A friend is putting down dispensations use this particular word........everlasting. I was under the impression that it meant a period of time..............is it a coin toss?
Quote
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Helps when you don't just make things up to fit a made up dispensation.
Thanks ed
Quote from: ed on October 08, 2014, 07:33:52 PM
A friend is putting down dispensations use this particular word........everlasting. I was under the impression that it meant a period of time..............is it a coin toss?
Quote
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Helps when you don't just make things up to fit a made up dispensation.
Thanks ed
The problem is the translation. The Hebrew "olam" corresponds to the Greek "aion" both meaning a period of time best translated "eon" with the adjective "eonian.
GEN 17:7 And I set up My covenant between Me and you, and your seed after you, for their generations, for a covenant eonian, to become your Elohim and your seed's after you.
GEN 17:8 And I give to you and to your seed after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for a holding eonian. And I become their Elohim.
http://www.saviourofall.org/charts/ChartOfJudgments.html
Here is a video I made back in 2011 that helps us see that by comparing the root letters making up the Hebrew word with other words sharing the same root, as well as by letting the meaning of the letters define the word for us, we can determine the meaning, such that by taking a child outside they can understand the concept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiXN4t9oMS8&list=PL46821BED906A4CDB&index=8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiXN4t9oMS8&list=PL46821BED906A4CDB&index=8)
Right, an eon is an indefinite "period" of time that can be the length of a man's life or the coming millenium, but the point is that it's not infinite time. I've seen that analogy of the horizon before.
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 08, 2014, 08:01:37 PM
Here is a video I made back in 2011 that helps us see that by comparing the root letters making up the Hebrew word with other words.
While. I agree olam means hidden boyond the horizon, I see some dangers in your system.
The root word fallacy.
http://tentmaker.org/forum/word-studies/the-etymology-fallacy-the-root-word-fallacy-word-study-fallacy/
IDK I have been given given great insight from word/root meanings......the 'Word of God'...
works this way for me..not by man's interprtation....seek the glory of God in it...for example
nice=ignorant....when you seekthe glory of God in it..I can see...the foolishness of God is
wiser then the wisdom of men. same in the case of Able/Nabel which means foolishness.....
seek the glory of God in it....Abel=foolish...perceived of some that it is foolish to seek to
please God[offering] but God's foolishness[the preaching of the cross] is wiser then men...
horizion...hoary[old age/grissled gray hair[maturity....Zion] = how ever much time [eaons]
it takes til all reach the fullness/maturity of Jesus Christ[the eternal perfect state]
at the same time...the idioms/etc of the people in a time frame[age] open up understanding
ULTIMATELY IT IS HIM THAT OPENS THE SCRIPTURES TO OUR UNDERSTANDING......and
there is no 'law' or rule that can/would hinder Him in this endeavour....seems there is always
an exception to every 'rule' whether grammatical or whatever......no law but 'LOVE" and
a great freedom to express/exercize it..in manifold ways...
my :2c: ps for years...I would be given dreams...and through an unabridged dictionary
about a foot thick..through definitions and root word...I would be given understanding......
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 11, 2014, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 08, 2014, 08:01:37 PM
Here is a video I made back in 2011 that helps us see that by comparing the root letters making up the Hebrew word with other words.
While. I agree olam means hidden boyond the horizon, I see some dangers in your system.
The root word fallacy.
http://tentmaker.org/forum/word-studies/the-etymology-fallacy-the-root-word-fallacy-word-study-fallacy/
I believe that there are indeed dangers with it when it comes to other languages. A funny example comes from 'nylon', which is a combination of 'New York' and 'London', having nothing to do with what nylon actually is. Not so with the Creator's language. It is designed in such as way that each picture making up a word, depending on where it is placed in the word, gives meaning to that word.
I have studied this myself for over 10 years, and the over 6,000 words I have done so far of the 8,000 that are found in the Tanakh all fit this pattern. The changes that have taken place over time that have presented a challenge for study have been concerning similar sounding letter shifts, particularly with samekh and shin (which originally carried one sound, not two). The principle still holds true though, when the original letter is understood and restored to the word that had the shift in it. The root meaning can then be correctly understood.
I believe this is how the Creator originally designed his language, much like the chemical language, where, for example, the constituent parts of water can be written down as H2O. Unless one takes it upon themselves to study this out for themselves, word by word, which most will never do, no one will ever see it for themselves. That is partly why I am sharing what I can of my discoveries and am producing a translation that brings these meanings out, so anyone can, if they so desire, see that there is validity and divine design and purpose to his language.
Ronen
Exactly Sis Shelia !!!
the Word of God is not bound nor is the Holy Spirit to teach us according to His desires and ways :sigh:
I do believe its the lack of faith in Him that keeps so many in the dark about so many matters concerning the Lord God and His plan
searching here t o there for perfect knowledge
But the truth is perfect knowledge Comes from His perfect Love , consider the source :HeartThrob:
John 5 is beautifully said , in any translation , why because its the Spirit of Life in them that is God breathed on us
explaining how we are to go to Him !!
24Timeless truth I speak to you: "Whoever hears my word and trusts in him who has sent me has the eternal Life, and he comes not into judgment, but he moves from death into Life.
25Timeless truth I speak to you: BECAUSE THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY IS THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST
The hour is coming, it is even now, when the dead shall hear the voice of The Son of God, and they who hear shall live.
26For just as The Father has The Life in himself, so he has given also to The Son to have The Life in himself
. 27And he has given him authority to also do judgment because he is The Son of Man.
28Do not be astonished at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the graves shall hear his voice,[ the very tombs of our hearts HE RISES UP ]
29And they shall come out: those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil deeds, to the resurrection of judgment.
30I cannot do anything of my own will, but according to that which I have heard, I judge, and my judgment is just, for I am not seeking my will, but the will of him who has sent Me.
WE are being judged now , it does begin in the house of God which you are apart of ...
31And if I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32There is another who testifies about me, and I know that his testimony, which he testifies of me, is true.
33You sent to Yohannan and he testified concerning the truth.
34But I was not receiving the testimony of a man, but I say these things that you may live.
35He was a blazing and shining lamp, and you were willing to boast about the time in his light.
36But my testimony which is borne to me is greater than Yohannan's, for the works that my Father gave me to finish, those works which I have done testify for me that The Father has sent Me.
37And The Father who has sent me, he testifies of me.
You have never heard his voice and you have not seen his appearance,
38And his word is not abiding in you, because you are not trusting in him whom he has sent.
39Search the scriptures, for in them you hope that you have eternal life, and they testify concerning Me,
40And you are not willing to come to me that eternal life may be yours.
41I do not receive glory from the children of men.!!!!!!!!!!!!
42But I know you, that the love of God is not in you.
43I have come in The Name of my Father and you do not receive me, and if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him.
44How can you believe, who are accepting glory one from another, and you are not seeking the glory of The One God?
45Do you think that I am accusing you before The Father? There is one who accuses you: Moses, the one in whom you hope.
46For if you had trusted Moses, you would also trust me, for he wrote about Me.
