Study 7: Does "Forever" Mean Eternal? — Advanced Study Answer Key¶

The Hebrew Word Olam (H5769) in the Old Testament

Evidence Tiers

This series uses a three-tier evidence classification to distinguish what Scripture says from what people claim it teaches:

Explicit (E) — The text directly says this. You can point to a verse and quote it.

Necessary Implication (N) — No single verse says this word-for-word, but it unavoidably follows from what the text does say. No interpretation is needed — every reader, regardless of theological position, must agree.

Inference (I) — Someone claims the Bible teaches this, but no verse says it and no combination of verses forces it. Something must be added beyond what the text contains: a concept, a framework, or a choice between possible readings.

The hierarchy matters: Explicit > Necessary Implication > Inference. An inference cannot override what the text explicitly states.

Section A: Word Study — Olam (H5769)¶

1. Olam appears approximately 432 times in the OT and is translated over 40 different ways in the KJV: "for ever" (198x), "everlasting" (56x), "perpetual" (22x), "of old" (13x), "ancient" (4x), "long time," and others. The root word alam means "to conceal, to hide." Strong's defines olam as "properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind." Given this definition, does olam denote a specific duration, or does it describe time whose endpoint is not visible from the speaker's vantage point?

Olam does not denote a specific duration. It describes time whose endpoint is concealed — hidden from the speaker's vantage point. The "vanishing point" is the horizon of time: the speaker cannot see the end. Whether the actual end is three days (Jonah), a lifetime (slave service), an age (priesthood), or genuinely endless (God) depends entirely on the subject. The word itself describes the speaker's perspective on the duration, not the duration's absolute length.

2. The LXX (Septuagint) translates olam as aion (G165, "an age") 287 times and aionios (G166, "pertaining to an age") 100 times. Additionally, it translates olam as genea (G1074, "a generation") 51 times. Pre-Christian Jewish translators had access to Greek words that more precisely denote eternity (aidios, G126, used only twice in the NT). What does the LXX translators' consistent choice of aion/aionios over aidios indicate about their understanding of olam?

The LXX translators — pre-Christian Jewish scholars working in the third through second centuries BC — understood olam as age-related, not as absolute infinity. They consistently chose aion ("an age") and aionios ("pertaining to an age") over aidios ("perpetual, everlasting" — a word that more precisely denotes strict eternity). They also chose genea ("a generation") 51 times — a word that inherently denotes a finite period. These translation choices constitute evidence of how native Hebrew speakers understood olam's semantic range.

3. The NT word aionios (used in "everlasting punishment," Matt 25:46, and "everlasting life," John 3:16) is the LXX equivalent of olam. What is the significance of this vocabulary chain — olam -> aionios — for interpreting NT "everlasting" passages?

The vocabulary chain is textually verifiable: olam is translated aionios 100 times in the LXX. The NT authors — writing in Greek to audiences familiar with the LXX — used aionios with the semantic range it carried in the LXX, which was the semantic range of olam. Since olam's duration is demonstrably context-dependent (three days, a lifetime, an age, or genuinely eternal depending on the subject), aionios inherits this same context-dependence. This connection is examined further in etc6-08, but the OT foundation is established here: the word behind "everlasting" does not inherently mean "endless."

Section B: Usage Categories of Olam¶

Category 1: God (genuinely eternal)

4. Read Psalm 90:2, Genesis 21:33, Isaiah 40:28, and Isaiah 57:15. In each passage, olam is applied to God. Is God genuinely eternal? Does olam carry its maximal force here — and if so, why?

Yes, God is genuinely eternal, and olam carries its maximal, unending force in these passages. But this is because God is genuinely eternal by nature — not because olam inherently means "eternal." Both sides of the debate agree that God is eternal. The question is whether olam itself causes that meaning or merely describes it because the subject demands it. When the same word means three days (Jonah) and eternity (God), the word is not the determining factor — the subject is.

