Posted on 10/21/2008 1:22:49 PM PDT by Truth Defender
It has been brought to my attention that a thread should be presented on the question of w long is For Ever, and Ever Lasting?”more to the point of this issue is the meaning and Biblical usage of the words translated “for ever”, “ever lasting”, “eternal” and “eternity”. If forever means endlessly, then what is the meaning of such expressions as “for ever and ever”, or as the phrase is sometimes translated, “from everlasting to everlasting”?
Unfortunately the post-apostolic church borrowed the idea of innate immortality from Greek philosophy and super-imposed the same upon the Scriptures. From the Latin Vulgate came our words “eternal” and “eternity” commonly defined as “without beginning and without end”. Obviously, if that is what the Latin aeternalis means then it can hardly be used to describe the new life which we receive through Christ, for it at least has a beginning. And unless one insists on believing the doctrine of “eternal security” despite all that the Scriptures say to the contrary, that new life can also have an ending. “Eternal”, in MHO, is no proper translation for the Hebrew olam and the Greek aion.
That olam and aion mean one and the same thing is easily established. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) commonly renders olam as aion, and the New Testament writers, when quoting Old Testament passages using the word olam likewise render the word aion. For example, see Heb. 5:6, 7:17, 21; Luke 1:55 and I Peter 1:25.
Precisely what do the word olam and its Greek counterpart aion mean? Unending? Interminable? Eternal? Everlasting? Rarely is such the case. One would need only to spend a few minutes with an analytical concordance to establish that fact beyond all shadow of doubt. Scores of things which have long since been annulled or have ceased to exist are mentioned in the Old Testament as having been appointed or established or enduring for ever, everlastingly, perpetually, continually, etc. To mention a just a few:
Holy days and Season appointed under the Law “for ever”.
1. The Sabbath. Shades of Ellen White, the Adventist prophetess of yesteryear and Herbert W. Armstrong! Have you read the language in which the Sabbath law was enacted? Read the word of Jehovah: “Verily you shall keep my Sabbaths: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations… Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual [olam] covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever [olam]. Ex. 31:13, 16, 17.
2. The Passover. This too was appointed to be kept as “an ordinance for ever [olam] Ex. 12:14.
3. The Feast of Unleavened Bread. Again Jehovah said, “You shall observe the feast of unleavened bread…throughout you generations, by an ordinance for ever” [olam] Ex. 12:17.
4. The Day of Atonement. It is written: “And this shall be an everlasting [olam] statute unto you.” Lev. 16:34.
5. The Feast of the Tabernacles. Likewise, “a statute for ever” [olam] Lev. 23:41.
Miscellaneous offerings and rituals appointed for ever [olam].
1. The sheaf of the First Fruits: “a statue for ever” Lev. 23:14.
2. The table of the showbread: “an everlasting, perpetual covenant” Lev. 24:8, 9.
3. Oil to be burned in the candlestick: “continually…for ever” Lev. 24:3.
4. The wave and heave offerings: “for Aaron and his sons for ever” Ex 29:28.
5. The law concerning eating of flesh: Commanded “for ever” Deut. 12:28.
6. Sounding of the silver trumpets: Commanded “for ever” Num. 10:8.
7. Ritual concerning the ashes of the red heifer: Likewise, “for ever” Num. 19:10, 21.
8. Aaron’s priesthood: Appointed “forever” See Num. 25:13, Ex. 40:15 vs. Heb. 7:11-12.
9. Aaronic priesthood to wash at the laver: “for ever” Ex. 28:43 vs. Heb 7:11-12.
10. Levites appointed to minister to God: “for ever” I Chron. 15:2, I Sam. 2:30.
11. Levites to bear the ark: “for ever” I Chron. 15:2.
12. Sons of Korah to burn incense: “for ever” I Chron 23:13.
13. The tithes to support the priests: “for ever” Num. 18:23.
14. Temple ritual to continue: “for ever” II Chron. 2:4 vs. Heb. 9:9-10, 10:8-18.
Miscellaneous item of the Mosaic age [olam.
