Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 18/11/2005 16:51, Robert Newman wrote:

> ...
>
> Hi Peter,
> I understand your argument, but I don't see how it fits the examples.
>
> Ge 6:4 "heroes of old" - olam refers back to the time of the Nephilim, not the 
> "very beginning" and not eternity past from tne viewpoint of the writer!
>  

From the author's perspective, the time of the Nephilim was in the 
remote past before the flood which was the very first age of the earth, 
just after the creation.

> De 32:7 "Remember the days of old" when? "ask your father to inform you" 
> about what? The period of human history described in the subsequent verses, not 'the beginning of 
> time'.
>  

This is not of course about the father's own time, rather the father was 
expected to pass on to the son accounts of the story of their people 
going right back to creation, cf. the book of Genesis. Among the 
examples of what the son should learn is the division of the peoples, 
not itself at the very beginning but in the remote past and part of this 
account which did go back to the beginning.

> Jos 24:2 "long ago your forefathers" . How can this mean "ever since creation, as 
> far as we know"?
>  

Very easily. The forefathers were all of those ancient generations from 
Adam to Abraham, the first of whom lived at the time of creation. 
Joshua's point, which may be of interest to hunters for the Garden of 
Eden, is that right from the beginning all of these forefathers lived in 
Mesopotamia.

> ...
>
> Response:
> Not really, Karls example would be accepted by mainstream Christian 
> theologians. ...

I don't think it would, at least not by all of them. They certainly 
would not accept that God's original intention was for the Levitical 
priesthood to be temporary, even if they accept that it was in fact 
abolished as a judgment for sin and apostasy. And I have a BA and MA in 
theology from a mainstream Christian college, London School of Theology.

> ... My hesitantcy to give you examples is because of the position you 
> continue to maintain with respect to the twenty or so (with past reference)  
> I've already given you. They just require a brief glance at context, as far 
> as I know examples with respect to future reference require a bit of 
> reasoning. I think the examples with past reference are sufficient, why would 
> olam be used differently with future reference anyhow?
>  

Now that I have answered you on some of the past references, you can ask 
me about more of them or about the future references as you choose. And 
if you don't know the answer to your final question, you need to learn 
some semantics - when a word is used in a different context it is always 
likely to have a rather different sense - although the difference is 
often a rather subtle one, as here.

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