Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
> 
> On 18/11/2005 01:14, Karl Randolph wrote:
> 
> > ...
> 
> 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,

Everyone's understanding is tinged by their experiences 
and presuppositions. Mine is such that when I think of 
"forever" or "eternity", I am thinking in cosmological terms, 
where (WLM can refer to a span of time that is finite within 
the age of the universe. However, it is an unspecified 
span of time with its limits often unknown. Because it 
is unspecified, (WLM can also refer to eternity in a 
cosmological sense as well according to context.

Unless I misread you, you understand (WLM in reference 
to a person's life span, no more. Any span of time that 
extends beyond an individual's experience is thereby 
"eternal".

The question is, which way did the ancients view its 
meaning: the cosmological or solipsistic? My reading 
is that they understood it according to the cosmological 
sense. And yours ...

> ....      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.

The "Day of the Lord" is a point time. (WLM refers to a 
span of time. I do not consider the terms similar.

> ....      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.
> 
Here I agree with Rolf that you are making the meaning 
fallacy, that a word must have a certain meaning and so 
you force all understanding around it to fit that meaning. 
You already agreed that events in the past where it is 
known that they had a specific beginning, one that is 
unknown or unspecified by the context, are covered by 
(WLM not meaning eternity past, therefore (WLM future 
cannot mean eternity future in the cosmological sense 
(if you want to be consistent) unless you limit it to 
the solipsistic view of an individual's life span.

> > ...
> >
> >
> > 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"?
> 
Because in my reading of Tanakh I understand the people  
to have used (WLM in the cosmological sense as I 
described above, not the subjective sense.
> ...
> 
> I did not claim any New Testament perspective, I said that such 
> perspectives are irrelevant for understanding the Hebrew Bible.

Ahhh, but your quote from 1 Peter is one of the proof 
passages used by Christian theologians as to why we 
ought to use the New Testament as a guide to understand 
Tanakh.

As for the New Testament use of "eon", it too is used for a 
limited but unknown length of time (e.g. Matthew 28:20) as 
well as eternity, just like (WLM.

> ....      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.

Obviously.

> ....      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.
> 
This is a straw man fallacy. If you look back over my posts, 
I never claimed that all use of L(WLM ended with Jesus' 
death and resurrection, just those connected with the laws 
and precepts. It is the context that tells us which is which, 
and part of the context is the New Testament.

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

Karl W. Randolph.

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