In Isaiah 9:6, why is “Eternal Father” the preferred translation rather than the more literal “Father...











up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1












I wanted to know why most translations seem to use "Eternal (or Everlasting) Father" and others use "Father of Eternity" in Isaiah 9:6. I found the following statement in an answer to a different question about the same verse:




אֲבִיעַד (aviad): phrase consisting of the noun אֲבִי in the construct state, meaning "father of," and עַד, meaning "eternity." Altogether, literally meaning "father of eternity," but understood as "eternal father." (cp. Hab. 3:6: , i.e.,
"eternal mountains"




This does help me, but I would still like to know why the phrase is understood as "eternal father" when it literally says "father of eternity".










share|improve this question




























    up vote
    8
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    I wanted to know why most translations seem to use "Eternal (or Everlasting) Father" and others use "Father of Eternity" in Isaiah 9:6. I found the following statement in an answer to a different question about the same verse:




    אֲבִיעַד (aviad): phrase consisting of the noun אֲבִי in the construct state, meaning "father of," and עַד, meaning "eternity." Altogether, literally meaning "father of eternity," but understood as "eternal father." (cp. Hab. 3:6: , i.e.,
    "eternal mountains"




    This does help me, but I would still like to know why the phrase is understood as "eternal father" when it literally says "father of eternity".










    share|improve this question


























      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      I wanted to know why most translations seem to use "Eternal (or Everlasting) Father" and others use "Father of Eternity" in Isaiah 9:6. I found the following statement in an answer to a different question about the same verse:




      אֲבִיעַד (aviad): phrase consisting of the noun אֲבִי in the construct state, meaning "father of," and עַד, meaning "eternity." Altogether, literally meaning "father of eternity," but understood as "eternal father." (cp. Hab. 3:6: , i.e.,
      "eternal mountains"




      This does help me, but I would still like to know why the phrase is understood as "eternal father" when it literally says "father of eternity".










      share|improve this question















      I wanted to know why most translations seem to use "Eternal (or Everlasting) Father" and others use "Father of Eternity" in Isaiah 9:6. I found the following statement in an answer to a different question about the same verse:




      אֲבִיעַד (aviad): phrase consisting of the noun אֲבִי in the construct state, meaning "father of," and עַד, meaning "eternity." Altogether, literally meaning "father of eternity," but understood as "eternal father." (cp. Hab. 3:6: , i.e.,
      "eternal mountains"




      This does help me, but I would still like to know why the phrase is understood as "eternal father" when it literally says "father of eternity".







      hebrew grammar isaiah






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Nov 20 at 21:17









      enegue

      3,4621728




      3,4621728










      asked Nov 20 at 0:28









      alexander escoto

      1528




      1528






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          10
          down vote



          accepted










          This is a common function of the Hebrew construct chain without direct equivalent in English. This is normal: syntactic constructions don't map one-to-one to constructions in other languages. Thus, while the most frequent meaning of the construct chain is "X of Y", this does not mean that it is the 'most literal' translation. Indeed, it has functions that cannot be expressed by English "X of Y", because the use patterns of these constructions do not fully overlap.



          This particular type of relation is called a genitive of quality (Joüon and Muraoka, §129f):




          The other genitives are mainly: [...] the genitive of the quality expressed by an abstract noun (which often makes up for the lack of adjectives): Ex 29.29 בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדָשׁ the garments of holiness (= the holy garments); Lv 10.17 מְקוּם הַקֹּדָשׁ the holy place (= the sanctuary); Lv 19.36 מֹאזּנֵי צֶדָק scales of justice (just scales); Ex 5.9 דִּבְרֵי שֶׁקֵר deceptive words; 1Kg 20.31 מַלְכֵי חֶסֶד merciful kings; Gn 17.8 אֲחֻזַּת עֹולָם possession in perpetuity; Jdg 11.1 גִּבּוֹר חַיִל valiant warrior; Pr 1.10 לִוְיַת חֵן charming crown.




          Waltke and O'Connor call it an attributive genitive (§9.5.3), reserving genitive of quality for cases like שְׁלֹומֶךָ your peace (Isa 48:18; §9.5.1j), a function that is shared by English of. To Joüon and Muraoka's examples they add for the attributive genitive Prov 5:19 אַיֶלֶת אַהָבִים beloved hind, Ps 48:2 הַר־קָדְשׁוֹ his (God's) holy mountain ('mountain of his holiness').



          All in all, this is a rather common function of the grammatical construction. To say that "father of eternity" is "more literal" is misleading, because it suggests that semantic functions of grammatical constructions map one-to-one between languages while they do not.



