Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 23/11/2005 07:21, Karl Randolph wrote:

> 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.
>  

OK, I did say this, but it is hardly an "assertion" to say that we need 
to consider a possibility and look for evidence of it. The assertion 
here is your denial of this possibility without even considering the 
evidence.

As for evidence for this, it is a normal feature of language that words 
can have subtly different meanings when used in different contexts. When 
I say that a person runs, that means that they are using their legs to 
move. When a car runs, there is no question of legs but movement is 
still implied. When a computer runs, there are neither legs nor 
movement. If you want evidence of this concerning `olam, that is 
essentially something negative which cannot be proved entirely, but it 
is suggested by the apparent fact that some cases of past `olam have a 
starting time, whereas no cases of future `olam, at least none that have 
been put forward here, have a finishing time - apart from Christian 
theology.

> 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.
>  

The difference is that "five days" is a clearly specified time. But 
consider the expression "in X's day". This refers to a long period, not 
just one day but basically the whole of X's lifetime. But it can only be 
used in the past, for good pragmatic reasons except possibly in a 
prophetic context. So this is a sense of "day" which is essentially 
restricted to the past and not the future. Similarly I am suggesting 
(not asserting) that `olam might have a sense which is used in the past 
but not in the future.

> (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, I do not consider that we need a good reason or evidence to 
consider a possibility. If so of course we could never explore any new 
idea unless the evidence for it presented itself to us, for we would not 
be allowed to look for evidence of anything. In this case I don't 
consider the matter settled. But I consider that in the absence of 
examples of future `olam which are definitely not "for ever" it is 
unsafe to assert, as you do, that the meaning is not always "for ever".

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