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: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:39:04 +0000

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/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page