The word 'olam'

[Butch5]

 

 

 

If you look at how olam is used in the OT I think you'll see it can't mean forever, even though those who wrote the dictionaries claim it does

 

Didn't the OT describe eternal life also with word 'olam'.

 

The only place I found in the OT that uses owlam and chayay together is Gen.3:22.

 

KJV  Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (Gen 3:22 KJV)

 

 

You sure there's only one reference. The OT is a pretty big book. Didn't also the NT describe eternal life with the word 'aion'.

 

I did a search of the OT for verses containing owlam and chayay (life). I didn't search for every possible combination of different words. In my search that is the only passage that came up. The NT does use the phrase "aionios zoe". This phrase is translated "eternal life" in many English Bibles. However, as I said, I believe this not a correct translation.

[dscapp]

However, as I said, I believe this not a correct translation.

 

It's possible that the OT used olam for eternal life and aion in the NT for eternal life. Your searches are pretty vague to be convinced however. - ds.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

I've checked everlasting = olam.

 

If you are hung up on a covenant that was to be everlasting but wasn't because man broke the covenant doesn't mean God wasn't going to keep up his side of the bargain for everlasting. 

 

Could it be yours is a presuppositional category error (because you believe it meant x and not y so therefore it cannot mean y)... ?

Or it could be that those who write the dictionaries have presuppositions that they're imposing on their definitions.

 

That argument cuts both ways.

[Butch5]

 

However, as I said, I believe this not a correct translation.

 

It's possible that the OT used olam for eternal life and aion in the NT for eternal life. Your searches are pretty vague to be convinced however. - ds.

 

The searches have nothing to do with it really. If the Scriptures say owlam life and owlam doesn't mean eternal then the Scripture is not saying eternal life. Owlam basically means, time unseen. In other words the end of the time is not seen. From the Jewish perspective of time as traveling a road the future and the past are seen as just to the next rise or around the next bend. One cannot see over the next rise or around the next bend until they get there. This is the also the Jewish perspective of time. So, something that is owlam could be just over the next rise or the person may never see the end of it. From that perspective owlam can be used to explain a time period that is eternal, however, the definition of owlam is not eternal. It's the same with aion, an age. An age is an undefined period of time, it could be 1000 years, ten thousand years or an age that never ends. The problem is that once you define owlam as a specific period of time that is what it is. If owlam is eternal then it cannot be used to describe a time period that is not eternal. The word cannot have to opposing meanings otherwise it could not be used to communicate. There are multiple examples in the Scriptures where owlam is used of events that were finite in duration, thus it cannot mean eternal. We have the same situation with aion. Aionios is used of events that were finite in duration. For example Jude said that Sodom and Gomorrah were examples of Aionios (eternal) fire, yet we know that those two cities are not still burning today. One of the passages that many quote in an attempt to prove Eternal Conscious Torment is in Mathew 25 where Jesus said these will go into eternal punishment. The claim is that they will suffer punishment for eternity, however, what most don't quote is that that punishment is aionios fire and as we've seen from Jude that fire does not burn for eternity.

 

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.  (Jud 1:1 KJV)

 

However, that fire is not burning today, those two cities were completely destroyed. It's my understanding that the destruction was so complete that archaeologists aren't even sure where they we re located because they cannot find any remnants of those two cities. 

[Butch5]

 

 

I've checked everlasting = olam.

 

If you are hung up on a covenant that was to be everlasting but wasn't because man broke the covenant doesn't mean God wasn't going to keep up his side of the bargain for everlasting. 

 

Could it be yours is a presuppositional category error (because you believe it meant x and not y so therefore it cannot mean y)... ?

Or it could be that those who write the dictionaries have presuppositions that they're imposing on their definitions.

 

That argument cuts both ways.

 

Except that I can go to the Scriptures and prove that the Owlam events did end, thus proving the writers of those dictionaries incorrect.

[dscapp]

Except that I can go to the Scriptures and prove that the Owlam events did end, thus proving the writers of those dictionaries incorrect.

 

Jer 31:38-40 38 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The surveyor's line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. 40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."