1. Covenant of circumcision: “everlasting” Gen. 17:7 13 vs. Gal 5:26.
2. Memorial stones of Jordan crossing: a memorial “for ever” Joshua 4:7.
3. God to dwell in Solomon’s temple: “forever” I Kings 8:13, 9:3.
4. Leprosy of Naaman transferred to Gehazi and his seed: “forever” II Kings 5:27.
5. The smoke of Edom to go up “for ever”, and no one ever again to pass through Edom: Isa. 34:9-10.
6. The bars of the earth came over Jonah: (in the whale’s belly) “forever” Jonah 2:6.
I have used the KJV of scripture as it is literally the closest to the Hebrew words; however, all version contain the same ideas of the Hebrew word “olam”. From the scores of such references that can be cited (408 times that I can find) it should be obvious that the Hebrew word olam does not signify “endlessness”: And I can be bold enough to say that neither does the Greek “aion”. The term normally denoted extensive duration, but even that is not true in all cases, as is illustrated by several of the above verses.
When applied to God’s person, or to something intimately linked to His Divine nature, the terms may accrue a meaning approximating the concept of endlessness. But this is more commonly communicated by the reduplication of the words olam and aion in a prepositional phrase, somewhat in the vein of such familiar expression of the ultimate as “King of kings” and “Lord of lords.”
In the New Testament we have a number of texts in which there appears the expression: eis tous ainas ton aionon (literally, unto the ages of the ages), translated “for ever and ever.” Twelve times we find this expression in such a context as “To God (and/or Christ) be glory for ever and ever.” In the Book of Revelation it is used three times in reference to acts of Divine judgment: these are commonly cited and applied to the unredeemed in general by those teaching the traditional “orthodox” theories of the final state of the wicked. Seven miscellaneous references are to be found, one in Hebrews and six in the Book of Revelation. Revelation 22:5 is applied to the redeemed only, saying, “And they shall reign with Him (God) unto the ages of the ages.” Only here and in Daniel 7:18 and 12:3 is such an expression actually used with reference to human being. To assume it is true of the unsaved in hell is to say what the Scriptures might be made to say but once – but that is a big assumption.
The counterpart of the Greek expression we have just noted is found in the Hebrew expression, “min ha’olam we-ad ha’olam.” It is used only with reference to Jehovah and His kingdom. See I Chron. 16:36, 29:10; Neh. 9:5; Dan. 2:20, 7:18 (Compare Rev. 22:5). In each of these texts the Greek LXX translates the expression in language identical with that used in similar NT references which were just cited. In each case aionas replaces olam.
Another expression , “le-olam we-ed” (literally, “from the age onward”), is translated in our English Bibles as “forever and ever” or “from everlasting to everlasting.” Three times it is used of God, eight times it is used of man’s ideal relationship and/or response to God, six times it is used of miscellaneous things, some of which are obviously transitory.
The last reference to be cited is an enigmatic expression found in Isa. 34:10; “le-natsach netsachim”, (for ever and ever?). Commentators generally pass over this text lightly despite the fact it is normally cross referenced with Rev. 14:11. This phrase is only used once in the whole of the Bible, and is not an uncommon Hebrew word. Its meaning is diverse: its root meaning includes such concepts as chief, excellent, outstanding, and precious. Duration seems to be its secondary sense, possibly because things which are excellent, and/or counted to be of value are things which are of themselves durable or are guarded and kept safe. The problem in using Isa. 34:10 where the term is intensified by duplication is that the things predicated are not now literally true, although they might very well have been so at one time. Thusly, the translation “for ever and ever” seems inappropriate. See Brown, Driver and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 663-4.
From a study of the variant phrases which have been translated in such a manner that they communicate to us the concept of perpetuity, we are obliged to conclude: 1) that the language is often more poetic than literal, and at time apocalyptic, 2) though the Hebrews used such expression more loosely than the actual state or nature of things would seem to justify, at no time did the OT writer use the expression to communicate the idea that the unsaved shall survive physical death to be tormented “for ever and ever.” If they are to so suffer, we shall have to learn it from some other sources of information.
