24 replies to this topic

[gabe]

The following excerpts were written by Dr. John Thomas and can be found at: http://users.aol.com...07/foreever.htm

Quote

"For ever and ever," or even its parallel in Daniel, "for ever, even for ever and ever" (Dan. 7:18), are phrases, then, that do not indicate "eternity," being used of things which are in their nature, or constitution, terminable.

and...

Quote

I have a translation of Dan. 7:18 before me which renders the time the Saints are to possess the kingdom by the formula, "for eternity, even for eternity of eternity." This, however, is a mere flourish, and no translation, and bears on the face of it proof that the inventor of the form knew nothing about the nature of the kingdom, nor the purpose for which it is to be established. As I have shown, the kingdom is not to continue eternally; so that the Saints cannot hold it for eternity; and as the scripture is true, they do not use the world here in the sense of ever and eternity.

I know that Fortigurn fervently contested this view in our debate in the pankration, but was wondering what the general consensus amongst Christadelphians is regarding this issue.

Edited by gabe, 25 August 2006 - 06:32 AM.

[Steven]

I can't say I know/care what bro Thomas said, or understand what difference it might make, but Daniel 7:18 in the English Standard Version appears to me to be a fair translation of the Hebrew Massoretic Text (Leningrad Codex). The Septuagint also has a double "forever".

7:18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.'

Nevertheless, whatever Daniel says, 1 Corinthians 15:24 says:

24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.

Which might indicate that there could, maybe, be two eras/stages in this double forever. Is this a hot potato we need to raise our blood pressure about? :coffee:

[Netsach Yisrael]

I think you need to make your question more specific. The kingdom itself lasts a milennium, after which it is delivered up to God and he is "all in all." To that extent, there's nothing wrong with the latter quote from JT.

It's also the case that "olam" in Hebrew is a slightly slippery word. Like "aion" in the Greek, it sometimes means "world," sometimes "age," and somtimes "forever." JT is incorrect when he denies that the phrase "le-olam," or "to the age," means "forever." It does generally mean that. On the other hand "olam olamim," or "age of ages," is a rather enigmatic phrase. It may be a poetic way of saying "forever and ever," but it may have a slightly different connotation. Either way, brother Thomas's suggestion is wrong--it almost certainly doesn't refer to an age subdivided into different epochs of God's plan.

But you asked what the average Christadelphian thinks. The average Christadelphian has never heard of any of it.

--Len.

[Asyncritus]

An interesting use of 'forever' came up in a study we were doing of the Passover on Thursday night.

Ex 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Ex 12:17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
Ex 12:24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.

Olahm is used here.

But the passover was finished, and although the Jews keep a sort of thing called passover, it is finished. Therefore olahm here, at least, doesn't mean ad infinitum or in perpetuity. There is a definite delimitation.

[Netsach Yisrael]

Asyncritus, on Aug 26 2006, 08:37 PM, said:

But the passover was finished, and although the Jews keep a sort of thing called passover, it is finished. Therefore olahm here, at least, doesn't mean ad infinitum or in perpetuity. There is a definite delimitation.

Good example. I think Steven and Fort would both hasten to add that "olam" can still mean forever in the verse you cite, in the same way that God sometimes says "all flesh" but doesn't really mean everyone on earth, etc.

--Nili

[gabe]

Netsach Yisrael, on Aug 26 2006, 10:43 PM, said:

Asyncritus, on Aug 26 2006, 08:37 PM, said:

But the passover was finished, and although the Jews keep a sort of thing called passover, it is finished. Therefore olahm here, at least, doesn't mean ad infinitum or in perpetuity. There is a definite delimitation.

Good example. I think Steven and Fort would both hasten to add that "olam" can still mean forever in the verse you cite, in the same way that God sometimes says "all flesh" but doesn't really mean everyone on earth, etc.

--Nili

A classic example of ad hoc reasoning....

[Netsach Yisrael]

gabe, on Aug 27 2006, 07:05 PM, said:

Netsach Yisrael, on Aug 26 2006, 10:43 PM, said:

Asyncritus, on Aug 26 2006, 08:37 PM, said:

But the passover was finished, and although the Jews keep a sort of thing called passover, it is finished. Therefore olahm here, at least, doesn't mean ad infinitum or in perpetuity. There is a definite delimitation.

Good example. I think Steven and Fort would both hasten to add that "olam" can still mean forever in the verse you cite, in the same way that God sometimes says "all flesh" but doesn't really mean everyone on earth, etc.

A classic example of ad hoc reasoning....

Feel free to elaborate, my condescending friend.

--Nili, PhD

[gabe]

Quote

Feel free to elaborate, my condescending friend.

--Nili, PhD

Condescending? Thou doth flatter me!