47And if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"
the whole word of God is for us believing , all things are yours !!
Quote from: ed on October 08, 2014, 07:33:52 PM
A friend is putting down dispensations use this particular word........everlasting. I was under the impression that it meant a period of time..............is it a coin toss?
Quote
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Helps when you don't just make things up to fit a made up dispensation.
Thanks ed
When you see the word "Olam" in the Bible, it is often paired with the concept of generations. Generations after generations. That's a clue as to how the word is intended to be understood.
Example:
Psalm 100:5
For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures OLAM, and his faithfulness to all generations.
That is not to deny that his steadfast love does not endure forever, in the English sense. But in the sense of the Hebrew, I think it implies a lasting love generationally, through out time and ages upon ages. This would apply to the old covenant and how it is said to be an OLAM covenant. It was applicable to Jews generationally, but did see an end, and eventually Jews were encouraged by the early church to cease under the old covenant and join the new.
Exodus 17:16
Saying, "A hand upon the throne of the Lord! The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."
The war with Amalek could be understood in that sense as an olam war, not eternal in our English sense, but that it has application to be generational.
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 11, 2014, 06:34:18 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 11, 2014, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 08, 2014, 08:01:37 PM
Here is a video I made back in 2011 that helps us see that by comparing the root letters making up the Hebrew word with other words.
While. I agree olam means hidden boyond the horizon, I see some dangers in your system.
The root word fallacy.
http://tentmaker.org/forum/word-studies/the-etymology-fallacy-the-root-word-fallacy-word-study-fallacy/
I believe that there are indeed dangers with it when it comes to other languages. A funny example comes from 'nylon', which is a combination of 'New York' and 'London', having nothing to do with what nylon actually is. Not so with the Creator's language. It is designed in such as way that each picture making up a word, depending on where it is placed in the word, gives meaning to that word.
I have studied this myself for over 10 years, and the over 6,000 words I have done so far of the 8,000 that are found in the Tanakh all fit this pattern. The changes that have taken place over time that have presented a challenge for study have been concerning similar sounding letter shifts, particularly with samekh and shin (which originally carried one sound, not two). The principle still holds true though, when the original letter is understood and restored to the word that had the shift in it. The root meaning can then be correctly understood.
I believe this is how the Creator originally designed his language, much like the chemical language, where, for example, the constituent parts of water can be written down as H2O. Unless one takes it upon themselves to study this out for themselves, word by word, which most will never do, no one will ever see it for themselves. That is partly why I am sharing what I can of my discoveries and am producing a translation that brings these meanings out, so anyone can, if they so desire, see that there is validity and divine design and purpose to his language.
Ronen
Would you mind posting the root word study for "olam", as you see it?
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 01:44:52 AMWould you mind posting the root word study for "olam", as you see it?
The two letter marriage root is
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5638259/ah/lu.png)(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5638259/ah/a.png)
meaning 'to ascend'...from
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5638259/ah/a.png)
'ascend'
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5638259/ah/lu.png)
'lead'
The (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5638259/ah/mo.png) adds the nuance of 'up', as in filling up.
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5638259/ah/mo.png)(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5638259/ah/lu.png)(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5638259/ah/a.png)
conveys the completed picture of ascending up, as far as you can see. That point on earth is what we call the horizon, or, if looking into outer space, the furthest point of it we can see with the naked eye. This is why the word for universe is 'olam' as well.
Those things are all obscure...the details are hidden from view, and that is the picture that captures the meaning of the word olam. With regard to time, it is obscure time, where the details (length) is unknown. With regard to it's use as an adjective, olam life, olam punishment, etc, its source is obscure, (coming from God himself, who is not literally seen).
Another word with the same 3 letters, just pronounced differently, is elem (Strongs 5958). This is one of the words for a youth. Why so? This is referring to someone who is still in the time of obscurity, which is one aspect of young ones before they become adults. The details of who they will become are obscure, hazy, having not come totally to fruition yet.
Ronen
Thank You. In my studies of the word and its usage in context in all the verses of scripture and in several interlinears and lexicons, I had derived this same definition. I really appreciate your posting this- it just gives greater confidence.
I have made the point numerous times, that "olam" does not necessarily mean " a time with a beginning and an end, such as aion is frequently defined. I think reliancce on the words aion and aionios are weak when compared to "olam", and I think it is also a weakness to be hardline about aion, as the word "olam" from which it is translated, must be considered in the context of the subject it is attached to.
IMO, "Olam" can mean eternal, when it is attached to the life of God, who has no beginning or end. It can mean "an age" when attached to future eons which are of long-duration, as it can mean ancient, when attached to times beyond our ability to recall. It can mean "forever", when attached to the life of the saints, which has a beginning but will have no end. It can also mean "other world" or "world to come" when attached to the ages of the resurrection that are "beyond the horiozon"(seen thru a glass darkly) as far as man is concerned. It can mean a time with a beginning and an end, but perhaps and end of indeterminate measure, when attached, for instance to the length of servitude of a bond-slave(do to the inability to know when that slave shall die), or it can mean an age, having a beginning and an end, that is not clearly seen because it is also "beyond the horizon" as far as man is concerned. It is necessarily defined in some measure by each individual context in which it is used.
Biblical scholars that are not of our persuasion may not admit this about "olam", especially when it is connected to the punishments or corrections in the ages to come- but they kno, and can demonstrate that it can mean "eternal" and it can mean "forever", or if not mean exactly- be applied with that understanding given the context.
To me, the stronger argument(unbreakable imo) is to stand on the word "olam", since "aion" has a different meaning actually, depending on the context.
IMO, UR scholars who stand on a strict definition of "aion/aionios" as if it were the true language of God are making a weak argument that actually can inhibit the apologetics of UR when up against sholars who "kno better".
If, in all things, we went to the Hebrew mindset where translation is concerned- we would be way ahead of the game, since no serious seeker will refute that(if they are not serious seekers then no argument is effective anyway).
I personally believe that by translating into Greek, gave the writers more to work with than one word, seeing how Greek has more words than Hebrew. I think Jesus certainly used "aion" in the sense of having definite beginning and end, particularly to the judgment occurring "in the end if an aion" for example. I think the usages of both aion and aionios reveal that concepts are being described in a more specific way rather than having only one word.
I don't think Jesus used "aion".
He inspired the Greek texts to read it though.
Did He inspire the Greek texts to use Hades rather than sheol? or did he inspire the English to use Hell instead of Sheol, or the Latin texts to use Inferno"?
I can't attribute inspiration to error- altho i could be the one in error- but i don't think so ;o)
Do you believe that the Greek manuscripts are authoritative?
Only where the were correctly translated. Wherever the meaning of the Hebrew words that were uttered by hebrews in a Hebrew mind-set can be established- there is a higher authority.
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?
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 07:10:41 AM
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:
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 08:46:46 AM
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.
The parallel statement in another Gospel says that they neither have forgiveness in this age or the coming one. So I think in the Greek it seems clear to me that an age is the intended usage, with a beginning and end, and the Greek, to me, makes it clear what he means.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2014, 08:47:40 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 07:10:41 AM
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.