          There is definitely no need to ascribe theological meaning to this particular case, or discuss the differences between English father of eternity and eternal father; that is special pleading and does not apply likewise to cases like valiant warrior ('warrior of strength', Jdg 11:1).






          share|improve this answer




























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            A Peculiar Case



            The most common interpretation, "Eternal Father", suggests that God exists eternally as a "Father" to all. The literal interpretation, "Father of eternity", means that God is "Father" to all again, but including the notion of eternity and the physical experience/thing of eternity.



            The peculiar thing about this problem is that both the phrases Eternal Father and Father of eternity don't mean the exact same thing, but are both true about God. God is both the Eternal Father and the Father of eternity:




            “From eternity to eternity I am God. No one can snatch anyone out of my hand.
            No one can undo what I have done.” Isaiah 43:13



            “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and was and is to come—the Almighty. Revelation 1:8




            Again, God is both the Eternal Father, "the Alpha and Omega", and the Father of eternity, (i.e. "from eternity to eternity I am God").



            My Answer



            This is going to sound a little informal because I'm not well-versed in Hebrew, but I have a good idea of where the possible answer therein lies.



            אֲבִיעַ֖ד (ab-i-ad), a Hebrew word that means literally, "Father of eternity", whereas it is translated as "Eternal Father" in English, has come across as odd to you. To solve this problem, we can look no further than the man who God deemed would be the father to many nations, Abraham. Before his name was changed to Abraham, his name was Abram, which can be translated as, "Exalted Father", or literally as, "Father of elevation". אברם (ab-rum), a Hebrew word that (note) doesn't have the "i" sound/word there. Why is it still translated (literally) as "Father of elevation"?



            My guess is that the word "of" doesn't fully encompass the properties that the Hebrew word/syntax implies. To state the more exact literal interpretation of "Father of elevation" would be "Father who is attributed with elevation". So that is all to say that אֲבִיעַ֖ד (ab-i-ad) is more exactly translated literally not as "Father of eternity", but "Father who is attributed with eternity"; that is the most probable answer to why Everlasting/Eternal Father is the more common translation, as it is more close to the original meaning as literal translations often err on the side of fully-fleshed out meaning.



            For more information, a link to the website where I found most of my info about Abram is here.






            share|improve this answer




























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Isa. 9:6 is reffering to Jesus, God's "son," and some of his functions. "Eternal Father" fits best as he is Adam's replacment who could of been an Eternal Human and Spiritual Father to mankind but he forfited that when he sinned in Eden. Jesus can give humans what Adam also gave up:-




              NWT John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."



              NWT 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive."




              Added




              NWT 1 Corinthians 15:45 "“The first man Adam [In Eden] became a living person.” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit.







              share|improve this answer





















                Your Answer







                StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
                return StackExchange.using("virtualKeyboard", function () {
                StackExchange.virtualKeyboard.init("hebrew");
                });
                }, "virtkeyb");

                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "320"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                convertImagesToLinks: false,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: null,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });














                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35901%2fin-isaiah-96-why-is-eternal-father-the-preferred-translation-rather-than-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes








                3 Answers
                3






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes








                up vote
                10
                down vote



                accepted










                This is a common function of the Hebrew construct chain without direct equivalent in English. This is normal: syntactic constructions don't map one-to-one to constructions in other languages. Thus, while the most frequent meaning of the construct chain is "X of Y", this does not mean that it is the 'most literal' translation. Indeed, it has functions that cannot be expressed by English "X of Y", because the use patterns of these constructions do not fully overlap.



                This particular type of relation is called a genitive of quality (Joüon and Muraoka, §129f):




                The other genitives are mainly: [...] the genitive of the quality expressed by an abstract noun (which often makes up for the lack of adjectives): Ex 29.29 בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדָשׁ the garments of holiness (= the holy garments); Lv 10.17 מְקוּם הַקֹּדָשׁ the holy place (= the sanctuary); Lv 19.36 מֹאזּנֵי צֶדָק scales of justice (just scales); Ex 5.9 דִּבְרֵי שֶׁקֵר deceptive words; 1Kg 20.31 מַלְכֵי חֶסֶד merciful kings; Gn 17.8 אֲחֻזַּת עֹולָם possession in perpetuity; Jdg 11.1 גִּבּוֹר חַיִל valiant warrior; Pr 1.10 לִוְיַת חֵן charming crown.




