[b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
Awohili at aol.com
Awohili at aol.com
Tue Nov 22 09:11:03 EST 2005
I really think the point is settled, but not in Peter's favor, so he
continues to jiggle with it. Lexicographers from long ago have legitimized "time
indefinite" or "indefinite time" or "unbounded time" or whatever. To argue
otherwise is to fly in the face of the facts. And to argue that "time
indefinite" is "bad English" begs the question, "Whose English?"
This protracted argument reminds me of what the Talmud says about why God
put these words in the Torah: "Let Us make man." God, Who is One, replied to
the effect that it was to give the heretics something to argue about. The
words do not change God's identity or essential Being.
But people like to argue, and God lets them.
Best wishes,
Solomon Landers
In a message dated 11/22/2005 5:52:08 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
kwrandolph at email.com writes:
Peter:
That you make this claim after making strong assertions
that views other than yours are wrong because that was
not how the ancients thought, makes the rest of your
comments not worthy of detailed response.
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list