Posted on 10/21/2008 1:22:49 PM PDT by Truth Defender
It has been brought to my attention that a thread should be presented on the question of w long is For Ever, and Ever Lasting?”more to the point of this issue is the meaning and Biblical usage of the words translated “for ever”, “ever lasting”, “eternal” and “eternity”. If forever means endlessly, then what is the meaning of such expressions as “for ever and ever”, or as the phrase is sometimes translated, “from everlasting to everlasting”?
Unfortunately the post-apostolic church borrowed the idea of innate immortality from Greek philosophy and super-imposed the same upon the Scriptures. From the Latin Vulgate came our words “eternal” and “eternity” commonly defined as “without beginning and without end”. Obviously, if that is what the Latin aeternalis means then it can hardly be used to describe the new life which we receive through Christ, for it at least has a beginning. And unless one insists on believing the doctrine of “eternal security” despite all that the Scriptures say to the contrary, that new life can also have an ending. “Eternal”, in MHO, is no proper translation for the Hebrew olam and the Greek aion.
That olam and aion mean one and the same thing is easily established. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) commonly renders olam as aion, and the New Testament writers, when quoting Old Testament passages using the word olam likewise render the word aion. For example, see Heb. 5:6, 7:17, 21; Luke 1:55 and I Peter 1:25.
Precisely what do the word olam and its Greek counterpart aion mean? Unending? Interminable? Eternal? Everlasting? Rarely is such the case. One would need only to spend a few minutes with an analytical concordance to establish that fact beyond all shadow of doubt. Scores of things which have long since been annulled or have ceased to exist are mentioned in the Old Testament as having been appointed or established or enduring for ever, everlastingly, perpetually, continually, etc. To mention a just a few:
Holy days and Season appointed under the Law “for ever”.
1. The Sabbath. Shades of Ellen White, the Adventist prophetess of yesteryear and Herbert W. Armstrong! Have you read the language in which the Sabbath law was enacted? Read the word of Jehovah: “Verily you shall keep my Sabbaths: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations… Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual [olam] covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever [olam]. Ex. 31:13, 16, 17.
2. The Passover. This too was appointed to be kept as “an ordinance for ever [olam] Ex. 12:14.
3. The Feast of Unleavened Bread. Again Jehovah said, “You shall observe the feast of unleavened bread…throughout you generations, by an ordinance for ever” [olam] Ex. 12:17.
4. The Day of Atonement. It is written: “And this shall be an everlasting [olam] statute unto you.” Lev. 16:34.
5. The Feast of the Tabernacles. Likewise, “a statute for ever” [olam] Lev. 23:41.
Miscellaneous offerings and rituals appointed for ever [olam].
1. The sheaf of the First Fruits: “a statue for ever” Lev. 23:14.
2. The table of the showbread: “an everlasting, perpetual covenant” Lev. 24:8, 9.
3. Oil to be burned in the candlestick: “continually…for ever” Lev. 24:3.
4. The wave and heave offerings: “for Aaron and his sons for ever” Ex 29:28.
5. The law concerning eating of flesh: Commanded “for ever” Deut. 12:28.
6. Sounding of the silver trumpets: Commanded “for ever” Num. 10:8.
7. Ritual concerning the ashes of the red heifer: Likewise, “for ever” Num. 19:10, 21.
8. Aaron’s priesthood: Appointed “forever” See Num. 25:13, Ex. 40:15 vs. Heb. 7:11-12.
9. Aaronic priesthood to wash at the laver: “for ever” Ex. 28:43 vs. Heb 7:11-12.
10. Levites appointed to minister to God: “for ever” I Chron. 15:2, I Sam. 2:30.
11. Levites to bear the ark: “for ever” I Chron. 15:2.
12. Sons of Korah to burn incense: “for ever” I Chron 23:13.
13. The tithes to support the priests: “for ever” Num. 18:23.
14. Temple ritual to continue: “for ever” II Chron. 2:4 vs. Heb. 9:9-10, 10:8-18.
Miscellaneous item of the Mosaic age [olam.