                Waltke and O'Connor call it an attributive genitive (§9.5.3), reserving genitive of quality for cases like שְׁלֹומֶךָ your peace (Isa 48:18; §9.5.1j), a function that is shared by English of. To Joüon and Muraoka's examples they add for the attributive genitive Prov 5:19 אַיֶלֶת אַהָבִים beloved hind, Ps 48:2 הַר־קָדְשׁוֹ his (God's) holy mountain ('mountain of his holiness').



                All in all, this is a rather common function of the grammatical construction. To say that "father of eternity" is "more literal" is misleading, because it suggests that semantic functions of grammatical constructions map one-to-one between languages while they do not.



                There is definitely no need to ascribe theological meaning to this particular case, or discuss the differences between English father of eternity and eternal father; that is special pleading and does not apply likewise to cases like valiant warrior ('warrior of strength', Jdg 11:1).






                share|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  10
                  down vote



                  accepted










                  This is a common function of the Hebrew construct chain without direct equivalent in English. This is normal: syntactic constructions don't map one-to-one to constructions in other languages. Thus, while the most frequent meaning of the construct chain is "X of Y", this does not mean that it is the 'most literal' translation. Indeed, it has functions that cannot be expressed by English "X of Y", because the use patterns of these constructions do not fully overlap.



                  This particular type of relation is called a genitive of quality (Joüon and Muraoka, §129f):




                  The other genitives are mainly: [...] the genitive of the quality expressed by an abstract noun (which often makes up for the lack of adjectives): Ex 29.29 בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדָשׁ the garments of holiness (= the holy garments); Lv 10.17 מְקוּם הַקֹּדָשׁ the holy place (= the sanctuary); Lv 19.36 מֹאזּנֵי צֶדָק scales of justice (just scales); Ex 5.9 דִּבְרֵי שֶׁקֵר deceptive words; 1Kg 20.31 מַלְכֵי חֶסֶד merciful kings; Gn 17.8 אֲחֻזַּת עֹולָם possession in perpetuity; Jdg 11.1 גִּבּוֹר חַיִל valiant warrior; Pr 1.10 לִוְיַת חֵן charming crown.




                  Waltke and O'Connor call it an attributive genitive (§9.5.3), reserving genitive of quality for cases like שְׁלֹומֶךָ your peace (Isa 48:18; §9.5.1j), a function that is shared by English of. To Joüon and Muraoka's examples they add for the attributive genitive Prov 5:19 אַיֶלֶת אַהָבִים beloved hind, Ps 48:2 הַר־קָדְשׁוֹ his (God's) holy mountain ('mountain of his holiness').



                  All in all, this is a rather common function of the grammatical construction. To say that "father of eternity" is "more literal" is misleading, because it suggests that semantic functions of grammatical constructions map one-to-one between languages while they do not.



                  There is definitely no need to ascribe theological meaning to this particular case, or discuss the differences between English father of eternity and eternal father; that is special pleading and does not apply likewise to cases like valiant warrior ('warrior of strength', Jdg 11:1).






                  share|improve this answer























                    up vote
                    10
                    down vote



                    accepted







                    up vote
                    10
                    down vote



                    accepted






                    This is a common function of the Hebrew construct chain without direct equivalent in English. This is normal: syntactic constructions don't map one-to-one to constructions in other languages. Thus, while the most frequent meaning of the construct chain is "X of Y", this does not mean that it is the 'most literal' translation. Indeed, it has functions that cannot be expressed by English "X of Y", because the use patterns of these constructions do not fully overlap.



                    This particular type of relation is called a genitive of quality (Joüon and Muraoka, §129f):




                    The other genitives are mainly: [...] the genitive of the quality expressed by an abstract noun (which often makes up for the lack of adjectives): Ex 29.29 בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדָשׁ the garments of holiness (= the holy garments); Lv 10.17 מְקוּם הַקֹּדָשׁ the holy place (= the sanctuary); Lv 19.36 מֹאזּנֵי צֶדָק scales of justice (just scales); Ex 5.9 דִּבְרֵי שֶׁקֵר deceptive words; 1Kg 20.31 מַלְכֵי חֶסֶד merciful kings; Gn 17.8 אֲחֻזַּת עֹולָם possession in perpetuity; Jdg 11.1 גִּבּוֹר חַיִל valiant warrior; Pr 1.10 לִוְיַת חֵן charming crown.




