Everlasting

[eaglesway]

It is really not all that complicated. In the case of the New Testamnent- most of the words were spoken by Hebrews, (if not all) and there is a tremendous amount of quotation from the Old Testament as well.

Gregoryfl(Ronen) is more educated in biblical hebrew than I am, but i am a strong researcher and i use lexicons to study the backgrounds of controversial words and in most cases we know clearly what the Hebrew word is/was. because we definitely have the OT in hebrew and aramaic.

For instance-
olam(hebrew) aion(greek)
sheol(hebrew) hades(greek)

Whenever such a clear example is available- hebrew meaning vs greek, the Hebrew is the authority in my opinion.

Also we know that Paul was a "Hebrew of Hebrews- a Pharisee of Pharisees" so we can be assured that he spoke from a Hebrew mindset- He was not educated by the Greeks, he was educated in the law by the rabbi's etc and then received the whole counsel of God directly from Jesus through the Spirit.

He wrote most of the NT.

Ok, so I think we may be talking about different things. I am not talking about meaning of words, but more explanation of concepts. For example, when Jesus said, that those who blaspheme the spirit have no forgiveness unto the age but are in danger of aionios judgment, that might be read in Hebrew as have no forgiveness olam, but are in danger of olam judgment. I think the Greek explanation of the concepts Jesus spoke about using two words (aion - noun, aionios - adjective), rather than one, provides clarity whereas it is possible for English translators to not be as clear as an ancient Hebrew native speaker as to what the intended meaning is.

Yes, I guess we are. What I am saying is that true biblical scholars look into the depths of what we say. But we often just parrot what we hear- even in UR.

But true biblical scholar's know that translation, to be effective, must come from the source. "olam", in my opinion, better defines Jesus concepts than aion because Jesus thought "oklam" as a jew speaking Hebrew most likely or Aramaic.

The argument that I often hear, that aion never means froever, or eternal, is a weak argument, because in the mind of the speaker(Jesus, or Paul) it often DID mean forever or eternal. Olam would allow for that. aion does not. To tell someone who has studied the languages of antiiquity that that is not the case is weak scholarship and more of a bliuff than a solid representation of the thoughts of the speaker.

The only true translation is the one that reveals the mind of the speaker to the mind of the hearer.

We start systematizing theology and the next thing you know we dont want to hear when we are off a bit, or flat out wrong about something, and by that I mean- we are right about UR but some of our arguments for it are unnecessary and weak in terms of scholarship. Of course this is only my opinion.

[Seth]

Can you explain what you mean by "correctly translated?" Do we have an original Aramaic source for the Greek manuscripts? If the Greek manuscripts are only partially authoritative, how do we decide which words and phrases stay and go?

The Greek phrases are usually (very) good. If they are translated back one-on-one to Hebrew we get grammatically correct Hebrew. Often including idioms.
But a lexicon goes a long way....
Imo the only correct usage of lexicons is this:
a] Look up the English word in a Greek lexicon.
b] Figure out the matching Hebrew word.
c] Then only use the Hebrew lexicon for the definition of the word. Totally ignore the Greek definitions.

It's often totally impossible to translate between languages. So the translators picked words that matched as good as possible.
I'll try to explain with a made up example.
House in Greek can mean A, B, C, D, E, F and G
House in Hebrew can mean C, D, E, H, I and J
The red definitions overlap. The translation is as good as possible. But not perfect.
As long as we only use the red definition all is fine. They are God inspired. But A, B, F and G are not.

To make it worse words can't always understood without knowing the culture.
For example, when a father disciplines his son with strong words in some cultures the father says "Look at me when I talk to you!". It has the meaning of, if you look down you are not listening to me. In other cultures bowing the head is submitted. and lifting the head rebellion.

I agree, translation is a very interpretive thing and very difficult. I think the usage of "translation" threw me off, because i thought it meant that the Greek manuscripts were translated from a different source text ( ie literally translated). As far as I know, the Greek NT is the original and has no Aramaic source text as far as we know. Unless there is something I am not aware of, in which case I would be very interested in knowing what the source text is. As far as I know, the earliest dated manuscripts we have are written in Greek, not translated from Aramaic, though the concepts taught therein are derived from Hebrew concepts from the OT.

[WhiteWings]

IMO, "Olam" can mean eternal, when it is attached to the life of God, who has no beginning or end.

