Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That could be. But don't you think that would pretty inept of them given what Isa 54;4 is saying?
You don't know much about the Septuagint, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thy Kingdom Come
If I was translating German to English and I translated something "your everlasting shame will be forgotten" don't you think I should question my translation?
And what if you were translating the Bible, and you believed it to be the verbatim word of God, and you were expected to render everything perfectly literally no matter what, and your Vorlage had "your everlasting shame will be forgotten" in it? What would you do?
The problem is not what it means in English, rather what A Hebrew or Greek speaker of 2000 years or so ago would understand it to mean.
Today we have flexible meanings for most words, such as eternal. We can mean eternal without beginning or end or just without end. The context is what is needed to know which is meant. Both can be correct depending on context. The same exists in the Biblical languages.
How we use the word "eternal" today is not how the ancients used "eternal." They did not ever use aion or aionios to represent what we consider "eternal" today.
Quote:
Next in both Hebrew and Greek the case of the noun can impact meaning (Vocative, nominative or genitive), just as gender can . Even word order can impact how a word is translated and thus it's meaning. English is a bit different than either, so insisting on a single meaning is a waste of time. Word for word translating is very difficult to do and generally will require explanation when someone gets down to specifics. We see this with the word God, which is used of God Almighty, Jesus, angels, Satan, Men and even our bellies. Some would say it can't mean the same thing in all uses.
The title "theos" is used of God, Jesus, angels, Satan, men or bellies. "Theos" has the basic meaning of "placer." Jesus said to the Jews "did I not say 'Ye are gods' "? The Jews He spoke to were supposed to place or subject themselves to the law.
Php 3:19 "whose consummation is destruction, whose god is their bowels, and whose glory is in their shame, who to the terrestial are disposed." How can a person's bowel be their god? Is it that their bowel is placing or subjecting them to a life of excesses?
How can Jesus carry the title "God"? Because He subjects all mankind to Himself (eventually) and will subject Israel to the law and the nations to Israel (eventually).
Quote:
When words are fought over so enthusiastically it is usually because common meaning is not wanted, rather a special meaning is. "Eon" has multiple meanings just as "God" does.
Every word God used in the Old and New Testament was purified 7 times like gold and silver. He chose very specific words to reveal to mankind what He wants them to know. If a word can have one meaning in one sentence and a wholly opposite meaning in another, then the transmission of the revelation is lost.
Quote:
As to the question of eternal punishment, the issue is the nature of that punishment. A burning Hell is vastly different than non existence.
There is no such critter as "eternal punishment" except in poorly translated Bibles.
Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; 3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. 4 And they shall build the old [olam, LXX aionion] wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.
What are these olam/aionian wastes? Are they not the result of God's judgment, the consequences for man's disobedience?
Last edited by Thy Kingdom Come; 11-04-2014 at 12:09 PM..
No I don't. But I do the best I can given what I know. How is that relevant?
Quote:
And what if you were translating the Bible, and you believed it to be the verbatim word of God, and you were expected to render everything perfectly literally no matter what, and your Vorlage had "your everlasting shame will be forgotten" in it? What would you do?
So you are saying they didn't misread what they had... they had olam? Ok that makes sense if that is the case. But my understanding was that the hebrew scriptures were meticulously copied.
EDIT
Upon rereading your earlier post... you did say that the translators misread the hebrew word. So I stick by my original statement that that would be pretty inept. They should have questioned themselves given that their translation makes no sense.
Because the Hebrew word for "you youth" is עלומיך, which is strikingly similar to the word for "eternity" (עולם). The translator simply misread בשת*עלומיך, "shame of your youth," as בשת*עולמיך, "your everlasting shame." It's a misreading and nothing more.
That all depends. It could be his translation used the Septuagint in that verse:
(LXX+WH+) μη φοβου οτι κατησχυνθης μηδε εντραπης
οτι ωνειδισθης οτι αισχυνην (shame) αιωνιον (eonian)
επιληση και ονειδος της χηρειας σου ου μη μνησθηση
No I don't. But I do the best I can given what I know. How is that relevant?
You shouldn't make judgment calls about someone's competence or motivations if you don't know much about what they're doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thy Kingdom Come
So you are saying they didn't misread what they had... they had olam?