Hi Nili,

The dismissal of prima-facie evidence, in this case evidence that OLAM is used of a period of time, by deeming it an instance of hyperbole, has every appearance of stemming from an unfalsifiable criteria for determining literal and figurative usage. Let us take this back to AION for an illustration of the ad hoc nature of this criteria.

Q. What is the basic meaning of AION?
A. Forever.
Q. What about this verse, and this verse, and this and that wherein AION is used of something that obviously will not last forever?
A. That's just hyperbole.

Well, doesn't the sword slice both ways on this one? I could just as well assert that the basic meaning of AION is "pertaining to a period of time" and deem verses such as Luke 1:33 as instances where the basic meaning is exxagerated so as to induce the idea of 'forever'?

Edited by Dianne, 28 August 2006 - 04:57 AM.

[sarah]

Quote

I can't say I know/care what bro Thomas said

I notice Stephen you often speak like this regarding Dr Thomas. Is there a particular reason?

[Steven]

sarah, on Aug 28 2006, 09:28 AM, said:

Quote

I can't say I know/care what bro Thomas said

I notice Steven you often speak like this regarding Dr Thomas. Is there a particular reason?

Yes. Because there's a regular assumption among non-Christadelphians like Gabe that Christadelphians give special attention to what John Thomas said. We don't. It's important to make clear that this isn't true. His books, opinion, counts for no more and no less than any other brother. Or for that matter a good non-Christadelphian writer like FF Bruce. Our only authority is the Bible.

[Steven]

gabe, on Aug 27 2006, 08:05 PM, said:

Netsach Yisrael, on Aug 26 2006, 10:43 PM, said:

Asyncritus, on Aug 26 2006, 08:37 PM, said:

But the passover was finished, and although the Jews keep a sort of thing called passover, it is finished. Therefore olahm here, at least, doesn't mean ad infinitum or in perpetuity. There is a definite delimitation.

Good example. I think Steven and Fort would both hasten to add that "olam" can still mean forever in the verse you cite, in the same way that God sometimes says "all flesh" but doesn't really mean everyone on earth, etc.

--Nili

A classic example of ad hoc reasoning....

I'm not sure that's "ad hoc" or not, but AFAIK "for ever" "for ever and ever" (and for that matter "all flesh") mean the same in Hebrew and Greek as English. As indeed 1Co15:24 means the same in Greek as English.

What's the point of this thread? :coffee:

[sarah]

Steven, on Aug 28 2006, 10:33 AM, said:

sarah, on Aug 28 2006, 09:28 AM, said:

Quote

I can't say I know/care what bro Thomas said

I notice Steven you often speak like this regarding Dr Thomas. Is there a particular reason?

Yes. Because there's a regular assumption among non-Christadelphians like Gabe that Christadelphians give special attention to what John Thomas said. We don't. It's important to make clear that this isn't true. His books, opinion, counts for no more and no less than any other brother. Or for that matter a good non-Christadelphian writer like FF Bruce. Our only authority is the Bible.

I do agree with you...but I would VERY much hesitate to put any other peron on a par with JT since he was instrumental in bringing the Truth back to Light. I agree with your sentiment entirely and there is grave danger in just accepting of what he has to say...but sometimes it jsut seems to me that you are quite demeaning of him. Could you or any other give an exposition of the Apocalypse as he has done?

[Netsach Yisrael]

gabe, on Aug 28 2006, 04:30 AM, said:

The dismissal of prima-facie evidence, in this case evidence that OLAM is used of a period of time, by deeming it an instance of hyperbole...

I've already said that "olam" has more than one meaning, and I didn't identify Asyncritus's example as "hyperbole." You'r attributing all sorts of things to me that I never said.

--Len.

[Steven]

sarah, on Aug 28 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

do agree with you...but I would VERY much hesitate to put any other peron on a par with JT since he was instrumental in bringing the Truth back to Light. I agree with your sentiment entirely and there is grave danger in just accepting of what he has to say...but sometimes it just seems to me that you are quite demeaning of him. Could you or any other give an exposition of the Apocalypse as he has done?

Sarah

Nehushtan.

God bless
S.

[sarah]

Steven, on Aug 29 2006, 01:51 AM, said:

sarah, on Aug 28 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

do agree with you...but I would VERY much hesitate to put any other peron on a par with JT since he was instrumental in bringing the Truth back to Light. I agree with your sentiment entirely and there is grave danger in just accepting of what he has to say...but sometimes it just seems to me that you are quite demeaning of him. Could you or any other give an exposition of the Apocalypse as he has done?

Sarah

Nehushtan.

God bless
S.

oh absolutely right...i quite agree with you as I said but do we need to be as demeaning by saying couldn't care less?

