hi
@rrobs; Thank you for your sentiments last post.
1) THE EARLY MODEL WHEN THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE TRINITY WERE NOT THE SAME INDIVIDUAL
Rrobs said : “God is the one true God who is called The Holy Spirit. His son, Jesus Christ is just that, His son. No son is ever also his own father, so Jesus and God are two different individuals. They are one only in the sense that Jesus always carried out His Father's will. They are one in purpose and desires” (Post #191)
You and I have been speaking about the early Judeo-Christian belief that Jesus / the Messiah was, in early Judeo-Christian literature, described as the one who created the earth. While this is historically correct, your statement in post #191 had to do with their relationship and so I wondered if you misunderstood my position on the trinity. I very much agree with
@Good-Ole-Rebel regarding his point that Jesus was the creator.
However, I very much agree with YOUR point that Jesus was NOT the same individual as God the Father and as the Holy Spirit in the early Judeo-Christian literature and in their beliefs.
It was in LATER centuries that the model of “three is really one” was developed. I wanted to make this clear in case you thought I was somehow arguing that these three were the same individuals in demonstrating Jesus as the creator, under commission of the Father. Other than to make this comment, I don’t really care to enter into that specific argument.
Rrob said : “Well, I thought I'd given them to you, but maybe it was someone else. But no, it was you. they were in my reply to your post #190. In any case, for your reading pleasure:” (post #215)
Oops, you are perfectly correct and I am absolutely incorrect on this point. I overlooked your reply and I apologize rrob.
2) REGARDING THE USE OF ΑΙΩΝ IN EARLY SACRED LITERATURE
Rrobs said :”Here is a complete definition from Strong's Concordance:
G165 αἰών aion (ai-ōn') n.
1. (properly) an age (or eon). a period of existence, though not merely a period of time (there are ages after the Last Day).
2. (by extension) ages, perpetuity (forward, also into the past).
3. (rarely) the beginning age (see John 9:32, Acts 15:18).
4. (rarely) the prior age (see Luke 1:70).
5. (often) the present age, the world today (see 1 Timothy 4:8, 1 Timothy 6:17).
6. (specially, Jewish) the coming age, the Messianic period or the New Heavens and Earth period (and beyond) by context (see Luke 18:30, Ephesians 2:7, Hebrews 13:8).
It's a time word, not a material word.” (post #215)
rrobs : While I very much agree with you that αιων, in it’s base meaning, applied to a time period and it did not mean either everlasting nor eternal (despite the many times it’s been rendered as “eternal life”).
αιον-αιονιος (an age of ages) was synonymous to Hebrew עולמ / olam (which comes from עלמ, a word signifying hidden or unknown). Thus its base meaning signified an indefinite duration of time past or future.
For example, hebrew m’olam l’olam meant coming from ages prior and going into ages future. Though if one added v' od, then it could mean above and beyond the ages (and thus the meaning could approximate the meaning of "eternity")
3) ΑΙΩΝ עולמ / olam AND THEIR MULTIPLE MEANINGS
If you look at the
first five places in which olam occurs in the Old testament, it is rendered by
five different words (“forever“, “always“, “of old“, “perpetual“, “everlasting“, etc.) The word occurs 657 times in the old testament and is rendered into almost 30 different words. The different translations occur
because of context (i.e. the object with which olam is associated). Thus, if the word olam (greek "αιων") is associated with “the world”, then meaning came to mean “the world”. This is why it is rendered “world” so often as your example from strongs indicates.
For example, If you look at your note from strongs (which is NOT meant for use by translators), it gives us the word "age" as in “time” as the “
proper” meaning of αιων.
Strongs then notes that it "rarely" means “
ages”.
Strongs then notes that it "
often" means "
the world today".
4) THE MEANING AND USAGE OF ΑΙΩΝ IN ITS ASSOCIATION TO “THIS WORLD”
The linguist Lenneps point that the word comes from αο, “
to breathe” and signifies the indefinite duration time associated with mortality. It’s use in such phrases as αιων δε δι οστεων is not really literally referring to “the age of bone”, but by association, it means the “time of life” (the marrow / blood was associated with life).
