Evidence for God from Science

The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_eternity.html

Olam is translated 269 times as 'forever', 64 times as 'everlasting', 26 times as 'old', 22 times as 'perpetual', 16 times (with another word) as 'never', 15 times as 'evermore', 6 times as 'ancient', and 3 times as 'always'. Clearly Olam has the connotation of eternity or eternal, a very distant time far and beyond, whether past or future. I think there are one or two others that I might have missed out.

I'll use the NASB as it is in line with our website's choice.

Genesis 49:26 "The blessings of your father have surpassed the blessings of my ancestors Up to the utmost bound of the everlasting [o·v·lam] hills; May they be on the head of Joseph, And on the crown of the head of the one distinguished among his brothers."

Deuteronomy 33:15 "And with the best things of the ancient [ke·dem] mountains, and with the choice things of the everlasting [o·v·lam] hills."

[The word ke-dem doesn't mean as old as olam; this may be an indication that the Hebrews understood that mountains were eroded quickly and that hills were often long eroded mountains and thus are older than the mountains, hence the olam hills. Everlasting hills. That makes them very old.]

Psalm 41:13 "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting [me·ha·'o·v·lam ha·'o·v·lam], Amen and Amen."

Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting [u·me·'o·v·lam o·v·lam], You are God."

Psalm 103:17 "But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting [me·'o·v·lam o·v·lam] on those who fear Him, And His righteousness to children's children."

Isaiah 64:4 "For from days of old [u·me·'o·v·lam] they have not heard or perceived by ear, Nor has the eye seen a God besides You, Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him."

[Are we to believe that "days of old" or "ancient times" [NIV] or "beginning of the world" [KJV] using "olam" is to mean anything other than eternity/everlasting, a distant past? Are we really to restrict ourselves in "olam" to mean 2000 years previous, when its connotation is far and beyond such restrictions? When you look at the connotation olam has, then to restrict oneself like this would seem to be absurd.]

Joshua 24:2 Joshua said to all the people, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'From ancient [me·'o·v·lam] times your fathers lived beyong the river, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods."

[The time frame referred to is again an eternity ago. This construction is telling in that the writers did not view the flood as having happened merely 1000 years before their time.]

Here we appear to have some pretty powerful evidence for an old earth.

God bless

DannyM wrote:The Hebrew word olam means in the far distance. When looking off in the far distance it is difficult to make out any details and what is beyond that horizon cannot be seen. This concept is the olam. The word olam is also used for time for the distant past or the distant future as a time that is difficult to know or perceive. This word is frequently translated as eternity or forever but in the English language it is misunderstood to mean a continual span of time that never ends. In the Hebrew mind it is simply what is at or beyond the horizon, a very distant time. A common phrase in the Hebrew is "l'olam va'ed" and is usually translated as "forever and ever" but in the Hebrew it means "to the distant horizon and again" meaning "a very distant time and even further" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_eternity.html

Olam is translated 269 times as 'forever', 64 times as 'everlasting', 26 times as 'old', 22 times as 'perpetual', 16 times (with another word) as 'never', 15 times as 'evermore', 6 times as 'ancient', and 3 times as 'always'. Clearly Olam has the connotation of eternity or eternal, a very distant time far and beyond, whether past or future. I think there are one or two others that I might have missed out.

I'll use the NASB as it is in line with our website's choice.

Genesis 49:26 "The blessings of your father have surpassed the blessings of my ancestors Up to the utmost bound of the everlasting [o·v·lam] hills; May they be on the head of Joseph, And on the crown of the head of the one distinguished among his brothers."

Deuteronomy 33:15 "And with the best things of the ancient [ke·dem] mountains, and with the choice things of the everlasting [o·v·lam] hills."

[The word ke-dem doesn't mean as old as olam; this may be an indication that the Hebrews understood that mountains were eroded quickly and that hills were often long eroded mountains and thus are older than the mountains, hence the olam hills. Everlasting hills. That makes them very old.]

Psalm 41:13 "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting [me·ha·'o·v·lam ha·'o·v·lam], Amen and Amen."

Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting [u·me·'o·v·lam o·v·lam], You are God."

Psalm 103:17 "But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting [me·'o·v·lam o·v·lam] on those who fear Him, And His righteousness to children's children."

Isaiah 64:4 "For from days of old [u·me·'o·v·lam] they have not heard or perceived by ear, Nor has the eye seen a God besides You, Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him."

[Are we to believe that "days of old" or "ancient times" [NIV] or "beginning of the world" [KJV] using "olam" is to mean anything other than eternity/everlasting, a distant past? Are we really to restrict ourselves in "olam" to mean 2000 years previous, when its connotation is far and beyond such restrictions? When you look at the connotation olam has, then to restrict oneself like this would seem to be absurd.]

Joshua 24:2 Joshua said to all the people, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'From ancient [me·'o·v·lam] times your fathers lived beyong the river, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods."

[The time frame referred to is again an eternity ago. This construction is telling in that the writers did not view the flood as having happened merely 1000 years before their time.]

Here we appear to have some pretty powerful evidence of an old earth.

God bless

Danny, I have to take exception to the context of Olam. I just checked my YEC concordance, and each verse you quoted says Olam MUST mean a 24-hour day. . I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

RickD wrote:Danny, I have to take exception to the context of Olam. I just checked my YEC concordance, and each verse you quoted says Olam MUST mean a 24-hour day. . I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Rick, bang goes my big idea then ...

FYI, Danny, I'd be really careful with that site. I went through every page of it and watched all the videos several months back, and while a lot of what he says is useful, he also makes some very fundamental mistakes, the most common being the etymological fallacy. D. A. Carson complains that it is one of the most common mistakes in his book Exegetical Fallacies. Basically, it is where you take a word's etymology and use that to assign meaning. A silly example would be the English word 'butterfly.' That word has nothing to do with a type of bug who thrives on butter, nor is it something your wife does while she is cooking dinner and you make her mad.

Words--all words in all languages--are given their meaning by the context in which they are found. In general, I have no problem with saying that olam refers to a distant horizon, and thus, metaphorically, to a long time. Thus, we can say that when the Bible says that God's love endures forever (olam), the picture there is that His love goes further than you can see; that even when you cross the horizon, His love will still be there. But you cannot, as this man does, take words to have set meanings in all cases and that that meaning derives from its etymology.

Anyway, I would caution you against using much of that site's information in exegesis. Etymology can certainly be useful, but it is NOT the most important part of exegesis, and, to be honest, it isn't even that crucial. The only really important thing is how a word is used in a specific context.

edit: I would also be careful about using it as necessary evidence for an Old Earth. While it is almost always used to refer to the remote future, and it is sometimes used to refer to the remote past, it is also used to refer to the relatively recent past. So, for instance, is Deut 32:7 and Job 22:15 it refers to the time of one's elders. Isa 58:12, 61:4; Mic 7:14; and Mal 3:4 refer to the time shortly before the exile. Gen 6:4 points to the time shortly before the flood.

In other words, the word really just refers to a time beyond one's own. It has no particular emphasis on how distant that time is.

Etymology is itself part of the context to the extent that the historical use of the word or phrase was intended by the original author to carry that meaning to the reader. So an appeal to etymology is not inherently wrong. It's one factor among many to be considered in the context of a passage. You have to be careful in categorizing not to exclude all appeals to etymology as a de facto fallacy. You take them one at a time and weight them in comparison with the other elements of the passage and its immediate context.

I didn't say to look at etymology was a fallacy de facto, Bart. I said the author of that particular site falls on it heavily, too heavily, in fact. Further, I did not say that etymology is never important. I said it is neither crucial nor the most important part of exegesis. It is, at best, a minor consideration that may add to the "color" of an idea, but is certainly not deterministic of meaning. It is when you cross that threshold, as Benner often does, that you commit the fallacy. Hence, my caution.

I never said you did Jac. I was just adding my view as to where dangers can lay in the other direction. I think we're in agreement here. As is our want however, we tend to come at things from different directions.

Jac,

So can you show me somw proof that the Ancient Hebrew site I used is not accurate? I'm trying to establish context of texts using original language. I'm aware that you are way ahead of me in this field, but then tell me how many times over I am supposed to check its accuracy before I can be satisfied? I also used "Biblos" when translating the verses for "olam" ... I even referred to "Strong's"...

<<Original Word: עוֹלָם
Transliteration: olam or olam
Phonetic Spelling: (o-lawm')
Short Definition: alway>>

<<ages (1), all successive (1), always (1), ancient (13), ancient times (3), continual (1), days of old (1), eternal (2), eternity (3), ever (10), Everlasting (2), everlasting (110), forever (136), forever and ever (1), forever* (70), forevermore* (1), lasting (1), long (2), long ago (3), long past (1), long time (3), never* (17), old (11), permanent (10), permanently (1), perpetual (29), perpetually (1).>>

<<always, ancient time, any more, continuance, eternal, for, everlasting, long time,

<<Or lolam {o-lawm'}; from alam; properly, concealed, i.e. The vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always -- alway(-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 netsach, ad.>>

... Then having established this I used and applied the verses where I think that the connotation I am implying fits with the context.

I'm happy for you to point me in the right direction, Jac, and would never wish to make etymological error. But I made EVERY effort to use the correct connotation in the applied texts. And frankly I still think I held consistent in this respect. But as I say, I'm in your hands ...

Danny,

I wasn't saying that you said anything in particular wrong. I was just trying to offer a warning about the use of that particular site. Brenner--the guy who runs it--has no linguistic training of any kind. That obviously doesn't make him wrong, but it does mean that we have to be extra careful when looking at his conclusions--especially where they are wildly different from the rest of Hebrew scholarship.

Brenner's method--which you will see if you watch his videos--is to define words based on a pictographical analysis of their roots in the original Phoenician script. For example, he defines the word for father (ab) by noting the its spelling is aleph-beth; which, Phoenician script, is a picture of an ox and a house. The ox is supposed to symbolize strength, and thus, the ab is the "strength of the house", that is, the "father." He defines dozens of words using that procedure. His mistake is that he assumes that the spelling determines the meaning of the roots, when it is far more likely that--if there is any truth at all in his pictographical analysis--that the alphabet was designed around those roots. That is, the meaning of the words came first. At best, then, such analysis can serve as a diagnostic of what the word might mean. It in no way is a determinative as to meaning.

That is especially important given two facts about language, and Hebrew in particular.

1. Languages undergo change. It is for exactly this reason that etymology cannot determine a word's meaning. A word may mean one thing today and tomorrow have a totally different meaning (how many examples in English can you think of this happening?). Brenner has to assume that the Hebrew language remained unchanged for thousands of years, which is absurd, considering that it was a) a living language; b) one of several Semitic languages that influenced one another; and c) was located primarily in the near-east, at the crossroads of the world. Further, Brenner's method also assumes that even where word meanings don't change, that the conceptual referent's to them are always the same. Let's look at the word ab again. Suppose he was right and that it originally referred to the strength of the house, being what we would call the father. But what evidence does he, or can he, provide that this was the same way the word was used in later times? Isn't it very possible--in fact, probable, given our own experience with our own language--that the reason the father was called an ab--the strength of the house, pictographically speaking--was ultimately replaced with the simple concept of a father? The same goes with the word olam. Pictographically, it very well can mean "beyond the horizon," and that may have been what was originally intended. Further, we can grant that, to some degree, that was even the color or flavor of the word. But the very fact that it is never used to describe something literally over a horizon and always refers to some distant time or age should tell us that the original picture was lost and was replaced with the idea of "forever" or "distant time" or "world" or "age."

2. Context is determinative of meaning. Words--any word in any language--are merely conventions accepted by a given society. ab doesn't mean "father" anymore than "father" means the "man of the house." These words are just phonetic representations of concepts. Further, as you know, words can represent multiple concepts, sometimes related, sometimes not. Of those that are related, some are metaphorical, others are derived, etc. In the history of language, sometimes a primary meaning is replaced by another. Thus, it is always the context that determines what any given word means, and that within the confines of how it was used at that particular time by society at large.

Brenner, again, ignores all of these. He even calls his "translation" mechanical because he just does a one-to-one pictographical rendering of Hebrew into English. That, my friend, just does not work.

As far as how to know when you have something right, there is nothing wrong with looking at what guys like Brenner have to say. He gives us some data we should consider in our analysis. I provided what I think is one example of how you might use it in an exposition on, say, God's love. But in practice, it is a very good idea to compare your renderings against the standard lexicons. In Hebrew, that would be BDB, Holliday, and the TWOT. Strong's is fine as well. If someone posits a meaning that isn't consistent with what lexicographers have said, that is a very strong indicator that they are wrong. They COULD be right, of course, because lexicographers are only human. But when you claim your meaning is right and the lexicographer's is wrong, you are saying that you understand the language better than they do and that you have better considered the evidence than they have, which implies that you have actually considered the very, very wide array of evidence that they consider when putting forward their renderings.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Just some of my own thoughts on the matter.

Jac,

Great stuff! I appreaciate the advice concerning this area.