[Tarkus]

Steven, on Aug 29 2006, 10:44 PM, said:

Sorry, when we've got brethren around like ... who actually know Hebrew

I will have to demur to NY on Hebrew, a language of which I fear I am rather ignorant. (Textbooks will get you only so far, and that's not as far as you think.)

[sarah]

ok I added the 'less' on when i should not have. I apologise

I do not like being called 'little girlie'...I find that demeaning and a put down, even if it does have a smilie after it. Please don't do that.

Really am not sure why you have to re quote the thread...i am well old enough to read thank you! I have followed the thread through, and appreciate the point that you have made to Gabe. I have said all along that i do not disagree with the point that you are making. I too have experienced people who have 'blindly' followed JT's arguments and I am not at all happy witht hat. He was not inspired although was an instrument used to rediscover the truth...surely you would NOT deny that? And as such, I think taht he does deserve some CARE.

And I quite agree that he was liberal in his applications of principles, he also was not a particularly good language scholar...i would agree that too.

All my point was (should I requote it back to you?!) taht it seems taht you are almost disparaging when it comes to the works of JT.

(compare Eureka with Verse by verse exposition of the Revelation by HPMansfield and then tell me which is the better book!!) (second thoughts, don't...I don't want to know, nor be held to bringing up soemthing contentious in a public place.)

[Steven]

sarah, on Aug 29 2006, 01:06 PM, said:

All my point was (should I requote it back to you?!) taht it seems that you are almost disparaging when it comes to the works of JT.

Sarah
Phoo. You're not letting me off the hook at all are you? (I won't ask who appointed you judge over others and defender of John Thomas....)

Unfortunately there is no middle ground. You may not know this but during the 1950s there was a movement in parts of the main body to actually study the Bible via John Thomas' writings, namely "the Elpis Israel Class movement". Although that embarassing phase has passed the legacy, and kneejerks from it remain. To too many brothers and sisters Elpis Israel is still Nehushtan, making them unable to be commended as the Bereans for jettisoning all but scripture.

With that unfortunate background it then means that as a Christadelphian one either gives extra weight to the opinions of John Thomas, or... one doesn't. My choice is not to, since James tells us not to be respecters of persons, and Paul tells us to test all things. John Thomas' good ideas, he had many, can stand on their merits as scripture, and from scripture without having to give taking credit. But he also had some areas he could have learned more, and like all of us a few very bad ideas as well. And those ideas need to be rooted out from the body of Christ, just as my bad ideas and yours do.

But what we're talking about here has nothing to do with that. Gabe asked a specific question about John Thomas' disparaging of an unnamed translation (typical of John Thomas' disparaging of translators, grammars, Hebrew scholars etc.) I am allowed not to know/care. John Thomas' opinion on "Forever and ever" is irrelevant.

Quote

He was not inspired although was an instrument used to rediscover the truth...surely you would NOT deny that?

(Why the caps? Is it really so unthinkable??) :coffee: :biscuit:

NEGO MAIOREM, YES I DENY IT.

John Thomas may have been "an instrument" in , but I think it's more likely that compared to his predecessors like Sozzini, Przypkowski, Biddle, Epps, etc, it was more that his timing was lucky. On might just as well say that the true "instrument" of Truth was Harry Whittaker who was selected by God to lead Christadelphians away from Eureka and back to the Bible. (though I don't believe that either, I'm just making the point that once one Christadelphian is an "instrument" we all are).

I'm sure Gabe is also an instrument by the way
S

[gabe]

Quote

I'm sure Gabe is also an instrument by the way

I just hope I'm not regarded as a bassoon....

Edited by gabe, 30 August 2006 - 05:25 AM.

[Netsach Yisrael]

Steven, on Aug 29 2006, 05:55 PM, said:

...jettisoning all but scripture.

The Bereans weren't commended for that. Quite the opposite, in fact, because "jettisoning all but scripture" would include "jettisoning" Paul.

However "only scripture" has been the rallying cry of folks like HAW, who in fact used (a) Jewish commentaries, (b) lexicons, © history books, (d) dictionaries--and who, most ironically of all, wrote books intended for others to use. In other words, "only scripture" is always a lie, and seldom an innocent one. You yourself appeal to Greek that you only know by way of reference materials.

--Nili

[sarah]

Steven, on Aug 29 2006, 06:55 PM, said:

sarah, on Aug 29 2006, 01:06 PM, said:

All my point was (should I requote it back to you?!) taht it seems that you are almost disparaging when it comes to the works of JT.

Sarah
Phoo. You're not letting me off the hook at all are you? (I won't ask who appointed you judge over others and defender of John Thomas....)