1. Covenant of circumcision: “everlasting” Gen. 17:7 13 vs. Gal 5:26.
2. Memorial stones of Jordan crossing: a memorial “for ever” Joshua 4:7.
3. God to dwell in Solomon’s temple: “forever” I Kings 8:13, 9:3.
4. Leprosy of Naaman transferred to Gehazi and his seed: “forever” II Kings 5:27.
5. The smoke of Edom to go up “for ever”, and no one ever again to pass through Edom: Isa. 34:9-10.
6. The bars of the earth came over Jonah: (in the whale’s belly) “forever” Jonah 2:6.
I have used the KJV of scripture as it is literally the closest to the Hebrew words; however, all version contain the same ideas of the Hebrew word “olam”. From the scores of such references that can be cited (408 times that I can find) it should be obvious that the Hebrew word olam does not signify “endlessness”: And I can be bold enough to say that neither does the Greek “aion”. The term normally denoted extensive duration, but even that is not true in all cases, as is illustrated by several of the above verses.
When applied to God’s person, or to something intimately linked to His Divine nature, the terms may accrue a meaning approximating the concept of endlessness. But this is more commonly communicated by the reduplication of the words olam and aion in a prepositional phrase, somewhat in the vein of such familiar expression of the ultimate as “King of kings” and “Lord of lords.”
In the New Testament we have a number of texts in which there appears the expression: eis tous ainas ton aionon (literally, unto the ages of the ages), translated “for ever and ever.” Twelve times we find this expression in such a context as “To God (and/or Christ) be glory for ever and ever.” In the Book of Revelation it is used three times in reference to acts of Divine judgment: these are commonly cited and applied to the unredeemed in general by those teaching the traditional “orthodox” theories of the final state of the wicked. Seven miscellaneous references are to be found, one in Hebrews and six in the Book of Revelation. Revelation 22:5 is applied to the redeemed only, saying, “And they shall reign with Him (God) unto the ages of the ages.” Only here and in Daniel 7:18 and 12:3 is such an expression actually used with reference to human being. To assume it is true of the unsaved in hell is to say what the Scriptures might be made to say but once – but that is a big assumption.
The counterpart of the Greek expression we have just noted is found in the Hebrew expression, “min ha’olam we-ad ha’olam.” It is used only with reference to Jehovah and His kingdom. See I Chron. 16:36, 29:10; Neh. 9:5; Dan. 2:20, 7:18 (Compare Rev. 22:5). In each of these texts the Greek LXX translates the expression in language identical with that used in similar NT references which were just cited. In each case aionas replaces olam.
Another expression , “le-olam we-ed” (literally, “from the age onward”), is translated in our English Bibles as “forever and ever” or “from everlasting to everlasting.” Three times it is used of God, eight times it is used of man’s ideal relationship and/or response to God, six times it is used of miscellaneous things, some of which are obviously transitory.
The last reference to be cited is an enigmatic expression found in Isa. 34:10; “le-natsach netsachim”, (for ever and ever?). Commentators generally pass over this text lightly despite the fact it is normally cross referenced with Rev. 14:11. This phrase is only used once in the whole of the Bible, and is not an uncommon Hebrew word. Its meaning is diverse: its root meaning includes such concepts as chief, excellent, outstanding, and precious. Duration seems to be its secondary sense, possibly because things which are excellent, and/or counted to be of value are things which are of themselves durable or are guarded and kept safe. The problem in using Isa. 34:10 where the term is intensified by duplication is that the things predicated are not now literally true, although they might very well have been so at one time. Thusly, the translation “for ever and ever” seems inappropriate. See Brown, Driver and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 663-4.
From a study of the variant phrases which have been translated in such a manner that they communicate to us the concept of perpetuity, we are obliged to conclude: 1) that the language is often more poetic than literal, and at time apocalyptic, 2) though the Hebrews used such expression more loosely than the actual state or nature of things would seem to justify, at no time did the OT writer use the expression to communicate the idea that the unsaved shall survive physical death to be tormented “for ever and ever.” If they are to so suffer, we shall have to learn it from some other sources of information.
