[b-hebrew] one-to-one rendering of olam

Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Mon Dec 13 14:53:43 EST 2010

Dear Fred,

I will state this just one time, and one time only. You said to Gary, "you
signify the controversy with your theology first program"; and "Nothing in the
Hebrew language or the aortic text calls for that usage,
except your theology."

With respects to the moderators, your statements above are theological in nature
also and are beyond the list guidelines. So please stop. You are arguing that
English words used to translate a Hebrew term are not correct. That is your
opinion, but do not claim that our position is based on theology, while yours is
not. That is circular reasoning. Several list members have given you the data on
the Hebrew (olam means especially myself. We have given you the data as it
appears in the text. We are dealing with what the text says.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath at gmail.com>
To: "Hedrick Gary" <GaryH at cjfm.org>
Cc: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] one-to-one rendering of olam

> No, Gary:
> you signify the controversy with your theology first program.
> Where in the masoretic text does the word eternal appear? Only in your
> religious assignment of that meaning to עולם .
> Nothing in the hebrew language or the masoretic text calls for that usage,
> except your theology.
> To move עולם from an unequivocal, clear & applied use of three days, thirty
> years, three hundred years, etc., respectively; and into eternity,
> represents faith and beliefs first, and facts second.
> regards,
> fred burlingame
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Hedrick Gary <GaryH at cjfm.org> wrote:
> > Fred, the term olam in itself is not all that controversial. We can
> > literally go for months on end here on B-Hebrew without the term coming up
> > in discussion even once.
> >
> > What is controversial is your insistence on a one-size-fits-all definition
> > of olam (as opposed to multiple nuanced meanings depending on context and
> > usage), and also your theory that when olam refers to God himself, it
> > signifies that He is "unknown" rather than unbounded and eternal.
> >
> > Essentially, YOU are the controversy, Fred, not the term olam.
> >
> > By the way, do you realize that an English speaker could say: "A grand,
> > wide and never bridged, canyon exists between the two consumer groups of
> > 'cool'; the one advocating that it refers to temperature and the other
> > advocating that it means something trendy and appealing"?
> >
> > In that situation, wouldn't you be tempted to say it's a false dichotomy
> > (and a manufactured controversy) because both can be true, depending on
> > context and usage?
> >
> > Or would you insist that "cool" must always mean the same thing in every
> > context where it appears?
> >
> > Gary Hedrick
> > San Antonio, Texas USA
> >
> > P.S. Nir, "read my iips" was G.H.W. Bush, not Ronald Reagan. Just FYI.
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 3:19

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list