I understand that words can take on a different meaning, and indeed etymology can deal with the development of a meaning. I must say, though, that I found it a little surprising how restrictive the site was with "olam" when I compared it with Strong's. Having said that, Strong's still supports me here. I'll be sure to go and take a much deeper look into the site again in a minute.

Thanks for the tips. I must say the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament does look good. I couldn't find it online but would prefer the book anyway so I may opt for this one.

Thanks again Jac.

Jac,

When you get the time, and if you haven't already watched them, then take a look at these 6 short videos and see what you think.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/51_audiov ... mitic.html

I figured that since we're on the subject of the same site I'd stick them on this thread.

I got halfway through the third video before I had to turn it off. For one thing, I have about 100 pages more to read of Contingency and Fortune and Aquinas' Ethics before tomorrow night, so tonight's going to be a long night. For another, there's too much to comment on already. Very briefly:

1. The archaeological evidence just shows that coins were still being minted that had Hebrew letters on them. That doesn't mean that the general populace still spoke Hebrew anymore than the fact that our money has e pluribus unum on the back means we still speak Latin. The letter from the soldier, likewise, isn't very much evidence, for the same reason the DSS aren't: no one argues that when Hebrew died out everyone stopped speaking it. We argue that it was no longer the language of the common Israelites. Those fanatically committed to Temple Judaism would have kept using it.

On the other hand, if Hebrew was the language of the common people, you would see evidence for it everywhere. We don't, because it wasn't.

2. The historical evidence he suggests basically consists of Josephus saying he spoke Hebrew rather than Greek, which isn't surprising, sense he was one of those fanatical Jews that would have kept the language. The same goes with the Maccabees. The "overwhelming" evidence for the evidence for a Hebrew manuscript is hardly overwhelming. Any NT Introduction deals with all of that. Basically, there is a single tradition out of the CFs (not multiple; the latter quotes show signs of dependence on the former) that Matthew was written in Hebrew, but no quotes of any kind are given from it, and no manuscript evidence survives to confirm this. Further, he makes a blatant error when he says that Clement argues that all of Paul's letters were written in Hebrew and translated into Greek. In fact, Clement is saying that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. That says nothing of his other letters. What he doesn't tell you is that there was a huge fight in the early church about whether or not Hebrews should have been even considered canonical, because no one even knew if Paul wrote it way back then. In other words, that tradition was deeply challenged. There was certainly no consensus on that.

Beyond that, he makes a final silly point here in his assertion that the NT was written in Israel. That's simply not true. Matthew and James are good candidates for Palestinian origins, but that is about it. John's letters were probably written in Ephesus. Paul's from abroad, as were Peter's. Luke probably wrote from Rome. More importantly, it appears that the only books written to Palestinian Jews were Matthew and Hebrews, with all the others being to those abroad. In fact, here there is serious evidence against this guy's views, because James was expressly written to the Jews in the diaspora, which almost certainly spoke little if any Hebrew at all. His letter would certainly have been written in James, and it was one of the earliest in the church! Add to that that he almost certainly wrote from Palestine, and that he was an extremely devout Jew, and you destroy the argument that Jewish people--much less devout Jewish people--hated the Greeks so much that they refused to learn the language. What it does tell us is that Greek was a very common language, even among devout, Palestinian Jews.

3. Finally, the manuscript argument didn't impress me in the least. There is a HUGE difference in arguing that the OT must have been written in Hebrew based on the fact that the oldest manuscripts were Greek (even in 1908) and the NT making the same assertion, which is simply this: the OT autographs went back at least 1000 years before the NT. We know from broader history that the Jews had no contact with Greece then. On the other hand, Greek was the dominant world language in the first century, so we would EXPECT to find Greek manuscripts. Funny . . . we do. It's a terrible argument to say the least.

What Brenner has to deal with is the fact that he has NO Hebrew manuscript evidence. Even worse, his manuscript evidence from Matthew is a horrible copy of a copy of a copy, by his own admission. It is very easy to explain the bad grammar if we take it as a translation of Greek into Hebrew; it is not so easy to explain the bad grammar if it was a copy going back to an original. We don't find such terrible grammar in most of the Greek NT manuscripts. Why would we expect to find it in Hebrew NT manuscripts, especially when the Jews were known for the meticulous transcriptions?

Anyway . . . gotta get back to Aquinas. This is why I made the earlier appeal to education. I don't hold his lack of training against him. There have been plenty of good scholars who lack such training. But what a formal education does to for you is keep you from making such basic methodological errors in terms of how to analyze evidence.

Of course, maybe I'm just one of those who has been deceived by my formal education . . .