At this point I’d like to quote from Ken Fortier’s book, Church Doctrines: Right or Wrong? (You Decide), on the subject of time, which is speaking of the duration of the Hebrew term olam and the Greek term aion. I use this with permission given me.
************
Topic One: Words referring to Time
This section is here to clear up some basic misconceptions concerning the multitude of books written on various translations of the Bible using definitions given by standard dictionaries in our English language concerning words relating to time.
The meaning of a word used to translate the original texts of Scripture must be taken with a spoonful of salt if not based upon the meaning of the original at the time it was in usage. Also, as was pointed out within this work, the context controls the meaning imparted to a specific word, as a word cannot be understood out of its context. One cannot do justice to a word in contention by using just a translation of the original texts. We will examine just one topic as an example.
Time: A Unit of Measurement. “Time,” even the term “eternity” is a good example to look at. The terms “olam” in the Hebrew language and “aion” in the Greek language are both terms having to do with time. Anything operating in a sequence implies time: e.g., God’s Creation acts. When God started his creation, time started. God himself was before time because he is not of our time! One thing to remember, or to realize, is that time itself is a human measurement. With God, “a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years.” Time, from what is mentioned in the Bible, means nothing to God. He always was, is, and will be. In the New Testament the term “aion” and its derivatives always, depending upon the context in each instant, gives us the following insinuations or implied thoughts:
When “aion” is repeated, i.e., intensified by duplication in a text, many scholars have the tendency to conclude that it means “endlessness” or “eternity.” This could be, as was pointed out in the body of this work on this term, when it pertains to God: and only in one instance where it is referenced to created beings (Rev. 22:5). Once again, and I cannot say this often enough, “eternity” is not a proper term to use as its subjects or objects have a beginning (other than God who is not defined by “time:” God was, is, and always will be!). The word “eternity” should only be used with qualifications defined, seeing as how we are stuck with that term.
Remember, as we have mentioned before, that which is “immortal” is “endlessness.” For example, in the expression “everlasting God,” everlasting has the meaning of endless, because God is immortal, not by any force of its own. The word “everlasting” borrows its meaning of endlessness from God, not the duration of God from the word “everlasting.”
Also, the word “eternal” is not the best word to use for the Greek term “aionios,” nor the Hebrew term “olam”—as it can be very misleading for most people that read the Bible or books relating to the subject. Yet, because the term has become a part of our English language, we are almost forced to use it: and it is settled in most minds the idea of something that is permanent or endless, even though its use is of an undefined or indefinite time span. Many Biblical Scholars think that “eternal” is a proper word to define “aionios” in the New Testament Scriptures, but add that “endlessness” or “perpetuity” is not a proper meaning of “aionios”—that is honesty speaking. They have my respect and I wholeheartedly congratulate those who have the courage to admit it!
Seculum is defined in Latin dictionaries as meaning: 1) a generation, 2) an age, 3) the world, 4) the times, 5) the spirit of the times, and 6) a period of a hundred years.
The term “seculum” was always used much like the Greek “aion.” Jerome, in his version of the Greek scriptures, renders “aion” as “seculum” some 101 times out of 128 times that “aion” occurs. The other 27 times he uses the term “aeternum.” He is very inconsistent. When he ran across the expression “for the aiona of the aionon” he has “for the seculums of the seculums.”
In Jude 1:25 Jerome renders it as “before the entire seculum, and now, and for all the seculums of the seculums.” Wiclif, who used Jerome’s version renders it as “bifor alle worldis and now and in to alle worldis of worldis.” Reading Wiclif’s version takes a little patience to understand. It’s the Old English language—but notice that he translates Jerome’s “seculums” as “world.” He is not referring to our planet, but to an age. Tyndale, one hundred and fifty years later, translates these words as “now and forever.” What is interesting is that the Rheims version of 1582 AD has these words written as “before al worldes, and now and for al worldes evermore.” A literal Greek rendering has it as “before all the ages and now and unto all the ages.” Whose rendering would you choose? I would choose Jerome’s rendering in this instance. [Note from me: I would choose the literal Greek rendering!]
