Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Robert Newman" <rob AT designceramics.co.uk>]

Peter wrote:
I accept that endless time is not entirely relevant to the past 
references, which most of these are. But these do appear to refer to 
time going back to the very start of creation, in other words with no 
beginning other than creation. The meaning is certainly not that "since 
an uncertain time in the past", but "from the very beginning of time". 

Response:
>From which texts do you get creation? Most of these texts refer back to 
>various periods in human history. Do any of the translations interpret these 
>verses as refering to the beginning of time?

Peter:
Isaiah 51:11 is not in this category, but is a promise of joy which will 
last for ever. Pr 32:10 and Mic 7:5 are incorrect references.

Response:
I must have been tired last night, should be Isa 51:9 and 63:9,11; Pr 23:10 
and Mic 7:14

Peter later to Karl:
Anyway, I have STILL not seen any examples where the word does not mean 
"forever", at least in the perception of the person using the word.

Response:
I suggest you take another look at my CLEAR examples.
Ge 6:4; De 32:7 and Job 22:15 (pos. Time of ones elders) Jos 24:2; 1 Sam 
27:8; Isa 51:9; 63:9,11; Ez 36:2; Pr 22:28; 23:10; Jer 6:16; 18:15; 28:8 Isa 
58:12; 61:4; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4; Ezr 4:15,19.

Peter earlier:
Perhaps I will modify my original claim: whenever `olam refers to future 
time, it refers to a time which is "for ever", at least from a 
subjective perspective in that in some contexts the time may actually be 
terminated by death etc. I invite you and others to provide evidence 
against this version of my claim.

Response:
You have unreasonably brushed off the clear examples I've given with respect 
to past reference. In all honestly, I’ve not gone through every occurance of 
olam, but seeing as you have brushed off my examples so far, and rejected 
those given by others I don't see much point in trying to convince you. All 
the examples I can think of with respect to future reference require some 
degree of interpretation (like Karls one), and they should be clear to 
theologians. The context in most cases demands simply 'a long time' that 
needn't be 'infinite/unending time'.
Why are the clear examples set in past reference not enough? I mean why would 
olam signal a broad concept with respect to past reference but only the very 
specific concept of 'forever' with respect to future reference?