                    Waltke and O'Connor call it an attributive genitive (§9.5.3), reserving genitive of quality for cases like שְׁלֹומֶךָ your peace (Isa 48:18; §9.5.1j), a function that is shared by English of. To Joüon and Muraoka's examples they add for the attributive genitive Prov 5:19 אַיֶלֶת אַהָבִים beloved hind, Ps 48:2 הַר־קָדְשׁוֹ his (God's) holy mountain ('mountain of his holiness').



                    All in all, this is a rather common function of the grammatical construction. To say that "father of eternity" is "more literal" is misleading, because it suggests that semantic functions of grammatical constructions map one-to-one between languages while they do not.



                    There is definitely no need to ascribe theological meaning to this particular case, or discuss the differences between English father of eternity and eternal father; that is special pleading and does not apply likewise to cases like valiant warrior ('warrior of strength', Jdg 11:1).






                    share|improve this answer












                    This is a common function of the Hebrew construct chain without direct equivalent in English. This is normal: syntactic constructions don't map one-to-one to constructions in other languages. Thus, while the most frequent meaning of the construct chain is "X of Y", this does not mean that it is the 'most literal' translation. Indeed, it has functions that cannot be expressed by English "X of Y", because the use patterns of these constructions do not fully overlap.



                    This particular type of relation is called a genitive of quality (Joüon and Muraoka, §129f):




                    The other genitives are mainly: [...] the genitive of the quality expressed by an abstract noun (which often makes up for the lack of adjectives): Ex 29.29 בִּגְדֵי הַקֹּדָשׁ the garments of holiness (= the holy garments); Lv 10.17 מְקוּם הַקֹּדָשׁ the holy place (= the sanctuary); Lv 19.36 מֹאזּנֵי צֶדָק scales of justice (just scales); Ex 5.9 דִּבְרֵי שֶׁקֵר deceptive words; 1Kg 20.31 מַלְכֵי חֶסֶד merciful kings; Gn 17.8 אֲחֻזַּת עֹולָם possession in perpetuity; Jdg 11.1 גִּבּוֹר חַיִל valiant warrior; Pr 1.10 לִוְיַת חֵן charming crown.




                    Waltke and O'Connor call it an attributive genitive (§9.5.3), reserving genitive of quality for cases like שְׁלֹומֶךָ your peace (Isa 48:18; §9.5.1j), a function that is shared by English of. To Joüon and Muraoka's examples they add for the attributive genitive Prov 5:19 אַיֶלֶת אַהָבִים beloved hind, Ps 48:2 הַר־קָדְשׁוֹ his (God's) holy mountain ('mountain of his holiness').



                    All in all, this is a rather common function of the grammatical construction. To say that "father of eternity" is "more literal" is misleading, because it suggests that semantic functions of grammatical constructions map one-to-one between languages while they do not.



                    There is definitely no need to ascribe theological meaning to this particular case, or discuss the differences between English father of eternity and eternal father; that is special pleading and does not apply likewise to cases like valiant warrior ('warrior of strength', Jdg 11:1).







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Nov 20 at 6:56









                    Keelan

                    2,30211027




                    2,30211027






















                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        A Peculiar Case



                        The most common interpretation, "Eternal Father", suggests that God exists eternally as a "Father" to all. The literal interpretation, "Father of eternity", means that God is "Father" to all again, but including the notion of eternity and the physical experience/thing of eternity.



                        The peculiar thing about this problem is that both the phrases Eternal Father and Father of eternity don't mean the exact same thing, but are both true about God. God is both the Eternal Father and the Father of eternity:




                        “From eternity to eternity I am God. No one can snatch anyone out of my hand.
                        No one can undo what I have done.” Isaiah 43:13



                        “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and was and is to come—the Almighty. Revelation 1:8




                        Again, God is both the Eternal Father, "the Alpha and Omega", and the Father of eternity, (i.e. "from eternity to eternity I am God").



                        My Answer



                        This is going to sound a little informal because I'm not well-versed in Hebrew, but I have a good idea of where the possible answer therein lies.



                        אֲבִיעַ֖ד (ab-i-ad), a Hebrew word that means literally, "Father of eternity", whereas it is translated as "Eternal Father" in English, has come across as odd to you. To solve this problem, we can look no further than the man who God deemed would be the father to many nations, Abraham. Before his name was changed to Abraham, his name was Abram, which can be translated as, "Exalted Father", or literally as, "Father of elevation". אברם (ab-rum), a Hebrew word that (note) doesn't have the "i" sound/word there. Why is it still translated (literally) as "Father of elevation"?



