from the ancient text as an indicator that they are better suited to teach something other than how to read and pronouce it.  ;)

[gregoryfl]

Well, the problem is that Greek is not often presented as the abstract language that it is.  I neglected to add that to my previous post, sorry. 

Eternal is a proper abstract term for aionios such as  "that stoplight took forever"  but physically literal it means a period of time with a beginning and end.   Thats my understanding of it. 

The sad thing is that ministers in religious organizations seem to be the only ones I am aware of (someone correct me if I am wrong) that present their ability to read and pronounce greek or hebrew from the ancient text as an indicator that they are better suited to teach something other than how to read and pronouce it.  ;)

So very true. The word aion in Greek is expressed in Hebrew as olam.  Hebrew, unlike Greek, is a concrete, sense oriented language. So with that in mind, let's examine this word to see what it means:

It consists of 4 letters, ayin, waw, lamed and mem. Originally all Hebrew letters were represented as pictures. These letters were represented by:

O=eye....meaning to look, among other things
H=tent peg...meaning to join two things together, the idea of "and"
L=shepherd staff.....which carried the meaning of to, toward, a staff was used to guide the sheep to something.
M=water.....which meant water, among other things.

Literally, the world Olam meant "Eye led to water." When you look out over the sea as far as the eye can see, you end up looking at the horizon. What is on the other side is unknown, and what is on the horizon is hazy, hard to make out details. But the horizon does have an end.

This was their way of expressing, in concrete terms, by something you can see with your eyes, the idea of an unknown period of time. It could be little or great, but, as the above poster said, it does have a beginning and end. Unfortunately, words such as this did get changed in meaning over time, due in part to the influence of ideas that came in that influenced definitions. Such is a common occurance even today. Hope this helps.

Ron

[YoungYuni]

Hiya Ron!

That was really neat!

:bgdance:

[jabcat]

If we're full of preconceived ideas and beliefs, we can block out truth, skip over it without really noticing it, or try to distort it and hammer it into "making it fit" into our existing belief system.  I think that's VERY common, and part of what keeps mainstream and denominations going in the vein they're in.  Also, there's that issue again--God veils and reveals, but He does will that all will come to the knowledge of the truth.  But IMO, most will only do so in the next age.  God's blessing, James.

[Tony N]

Did you ask the two professors you mention how it was that they both came to their respective beliefs concerning aion?

With some theology makes them translate aion to accord with their theology.

For instance, the one professor's theology tells him that for there to be eternal life there must be eternal damnation. Otherwise if there is not eternal damnation there can be no eternal life. He may improperly base Matthew 25:46 on that premise.

Your other professor's theology or UR tells him that since all will be saved, the damnation or chastening cannot be eternal. Therefore the believer's life is eonian or pertaining to the eon and the unbeliever gets eonian chastening which is chastening pertaining to the eon if based upon Matthew 25:46.

The ET professor might have a theology that states that God is eternal based upon Romans 16:25,26:

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,  (26)  But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Rom.16:25,26 KJV)

But has based his belief system on something like the KJV above.

However, the prof. who believes in UR might base his understanding on the noun/adjective relationship that the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived and so this translation makes more sense:

"Now to Him Who is able to establish you in accord with my evangel, and the heralding of Christ Jesus in accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian,  (26)  yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience -" (Concordant Literal).

According to the KJV, the improper use of the adjective aionios makes the noun (God) force it's idea upon the adjective. (bad.) However in the latter translation the adjective remains unchanged and forces its meaning upon the noun (God). (that's good.)

So in the former it is saying how long God lives. In the latter it tells us the relationship God has with the eons. Being the eonian God tells us that God is the Placer or Subjector of all to the eons. He is over the eons, directing them, subjecting all mankind to the goal He has for each eon.

This should be a good start as to why they believe differently.

Oh, also, translators over the years have improperly translated Plato and other early Greek writers' use of aion and aionios and transferred those paganistic ideas into their translation of the Bibles. However, if properly translated, Plato's Timeaus makes perfect sense when aion and aionios are not given the idea of eternality. Besides, those early Greeks had no ideal of eternalness. Do you see how your Prof's could be influenced by these things?

Tony

[Paul Hazelwood]

Literally, the world Olam meant "Eye led to water." When you look out over the sea as far as the eye can see, you end up looking at the horizon. What is on the other side is unknown, and what is on the horizon is hazy, hard to make out details. But the horizon does have an end.

Thats another good way to put it,  I had learned that Olam meant  "a time far off" which is pretty much the same idea as what you posted.

[Nathan]

For me, it isn't the original text that gives you the Truth of what's being said.  I think the fact that you have two professors that understand the language well, and still have opposite opinions is a great example that regardless of how much knowledge we can obtain, that alone isn't what gives us truth.  Man can not live on bread alone.  We love to put our confidence in what we can understand and what we can literally see.  That's why so many have embraced the Scriptures.