In Eph. 2:2, Jerome has “according to the seculum of this world,” which in the Greek is “kata ton aiona tou kosmou toutou.” When that is literally translated into English it means “according to the age of this world.” The KJV renders this as “according to the course of this world,” and the NIV renders it as “followed the ways of this world.” Which version would you say follows the Greek more closely? On this verse I would choose Jerome’s rendering. The term world at that time meant an age, and you can see that in the definition of “seculum” above.
Now looking into the Greek word “aionias,” which occurs seventy times in the New Testament, Jerome renders them by the later term “aeternum,” while only using the term “seculum” twice: (II Tim. 1:9 and Titus 1:2): “ante tempora saecularia.” As forty three of the occurrences refer to a persons life, instead of saying “secular life,” he says “eternal life.” When Jerome ran across compound occurrences of aion, such as “for the aiona of the aionion,” he rendered them as “for the seculum of the seculum.” He sure couldn’t say “for the eternity of the eternity.” I’ve completely lost confidence in his version because of his inconsistencies , which was the basis of the Rheims New Testament.
************
Okay, that’s just part of what Ken has to say; there is much more. Now for the kicker! There is a term used in the Bible that expressly gives us the idea of an “endless” life (no, it is not “eternal”!). That word is “immortal” or “immortality” – not subject to death! The duration of immortality is inherent in its meaning in relationship with the resurrected man: it means to die no more. The same goes for the Greek and Hebrew terms translated “incorruptible” and “imperishable”: they both express something of an “endless” duration, something that is not subject to corruption or subject to perishing. These terms are only, in the whole of the Bible, applied to the saved; and never once applied to the unsaved.
While it is true that both the saved and unsaved will be resurrected back to life, it is only the saved that receive immortality, and the unsaved to be judged and punished with the ultimate destruction of their temporary life. Their punishment, called by Jesus’ revelation to the Apostle John, is the “second death” of their life by being cast into the Lake of Fire along with “death and hades (the grave)”. One does not have to take my words on this, but to take the words of Jesus and the Apostles as the truth. This is important: They are the words of Jesus Himself – “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” John 12:48.
The term used by Christ to describe the state of endless happiness enjoyed by the just in heaven (Matthew 25:46; Mark 9:44; Luke 18:30; John 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12). It means not only everlasting duration but also fullness of life, which the believer possesses already here and now through participation in the life of God.
The lot of the wicked who die estranged from God. It is called death because the person is deprived of the possession of God, who gives life to the soul. And it is eternal because it will never end.
in its full sense, duration of being without beginning, succession, or ending. Only God possesses the fullness of eternity, since only he always existed (no beginning), has no succession (no change), and will never end (no cessation). It is defined Catholic doctrine that God possesses the divine Being in a constant undivided now. His eternity is the perfect and simultaneous total possession of interminable life.
Rational creatures share in God's eternity, but only approximate it, by participation. Angels have a beginning, and they have a succession of past, present, and future, but they have no cessation since they are pure spirits that will never die or cease to be. Human beings likewise have a beginning and they have succession, but unlike the angels they will die in body, to be later resurrected, while the souls live on forever. In God's absolute power, however, angels and human souls could be deprived of existence. Their eternity depends on the goodness and will of God.
As I said, I figure I just have to keep reading it and reading it and reading it until it sounds natural -- though I don't know if I have that many good years left! I can only take so much at one sitting, even early in the a.m. when I'm (relatively) fresh . . .
The only reason I mentioned "olam" and it derivatives is that the Greek "aion" and its derivatives are representative of the Hebrew language. I am not, nor do I claim to be, a paleolinguist of oriental languages which includes Hebrew. What I was taught of Hebrew occurred 40 years ago, and nost of it hid itself in the deep crevices of my brain in places I can no long rappel down into to retrieve. That is age and time at work in me. So, I'm not all too concerned with the Hebrew as we have the LXX as its representative.