Personally, I have to agree with WW. That fact does not automatically mean that olam intended meaning is "eternal." The intention of the author could still be that God is olam in the sense of being present from generation to generation (ie age to age) and may not be a comment on his status as eternal.
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 08:33:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 08:56:05 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 08:46:46 AM
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.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2014, 09:07:07 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 08:33:39 AM
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 08:59:44 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2014, 08:47:40 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 07:10:41 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:10:02 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 08:56:05 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 08:46:46 AM
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:17:22 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:17:22 AM
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:28:08 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:17:22 AM
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?
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:25:32 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:33:37 AM
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.
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)
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:37:08 AM
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:39:38 AM
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.
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:
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 09:12:50 AM
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:
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:50:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 09:31:49 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:25:32 AM
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. :)
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2014, 09:55:43 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 09:12:50 AM
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:17:22 AM
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.
QuoteNo 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.
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 12, 2014, 10:02:38 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 09:31:49 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:25:32 AM
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."
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.
my point is that olam has an unseen ending sometimes.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:59:36 AM
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 10:07:46 AM
my point is that olam has an unseen ending sometimes.
:iagree:
Another point is that the greek translations arent perfect :o)
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.
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 (http://www.originsofhebrew.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18)
Ronen
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:59:36 AM
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:
The greek texts are all translations. Not much if any of the NT was actually originally written in Greek.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:10:02 AM
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:
QuoteOlam 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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 10:18:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 10:15:04 AM
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 (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
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 09:31:49 AM
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:
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 10:26:31 AM
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.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2014, 10:26:16 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 09:31:49 AM
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 :)
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 12, 2014, 10:23:50 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 10:15:04 AM
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 (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.
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:33:37 AM
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)
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 10:28:26 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 10:26:31 AM
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.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:28:08 AM
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:59:36 AM
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:
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2014, 10:38:19 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:28:08 AM
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:
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2014, 10:48:42 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:59:36 AM
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)
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 12, 2014, 10:28:56 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2014, 10:26:16 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 09:31:49 AM
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 :)
Shalom master Ronen!
I'm just a 1 finger typing one-on-one translating Dutch guy. I hadn't read your post until I made mine :-)
To make things even more difficult....
http://tentmaker.org/forum/lounge/babyloianour-ot-vs-egyptianlxx-ot/msg172069/#msg172069 (http://tentmaker.org/forum/lounge/babyloianour-ot-vs-egyptianlxx-ot/msg172069/#msg172069)
Quote from: RonenHopefully, as with the DSS, we may actually get to see the manuscript, and who knows what else, one day soon. :)
If you read the book "the DDS deception" you will likely retract that statement. A whole cave of info is heard back because a certain denomination didn't like the DDS oposing their doctrine :winkgrin:
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 10:51:53 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 12, 2014, 10:38:19 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 09:28:08 AM
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.
I certainly agree with Helenization.
It's not without reason I started my idiom thread.
I'm just not sure Hades is inserted in all verses. Not sure as in I truly don't know.
QuoteEvery word produces a thought.
That summarizes my lengthy posts about the importance of keeping the culture in mind when reading a translation.
QuoteThe 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.
I think it's also shortcut to teach people something. There were two options. Teach the Greeks all Jewish stuff like sheol as background/foundation (OT) and then continue talking about the actual NT. Or just use a pagan word and there is enough background to build NT teachings on.
If the latter, there would be nothing wrong with it, because simply put the "hades/death where is your sting" simply implies: Our mighty Saviour crushes your weak god and sets everyone free. An UR verse ridiculing a Greek god.
But the ETs took the ball and focus only on what Hades was to Greeks and ignore its total defeat. On the contrary, in the ET mind the greek god gets control over 95% of creation...
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 12, 2014, 10:35:59 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 10:28:26 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 10:26:31 AM
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.
Why do most Hebrew scholars that I have ever read say it has a meaning of unseen or hidden? Also, is the concept "to ask" that much removed from the concept of "unseen" or "hidden?" I don't think so personally. When you ask something it's because something is unseen. You ask to make it seed.
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 06:29:49 PM
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 12, 2014, 10:35:59 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 10:28:26 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on October 12, 2014, 10:26:31 AM
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.
Why do most Hebrew scholars that I have ever read say it has a meaning of unseen?
For the same reason most scholars assign the meaning of 'eternal', and 'Messianic period', etc, to 'aion'. They are not basing it upon the definition of the word proper, but upon historical (both at the time of writing, and what the word came to mean later) definitions.
In other words, they give 'unseen' as part of the meaning because of the intertestamental period where Sheol was further defined outside of the definition of the word itself, as a complex unseen underworld with two compartments, one for the righteous, and one for the unrighteous. It is reading a Greek idea (which comes from the word Hades) back into its preceeding Hebrew word, Sheol. They attached meanings to the word based on what the understanding CAME to be, just as is still done today with other words, which cause much confusion.
Ronen
The thing about transmission of ideas from culture to culture, is that it requires a pairing of words that share the same, or similar ideas. The concept of "to ask" as a root meaning I don't see as being removed from unseen all that much. So I think the meaning of hades as unseen makes a good correlation. I know the Greeks and Hebrews have some evolved ideas, but that doesn't bother me so much, because I know the correlation being made is not the pagan, Greek idea.
1 Samuel 2:6
"The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to sheol and raises up.
I don't believe that the intended meaning here is "he brings down to the to ask and raises up." I think he is talking about the grave, or the state of death of those who are now unseen. I can see how the root meaning would lend to the idea of the hidden or covered place, but I don't think the root word meaning is what is literally being intended here.
Quote from: ed on October 08, 2014, 07:33:52 PM
A friend is putting down dispensations use this particular word........everlasting. I was under the impression that it meant a period of time..............is it a coin toss?
Quote
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Helps when you don't just make things up to fit a made up dispensation.
Thanks ed
Hi Ed
I found your original post interesting and a Canaanite is a servant /merchant , but the House of God will be nothing but sons of God though Jesus Christ , so the end comes by making them Sons in the new testament , we see this as one of the many workings of God by Jesus Christ and His Cross
I really think a new thing come by the Cross of Jesus Christ many , many wonderful changes
and that is why so many times we see confusion , by making the old as still effective when Jesus Christ come to make all things new
This age of grace is a big deal and change , Jesus was angry with the merchants in the House of God and turned over the tables , saying you have turned MY FATHERS HOUSE into a den of thieves .. we see the merchandising of Gods name daily with those buying and trading and selling His name for profit
and what does God do , but change the times and seasons , till its full/ a stink in the heavens and smoke in His nostrils and than a new thing comes to pass , He will not allow evil in His house its dealt with !!!
I always loved the saying and this too shall pass ,
we look to the end of the old testament and see there will be no Canaanite/ servant merchant / slave to sin / in the house of God
for me that is an end and new beginning Zech 14
not servants but sons Gal 4 : 7 confirms this Wherefore you are
no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Chris
All Nations will Worship the King ...20In that day there will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, "HOLY TO THE LORD." And the cooking pots in the LORD'S house will be like the bowls before the altar. 21Every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the LORD of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them.