Not necessarily. They very well could have had a variant Vorlage, but whether or not they had it in the source text or just thought they had it in the source text is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thy Kingdom Come
Ok that makes sense if that is the case. But my understanding was that the hebrew scriptures were meticulously copied.
That was the case after the standardization of the Masoretic Text, but the Septuagint was translated well before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thy Kingdom Come
EDIT
Upon rereading your earlier post... you did say that the translators misread the hebrew word. So I stick by my original statement that that would be pretty inept. They should have questioned themselves given that their translation makes no sense.
Very few readers of the Bible these days question themselves when the Bible makes no sense. These translators were working over 2000 years ago. I can point to ineptitude among professional Bible translators from only 100 years ago. What's the point of doing it, though?
As I said, I'm not responding until you either show you know Greek or admit you know nothing about Greek. I will not be lectured to about Greek lexicography by someone who does not know Greek. Ball's in your court.
And there you have it pneuma. The voice of authority speaks and woe to you who deign to ask him a question! Now move along pneuma.
If you don't know any Greek, Daniel can't possibly explain to you by proofs from the Bible that aion or aionion sometimes meant eternal and sometimes not. You see, pneuma, God can't possibly reveal to you anything of the Scriptures unless you at least have a degree in Greek. But we are so very fortunate to have someone like Daniel here to lead us all into the promised land of higher learning.
You shouldn't make judgment calls about someone's competence or motivations if you don't know much about what they're doing.
You just told me what they did. You told me they misread a word and came up with that translation which I can see for myself makes no sense (assuming also that those greek words mean "everlasting shame"). So I don't need to know any more to see that would be inept. If you translate something and end up with something questionable, you should look back and make sure you didn't misread.
Also I did not judge them at all. I said that would be inept... assuming your theory that they misread the text is true.
Quote:
Not necessarily. They very well could have had a variant Vorlage, but whether or not they had it in the source text or just thought they had it in the source text is irrelevant.
It's not irrelavant. Those are two very different sitations. In one case, as you argue, they think they have the word of God and must translate it as is. In the other case, they made a mistake which should easily have been corrected by double checking what they were doing.
Quote:
Very few readers of the Bible these days question themselves when the Bible makes no sense. These translators were working over 2000 years ago. I can point to ineptitude among professional Bible translators from only 100 years ago. What's the point of doing it, though?
The point of doing it is that you claimed that they misread the text. That is plausible, but it's only a theory. My point is, they would have to have been pretty inept not to double check their reading when the end up with nonsense. I doubt they would be so inept. That makes me question your theory.
Language in itself is far too nuanced to make dogmatic statements that take in all expressions of any particular subject, and among the different authors, perceptions may vary about things that are not essential to faith. What strikes me is the need for each of us to examine why our perceptions are important to us. To me it is a matter of God's love, which is patient enough to make our perception of separation from Him an open-ended condition, dependent on our realization of His nature and our relationship to it.
Amen, nate. It is folly to question the clear expertise and scholarship of Daniel . . . and it is unnecessary. The nuances in the written word are difficult enough to decipher when we are using a current language in a current context in a current idiom and within a current generation and specific culture of human society. The problems are legion. Divorce ourselves from those familiar variables by generations, cultures, and languages by thousands of years and the task is enormous. It is impossible NOT to impose our "dogma" (as Eusebius charges) but our biases are more subtle than that. They are unconscious and conditioned by the society we are raised in and the purposes and goals of our education within it. Daniel sincerely presents his interpretations and scholarship honestly. That does not mean he is correct . . . but it must be taken as part of the data necessary to decipher what the written words actually mean. I am not certain an eternity of anything would be that great . . . and it flies in the face of the idea that eventually God will be All-in-All (like the Buddhist and eastern philosophies?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
It actually does matter to ask the question concerning aiwnios.
You say "it is a matter of God's love." But what if your translation has "eternal torment"? Does that really
show a loving God or a god we should all abhor? It is impossible for God to eternally torture men, women
and children in the popular conception called "Hell" and still be a loving God. That is why this is so
important.
My logic, reason and interpretation of the import and Spirit of agape love in the story of Christ absolutely eliminate ANY possibility of the existence of any "eternal torment" (Hell) . . . so the issue is moot, IMO Eusebius.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