I'm not so sure about that. Not the endlesness of God but that olam ever is attached the duration of His life.
I'm just guessing; I think your reply will be:

Rom 16:26 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 16:26 yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience -"


My reply to that would be that everlasting/eonian is not about the lifespan of God.
It merely tells us He's the ruler/owner of the eons He created.

:2c:

Hi ww. My reply would be that the word Olam is used hundreds of times in the OT..... some of them in direct connection to the life of God, for instance in Isaiah 40:28 the  "olam elohe"

28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God(olam elohe), the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

I think I can just copy and paste my previous reply as an answer.

Maybe Ronen can chip in on this one. "...ends of the earth..." sounds like horizon to me. I've seen the rabbi's defining olam as beyond the horizon.

[eaglesway]

I agree, I think they are usually good. I also think the English is usually good, But there are exceptions. I use a lexicon in exactly the way you described- and it is only a percentage of what i do to get at the roots of a critical word or verse.

The idea however that the greeks were "inspired" to use "Hades" for sheol is erroneous. Hades was a popular concept. it was a part of an existing and excepted cosmology of the greatest culture in the world at that time and for a thousand years before Christ.

No small thing to put it in the scriptures as representative of a concept that was TOTALLY FOREIGN to it outside of the idea of "where the dead go". There was no corresponding concept in the mind of the speakers(Jesus paul etc). They knew whatr Sheol really was, and it wasnt Hades- or anything like it.

Do we think this is THE ONLY PLACE GREEK PHILOSOPHY INTERCEPTED THE TRANSLATION OF SCRIPTURE?

Why would we think that?

[Seth]

It is really not all that complicated. In the case of the New Testamnent- most of the words were spoken by Hebrews, (if not all) and there is a tremendous amount of quotation from the Old Testament as well.

Gregoryfl(Ronen) is more educated in biblical hebrew than I am, but i am a strong researcher and i use lexicons to study the backgrounds of controversial words and in most cases we know clearly what the Hebrew word is/was. because we definitely have the OT in hebrew and aramaic.

For instance-
olam(hebrew) aion(greek)
sheol(hebrew) hades(greek)

Whenever such a clear example is available- hebrew meaning vs greek, the Hebrew is the authority in my opinion.

Also we know that Paul was a "Hebrew of Hebrews- a Pharisee of Pharisees" so we can be assured that he spoke from a Hebrew mindset- He was not educated by the Greeks, he was educated in the law by the rabbi's etc and then received the whole counsel of God directly from Jesus through the Spirit.

He wrote most of the NT.

Ok, so I think we may be talking about different things. I am not talking about meaning of words, but more explanation of concepts. For example, when Jesus said, that those who blaspheme the spirit have no forgiveness unto the age but are in danger of aionios judgment, that might be read in Hebrew as have no forgiveness olam, but are in danger of olam judgment. I think the Greek explanation of the concepts Jesus spoke about using two words (aion - noun, aionios - adjective), rather than one, provides clarity whereas it is possible for English translators to not be as clear as an ancient Hebrew native speaker as to what the intended meaning is.

Yes, I guess we are. What I am saying is that true biblical scholars look into the depths of what we say. But we often just parrot what we hear- even in UR.

But true biblical scholar's know that translation, to be effective, must come from the source. "olam", in my opinion, better defines Jesus concepts than aion because Jesus thought "oklam" as a jew speaking Hebrew most likely or Aramaic.

The argument that I often hear, that aion never means froever, or eternal, is a weak argument, because in the mind of the speaker(Jesus, or Paul) it often DID mean forever or eternal. Olam would allow for that. aion does not. To tell someone who has studied the languages of antiiquity that that is not the case is weak scholarship and more of a bliuff than a solid representation of the thoughts of the speaker.

The only true translation is the one that reveals the mind of the speaker to the mind of the hearer.

We start systematizing theology and the next thing you know we dont want to hear when we are off a bit, or flat out wrong about something, and by that I mean- we are right about UR but some of our arguments for it are unnecessary and weak in terms of scholarship. Of course this is only my opinion.

In the case of olam, because it follows with "generation to generation" I personally believe that the intended usage concerns ages or succession of ages (generations being representations of ages). So when I see olam Elohim, to be I think it is talking about his generational presence in time. That's just how I see it at the present time.

[Seth]

I agree, I think they are usually good. I also think the English is usually good, But there are exceptions. I use a lexicon in exactly the way you described- and it is only a percentage of what i do to get at the roots of a critical word or verse.