I take it the above is something you are quoting, right? This is a late addition of language to the terms used. The Midrash is a commentary on the Talmud which was originated in Babylon by the Pharisees sect of Judaism. The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
I guess this substantiates what I just revealed of myself. Midrash - Mishnah, my knowledge base buried deep in the recesses of my brain sent up the wrong word. I humbly appoligize. Again, age and time at work :-)
The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
It doesn't contain any references to resurrection either, except in 2 Maccabees, which Protestants don't accept as canonical. The Pharisees of Jesus' time, however, believed in it. In Matthew 12:32, Jesus mentions the world to come, so presumably it was a concept understood by the Jews of the time.
I realize that. But IMHO I would question the assertion that the Pharisees believed 2 Maccabees was a part of their "sacred scrolls." Matt. 12:32 mentions "age" to come, not "world to come". That is a translators input for the word "aioni". Literally, the Greek rendering says, "It will not be forgiven to him neither in this age (aioni) nor in the coming (one)." I think that you know that the word "world" is used for "age", and does not mean a planet. Am I right?
You cited above le-natsach netsachim -- same structure. Netsach can be used adverbially, but is sometimes a noun. I Samuel 15:29 has Netsach Israel, which is translated "The Eternal One of Israel." Alcalay says it originally meant "glory."
Yes, I did cite that usage. I am aware that it means glory, among other terms, just as I indicated. I did bring up the Lexicon wherein it is shown. That was at the bottom of that paragraph.
I appreciate your expertise of the Hebrew. It is very interesting. It helps me recall some - but very little - of what I once supposedly learned.
Let me ramble on a bit (you can discard this if you wish - no need to respond). The question of the inherent immortality of the sould may seem impertinent in a discussion of the final destiny of man, and yet, it must be discussed; for, if the soul indeed cannot cease to exist in a conscious state, then oly two options are left as far as a doctrine of future life is concerned: eternal conscious, either in a hell or heaven and universal salvation.
Much of modern Biblical scholarship agrees that God alone has immortality by nature, int he sense of "impossible NOT to exist" (I Tim. 6:16). However, this is not true of Christianity in general; for most actually believe that, in the nature of the soul, every soul MUST exist forever, for it is a part of God Himself which makes man a living soul.
I strongly disagree with traditional Christianity that man has an immortal soul. To me, God alone has immortality inherent in His nature. Man is a creation of God, and is not by nature immortal in any respect; and what God has chosen to reveal does not indicate that man has something within the body that is immortal. To find out what God has actually revealed one must use an exegesis based upon sound hermeneutical principles.
I find it amazing how much has been written on the subject of an immortal soul, which incorporates the topics of the meaning of words depicting the concept of endlessness. however, the great majority of thse writing exhibit the employment of a poor methodology, being mainly philosophical speculation. Writers on both sides of the issue have used philosophical argumetns as if they were the last word, surpassing what has been said in the Bible. Shallow scriptural usage provides no strong methodological foundation. As an example, thew writings of Tertullian and later Augustine exhibit that last sentence.
This is why the threads I have posted all relate to the issue of the immortal soul doctrine found in almost all churches of Christendom. I beleive questions must be asked and answered; for I find that many will nto even look open-mindedly at what God has revealed in scriptures because their belief in the unbiblical, Platonic doctrine of personal immortality.
I don't imagine I'll be around to see the results of what I write, along with hundreds of other writers of the same stance; for I'm living on "borrowed time", so to speak. However, today, thousands and thousands are involved in this discussion, and a great number of churches of all denominations are involved around the world. I am not surprised that those traditionalist believing individuals who really read and study on this topic are convinced enought to become its most ardent proponents - it happened to me and hundreds of others.
Sorry to ramble on so long. Go and enjoy another cup of tea :-)
The only reason I mentioned "olam" and it derivatives is that the Greek "aion" and its derivatives are representative of the Hebrew language. I am not, nor do I claim to be, a paleolinguist of oriental languages which includes Hebrew. What I was taught of Hebrew occurred 40 years ago, and nost of it hid itself in the deep crevices of my brain in places I can no long rappel down into to retrieve. That is age and time at work in me. So, I'm not all too concerned with the Hebrew as we have the LXX as its representative.
