Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 18/11/2005 01:14, Karl Randolph wrote:

> ...
>
> 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.
>  

Fair enough. If you find the idea of unknownness in the context rather 
than in the etymology, you are not guilty of the etymological fallacy. 
You are simply guilty of bad exegesis and perhaps reading 
presuppositions into the text, for I have seen no examples of `olam 
where there is anything concept of unknownness indicated by the context.

> > ...
>
>
> 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.
>  

You misunderstand me. To get away from the Christian idea of the coming 
of Jesus, let us consider the rather similar Hebrew Bible concept of the 
Day of the Lord. That is also expected in the future, but at a specific 
time, although probably not in the lifetime of those who wrote about it. 
Is the period from the present until the Day of the Lord referred to as 
`olam? I think not, because `olam is not used for a time whose end is 
anticipated, even if this is in the remote future. Rather, `olam is used 
of periods which will continue beyond the Day of the Lord.

> ...
>
>
> 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. 
>
>  
Please can you explain this one? Any example where `olam is NOT 
"subjectively as far in the past or future as it could possibly be"?

> > .....        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.
>  

In other words, you have no argument against my view except for this ad 
hominem one, based on your own ideas of what perceptions "the ancients" 
(Hebrews? Greeks? Egyptians? Chinese?) shared. I accept that my idea of 
ancient Hebrew perceptions is not certain, but it is based on the 
evidence of how the word `olam is actually used in Hebrew.
...

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

I did not claim any New Testament perspective, I said that such 
perspectives are irrelevant for understanding the Hebrew Bible. And yes, 
I also pointed out that in the New Testament "for ever" (e.g. EIS TON 
AIWNA) refers to a period which is not terminated at the second coming 
of Jesus, which should be obvious to any NT reader, e.g. from Revelation 
22:5 where the period starts after the return of Jesus.

> 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.
>  

It is not a presupposition which you share with me. It is also not a 
presupposition which leads to the result you claim, unless you hold that 
God's reign (Exodus 15:18 etc) and his XESED (see Psalm 136 26 times, 
and many other places) end at the coming of Jesus.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/