Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter:

Jeremiah 5:15 refers to a nation M(WLM. But a reading of 
Genesis clearly shows that there was a world wide flood 
about 1500 years after creation, and from then to the 
Tower of Babel an indeterminate time, and the founding of 
that nation an indeterminate time after that, so that M(WLM 
could be as little as a third of the time from creation to 
Jeremiah's time. For you to insist that (WLM goes back to 
creation or beyond is ludicrous in this context.

There are many other similar usages in Tanakh for the 
past, I don't need to repeat them.

Similarly, (WLM referring to the future does not 
necessarily mean "forever" or "eternity", though it may, 
depending on context, unless you use "forever" and 
"eternity" in a highly idiosyncratic manner.

I'm out of this discussion.

Karl W. Randolph.

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


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