"From everlasting [olam] to everlasting [olam], thou art God." — Psalm 90:2

"The everlasting [olam] God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary." — Isaiah 40:28

"The high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity [ad]." — Isaiah 57:15

Category 2: Institutions and covenants (ended)

5. Document the olam status and actual outcome of each:

Institution	Olam Text	Actual Outcome
Aaronic priesthood	"An everlasting priesthood" (Exo 40:15; Num 25:13)	Changed: "the priesthood being changed" (Heb 7:12)
Mosaic ceremonial statutes (20+)	"A statute for ever" (Exo 12:14,17,24; Lev 16:29,34; 24:3,8-9, and 20+ additional references)	Ceased with the destruction of the temple
Solomon's temple	"A settled place for thee to abide in for ever" (1 Ki 8:13; 9:3; 2 Ki 21:7)	Destroyed 586 BC and AD 70
Circumcision	"An everlasting covenant" (Gen 17:13)	Superseded: "if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (Gal 5:2); "neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision" (Gal 6:15)
The earth	"The earth abideth for ever" (Ecc 1:4)	Will pass away: "the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old" (Isa 51:6); "the first heaven and the first earth were passed away" (Rev 21:1)
"Everlasting mountains"	Olam mountains (Hab 3:6)	"The everlasting mountains were scattered, and the perpetual hills did bow"

6. How many olam-described institutions have demonstrably ended? If olam inherently meant "endless," would these biblical statements be false?

Over 50 olam-described institutions, ceremonies, and covenants have demonstrably ended (the priesthood, 20+ ceremonial statutes, the temple, circumcision). If olam inherently meant "endless," then calling the Aaronic priesthood an "everlasting priesthood" would be a false statement, since it was changed. Calling Solomon's temple God's dwelling "for ever" would be false, since it was destroyed. The only reading that avoids making these biblical statements false is that olam means "for the duration of the age" — lasting as long as the subject and its conditions persist.

Category 3: Human subjects (limited by mortal span)

7. Document the olam duration for each:

Subject	Olam Text	Actual Duration
Slave service	"He shall serve him for ever" (Exo 21:6; Deu 15:17)	One human lifetime — universally acknowledged
Jonah's confinement	"The earth with her bars was about me for ever" (Jon 2:6)	Three days and three nights (Jon 1:17)
Samuel's service	"There abide for ever" (1 Sam 1:22)	His lifetime — "Samuel died" (1 Sam 25:1)
Human lifespan	"Do they live for ever?" (Zec 1:5)	Rhetorical question expecting "no" — the prophets died
Court greeting	"O king, live for ever" (Dan 2:4; 3:9; 5:10; 6:6,21)	Non-literal formula — every king addressed this way died
"Long home"	Beth olam = the grave (Ecc 12:5)	Olam applied to the duration of death

The Aramaic alam (H5957, equivalent of olam) in the court formula "O king, live for ever" is particularly telling. No one — not the speakers, not the king, not any interpreter — understood this as a literal claim that the king would live eternally. The alam/olam vocabulary was recognized as non-literal even in its own cultural context.

Category 4: Past time (finite historical periods)

8. Read Genesis 6:4, Deuteronomy 32:7, Isaiah 63:9,11, Jeremiah 5:15, Jeremiah 6:16, and Jeremiah 28:8. Olam is used for past time in approximately 30 occurrences. If olam meant "infinite duration," could it be used for "long ago"?

No. A word meaning "infinite duration" cannot mean "long ago" or "ancient." The approximately 30 backward-looking uses of olam prove conclusively that the word means "indefinite duration" — time stretching to a vanishing point in either direction — rather than "infinite duration." The KJV itself translates these as "of old," "ancient," "old time," and "long" — all finite-past terms.

"Mighty men which were of old [olam], men of renown." — Genesis 6:4

"Remember the days of old [olam], consider the years of many generations." — Deuteronomy 32:7

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old [olam] paths." — Jeremiah 6:16

"An ancient [olam] nation." — Jeremiah 5:15

Category 5: Judgment passages (fire/smoke)

9. Read Isaiah 34:10-17 carefully. Verse 10 uses olam for smoke going up and uses the even stronger le-netsach netsachim ("for ever and ever" — the strongest available "forever" form) for none passing through. Verses 11-17 describe animals inhabiting the territory. How does the strongest "forever" language in the OT function in a passage where the judgment has demonstrably ended?

