Everlasting

[eaglesway]

my point is that olam has an unseen ending sometimes.

[Seth]

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.

But I do think, based on the mysterious nature of olam, it wouldn't be secure to translate it as "eternal" either. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a single word that neatly defines olam at all. Western culture, or at least American culture, seems to be uncomfortable with the unknown. We want answers. The word forever or eternal seems to be a plum answer for a concept that has more mystery built into it.

[Seth]

my point is that olam has an unseen ending sometimes.

:iagree:

[eaglesway]

Another point is that the greek translations arent perfect :o)

[Seth]

I don't know what you mean by translations. Are you saying that there is definitely an original Hebrew NT manuscript that we don't know about for all the books of the NT?

If so, personally I don't believe that until I see proof. I believe the Apostles wrote in Greek until I see real reason to believe otherwise, other than just a belief.

[gregoryfl]

This will be going off the subject, but I happen to believe that the Greek manuscripts come from an Aramaic source text. Do we have an original of it? Of course not, not anymore than we have an original Hebrew source text. The vast majority of Greek and Aramaic manuscripts date centuries after the original was written. The reason I believe that the Greek is a very early translation of an Aramaic original is because of many cases of internal evidence, based on the differences in manuscript families which can be explained by the Aramaic. That is all I will say about this here, so as not to get off on another topic away from the op.

Here are the evidences I have been finding so far, as I read through and compare the Aramaic with the Greek:

http://www.originsofhebrew.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18

Ronen

[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.

But I do think, based on the mysterious nature of olam, it wouldn't be secure to translate it as "eternal" either. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a single word that neatly defines olam at all. Western culture, or at least American culture, seems to be uncomfortable with the unknown. We want answers. The word forever or eternal seems to be a plum answer for a concept that has more mystery built into it.

I agree that I would not want forever or everlasting to be unilaterally translated for olam or aionios. I am saying tho, that we really should not speak so authoritarian about what aion means, and that it can never mean eternal or forever because it comes close in certain cases......closer than anything else in English anyway.

it certainly means more than "age-during"- sometimes. Sometimes age during is ok, depends on the context.

But aion definitely comes from olam. whatevver you think olam means- thats the word that should replace forever and everlasting- the problem is the quantitative element of olam changes according to what it is quantifying, and it is always fuzzy  :laugh:

[eaglesway]

The greek texts are all translations. Not much if any of the NT was actually originally written in Greek.

[WhiteWings]

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.

That we are trying to figure out. Don't we? :winkgrin:

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.

Some of those scholars see ET others UR and yet other ED.  That fact alone proves to me not all scholars are equally skilled and/or unbiased

If a scholar is writing a new lexicon it often has to fit what he/she already believes. A lexicon/dictionary is just a list of words with the meaning society gives/gave to them. But to be able to do that you need to know what those ancient people were actually thinking. Imo it makes a great difference if the scholar is an ET or UR. Both minds are geared into a certain way of thinking and it quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy so to speak.

[Seth]

The greek texts are all translations. Not much if any of the NT was actually originally written in Greek.

Personally I disagree with this until I see proof.

[gregoryfl]

I don't know what you mean by translations. Are you saying that there is definitely an original Hebrew NT manuscript that we don't know about for all the books of the NT?

If so, personally I don't believe that until I see proof. I believe the Apostles wrote in Greek until I see real reason to believe otherwise, other than just a belief.

Well, the Vatican has not seen fit to allow this to be seen in the public, but here is a post I gave a while ago on another message board concerning an early date for the Gospels in Aramaic:

"It is often said that there are no early copies of any of the 1st century writings in Aramaic, so therefore they must not exist. There is a manuscript of the four gospels held at the vatican, which was documented in the book I have linked to below, and at the end of that manuscript is a description showing who handwrote the manuscript, and what year it was completed in. This gives evidence for a date of 78AD of the 4 gospels in the Syriac (Aramaic) language. To see an online scan of the book...

Go to this link http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/CUA/id/115117
on the right side click on volume 2...
click on Back Matter...
click on Manuscripts in the Vatican Library
click on Codices Syriaci
click on -486
This takes to that page, where if you scroll down a bit you will see aramaic script on the right side, with a translation after it. You will be able to note the words (Christi 78). The translation of this text from Latin into English is:

Absolutus est sanctus iste liber Feria quinta, die 18. Canun prioris (hoc est, Decembris) Anno Graecorum 389 (Christi 78.) propria manu Achaei Apostoli, socii Mar Maris Discipuli Mar Adaei Apostoli, cujus oratio nobiscum sit Amen.

