[b-hebrew] olam

fred burlingame tensorpath at gmail.com
Sun Dec 19 22:38:48 EST 2010


theology can attach to all things.

in so far as you can divorce theology from any thing, however, so can i.

i suggested hebrew was a time based language. you contested that conclusion.
i responded with comments describing our universe as one consisting of three
dimensions of space and one of time. I then compared it to another possible
universe that possesses not those dimensions. that's not theology. that's
just discussion of different universes.

linguistics includes the meaning of words. my comments on the
inapplicability of the hebrew language word meanings to any universe other
than a time based universe, represent linguistics, not theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)

regards,

fred burlingame

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:08 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com> wrote:

> Fred:
>
> I thought you had asked a linguistic question, because this is a
> linguistic forum, and responded with a linguistic answer. But now I
> see you had a theological question in mind, nothing to do with
> linguistics. As a theological statement, it is off topic for this
> forum.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> On 12/19/10, fred burlingame <tensorpath at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The structure of aramaic, and cousin biblical hebrew, is designed for use
> in
> > our four dimensional world of space//time; a world of physicality
> > and constant change. The language structure is not equipped to
> participate
> > in some other dimensional universe, bereft of space & time. The
> vocabulary
> > suite results from & speaks to our material world.
> >
> > hence, when isaiah speaks of ארץ and שמים and ימות and ימים ; and when
> > daniel talks of מלכו , that language represents a language of four
> > dimensional space/time; not some other dimensional universe. "land;"
> > "sky;" "die" and "day" imply boundaries; boundaries of space; boundaries
> of
> > change; boundaries of time. These words are incompetent to express a
> world,
> > a universe, where nothing changes and nothing is possessed of
> physicality;
> > in other words the absence of space/time.
> >
> > and if aramaic and hebrew verbs incompetent to express completed action,
> > then everyone in the masoretic text both alive and dead,
> > simultaneously, today.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > fred burlingame
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:39 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Fred:
> >>
> >>  On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:07 AM, fred burlingame
> >> <tensorpath at gmail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> i see it
> >>>
> >>> you see it
> >>>
> >>> even isaiah sees ...
> >>>
> >>> a time based language ...
> >>>
> >>
> >> You need to distinguish between the structure of the language, and the
> >> ideas expressed by the speakers and writers of that language.
> >>
> >> Biblical Hebrew is timeless, in that its grammar expresses neither tense
> >> nor aspect, the means by which languages express time. It is not a time
> >> based language.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> …
> >>> plenty people see daniel's aramaic language as not the language of
> יבשתא
> >>> in
> >>> daniel 2:10; but rather the language of another universe.
> >>>
> >>
> >> (brow furled in puzzlement) What in the world do you mean by that? It
> >> makes
> >> absolutely no sense.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>>
> >>> fred burlingame
> >>>
> >>> Karl W. Randolph.
> >>
> >
>



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list