This is the single most important passage for understanding OT "forever" fire language. Isaiah 34:10 uses the most intensified "forever" expression available in Hebrew — le-netsach netsachim (literally "for ever and ever" or "perpetuity of perpetuities"). Yet the same passage, in verses 11-17, describes pelicans, hedgehogs, owls, ravens, wild goats, and other creatures inhabiting the territory. Animals cannot dwell in actively burning, smoking land. The judgment was completed, the destruction was irreversible, and the "forever" language described the permanence of the result — not the duration of the process. If even the strongest "forever" form in Hebrew describes a completed judgment, no lesser form can be presumed to mean literally endless.

"The smoke thereof shall go up for ever [olam]: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever [le-netsach netsachim]." — Isaiah 34:10

"But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it." — Isaiah 34:11

10. Read Jeremiah 17:4,27. Fire burns olam in Jerusalem. This was historically fulfilled when Nebuchadnezzar burned the city in 586 BC. Is the fire still burning?

No. The olam fire burned Jerusalem, accomplished total destruction, and went out. The fulfilled prophecy demonstrates that olam fire is fire that completes its destructive purpose — not fire that burns infinitely.

"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever [olam]." — Jeremiah 17:4

"Then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched." — Jeremiah 17:27

11. Read Jeremiah 25:9,12 and Jeremiah 51:26,62. Babylon is to become "perpetual desolations" and "desolate for ever" (olam). Has the site of Babylon been continuously uninhabited since then?

No. The site of Babylon has been partially inhabited at various historical periods. Villages existed on and near the site. The olam desolation describes the permanent end of Babylon as a great power, not literal continuous uninhabitedness. Once again, olam describes the permanence of the outcome — the civilization's irreversible fall — rather than an absolute, literal, infinite state.

Category 6: Revoked promises

12. Read 1 Samuel 2:30 and 1 Samuel 13:13-14. In each case, God stated an olam intention and then revoked it. What do these two explicit divine reversals demonstrate about whether olam means "unconditional" or "irrevocable"?

These are the two clearest cases in the OT. God explicitly said olam and then explicitly said "but now" — reversing the promise.

"I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever [olam]: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me." — 1 Samuel 2:30

"Now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever [olam]. But now thy kingdom shall not continue." — 1 Samuel 13:13-14

Two conclusions follow unavoidably: (1) Olam does not mean "unconditional." Both promises were conditioned on obedience, despite the use of olam. (2) Olam does not mean "irrevocable." Both were explicitly revoked by the same God who made them. Any claim that olam guarantees permanence must account for these two passages.

Section C: The "Forever" Vocabulary Beyond Olam¶

13. The Hebrew word netsach (H5331) is another "forever" term. Read Psalm 103:9, Isaiah 57:16, and Jeremiah 3:5. In each passage, netsach is used to explicitly deny that God's wrath is perpetual. What does this tell you about the "forever" vocabulary when applied to divine anger?

The same "forever" vocabulary used elsewhere for "everlasting punishment" is used here to explicitly deny the perpetuity of divine wrath. God Himself states that His anger has a terminus:

"Neither will he keep his anger for ever [netsach]." — Psalm 103:9

"I will not contend for ever [olam], neither will I be always wroth." — Isaiah 57:16

"Will he reserve his anger for ever [netsach]? will he keep it to the end?" — Jeremiah 3:5

If "forever" vocabulary is used to state that divine wrath ends, then the vocabulary itself does not require that divine wrath be perpetual. The same words used to argue for eternal conscious torment are used by Scripture to deny the perpetuity of God's anger.

14. The combined form le-olam va-ed ("for ever and ever") intensifies olam by adding ad (H5703). This form is used for God's reign (Exo 15:18; Ps 10:16; 45:6), but also for the destruction of the wicked's name (Ps 9:5) and for stars (Ps 148:6). The fact that the combined form exists suggests that olam alone was considered insufficient for maximal duration. What does this imply about the force of olam by itself?