And there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts in that day.
How can the land be Canaan without a Canaanite/servant/ merchant in it ?
Canaan is the name of the fourth son of Ham, the youngest son of Noah (Genesis 9:18). Canaan becomes the recipient of a curious curse that makes him the perpetual servant of his two uncles Japheth and Shem. After having survived the flood and their 230 days stay in the ark (40 days of rain, 150 days of floating, 40 days of drying) Noah plants a vineyard, makes wine and gets drunk and lays naked in his tent. Then not Canaan but Ham, the father of Canaan, sees Noah naked and quips about it to Shem and Japheth. The two older brothers walk into their father's tent backwards and cover Noah without looking at him.
When Noah awakes he learns what Ham has done but then lashes out at Canaan, Ham's fourth son. He says that Japheth should become large but live in the tents of Shem, but Canaan should be the servant of all of them. Why Noah gets so upset with Canaan instead of Ham is unknown but later Canaan would give his name to the much coveted country of Canaan and the people who live there. The original Canaanites (an ethically diverse group of people) are displaced by Israel (Deuteronomy 7:1).
Canaan's brothers are Cush (the Biblical name for Ethiopia), Mizraim (the Biblical name for Egypt) and Put. Canaan's eleven sons as listed in 1 Chronicles 1:13 are also all known nations, among whom Sidon, Heth, Jebusites (who owned Jerusalem—Joshua 10:1, 2 Samuel 5:6 ), Amorites, Hivites.
In the Greek New Testament the name Canaan is spelled Χανααν and Canaanite is spelled Χαναναιος. Both Matthew and Mark make mention of a Simon the Canaanite (Κανανιτης; Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18), but that epithet probably has nothing to do with the country Canaan. See our article on the name Simon for more details.
Etymology of the name Canaan
The name Canaan may have been original—meaning "land of purple," says HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, which relates it to Phoenicia, also meaning purple—and turned proverbial, but it may also have been taken from the Hebrew verb כנע (kana)and projected back upon this person. Either way, the name Canaan surely has to do with the Hebrew verb כנע (kana) meaning be humbled:
Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary
כנע
The root-verb כנע (kana') means to be humbled, subdued, brought down or into subjection.
About this verb, HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament states, "It denoted bringing a proud and recalcitrant people or spirit into subjection."
About half of the thirty six occurrences of this verb are in the reports of military campaigns (Nehemiah 9:24). A large portion of the other occurrences deal with a king's submission to God (1 Kings 21:29).
HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament notes two striking usages of this verb, namely in Leviticus 26:41 and 2 Chronicles 7:14, where humility is a key condition for God's blessing.
This root yields one derivative, the feminine noun כנעה (kin'a), meaning bundle or pack (Jeremiah 10:17 only).
Associated Biblical names
♂⌂Canaanכנען
♂Chenaanahכנענה
The Old Testament's passion for reaching the "land of Canaan" may have a very clear connotation of reaching a blissful state of humility (also see Isaiah 57:15 and Matthew 18:4).
Being located on the bridge between three continents, he historical people of Canaan maintained a flowering culture of trade. Thus the words כנען, meaning Canaan, and כנעני, meaning Canaanite, acquired the additional meaning of trade or merchant (Zephaniah 1:11, Ezekiel 16:29). Perhaps the connection between Canaan the humble one and Canaan the merchant lies in the origin of trade, namely the last resource of those who owned no land, and who had to revert to selling other people's produces.
Canaan meaning
For a meaning of the name Canaan, NOBSE Study Bible Name List reads Low. Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament
Proper Names reads Merchant or Servant.
I know that this thread went in a different direction but wanted to answer you in a way that may help to understand forever may just mean perpetual its always as from time to time
but different ends to different types , and they are made into something else entirely by God Himself ,
we see this with King Neb as well , its all for a time , till that time is no more in them and something new is brought by the Lord to take its place
always changing but all ways the same !
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 06:54:23 PM
1 Samuel 2:6
"The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to sheol and raises up.
I don't believe that the intended meaning here is "he brings down to the to ask and raises up." I think he is talking about the grave, or the state of death of those who are now unseen. I can see how the root meaning would lend to the idea of the hidden or covered place, but I don't think the root word meaning is what is literally being intended here.
Hehe, I also don't believe that. However, I believe they would understand it as 'he brings down to the asking place and raises up'. Sheol is not the grave. Grave is Qeber in Hebrew. The reason behind the word Sheol being chosen to express the idea of where the dead go is that it is metaphorically the place that eats its victims, always asking for more, and never satisfied.
(Isa 5:14) Therefore Sheol's appetite has grown; it has opened its mouth beyond limit. Jerusalem's nobility and her multitudes will go there, along with her brawlers and whoever is reveling within her.God defeats both death and Sheol by metaphorically swallowing up death. Of course, as you mention, this asking is not to be literally understood, nor does it have a literal mouth, but is a figure of speech that they would have understood in their day.
It's true that there is a word for grave in Hebrew, but words can be correlated according to understandings. For example, when we say the White House made a statement, we can correlate that to the President. I think the samuel verse associates sheol with the grave in the sense of it referring to the state of death. The body dies and goes to the grave. The life is considered to be in sheol. It's associate with the "down" because when the body dies, the life goes with it, and the dead know nothing, and the body decays. I think, personally, that the concept of hades, apart from its mythology is not a departure from that concept. Neither us the original concept of "hell" as being covered over, or unseen.
Ok. I understand that is what you believe. I am not sharing anything that I share thinking it will change what you already believe. I thought you were asking so as to understand where I am coming from.
I absolutely was, and I do understand where you are coming from. I just don't see a reason from what you said to believe that hades is not a reasonable correlation to sheol. :friendstu:
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 06:47:12 PMSo I think the meaning of hades as unseen makes a good correlation. I know the Greeks and Hebrews have some evolved ideas, but that doesn't bother me so much, because I know the correlation being made is not the pagan, Greek idea.
But stil that pagan idea is the primary meaning. And likely is one of the ways pagagans helinized the Scriptures
The word " bad" has two meanings. One is bad the other is good depending on the speaker. That's regardless of what one believes to be a primary meaning. If Aliens came to earth and determined that the primary meaning of bad is "not awesome" then they will completely misunderstand Michael Jackson's song.
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 12, 2014, 08:08:45 PM
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 06:54:23 PM
1 Samuel 2:6
"The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to sheol and raises up.
I don't believe that the intended meaning here is "he brings down to the to ask and raises up." I think he is talking about the grave, or the state of death of those who are now unseen. I can see how the root meaning would lend to the idea of the hidden or covered place, but I don't think the root word meaning is what is literally being intended here.
Hehe, I also don't believe that. However, I believe they would understand it as 'he brings down to the asking place and raises up'. Sheol is not the grave. Grave is Qeber in Hebrew. The reason behind the word Sheol being chosen to express the idea of where the dead go is that it is metaphorically the place that eats its victims, always asking for more, and never satisfied.
