...
The etymological fallacy is to insist that a lexeme has its meaning from its past, its root, without considering that it may have changed over time. That (WLM by Biblical times had as a necessary part of its meaning the concept of time indicates that there had been some change to its meaning though it still contained unknownness as part of its meaning. I don't insist on it having unknownness as part of its meaning because of its etymology, but because the context indicates that that meaning is there.
...
This is a cultural fallacy.
Just because I didn't experience something personally, does that mean that my subjective view of it as being eternity? No. As a Christian, I expect Jesus to return some day, but not in my life time, so from my perspective do I consider his return an eternity away? No. My experience is that it is L(WLM, an unknown period yet to wait. To insist that it be within the solipsistic experience of the individual is not what the term means when it refers to a limited period of time.
...Please can you explain this one? Any example where `olam is NOT "subjectively as far in the past or future as it could possibly be"?
Again a cultural fallacy.
..... The start or end time is not simply unknown, it is subjectively as far in the past or future as it could possibly be.
Again no.
..... If you know of any counter-examples, please tell me. But in the absence of other evidence I will continue to hold that "eternal" is the core meaning of `olam rather than some subset.As long as you insist on this rather solipsistic view of perception, which I say the ancients did not share, we will simply be talking past each other. What is evidence for me and others who share a longer view of perception is not so for you.
I don't want to get into New Testament perspectives - although you have misunderstood my interpretation, which is not that the period will end at the return of Jesus, but rather that it will continue for ever. But the NT perspectives are irrelevant if we are looking at the meaning of the word `olam in the Hebrew Bible, for that meaning is what it meant to the original Hebrew authors who (as even the NT tells us, 1 Peter 1:10-12) did not have the benefit of the NT perspective. The Hebrew Bible should be understood from its own perspective, and only when it is properly understood as such can it be reexamined from the NT perspective, or from whatever other later perspective may interest you.
...
I don't understand your claimed New Testament perspective. It does not look like anything I understand when I read it.
All I did was to bring up the presupposition that the New Testament is a continuation of the Old, therefore what it says can clarify hard to understand passages in the Old, even to helping clarify the meanings of terms for those who share that presupposition. For reasons of public record to avoid misunderstanding, that is a presupposition that I share. From this presupposition, all those laws that were L(WLM had a finite end, but one that was unknown 1500 years earlier when they were given.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.