theology can attach to all things.***
in so far as you can divorce theology from any thing, however, so can i.
i suggested hebrew was a time based language. you contested that conclusion.
i responded with comments describing our universe as one consisting of three***
dimensions of space and one of time. I then compared it to another possible
universe that possesses not those dimensions. that's not theology. that's
just discussion of different universes.
***
linguistics includes the meaning of words.
my comments on the***
inapplicability of the hebrew language word meanings to any universe other
than a time based universe, represent linguistics, not theology.
***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)
On 12/19/10, fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com> wrote:
> The structure of aramaic, and cousin biblical hebrew, is designed for > use
in
> our four dimensional world of space//time; a world of physicality
> and constant change. The language structure is not equipped to
participate
> in some other dimensional universe, bereft of space & time. The
vocabulary
> suite results from & speaks to our material world.
>
> hence, when isaiah speaks of ארץ and שמים and ימות and ימים ; and when
> daniel talks of מלכו , that language represents a language of four
> dimensional space/time; not some other dimensional universe. "land;"
> "sky;" "die" and "day" imply boundaries; boundaries of space; > boundaries
of
> change; boundaries of time. These words are incompetent to express a
world,
> a universe, where nothing changes and nothing is possessed of
physicality;
> in other words the absence of space/time.
>
> and if aramaic and hebrew verbs incompetent to express completed > action,
> then everyone in the masoretic text both alive and dead,
> simultaneously, today.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.