|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Eternal and Forever: Unending or Just a Very Long Time? | |||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5027 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
quote: I don't quite agree with this. The noun "Aeon" in Greek means 'century', i.e. a finite period of time. However, the adjective "Aeoni /os /a /o" means, literally, 'through the centuries'. The more prosaic translations are 'eternal', 'neverending' or 'everlasting'. The adjective pertains to something that spans centuries without a finite end. In the strictest sense, it's only used to describe unbounded time span, i.e. everlasting. "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Good to know. Since I know how words can be used in many different ways even contrary to their literal meaning, I'm uncomfortable having to rely on a concordance; but it's all I have. they are useful tools, just not always as dictionaries. it's not even an issue of "contrary to their literal meaning" but more of how that literal meaning gets rendered in another language. a lot of our idioms wouldn't make sense in other languages, just like if they wrote "to the world" in english we wouldn't understand the implications.
The idea of quality, I think, is more related to the usage of aion as an adjective in the NT. I haven't had time to sit down and investigate other usages in the NT. i'm utterly unqualitifed to critique an argument about greek.
So it means the planet itself or the planet and its inhabitants as a whole? Of course if the inhabitants are gone, then not much to have a covenant with. ah, yes. sorry for not being more specific. the inhabitants as well. it's like when we say "the whole world" we don't just mean the physical ground, but the cultures therein as well.
Or to be a covenant as long as the planet exists? So it does really deal with a very long period of time, not a time without end. well, more literally, it's until the world ends. less literally -- and by far the more common usage in modern hebrew -- it means "forever." that's not to say, however, that this is what the original authors meant. modern hebrew is largely based off biblical hebrew, and the traditions of what certain things meant could concievably have affected the modern idioms. i'll look a bit later tonight (going out in a bit) and see if i can find an specific usage that demands it mean one or the other.
Even our own word doesn't mean without end. well, yes and no. it does mean "without end" because that's how we read it. to origin of the word may have meant something else.
So given what you have told me about olam, when the OT was translated into the LXX, they used the word aion, which supposedly means age. From my viewpoint that would show that the translators didn't understand the usage of olam to mean time without end. Is this a logical conclusion? i'm not sure. as i said, i know very, very little about greek. it might simply be that there is no comparable word in greek? it's bit of a hard phrase to translate. but, should the greek word specifically NOT mean eternity, and CANNOT mean eternity, AND there is another word that would have been better fit for eternity, it would be a rather strong indication that "ad-olam" and "l'olam" were not read as "forever."
I couldn't find "olam" being used as an adjective the way that "aion" is in the NT. while a lot of hebrew grammar is pretty straightforward, there are some weird little exceptions. i posted on above, where olam was being used like an adjective as part of a noun phrase.
But the word used for eternal is "qedem". that's actually a different idea. it might actually be closer to the greek "age." qedem is the word for "east" but is also used repeatedly to mean "ancient." in the strictest sense, i suppose we could say it's from the beginning of creation, or before. but implication, i think is like eternal but in reverse (when applied to god, anyways). i'll have to check...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
After what Arach has stated, I understand where they were going with the noun, but the adjective form is still a puzzlement.
This site entitled The Hidden Aeonian Realm also brings out the idea that as an adjective it doesn't describe a length of time. Although this article presents the idea of that the type is hidden or spiritual. Something not of this world.
Paul wrote, ”we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is aeonian’ (2 Cor 4: 18). The word aeonian describes those things human eyes have not seen, and ears have not heard, because they belong to the unseen realm of the kingdom of God. Not sure if I agree with this thought yet. Still working on it.
quote:But if the noun means a finite period of time how does it then mean the complete opposite as an adjective? I've been trying to think of similar situations in english, but keep getting interrupted. While aion means "age," aionios, being an adjective, means "agelasting," or "aeonian," or "agelong." Even this meaning is finite, still undefined, but has an end. I can see where the adjective would carry the meaning of longlasting, but not unending. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5027 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
quote: The use of the noun in singular 'aion' always refers to a finite period of time. In modern Greek it always refers to a 100-year time period, i.e. we live in the 21st 'aion'. The only exception to this rule is the phrase "eis ton aiona ton aionon" (literally: to the century of centuries) used to indicate an immeasurable period of time, i.e. forever. When the noun is used in its plural form 'aiones' and in the absence of a numerical or other predicative qualifier (e.g. 2 aiones = 2 centuries = 200 years) it can only be translated as referring to an immeasurable period of time, practically everlasting. In ancient texts and the NT the phrase 'eis tous aiones' (literally: towards the centuries) is being used and it can only be translated to indicate something that lasts beyond our ability to measure, i.e. everlasting. The adjective "aionios" indicates something that spans an indefinite/immeasurable number of centuries, i.e. for all intents and purposes eternal.