Isa. 66:22-24 "For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain. 23 From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD. 24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

I agree with shiloh. Both of those passages are referencing the millennial period. Isa 66 isn't talking about the new heavens and new earth.   Isaiah is comparing the perpetuity of the new heavens and new earth with the perpetuity of Israel's future offspring.  Read verse 22 carefully it is only making a comparison.   There will no moon in the new heavens and new earth so v. 23 cannot referencing that eternal time period.

From shiloh - Isa 66:24 - This is not Gehenna. Evidently, after the war of Armageddon, they will simply burn the bodies in the field where they lay.   There is no call for this to be an example of Gehenna. If that were the intent the author would have told us so.  You need to let the Bible speak for itself rather than attempting to assign values to the text. The text is using a bit of hyperbole to make the point that the fire is going to burn a long time, well into the milennium and people will be able to see the carcasses and it will serve as a reminder of what happened to those who rebelled against the Lord.   There is no connection here to Gehenna/Hell.

 

Me - What are your thoughts on Mark 9:43-48 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44]b 45And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46]c 47And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where “ ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

I've checked everlasting = olam.

 

If you are hung up on a covenant that was to be everlasting but wasn't because man broke the covenant doesn't mean God wasn't going to keep up his side of the bargain for everlasting. 

 

Could it be yours is a presuppositional category error (because you believe it meant x and not y so therefore it cannot mean y)... ?

Or it could be that those who write the dictionaries have presuppositions that they're imposing on their definitions.

 

That argument cuts both ways.

 

Except that I can go to the Scriptures and prove that the Owlam events did end, thus proving the writers of those dictionaries incorrect.

 

No, you can't prove them wrong.   All you can prove is that you don't do very good exegesis.   Olam can refer to things that have an end in certain contexts.  But you can't just plug in whatever meaning you think suits your agenda.

 

Words in Hebrew are very precise because they possess a lot of nuances and when you add in different endings and verb stems and bunch of grammatical syntaxical issues you probably don't anything about, you will find that just running to Strong's concordance doesn't cut it.

 

Hebrew words often possess more than one meaning due to the fact that it is a very small language, only about 8700 words.  So those words carry a lot of meanings and usages that most people don't realize.

 

So it really isn't as simple as you think it is.

[Butch5]

 

 

 

 

I've checked everlasting = olam.

 

If you are hung up on a covenant that was to be everlasting but wasn't because man broke the covenant doesn't mean God wasn't going to keep up his side of the bargain for everlasting. 

 

Could it be yours is a presuppositional category error (because you believe it meant x and not y so therefore it cannot mean y)... ?

Or it could be that those who write the dictionaries have presuppositions that they're imposing on their definitions.

 

That argument cuts both ways.

 

Except that I can go to the Scriptures and prove that the Owlam events did end, thus proving the writers of those dictionaries incorrect.

 

No, you can't prove them wrong.   All you can prove is that you don't do very good exegesis.   Olam can refer to things that have an end in certain contexts.  But you can't just plug in whatever meaning you think suits your agenda.

 

Words in Hebrew are very precise because they possess a lot of nuances and when you add in different endings and verb stems and bunch of grammatical syntaxical issues you probably don't anything about, you will find that just running to Strong's concordance doesn't cut it.

 

Hebrew words often possess more than one meaning due to the fact that it is a very small language, only about 8700 words.  So those words carry a lot of meanings and usages that most people don't realize.

 

So it really isn't as simple as you think it is.

 

Yes, I can show them wrong. Also, inflection doesn't change the definition of a word, only it's use. A word cannot have opposing meanings that is just logical. You keep talking about exegesis, well I have to wonder about yours if you claim a word can mean infinite and not infinite.

[dscapp]

hmm....

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, I can show them wrong.

 

No you can't because no one is claiming that Olam doesn't have an end in certain contexts. 

 

 

Also, inflection doesn't change the definition of a word, only it's use.

 

I didn't say anything about inflection.  I said nuance.  Hebrew is very nuanced. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.   Word usage trumps word meaning.

 

 

A word cannot have opposing meanings that is just logical.

 

Ultimately it is about word usage, not meaning.  Olam can mean one thing depending on a particular usage and it can meaning something else depending on another usage.  

 

 

You keep talking about exegesis, well I have to wonder about yours if you claim a word can mean infinite and not infinite.

I notice you make a lot of claim but don't back them up.

 

Which shows you clearly don't understand how to handle the biblical languages.   Even our English word "love" can be used in a way that means, "hate."