While strongs tells us how translators used the word in a
theoretical or translational sense, only
actual usage is the true determination of
actual meaning in ancient use. Thus it is important that Hesychius (4-6 c) and others anciently, USED the definition of αιων as “The life of man, the time of life.” So, despite theoretical entymological origins (who really knows what that was?), the USE of the word among the ancients was “often” (as strong confirms) used to signify the age of mortal man or duration of mortal life in this world. It is used with this meaning by Homer, Hesiod and the old poets, by Pindar and tragic writers as well as Herodotus and Xenophon, etc. It’s actual useage in ancient literature determined its meaning.
Since the Duration of an αιων was associated with some object, its characteristic became associated with that object. For example, it’s duration of time was determined by the object, that is, the time varied according to whether one applied αιων to bone marrow, that is, to mortality, the lifetime of mankind, etc or to another object.
Thus αιονιον was a short time when it applied to the time Jonah was in the fish (70 hours was it’s duration then). When applied to the priesthood of Aaron, αιων meant centuries. When applied to the mountains, perhaps αιων meant thousands of years.
Similarly, it was its application to God himself which caused it to come to mean “eternal”, since God was envisioned to be eternal. Its later meaning associated with “eternity” came from the words’ application to God, and not from the word itself.
Similarly, in the context in creation of the world, by extension, it came to mean “the world” since, it’s application to mortality applies to the conditions of mortality. (i.e. mortal life, mortal moral conditions, mortal worldly condition, the “way of life”, etc.). It is the context and not strongs that will tell us what the word means in a specific phrase.
For the reasons I’ve explained above, I think translators were justified in translating Heb 1:2 as indicating the Son created the mortal/material worlds rather than that he simply created periods of time. For examples :
through whom also he made the universe. (NIV)
through the Son he created the universe. (NLT)
through whom also he created the world. (ESV)
through whom also He made the world. (NASB)
through whom also He made the worlds (NKJV)
by whom also he made the worlds (KJV)
and made the universe through him. (CSB)
and made the universe through Him. (HCSB)
through whom he also made the universe.(ISV)
through whom he created the world. (Net bible)
through whom also He made the world. (NAS 77)
by whom also he made the worlds; (AKJV)
through whom also he made the worlds; (ASV)
by whom also he made the world. (Douay-Rheims)
by whom also he made the worlds; (Darby)
through whom also he made the worlds (ESV)
by whom also he made the worlds; (Websters)
through whom also he made the worlds. (WEB)
5) LITERAL TRANSLATIONS VERSUS CONTEXTUAL TRANSLATIONS
As an example of the difference between a literal translation versus a contextual translation, the Berean STUDY bible renders the phrase “
through whom He made the universe” while the Berean LITERAL bible renders the phrase “
through whom He made the ages”. Literal translation lacks the context of normal translation and thus too much literalness causes a different kind of error in meaning.
NON-TRANSLATION COMMENTARIES
Some versions are NOT translations, but interpretations and commentaries that masquerade as authentic translations. For example the Contemporary English version renders the phrase “and everything will someday belong to the Son”. Obviously this is NOT an accurate translation, but reflects the unabashed theology of it’s author.
6) REGARDING ROTHERHAM’S LITERAL TRANSLATIONS VERSUS TRANSLATIONS BY USAGE AND CONTEXT
Rrobs said : "Here's Rotherham's EBR version of Heb 1:2, At the end of these days, He hath spoken unto us in his Son,––whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he hath made the ages;" (post #215)
Remember
Rotherham is a literalist and this tendency can cause it's own type of errors. For example, Rotherham noticed the New Testament text in one place calls the two crucified with Christ as “
malefactors” and another place the text calls them “
thieves”. He could not rectify this apparent inconsistency and thus, his version of the New Testament crucifixion has FIVE people crucified, Jesus and two “malefactors” AND two “thieves”.
Rotherham was not particularly able to allow for subtle changes in the New Testament text. Having said that, I like some of Rotherhams GRAMMATICAL changes to the bible he created.
I am typing between appointments at work and so will respond to your other points later, as I find time.
I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful rrobs
Clear
τωτζτζσιω