Olam means forever

[LamorakDesGalis]

I have cited numerous places where the Hebrew word olam was used of things that either had no beginning or will have no end. Specifically, of God, of His word, and death. Now the concept of God as the ever existing one is not a modern invention. It is basic to both Jewish and Christian thinking, and has been from the beginning. And the concept of death as permanent is as old as mankind.

TLF claims that she has demonstrated that olam is often used of time periods that have an end. She has not. Every case she has cited is a description of a time that has no end within the period in question. This is exactly what forever means in our language.

Reference the popular TV show, "Grounded Forever." This title does not even suggest that the show is about something eternal. It suggests rather that the girl in the show has angered her parents so much that they have "grounded" her for the entire period is question, which is for as long as she continues to live with her parents.

So when the time period in question is the lifetime of an individual, both forever and olam mean for as long as that individual lives. When the time period in question is the time the present universe exists, then both forever and olam mean until the present heavens and earth are destroyed. And when the time period in question is eternity, both forever and olam mean without any end, or without any beginning, or both.

TLF accuses me of circular logic, saying olam means eternal because it has to mean eternal. But that is not what I have said. I have demonstrated that olam was often used of things that are by their very nature eternal.

TLF is the one using circular logic. She insists that olam never means eternal because that is not what it means. How does she know what it means? Because someone taught her that. But the only way to really determine what a word means is to examine how it has been used in numerous circumstances. And this is what I have done.

I feel that I have proved my point sufficiently to convince anyone who has an open mind. To continue this exchange would be simply argument without merit. I do not plan to respond to any more argument in this thread unless something really new and significant is introduced.

I agree. Context determines the meaning of the word. The verses you posted show how olam is used in the context. One cannot limit the range of olam and then read that meaning back into the posted verses. Its also easy enough to compare all the other major translations and see how they have interpreted olam in those verses.


LDG

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

ANCIENT HEBREW RESEARCH CENTER
Hebrew Lexicon - Word Studies

OLAM
found here:

[URL="http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_eternity.html"]http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_eternity.html[/URL]

Glad to see you bring up that site as I use it myself.
Btw tlf, have you tried this interlinear out? I really recommend it and they just upgraded with more Hebrew options.
If ya need help with it, just pm me and it is actually best to DL it to use the more advanced features. Peace.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Added:
- Strong for the Hebrew OT.
- Hebrew text (WLC) with vowel points.
- Morphological separation points are added to WLC_t (transliteration) and CHES (Concordant Hebrew-English Sublinear).

 

[Biblewriter]

When I said I did not intend to reply to any further posts on this subject, I was serious, but as I explained in my last post in the thread "the unfulfilled promis to Abraham," I since felt that my Lord was specifically instructing me to continue.

TLF has demanded that I submit external evidence to substantiate my claims. Her friend Tivita has submitted external evidence in the form of a Lexicon that states that the translation of olam as eternal is an error.

I have submitted far more compelling evidence, although I only mentioned it in passing. But now I will stress it.

There is one piece of external evidence that is so compelling that it would only be foolishness to deny it. Almost every Bible translation committee has rendered the Hebrew word olam as forever, or as one of its equivalents, in almost every place it is used in regard to the future. And they often translate it as eternal.

If your argument had any logical basis, why would almost every Bible translation committee ignore it?

Your argument violates one of the most basic rules of translation. That is that a correct translation is often very different from a literal translation. An example from my personal experience will suffice for this. I married a Brazilian woman, so I have been forcibly introduced to the Portuguese language, the language of Brazil.

In Portuguese, thank you is obrigado, often shortened to 'brigado. You are welcome is da nada, often shortened to nada. These are not literal translations, but they are actual translations of these English terms. The closest English equivalent to obrigado is I am obliged. and da nada literally translates as of nothing. But in a practical sense, they mean thank you and you are welcome, even as por favor literally means for a favor, but it properly translates as please.

Even so, the Hebrew word olam literally means hidden, and implies something so far away as to be impossible to see. But in actual practice, as has been clearly demonstrated in this thread, its Hebrew use is identical to the English use of the word forever. TLF denied that she admitted this, but in her arguments she insisted that in English the word forever has the same limitations she is imputing to the Hebrew word olam. This, although she did not intend it, was an admission that these two words are equivalent.

 

[thereselittleflower]

When I said I did not intend to reply to any further posts on this subject, I was serious, but as I explained in my last post in the thread "the unfulfilled promis to Abraham," I since felt that my Lord was specifically instructing me to continue.

