New Subscriber

peter_kirk at peter_kirk at
Sun Nov 28 21:03:51 EST 1999

Dear Ian,

I don't want to defend Michael. But it does come oddly from you to 
require anyone to prove anything. As far as I can tell your method is 
one which makes anything to do with the past more-or-less unprovable 
in principle, and that applies equally to proving things wrong as to 
proving things right. So don't expect Michael to do something which 
you don't believe (word chosen deliberately!) that he could do even in 
principle, even if in fact his belief was a true one. His 
presuppositions are of course very different from yours. I suggest you 
let him keep them. More than one can play at the game of ridiculing 
others' presuppositions and basic beliefs, but I don't think this list 
is the place for it.

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: New Subscriber
Author:  <mc2499 at> at Internet
Date:    27/11/1999 17:57

>> >if you believe it to be possible to do so.  If not, then 
>> >take it as a sermon and learn from it.
>> This sort of stuff is rather presumptuous and would have been better 
>Prove it wrong

What is presumptuous is the "righteous" tone that you impose. Stop it please.

As to proving you wrong, does one have to prove every idea that is put 
before one wrong, no matter what its foundation is or is not? You haven't 
taken the time to give any substance to your claims. So, there is nothing 
to prove wrong or right. I have seen people on this list working to get at
what a text means, not bringing their ideas to the text and making them fit.

>or be silent on what you know not of.  If you're such a "scholar" in the 
>original tongues, then prove it wrong.  If you merely take
>a flippant attitude and pigeonhole me as a preacher, then you do all the 
>world a disservice in not showing them that you can prevail over a lowly 
>one, such as myself.  Prove what I stated as wrong; or is it that you are 
>UNABLE to do so?  Prove it to be presumtuous, as you stated it was.  Or do 
>you make it a habit of labeling things that you do not understand?

The tone is still all wrong. You have said very little that fits into the 
category of provable things. Your belief that the world became without form 
and void is based on the belief in creatio ex nihilo, ie a belief based on 
a belief. We're a long way from facts.

>As far as the topic being BIBLICAL Hebrew, I feel it correct to have brought 
>forth the FACTS that I did.

Half a fact. And what seems to be a load of irrelevance from the NT. How 
did the ancients understand the text?

wh'rc hyth thw wbhw
hE de gE En ahoratos kai akataskeuastos 
terra autem erat inanis et vacua

You can argue with them! "became"? I think you should attempt to prove it, 
if proving things is so important to you.

>If you'd care to discuss perhaps COMIC BOOK
>Hebrew, then perhaps there's a place for that elsewhere.

Tone. You're still having problems!



You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk at 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list