At this point I’d like to quote from Ken Fortier’s book, Church Doctrines: Right or Wrong? (You Decide), on the subject of time, which is speaking of the duration of the Hebrew term olam and the Greek term aion. I use this with permission given me.
************
Topic One: Words referring to Time
This section is here to clear up some basic misconceptions concerning the multitude of books written on various translations of the Bible using definitions given by standard dictionaries in our English language concerning words relating to time.
The meaning of a word used to translate the original texts of Scripture must be taken with a spoonful of salt if not based upon the meaning of the original at the time it was in usage. Also, as was pointed out within this work, the context controls the meaning imparted to a specific word, as a word cannot be understood out of its context. One cannot do justice to a word in contention by using just a translation of the original texts. We will examine just one topic as an example.
Time: A Unit of Measurement. “Time,” even the term “eternity” is a good example to look at. The terms “olam” in the Hebrew language and “aion” in the Greek language are both terms having to do with time. Anything operating in a sequence implies time: e.g., God’s Creation acts. When God started his creation, time started. God himself was before time because he is not of our time! One thing to remember, or to realize, is that time itself is a human measurement. With God, “a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years.” Time, from what is mentioned in the Bible, means nothing to God. He always was, is, and will be. In the New Testament the term “aion” and its derivatives always, depending upon the context in each instant, gives us the following insinuations or implied thoughts:
When “aion” is repeated, i.e., intensified by duplication in a text, many scholars have the tendency to conclude that it means “endlessness” or “eternity.” This could be, as was pointed out in the body of this work on this term, when it pertains to God: and only in one instance where it is referenced to created beings (Rev. 22:5). Once again, and I cannot say this often enough, “eternity” is not a proper term to use as its subjects or objects have a beginning (other than God who is not defined by “time:” God was, is, and always will be!). The word “eternity” should only be used with qualifications defined, seeing as how we are stuck with that term.
Remember, as we have mentioned before, that which is “immortal” is “endlessness.” For example, in the expression “everlasting God,” everlasting has the meaning of endless, because God is immortal, not by any force of its own. The word “everlasting” borrows its meaning of endlessness from God, not the duration of God from the word “everlasting.”
Also, the word “eternal” is not the best word to use for the Greek term “aionios,” nor the Hebrew term “olam”—as it can be very misleading for most people that read the Bible or books relating to the subject. Yet, because the term has become a part of our English language, we are almost forced to use it: and it is settled in most minds the idea of something that is permanent or endless, even though its use is of an undefined or indefinite time span. Many Biblical Scholars think that “eternal” is a proper word to define “aionios” in the New Testament Scriptures, but add that “endlessness” or “perpetuity” is not a proper meaning of “aionios”—that is honesty speaking. They have my respect and I wholeheartedly congratulate those who have the courage to admit it!
Seculum is defined in Latin dictionaries as meaning: 1) a generation, 2) an age, 3) the world, 4) the times, 5) the spirit of the times, and 6) a period of a hundred years.
The term “seculum” was always used much like the Greek “aion.” Jerome, in his version of the Greek scriptures, renders “aion” as “seculum” some 101 times out of 128 times that “aion” occurs. The other 27 times he uses the term “aeternum.” He is very inconsistent. When he ran across the expression “for the aiona of the aionon” he has “for the seculums of the seculums.”
In Jude 1:25 Jerome renders it as “before the entire seculum, and now, and for all the seculums of the seculums.” Wiclif, who used Jerome’s version renders it as “bifor alle worldis and now and in to alle worldis of worldis.” Reading Wiclif’s version takes a little patience to understand. It’s the Old English language—but notice that he translates Jerome’s “seculums” as “world.” He is not referring to our planet, but to an age. Tyndale, one hundred and fifty years later, translates these words as “now and forever.” What is interesting is that the Rheims version of 1582 AD has these words written as “before al worldes, and now and for al worldes evermore.” A literal Greek rendering has it as “before all the ages and now and unto all the ages.” Whose rendering would you choose? I would choose Jerome’s rendering in this instance. [Note from me: I would choose the literal Greek rendering!]