TLF has demanded that I submit external evidence to substantiate my claims. Her friend Tivita has submitted external evidence in the form of a Lexicon that states that the translation of olam as eternal is an error.

I have submitted far more compelling evidence, although I only mentioned it in passing. But now I will stress it.

There is one piece of external evidence that is so compelling that it would only be foolishness to deny it. Almost every Bible translation committee has rendered the Hebrew word olam as forever, or as one of its equivalents, in almost every place it is used in regard to the future. And they often translate it as eternal.

That is no evidence Biblewriter . . .

"forever" has more than one meaning, which I have already demonstrated in this thread.

Ignoring Facts in Evidence is called a logical fallacy for a reason.

You are basing your argument on the ENGLISH language, on an ENGLISH word, used in the 21st century America, and on an ENLGISH word that has more than ONE meaning/use, but requiring that its use in ENGLISH Translations can only be valid if only ONE of those meanings are used. . . .

There is nothing that mandates that the meaning YOU ascribed to "forever" HAS TO BE the meaning that was ascribed by the original writers or the translators.

This is all CONJECTURE on your part ..

ASSUMPTION on your part . . .

PRESUMPTION on your part. . . .


There is NOTHING SOLID on your part to produce as evidence. . . .

And so this is not valid evidence at all.

If your argument had any logical basis, why would almost every Bible translation committee ignore it?

They haven't. It is YOU who are IGNORING that the ENGLISH word "forever" has MORE THAN ONE MEANING!

YOU are insisting it has ONLY ONE meaning . .

But YOU are WRONG to do so!

THAT is the problem here.

Your argument violates one of the most basic rules of translation.

Not at all. That is your claim. No valid proof is offered to substantiate that claim.

That is that a correct translation is often very different from a literal translation. An example from my personal experience will suffice for this. I married a Brazilian woman, so I have been forcibly introduced to the Portuguese language, the language of Brazil.

In Portuguese, thank you is obrigado, often shortened to 'brigado. You are welcome is da nada, often shortened to nada. These are not literal translations, but they are actual translations of these English terms. The closest English equivalent to obrigado is I am obliged. and da nada literally translates as of nothing. But in a practical sense, they mean thank you and you are welcome, even as por favor literally means for a favor, but it properly translates as please.

You are shooting your own argument in the foot. . .

So "forever" in the English language does not need to llterally mean unending, eternal, endless . . .

Thank you.

Even so, the Hebrew word olam literally means hidden, and implies something so far away as to be impossible to see.

Is the end of one's lifetime so far away as to be impossible to see?

It has nothing to do with distance in time. . . . It has to do with obscurity of date, whether near or far.

It is YOU who insiste it must be "so far away".

But as has been demonstrated before, "OLAM" is used to refer to the end of one's lifetime, no matter how few those years are, only because no one knowns when one's life is going to end. . IT IS OBSCURE.

But in actual practice, as has been clearly demonstrated in this thread, its Hebrew use is identical to the English use of the word forever.

LOLOL! Claims Biblewriter . . Claims . . nothing more.

You have not demonstrated any such thing. You have not even demonstrated that "forever" must be referring to unending, eternal, endless . . .

You CAN'T . . because "forever" has MORE THAN ONE MEANING.

TLF denied that she admitted this, but in her arguments she insisted that in English the word forever has the same limitations she is imputing to the Hebrew word olam.

Claims. .. where is the proof of your claims Biblewriter? You are twisting my words. It is interesting that you don't present my actual words in context and the link(s) so we can go see what really happened . . .

How many definitions are there of "forever"?

What are they Biblewriter?

Care to share with us what they are?

If not, then you beg the question why are you arguing with tlf about it who HAS produced those definitions?

This, although she did not intend it, was an admission that these two words are equivalent.

Waiting for the proof Biblewriter . . . still no proof . . . .


.

 

[Biblewriter]

That is no evidence Biblewriter . . .

"forever" has more than one meaning, which I have already demonstrated in this thread.

Ignoring Facts in Evidence is called a logical fallacy for a reason.

You are basing your argument on the ENGLISH language, on an ENGLISH word, used in the 21st century America, and on an ENLGISH word that has more than ONE meaning/use, but requiring that its use in ENGLISH Translations can only be valid if only ONE of those meanings are used. . . .

There is nothing that mandates that the meaning YOU ascribed to "forever" HAS TO BE the meaning that was ascribed by the original writers or the translators.

This is all CONJECTURE on your part ..

ASSUMPTION on your part . . .

PRESUMPTION on your part. . . .