(Isa 5:14) Therefore Sheol's appetite has grown; it has opened its mouth beyond limit. Jerusalem's nobility and her multitudes will go there, along with her brawlers and whoever is reveling within her.
God defeats both death and Sheol by metaphorically swallowing up death. Of course, as you mention, this asking is not to be literally understood, nor does it have a literal mouth, but is a figure of speech that they would have understood in their day.
Numbers 16:32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah, with all their goods.
One way to look at sheol is that when people die, they go down to (?). To me, the idea of "to ask" is the idea of mystery, or lacking answer, and I don't think that lacking visibility is a departure from the word root, personally. I hope that disagreement hasn't offended anyone. It's just that I don't see a divide between its word roots and the concept of a hidden place. It's a place of mystery, the state connected to death where dead are unseen. The idea of "to ask" does not, at least to me, indicate that the dead are asking anything, but that they are in a state or place where they are shrouded in the unknowable or unseeable, the continuous (?) state.
From my study and living out the culture as much as I am able, it is true that the very early concept of death and what was on that side was a mystery, not laden with detail as it later came to be. The ancient meaning of the word sheol was not about the dead asking, but about sheol itself asking. It was a place personified with a voracious appetite, asking for more but never being satisfied. And I should have said this before, but the marriage root של does convey, at its core, the concept of something being stripped away so as to reveal what is unknown. Yes, in that sense, to ask, is pictured as a verbal stripping away to see what is unknown (under what is stripped).
That's assuming you get the answer :laughing7:
I've learned some from this thread 1) the study is way above my pay scale. 2) it is full of study 3) Still I'll have to stay in my idle mode pondering this verse.
Isa. 57:15 For thus says the One high| and lifted| up,
Who tabernacles| the future, and holy is His Name:
In the high and holy place am I tabernacling,
And also `with one crushed and lowly of spirit,
To revive the spirit of the lowly,
And to revive the heart of the crushed|.
Isaiah 57:15
Rotherham(i) 15 For, thus, saith he that is high and lifted up—Inhabiting futurity, And, holy, is his name: A high and holy place, will I inhabit, Also with the crushed and lowly in spirit, To revive the spirit of the lowly, and To revive the heart of them who are crushed;—
I admire all of the information it is all good! :dsunny:
Quote from: Seth on October 12, 2014, 11:25:05 PM
One way to look at sheol is that when people die, they go down to (?).
I've for a long time seen this as a "going down to the lower parts of the earth" a quote about Jesus from 2 Peter (I think) but which to me is the dust of the grave..
...and to be unseen.. my lost loved ones are still very real to me, though they are gone, and they remain unseen.. just my :2c: "hades" place of the dead.. to me, is still the grave..
Quote from: gregoryfl on October 12, 2014, 11:48:18 PM
...not about the dead asking, but about sheol itself asking.. It was a place personified with a voracious appetite, asking for more but never being satisfied...
I agree. I think the Greek "hades" is the state of the "unseen" dead, and the Hebrew "sheol" corresponds to that. I think the living "ask" about the "unseen" dead because they don't know where they are.
I agree too. I see sheol and hades as: (?). Concealed, covered up, hidden.
I think the grave is where the body goes to return to the soil, but unseen is what the dead souls become.
I see it the the same way. That is why I believe that grave and sheol are similar but not exactly the same concepts. There is a word for literal grave but sheol is inextricably connected to that as an abstract, in my view of it
I agree with that, the dead are the unseen, but the living have a remembering of who they were, be that good or bad, which in a way keeps them alive, at least in the mind/heart of the living.
"I think the living "ask" about the "unseen" dead because they don't know where they are."
Not to be factious, but if they are dead, they are dust/ashes, unseen.....waiting.
Death is a return, but we don't return to the grave. We return to the "unseen" whether that's "sheol" or "hades." "I know that You are turning me back to death, To that house appointed for all the living." (Job 30:23) The body returns to the soil. "In the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread, till you return to the ground, for from it are you taken, for soil you are, and to soil are you returning." (Genesis 3:19) The spirit, the imperceptible power of life, returns to God. "And the soil returns to the earth just as it was, And the spirit, it returns to the One, Elohim, Who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7) The soul returns to the "unseen." "The wicked shall return to the unseen, All the nations, forgetful of Elohim." (Psalms 9:17) "For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen, Nor wilt Thou be giving Thy Benign One to be acquainted with decay." (Acts 2:27) "Perceiving this before, he speaks concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither forsaken in the unseen, nor was His flesh acquainted with decay." (Acts 2:31)
Tom,
Your OT verses are all good and fine. I'm not rejecting any of them. So just looking at them I would say: "The dead are just very dead."
But.....
When I think about Jesus, I always get the thought "He did something. He changed something. Perhaps the OT verses Tom correctly quoted are no longer relevant."
BTW, that's not a rebuttal. I honestly don't know.
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 13, 2014, 09:17:37 PM
Tom,
Your OT verses are all good and fine. I'm not rejecting any of them. So just looking at them I would say: "The dead are just very dead."
But.....
When I think about Jesus, I always get the thought "He did something. He changed something. Perhaps the OT verses Tom correctly quoted are no longer relevant."
BTW, that's not a rebuttal. I honestly don't know.
I agree with both of your statements as well as Tom, whose verses I believe are still relevant.
Yes Jesus did change something, and we await that change. :2c:
I find the information in this thread a buffet. I sit here now typing this post with a new understanding, yet understood[in my mind] concerning the grave, hades, sheol, and yes even death. I want to thank you all. :dsunny:
You all have opened and closed views I had. I believe there is much to be considered and re considered, I speak only for myself. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: micah7:9 on October 13, 2014, 09:38:15 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 13, 2014, 09:17:37 PM
Tom,
Your OT verses are all good and fine. I'm not rejecting any of them. So just looking at them I would say: "The dead are just very dead."
But.....
When I think about Jesus, I always get the thought "He did something. He changed something. Perhaps the OT verses Tom correctly quoted are no longer relevant."
BTW, that's not a rebuttal. I honestly don't know.
I agree with both of your statements as well as Tom, whose verses I believe are still relevant.
Yes Jesus did change something, and we await that change. :2c:
It's crazy how there's so much confusion about if the dead are really dead. It's really like comedy material, but I think folks need to understand it's just because of Plato's philosophy of immortality of the soul adopted by the church that originally came from the serpent's lie in the garden.
"And saying is the serpent to the woman, "Not to die shall you be dying"" (Genesis 3:4)
I believe the whole terminology "immortality of the soul" is misleading. There is only one who is "alone immortal and dwells in unapproachable light"- the Father.
I do believe however, that every soul created abides forever. Not one will pass away. God did not create then to dissasemble and reassemble them, but they are not "immortal" because they abide only at His pleasure and if He wished, they could be snuffed out. He cannot be shuffed out.
Jesus is filled with all the fulness of God because "So it pleased the Father for all the fulness to dwell in Him" and having been exalted to the Father's right hand, He has received "the Spirit without measure"- I do not believe Jesus' soul ceased to exist during His 3 days "in the belly of the earth".