Unfortunately there is no middle ground. You may not know this but during the 1950s there was a movement in parts of the main body to actually study the Bible via John Thomas' writings, namely "the Elpis Israel Class movement". Although that embarassing phase has passed the legacy, and kneejerks from it remain. To too many brothers and sisters Elpis Israel is still Nehushtan, making them unable to be commended as the Bereans for jettisoning all but scripture.

With that unfortunate background it then means that as a Christadelphian one either gives extra weight to the opinions of John Thomas, or... one doesn't. My choice is not to, since James tells us not to be respecters of persons, and Paul tells us to test all things. John Thomas' good ideas, he had many, can stand on their merits as scripture, and from scripture without having to give taking credit. But he also had some areas he could have learned more, and like all of us a few very bad ideas as well. And those ideas need to be rooted out from the body of Christ, just as my bad ideas and yours do.

But what we're talking about here has nothing to do with that. Gabe asked a specific question about John Thomas' disparaging of an unnamed translation (typical of John Thomas' disparaging of translators, grammars, Hebrew scholars etc.) I am allowed not to know/care. John Thomas' opinion on "Forever and ever" is irrelevant.

Quote

He was not inspired although was an instrument used to rediscover the truth...surely you would NOT deny that?

(Why the caps? Is it really so unthinkable??) :coffee: :biscuit:

NEGO MAIOREM, YES I DENY IT.

John Thomas may have been "an instrument" in , but I think it's more likely that compared to his predecessors like Sozzini, Przypkowski, Biddle, Epps, etc, it was more that his timing was lucky. On might just as well say that the true "instrument" of Truth was Harry Whittaker who was selected by God to lead Christadelphians away from Eureka and back to the Bible. (though I don't believe that either, I'm just making the point that once one Christadelphian is an "instrument" we all are).

I'm sure Gabe is also an instrument by the way
S

Perhaps its a good job then that I am not a Christadelphian.
I don't know really why you keep illustrating the point...I have said time over and over that I AGREE with you. (words are in caps to EMPHASIZE!)
I totally agree JT can be put on a pedestal and worshipped...I have experienced ppl doing that myself. And it is not good.
Maybe my point should be...that maybe we should care about what people say!

[Martyn]

At the risk of mediation .....

Steve, I think Sarah's saying that 'I don't care' is an unnecessary thing to say, and that it's possible to say what one thinks about JT without either waving a Eureka flag or bowing down to an idol.

Sarah, I think Steve's saying that he's seen a lot of damage done by people unconditionally following JT and trying to repeat his not-always-sound linguistic arguments, and wants to emphasise that it would help to get some distance from these arguments.

Won't defend this post, so please don't reply to it.

[InChristAlways]

Quote

I have a translation of Dan. 7:18 before me which renders the time the Saints are to possess the kingdom by the formula, "for eternity, even for eternity of eternity." This, however, is a mere flourish, and no translation, and bears on the face of it proof that the inventor of the form knew nothing about the nature of the kingdom, nor the purpose for which it is to be established. As I have shown, the kingdom is not to continue eternally; so that the Saints cannot hold it for eternity; and as the scripture is true, they do not use the world here in the sense of ever and eternity.

This interelinear has the article "the" beofre the first eon/age, then an age/eon and the eons/ages.
Reve 14:11 doesn't have the article "the" in it as the rest of the "ages ages". Thoughts?

They shall possess/inherit the kingdom unto the eon/age, and/even unto eon/age of the eons/ages.

(Young) Revelation 14:11 and the smoke of their torment doth go up to ages of ages; and they have no rest day and night, who are bowing before the beast and his image, also if any doth receive the mark of his name. eiV <1519> {TO} aiwnaV <165> {AGES} aiwnwn <165> {OF AGES,}

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Quote

Revelation 19:3 and a second time they said, `Alleluia;' and her smoke doth come up--to the ages of the ages! eiV <1519> {TO} touV <3588> {THE} aiwnaV <165> {AGES} twn <3588> {OF THE} aiwnwn <165> {AGES.}

(Young) Revelation 22:5 and night shall not be there, and they have no need of a lamp and light of a sun, because the Lord God doth give them light, and they shall be reigning to the ages of the ages. eiV <1519> {TO} touV <3588> {THE} aiwnaV <165> {AGES} twn <3588> {OF THE} aiwnwn <165> {AGES.}

Edited by InChristAlways, 31 August 2006 - 10:03 PM.

[sarah]

Thanks martyn :-)

[Asyncritus]

Being of the non-Eureka frame of mind, I beg to dispute NY's statement that 'only scripture' is a false claim.

The only bit of history I really know - and even that is very thin - is AD70 and 135. There is no need for dredging up the Roman Empire and whatever else in pursuit of understanding Revelation. It wasn't intended to be a history book, thank God, and shouldn't be treated in that way.

You'll find a series of my articles on the subject here:
http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/...st&p=114101