I take it the above is something you are quoting, right? This is a late addition of language to the terms used. The Midrash is a commentary on the Talmud which was originated in Babylon by the Pharisees sect of Judaism. The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
I guess this substantiates what I just revealed of myself. Midrash - Mishnah, my knowledge base buried deep in the recesses of my brain sent up the wrong word. I humbly appoligize. Again, age and time at work :-)
The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
It doesn't contain any references to resurrection either, except in 2 Maccabees, which Protestants don't accept as canonical. The Pharisees of Jesus' time, however, believed in it. In Matthew 12:32, Jesus mentions the world to come, so presumably it was a concept understood by the Jews of the time.
I realize that. But IMHO I would question the assertion that the Pharisees believed 2 Maccabees was a part of their "sacred scrolls." Matt. 12:32 mentions "age" to come, not "world to come". That is a translators input for the word "aioni". Literally, the Greek rendering says, "It will not be forgiven to him neither in this age (aioni) nor in the coming (one)." I think that you know that the word "world" is used for "age", and does not mean a planet. Am I right?
You cited above le-natsach netsachim -- same structure. Netsach can be used adverbially, but is sometimes a noun. I Samuel 15:29 has Netsach Israel, which is translated "The Eternal One of Israel." Alcalay says it originally meant "glory."
Yes, I did cite that usage. I am aware that it means glory, among other terms, just as I indicated. I did bring up the Lexicon wherein it is shown. That was at the bottom of that paragraph.
I appreciate your expertise of the Hebrew. It is very interesting. It helps me recall some - but very little - of what I once supposedly learned.
Let me ramble on a bit (you can discard this if you wish - no need to respond). The question of the inherent immortality of the sould may seem impertinent in a discussion of the final destiny of man, and yet, it must be discussed; for, if the soul indeed cannot cease to exist in a conscious state, then oly two options are left as far as a doctrine of future life is concerned: eternal conscious, either in a hell or heaven and universal salvation.
Much of modern Biblical scholarship agrees that God alone has immortality by nature, int he sense of "impossible NOT to exist" (I Tim. 6:16). However, this is not true of Christianity in general; for most actually believe that, in the nature of the soul, every soul MUST exist forever, for it is a part of God Himself which makes man a living soul.
I strongly disagree with traditional Christianity that man has an immortal soul. To me, God alone has immortality inherent in His nature. Man is a creation of God, and is not by nature immortal in any respect; and what God has chosen to reveal does not indicate that man has something within the body that is immortal. To find out what God has actually revealed one must use an exegesis based upon sound hermeneutical principles.
I find it amazing how much has been written on the subject of an immortal soul, which incorporates the topics of the meaning of words depicting the concept of endlessness. however, the great majority of thse writing exhibit the employment of a poor methodology, being mainly philosophical speculation. Writers on both sides of the issue have used philosophical argumetns as if they were the last word, surpassing what has been said in the Bible. Shallow scriptural usage provides no strong methodological foundation. As an example, thew writings of Tertullian and later Augustine exhibit that last sentence.
This is why the threads I have posted all relate to the issue of the immortal soul doctrine found in almost all churches of Christendom. I beleive questions must be asked and answered; for I find that many will nto even look open-mindedly at what God has revealed in scriptures because their belief in the unbiblical, Platonic doctrine of personal immortality.
I don't imagine I'll be around to see the results of what I write, along with hundreds of other writers of the same stance; for I'm living on "borrowed time", so to speak. However, today, thousands and thousands are involved in this discussion, and a great number of churches of all denominations are involved around the world. I am not surprised that those traditionalist believing individuals who really read and study on this topic are convinced enought to become its most ardent proponents - it happened to me and hundreds of others.
Sorry to ramble on so long. Go and enjoy another cup of tea :-)
**If you would like to comment on the threat topic**
No threat here, I hope!
Blessings.
