"It's All a Matter of Interpretation"

[TB2]

Personally? I would look at the descriptions of the economy the city is under as well as other geographical hints.

Over the years I have heard several theories....and it doesn't have to be Rome.

But isn't Rome what they would have first thought of at the time in the first century? And isn't that what first and second and third century Christians did think Revelation 17.9 was referring to? Certainly they wouldn't have thought it was referring to Washington DC which wouldn't exist for another 1800 years and which has never had kings rule in Washington DC (so that doesn't fit the rest of Revelation 17)

 

[ppierac]

How do you handle the comeback of "It's All a Matter of Interpretation"?

First you must understand the culture your reading.... It might differ greatly from your own... Your New testament is written in Greek but taken from the Hebrew culture.... Interpretation could get twice as confused....

Let's start with the Jews...

In Hebrew grammar, the position of emphasis is usually the beginning of the clause. Unfortunately, our English translation of the Hebrew text does not always reveal this emphasis. So it should not be forgotten that Hebrew-unlike English-usually confronts the listener or reader immediately with a verbal form (often a transitive verb, but sometimes an intransitive or “stative” form) even before the subject itself is designated.

Laziness, inertia, or passivity were hardly marks of the Hebrews’ lifestyle. Rather, the Hebrews were mainly a doing and feeling people. Thus their language has few abstract terms. Rather, "Hebrew may be called primarily a language of the senses. The words originally express
concrete or material things and movements or actions which struck the senses or started the emotions. Only secondary and in metaphor could they be used to denote abstract or metaphysical ideas." The Bible contains many Hebraisms in which abstract thoughts or immaterial conceptions are conveyed through material or physical terminology. We shall give number of examples to illustrate this point: "look" is "lift up the eyes" (Gen. 22:4); "be angry" is "burned in one's nostrils" (Exod.4:14); "disclose something to another" or "reveal" is "unstopped someone's ears" (Ruth 4:4); "have no compassion" is "hard-heartedness" (1Sam.6:6); "stubborn" is "stiff-necked" (2 Chr.30:8;cf.Acts 7:51). In addition, the Hebrews often referred to God by use of anthropomorphisms (i.e., representation of God with human attributes). The "living" and "active"
God of the Hebrews is thus never reduced to mere impersonal abstraction. For instance, the 10 Commandments are said to be "inscribed by the finger of God" (Exo.31:18). The prophet Isaiah states, "surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor his ear to dull to hear (Isa. 59:1). Again, a well-known proverb states, "the eyes of the Lord are everywhere" (Prov.15:3). In the same vein, today's Church must not forget that the earliest theology in the New Testament is relational or existential rather than propositional or creedal.

The New Testament reflects this same visceral Hebraic perspective on human nature. A person may be lead with his heart (Rom. 10:10). One may refresh spiritually the bowels [heart]of other believers (Phlm. 7, 20). A person may come under the judgment of God when the Lord searches his kidneys [mind](Rev. 2:23). (Used e-Sword to review strong numbers in these verses.) Very suprising. These texts illustrate that for the New Testament authors passion was tied to their belief that human beings were "whole"; that is they considered one's physical, psychological, and spiritual functions to be one indivisible entity. Both Testaments affirm this perspective, as seen in the above passages. They describe a person's various mental, spiritual, and emotional reactions to stress by locating these reactions in the organs of the body were a person actually feels the effects of that stress. The Hebrews-both men and women-were able to affirm their full humanity.

They gave vent unashamedly to their feelings, for each emotion had "a time" appropriate for its expression: being angry, crying, laughing, singing, feasting, dancing, handclapping, shouting, embracing, and loving (see Eccl. 3:1- 8).

The nature of Hebrew is to paint verbal pictures with broad strokes of the brush. Theirs was primarily a descriptive of what the eyes see rather than what the mind speculates. Let us consider several examples of this earthiness. The prophecy of Isaiah describes graphically the intended
fate of the people of Jerusalem. Trapped in the year 701 B.C. by the powerful Assyrian army of Sennacherib, they are described as those who have to "eat their own filth and drink their own urine" (Isaiah 36:12). Though Jerusalem was miraculously spared this Assyrian attack (Isaiah
37;cf.2 Kgs. 19), more than a century later (586 B.C.) Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. Jeremiah was one of the leading prophets of the Southern Kingdom at the time. With the same candor as Isaiah, Jeremiah depicts sorrowfully the acts of cannibalism performed by his own people as
Jerusalem was brought to the very brink of starvation: "with their own hands and passionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed"
(Lam. 4:10; cf. Deut 28: 53-57). Against the background of their Babylonian exile God's people are described as sinful and unclean, who is "righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).