The idea however that the greeks were "inspired" to use "Hades" for sheol is erroneous. Hades was a popular concept. it was a part of an existing and excepted cosmology of the greatest culture in the world at that time and for a thousand years before Christ.

No small thing to put it in the scriptures as representative of a concept that was TOTALLY FOREIGN to it outside of the idea of "where the dead go". There was no corresponding concept in the mind of the speakers(Jesus paul etc). They knew whatr Sheol really was, and it wasnt Hades- or anything like it.

Do we think this is THE ONLY PLACE GREEK PHILOSOPHY INTERCEPTED THE TRANSLATION OF SCRIPTURE?

Why would we think that?

So, I am just trying to get to what you are saying, because I am not sure I totally get it. Are you saying that the presence of "hades" in the earliest NT manuscripts (not talking about the Septuiguint) are actually erroneous? Wouldn't that make the entire NT record of earliest manuscripts suspect? That would make the entire NT unreliable in my view.

For example, in Acts 2, are you saying the Greek writers falsely substituted the word "hades" into our earliest manuscripts of that book? If so, then how could we trust ANY of our Greek NT manuscripts?

[eaglesway]

IMO, olam does not follow "from generation to generation" in any consistent way. I have read and examined everyone of the nearly 300 and some odd uses of olam in the old testament. it is wide and varied in usage and context, and its exact meaning, as we have already established, is "beyond the horizon". This, to me, however is an example of what I have been saying. We tend to bend the fundamental fact to fit our systematic theology, no matter what persuasion.

To me it is simple. It is patently clear that Hebrew is the bedrock of biblical translation- if we really want to know as close as we can know what was in the mind of the speaker in the time he was speaking.

[eaglesway]

I agree, I think they are usually good. I also think the English is usually good, But there are exceptions. I use a lexicon in exactly the way you described- and it is only a percentage of what i do to get at the roots of a critical word or verse.

The idea however that the greeks were "inspired" to use "Hades" for sheol is erroneous. Hades was a popular concept. it was a part of an existing and excepted cosmology of the greatest culture in the world at that time and for a thousand years before Christ.

No small thing to put it in the scriptures as representative of a concept that was TOTALLY FOREIGN to it outside of the idea of "where the dead go". There was no corresponding concept in the mind of the speakers(Jesus paul etc). They knew whatr Sheol really was, and it wasnt Hades- or anything like it.

Do we think this is THE ONLY PLACE GREEK PHILOSOPHY INTERCEPTED THE TRANSLATION OF SCRIPTURE?

Why would we think that?

So, I am just trying to get to what you are saying, because I am not sure I totally get it. Are you saying that the presence of "hades" in the earliest NT manuscripts (not talking about the Septuiguint) are actually erroneous? Wouldn't that make the entire NT record of earliest manuscripts suspect? That would make the entire NT unreliable in my view.

For example, in Acts 2, are you saying the Greek writers falsely substituted the word "hades" into our earliest manuscripts of that book? If so, then how could we trust ANY of our Greek NT manuscripts?

Hades is clearly erroneous. Totally and absolutely.

But it doesnt make the who;le manuscript suspect. The greek manuscripts also disagree with themselves in areas. Do we throw them all out?
No. We do due diligence in each incident of controversy to use all valid sources to arrive at the truth, hopefully a consensus of truth.

[Seth]

I agree, I think they are usually good. I also think the English is usually good, But there are exceptions. I use a lexicon in exactly the way you described- and it is only a percentage of what i do to get at the roots of a critical word or verse.

The idea however that the greeks were "inspired" to use "Hades" for sheol is erroneous. Hades was a popular concept. it was a part of an existing and excepted cosmology of the greatest culture in the world at that time and for a thousand years before Christ.

No small thing to put it in the scriptures as representative of a concept that was TOTALLY FOREIGN to it outside of the idea of "where the dead go". There was no corresponding concept in the mind of the speakers(Jesus paul etc). They knew whatr Sheol really was, and it wasnt Hades- or anything like it.

Do we think this is THE ONLY PLACE GREEK PHILOSOPHY INTERCEPTED THE TRANSLATION OF SCRIPTURE?

Why would we think that?

So, I am just trying to get to what you are saying, because I am not sure I totally get it. Are you saying that the presence of "hades" in the earliest NT manuscripts (not talking about the Septuiguint) are actually erroneous? Wouldn't that make the entire NT record of earliest manuscripts suspect? That would make the entire NT unreliable in my view.