                        My guess is that the word "of" doesn't fully encompass the properties that the Hebrew word/syntax implies. To state the more exact literal interpretation of "Father of elevation" would be "Father who is attributed with elevation". So that is all to say that אֲבִיעַ֖ד (ab-i-ad) is more exactly translated literally not as "Father of eternity", but "Father who is attributed with eternity"; that is the most probable answer to why Everlasting/Eternal Father is the more common translation, as it is more close to the original meaning as literal translations often err on the side of fully-fleshed out meaning.



                        For more information, a link to the website where I found most of my info about Abram is here.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          A Peculiar Case



                          The most common interpretation, "Eternal Father", suggests that God exists eternally as a "Father" to all. The literal interpretation, "Father of eternity", means that God is "Father" to all again, but including the notion of eternity and the physical experience/thing of eternity.



                          The peculiar thing about this problem is that both the phrases Eternal Father and Father of eternity don't mean the exact same thing, but are both true about God. God is both the Eternal Father and the Father of eternity:




                          “From eternity to eternity I am God. No one can snatch anyone out of my hand.
                          No one can undo what I have done.” Isaiah 43:13



                          “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and was and is to come—the Almighty. Revelation 1:8




                          Again, God is both the Eternal Father, "the Alpha and Omega", and the Father of eternity, (i.e. "from eternity to eternity I am God").



                          My Answer



                          This is going to sound a little informal because I'm not well-versed in Hebrew, but I have a good idea of where the possible answer therein lies.



                          אֲבִיעַ֖ד (ab-i-ad), a Hebrew word that means literally, "Father of eternity", whereas it is translated as "Eternal Father" in English, has come across as odd to you. To solve this problem, we can look no further than the man who God deemed would be the father to many nations, Abraham. Before his name was changed to Abraham, his name was Abram, which can be translated as, "Exalted Father", or literally as, "Father of elevation". אברם (ab-rum), a Hebrew word that (note) doesn't have the "i" sound/word there. Why is it still translated (literally) as "Father of elevation"?



                          My guess is that the word "of" doesn't fully encompass the properties that the Hebrew word/syntax implies. To state the more exact literal interpretation of "Father of elevation" would be "Father who is attributed with elevation". So that is all to say that אֲבִיעַ֖ד (ab-i-ad) is more exactly translated literally not as "Father of eternity", but "Father who is attributed with eternity"; that is the most probable answer to why Everlasting/Eternal Father is the more common translation, as it is more close to the original meaning as literal translations often err on the side of fully-fleshed out meaning.



                          For more information, a link to the website where I found most of my info about Abram is here.






                          share|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote









                            A Peculiar Case



                            The most common interpretation, "Eternal Father", suggests that God exists eternally as a "Father" to all. The literal interpretation, "Father of eternity", means that God is "Father" to all again, but including the notion of eternity and the physical experience/thing of eternity.



                            The peculiar thing about this problem is that both the phrases Eternal Father and Father of eternity don't mean the exact same thing, but are both true about God. God is both the Eternal Father and the Father of eternity:




                            “From eternity to eternity I am God. No one can snatch anyone out of my hand.
                            No one can undo what I have done.” Isaiah 43:13



                            “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and was and is to come—the Almighty. Revelation 1:8




                            Again, God is both the Eternal Father, "the Alpha and Omega", and the Father of eternity, (i.e. "from eternity to eternity I am God").



                            My Answer



                            This is going to sound a little informal because I'm not well-versed in Hebrew, but I have a good idea of where the possible answer therein lies.



                            אֲבִיעַ֖ד (ab-i-ad), a Hebrew word that means literally, "Father of eternity", whereas it is translated as "Eternal Father" in English, has come across as odd to you. To solve this problem, we can look no further than the man who God deemed would be the father to many nations, Abraham. Before his name was changed to Abraham, his name was Abram, which can be translated as, "Exalted Father", or literally as, "Father of elevation". אברם (ab-rum), a Hebrew word that (note) doesn't have the "i" sound/word there. Why is it still translated (literally) as "Father of elevation"?



                            My guess is that the word "of" doesn't fully encompass the properties that the Hebrew word/syntax implies. To state the more exact literal interpretation of "Father of elevation" would be "Father who is attributed with elevation". So that is all to say that אֲבִיעַ֖ד (ab-i-ad) is more exactly translated literally not as "Father of eternity", but "Father who is attributed with eternity"; that is the most probable answer to why Everlasting/Eternal Father is the more common translation, as it is more close to the original meaning as literal translations often err on the side of fully-fleshed out meaning.



                            For more information, a link to the website where I found most of my info about Abram is here.






