Translations of the Bible, such as the New King James Version (NKJV) attempt not only to translate, but also to interpret. The goal of interpretation is righteous, an attempt at enabling the reader arrive at a better understanding of ancient texts written originally in Hebrew or Greek.
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) of the Bible does not attempt to interpret the ancient Biblical texts, merely provides the most accurate translation of the ancient texts. Young’s translation work was so accurate way back in 1862, it became non-productive for any other person to take another stab at same endeavor. Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible is considered an authentic non-interpretive translation of original texts of the Bible.
While interpretive translations, such as the NKJV have their inherent beauty, so also does the non-interpretive YLT rendition. One of the most profound examples of loss of some beauty in context of interpretation of the original text is found in Isaiah 9:6.
Speaking about Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit declares through the Prophet Isaiah:
In the NKJV:
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
In the YLT:
For a Child hath been born to us, a Son hath been given to us, and the princely power is on his shoulder, and He doth call His name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
In an attempt at conveying words in Isaiah 9:6 in a manner to which readers could more easily relate, the NKJV interprets Father of Eternity to mean Everlasting Father.
Clearly, the two terms are not dichotomous, a Father of Eternity simultaneously must be an Everlasting Father.
The problem? An Everlasting Father need not be Father of Eternity. In this absence of reverse equality, in what follows I demonstrate that some beauty inherent in the original construction, ‘Father of Eternity’ is lost.
Everlasting Father means ‘a Father who lives forever’. Father of Eternity means ‘Creator of Eternity’.
To understand the difference, consider that a computer software can ‘live forever’ so long as the computer within which it functions remains in good condition. While the software potentially can live forever, the ecosystem within which this capacity is demonstrated totally is out of control of the software. When the computer gets turned off, while the software remains alive, it is forced to go to sleep. We have then that an entity can have capacity for living forever, yet not be the source of the ecosystem within which forever is possible.
Consider, however, the original rendition, Father of Eternity. By definition or logical interpretation, a Father of Eternity must live forever.
A God who creates eternity, but who cannot live eternally is a misnomer, a contradiction.
Father of Eternity means eternity exists because Jesus Christ exists. Father of Eternity means reckoning of time is possible only because Jesus Christ exists. Breaking up of eternity into chunks of time is possible only because Jesus Christ is, exists.
In presence of highlighted inherently logical meanings of ‘Father of Eternity’, if Jesus Christ were to cease to exist, time would cease to exist, meaning even if somehow man maintained consciousness, man would become incapable of any activity whatsoever. As famously demonstrated in the movie, ‘Lucy’ starring Scarlet Johansson, if time ceases to exist, even if you could continue to drive to work, observation of the activity would be impossible. Even if life remained on cessation of person of Jesus Christ, life would be unobservable, meaningless, as such of no purpose whatsoever. If the movie, Lucy, had stopped at this beautiful illustration, not attempt to link it to evolution, it would have been consistent with teachings of Jesus Christ because ‘spirit’ is what believers in Jesus Christ become whenever they harness some optimum amount of truth — as estimated by Jesus and His Father — domiciled in person of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45–49; John 17:3).
What good is attempting to love your spouse if your spouse never can receive the action in time and space?
Since eternity is made up of time which while it exists, simultaneously is not reckoned, cessation of Jesus Christ and time implies man eternally would become incapable of receipt or transmission of any activity, as such ultimately must become incapable of maintenance of consciousness.
The logical conclusion, if Jesus Christ is Father of Eternity, cessation of His existence implies cessation of existence of all life. While Jesus Christ was on earth being crucified then, the Word of God who is Spirit, non-corporeal, remained in Heaven else all would have been lost (John 3:13; 1John 5:7).
But the same is true of believers in Jesus Christ. All the while we live in our physical bodies here on earth, our lives — our true spirit — resides in heaven in Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:1–3).
Jesus as ‘Father of Eternity’ is consistent with John 3:16, and the assertion that “In Him (Jesus Christ), we live, and move, and are — Acts 17:28”.
Each of temporal life (who we are), and Eternal life (we was, we are, and continue to be) is possible only in Jesus Christ.
The dichotomy between Everlasting Father and Father of Eternity possesses implications for the debate over origins of life. If Jesus Christ is ‘Everlasting Father’, He could just be part of the ecosystem of the universe, live forever, yes, but not be source of the ecosystem. At that point, the question as to who created Father and Son becomes one of those inherently self contradictory yet meaningful questions asked by those who do not believe in Creationism, never mind they also do not have any explanation for source of their ‘big bang’. Given neither side can win the argument over source of an everlasting father or big bang, clearly, arguments over such concerns eminently are pointless.