The existence of intensified forms (le-olam va-ed, le-netsach netsachim) implies that olam alone was not considered sufficient to express maximal or absolute duration. If olam inherently meant "infinite/endless," no intensification would be needed — "forever" cannot be made "more forever." The fact that Hebrew created these compound expressions demonstrates that olam by itself carried an elastic, context-dependent meaning that sometimes needed reinforcement.

Note also that le-olam va-ed is applied to the destruction of the wicked's name (Ps 9:5) — the permanent erasure of the wicked, not their permanent conscious existence.

15. Read Psalm 92:7. The wicked shall be destroyed (shamad) le-ad olam — combining both ad and olam. The verb shamad means "to be destroyed, annihilated." What does the combination of destruction vocabulary with the strongest durational expression tell you about the fate described?

The strongest durational expression (le-ad olam — "for ever and ever") is combined with the strongest destruction verb (shamad — "to be destroyed, annihilated, exterminated"). This combination describes permanent destruction — everlasting annihilation — not everlasting preservation in torment. The "forever" intensifies the finality of the destruction, not the duration of a conscious experience.

"When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed [shamad] for ever [le-ad olam]." — Psalm 92:7

Section D: The Daniel 12:2 Question¶

16. Read Daniel 12:2. Olam modifies both "everlasting life" and "everlasting contempt" in the same verse. Evaluate the "same adjective = same duration" claim.

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting [olam] life, and some to shame and everlasting [olam] contempt [deraon]." — Daniel 12:2

The "same adjective = same duration" claim is falsified by olam's usage elsewhere. Within the same book of the Bible:

Exodus 15:18 — olam for God's reign: genuinely eternal
Exodus 21:6 — olam for slave service: one lifetime

Same word, same book (Exodus), vastly different durations. The adjective does not determine the duration — the subject does. If olam can mean "genuinely eternal" for God's reign and "one lifetime" for slave service within the same book, then olam can carry different durations for "life" and "contempt" within the same verse. "Everlasting life" is genuinely endless because life from God is genuinely endless. "Everlasting contempt" is permanent because the destruction it describes is irreversible.

17. The word deraon (H1860, "contempt/abhorrence") occurs only twice in the entire OT: Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 66:24. In Isaiah 66:24, the objects of deraon are peger — corpses, dead bodies. If deraon describes onlookers' reaction to dead bodies, what does "everlasting contempt" describe?

Deraon describes the reaction of the living toward the destroyed — not an ongoing experience of the destroyed. In Isaiah 66:24: "They shall go forth, and look upon the carcases [peger — corpses/dead bodies] of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring [deraon] unto all flesh." The objects of deraon are corpses — dead bodies, not conscious beings.

"Everlasting contempt" (deron olam) in Daniel 12:2 describes the permanent abhorrence of the righteous toward the destroyed wicked — not the everlasting consciousness of the wicked in torment. The contempt is everlasting; the contemplated objects are dead.

Section E: Counter-Arguments¶

18. "When olam is applied to God, it means genuinely eternal. Since God is the one administering 'everlasting punishment,' the punishment must also be genuinely eternal."

This confuses the subject of the adjective with the agent of the action. Olam modifies the punishment (or the destruction), not God. The question is: what is the nature of the punishment? If the punishment is destruction, then olam destruction means permanent, irreversible destruction — not endless conscious experience. The duration is determined by what is described as olam (the punishment/destruction), not by who administers it (God). By the same logic, since God administered the olam fire on Edom (Isa 34:10), that fire should still be burning — but it is not.

19. "The non-eschatological uses of olam are accommodative language, but the eschatological uses reflect the word's 'true' meaning."

The text does not draw any distinction between "eschatological olam" and "non-eschatological olam." There is no grammatical marker, no lexical indicator, no authorial note signaling that olam activates a different semantic register in eschatological contexts. The claim requires adding a concept the text does not contain: that context-type changes the word's meaning. Moreover, who decides which uses are "accommodative" and which are "true"? The classification itself is an inference imposed on the text, not derived from it.

When God says the Aaronic priesthood is olam (Exo 40:15), is that "accommodative"? When God says Eli's house would walk before Him olam (1 Sam 2:30), is that "accommodative"? And if divine statements can be "accommodative olam," how would one determine which divine uses of olam are "real" and which are "accommodative" — other than by presupposing the answer?