But the problems are not in the Scriptures themselves, the problems are in the limited minds of those who embrace them.  There are many places in Scripture where knowing the original words reveals much of what's being said.  But lets not forget, there were professors in Jesus' day as well who had the entire package that our modern day scholars will never have.  They had complete understanding of the language.  They had access to the original texts.  They had their own cultural context.  And their ancestors wrote much of the book.  They had it all . . .yet they were the biggest adversaries to Jesus because even though the book was written by some of the most profound and wisest men, inspired by the Holy Spirit himself . . . the volume of the book is not intended to tickle the natural thinking man's mind.  It's about spiritual realities.

And the only way to see them is by way of revelation from the one who sent them.  And the only way to get that revelation is not by studying the tangible, but it's by having a relationship with the invisible.  Proverbs tells us not to rely on our own understanding.  Jesus himself stated that without him we are nothing.  So it's really no surprise that even those that have a deep understanding of the language, still miss the message of what is written.  What is written points to what can't be seen.  It doesn't necessarily reveal it, it just points to it.  Revelation comes only from God in the Spirit. 

That's why passages like "Seek ye FIRST the kingdom of God" are so poignant.  Pursue the spirit and every "thing" else falls into place after that.  My mind always gets the cart before the horse.  I always think "understanding" comes before "acting".  It would be illogical for me to "do" something without fully understanding ahead of time what it is I'm to be doing . . . right?  Well, in the natural, that makes perfect sense.  But when dealing with spiritual matters, it's just the opposite.  God wants us to act according to his voice, what we hear within us, not according to what we see or think.

Just thinking out loud.

[Tony N]

Literally, the world Olam meant "Eye led to water." When you look out over the sea as far as the eye can see, you end up looking at the horizon. What is on the other side is unknown, and what is on the horizon is hazy, hard to make out details. But the horizon does have an end.

Thats another good way to put it,  I had learned that Olam meant  "a time far off" which is pretty much the same idea as what you posted.

I think the basic idea behind olam is "obscure."
For instance, in Ecclesiastes 3:11 it is stated that "He has put obscurity in their heart."

Ecc 3:11 He has made everything fitting in its season; However, He has put obscurity in their heart So that the man may not find out His work, That which the One, Elohim, does from the beginning to the terminus."

The Hebrew word behind "obscurity" is Olam and the LXX Hebrew/Greek scholars translated Olam here as "aiwna".
It is difficult to see the idea of God placing "a time far off" or "eye led to water" in their heart so that man can't find out His work.

The Authorized Version makes the matter even worse by translating: "He hath set the world in their heart." Now I know nothing is impossible with God, but, that stretches credulence pretty far.

But Gregoryfl's idea is pretty good when it comes to what is "hazy" or the "unknown." The early Hebrews knew how long a day, week, month and year would last but the duration of any Olam was hazy or unknown or obscure.

[YoungYuni]

For me, it isn't the original text that gives you the Truth of what's being said.  I think the fact that you have two professors that understand the language well, and still have opposite opinions is a great example that regardless of how much knowledge we can obtain, that alone isn't what gives us truth.  Man can not live on bread alone.  We love to put our confidence in what we can understand and what we can literally see.  That's why so many have embraced the Scriptures.

Hiya!

There is no evidence they are of the same caliber of understanding or knowledge. Only that they have some knowledge and based on some knowledge both have different views as a result.

The example of two Greek Scholars concerning Greek disagreeing with each other, is an invalid example of how two people with the same knowledge can disagree with each other.

Therefore there is no fact found in the above example to ponder.

Knowledge of the truth is never wrong. Most people just have not obtained it.

:icon_queen: :icon_king:

[Nathan]

But the principle is the same.  Knowledge is not truth in the sense that truth is a person, not just an accumulation of facts.  My point was that the Pharisees, Scribes and Saducees spent their lives dividing the word of Truth . . and yet they couldn't recognize it as it stood before their eyes.

And that still applies to me as well.  I've said this before somewhere else, but it's true here as well.  It's not about knowing "about" God.  It's about living "in" Him and He in me.

[Tony N]

But the principle is the same.  Knowledge is not truth in the sense that truth is a person, not just an accumulation of facts.  My point was that the Pharisees, Scribes and Saducees spent their lives dividing the word of Truth . . and yet they couldn't recognize it as it stood before their eyes.

And that still applies to me as well.  I've said this before somewhere else, but it's true here as well.  It's not about knowing "about" God.  It's about living "in" Him and He in me.