However, the Hebrew for "filthy rags" is far more explicit, reflecting the Hebrews vivid, earthly style of expression. It is beged iddim, literally "garment of menstruation." In similarity graphic words, Jeremiah likens Israel's sexual excesses as Canaanite shrines to that of a female wild
donkey in heat: "[You are] a wild donkey accustomed to the desert, sniffing the wind in her craving-in her heat who can restrain her? Any males that pursue her need not to tire themselves; at mating time they will find her" (Jer. 2:24).

Such vivid biblical imagery reminds us that the Hebrew people live close to nature; they were not afraid to face head on those areas of life that people in the West world would normally either euphemistically or avoid discussing altogether.

It's not all apple pie and the american way!!!
Paul

 

[prism]

First you must understand the culture your reading.... It might differ greatly from your own... Your New testament is written in Greek but taken from the Hebrew culture.... Interpretation could get twice as confused....

Let's start with the Jews...

In Hebrew grammar, the position of emphasis is usually the beginning of the clause. Unfortunately, our English translation of the Hebrew text does not always reveal this emphasis. So it should not be forgotten that Hebrew-unlike English-usually confronts the listener or reader immediately with a verbal form (often a transitive verb, but sometimes an intransitive or “stative” form) even before the subject itself is designated.

Laziness, inertia, or passivity were hardly marks of the Hebrews’ lifestyle. Rather, the Hebrews were mainly a doing and feeling people. Thus their language has few abstract terms. Rather, "Hebrew may be called primarily a language of the senses. The words originally express
concrete or material things and movements or actions which struck the senses or started the emotions. Only secondary and in metaphor could they be used to denote abstract or metaphysical ideas." The Bible contains many Hebraisms in which abstract thoughts or immaterial conceptions are conveyed through material or physical terminology. We shall give number of examples to illustrate this point: "look" is "lift up the eyes" (Gen. 22:4); "be angry" is "burned in one's nostrils" (Exod.4:14); "disclose something to another" or "reveal" is "unstopped someone's ears" (Ruth 4:4); "have no compassion" is "hard-heartedness" (1Sam.6:6); "stubborn" is "stiff-necked" (2 Chr.30:8;cf.Acts 7:51). In addition, the Hebrews often referred to God by use of anthropomorphisms (i.e., representation of God with human attributes). The "living" and "active"
God of the Hebrews is thus never reduced to mere impersonal abstraction. For instance, the 10 Commandments are said to be "inscribed by the finger of God" (Exo.31:18). The prophet Isaiah states, "surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor his ear to dull to hear (Isa. 59:1). Again, a well-known proverb states, "the eyes of the Lord are everywhere" (Prov.15:3). In the same vein, today's Church must not forget that the earliest theology in the New Testament is relational or existential rather than propositional or creedal.

The New Testament reflects this same visceral Hebraic perspective on human nature. A person may be lead with his heart (Rom. 10:10). One may refresh spiritually the bowels [heart]of other believers (Phlm. 7, 20). A person may come under the judgment of God when the Lord searches his kidneys [mind](Rev. 2:23). (Used e-Sword to review strong numbers in these verses.) Very suprising. These texts illustrate that for the New Testament authors passion was tied to their belief that human beings were "whole"; that is they considered one's physical, psychological, and spiritual functions to be one indivisible entity. Both Testaments affirm this perspective, as seen in the above passages. They describe a person's various mental, spiritual, and emotional reactions to stress by locating these reactions in the organs of the body were a person actually feels the effects of that stress. The Hebrews-both men and women-were able to affirm their full humanity.

They gave vent unashamedly to their feelings, for each emotion had "a time" appropriate for its expression: being angry, crying, laughing, singing, feasting, dancing, handclapping, shouting, embracing, and loving (see Eccl. 3:1- 8).

