Jews and the story book jesus

[robrecht]

This translation you are using with ". . . the God of this eternity . . ." is pretty non-standard. For one that badly translated "this eternity" biblically has an end, so it is no kind of eternity. And that the god effectively worshiped by those of "this eon" are the lost, would not be worshiping the true God, else they would be saved and not blinded from the truth of the gospel do to unbelief.

Of course. The hyper-literal translation I have offered here is only meant to allow people (myself included) to better follow the Greek, and occasionally to point out options in how to construe the grammatical structure. As such, it aims much more for a formal or functional equivalence rather than a dynamic equivalence.

[37818]

Of course. The hyper-literal translation I have offered here is only meant to allow people (myself included) to better follow the Greek, and occasionally to point out options in how to construe the grammatical structure. As such, it aims much more for a formal or functional equivalence rather than a dynamic equivalence.

No, that "this eternity" is NOT literal rather an interpation which is NOT valid in light of the fact "this age" or "this eon" a literal translation is referred to in other passages saying it has an end. No eternity has an end. As for "the God" translation, that is literal ignoring that "god" is being possessed by "this age." And the real God is not subordinate to any age.

[robrecht]

No, that "this eternity" is NOT literal rather an interpation which is NOT valid in light of the fact "this age" or "this eon" a literal translation is referred to in other passages saying it has an end. No eternity has an end. As for "the God" translation, that is literal ignoring that "god" is being possessed by "this age." And the real God is not subordinate to any age.

I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying. A hyper-literal functional or formal equivalence is not at all the same thing as a literal translation; it typically tries to be even less of an interpretation, literal or otherwise. For example, when you try to translate the same Greek word with the same English word throughout, you will sometimes end up with a hyper-literal 'translation' but it will be less than optimal in some contexts because the range of meanings of a word in one language will not be the same as the range of the translation word in the other languae. 'Eon' is the most literal 'translation', but it is not really a translation, as it is litterally a loan word, and no longer very common in English either. Try this as an exercise: give your own literal translation of Rom 16,25-27 and translate every use of αἰων with the same English word. If you use anything other than 'eon', chances are whatever single word you choose will be more correct in some instances and less correct in others. Or, it is likely you will use a different word in in different places to achieve a more literal interpretation. Oftentimes, 'this age' is indeed a much better literal English tranlation, but what do you do for χρόνοις αἰωνίοις, eonic ages, eonic times, agic times? A formal equivalence merely tries to respect the fact that the same word or same cognate is used severally in the original language, while sacrificing a more literal translation in one or another context. Go ahead and try the full exercise and see if you know what I mean; in other words, don't just translate χρόνοις αἰωνίοις, but try and translate all three verses while using the exact same English word for each Greek word.

[37818]

Are there any written Jewish records from 30 A.D. about anything?

[showmeproof]

Are there any written Jewish records from 30 A.D. about anything?

Well there are the Dead Sea Scrolls. I would think much would have been destroyed along with the Temple/Jerusalem in 70 A.D.