Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

No, Gary:

you signify the controversy with your theology first program.

Where in the masoretic text does the word eternal appear? Only in your
religious assignment of that meaning to עולם .

Nothing in the hebrew language or the masoretic text calls for that usage,
except your theology.

To move עולם from an unequivocal, clear & applied use of three days, thirty
years, three hundred years, etc., respectively; and into eternity,
represents faith and beliefs first, and facts second.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Hedrick Gary <GaryH AT cjfm.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>