The nature of Hebrew is to paint verbal pictures with broad strokes of the brush. Theirs was primarily a descriptive of what the eyes see rather than what the mind speculates. Let us consider several examples of this earthiness. The prophecy of Isaiah describes graphically the intended
fate of the people of Jerusalem. Trapped in the year 701 B.C. by the powerful Assyrian army of Sennacherib, they are described as those who have to "eat their own filth and drink their own urine" (Isaiah 36:12). Though Jerusalem was miraculously spared this Assyrian attack (Isaiah
37;cf.2 Kgs. 19), more than a century later (586 B.C.) Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. Jeremiah was one of the leading prophets of the Southern Kingdom at the time. With the same candor as Isaiah, Jeremiah depicts sorrowfully the acts of cannibalism performed by his own people as
Jerusalem was brought to the very brink of starvation: "with their own hands and passionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed"
(Lam. 4:10; cf. Deut 28: 53-57). Against the background of their Babylonian exile God's people are described as sinful and unclean, who is "righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).

However, the Hebrew for "filthy rags" is far more explicit, reflecting the Hebrews vivid, earthly style of expression. It is beged iddim, literally "garment of menstruation." In similarity graphic words, Jeremiah likens Israel's sexual excesses as Canaanite shrines to that of a female wild
donkey in heat: "[You are] a wild donkey accustomed to the desert, sniffing the wind in her craving-in her heat who can restrain her? Any males that pursue her need not to tire themselves; at mating time they will find her" (Jer. 2:24).

Such vivid biblical imagery reminds us that the Hebrew people live close to nature; they were not afraid to face head on those areas of life that people in the West world would normally either euphemistically or avoid discussing altogether.

It's not all apple pie and the american way!!!
Paul

So I'm supposed to explain all this to someone who says "The Bible is all a matter of interpretation"?

 

[ppierac]

So I'm supposed to explain all this to someone who says "The Bible is all a matter of interpretation"?

No... your suppose to use it to help you with YOUR Interpretation.... What? You think eveytime Jesus or anyone in the Bible spoke... They were speaking directly to you???

 

[ppierac]

Let's look at one of Jesus' Parables with a hebrew understanding


Luk 10:25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" 27 And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 28 And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE." 29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 Jesus replied and said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 31 "And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 "Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 "But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 34 and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 "On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' 36 "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?" 37 And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."

The message of this parable reaches the audience on different levels. The parable of the Good Samaritan teaches a clear message on the level of a child. But does it challenge the minds of the learned? Because Christian scholars often misunderstand the Jewish background to the teaching of Jesus, they frequently miss the deeper level of meaning in the story of the Good Samaritan.

In the Lukan context of the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Torah scholar approach Jesus and ask him a question, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus answered him by asking another question, "What is written in the Torah? How do you read?" Because of the way Jesus presented his questions, the Torah scholar could arrive at the proper approach, "love the Lord your God" and "your neighbor as yourself."

The dialectic discussion between Jesus and the scholar was not characterized by hostility or confrontation, as many New Testament scholars have assumed. The question is a genuine inquiry. Jewish learning involved asking questions and answering questions with more questions. In regard to the conclusion of the parable of the Good Samaritan. When Jesus asked him who was the neighbor to the man in need, the Torah scholar answered correctly, "The one who showed mercy." He concluded that even one’s enemy, could be a neighbor. The astonishing conclusion of the parable demonstrates that the Torah scholar was sincere, because he arrived at the proper answer after hearing the parable.

The colorful cast members of the mini-drama provided insight into the plot of the story. A man is stripped and left half dead. With out identifying clothes, one cannot recognize to which cultural community he belongs. Is he a Pharisee? Is he a priest? Is he Roman? Jesus does not tell listeners. He is simply a dying man in urgent need.

The inner structure of the parable is seen in the other three characters. The Lukan context of the parable would indicate that the Torah scholar asking Jesus questions was one who accepted the oral law, perhaps a Pharisee. In contrast, the first two characters who passed by the injured man do not embrace the oral tradition. The priest and the Levite were probably Sadducees, who would have not accepted the validity of the Oral Torah. They would, however, follow the written law with literal exactitude. Here one begins to appreciate the artistry in the parable.