By "derivatives" do you mean that olam most often occurs with the preposition governing it? I think you're overstating things to posit aion as representative of the Hebrew language: wouldn't it be more accurate to say perhaps that aion is the preferred Septuagint translation of olam? In any case, I'm pinging kosta and Kolokotronis -- since they know Greek, apparently "from the inside," they probably have insights to offer.
I would question the assertion that the Pharisees believed 2 Maccabees was a part of their "sacred scrolls." Matt. 12:32 mentions "age" to come, not "world to come". That is a translators input for the word "aioni". Literally, the Greek rendering says, "It will not be forgiven to him neither in this age (aioni) nor in the coming (one)." I think that you know that the word "world" is used for "age", and does not mean a planet. Am I right?
The question of why Maccabees were not finally included in the Jewish canon remains open. (There's an overview at myjewishlearning.com.) In any case the Jewish canon was not established until after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D., at Yavneh in approximately 90 A.D.
Arguing for its acceptance in the time of Christ (IMO) is the reference in John to the Feast of the Dedication, in winter -- Hanukkah, the story of which is only in Maccabees. (Presumably as a result of the later exclusion of Maccabees when the canon was established, Hanukkah was very much in eclipse among the Jews -- until enthusiasm for the establishment of the State of Israel renewed interest, though -- as I understand it -- the renewed interest was in large part nationalistic.) But anyway, the Jews were never anything like sola Scriptura, the Oral Torah being just as important. And any kind of developed belief in resurrection, as held by the Pharisees of Christ's time, would seem to have been developed in oral tradition; even in Maccabees, it is mentioned as accepted, not as an innovation.
I didn't check the KJV too -- the DR has "world to come." My feeling or intuition about olam, though is that it's much less specific or defined than you seem to assume. And once you get to words less concrete and specific than "mother," "father," "tree," etc., the chances of a real one-to-one correspondence between languages decline.
To me, God alone has immortality inherent in His nature. Man is a creation of God, and is not by nature immortal in any respect; and what God has chosen to reveal does not indicate that man has something within the body that is immortal.
The Catholic view (the only one I ever heard of) is that it is God's nature to be; it is not our nature -- we are contingent beings. If it's not our nature to be, and yet we are, why can't we be immortal, even if it's not strictly our "nature"?
That "something within the body" rings strange -- sort of like those guys in the 16th, 17th century who weighed bodies before and after death looking for what difference the soul made . . . We learned (not as doctrine, but as philosphical description) that the soul is the form of the body, but I'm pretty rusty on Aristotelian form and matter, so I'll leave it at that.
It does sound, though, as if you're trying to get something out of the Bible that's not there.
By "derivatives" do you mean that olam most often occurs with the preposition governing it? I think you're overstating things to posit aion as representative of the Hebrew language: wouldn't it be more accurate to say perhaps that aion is the preferred Septuagint translation of olam? In any case, I'm pinging kosta and Kolokotronis -- since they know Greek, apparently "from the inside," they probably have insights to offer.
Yes, that's close to what I meant. I have in other posts (maybe not on this particular thread) stated that a single word in one language many times cannot be stated as a single word in another language. When I use the word olam or aion, I'm using the basic term to mean what it is translated into our language to mean.
I think I would prefer to accept what the 70 scholars who translated the Biblical Hebrew into the Greek language knew what they were doing; for they knew their own language better than any modern man does, and they knew the use of the Koine Greek at that time also. Modern Hebrew is not representative of the Biblical Hebrew IMHO. And yes, I do use the LXX in my studies over any of the Hebrew (you may consider that a fault if you like).
The question of why Maccabees were not finally included in the Jewish canon remains open.
Yes, it remains open to many people, but not to all.
It does sound, though, as if you're trying to get something out of the Bible that's not there.
I suppose that could be said of Catholicism and other religious organizations, or with anyone who disagrees with another also, right? Anyway, that is not what the question is. It is "what does the Bible say about any topic of discussion?" What the Bible says is in the realm of hermeneutics and exegesis, not in esigesis - which is "reading into" instead of finding out "what is said". This will always, IMHO, be a point of contention among philosophers and exegets. One should stop and think why this same thing is not a point of contention when discussing what is said in, say, the writings of Plato, Virgil, and other ancient works.