Translation of the Syriac:
This Holy Book was finished on the 5th day in the week, the 18th in December of the year 389 of the Greeks (78 AD). Handwritten by the hand of the apostle AHay friend of Mor Aday the Apostle; his prayer be with us. Amen.

Hopefully, as with the DSS, we may actually get to see the manuscript, and who knows what else, one day soon. :) This could be one of the 'Secret Archives' the Vatican refuses to let be seen. Note they have such a link on their website if you look at the bottom left of their page."

Ronen

[WhiteWings]

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.

I think beyond the horizon is the best translation because 'olam' is  like a secret only God knows. God can look over the horizon. We can't.

Ronen, where are you when needed?  :laugh:

[eaglesway]

Do you think Peter wrote his epistles in Greek? James?


Hades is your proof.

No apostle, and especially not Jesus, would say Hades for Sheol.

[Seth]

Do you think Peter wrote his epistles in Greek? James?


Hades is your proof.

No apostle, and especially not Jesus, would say Hades for Sheol.

I believe they were all written in Greek, until I see more proof than that. From all that I have seen both Sheol and hades have the same root meaning, unseen.

[gregoryfl]

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.

I think beyond the horizon is the best translation because 'olam' is  like a secret only God knows. God can look over the horizon. We can't.

Ronen, where are you when needed?  :laugh:

Hehe, I already posted about this. olam simply means 'horizon'. When prefixed with a lamed, it is an indication of time 'to the horizon'. If they wanted to indicate time beyond that, they would say l'olam wa'ed meaning 'to horizon and beyond' or 'further.' Pretty simple, actually :)

[Seth]

I don't know what you mean by translations. Are you saying that there is definitely an original Hebrew NT manuscript that we don't know about for all the books of the NT?

If so, personally I don't believe that until I see proof. I believe the Apostles wrote in Greek until I see real reason to believe otherwise, other than just a belief.

Well, the Vatican has not seen fit to allow this to be seen in the public, but here is a post I gave a while ago on another message board concerning an early date for the Gospels in Aramaic:

"It is often said that there are no early copies of any of the 1st century writings in Aramaic, so therefore they must not exist. There is a manuscript of the four gospels held at the vatican, which was documented in the book I have linked to below, and at the end of that manuscript is a description showing who handwrote the manuscript, and what year it was completed in. This gives evidence for a date of 78AD of the 4 gospels in the Syriac (Aramaic) language. To see an online scan of the book...

Go to this link http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/CUA/id/115117
on the right side click on volume 2...
click on Back Matter...
click on Manuscripts in the Vatican Library
click on Codices Syriaci
click on -486
This takes to that page, where if you scroll down a bit you will see aramaic script on the right side, with a translation after it. You will be able to note the words (Christi 78). The translation of this text from Latin into English is:

Absolutus est sanctus iste liber Feria quinta, die 18. Canun prioris (hoc est, Decembris) Anno Graecorum 389 (Christi 78.) propria manu Achaei Apostoli, socii Mar Maris Discipuli Mar Adaei Apostoli, cujus oratio nobiscum sit Amen.

Translation of the Syriac:
This Holy Book was finished on the 5th day in the week, the 18th in December of the year 389 of the Greeks (78 AD). Handwritten by the hand of the apostle AHay friend of Mor Aday the Apostle; his prayer be with us. Amen.

Hopefully, as with the DSS, we may actually get to see the manuscript, and who knows what else, one day soon. :) This could be one of the 'Secret Archives' the Vatican refuses to let be seen. Note they have such a link on their website if you look at the bottom left of their page."

Ronen

Well, if that is true, I would like to to see it for myself and have it tested and examined. But for now, that is not enough for me to go on.

[eaglesway]

I am not saying paul didnt write his epistles to the greeks in greek, I dont know. But the letters themselves were transcribed and translated even so from one version of greek to another, and there discrepancioes between the different major Greek texts. Peter and James certainly wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew. The letter to the Hebrews was like written in Aramaic/hebrew.

[WhiteWings]

In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time.