The three key actors, the Priest, the Levite, and the Samaritan, have both similarities and distinctions within the diverse religious cultures of the first century C.E. The original audience of the parable would have been keenly aware of these distinctions.

The religious men make no effort to help him because of their understanding of biblical law. The leading characters of the story play significant roles in the structure of the parable's plot. The Priest and the Levite continue the actions of the robbers; the robbers abandoned him to die and they passed by in a like manner. The Samaritan, however, reverses the actions of the thieves and makes every effort to restore the man whose life was at risk.

The tremendous importance given to the oral interpretation of the Torah in Pharisaic teachings can hardly be overemphasize. The Torah was delivered to Moses with its oral commentary and practical application in every aspect of human experience. The Sadducees rejected the teachings of the oral law. They were literalists in the sense that they followed only the written law.

The difference between the scholar asking Jesus a question such as "Who is my neighbor?" And the leading characters in the parable is decisive. The oral interpretation of the written law, which were so very important to Jesus and the Torah scholar, have little meaning for the Priest and the Levite.

The people listening to the parable are keenly aware that the Sadducees in the priestly service are extremely concerned about their ritual purity. In the eyes of a Sadducean literalist, the prohibition in the written Torah (Lev 21:1) "And the Lord said to Moses, ‘speak to the Priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them that none of them shall defile himself for the dead among his people’" superseded all humanitarian concerns.

The met mitzvah is a law concerning a dead person who has no one to bury him. The oral law require is even a high priest to pollute himself with ritual and purity in order to bury a met mitzvah. The written law states clearly, "The priest… shall not go into any dead body, nor defile himself, even for his father or for his mother" (Lev 21:11). The priest in the Levite acted properly according to the literal meaning of the Torah. In the Oral Law, however, as preserved in the later codification of the Mishnah, the early tradition presents a different approach for the met mitzvah.


In fact, even in pagan thought it was an acceptable ethic of civilized conduct to provide burial for an abandon corpse. However, the more important issue was saving a life.

In the parable, Jesus criticizes a Priest and a Levite for not being willing to risk coming into contact with a corpse. The point seems to be that they did not know whether or not the man by the side of the road was dead, when they were unwilling to risk incurring corpse-impurity simply on the chance that they might have been able to help.

The oral law teaches proper ethical conduct whether the man was dead or still alive. The priest in the Levite could ignore the teachings of the oral law in good conscience because of the literal approach to the Pentateuch.

In the Jewish oral tradition, the principal of saving life at all cost gained unsurpassed and uncompromised priority. All written laws of the Torah must be violated to preserve life. Clearly a dying man's life is more important than ritual purity. The priest and the Levite treated the dying man as if he were already dead. They did not except the oral tradition concerning the preservation of life at all cost, and they feared that their ritual impurity was at risk.

Clearly, when Jesus referred to the Samaritan in a positive manner, it was an ingenious shock element in the parable. Even a Samaritan cared more for human life than the Priest or the Levite. The guardians of the Temple neglected basic human values.

The meaning of "neighbor" must include not only those who are near but even an enemy. Jesus wanted the Torah scholar to understand the point. He chose three characters to play leading roles in the parable. He asked the scholar, "Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fail among the robbers?"

He did not respond by saying "the Samaritan" instead he answered with profound wisdom, "The one who the showed mercy." The Torah scholar did not categorize the Samaritan according to his cultural and religious community. He saw him for what he did. He realized from the story of Jesus that every human being, whether friend or enemy, is of inestimable value and must be esteemed according to the biblical commandment "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus made his point clear enough for the Torah scholar; one should interpret the verse in the broadest sense: "you shall love even your enemy as yourself."

Jesus had a very specific audience for this parable....

Yet... you still think it was all for you...

 

[TB2]

Jesus had a very specific audience for this parable....

Yet... you still think it was all for you...

Good info, but no, @prism does not "think it was all for you." I think you might be misunderstanding what @prism said, which was to point out the length of your response and how specific it was, and how it was useful but didn't quite seem to answer the OP question, which was how would you respond to someone who says "its all just interpretation"?

 

[prism]

No... your suppose to use it to help you with YOUR Interpretation.... What? You think eveytime Jesus or anyone in the Bible spoke... They were speaking directly to you???

Sorry, but assuming things isn’t good Hermeneutics

 

[ppierac]

Sorry, but assuming things isn’t good Hermeneutics

Yet... you assume... I don't place my very self with You in my post!!!!

The other Paul... let it be known!!!

1Co 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;

I'm just seeking the parts... that I don't know... You should too!!!

We should be thankful... when we learn a new part...
Paul

 

[prism]

Yet... you assume... I don't place my very self with You in my post!!!!

The other Paul... let it be known!!!

1Co 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;

I'm just seeking the parts... that I don't know... You should too!!!

We should be thankful... when we learn a new part...
Paul

Agree with the 1 Cor13 quote.
I made the statement about you assuming when you said, "You think eveytime Jesus or anyone in the Bible spoke... They were speaking directly to you???

I know it was in question form, but I think it had an embedded assumption in it.
May I ask what prompted that question?

 

[ppierac]

Agree with the 1 Cor13 quote.
I made the statement about you assuming when you said, "You think eveytime Jesus or anyone in the Bible spoke... They were speaking directly to you???

I know it was in question form, but I think it had an embedded assumption in it.
May I ask what prompted that question?

You really have to ask? In this age?

 

[prism]

You really have to ask? In this age?

So you're saying this age is full of assumptions?
I guess I'm not part of this age, so I asked. (but you don't have to answer the question. God knows)

 

[ppierac]

So you're saying this age is full of assumptions?
I guess I'm not part of this age, so I asked. (but you don't have to answer the question. God knows)

age... Would you prefer I translated it Eterinity???

Here are a few interesting facts about the biblical word Aion… ie... (age)

“Let us look at how the word aion is used in a number of passages. About 37 times in the New Testament it is rendered "world," twice as "worlds," twice as "ages," and once as "course." Every place where the word "eternal" appears, with but one exception, it is a translation of this word AION or its adjective form AIONIOS. Twice it is rendered "evermore." Every place where the word "everlasting" appears, but one, it is this same word or its adjective form. With but thirteen exceptions, every place where the word "ever" appears it is the same word or its adjective form. And aside from all this confusion, the word also appears in the plural, and in a number of confusing combinations, such as "the aion of the aion," "the aion of the aions," and "the aions of the aions," etc.

You know I'm just having fun.... But hey.... you now know more in part (1Co 13:9) !!!!

 

[prism]

age... Would you prefer I translated it Eterinity???

Here are a few interesting facts about the biblical word Aion… ie... (age)

“Let us look at how the word aion is used in a number of passages. About 37 times in the New Testament it is rendered "world," twice as "worlds," twice as "ages," and once as "course." Every place where the word "eternal" appears, with but one exception, it is a translation of this word AION or its adjective form AIONIOS. Twice it is rendered "evermore." Every place where the word "everlasting" appears, but one, it is this same word or its adjective form. With but thirteen exceptions, every place where the word "ever" appears it is the same word or its adjective form. And aside from all this confusion, the word also appears in the plural, and in a number of confusing combinations, such as "the aion of the aion," "the aion of the aions," and "the aions of the aions," etc.

You know I'm just having fun.... But hey.... you now know more in part (1Co 13:9) !!!!

Nope, when you said, "You really have to ask? In this age?" I thought you were simply referring to this ‘contemporary age’.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In the context of attempting to back up one's case with Scripture.

THEM: "It's all a matter of interpretation!"

ME: "Well, obviously. I mean, a text is altogether meaningless and useless if it's not interpreted."

But most people don't interpret scriptures anyway. They read their English translations and draw conclusions about what it means to them, which so often involves imposing preconceived beliefs, ideas, or opinions onto the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. What it means to you is one thing, but what did the text mean to the original human author and audience? Most people couldn't tell you because they don't know the first thing about the grammatical structure or historical context of the biblical material. They have an essentially devotional relationship with scripture. And that's perfectly fine. That's commendable. But let's not pretend that qualifies as interpreting the scriptures.

I feel compelled to admit that I'm likewise unqualified to interpret scripture. I cannot read, understand, or translate the original biblical languages. However, I'm also very conscious of my ignorance and limitations and make every effort to double-check whether or not I am imposing anything onto the text—which I have done many times! I have a deep and abiding commitment to allowing the text to speak for itself, to discover and understand what the text meant to its original human author and audience. For that reason, my nose is constantly buried in books by scholars who CAN read, understand, and translate the biblical material. I listen to their expert analysis of the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of the text, its historical context, cultural background, literary genres, authorship, audience, and its place in the overall biblical narrative. Sure, it's all interpretation, what these scholars are doing—but I can trust them because they show their work.

A couple of interesting thing to keep in mind:

• Translation = linguistic process.
• Interpretation = hermeneutical analysis.
• Exegesis = Draw out of the text.
• Eisegesis = Impose on the text.

 

[ppierac]

Nope, when you said, "You really have to ask? In this age?" I thought you were simply referring to this ‘contemporary age’.

I was... But still wanted to post some fun facts about the Greek word "aion" I spent so much time on this single Greek word.... over a Year...

Here is a Bonus.... it's also messed up in your OT too....

KJV Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world (5769) in their heart, so tha no, man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

More verisons...

NASB Ecc 3:11 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

NIV Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

ESV Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.

Now we are going to get closer to the true reading.....
New revised standard: Ecc 3:11 He has made everything suitable for its time; moreover he has put a sense of past and future into their minds, yet they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
Youngs literal translation: Ecc 3:11 The whole He hath made beautiful in its season; also, that knowledge He hath put in their heart without which man findeth not out the work that God hath done from the beginning even unto the end.

Rotherham Bible Ecc 3:11 Everything, hath he made beautiful in its own time,—also, intelligence, hath he put in their heart, without which men could not find out the work which God hath wrought, from the beginning even unto the end.

Coverdale 1535: Ecc 3:11 All this hath he ordened maruelous goodly, to euery thinge his due tyme. He hath plated ignoraunce also in the hertes of men, yt they shulde not fynde out ye grounde of his workes, which he doth from ye beginninge to ye ende.

Bishops 1568 Bible: Ecc 3:11 All this hath he ordeyned marueilous goodly, to euery thyng his due tyme: He hath planted ignoraunce also in the heartes of men, that they shoulde not comprehende the ground of his workes which he doth from the begynnyng to the ende.

Net bible Ecc 3:11 God has made everything fit beautifully in its appropriate time, but he has also placed ignorance in the human heart
so that people cannot discover what God has ordained, from the beginning to the end of their lives.


The Hebrew word "Olam" is the same as the greek "Aion"
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.

Yep.... the Net Bible had to go back to the 1500's to get the correct reading... LOL

Very high end Bibles actually wrote.... God has set eternity into man's heart at Ecc 3:11.... You think that's what the Hebrew word ‛ôlâm H5956 was saying??? I don't... but hey.... maybe many here do.... I think the Net bible got it right!!!

You have no idea how hard it was to get a copy of this book from 1875

 

[prism]

Agree with the 1 Cor13 quote.
I made the statement about you assuming when you said, "You think eveytime Jesus or anyone in the Bible spoke... They were speaking directly to you???

I know it was in question form, but I think it had an embedded assumption in it.
May I ask what prompted that question?

You really have to ask? In this age?

Net bible Ecc 3:11 God has made everything fit beautifully in its appropriate time, but he has also placed ignorance in the human heart
so that people cannot discover what God has ordained, from the beginning to the end of their lives.

If you hadn’t framed the middle quote as a question but rather a statement, it would have made some sense but now I’m lost in the fog. lol

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

@ppierac Just one of many reasons why the New English Translation (NET) is my preferred Bible.

 

[Eleanor]

I was... But still wanted to post some fun facts about the Greek word "aion" I spent so much time on this single Greek word.... over a Year...
The Hebrew word "Olam" is the same as the greek "Aion"
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.

Is "eternity, eternal" not a good rendition of "olam"?

 

[ppierac]

Is "eternity, eternal" not a good rendition of "olam"?

That's the problem..... Yes and No...

 

[prism]

Is "eternity, eternal" not a good rendition of "olam"?

That's the problem..... Yes and No...

This takes us back to the OP...

"How do you handle the comeback of "It's All a Matter of Interpretation"?"