Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Hedrick Gary <GaryH AT cjfm.org>]

Fred, the term olam in itself is not all that controversial. We can literally 
go for months on end here on B-Hebrew without the term coming up in 
discussion even once.

What is controversial is your insistence on a one-size-fits-all definition of 
olam (as opposed to multiple nuanced meanings depending on context and 
usage), and also your theory that when olam refers to God himself, it 
signifies that He is "unknown" rather than unbounded and eternal.

Essentially, YOU are the controversy, Fred, not the term olam.

By the way, do you realize that an English speaker could say: "A grand, wide 
and never bridged, canyon exists between the two consumer groups of 'cool'; 
the one advocating that it refers to temperature and the other advocating 
that it means something trendy and appealing"?

In that situation, wouldn't you be tempted to say it's a false dichotomy (and 
a manufactured controversy) because both can be true, depending on context 
and usage?

Or would you insist that "cool" must always mean the same thing in every 
context where it appears?

Gary Hedrick
San Antonio, Texas USA

P.S. Nir, "read my iips" was G.H.W. Bush, not Ronald Reagan. Just FYI.

On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:18 AM, fred burlingame wrote:

> steer away, nir ....
> 
> but expect not the theological hysteria to subside, when the most
> controversial word in all hebrew language arrives on stage for discussion.
> 
> a grand, wide and never bridged, canyon exists between the two consumer
> groups of עולם ; the one advocating finite and and the other advocating
> infinite meanings of that little word.
> 
> regards,
> 
> fred burlingame
> 
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
> <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:
> 
>> )AD )OLAM vs )AD )INFINITUM    :)   :
>> 
>> i hope all the participants are following the platonic distinction between
>> words and their meaning. many promises contain the clause "forever",
>> whether
>> they are made by ronald reagan ("read my lips"), a young lover, or a
>> biblical
>> prophet. the discussion whether the text means "forever" or not does not
>> imply
>> the validity of the promise. many times, poetic style imposes an expression
>> which should not even be taken literally. of course, when the giver of the
>> promise is god almighty ...
>> 
>> ...then we have a religious issue. i would really like to steer the
>> discussion
>> away from this back into fact.
>> 
>> nir cohen