Will Heaven last forever?

[Baruch]

Poor ole almighty powerful god. Made a atom to the universe......can’t get his own book straight. LOL...What a joke.

Correct.  G-d doesn't speak or write in any language, monkeys do.

[Newtonian]

Translation is an art, not a science.  There are words in the Bible that no modern person knows the true definition of (Hapax Legomenon), not even rabbis.

ax

language is a legitimate scientific study.

All Bible words are defined in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of KJV in its Hebrew and Greek dictionaries.  The more recent BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs) for Hebrew and Thayer's for Greek are in virtual agreement with Strong's.   

Most words in English, Hebrew and Greek have more than one definition - context generally seals which definition is meant by God - sometimes more than one definition fits the context.  To respond better I need to know which words you are referring to.

Sometimes two words are used in conjunction - thus we know Psalms 104:5 is referring to the earth lasting forever:

Psalm 104:5
New World Translation of the Holy Scripturesâ€"With References

5 He has founded the earth upon its established places;+
It will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever.

Both Olam and adh are used.   These Hebrew words overlap in definition as forever.   Note, however, that olam literally means hidden or concealed time.   Of course, we cannot see the end of forever - therefore olam applies as well.

[aitm]

To bad your impotent god who created the entire universe was ignorant of the language he created..

LOL....what a god.... you

[Baruch]

Language is a legitimate "scholarly" study (fixed it for you).  Scholarship isn't science.  Most people here don't accept scholarship (as epistemology).

I am different.  An amateur scholar of comparative religion, languages and other subjects.  We can discuss as scholars in a separate thread, but it won't make any impression on the others here.  Strongs is a useful resource, but with limitations.

PRDS aka Pardes (Paradise) method of scriptural interpretation, but can apply to other writings as well.  This was used by pagan scholars in Alexandria to study the classic pagan works as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)

This is accepted by scholars, not by scientists (or secular folks).  Each level is increasingly theistic.

Peshat - denotation
Remez - connotation
Derash - homily
Sod - mysticism

This was used in a secular form to make up the Deconstruct of texts (and signs) by Derrida.

[aitm]

Surely an Omni potent god could for see the befuddlement..unless he couldn’t. Hmmm.

[Baruch]

Surely an Omni potent god could for see the befuddlement..unless he couldn’t. Hmmm.

He didn't even like looking at Adam's and Eve's junk ;-)

[aitm]

As long as fairy tales are accepted “heaven” will exist.

[Sal1981]

For some, the mere concept is enough.

[Newtonian]

Surely an Omni potent god could for see the befuddlement..unless he couldn’t. Hmmm.

I assume you mean confusion over which way to translate a specific Hebrew or Greek word.   So, which word do you wish to discuss?

[Baruch]

I assume you mean confusion over which way to translate a specific Hebrew or Greek word.   So, which word do you wish to discuss?

All translations are somewhat "wrong".  King James Bible isn't "the Bible".

[aitm]

All translations are somewhat "wrong".  King James Bible isn't "the Bible".

Why HOW DARE YOU!!!!

[aitm]

I assume you mean confusion over which way to translate ...  So, which word do you wish to discuss?

LOL...so...he will tell you what it SHOULD say if it as written to mean what he wants it to say. We used to say Bitches be crazy....but.....

[trdsf]

NW  ref. (1984  edition) is better because it is a literal, fresh translation from the original Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic).   Sometimes more than one definition of a word fits the context - we normally footnote important examples of this.

No, it's not.  It may well be a fresh translation of early copies and early translations, but it can not possibly be more than that.  There are no original documents, and we have no way of knowing what was included or excluded.  Even the earliest copies of copies of copies have transcription problems -- recall the marginal note along Hebrews 1:3 in the Codex Vaticanus: "ἀμαθέσÏ,,αÏ,,ε καὶ κακέ, á¼,,φεÏ, Ï,,ὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεÏ,,αποίει" ("Knave and fool, leave the old reading and do not change it") â€" scribes were definitely introducing textual changes, either deliberately or accidentally.

[Baruch]

Three easy things to avoid:

Church leadership - do as I say aka tyranny
Church membership - do as we say aka tradition or group think
Bible - do as the book says aka bibliolatry

Of course there is the interpretation problem even if you read the Bible for yourself ;-)

As an individualist, I have tended to avoid the above.  Though I have had my own interpretation of the Jesus Seminar version of the quotations of Jesus and acts of Jesus.  Cross-checked it against John Dominic Crossan's books.  And compared that to prior and contemporary religions.  The NT is a literary composition (Gospels and Epistles).  It is an edited collection of several related Mystery cults, of Jewish origin with Gentile influences (pagan and Indian).

The empirical evidence:

Encounter human experience ... if you find it impersonal you are a non-theist, if you find it personal you are a theist.  An anti-theist is someone who is impervious to the irony of being dependent on the existence of "theism".  Just as LeVey Satanism (and Protestantism) is dependent on the existence of Roman Catholicism.

[Newtonian]

All translations are somewhat "wrong".  King James Bible isn't "the Bible".

Certainly that is true - even the NW translation is not infallible!

[Note: I have a sense of humor - there  are actually a number of revisions of NW - my favorite Bible translation is the 1984 edition = NW ref]

However, with the glaring exception of the removal of the Divine Name, most translations are in agreement in most verses.

On topic (heaven(s)): the first verse in the Bible varies in Bible translations as to whether heaven should be translated in the singular or the plural.   Genesis 1:1 in some translations here:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dx/r1/lp-e/1001070105/0

Notice that KJV reads singular "heaven" while NW and AS read plural "heavens."   This is especially of interest to me since I am into science and this begs the question as to whether there is more than one universe - some scientists think so btw.