...
How about the assertion "I am not "us[ing] "forever" and "eternity" in a highly idiosyncratic manner", I am simply using them to describe the understanding of the original Hebrew Bible authors,..." from Sat Nov 19 17:33:34. On what basis do you claim to know what that understanding was? Where is your evidence?
Or how about your message sent Sat Nov 19 19:49:02 where you made the assertion "My claim is based on the evidence of how `olam is actually used in biblical Hebrew, when the texts are read without theological presuppositions." What is the basis of that assertion?
You are making a claim concerning the thoughts of the original authors for
which there is not only no evidence, but it goes against logic too.
Consistently throughout this thread you have made assertions concerning as to how the ancients thought without evidence to back yourself up. What evidence do you have other than your personal opinion as to how these particular ancients, namely those who authored Tanakh, thought? You can't use the text of Tanakh, as we who disagree with you are using that same text.
We find (WLM used for indeterminate though finite times in the past well short of eternity, or even close to creation in uses where there is no evidence of idiomatic uses of hyperbole, therefore, absent clear evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to assume that it had a different meaning in the future. In short, for past uses we find that it is used for unknown time in the past which can include a few hundred years, back to creation or even eternity, ...
... therefore its future uses could include a lifetime, a few hundred years, to the end of time or past it into eternity, the same as its past uses. Your assertions to the contrary are so far without evidence, therefore, in your own word, are "valueless".
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.