I also do not believe we cease to exist when we die- and it has nothing to do with Plato or any idea of "immortal souls".
It is because I read scriptures that for me, give evidence that the souls sleeps the sleep of death in the night of sheol, the grave, to be awakened at God's pleasure, to find itself "in the Day of His appearing".
I realize there is much disagreement on this and I do not consider it to be foundational, but no one, including myself, should be making pronouncements on this topic as if it is obvious or settled- cuz it aint :laugh:
Quote from: eaglesway on October 13, 2014, 11:54:55 PM
I believe the whole terminology "immortality of the soul" is misleading. There is only one who is "alone immortal and dwells in unapproachable light"- the Father.
I do believe however, that every soul created abides forever. Not one will pass away. God did not create then to dissasemble and reassemble them, but they are not "immortal" because they abide only at His pleasure and if He wished, they could be snuffed out. He cannot be shuffed out.
Jesus is filled with all the fulness of God because "So it pleased the Father for all the fulness to dwell in Him" and having been exalted to the Father's right hand, He has received "the Spirit without measure"- I do not believe Jesus' soul ceased to exist during His 3 days "in the belly of the earth".
I also do not believe we cease to exist when we die- and it has nothing to do with Plato or any idea of "immortal souls".
It is because I read scriptures that for me, give evidence that the souls sleeps the sleep of death in the night of sheol, the grave, to be awakened at God's pleasure, to find itself "in the Day of His appearing".
I realize there is much disagreement on this and I do not consider it to be foundational, but no one, including myself, should be making pronouncements on this topic as if it is obvious or settled- cuz it aint :laugh:
:thumbsup:
:iagree:
I knew you would, having read your posts on the subject in the past :o)
Quote from: eaglesway on October 14, 2014, 12:32:39 AM
I knew you would, having read your posts on the subject in the past :o)
I cannot help it bro !! :mblush: I love everyone and want you to know that :HeartThrob: But I believe Jesus Words [John 5 ] and am more of the internal believer than the outward manifestation of things
I really do believe some die and held by death will not be resurrected till confession time [every knee bows and every tongue confesses the Lord Jesus Christ , ] but some those given life , never die just as Jesus tells us its so , they die in the flesh of course , but are not held by death any longer because they believed and obeyed Jesus Christ now and they are alive in the SPIRIT of Jesus Christ that has no end !! HE IS OUR REWARD
I know that death will be swallowed up in victory in what Jesus Christ done on the cross , now we wait on the Lord Jesus Christ to show us the way its done ! be always ready :HeartThrob:
rev 22
11"Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."
12"Behold, I am coming quickly, and
My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
13"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 13, 2014, 11:54:55 PM
I believe the whole terminology "immortality of the soul" is misleading. There is only one who is "alone immortal and dwells in unapproachable light"- the Father.
I do believe however, that every soul created abides forever. Not one will pass away. God did not create then to dissasemble and reassemble them, but they are not "immortal" because they abide only at His pleasure and if He wished, they could be snuffed out. He cannot be shuffed out.
Jesus is filled with all the fulness of God because "So it pleased the Father for all the fulness to dwell in Him" and having been exalted to the Father's right hand, He has received "the Spirit without measure"- I do not believe Jesus' soul ceased to exist during His 3 days "in the belly of the earth".
I also do not believe we cease to exist when we die- and it has nothing to do with Plato or any idea of "immortal souls".
It is because I read scriptures that for me, give evidence that the souls sleeps the sleep of death in the night of sheol, the grave, to be awakened at God's pleasure, to find itself "in the Day of His appearing".
I realize there is much disagreement on this and I do not consider it to be foundational, but no one, including myself, should be making pronouncements on this topic as if it is obvious or settled- cuz it aint :laugh:
"I am charging you in the sight of God, Who is vivifying all, and of Jesus Christ, Who testifies in the ideal avowal before Pontius Pilate, that you keep this precept unspotted, irreprehensible, unto the advent of our Lord, Christ Jesus, which, to its own eras, the happy and only Potentate will be showing: He is King of kings and Lord of lords, Who alone has immortality, making His home in light inaccessible, Whom not one of mankind perceived nor can be perceiving, to Whom be honor and might eonian!" (1 Timothy 6:13-16)
Anytime I say something, bro, it's only my opinion unless I'm quoting scripture, and I know it ain't over till the fat lady sings. We've talked about this scripture before, and I remember that we disagreed about who it refers to. I think it's Christ because "mortal" means subject to death which he was at one time and indeed died. I think he was really dead for three days, and, while he was, his soul was "unseen." Then I believe he was made alive again by the power of the Father and the first one to be given immortality which we believers will also experience when he meets us in the air, and unbelievers will experience at the consummation of the eons. I understand what you saying when you say, "the souls sleep the sleep of death" because I know scripture says, "We all, indeed, shall not be put to repose." In other words death is likened to sleep in scripture, and scripture also says souls die. That's why I think immortality of the soul is a false idea. Living souls die, but then we will be made alive again in spiritual bodies.
"Thus also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is roused in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is roused in glory. It is sown in infirmity; it is roused in power. It is sown a soulish body; it is roused a spiritual body. If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, "became a living soul:" the last Adam a vivifying Spirit. But not first the spiritual, but the soulish, thereupon the spiritual. The first man was out of the earth, soilish; the second Man is the Lord out of heaven. Such as the soilish one is, such are those also who are soilish, and such as the Celestial One, such are those also who are celestials. And according as we wear the image of the soilish, we should be wearing the image also of the Celestial. Now this I am averring, brethren, that flesh and blood is not able to enjoy an allotment in the kingdom of God, neither is corruption enjoying the allotment of incorruption. Lo! a secret to you am I telling! We all, indeed, shall not be put to repose, yet we all shall be changed, in an instant, in the twinkle of an eye, at the last trump. For He will be trumpeting, and the dead will be roused incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality. Now, whenever this corruptible should be putting on incorruption and this mortal should be putting on immortality, then shall come to pass the word which is written, Swallowed up was Death by Victory. Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting? " (1 Corinthians 15:42-55)
In any case, we agree that all shall be raised, and all shall be reconciled :o)
Amen, brother, and we'll find out about all the other details when the fat lady sings.
Quote from: Tom on October 13, 2014, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on October 13, 2014, 09:38:15 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 13, 2014, 09:17:37 PM
Tom,
Your OT verses are all good and fine. I'm not rejecting any of them. So just looking at them I would say: "The dead are just very dead."
But.....
When I think about Jesus, I always get the thought "He did something. He changed something. Perhaps the OT verses Tom correctly quoted are no longer relevant."
BTW, that's not a rebuttal. I honestly don't know.
I agree with both of your statements as well as Tom, whose verses I believe are still relevant.
Yes Jesus did change something, and we await that change. :2c:
It's crazy how there's so much confusion about if the dead are really dead. It's really like comedy material, but I think folks need to understand it's just because of Plato's philosophy of immortality of the soul adopted by the church that originally came from the serpent's lie in the garden.