20. "The 'perpetual sleep' of Babylon's rulers (Jer 51:39,57) proves olam can mean genuinely endless when applied to death."

"They shall sleep a perpetual [olam] sleep, and not wake, saith the LORD." — Jeremiah 51:39

This passage actually supports the conditionalist reading, not the ECT reading. Olam sleep means permanent death — "they shall not wake." The emphasis is on the irreversibility of their death, not on their conscious experience. They are sleeping (unconscious), not suffering. This is permanent unconsciousness, not eternal conscious torment.

Section F: Evidence Classification Exercise — Answers¶

1. "Olam is derived from the root alam meaning 'to conceal/hide'; Strong's defines it as 'concealed, i.e. the vanishing point.'" - Explicit (E). This is a lexical fact documented in Strong's Concordance and Hebrew lexicons. It is the definition of the word, directly verifiable.

2. "The Aaronic priesthood, described as an olam priesthood, was changed (Heb 7:12)." - Explicit (E). Exodus 40:15 says "everlasting [olam] priesthood." Hebrews 7:12 says "the priesthood being changed." Both are directly quoted from the text.

3. "Olam's duration is determined by context and the nature of the subject it modifies, not by the word itself." - Necessary Implication (N). No single verse states this rule. But the evidence is overwhelming: olam = three days (Jonah), one lifetime (slave), ended institutions (priesthood, temple, ceremonies), genuinely eternal (God), and past time ("of old"). The only conclusion that accounts for all this data without making any biblical statement false is that the subject determines the duration. Every reader, regardless of theological position, must acknowledge that the same word carries different durations across these passages.

4. "Olam inherently means 'eternal/endless' when applied to eschatological subjects, regardless of how it functions in non-eschatological contexts." - Inference (I). The text does not distinguish between eschatological and non-eschatological olam. The same word is used in all categories with no marker indicating a different meaning. This claim requires adding the concept that "eschatological context changes the word's meaning" — a concept not found in the text. It also requires choosing this reading over the demonstrated contextual range of olam. It conflicts with 10+ Plain-level items documenting ended olam institutions, making it an I-B (competing evidence) inference that is resolved against by the weight of evidence.

5. "The symmetry of Daniel 12:2 ('everlasting life' and 'everlasting contempt') requires both outcomes to have identical duration." - Inference (I). The grammatical observation that the same word modifies both nouns is explicit. But the interpretive conclusion — that the same adjective must impose the same duration on different nouns — is an inference. It requires adding the principle that "an adjective always carries the same force regardless of its noun." This principle is falsified by Exodus: olam for God's reign (15:18) and olam for slave service (21:6) — same word, same book, different durations. The adjective does not override the noun.

6. "Multiple OT judgments described with olam fire/smoke language (Edom, Jerusalem) have demonstrably ended." - Explicit (E). Isaiah 34:10 says smoke goes up olam. Isaiah 34:11-17 says animals inhabit the territory. Jeremiah 17:4,27 says fire burns olam in Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem in 586 BC. Both the olam language and the ended judgments are directly verifiable from the text and from history.

7. "Because 'everlasting life' is genuinely endless, 'everlasting punishment' must also be genuinely endless." - Inference (I). This assumes the "same adjective = same duration" rule, which is falsified by olam's usage across Scripture (see answer 5 above). It requires adding a principle not found in the text. It also requires choosing to read aionios (the LXX equivalent of olam) as inherently meaning "endless" — contrary to the demonstrated range of both olam and aionios. The logic is: if olam life from God is genuinely endless, then olam punishment on mortal beings must also be endless. But this is the same word that means three days (Jonah), one lifetime (slave), and "of old" (past time). The adjective takes its force from its subject.