There is NOTHING SOLID on your part to produce as evidence. . . .

And so this is not valid evidence at all.




They haven't. It is YOU who are IGNORING that the ENGLISH word "forever" has MORE THAN ONE MEANING!

YOU are insisting it has ONLY ONE meaning . .

But YOU are WRONG to do so!

THAT is the problem here.




Not at all. That is your claim. No valid proof is offered to substantiate that claim.



You are shooting your own argument in the foot. . .

So "forever" in the English language does not need to llterally mean unending, eternal, endless . . .

Thank you.



Is the end of one's lifetime so far away as to be impossible to see?

It has nothing to do with distance in time. . . . It has to do with obscurity of date, whether near or far.

It is YOU who insiste it must be "so far away".

But as has been demonstrated before, "OLAM" is used to refer to the end of one's lifetime, no matter how few those years are, only because no one knowns when one's life is going to end. . IT IS OBSCURE.



LOLOL! Claims Biblewriter . . Claims . . nothing more.

You have not demonstrated any such thing. You have not even demonstrated that "forever" must be referring to unending, eternal, endless . . .

You CAN'T . . because "forever" has MORE THAN ONE MEANING.



Claims. .. where is the proof of your claims Biblewriter? You are twisting my words. It is interesting that you don't present my actual words in context and the link(s) so we can go see what really happened . . .

How many definitions are there of "forever"?

What are they Biblewriter?

Care to share with us what they are?

If not, then you beg the question why are you arguing with tlf about it who HAS produced those definitions?



Waiting for the proof Biblewriter . . . still no proof . . . .


.

You are arguing against something essentially different from what I have been saying since the beginning. I never said, or even suggested, that olam always means eternal. I demonstrated that it is used in the Hebrew Old Testament in the same ways that we use the word forever. So the only logical conclusion is that olam means forever.

I started this thread in response to your claim that olam never means eternal. You claimed that the ancients had no concept of the word eternal. I demonstrated that they used olam to describe how long death would last, and asked if we were to imagine that there was never a time when mankind did not understand that death was eternal. I demonstrated that olam was used to describe how long God would last, and pointed out that the concept of God as the ever-existing one is basic to both the Jewish and Christian religions, and has been from the beginning. These were demonstrations that olam sometimes means eternal, whether you admit it or not.

If you do not admit that the nearly unanimous conclusion of Bible translation committees is evidence of the real meaning of a word you are only being stubborn.

But you continue to deny everything. In all this, you have clearly demonstrated that you do not have an open mind on this matter.

 

[thereselittleflower]

You are arguing against something essentially different from what I have been saying since the beginning. I never said, or even suggested, that olam always means eternal. I demonstrated that it is used in the Hebrew Old Testament in the same ways that we use the word forever. So the only logical conclusion is that olam means forever.

I started this thread in response to your claim that olam never means eternal. You claimed that the ancients had no concept of the word eternal. I demonstrated that they used olam to describe how long death would last, and asked if we were to imagine that there was never a time when mankind did not understand that death was eternal. I demonstrated that olam was used to describe how long God would last, and pointed out that the concept of God as the ever-existing one is basic to both the Jewish and Christian religions, and has been from the beginning. These were demonstrations that olam sometimes means eternal, whether you admit it or not.

If you do not admit that the nearly unanimous conclusion of Bible translation committees is evidence of the real meaning of a word you are only being stubborn.

But you continue to deny everything. In all this, you have clearly demonstrated that you do not have an open mind on this matter.

BW, you continue to ignore that the word "forever" has more than one meaning, most of which has nothing to do with endless, unending, eternal . . .

Who is it that is demonstrating they don't have an open mind by being locked into one definition for "forever" even though it has other defintions?

.

 

[IamAdopted]

Where in scripture do we see that the promises of God have an end? I see that every promise of God is Yea and Amen..

 

[Tavita]

Where in scripture do we see that the promises of God have an end? I see that every promise of God is Yea and Amen..

It doesn't say promises will or will not end. If Yea and Amen are God Himself then they are part of His divine nature. They will last as long as God does.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

If you do not admit that the nearly unanimous conclusion of Bible translation committees is evidence of the real meaning of a word you are only being stubborn.

The translations of the various English Bibles cut across a very wide range of Christian beliefs. One cannot dismiss these renderings lightly and without proof, since the translators/scholars themselves are very respectable and highly knowledgeable.


LDG

 

[thereselittleflower]

Where in scripture do we see that the promises of God have an end? I see that every promise of God is Yea and Amen..

