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.
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.
(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".
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.