Etymological Limitations

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

We have seen on the list the word ‘eternal’ dissected by etymological means, in which Hope of Glory (HOG) presented the following for our consideration.

HOG: c.1366 (in variant form eterne), from O.Fr. eternal, from L.L. æternalis, from L. æternus contraction of æviternus "of great age," from ævum "age." Eternity first attested c.1374. In the Mercian hymns, L. æternum is glossed by O.E. ecnisse.

Oh, there's also an interesting word that is translated as "eternal" in the LXX that has to do with something being reliable. It's a stream that is eternal, and that Greek word simply means that it doesn't run dry, not that it will flow forever and ever.

So, it was not poor translation, but the KJV has so influenced our language that many translators still translate it as "eternal", in spite of the fact that our English word "eternal" has change meaning drastically.”

Now this thought, among others, came to me. Could the GK authors have misunderstood, by the changing of language and meanings over time, just as HOG implies has been our blight, for it had obviously been quite some time since the tower of Babel. How do we know that IF the GK honestly interpreted the word 'eternal' as a mere ‘great age,’ they might have hadt had it all wrong due to the evolution of language, and eternal really meant what is the universally understood concept of ‘everlasting or forever?’

Why is it that we think we can so trust our understanding today of a language the Scriptures were written in two thousand years ago, when in fact it had changes in it, due to man’s involvement and use, whether proper or improper, which had its impact upon the GK language common to them, even as time and common parlance has seen changes in our own language, and we find ourselves now distanced from the best authorities on that language?

We see arguments on a regular basis about this definition or that definition being proper usage within our language. Why should we assume that the GK was no different? Does anyone know for fact whether or not the GK language had seen great evolvement subsequent to the tower of Babel, and if the possibility does not exist the definition as used by the GK language at the time of Scripture was not in fact corrupt according to the ‘original language’ whatever that might have been?

Has anyone considered just the numerous discrepancies in the multitude of GK manuscripts that exist?

Does anyone besides myself start to get a grasp on the limits of any etymological study and why one certainly should not try to establish doctrine by such a means, fraught with humanistic frailties, abuses, and most certain biased conclusions due to the human nature of man? ………………………………or are only those that study within the field of etymological studies, or those that utilize their works for their own pursuits, free from bias or error?

 

[BobRyan]

At some point you have to "trust someone" to do the translation.

Another example of this is in 1John 2:2 where we find the NIV saying correctly that Christ is the "Atoning Sacrifice" for our sins and other translations using the Greek pagan concept of "propitiating an angry diety with a living sacrifice".

The word could be used either way. The determining factor in the "context". In the Gospel context "God so LOVED that HE gave".

In the greek pagan context "Christ so Propitiated the angy diety that he finally relented of the evil that he intended toward mankind".

In the first case it is an "atonement" model from a Loving God -- in the second case it is a "rescue from angry diety" model where christ loves us enough to stand up and die for us - appeasing God's need for revenge directed toward us. It is a "payment" model of the grocery story variety. Once appeased - He must turn away from the revenge He sought.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: At some point you have to "trust someone" to do the translation.

HP: I fully agree.

BR: Another example of this is in 1John 2:2 where we find the NIV saying correctly that Christ is the "Atoning Sacrifice" for our sins and other translations using the Greek pagan concept of "propitiating an angry diety with a living sacrifice".

HP: Funny I have not been using the NIV and I have never heard anyone suggest that the atoning sacrifice be thought of in the sense of “propitiating an angry deity with a living sacrifice,” nor have I understood it to mean as such.

BR: The word could be used either way. The determining factor in the "context". In the Gospel context "God so LOVED that HE gave".

HP: If that is all one bases their ideas of the atonement on, one is in serious trouble.

BR: In the greek pagan context "Christ so Propitiated the angy diety that he finally relented of the evil that he intended toward mankind".

HP: Are you sure you are not just manufacturing a paper duck? It would appear as such to me. Maybe I am missing your point.

BR: In the first case it is an "atonement" model from a Loving God -- in the second case it is a "rescue from angry diety" model where christ loves us enough to stand up and die for us - appeasing God's need for revenge directed toward us. It is a "payment" model of the grocery story variety. Once appeased - He must turn away from the revenge He sought.

HP: I suspect that the false notion of Augustinian original sin has to play a strong role in the development of the literal payment theory as we know it today. I suppose that if the truth was known, Augustines false ideas that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will was indeed a false pagan GK idea, so maybe you are not as far off as I first assumed after all.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

At some point you have to "trust someone" to do the translation.

Another example of this is in 1John 2:2 where we find the NIV saying correctly that Christ is the "Atoning Sacrifice" for our sins and other translations using the Greek pagan concept of "propitiating an angry diety with a living sacrifice".

The word could be used either way. The determining factor in the "context". In the Gospel context "God so LOVED that HE gave".

In the greek pagan context "Christ so Propitiated the angy diety that he finally relented of the evil that he intended toward mankind".

In the first case it is an "atonement" model from a Loving God -- in the second case it is a "rescue from angry diety" model where christ loves us enough to stand up and die for us - appeasing God's need for revenge directed toward us. It is a "payment" model of the grocery story variety. Once appeased - He must turn away from the revenge He sought.

GE:

Yes, there often are older and newer meanings to words. But they seldom are exclusive of one another. I also cannot see why both meanings you point out here should be played off against one another. Both were true and correct for that matter. You seem not to believe that God may be angry with sinners.