Very good Nathan.
Peter basically had the same understanding as you:

1Pe 1:11 searching into what or what manner of era the spirit of Christ in them made evident, when testifying beforehand to the sufferings pertaining to Christ and the glories after these."

David had the spirit of Christ in him as did the prophets. Had they been alive when Christ came they surely would have known Him since they had His spirit.

[Nathan]

But the principle is the same.  Knowledge is not truth in the sense that truth is a person, not just an accumulation of facts.  My point was that the Pharisees, Scribes and Saducees spent their lives dividing the word of Truth . . and yet they couldn't recognize it as it stood before their eyes.

And that still applies to me as well.  I've said this before somewhere else, but it's true here as well.  It's not about knowing "about" God.  It's about living "in" Him and He in me.

Very good Nathan.
Peter basically had the same understanding as you:

1Pe 1:11 searching into what or what manner of era the spirit of Christ in them made evident, when testifying beforehand to the sufferings pertaining to Christ and the glories after these."

David had the spirit of Christ in him as did the prophets. Had they been alive when Christ came they surely would have known Him since they had His spirit.

Yeah, I relate to Peter a lot.  In fact, the "who do you say that I am" was a great revelation to me in so many ways.  I believe that Peter's response to that question was not his head talking, but a revelation of the heart professed something his head had never heard before.  That expeirence he had actually changed the direction of Jesus ministry that day.

[Taffy]

yup sis..use that verse at the end of me page, The AGE of darkness,( the END of the WORLD) behind the veil,

Hbr 3:15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.


Hbr 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.


Hbr 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? [was it] not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?


Hbr 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?


Hbr 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief

[barbierir]

The proof is that none of the greek speaking fathers of the patristic age used aionion with the meaning of endless. Dare to say they didn't know their own language :)

They had different opinions of course, some believed reformation (most of them), some annhilation and some endless torment but they didn't base their ideas over the meaning of aionion but on the overall interpretation of scriptures as they understood it. And none of them ever take a dogmatic stance on this topic as they understood that scriptures leaved room for different views.

I think one "may" believe in endless torment as long as he thinks so because that fits his overall understanding of the revelation and his interpretation of some specific texts, but if one affirms that endless torment is explicitly taught in the scriptures because aionion means endless... well he is retelling the same old b.s. of Agustine that has been harming western christianity for the last XV centuries.

Renzo

[gregoryfl]

The Hebrew word behind "obscurity" is Olam and the LXX Hebrew/Greek scholars translated Olam here as "aiwna".
It is difficult to see the idea of God placing "a time far off" or "eye led to water" in their heart so that man can't find out His work.

But Gregoryfl's idea is pretty good when it comes to what is "hazy" or the "unknown." The early Hebrews knew how long a day, week, month and year would last but the duration of any Olam was hazy or unknown or obscure.

That verse in Ecclesiastes you mentioned Tony carries that same concrete thought of eyes led to water, speaking of the horizon. When you look at the horizon those things seen there are indeed obscure. You cannot make out any details. Thanks for bringing out that verse. I have translated this verse this way:

He has also set the-horizon in their inner-guides, yet so that man can't find out the work that the Strongest-Yoked-Guide has done from the beginning even to the end. Ecc 3:11


Ron

[gregoryfl]

Heres a thought not sure if it was ever considered but we know God hides things like "No man knoweth" in relation to the obscurity in their hearts and YET they shall see out of that obscurity and what no man knoweth the Spirit of God most certainly does (we we have been given who reveals a thing God hid)... the secret things.

The first debates on this "eternal" deal stuff in regards to "eternal life" was always argued on the basis of TIME verses relationship with God thus eternal life (to know God) would be God life because HE is the eternal God wouldnt that be true? What apostle says anyone who is a murderer hath no "eternal life" IN him but God hath given us eternal life (that which abides IN us) TO KNOW HIM = eternal life. So its not a "time thing" even though that can also be applied in the scope of all things being summed up in Christ who is NAMED "The Beginning" (itself) and "The End" who stands BETWEEN the TWO **ages** themselves (spiritually speaking) the AGE of a CHILD under the tutor = THE LAW which always intended to lead them To Christ (THE END  of the law and THAT AGE/CHILD) and to the FULL AGE (Faith is come) the AGE of a SON. And Christ is "The Beginning" (in name as well too).

So within all of this (after spiritual truths) theres a "perpetual ongoing thing (a process of sorts) of deliverance from the vanity He subjected all things to and yet still an end and a beginning (even as shown in Christ by name) who is as the Rock of AGES in the spiritual application of it all. Does that make any sense? I mean if it says "eternal God" we know God always IS but in regards to punishment will he meet us as a MAN? He says no, so if its speaking of "eternal punishment" could it be GOD punishment (of whom we are to leave room for). So the nature of the punishment comes through Him and the nature of it is Spiritual (because we would agree the fire is not physical but spiritual as God is Spirit) YET at the same time the consideration that God is not (in character) angry for ever. So what can be a perpetual ongoing process in accordance with Him who was, is, and will (always be) The end of anything and the begining of anything is with Christ who is also NAMED after "TIMES" which can sometimes throw people off in what they might be "measuring" in relation to it all.