In Eph. 2:2, Jerome has “according to the seculum of this world,” which in the Greek is “kata ton aiona tou kosmou toutou.” When that is literally translated into English it means “according to the age of this world.” The KJV renders this as “according to the course of this world,” and the NIV renders it as “followed the ways of this world.” Which version would you say follows the Greek more closely? On this verse I would choose Jerome’s rendering. The term world at that time meant an age, and you can see that in the definition of “seculum” above.
Now looking into the Greek word “aionias,” which occurs seventy times in the New Testament, Jerome renders them by the later term “aeternum,” while only using the term “seculum” twice: (II Tim. 1:9 and Titus 1:2): “ante tempora saecularia.” As forty three of the occurrences refer to a persons life, instead of saying “secular life,” he says “eternal life.” When Jerome ran across compound occurrences of aion, such as “for the aiona of the aionion,” he rendered them as “for the seculum of the seculum.” He sure couldn’t say “for the eternity of the eternity.” I’ve completely lost confidence in his version because of his inconsistencies , which was the basis of the Rheims New Testament.
************
Okay, that’s just part of what Ken has to say; there is much more. Now for the kicker! There is a term used in the Bible that expressly gives us the idea of an “endless” life (no, it is not “eternal”!). That word is “immortal” or “immortality” – not subject to death! The duration of immortality is inherent in its meaning in relationship with the resurrected man: it means to die no more. The same goes for the Greek and Hebrew terms translated “incorruptible” and “imperishable”: they both express something of an “endless” duration, something that is not subject to corruption or subject to perishing. These terms are only, in the whole of the Bible, applied to the saved; and never once applied to the unsaved.
While it is true that both the saved and unsaved will be resurrected back to life, it is only the saved that receive immortality, and the unsaved to be judged and punished with the ultimate destruction of their temporary life. Their punishment, called by Jesus’ revelation to the Apostle John, is the “second death” of their life by being cast into the Lake of Fire along with “death and hades (the grave)”. One does not have to take my words on this, but to take the words of Jesus and the Apostles as the truth. This is important: They are the words of Jesus Himself – “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” John 12:48.
Here is an interesting take on the terms mention in it. I invite you to lead the way in a discussion on them.
It depends on what the definition of “meaning” is...
eternal means for pretty good spell
Eternal is what this election cycle has been
“Eternal Life” is knowing Jesus Christ. 1 John chapter 1. It is a QUALITY of life.
“Everlasting Life” is a QUANTITY of life.
Except for 6), this is pretty much the range of meaning my Hebrew dictionary (Alcalay) gives for olam: "world, humanity, space, community, existence, assembly, pleasures of life [cf. "the world, the flesh and the devil" -- just my note], eternity, ages, distant future."
"World" seems to be the most basic meaning (whatever "world" meant to the ancient Jews!). In the Midrash, a very common periphrasis for God is "Mi she'amar v'hayah ha-olam" -- He Who spoke and the world was," which sounds as if it encompasses all Creation. Ha-olam ha-ba is also in Rabbinic Hebrew for "the world to come."
Just a note on sæcula -- the phrase in sæcula sæculorum (lit. "in ages of ages") is very, very common in liturgical Latin for "forever." I don't know if a construction like "olam olamim" occurs in the Bible, but I think it's likely, since it's a common Hebrew structure, as in shir ha-shirim, Song of Songs. In fact, I believe the structure appears in English only because it was lifted from the Bible.
Eternal can also mean “outside time” as God is.
Then I have to say that for the next several days -- right through Sunday -- I'm going to be up to my ears in Church stuff, including a paint-ball tournament between the Catholic Student ministry at UVA and that of AU -- which supposedly I am going to organize, make safe, etc. (We're going to kick their butts, just sayin')
So I'm distressed that this fascinating (to me) topic comes up when I really ought to be off line, organizing a tournament, preparing two talks, and generally doing stuff that keeps me from theology.
I'm going to review your excellent study, and maybe I can add something to the discussion tomorrow AM. Or maybe later tonight.
The humongo question here is about the relationship between philosophy and the Bible.
I think Aristotle makes a very good case for time being "the measure of motion (or change)."
So you don't have time without things that change.
God does not change.
So you don't have time when all there is is God.
Also, God is not subject to anything; He is Lord of All. So he is not subject to time.
Berishith Bara ha Elohim eth hamayim we eth ha'aretz (from memory, I'm tired, be gentle about errors.) In the beginning, God create the heavens and the earth. Unless God "began" in the beginning, we must predicate a "being of God" (speaking loosely: God does not "be"; He makes all else "be" -- He is the source of being) outside of time (colloquially, "when there was no time" or even more loosely, "before time".)
And as an aside, God is not especially "in heaven"; He MADE the heavens. He is, by this reckoning not bound by time OR Space or anything in creation. But the heavens were made, So He is not bound by the heavens.
We may find some "joy" from the contemplation that time and space are interrelated mathematically in our attempt to find an adequate description or account of the sensibly perceived world.
Further, St Peter says that a thousand ages are in His sight as an evening, AND an evening as a thousand ages. We may say that time is "plastic and elastic" to God.
When WE think of "slo-mo", we think of being able to discern things in slow motion that go by too quickly for us to see them in "real time". But God is not saying, "Wait, what WAS that? Play it back again in slo-mo so I can dope out what happens when a supersonic bullet hits a balloon. God does not need strobe lights.
I wouldn't guess that Peter read Aristotle, but I'm confident that God knows that some people have read both Aristotle and Peter.
Anf this comes down to: when we have considered carefully what the BIble says of God and what time seems to be, we end up concluding that God is "outside" of time.
Our language falters because we are not outside of time and are also, for the present (little joke there) bound by space. So we say "'Outside' of time," but we know that's not exactly right.
But that "outside" we call "eternity". Eternity, by this reckoning, is not "unto ages of ages" but something wholly over than duration.
It is not as if someone stood on solid ground, and then plunged into the rapids of a mountain river. God does not "leave where He was" to involve Himself in time, either when He interferes with personal, national or cosmic history or when He becomes incarnate. So we must, since we are bound to use spatial and temporal images, think of eternity as comprehending time.
Therefore we say that when a prophet speaks, he foresees and foretells, because he and his hearers are in time and space. But God does not foresee. He sees. He sees Adam's fall and the Cross and Resurrection and the end of the ages for all are before Him, prae-(s)-ent to Him in His eternal Now.
So it seems to me.
And as to "Athens and Jerusalem", I think that part of the "fulness" of time that led to the Incarnation's happening when it did was precisely that because of the Roman Empire, the Gentiles and learned Jews who converted were amply prepared to "make as much sense as possible" of the Gospel of Christ. They could say much about what it meant, never detracting from God's self-disclosure in Christ or in the Word, but never saying that you have to park your brains in the popcorn stand if you want to believe in Him.
Except for 6), this is pretty much the range of meaning my Hebrew dictionary (Alcalay) gives for olam: "world, humanity, space, community, existence, assembly, pleasures of life [cf. "the world, the flesh and the devil" -- just my note], eternity, ages, distant future."
Not bad. However, that dictionary contains modern words that were added to the definition over a long period of time. The Hebrew of the first century, the time that the Christian era started, did not use "olam" to designate the English words listed in your quotation above - other than the term "space" connected to "time". Let me bring out what a couple of Lexicographers have found:
Schleusner defines the noun aion as: "Any space of time, whether longer or shorter, past, preent, or future, to be determinded by the persons or things spoken of, and the scope of the subject - the life or age of man; and space (of time) in which we measure human life, from birth to death." (Preliminary Discussions, Chapter 6, part 2).
