earlier dictionaries? was [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7)

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Sat Jul 3 18:34:20 EDT 2004


Dear Harold:

It appears to me as if you start with the presupposition that the sources you depend on are always accurate.

I, OTOH, come to the plate with the presupposition that the scholars are more likely to be correct than wrong, therefore they deserve to have a hearing. However, they could be mistaken with one scholar basing his work on a previous one. Therefore, if I find reason to question their reading, I won’t hesitate to question or even disagree with them. But I have to find reason to question. And I could be mistaken.

But it appears to me that you are grasping at straws to defend your particular reading.

For example, how much do you know about viticulture? It can’t be very much. All the URLs that you listed pointing to primary sources say that foxes damage only the ripe fruit (thanks for that information: previously I thought that foxes in vineyards would be only a plus for farmers), which the farmers don’t like because they compete with the foxes for that fruit. Only one article claims that foxes damage the vines themselves, but it is a secondary source, i.e. hearsay. You speculated that little grapes would have been on the vines when the vines were in blossom . . . Huh??? The blossoms ARE the little grapes. Since all your primary sources say that foxes do not damage the blossoms, that means that they do not damage the crop at this stage in the crop’s development. I read all those articles, and only the hearsay one backed up even part of your claims. You have not backed up your claims. And even if foxes damage vineyards and vines, not just the fruit, that does not mean that 
 XBL in this verse refers to damage. This is a very weak proof text.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard at ont.com>

> Dear Karl,
> 
> 
 
> 
> HH: You dealt wrongly with the verses I asked you 
> about, and I gave you specific reasons why.
> 
You gave me what other translations say, not linguistic arguments.
> 
> 

> 
> HH: I gave you so much evidence that foxes are 
> considered a danger to vineyards. I showed you 
> that little grapes would already have been on the 
> vine when they were flowering. I indicated that 
> the time of flowering would have been right to 
> catch the young foxes traveling with their 
> parents. I explained that it would be good to 
> catch the foxes BEFORE they had a chance to get 
> at the ripe fruit.
> 
Possibly, but not directly stated in the verse.

> 

> 
>
> 
> 					Yours,
> 					Harold Holmyard
-- 
_______________________________________________
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free! 
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143 







More information about the b-hebrew mailing list