Sorry to have to run, but a nice boat called me to come and enjoy some time on the water. I'll most likely will not be back before the start of next week. Now to get dressed, put my life-jacket on and leave. Go enjoy another cup of tea in my absence :-)
Since by your own account, you forget most of your Biblical Hebrew and don't know modern Hebrew, it's hard to see where your opinion here would be worth much. Biblical Hebrew stands in approximately the same relation to modern Hebrew as Shakespeare's English stands to present day English. Incidentally, Shakespeare died in 1616, and the KJV was first printed in 1611 -- do you find the English of the KJV inaccessible?
It is not to be found in the Torah (the Law). The Sadducee Party, who were in charge of the Temple, did not believe in this, and in afterlife precisely because it is not in the Torah. And because they considered only the Torah as the inspired part of the Tanakh (the Jeiwsh Bible, aka the Old Testament).
Olam Ba-Ha is also the term used to describe the messianic age, a period of prosperity and peace following the appearanc eof the (Jewish) messiah.
The Nicene Creed uses that concept in the last sentence "And life in the world to come. Amen."
In that sense the term "the world to come" is synonoymous with the aion (as used in +Matthew 12:32, +Luke 18:30, or Hebrews 6:5), which in English is better translated as "age to come."
Interestingly, in Hebrew 2:5 the author uses the word "oikoumene" (the world) as in "the world comming"
The Church Slavonic, reads
BTW, I am not Greek. Kolo is your Greek expert. I am merely studying biblical Greek, but I do understand Church Slavonic, which is extremely helpful in conveying the inteded Greek meanining because it is (by design) word-for-word, concept-for-concept, equivalent to Greek.
“the world comming” should read the “world coming.” Apologies.
For a cousin from across the mountains, you're doing just fine, Kosta mou!
"The Nicene Creed uses that concept in the last sentence "And life in the world to come. Amen."
καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Ἀμήν.
vs.
τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν,
These are at base different concepts. The former speaks of an "age to come" with age meaning a long time period, an aeon (!). The latter describes a concrete place or people, here probably the Roman Empire. It basically means the civilized world or commonwealth. The term was used in Byzantine times to describe the Empire and/or the Roman people. It does't have any time span implications the way "αἰῶνος" does.
Thank you both! I may be back with questions later! :)
Thank you Kolo. As they say—I'm tryin' :)
καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Ἀμήν. vs. τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν, These are at base different concepts...These are at base different concepts. The former speaks of an "age to come" with age meaning a long time period, an aeon (!). The latter describes a concrete place or people, here probably the Roman Empire.
Just curious: what makes τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν specific to Roman Empire other than the historical usage of the word?
Nothing more, really, than the times within which the words were written. The "οἰκουμένe" originally meant the inhabited world but it came to mean the civilized world which was seen as being co-extensive with the Roman Empire. Later and today, when used by The Church, it means the commonwealth of the Orthodox Christian people of the world (which down deep also is seen as definitional of being truly civilized in a Roman/non-barbarian sense).
In other words, some "sola scripturalist," reading the Bible "cold," and in Englsh, as
would not be able to understand that contextual difference?
” In other words, some “sola scripturalist,” reading the Bible “cold,” and in Englsh, as
“It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.” [Heb 2:5]
would not be able to understand that contextual difference?
“
I should think not, my friend.
I regret (deeply) that I don't know Greek. I did get through a first-year book years (lots of years) ago, but I didn't know anyone who knew it, so I couldn't get the sound. At the time, I did memorize (and have pretty much forgotten) declensions and conjugations. Do either of you know any resources on the web I could start with? An actual course is pretty much out of the question right now. But I'd like to be doing something toward it!
“Do either of you know any resources on the web I could start with?”
The best resource available in the Commonwealth is the local Greek priest, Maryz, and of course there’s the bookstore over at Holy Cross seminary in Brookline, or for that matter, the great book store at BC. At least you can be sure you won’t be getting “spun” translations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.