Strong's associates olam with a root meaning hidden or concealed.
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."
Actually I'm not quoting, except what I'm remembering from the dozen or so Midrash-based courses I took when I was studying Hebrew! I have no idea where you got the idea that the Midrash is a commentary on the Talmud, unless you're thinking of the Mishnah, technically part of the Talmud, but the term Talmud is often used interchangeably with the more proper Gemara. In any case, Talmud/Mishnah deal exclusively with the law, halakha.
Midrash is also part of the oral tradition and probably first started to be written down in the first century BC, though of course organized collections didn't start until after the destruction of the Second Temple. There are halakhic Midrash, but all the course I had were on aggadic Midrash, not at all dealing with the law, though there's lots on narratives from the Torah -- mostly commentary on verses from the prophets or Psalms. And while a physical manuscript can be dated, it's a lot harder to date an oral tradition preceding it.
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.
No, "olam olamim" does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures,
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."
And edey ed occurs in Psalms 92:3 ("eternities of eternity"?). Ed may have the best claim to meaning "eternity" in the required sense: see Isaiah 57:15 -- שֹׁכֵן עַד (shochen ed), "[Who] inhabits eternity."
Another OT locution usually translated as "forever" is l'orekh yamim (lit. "for length of days"), as at the end of Psalm 23.
I may have more to add later, but I think I need a cup of tea now!
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 :-)