                            share|improve this answer












                            A Peculiar Case



                            The most common interpretation, "Eternal Father", suggests that God exists eternally as a "Father" to all. The literal interpretation, "Father of eternity", means that God is "Father" to all again, but including the notion of eternity and the physical experience/thing of eternity.



                            The peculiar thing about this problem is that both the phrases Eternal Father and Father of eternity don't mean the exact same thing, but are both true about God. God is both the Eternal Father and the Father of eternity:




                            “From eternity to eternity I am God. No one can snatch anyone out of my hand.
                            No one can undo what I have done.” Isaiah 43:13



                            “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and was and is to come—the Almighty. Revelation 1:8




                            Again, God is both the Eternal Father, "the Alpha and Omega", and the Father of eternity, (i.e. "from eternity to eternity I am God").



                            My Answer



                            This is going to sound a little informal because I'm not well-versed in Hebrew, but I have a good idea of where the possible answer therein lies.



                            אֲבִיעַ֖ד (ab-i-ad), a Hebrew word that means literally, "Father of eternity", whereas it is translated as "Eternal Father" in English, has come across as odd to you. To solve this problem, we can look no further than the man who God deemed would be the father to many nations, Abraham. Before his name was changed to Abraham, his name was Abram, which can be translated as, "Exalted Father", or literally as, "Father of elevation". אברם (ab-rum), a Hebrew word that (note) doesn't have the "i" sound/word there. Why is it still translated (literally) as "Father of elevation"?



                            My guess is that the word "of" doesn't fully encompass the properties that the Hebrew word/syntax implies. To state the more exact literal interpretation of "Father of elevation" would be "Father who is attributed with elevation". So that is all to say that אֲבִיעַ֖ד (ab-i-ad) is more exactly translated literally not as "Father of eternity", but "Father who is attributed with eternity"; that is the most probable answer to why Everlasting/Eternal Father is the more common translation, as it is more close to the original meaning as literal translations often err on the side of fully-fleshed out meaning.



                            For more information, a link to the website where I found most of my info about Abram is here.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Nov 20 at 1:15









                            phil-al-sophy

                            43115




                            43115






















                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote













                                Isa. 9:6 is reffering to Jesus, God's "son," and some of his functions. "Eternal Father" fits best as he is Adam's replacment who could of been an Eternal Human and Spiritual Father to mankind but he forfited that when he sinned in Eden. Jesus can give humans what Adam also gave up:-




                                NWT John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."



                                NWT 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive."




                                Added




                                NWT 1 Corinthians 15:45 "“The first man Adam [In Eden] became a living person.” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit.







                                share|improve this answer

























                                  up vote
                                  0
                                  down vote













                                  Isa. 9:6 is reffering to Jesus, God's "son," and some of his functions. "Eternal Father" fits best as he is Adam's replacment who could of been an Eternal Human and Spiritual Father to mankind but he forfited that when he sinned in Eden. Jesus can give humans what Adam also gave up:-




                                  NWT John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."



                                  NWT 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive."




                                  Added




                                  NWT 1 Corinthians 15:45 "“The first man Adam [In Eden] became a living person.” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit.







                                  share|improve this answer























                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote










                                    up vote
                                    0
                                    down vote









                                    Isa. 9:6 is reffering to Jesus, God's "son," and some of his functions. "Eternal Father" fits best as he is Adam's replacment who could of been an Eternal Human and Spiritual Father to mankind but he forfited that when he sinned in Eden. Jesus can give humans what Adam also gave up:-




                                    NWT John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."



                                    NWT 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive."




                                    Added




                                    NWT 1 Corinthians 15:45 "“The first man Adam [In Eden] became a living person.” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit.







                                    share|improve this answer












                                    Isa. 9:6 is reffering to Jesus, God's "son," and some of his functions. "Eternal Father" fits best as he is Adam's replacment who could of been an Eternal Human and Spiritual Father to mankind but he forfited that when he sinned in Eden. Jesus can give humans what Adam also gave up:-




                                    NWT John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."



                                    NWT 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive."




                                    Added




                                    NWT 1 Corinthians 15:45 "“The first man Adam [In Eden] became a living person.” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit.








                                    share|improve this answer












                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer










                                    answered Nov 20 at 12:17









                                    ethos

                                    694111




                                    694111






























                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded




















































                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                        Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                        Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35901%2fin-isaiah-96-why-is-eternal-father-the-preferred-translation-rather-than-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

                                        How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

                                        QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater