[b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org
Thu Nov 17 19:36:17 EST 2005
On 17/11/2005 23:58, Robert Newman wrote:
>...
>
>Response:
>You have unreasonably brushed off the clear examples I've given with respect to past reference. In all honestly, I’ve not gone through every occurance of olam, but seeing as you have brushed off my examples so far, and rejected those given by others I don't see much point in trying to convince you. All the examples I can think of with respect to future reference require some degree of interpretation (like Karls one), and they should be clear to theologians. The context in most cases demands simply 'a long time' that needn't be 'infinite/unending time'.
>Why are the clear examples set in past reference not enough? I mean why would olam signal a broad concept with respect to past reference but only the very specific concept of 'forever' with respect to future reference?
>
>
>
Robert, I have not brushed off the examples of PAST `olam which you
gave, but have accepted that they, and this is also true of your new
ones, are somewhat different from the future examples, such that they
cannot be rendered "for ever" in English. But I continue to insist that
the meaning here is something like "since the very beginning", that at
least in the understanding of the author there was no time before the
beginning of that `olam period. That is more or less a definition of
eternity past. I also wrote "From our modern historical perspective we
understand that many of these things do not actually go right back to
creation, but from the author's perspective they were probably
understood as doing so". So there is no "broad concept with respect to
past reference", but a very specific meaning, something like "ever since
creation, at least as far as we know".
As for examples of `olam with FUTURE reference which cannot be
understood as "for ever", I understand your "All the examples I can
think of with respect to future reference require some degree of
interpretation (like Karls one), and they should be clear to
theologians." as tantamount to an admission that it is only within
certain theological interpretive frameworks that some occurrences of
`olam cannot be understood as referring to eternity, or at least my
"subjective" eternity.
--
Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list