For example, in Acts 2, are you saying the Greek writers falsely substituted the word "hades" into our earliest manuscripts of that book? If so, then how could we trust ANY of our Greek NT manuscripts?

Hades is clearly erroneous. Totally and absolutely.

But it doesnt make the who;le manuscript suspect. The greek manuscripts also disagree with themselves in areas. Do we throw them all out?
No. We do due diligence in each incident of controversy to use all valid sources to arrive at the truth, hopefully a consensus of truth.

Don't the words hades and Sheol share the same root meaning?

Do you believe that the Greek manuscripts are translations from another text?

[Seth]

IMO, olam does not follow "from generation to generation" in any consistent way. I have read and examined everyone of the nearly 300 and some odd uses of olam in the old testament. it is wide and varied in usage and context, and its exact meaning, as we have already established, is "beyond the horizon". This, to me, however is an example of what I have been saying. We tend to bend the fundamental fact to fit our systematic theology, no matter what persuasion.

To me it is simple. It is patently clear that Hebrew is the bedrock of biblical translation- if we really want to know as close as we can know what was in the mind of the speaker in the time he was speaking.

From what Ronen posted and from other sources I have read, it actually means leading to the horizon, or up to the horizon, as far as the limited eye can see, not necessarily beyond the horizon. Beyond the horizon is a new concept to me with regard to olam.

[eaglesway]

Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings
Eternity ~ olam
By Jeff A. Benner

In the ancient Hebrew words that are used to described distance and direction are also used to describe time. The Hebrew word for east is qedem and literally means "the direction of the rising sun". We use north as our major orientation such as in maps which are always oriented to the north. While we use the north as our major direction the Hebrews used the east and all directions are oriented to this direction. For example one of the words for south is teyman from the root yaman meaning "to the right". The word qedem is also the word for the past. In the ancient Hebrew mind the past is in front of you while the future is behind you, the opposite way we think of the past and future. The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.

[eaglesway]

I could say, "hidden" and be correct, the definition of olam is in that realm of what goes beyond what we can see, but i like beyond the horizon, which I have seen in several places in commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons. It depends on the authority you want to use. But it is always about out of view, or Barely in view- not a set of parameters.

[Seth]

Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings
Eternity ~ olam
By Jeff A. Benner

In the ancient Hebrew words that are used to described distance and direction are also used to describe time. The Hebrew word for east is qedem and literally means "the direction of the rising sun". We use north as our major orientation such as in maps which are always oriented to the north. While we use the north as our major direction the Hebrews used the east and all directions are oriented to this direction. For example one of the words for south is teyman from the root yaman meaning "to the right". The word qedem is also the word for the past. In the ancient Hebrew mind the past is in front of you while the future is behind you, the opposite way we think of the past and future. The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.

"A distant time and beyond" could mean the Industrial Age and beyond to the 80s.

Seems to me that Christ's use of "this aion or the coming one" could have that meaning, just like with generation to generation.

[eaglesway]

From Jewish Roots.net

A Look at the Hebrew Word Olam:


The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.(1)

[Seth]

I could say, "hidden" and be correct, the definition of olam is in that realm of what goes beyond what we can see, but i like beyond the horizon, which I have seen in several places in commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons. It depends on the authority you want to use. But it is always about out of view, or Barely in view- not a set of parameters.

Right, but when the Greek manuscript says that there is a judgment "within" an age. Or the disciples use the term "this age" I think they are talking about an age in the sense of having an end, such as an eon, but that we just don't see when the end point is.

[Seth]

From Jewish Roots.net

A Look at the Hebrew Word Olam:


The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.(1)

The bolded part is what I have understood to this point, that olam is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time the never ends. The author seems to be rejecting that notion in favor of a time which is very distant and unknowable, but that should not be understood as that which has no end. How I have understood that in relation to God is that it means he is always with us through out time and ages, not necessarily as an adjective that explains his personal immortal quality as having no beginning or end.

In other words, to translate it as eternal is to say you know it has no end, eve though the concept of olam is to not know, that such a thing is hazy etc.

[eaglesway]

Not really, if you read it all, he is saying is that a continual span of time is not the meaning.