"And saying is the serpent to the woman, "Not to die shall you be dying"" (Genesis 3:4)
Tom,
If the dead stay dead for just 1 second, then they died. They just got resurrected very quickly (because of Jesus)
The thing is that the verses that speak about death, sleep, etc are written before Jesus was resurrected.
And because of that quite useless in this discussion.
Maybe you should have quoted this :winkgrin:
Acts 2
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
But is that enough proof to settle this discussion?
Ecc 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
The dust of David was dead still in the tomb. But what about his spirit?
BTW I have nothing to do with Plato and I have no church background/doctrine.
1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
post resurrection references to death as sleep.
Thank you WW
and Eagleway for saying as you said ,
I used to have such a hard time understanding this in Acts 2 , but do you know what Paul is declaring here ...
He is saying I preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified !! the Cross is where it all newness begins ! MERCY over Judgment , by this gift of grace given , Yes Jesus has the victory over death , He defeated death ! death has no hold over those who slept in hope of Jesus Christ born under law
David was saying I await this promise of Gods mighty work/ miracle to show us all that Jesus Christ come and appeared in the FULLNESS OF TIMES BORN by woman under law and showed us the power of God by grace and than the cross to destroy the works of the devil who held many under the bondage of the LAW , under law you are a servant and not a son , this is why David said , my Lord said to my Lord sit at my right hand till I make all my enemies my footstool , His servant David was now given right under the GRACE OF GOD to be called a son of God
that dwell in the HOUSE FOREVER
anyone born of God thought the seed of Christ is a son of God , this was not allowed under the LAW of Moses or Elijah
note the servants of God and friends of God and man of God , not till the SON OF GOD ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER APPEARED BORN OF WOMAN under the law /BONDAGE OF SIN was sinless JESUS CHRIST IS HIS NAME !and there is no name UNDER HEAVEN /UNDER LAW BY WHICH YOU MUST BE SAVED !
This is why we have to consider our bodies dead because of sin but alive in faith of the work of GOD though Jesus Christ ,, in the Spirit
the Holy Spirit is all those witlessness of the old set free in Christ , this was the reason for the renewing of the Holy Ghost / Spirit and new birth seed is Christ in us , this coming and being in the earth now , not waiting to die and go up and ascend , but he DESCENDED coming down in the earth our earthly bodies to make known righteousness in the earth known by the LIGHT OF THE WORLD & KNOWLEDGE OF GOD over sin and death and the law that held them captive to it .
Titus 3 4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior
1John 3:*7Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8the one who practices sin is of the devil;
for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Again, I will say anyone who holds the testimony of Jesus Christ in their bosom has the SPIRIT OF PROPHECY in them also , THIS SAME WITNESS that all the witnesses of brethren being born again as the Sons of God to HIS OWN GLORY Who does dwell in the house of GOD FOREVER Being sons and heirs to them promises made by the Lord God himself , when He died /testator Hebrews 9 of the new covenant came into effect and the inheritance was distributed as gifts to mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself , being the son of mankind and the Son of God and by being the Lord / master of the dead and the living , holding both in HIS POWER TO SAVE WHOM HE WILL
Those under law were set free just as we are also given the same promises being set t free have in them being of LORD/MASTER OF HOSTS the HOLY SPIRIT are with the Lord Jesus Christ we are surrounded by them here and now Hebrews 12 great cloud of witnesses
the law is the shadow of the great things to come , the greace of God is the glory of the Father though the Son and many sons of Glory though Him ...
18 and also upon My men-servants, and upon My maid-servants, in those days, I will pour out of My Spirit, and they shall prophesy;
19 and I will give wonders in the heaven above, and signs upon the earth beneath -- blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke,
20 the sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the day of the Lord -- the great and illustrious;
21 and it shall be, every one -- whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, he shall be saved.
22 `Men, Israelites! hear these words, Jesus the Nazarene, a man approved of God among you by mighty works, and wonders, and signs, that God did through him in the midst of you, according as also ye yourselves have known;
23 this one, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, being given out, having taken by lawless hands, having crucified -- ye did slay;
24 whom God did raise up, having loosed the pains of the death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it,
25 for David saith in regard to him: I foresaw the Lord always before me -- because He is on my right hand -- that I may not be moved;
26 because of this was my heart cheered, and my tongue was glad, and yet -- my flesh also shall rest on hope,
27 because Thou wilt not leave my soul to hades, nor wilt Thou give Thy Kind One to see corruption;
28 Thou didst make known to me ways of life, Thou shalt fill me with joy with Thy countenance
29 `Men, brethren! it is permitted to speak with freedom unto you concerning the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is among us unto this day;
His tomb , and I see it as empty !!!!
3 a prophet, therefore, being, and knowing that with an oath God did swear to him, out of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, to raise up the Christ, to sit upon his throne,
31 having foreseen, he did speak concerning the rising again of the Christ, that his soul was not left to hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
32 `This Jesus did God raise up, of which we are all witnesses;
33 at the right hand then of God having been exalted -- also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father -- he was shedding forth this, which now ye see and hear;
34 for David did not go up to the heavens, and he saith himself: The Lord saith to my lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
35 till I make thy foes thy footstool;
36 assuredly, therefore, let all the house of Israel know, that both Lord and Christ did God make him -- this Jesus whom ye did crucify.'
37 And having heard, they were pricked to the heart; they say also to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, `What shall we do, men, brethren?'
38 and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,
39 for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.'
I dont know what is happening , but I never knew before now and all that I know is Jesus Christ and Him crucified !! to the Glory of God we are most thankful to know and understand your precious work in the earth , to those whom are given ears to hear what the Spirit is saying and be forgiven and healed by His holy grace and redeemed by the Blood of Christ from the good in the law of exposing the evil of sin and death and death being its reward to satan s only hold on us as servants to sin , that we are able to be called the sons of God though Jesus Christ whom has the power and victory over ALL !!! Glory to God!!
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 14, 2014, 10:23:21 AM
Quote from: Tom on October 13, 2014, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on October 13, 2014, 09:38:15 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 13, 2014, 09:17:37 PM
Tom,
Your OT verses are all good and fine. I'm not rejecting any of them. So just looking at them I would say: "The dead are just very dead."
But.....
When I think about Jesus, I always get the thought "He did something. He changed something. Perhaps the OT verses Tom correctly quoted are no longer relevant."
BTW, that's not a rebuttal. I honestly don't know.
I agree with both of your statements as well as Tom, whose verses I believe are still relevant.
Yes Jesus did change something, and we await that change. :2c:
It's crazy how there's so much confusion about if the dead are really dead. It's really like comedy material, but I think folks need to understand it's just because of Plato's philosophy of immortality of the soul adopted by the church that originally came from the serpent's lie in the garden.
"And saying is the serpent to the woman, "Not to die shall you be dying"" (Genesis 3:4)
Tom,
If the dead stay dead for just 1 second, then they died. They just got resurrected very quickly (because of Jesus)
The thing is that the verses that speak about death, sleep, etc are written before Jesus was resurrected.
And because of that quite useless in this discussion.