I think that's not correct because the remaining life time of a slave isn't really very distant.

Exod 21:6 (HRB2012)
6 his master shall bring him to Elohim, and one shall bring him to the door, or to the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever/olam.

I have to look it up but there is even a 3 day olam IIRC


(BTW I see no everlasting)

[gregoryfl]

Do you think Peter wrote his epistles in Greek? James?


Hades is your proof.

No apostle, and especially not Jesus, would say Hades for Sheol.

I believe they were all written in Greek, until I see more proof than that. From all that I have seen both Sheol and hades have the same root meaning, unseen.

Actually, Sheol means 'to ask'. This is seen also in the poetic sections in which sheol is said to never be satisfied because it constantly was inquiring to get more victims.

[WhiteWings]

Hades is clearly erroneous. Totally and absolutely.

What exactly do you mean by that?
That the Greek religion concerning Hades is false (it is) or also that the original manuscripts never contained the word Hades.

If so, what about Rev 9:11 and Job 41:1? Bot contain names of pagan gods.

[eaglesway]

There is no PROOF of any of these things. The Romans burned the library in Alexandria and any other library that they did not control. But common sense tells me that if Paul wrote in greek, that doesnt mean he was thinking like a Greek, so we have to give high regard to the Hebrew mind set when things are not totally clear.

I think all the translation, Latin, Greek, what little Aramaic there may be, are probably pretty good, but i know they are not perfect because they are not completely the same, just read Scofield. You see there are some discrepancies that everyone knows about. They are usually annotated in any study bible.

But I assure you, a very simple, totally verifiable study can prove that Hades is an unsuitable translation of sheol, by any account. I seriously doubt that Jesus ever said the word, and I seriously doubt He taught in Greek.

[eaglesway]

Yes Gregory, and this is a good point because in producing a translation that is understandable and renders the proper meaning to the mind of the reader, you can't always put the root meaning of the word, because that word, regardless of its root, has come to mean something particular in that culture. sheol means to ask but it came, among the Jews to mean "the grave" or a representative phrase for the place of the dead. The words we use to translate should reveal the thought in the mind of the speaker in the time he spoke to the reader in the time he reads- whatever the words.


O Death, where is thy sting, O to ask, where is thy victory?

[WhiteWings]

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.

Ok, I won't use the word never   :winkgrin:
I'll just ask you for an example that shows is can also mean everlasting or even eternal.

God of the ages/olam doesn't convince me for the reason I gave earlier.
The Benner definition you quoted also states the meaning is not everlasting.
Of course you can understand "beyond the horizon" as endlessly far beyond the horizon...... :laugh:

[eaglesway]

Hades is clearly erroneous. Totally and absolutely.

What exactly do you mean by that?
That the Greek religion concerning Hades is false (it is) or also that the original manuscripts never contained the word Hades.

If so, what about Rev 9:11 and Job 41:1? Bot contain names of pagan gods.

The word Hades is an insertion. the word Jesus used was sheol- certainly. For Hades to be consistently used rather than "the grave", is do to some early Helenization of the gospel- they didn t have a sheol so they used their own Hades.

Every word produces a thought.

The word Hades never produced the thought in a hearers mind, that was in in Jesus' mind when He said, sheol. It is an evidence of some Helenization in the process of translating(or transcribing if you really think all the scriptures were given in Greek)- just as the Romans did in the Latin Vulgate and the English with the King James.


:2c:

[eaglesway]

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.

Ok, I won't use the word never  :sigh:
I'll just ask you for an example that shows is can also mean everlasting or even eternal.

God of the ages/olam doesn't convince me for the reason I gave earlier.
The Benner definition you quoted also states the meaning is not everlasting.
Of course you can understand "beyond the horizon" as endlessly far beyond the horizon...... :laugh:

In the case of God, I do believe it means endlessly beyond the horizon. God is eternal, and you are misunderstanding Brenner. He saying that many people believe"olam" means forever, or an endless stream of time. He is saying it means more than that- he is not saying however that the "olam" cannot be applied to endlessness- which in English we call forever.

To me it is clear that owlam elohe in Isaiah 40 could be properly understood as the everlasting or eternal God. i have no problem with it at all. I think it renders the thought in the mind of the speaker(Isaiah) in the time he spoke. But that's all for me for now- I'm gonna hit de hay y'all, Grace and Peace :o)