[b-hebrew] (no subject)

Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Jul 5 19:48:15 EDT 2004


Dear Karl,

>On the question of Job 39:13, these are the 
>steps I took to tease out a simple sentence that 
>made sense and fit the context. Do you remember? 
>I didn’t need to do the final step with that 
>verse.

HH: I only remember vaguely. I don't think I was following that thread closely.

>Harold, are these the steps you take when you disagree with me?

HH: I've been studying the Bible for over thirty 
years, reading translations, reading the 
original, studying grammar, and reading 
commentaries. I take whatever steps I need to 
take to gain some certainty before I criticize 
someone else's thinking. You can be sure of that.

>  But if all you do is to present someone else’s 
>translation, how convincing is that? Especially 
>when I may disagree with the translator on 
>several points? Or do you have another 
>methodology that you haven’t explained?

HH: I didn't just present somebody else's 
translation. I made points with each verse. You 
have not responded to those points. You did 
notice that I made my own comments on each verse, 
didn't you?

>With what aspects of this methodology do you disagree and why?

HH: I've already told you what I disagreed with 
and why. It was the results you came up with on 
the verb XBL and the translation ideas that you 
produced for verses that used it.

>Is there any way to improve this methodology?

HH: Yes, compare your results with the findings 
of other people. And give the results of others 
the respect that they deserve. The NIV and NASB, 
for example, are both major translations by 
independent translation committees. So if they 
agree, and agree with many other translations, 
you have to have good reasons for disagreeing. 
Correct your findings on XBL when you are shown 
to be wrong.

>Oh yes, this methodology is combined with my 
>presupposition borne out in practice that 
>lexemes usually, though not always, have only 
>one root definition and its definition will be 
>recognizable in other lexemes from the same root.

HH: I don't know what makes you think you can 
ditch the almost uniform conclusions of lexicons, 
commentaries, and translations on XBL, as far as 
I know. Your theory, in itself, does not give you 
that right. Nor do your forced translations based 
on it. You aren't even willing to defend your 
results on most of the verses that we have 
discussed. But this is where the rubber meets the 
road. So when somebody shows you something, it 
seems as though you shrug it off. Then you are 
free to say that no one has proved you wrong.

				Yours,
				Harold Holmyard




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list