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 19:24:12 +0000

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>

.... 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.


The New Testament cosmology is a legitimate commentary on Hebrew cosmology:
1) because it was written by first century Jews and reflects their understanding of Hebrew cosmology


Fair enough. But was their understanding of it 1500 years after the Exodus, on your chronology, really that much better than ours 3500 years afterwards?

2) it makes the theological claim that it was animated from the same Spirit that authored Tanakh, thus is makes clear some aspects of Hebrew that were hinted at in Tanakh.


Whatever the merits of this theological claim, it should be clearly distinguished from your apparent linguistic claim that the meaning of the Hebrew word `olam should be understood in terms of alleged New Testament teaching concerning the end of a period which was clearly intended by the Hebrew Bible authors as endless.

...

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


This is your best statement yet on this exchange, namely an agreement to disagree.


I am not agreeing to disagree. I am saying that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary concerning the meaning of the Hebrew word (to the authors, not to someone else centuries later, in fact 1500 years later on your understanding at least), I still consider that my original statement was right, and your rejection of it was wrong.

--
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