The meaning "hidden", or "beyond the hoizon is a statement of the indeterminate nature of olam, which must alweays in each incidence of its use, be defined with the subject it is attached to- except when you are looking only at olam, which is useless, because you can't see it  :laugh:

[WhiteWings]

I agree, translation is a very interpretive thing and very difficult. I think the usage of "translation" threw me off, because i thought it meant that the Greek manuscripts were translated from a different source text ( ie literally translated). As far as I know, the Greek NT is the original and has no Aramaic source text as far as we know. Unless there is something I am not aware of, in which case I would be very interested in knowing what the source text is. As far as I know, the earliest dated manuscripts we have are written in Greek, not translated from Aramaic, though the concepts taught therein are derived from Hebrew concepts from the OT.

My point is/was, most of the Greek is translated from Hebrew.
I think (hardly) nobody knows there were or weren't written Hebrew manuscripts.
But that's not really important. Translation can also be done inside your head.
If you speak more languages than English you will know that other language not just differs in the words they use but also the order of the words. Again a made up example.
Language A: House big that is. --> Correct Hebrew.
Language B: That is a big house. --> Correct Greek.

According to linguists the Greek NT is  a combination of A and B. Greek words placed in Hebrew order. As I wrote even idioms are translated one-on-one. Greek scholars had major problems with certain verses because they simply made zero sense. Idioms  can't be translated one-on-one. Do you have a clue what "I rains pipe stems" (the long part of a pipe you smoke tabacco in) means? It's the Dutch version of it's raining cat's and dogs. Which makes zero sense in Dutch.

That's translating too. It also means grammer rules no longer apply because noun comes before verb may be just the other way around in the original language. Add to that the fact that the NT is written by Jews who wrote about Jewish religious matter with Jewish examples and references to Jewish religious stuff.

So the only thing Greek about the NT is the words. Syntax, thought patterns etc are all Hebrew. Yeah, sometimes there is pure Greek concept. Hades. Or Apollyon.

An added danger is that lexicons also list words that were not in use when a certain book was written. For example 'torture' is a perfect translation for torment. It was understood that way by people.... about 2 centuries after the NT was written.
Likewise the lexicons Moses and Jesus used likely weren't identical.
:2c:

[eaglesway]

Certainly he is not saying it is a generation or a clear definite age with a beginning and and end, of its self. As with the example I gave in Isaiah 40;

Could anyone really think that means the "generation transcending God, or the God of generations, or the God of ages? I don't. For one thing, there is a word for generation in Hebrew. It is not olam.

My whole point is we cant get arrogant and tell people jesus was saying aion and that the words eternal and forever are never correct, because in translating to ENGLISH- sometimes those words can be correct, or as close to correct as we can get in English- coming from olam.

I am not so much trying to debate the meaning of olam to exactness. i am simply saying AION COMES FROM OLAM. IT DOESNT ALWAYS MEAN A PERIOD OF TIME WITH A BEGINNING AND AN END> SO WHY DO WE INSIST ON TEACHING THAT AS IF IT WERE ABSOLUTELYT CLEAR- when it isnt by any means that clear :o)

it insults their intelligence in my opinion and it is not based on secure scholarship.

[Seth]

Not really, if you read it all, he is saying is that a continual span of time is not the meaning.

The meaning "hidden", or "beyond the hoizon is a statement of the indeterminate nature of olam, which must alweays in each incidence of its use, be defined with the subject it is attached to- except when you are looking only at olam, which is useless, because you can't see it  :laugh:

Right, a continual span of time is not the meaning. That would mean to me that " eternal"  or forever, even in relation to God would be a wrong translation. The whole concept of olam is that we don't know, so we cannot translate it as forever if we don't know that. That is why I don't understand "olam Elohim" to mean eternal God because that would be presumptuous. It seems to me, to mean more like that God is lord as time passes on into the future, but not a statement on his unending or uncreated nature.

[gregoryfl]

IMO, olam does not follow "from generation to generation" in any consistent way. I have read and examined everyone of the nearly 300 and some odd uses of olam in the old testament. it is wide and varied in usage and context, and its exact meaning, as we have already established, is "beyond the horizon". This, to me, however is an example of what I have been saying. We tend to bend the fundamental fact to fit our systematic theology, no matter what persuasion.

To me it is simple. It is patently clear that Hebrew is the bedrock of biblical translation- if we really want to know as close as we can know what was in the mind of the speaker in the time he was speaking.