But is Jesus Christ merely Everlasting Father, or better yet, Father of Eternity?
If Jesus Christ is ‘Father of Eternity’, reality exists because Jesus is, because Jesus exists. If Jesus is Father of Eternity, the question as to how God the Father and Jesus Christ came to be becomes automatically redundant, automatically a self contradictory meaningless question. The person asking the question has consciousness for asking of the question, possesses capacity for thought, for life, because he or she lives in the ecosystem created by Jesus Christ.
Once we assume correctness of the assertion in Christian Scriptures that there does not exist any other ecosystem within the entire universe (John 1:1–3; Colossians 1:16–17), asking how Jesus or The Father came to be is tantamount to asking, “How come Jesus is source of our reality and not some other being?”
Well then, just replace that other being of which you are so desirous with Jesus Christ, and the question no longer has relevance, loses meaningfulness. Persistence with the question implies the desire, “Why Jesus Christ, and not some other entity?” with the simple answer, “can you point to any entity of which you are aware that you really logically and rationally and without bias would prefer to Jesus Christ?”
The phraseology, Jesus Christ is ‘Father of Eternity’ renders self contradictory and non-meaningful the question, “Who created God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
Interpretive translations of the Bible attempt to render ancient Jewish and Christian manuscripts more relevant to language of the day. In their attempts at such simplification, however, sometimes beauty of extreme value is lost not by deliberate attempt, but by virtue of the objective of simplification.
Jesus, as Father of Eternity is more consistent with ethos of Christian Scriptures.
How then do we reconcile the fact that Jesus Christ is not His Father, as such is not the almighty God?
Well, once The Father who Himself is Spirit, as such non-corporeal, as such not possessing of a body decided to create, He decided His creation must exist outside of Himself, yet be connected to Himself. Clearly, in light of the fact that man was going to be endowed with free will for obeying or disobeying of The Father, such an objective makes sense.
For facilitation of Creation, The Father split Himself into Father and Word, with all creation to be initiated by the Word, who also is non-corporeal, with all Creation to have existence in context of the physical representation of the Word, who we now know as Jesus Christ. In Moses’ time, Jesus was the Rock that provided the Children of Israel with water to drink (Deuteronomy 32:31; 1 Corinthians 10:4).
When The Father in Genesis made man in His own image, it means, ‘made man in image of Jesus Christ’. With some adaptations, our physical features are derived from features God designed for His physical representation, Jesus Christ. Absent feasibility of Jesus Christ, God the Father would not have created, because absent some physical reality of Himself — Jesus Christ — there could not be any reckoning of time, any reckoning of eternity, any design of man, any reckoning of man’s activities.
We have then that absent existence of a physical reality of God — Jesus Christ, time could not have existed, arrive at Einstein’s famous insight that time (which facilitates consciousness, and reckoning of activities), and space (physical realities) require each other for existence.
We conclude Jesus indeed is Father of Eternity.
We conclude The Father is separate from all of His Creation, reject pantheism.
Jesus is first born of Creation (Colossians 1:15) in the sense that absent Jesus, Creation would be impossible.
Why then do
we worship Jesus Christ?
Because in Him we live, and move, and are. Because without Him, we could not exist.
Because the Father logically has declared that any worship directed at Jesus Christ is directed at Himself. After all, He set it up that way — that Jesus would be more directly relevant to our existence than He The Father Himself. But did this make Jesus Christ proud? Absolutely not. Actually made Him truly humble (Philippians 2:5–7).
So then, does the Father not have the right to choose to receive worship through Jesus Christ? Should we have an opinion on the matter? Should we tell God He can do better? Should we choose to give glory to God through a man who lives among us, or should we rather choose the image of a tree, an animal, or the sun and moon as target of glory due to the Almighty God?
While Jesus lived on earth as a man, never would He demand glory that belonged to His Father. Once He completed His work, however, once He resurrected and ascended to The Father, The Father exalted Him to receive any glory due to Himself (Philippians 2:9–10).
Never in history of Christianity has a man living among men being designated target of glory due the Almighty God, Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Jesus was willing to give up His divine nature for saving of man from sin. On completion of His mission, His Father responded by giving Him His divine nature back. Love beget Love.
The Father receives glory whenever Jesus is worshiped, whenever Jesus is glorified on earth (John 5:22–23; Philippians 2:9–11; Hebrews 1:8).
Jesus Christ is Father of Eternity, as such source of time, as such source of consciousness itself, as such source of all that exists. The declaration, Jesus is Father of Eternity is core of Christian Scriptures.