Another lexicographer, Schrevelius says, "Aion: an age, a long period of time; indefinite duration; time, whether longer or shorter, past present or future; life, the life of man. Aionios: of long duration, lasting, sometimes everlasting, sometimes lasting through life." Note: his use of "everlasting" is in reference to an unknown duration, but covering a "very long period of time."
I quote from Ken's book again: "We could add multiple quotes, enough to fill a book in itself, to show that the meanings of the Greek words translated 'everlasting, forever, eternal,' etc., does not mean 'endless,' but simply mean an indefinite time, longer or shorter, past or future - and that they take their duration from the subjects or persons to which they apply. 'Endless' is not an idea put forth in the noun aion and its adjective aionios, but becasuse the subject demands it or is of itself endless, i.e., God. Just as in ancient times, people today often say things like 'His speech went on forever', and 'It took forever to get my house painted.' These same types of expressions were also used in the Bible for events that lasted a long time, but not actually endlessly, eternally, or forever. But we do see that the events using the term 'forever, eternal, endless' ended, but had everlastng consequence." - [the meaning of the late Latin "aeternum" in part. For it is now thought to have the meaning of "never ending". My addition.]
"World" seems to be the most basic meaning (whatever "world" meant to the ancient Jews!). In the Midrash, a very common periphrasis for God is "Mi she'amar v'hayah ha-olam" -- He Who spoke and the world was," which sounds as if it encompasses all Creation. Ha-olam ha-ba is also in Rabbinic Hebrew for "the world to come."
I take it the above is something you are quoting, right? This is a late addition of language to the terms used. The Midrash is a commentary on the Talmud which was originated in Babylon by the Pharisees sect of Judaism. The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
Just a note on sæcula -- the phrase in sæcula sæculorum (lit. "in ages of ages") is very, very common in liturgical Latin for "forever." I don't know if a construction like "olam olamim" occurs in the Bible, but I think it's likely, since it's a common Hebrew structure, as in shir ha-shirim, Song of Songs. In fact, I believe the structure appears in English only because it was lifted from the Bible.
No, "olam olamim" does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, or at last my search program does not find it. However what you bring up is interesting. Please continue...
Have a good time...sounds interesting. I wish I was a little younger, I'd be able to do something like that also. A little ways down the road from me is a "paint-ball" camp. I hear they really have a time cleaning up :-)
So I'm distressed that this fascinating (to me) topic comes up when I really ought to be off line, organizing a tournament, preparing two talks, and generally doing stuff that keeps me from theology.
Please take your time. There is no special hurry in responding to this thread. Have fun, and be careful!
Interesting, but I couldn't disagree more. God is timeless: He is outside of our concept of time. He always was, is and will be. He is immortal, i.e., not subject to death, which equates with endlessness. This is where the Late Latin term "eternal" fits in - without beginning and without end. Do you see that? Olam, aion and aionios all have to do with time, and are not proper terms to define the "lenght of time" God exists. Time is a human oriented measurement restricted to the duration of the subject or person applied. Please don't take this as a put-down. I once said and believed the same thing, until I decided to do a little study on it: that changed my mind and outlook on God.
Exactly! And what you wrote is very good. I wonder if all reading your post will really understand what you meant.
For those who have a little education in Philosophical thinking, they will, I hope, understand. My training was more involved with Hermeneutics, etymology and exegesis, but Philosophy also was a part of it. I try to stick to plain, ordinary, everyday type language, but sometimes I also can get stuck in a technological rut. I've had too many tell me my words are too scholary to understand, and that is understandable.
Also, God is not subject to anything; He is Lord of All. So he is not subject to time.
Amen! I have to say that, for that is what we find in the Scriptures about Him. You stated it very plain in you post, and I'm in 100% agreement with you there.
Further, St Peter says that a thousand ages are in His sight as an evening, AND an evening as a thousand ages. We may say that time is "plastic and elastic" to God.
Using etymology and exegesis, I find that what you just said it close to what I worked out. The Greek term used by Peter is "chilio", which means "thousands" - a plural: thusly (there is that word again), Peter literally said: “But one thing let not be concealed from you beloved, that one day with the Lord is as thousands of years and thousands of years as one day.” This goes right along with what you said, for the most part. It's a very long time, a time span according to human thinking.
All in all, your post is an excellent one. I would have a lot of difficulty rejecting it. I just hope other Catholic readers of this thread will understand what we are saying. To me it is una voce we both speak, but in a different way and tone. Now on with the argumentum...
It seems that way, doesn't it! However, that "eternal" campaign will shortly be extinct. Let's hope it comes out to the benefit of "life"!
>>>>He is outside of our concept of time.
That’s what I said.
Sorry about that, probably wasn't really paying attention to what you said - other things on my mind - an excuse :-)
Exactly! At least that's how we learned it . . . ;-)
Of course, it's not entirely clear -- to me, anyway -- just how the ancient Hebrews perceived time as indicated by tense: there's the rather odd (again,to me anyway) "vav conversive" and the fact that Biblical Hebrew just doesn't have a present tense. (Modern Hebrew, probably influenced by the Western languages, uses what was originally a participial -- to borrow from Latin grammar, as English grammatical terminology does -- form as the present tense.)
I read an article years ago on the Hebrew verb that said in Biblical Hebrew, the important aspect of a verb was not whether it indicated past or future action but whether it indicated a completed or not-completed action. I guess it's the sort of thing you just have to read enough of it to let it soak in -- which I haven't yet, but I'm trying!
Strong's associates olam with a root meaning hidden or concealed.
I take it the above is something you are quoting, right? This is a late addition of language to the terms used. The Midrash is a commentary on the Talmud which was originated in Babylon by the Pharisees sect of Judaism. The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
Actually I'm not quoting, except what I'm remembering from the dozen or so Midrash-based courses I took when I was studying Hebrew! I have no idea where you got the idea that the Midrash is a commentary on the Talmud, unless you're thinking of the Mishnah, technically part of the Talmud, but the term Talmud is often used interchangeably with the more proper Gemara. In any case, Talmud/Mishnah deal exclusively with the law, halakha.
Midrash is also part of the oral tradition and probably first started to be written down in the first century BC, though of course organized collections didn't start until after the destruction of the Second Temple. There are halakhic Midrash, but all the course I had were on aggadic Midrash, not at all dealing with the law, though there's lots on narratives from the Torah -- mostly commentary on verses from the prophets or Psalms. And while a physical manuscript can be dated, it's a lot harder to date an oral tradition preceding it.
The OT does not contain any references to a "world to come."
It doesn't contain any references to resurrection either, except in 2 Maccabees, which Protestants don't accept as canonical. The Pharisees of Jesus' time, however, believed in it. In Matthew 12:32, Jesus mentions the world to come, so presumably it was a concept understood by the Jews of the time.
No, "olam olamim" does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures,
You cited above le-natsach netsachim -- same structure. Netsach can be used adverbially, but is sometimes a noun. I Samuel 15:29 has Netsach Israel, which is translated "The Eternal One of Israel." Alcalay says it originally meant "glory."
And edey ed occurs in Psalms 92:3 ("eternities of eternity"?). Ed may have the best claim to meaning "eternity" in the required sense: see Isaiah 57:15 -- שֹׁכֵן עַד (shochen ed), "[Who] inhabits eternity."
Another OT locution usually translated as "forever" is l'orekh yamim (lit. "for length of days"), as at the end of Psalm 23.
I may have more to add later, but I think I need a cup of tea now!
There was a made for TV movie about some American Indians a bazillion years ago. it tried for some kind of "authenticity" which seemed to include translating Sioux into literal English. I remember thinking at the time that it was almost as weird in tense as Hebrew.
I don't know how to think a bout this, except possibly to conjecture that "we" are very comfortable with the idea of time as a line with our back to the past and our face to the future, and so forth. But how to wrap my head aqround a language that seems to say, "I went to the store and I will pickup some milk and I will check out the peanut butter and I will pay for it," all about something that happened yesterday ... well, yes. Tea I think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.