From what Ronen posted and from other sources I have read, it actually means leading to the horizon, or up to the horizon, as far as the limited eye can see, not necessarily beyond the horizon. Beyond the horizon is a new concept to me with regard to olam.

The hebraic way of expressing the idea of beyond the horizon is to say לעלם ועד (l'olam w'ed), which means 'to horizon and further'. And I see that this was already posted in a quote above. So I will share this as a second witness to it. :)

[eaglesway]

I agree, translation is a very interpretive thing and very difficult. I think the usage of "translation" threw me off, because i thought it meant that the Greek manuscripts were translated from a different source text ( ie literally translated). As far as I know, the Greek NT is the original and has no Aramaic source text as far as we know. Unless there is something I am not aware of, in which case I would be very interested in knowing what the source text is. As far as I know, the earliest dated manuscripts we have are written in Greek, not translated from Aramaic, though the concepts taught therein are derived from Hebrew concepts from the OT.

My point is/was, most of the Greek is translated from Hebrew.
I think (hardly) nobody knows there were or weren't written Hebrew manuscripts.
But that's not really important. Translation can also be done inside your head.
If you speak more languages than English you will know that other language not just differs in the words they use but also the order of the words. Again a made up example.
Language A: House big that is. --> Correct Hebrew.
Language B: That is a big house. --> Correct Greek.

According to linguists the Greek NT is  a combination of A and B. Greek words placed in Hebrew order. As I wrote even idioms are translated one-on-one. Greek scholars had major problems with certain verses because they simply made zero sense. Idioms  can't be translated one-on-one. Do you have a clue what "I rains pipe stems" (the long part of a pipe you smoke tabacco in) means? It's the Dutch version of it's raining cat's and dogs. Which makes zero sense in Dutch.

That's translating too. It also means grammer rules no longer apply because noun comes before verb may be just the other way around in the original language. Add to that the fact that the NT is written by Jews who wrote about Jewish religious matter with Jewish examples and references to Jewish religious stuff.

So the only thing Greek about the NT is the words. Syntax, thought patterns etc are all Hebrew. Yeah, sometimes there is pure Greek concept. Hades. Or Apollyon.

An added danger is that lexicons also list words that were not in use when a certain book was written. For example 'torture' is a perfect translation for torment. It was understood that way by people.... about 2 centuries after the NT was written.
Likewise the lexicons Moses and Jesus used likely weren't identical.
:2c:

Agreed. The problem comes in when you start to translate abstract or culturally obscure concepts. As with sheol(hebrew truth to hades(Greek myth) to inferno(Latin myth) to hell(Norse myth).

The philosophy of the Greeks was diametrically opposed to the God of Israel  and to Messiah.

[WhiteWings]

The idea however that the greeks were "inspired" to use "Hades" for sheol is erroneous.

I didn't say the Greeks were inspired. At least not by God.
I see it more as satan giving his twist to God's things and then mold it into a false religion.

No small thing to put it in the scriptures as representative of a concept that was TOTALLY FOREIGN to it outside of the idea of "where the dead go". There was no corresponding concept in the mind of the speakers(Jesus paul etc). They knew whatr Sheol really was, and it wasnt Hades- or anything like it.

But still the concept was used. Partly as a teaching and partly as mocking the weak god of the pagan religion.

[Seth]

IMO, olam does not follow "from generation to generation" in any consistent way. I have read and examined everyone of the nearly 300 and some odd uses of olam in the old testament. it is wide and varied in usage and context, and its exact meaning, as we have already established, is "beyond the horizon". This, to me, however is an example of what I have been saying. We tend to bend the fundamental fact to fit our systematic theology, no matter what persuasion.

To me it is simple. It is patently clear that Hebrew is the bedrock of biblical translation- if we really want to know as close as we can know what was in the mind of the speaker in the time he was speaking.

From what Ronen posted and from other sources I have read, it actually means leading to the horizon, or up to the horizon, as far as the limited eye can see, not necessarily beyond the horizon. Beyond the horizon is a new concept to me with regard to olam.

The hebraic way of expressing the idea of beyond the horizon is to say לעלם ועד (l'olam w'ed), which means 'to horizon and further'.

Question: is the idea of "beyond the horizon" contained solely within the word "olam."

[eaglesway]

My point is not to get an exact meaning of olam. My point is that aion- as defined by universalists, is not always accurate to olam, and that olam does not necessarily fit in the parameters that UR teachers have given aion.