[b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
peter at qaya.org
Mon Nov 21 12:08:14 EST 2005
On 21/11/2005 15:59, Karl Randolph wrote:
>How about the assertion "I am not "us[ing] "forever" and
>"eternity" in a highly idiosyncratic manner", I am simply
>using them to describe the understanding of the original
>Hebrew Bible authors,..." from Sat Nov 19 17:33:34. On
>what basis do you claim to know what that understanding
>was? Where is your evidence?
My point here, which you have obscured by abbreviating my sentence, is
that I was looking for the understanding of the original Hebrew authors
and not that of New Testament and later Christian reinterpreters of the
text. I was making no assertion about what that original understanding
was. Rather, I was repudiating your argument that I was using words "in
a highly idiosyncratic manner" simply because it did not agree with your
reinterpretation of the text on the basis of Christian theology.
>Or how about your message sent Sat Nov 19 19:49:02
>where you made the assertion "My claim is based on the
>evidence of how `olam is actually used in biblical Hebrew,
>when the texts are read without theological
>presuppositions." What is the basis of that assertion?
You had written:
>You are making a claim concerning the thoughts of the original authors for which there is not only no evidence, but it goes against logic too.
I am not sure what I was supposed to have claimed, but my point was that
my arguments were at least intended to be based on the biblical Hebrew
text, not on extraneous theological presuppositions - although I accept
that none of us are entirely free from our theology.
>Consistently throughout this thread you have made
>assertions concerning as to how the ancients thought
>without evidence to back yourself up. What evidence do
>you have other than your personal opinion as to how
>these particular ancients, namely those who authored
>Tanakh, thought? You can't use the text of Tanakh, as
>we who disagree with you are using that same text.
No, Karl, I have not made assertions about how the ancients thought,
although I may have put forward some tentative ideas. But where I have
been consistent is in rejecting and repudiating your persistent attempts
to read Christian and other anachronistic thoughts into the Hebrew
Bible. On your last point I can use the text of the Tanakh, because you
are using not that text but the New Testament and later Christian
theology as your primary evidence for the meaning of Hebrew words.
>We find (WLM used for indeterminate though finite times
>in the past well short of eternity, or even close to creation
>in uses where there is no evidence of idiomatic uses of
>hyperbole, therefore, absent clear evidence to the
>contrary, we see no reason to assume that it had a
>different meaning in the future. In short, for past uses we
>find that it is used for unknown time in the past which can
>include a few hundred years, back to creation or even
Well, let's forget the past use, as for most of us the future use is of
>... therefore its future uses could include a lifetime,
>a few hundred years, to the end of time or past it into
>eternity, the same as its past uses. Your assertions to
>the contrary are so far without evidence, therefore, in
>your own word, are "valueless".
Karl, it is you here who are making a positive assertion, that the
future uses must be the same as the past uses. My only assertion
concerning that is that you have not proved it, and my evidence for that
is all of your past postings on this subject, as well as the general
fallacy of your position that a word must have the same meaning in two
quite different contexts.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew