[b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org
Sat Nov 19 13:02:12 EST 2005
On 19/11/2005 09:04, Karl Randolph wrote:
> ...
>
>>..... The
>>Israelites were not thinking in modern cosmological terms.
>>
>>
>
>What do *you* *know* about ancient cosmology?
>
>Your apparent attitude towards the ancients sounds like
>the 19th century European chauvinism that was behind
>the development of DH. What do you know about ancient
>cosmology? I wouldn't be surprised that your concept
>mirrors that of Medieval cosmology, which was a strange
>mishmash of Greek philosophical method smashed into
>Hebrew and Christian terminology by scholastics who
>were more wedded to Greek philosophy than Tanakh.
>
>
No, Karl, my concept does not mirror mediaeval cosomology. Nor does it
mirror modern cosmology with a tinge of Christian thought as yours seems to.
>But when we take the Hebrew Tanakh and the Greek New
>Testament for themselves, ...
>
Let me say immediately that the cosmology of the New Testament is
entirely irrelevant to the meaning of the biblical Hebrew word `olam
which we are discussing. Also, as this list is for discussion of
biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible, this cosmology is off topic and I
will not discuss it here. The cosmology of the Hebrew Bible, as far as I
can tell, is rather different, considerably less explicit, although not
contradictroy.
>...
>
>>.... They
>>were thinking of a universe which began with a creation, and which
>>was probably expected to end in some kind of final destruction.
>>
>>
>
>Hey, that sounds exactly what I believe.
>
>
Well, since you agree with me, surely also your "apparent attitude
towards the ancients sounds like the 19th century European chauvinism
that was behind the development of DH. What do you know about ancient
cosmology?"
>
>
>>`Olam with past reference referred to things which were thought to
>>date back to the creation or at least to the period immediately
>>following it.
>>
>>
>
>Wrong.
>
>
Right. At least I will continue to believe that this is right until
someone provides some evidence to the contrary, instead of persistent
contradiction.
>
>
>>..... `Olam with future references referred to things which
>>are expected to continue until that final destruction, or which
>>were at least in practice equivalent to that.
>>
>>
>
>Again wrong.
>
>
This is starting to remind me of the Monty Python argument sketch, see
http://www.mindspring.com/%7Emfpatton/sketch.htm, except that it has
lasted a lot longer than five minutes.
>Or rather, not necessarily to both. The use is more nuanced
>than that.
>
>
I would be interested in your description of these nuances and how you
justify them from the Hebrew text (and not from importing New Testament
perspectives).
...
>>>As for the New Testament use of "eon", it too is used for a
>>>limited but unknown length of time (e.g. Matthew 28:20) as well
>>>as eternity, just like (WLM.
>>>
>>>
>>So , Karl, do you consider that, according to this verse, there
>>will be a future time when Jesus is not with his people?
>>
>>
>
>Another straw man argument.
>
>
No, Karl. My point is that in the NT AIWN, at least in this sense, has
more or less the same "eternity" meaning as Hebrew `olam. And you seem
to agree that the meanings are the same, and then give me an example
where we surely agree that the meaning is eternity! But then we should
keep away from NT discussions.
--
Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list