quote:it's not a case of the noun being used as an adjective, "aionios" is an adjective in its own right and it is used to assign the attribute of immeasurable / indefinite duration. purpledawn writes: But if the noun means a finite period of time how does it then mean the complete opposite as an adjective? dunno, I didn't make up the rules . I suppose it's because it's derived from the unqualified plural form of the noun which denotes unbounded duration. I can't think of an English word equivalent off the top of my head.
quote: this is like saying that the adjective 'colourful' deals with size ! "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
So it does mean a very long or undetermined time, but not a time without an end. The end is just beyond our measure.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5027 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
err...technically yes, I suppose, though semantically it's the same as 'eternal' or 'everlasting'.
"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
But there are instances where it is used that we know the situation is not without end.
Jeremiah 522 'Do you not fear Me?' declares the LORD. 'Do you not tremble in My presence ? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. During natural disasters the waves do cross over the beach.
Matthew 18:8 "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 18:9"If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell. The fire in Gehenna no longer burns. I did find two verses where a different word is used to mean without end.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. and Jude 1:6And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. Interesting that this word isn't used concerning humans.
scholars Aidios "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5027 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Jeremiah was not written in Greek, so I can't comment on it.
Matthew 18:8 uses the adjective "aionios" which is rightly translated as 'eternal'. The fact that the fire no longer burns has nothing to do with the writer's intention to convey a meaning of everlasting. Romans 1:20 and Jude 1:6 uses the adjective "aidios" which is a synonym for everlasting, albeit in a more abstract sense. The subtle difference between the two is that "aionios" implies something so durable that it's beyond our ability to measure while "aidios" implies something outside time altogether. as an example, one could describe the Universe using either of those terms. That doesn't mean that the universe is never going to end, it just means that for all intents and purposes it won't. Most writers in the links you mentioned use theological bias in their translation of the phrases and split semantic hairs in order to support their POVs. IMHO, when you see either of the adjectives in Greek text you can safely assume that the author describes something of unending duration. "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3479 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: quote: IOW, from the writer's view at the moment of writing, the fire or noun of choice would never end or at least they don't feel it will end in their lifetime. Since we have seen the end of some things deemed eternal, their use of eternal isn't necessarily a factual statement. So we really don't know if they meant it factually from knowledge or just a figure of speech. My guess is figure of speech. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5027 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
purpledawn writes: IOW, from the writer's view at the moment of writing, the fire or noun of choice would never end or at least they don't feel it will end in their lifetime. yes, absolutely. The writer thought that the fire would keep burning through immeasurable centuries. In this instance he was obviously wrong, but that's another story.
purpledawn writes: Since we have seen the end of some things deemed eternal, their use of eternal isn't necessarily a factual statement. So we really don't know if they meant it factually from knowledge or just a figure of speech. My guess is figure of speech.
no, no more than any other predictive statement in any text. It's just an expression of hope, desire, belief, etc. They thought that the fire would be eternal. As it turned out it wasn't. Not the only place in the Bible where they got things wrong. "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6128 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
As Legend has already commented, the sources you are using for your study are hardly professional. (Mike Burke's articles, for example, show an obvious lack of training in both Greek and English grammar.) If you really want to know whether a particular translation of a word is viable, then you should consult some of the more advanced works written by men who spent their entire lives studying the language in question. In this particular scenario, I would recommend that you go to your local public library and ask if they have either an Arndt and Gingrich Greek Lexicon (available on amazon for $13) or an unabridged Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon ($150 on amazon). For Hebrew, you could try the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament ($32 on amazon).
Whatever source you decide to use, it would be wise to ensure that your copy of the material has not been abridged in any way. Unfortunately, this usually rules out any of the online lexicons.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024