That is a nonsensical question in light of what is being discussed in this thread IAA. Do ages have ends? Of course. If a promise is for an age, it is for as long as that age lasts. It depends on the promise IAA. The promise of the land was for an age - OLAM.

.

 

[IamAdopted]

That is a nonsensical question in light of what is being discussed in this thread IAA. Do ages have ends? Of course. If a promise is for an age, it is for as long as that age lasts. It depends on the promise IAA. The promise of the land was for an age - OLAM.

.

And has that age ended? I seem to think not.. For we do not have the new heavens and the new earth. We are still on this age.. Heaven and earth shall pass away God says but My word ENDURETH FOREVER.. So Gods word does not pass with an age.. Gods word endures forever..

 

[IamAdopted]

Christ well be coming back to earth as seen in the scriptures.. Guess where He is coming back too. It won't be New york city lol...

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Christ well be coming back to earth as seen in the scriptures.. Guess where He is coming back too. It won't be New york city lol...

 

[zeke37]

Strong's

H5769
עלם עולם
‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm
o-lawm', o-lawm'
From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.

H5703
עד
‛ad
ad
From H5710; properly a (peremptory) terminus, that is, (by implication) duration, in the sense of perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either with or without a preposition): - eternity, ever (-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, + world without end.

H5331
נצח נצח
netsach nêtsach
neh'-tsakh, nay'-tsakh
From H5329; properly a goal, that is, the bright object at a distance travelled towards; hence (figuratively), splendor, or (subjectively) truthfulness, or (objectively) confidence; but usually (adverbially), continually (that is, to the most distant point of view): - alway (-s), constantly, end, (+ n-) ever (more), perpetual, strength, victory.

 

[Biblewriter]

Everything I have said in this thread also applies to the nonsensical argument that the Bible does not teach the concept of eternal punishment.

 

[squint]

Everything I have said in this thread also applies to the nonsensical argument that the Bible does not teach the concept of eternal punishment.

I believe what you are getting at here is legitimate response to segments of christian universalism that have been postulating that eternal does not mean eternal.

Though I am a christian universalist (URism,) I do not buy the argument of temporality from that segment of URism. Eternal in MOST cases DOES mean ETERNAL particularly when ascribed to or in connection with God. It simply cannot be any other way.

That being said, there are some instances where olam is not eternal, and I believe you have acknowledged that as well.

That same segment of URism also tries this tactic with the word aion/aionian and that also brings a nearly identical rebuttal observation. It can and does mean forever and it also can mean for an age or multiple ages.

The reason segments of URism promote "temporal" is that they have largely morphed eternal punishment into a temporal form so they can toss people into the infamous Lake of Fire for an age or two while they get to party with Jesus. Some segments have even said everyone and everything is going into the Lake forever and that Lake is God.

Just more stuff to wade through.

There is no doubt about "eternal punishment." It's eternal and it's punishment.

There are other methodologies to understand christian universalism that are far more secure than some of the absurdities that come from some of these segments of URism, and yes, they can be very stubborn/rigid about their guesswork just as any other denom. can be.

enjoy!

squint

 

[Ben12]

You are right God is eternal; but that does not mean that the word olan means eternal; it means ages. One age, upon another age, upon another age...

 

[squint]

You are right God is eternal; but that does not mean that the word olan means eternal; it means ages. One age, upon another age, upon another age...

God is not a "subject" of either time or ages

 

[Ben12]

God is not a "subject" of either time or ages

God deals with men by ages; I agree God is eternal. But punishment is not. The true meaning of eternal means with out beginnin or end. Man has a beginning.

 

[Ben12]

First of all the translators could of used the word age just as well forever when it come his on the facts to punishment. This has to do with the Greek as well as Hebrew.

I base this on the fact that God will establish priesthood by reestablish the tabernacle of David. I agree God will punish (prune/chastise) the wicked; but not forever. But what God is doing is outlined in the verse below. Remember God is not calling the whole world now; only His firstfruit.

Acts 15:16

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Acts 15: 16 (NAS)
'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN,
AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD,
AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,'​

Acts 15: 16 (HCSB)
After these things I will return and will rebuild David's tent, which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins and will set it up again,
17 so that those who are left of mankind may seek the Lord—even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,says the Lord who does these things,
18 which have been known from long ago.​

Acts 15 16 (NIRV)
" 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. I will rebuild what was destroyed. I will make it what it used to be.
17 Then the rest of the people can look to the Lord. This means all the non-Jews who belong to me. The Lord says this. He is the one who does these things.'​

​