Section G: What CAN Be Said / What CANNOT Be Said — Answers¶

What CAN be said (the Bible explicitly states or necessarily implies):

Olam (H5769) occurs approximately 432 times in the OT and is translated 40+ ways. Its root meaning is "concealed, hidden" — the vanishing point of time, where the endpoint is not visible. Strong's: "properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind."
Olam is applied to subjects that have demonstrably ended: the Aaronic priesthood (Exo 40:15 — changed, Heb 7:12), 20+ Mosaic ceremonial statutes (ceased with temple destruction), Solomon's temple (destroyed 586 BC and AD 70), circumcision (superseded, Gal 5:2-6), slave service (one lifetime, Exo 21:6), Jonah's confinement (three days, Jon 2:6), and Samuel's service (his lifetime, 1 Sam 1:22).
Two olam promises were explicitly revoked by God: Eli's house ("I said for ever: but now, Be it far from me," 1 Sam 2:30) and Saul's kingdom ("would have established for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue," 1 Sam 13:13-14).
Olam refers to past time ("of old," "ancient") in approximately 30 occurrences. A word meaning "infinite" could not mean "long ago."
Multiple OT judgments use olam fire/smoke language for events that have demonstrably ended: Edom's smoke "for ever" (Isa 34:10) while animals inhabit the territory (34:11-17); Jerusalem's fire "burns for ever" (Jer 17:4) fulfilled in 586 BC. Even the strongest "forever" form (netsach netsachim, Isa 34:10) is applied to a completed judgment.
The LXX translates olam as aion ("an age") 287 times and aionios ("pertaining to an age") 100 times, and as genea ("a generation") 51 times. Pre-Christian Jewish translators understood olam as age-related, not absolute infinity.
When applied to God (Gen 21:33; Ps 90:2; Isa 40:28; 57:15), olam carries its maximal force: genuinely unending. This is because God is genuinely eternal, not because olam inherently means "eternal."
"Forever" vocabulary (netsach) is used to explicitly deny that God's wrath is perpetual: "neither will he keep anger for ever" (Ps 103:9); "I will not contend for ever" (Isa 57:16); "Will he reserve anger for ever?" (Jer 3:5).
Daniel 12:2 uses olam for both "everlasting life" and "everlasting contempt." The word deraon (contempt/abhorrence) occurs only twice in the OT: here and in Isaiah 66:24, where it describes onlookers' reaction to corpses (peger = dead bodies).

What CANNOT be said (not stated or necessarily implied — requires adding something):

It cannot be said that olam inherently means "eternal/endless." The word's root meaning is "concealed" (hidden time), and its documented usage includes a three-day period (Jonah), a human lifetime (slave service), ended institutions (priesthood, ceremonies, temple), revoked promises (Saul, Eli), past time ("of old"), and ended fire/smoke judgments (Edom, Jerusalem). A word used for three days, one lifetime, and "long ago" does not inherently mean "infinite."
It cannot be said that olam always means the same thing regardless of context. The same word means "for ever" (Ps 90:2 — God), "for life" (Exo 21:6 — slave), "three days" (Jon 2:6), and "of old" (Gen 6:4 — past). Even within the same book (Exodus), olam means "genuinely eternal" (15:18, God's reign) and "one lifetime" (21:6, slave service).
It cannot be said that the Dan 12:2 symmetry requires identical duration for both outcomes. Olam demonstrably carries different durations for different subjects in the same legal code (Exo 15:18 vs. 21:6), the same book (Daniel uses alam for non-literal court greetings and for God's eternal kingdom), and across Scripture. The noun governs the adjective, not the reverse.
It cannot be said that "everlasting fire/smoke" in the OT means literally endless burning. Every verifiable OT instance of olam fire/smoke language describes a judgment that has ended: Edom (Isa 34:10 — animals inhabit), Jerusalem (Jer 17:4 — burned 586 BC). Even the strongest "forever" expression (netsach netsachim) is applied to a completed judgment.
It cannot be said that eschatological olam operates differently from non-eschatological olam. The text draws no such distinction. The same word is used in all categories without any grammatical or lexical marker indicating a different meaning in eschatological contexts.
It cannot be said that the LXX translation is irrelevant to the meaning of aionios. Pre-Christian Jewish scholars translated olam as aion 287 times and aionios 100 times. Since aionios is the NT word in "everlasting punishment" (Matt 25:46) and "everlasting life" (John 3:16), and since aionios is the LXX equivalent of olam, the semantic range of olam directly informs the meaning of aionios.