Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
  • Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:02:12 +0000

On 19/11/2005 09:04, Karl Randolph wrote:

...

..... The Israelites were not thinking in modern cosmological terms.


What do *you* *know* about ancient cosmology?

Your apparent attitude towards the ancients sounds like the 19th century European chauvinism that was behind the development of DH. What do you know about ancient cosmology? I wouldn't be surprised that your concept mirrors that of Medieval cosmology, which was a strange mishmash of Greek philosophical method smashed into Hebrew and Christian terminology by scholastics who were more wedded to Greek philosophy than Tanakh.


No, Karl, my concept does not mirror mediaeval cosomology. Nor does it mirror modern cosmology with a tinge of Christian thought as yours seems to.

But when we take the Hebrew Tanakh and the Greek New Testament for themselves, ...


Let me say immediately that the cosmology of the New Testament is entirely irrelevant to the meaning of the biblical Hebrew word `olam which we are discussing. Also, as this list is for discussion of biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible, this cosmology is off topic and I will not discuss it here. The cosmology of the Hebrew Bible, as far as I can tell, is rather different, considerably less explicit, although not contradictroy.

...

.... They were thinking of a universe which began with a creation, and which was probably expected to end in some kind of final destruction.

Hey, that sounds exactly what I believe.


Well, since you agree with me, surely also your "apparent attitude towards the ancients sounds like the 19th century European chauvinism that was behind the development of DH. What do you know about ancient cosmology?"


`Olam with past reference referred to things which were thought to date back to the creation or at least to the period immediately following it.


Wrong.


Right. At least I will continue to believe that this is right until someone provides some evidence to the contrary, instead of persistent contradiction.


..... `Olam with future references referred to things which are expected to continue until that final destruction, or which were at least in practice equivalent to that.


Again wrong.


This is starting to remind me of the Monty Python argument sketch, see http://www.mindspring.com/%7Emfpatton/sketch.htm, except that it has lasted a lot longer than five minutes.

Or rather, not necessarily to both. The use is more nuanced than that.


I would be interested in your description of these nuances and how you justify them from the Hebrew text (and not from importing New Testament perspectives).

...

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.

So , Karl, do you consider that, according to this verse, there will be a future time when Jesus is not with his people?


Another straw man argument.


No, Karl. My point is that in the NT AIWN, at least in this sense, has more or less the same "eternity" meaning as Hebrew `olam. And you seem to agree that the meanings are the same, and then give me an example where we surely agree that the meaning is eternity! But then we should keep away from NT discussions.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page