Maybe you should have quoted this :winkgrin:
Acts 2
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
But is that enough proof to settle this discussion?
Ecc 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
The dust of David was dead still in the tomb. But what about his spirit?
BTW I have nothing to do with Plato and I have no church background/doctrine.
I think dead is dead, not another form of life, before or after Christ even though death is like sleep and spoken of figuratively as sleep in scripture. I also think the dead will probably sense no time passing between the moment they die and the moment they're resurrected because the dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5). So I think death is God's creative way of compressing time for the dead. Dead unbelievers will not be alive for eonian life, which is what believers are promised, but they will be made alive at the consummation of the eons when death is abolished (1 Corinthians 15:20-28).
http://www.saviourofall.org/charts/ChartOfJudgments.html
I think it becomes a very fine line when you look at it. You think it is figurative- ok, I hav no problem with that, because I see "sleep" in exactly the same way you defined death. A compression of time from which every soul will awaken at there appointed resurrection(each in his own order). I take it literally- only because I do not believe the soul dissolves at death and recoalesces or whatever at resurrection time.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 15, 2014, 12:02:53 AM
I think it becomes a very fine line when you look at it. You think it is figurative- ok, I hav no problem with that, because I see "sleep" in exactly the same way you defined death. A compression of time from which every soul will awaken at there appointed resurrection(each in his own order). I take it literally- only because I do not believe the soul dissolves at death and recoalesces or whatever at resurrection time.
I don't think I've ever seen the exact words "the soul dissolves at death," as you say, because I don't remember reading that in scripture. The Concordant Version does use the word "dissolution" though in 2 Timothy 4:6 which means "the act or process of dissolving" according to Merriam-Webster Online.
"For I am already a libation, and the period of my dissolution is imminent." (2 Timothy 4:6)
But I think that refers to the "dissolution" of a human into the basic elements of body, soul, and spirit.
I think scripture says the soul dies and is "unseen."
The Greek "koimao," literally "lie," is translated "repose," implying sleep. The noun "koimesis," literally "lie-ing," in John 11:13 shows that it refers to the repose of sleep.
The Greek "hupnos" is literally "sleep."
"He said these things, and after this He is saying to them, "Lazarus, our friend, has found repose, but I am going that I should be awakening him out of sleep." The disciples, then, said to Him, "Lord, if he has repose, he shall be saved." Now Jesus had made a declaration concerning his death, yet they suppose that He is saying it concerning the repose of sleep. Jesus, then, said to them with boldness then, "Lazarus died."" (John 11:11-14)
It seems that there could have been some confusion about sleep and death because death was sometimes referred to as "sleep," but I think the difference is that a dead person usually doesn't wake up. That's why I think referring to death as "sleep" is speaking figuratively. I think scripture saying that we'll be resurrected in spiritual bodies kind of leaves us wondering about what's up with the soul. But, because scripture says the soul dies, I don't think the soul is immortal. When Christ meets us in the air, we will be immortalized in spiritual bodies. Scripture also says flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of God and that the soul is in the blood. That tells me that our vivified bodies won't have flesh and therefore blood like we do now which tells me that we may not even have a soul or be considered "living souls" anymore because we will be more like immortalized spiritual bodies probably not subject to time and space the same way we are now. I think that's why Christ probably walked through the wall with the locked door of the upper room after his resurrection. I think we will be able to travel from earth to heaven and back because we will always be with the Lord. The soul is the result of a combination of spirit with an organic body, but we will have spiritual bodies when we are vivified which I think means we probably won't have or need a soul anymore. I think our perception will be much different then, not perceiving with our soul but more intuitively with our spirit; maybe communicating intuitively without spoken language; and our perception of time could be like everything is in the present. Time and space seem to be what's happening during the eons because God transcends time and space, but, at the consummation of the eons maybe time as we know it will cease to exist. Because there will be no mortality, maybe we'll all be young from then on. All of this sounds far out, but I experienced some sense of timeless intuitiveness in the light at one time that was also total peace and unconditional love. That's why, when somebody says what's the use of caring about eonian life when we're all going to be saved eventually anyway, I think they don't realize how much they would be missing out on. But it's all according to God's will who will do so anyway. I think we're all chosen for a specific purpose in God's plan, some for eonian life and some not, but God loves all mankind and will save all mankind from death at the consummation of the eons when all on earth and in the heavens will be reconciled with God, and God will be all in all. I used to wonder what it was that left my body and was looking down at myself in that hospital bed. Was it my soul or my spirit? I think now that it was spiritual consciousness that I experienced which is a much higher vibration than the soulish perception we usually have in our bodies. I think we're all going to be very amazed and very glad to experience immortality with the Lord, but I think it's kind of mysterious in scripture about whether that will be perceived with or without a soul. I personally think the soul will not be necessary, but I could be wrong. That's just my own humble opinion. At least one of our brothers insists that we don't have a soul, but we are souls. I think scripture uses the word "soul" both ways, but I also think, when we're immortalized, that we won't really be "living souls" anymore. We'll be literally new creatures in Christ in spiritual bodies.
Some people believe the soul ceases to exist at death, and is reconstituted in the resurrection.
I believe there is no confusion about sleep and death. Sleep is a term Paul used to describe the condition of the soul in death. I think that term works for Paul for a reason. I believe that I understand what that reason is, so I have no problem with using that term also. :o)
I also believe that we "are" a soul and that the soul, which we are, along with body and spirit, goes into a state Paul calls "sleep", at death.
I also believe that we will not all sleep- but we will all be changed, in the moment, in a twinkling of an eye, in the resurrection.
Quote from: eaglesway on October 15, 2014, 01:53:24 AM
Some people believe the soul ceases to exist at death, and is reconstituted in the resurrection.
I believe there is no confusion about sleep and death. Sleep is a term Paul used to describe the condition of the soul in death. I think that term works for Paul for a reason. I believe that I understand what that reason is, so I have no problem with using that term also. :o)
I also believe that we "are" a soul and that the soul, which we are, along with body and spirit, goes into a state Paul calls "sleep", at death.
That's why it's sometimes said that the dead are sleeping with the fishes.
:laugh:
Quote from: eaglesway on October 15, 2014, 01:57:16 AM
I also believe that we will not all sleep- but we will all be changed, in the moment, in a twinkling of an eye, in the resurrection.
You may be right, brother. That makes sense to me too. That could be why sleep and death are used synonymously. But I think we will definitely have a much higher consciousness than we do now in these soulish bodies.
"Now we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are reposing, lest you may sorrow according as the rest, also, who have no expectation. For, if we are believing that Jesus died and rose, thus also, those who are put to repose, will God, through Jesus, lead forth together with Him. For this we are saying to you by the word of the Lord, that we, the living, who are surviving to the presence of the Lord, should by no means outstrip those who are put to repose, for the Lord Himself will be descending from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the Chief Messenger, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ shall be rising first. Thereupon we, the living who are surviving, shall at the same time be snatched away together with them in clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And thus shall we always be together with the Lord. So that, console one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)
I agree. We will, "Know as we are known". We will be "filled up to all the fulness of God".