Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Peter:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
> 
> On 17/11/2005 22:12, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > ...
> >
> >>> The root meaning of (WLM is from unknownness, i.e. a period of 
> >>> time whose length is not known. "Eternity" is a subset of that 
> >>> understanding.
> >>>
> >> This is the etymological fallacy,
> >
> > No way! ...
> 
> Just to clarify, the etymological fallacy here is in the link you 
> made between the meaning of `olam and the alleged "root meaning" of 
> unknownness. Since you make no mention of this link, neither 
> defending it against my criticism nor reasserting it, I assume that 
> you are tacitly withdrawing this part of you assertion.
> 
The etymological fallacy is to insist that a lexeme has its 
meaning from its past, its root, without considering that it 
may have changed over time. That (WLM by Biblical times 
had as a necessary part of its meaning the concept of time 
indicates that there had been some change to its meaning 
though it still contained unknownness as part of its 
meaning. I don't insist on it having unknownness as part 
of its meaning because of its etymology, but because the 
context indicates that that meaning is there.
> 
> > ... (WLM is used a few hundred times in Tanakh, many times for 
> > events that have a duration that is not specified, many times it 
> > is unknown. For past to past continuing, probably the best 
> > translation would be "from old" without specifying the starting 
> > date. Many of the events are for an unspecified, unknown to the 
> > listener, time in the future. "Eternal" is a subset of this 
> > concept, but not always correct for each context, in fact it is 
> > often incorrect.
> >
> >
> 
> You and others keep asserting this, but no one has been able to 
> quote me even one case where `olam refers to a time which in the 
> future is ever expected to finish, at least within subjective 
> experience,

This is a cultural fallacy. 

Just because I didn't experience something personally, 
does that mean that my subjective view of it as being 
eternity? No. As a Christian, I expect Jesus to return some 
day, but not in my life time, so from my perspective do I 
consider his return an eternity away? No. My experience 
is that it is L(WLM, an unknown period yet to wait. To insist 
that it be within the solipsistic experience of the individual 
is not what the term means when it refers to a limited 
period of time.

Yours is a cultural view not shared by many.

> .....        or in the past had any known start time.

Again a cultural fallacy. 

> .....        The start or 
> end time is not simply unknown, it is subjectively as far in the 
> past or future as it could possibly be.

Again no. 

> .....        If you know of any 
> counter-examples, please tell me. But in the absence of other 
> evidence I will continue to hold that "eternal" is the core meaning 
> of `olam rather than some subset.
> 
As long as you insist on this rather solipsistic view of 
perception, which I say the ancients did not share, we will 
simply be talking past each other. What is evidence for me 
and others who share a longer view of perception is not 
so for you.
> >
> >> ...     compounded by being based on a rather dubious etymology. 
> >> There are at least two roots (LM in Hebrew, as is clear from the 
> >> Arabic cognates.
> >
> > Let's not get into this again, as I have already and totally 
> > rejected this as being pure speculation based on dubious 
> > presuppositions without any historical documentation.
> >
> > In other words, BDB don't impress me.
> 
> My argument is not based on BDB but on my personal knowledge of the 
> two Arabic words I quoted.
> 
Then you, apart from documentation and based on 
dubious presuppositions, don't impress me very much 
either .....  ;-)         (nothing personal)
> > ...
> >
> > Therefore, and admittedly this is at least partially a 
> > theological answer, the period of "forever" if you want to insist 
> > it was called that for all the laws in Torah ended two millennia 
> > ago. Even your interpretation has that period ending at the 
> > return of Jesus, still not eternity. Consequently (WLM cannot 
> > have a core meaning of "eternity" or "forever" if understood from 
> > a New Testament perspective.
> 
> I don't want to get into New Testament perspectives - although you 
> have misunderstood my interpretation, which is not that the period 
> will end at the return of Jesus, but rather that it will continue 
> for ever. But the NT perspectives are irrelevant if we are looking 
> at the meaning of the word `olam in the Hebrew Bible, for that 
> meaning is what it meant to the original Hebrew authors who (as 
> even the NT tells us, 1 Peter 1:10-12) did not have the benefit of 
> the NT perspective. The Hebrew Bible should be understood from its 
> own perspective, and only when it is properly understood as such 
> can it be reexamined from the NT perspective, or from whatever 
> other later perspective may interest you.
> 
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/


I don't understand your claimed New Testament 
perspective. It does not look like anything I understand 
when I read it.

All I did was to bring up the presupposition that the New 
Testament is a continuation of the Old, therefore what it 
says can clarify hard to understand passages in the Old, 
even to helping clarify the meanings of terms for those 
who share that presupposition. For reasons of public 
record to avoid misunderstanding, that is a presupposition 
that I share. From this presupposition, all those laws that 
were L(WLM had a finite end, but one that was unknown 
1500 years earlier when they were given.

As for 1 Peter 1:10-12, I can imagine Isaiah sitting down 
and as he writes the events of the day after confronting 
Ahab, scratching his head and saying "What sort of sign is 
this? Virgins don't get pregnant!" or Micah scratching his 
head when writing 5:1 saying "New born babes aren't 
from the past! What weird thing is this?" and Daniel openly 
admitted that he didn't understand what God showed him 
in his visions, to which God replied "don't worry, it's not for 
you." There are many similar statements in the prophets.

Karl W. Randolph.

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/