Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter:

You have made the assertion that we need to consider 
that (WLM in the future had a different meaning than when 
it was used in the past. You have yet to demonstrate that 
assertion. You have not provided a single shred of 
evidence to support your assertion.

A time descriptor does not change its meaning from past 
to future. "Five days" in the past, when used for the future, 
does not suddenly become fifty days, it's still five days. 
That is a fact which you want to deny.

(WLM in the past referred to a long time where at least 
one end was not specified, often because it was unknown. 
By extension, that was sometimes used for eternity, but 
not always. You have yet to provide a reason that we 
should consider it differently for the future.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
> 
> On 22/11/2005 14:11, Awohili AT aol.com wrote:
> 
> >
> > I really think the point is settled, but not in Peter's favor, so 
> > he  continues to jiggle with it.  Lexicographers from long ago 
> > have legitimized  "time indefinite" or "indefinite time" or 
> > "unbounded time" or whatever.  To  argue otherwise is to fly in 
> > the face of the facts. ...
> >
> 
> Solomon, while I will not continue to discuss this with Karl, I will
> continue to discuss it with you. You and some others have continued to
> assert that `olam, in the future sense, can refer to an indefinite or
> uncertain time in the future. But NONE OF YOU HAVE PROVIDED A SINGLE
> SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR
> ASSERTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - except for those
> explicitly based on Christian theology. Those are the FACTS, which I am
> supporting, not flying in the face of.
> 
> 
> --
> 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/