That was a mouthful but I struggle with putting that out there and Im not sure I made sense any, I could only try  :grin:

Yes, a mouthful but OH SO GOOD! Thanks sis for that wonderful truth!

Ron

[Tony N]

Literally, the world Olam meant "Eye led to water." When you look out over the sea as far as the eye can see, you end up looking at the horizon. What is on the other side is unknown, and what is on the horizon is hazy, hard to make out details. But the horizon does have an end.

Thats another good way to put it,  I had learned that Olam meant  "a time far off" which is pretty much the same idea as what you posted.

I think the basic idea behind olam is "obscure."
For instance, in Ecclesiastes 3:11 it is stated that "He has put obscurity in their heart."

Ecc 3:11 He has made everything fitting in its season; However, He has put obscurity in their heart So that the man may not find out His work, That which the One, Elohim, does from the beginning to the terminus."

The Hebrew word behind "obscurity" is Olam and the LXX Hebrew/Greek scholars translated Olam here as "aiwna".
It is difficult to see the idea of God placing "a time far off" or "eye led to water" in their heart so that man can't find out His work.

The Authorized Version makes the matter even worse by translating: "He hath set the world in their heart." Now I know nothing is impossible with God, but, that stretches credulence pretty far.

But Gregoryfl's idea is pretty good when it comes to what is "hazy" or the "unknown." The early Hebrews knew how long a day, week, month and year would last but the duration of any Olam was hazy or unknown or obscure.

Yep! I saw that with the obscurity thing right on Tony, I love this too BUT

Isaiah 29:18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

Now I believe this has everything to do with who knows the thoughts of God and the SECRET things (that no man knoweth) as one of the previous verses also implies and the light that shines out of the darkness in the face of Christ WHO **IS** The Beginning AND The End even as mention in one of your prior verses.

There always SEEMS to be one verse that appears to SEAL a thing and another verse that SEEMS to OPEN a thing thats why word studies and comparing are important. HE opens it  :grin:

For example heres a verse which has a "question"

Psalm 89:48 What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death?

and heres Jesus words which appears to answer it

John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

So at the first, it appears God stuck obscurity in us and we will never know anything BUT elsewhere its through the same obscurity (one could not see through) that one eventually will.

His words are amazing.  I also found the post above this one right on too, that is very interesting

Very good thoughts there fireinfold,
I guess one could say that though the two proffessors got obscurity put in them by God, there must have come a point in tiime when God took the obscurity out of the one prof but it was left in the ET prof for now?

[Doc]

Another thing to keep in mind that has already been somewhat touched on, is that we are all products of our education to some extent.
Most people take what they are taught at face value rather than searching it out on their own. Chances are, the professor who believes in ET was taught aion (and other words) meant a certain thing by others who believed in ET and he never really bothered to check it out for himself. If the only "authorities" on the subject he ever read say that aion means eternal, for example, and he never seriously considered the dissenting position, then that's the side of the fence he's going to come down on.

[Taffy]

yup sis..use that verse at the end of me page, The AGE of darkness,( the END of the WORLD) behind the veil,

Hbr 3:15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.


Hbr 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.


Hbr 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? [was it] not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?


Hbr 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?


Hbr 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief

Amen!  :bigGrin: That verse was actually the first "go round" I had with Ray smith remember? I used the WORD eternity instead of obscurity (or something like that) I forget actually but didnt matter either way because you show the point of it not being an "end all" thing as the first verse seems to "imply".
Gosh, do you recall the other word? Or recall that first mail that was put up on his site, that was way back some years ago before we got kicked off  :grin:

yeah Twas a few yrs back, He didnt take to nicely to it, But Heck ,Thats Ray,... :icon_flower:  yeah and Kicked off later, for me even to suggest how scripture shows Peter as example of the futility of the Flesh...but there ya Go :icon_flower:

[Taffy]

But the principle is the same.  Knowledge is not truth in the sense that truth is a person, not just an accumulation of facts.  My point was that the Pharisees, Scribes and Saducees spent their lives dividing the word of Truth . . and yet they couldn't recognize it as it stood before their eyes.

And that still applies to me as well.  I've said this before somewhere else, but it's true here as well.  It's not about knowing "about" God.  It's about living "in" Him and He in me.

Hi Nat, :icon_flower:

:icon_flower:

[Taffy]

Hi Tony :icon_flower:

Good to see you still about Bud  :thumbsup: