[b-hebrew] Karl and Jim debate and more

David Kolinsky yishalom at sbcglobal.net
Fri Dec 12 15:16:27 EST 2008


Dear David
 
You Wrote
 
"Karl and I have had our clashes in the past, but I really don't see it this way.  In addressing my somewhat unique views, he has never made me feel he was calling me an idiot or anything else.  Disagreement can be healthy for all concerned, and I am definitely not one who could be called "non-confrontational."  But I have probably come closer to insulting him than he has to insulting me,"
 
First, allow me to clarify that I am not interested in slaming nor insulting Karl.  But it seems that my comments won't be taken at face value and that I need to prove where Karl seems to be insulting and badgering in an attempt to shut people (in this case Karl) down:
 
 
"I just reread an article by David Down, professional archeologist,
describing research done in Egypt. In the article, he describes findings
that connect the Exodus with the 12th and 13th dynasties of Egypt. Seeing as
Abraham lived centuries earlier, that makes it impossible for your theories
to be anything other than the wildest flights of fancy, with absolutely no
relation to reality.

> Again you connect the names to a Hebrew language which you claim did not
exist at that time. How silly can you get? The names could have been
Indo-European, not Semitic, making your whole analysis whistling in the
wind.

The rest of your analysis is so silly as not to deserve a detailed answer.

Only after your continued posting started driving better people than you
from the list, as well as the moderators not taking action to ban you, only
then I decided to show up your foolishness. But even after I openly mock
you, you don?t seem to take the hint. I repeatedly mention facts from the
text and research, such as archaeology, that contradict your claims, and you
don?t acknowledge them.  Are there any facts that you would acknowledge that
could make you change your mind, or is your whole theory part of that never
never land of clairvoyance beyond God that cannot be bothered by objective
facts?
 
You, who claims alone to have the key to decipher the mythology of Genesis
to bring it into the real world, completely misread this passage. In a
society with interleaving connections, Abraham wants to remain free from any
answerability to the wicked king of wicked Sodom. 
 
Concerning your "A"s, your persistence has a certain amount of lunacy about
it: after being shown based on linguistic analysis that your theory was
untenable, to which you admitted, that you try to rebuild it has a tinge of
madness.

Therefore, he refuses the reward so as to remain free of any leverage that the king of Sodom might bring to bear. You in your cultural isolation of modern Illinois, you can?t see this.
 
Sez you! Why should I trust you? What are your credentials? Your postings
indicate great ignorance."

 
Dave

All of this seems to me like bullying.  
 
I personally do see a great connection between 
 
XBL (rope, group, twist / writhe in pain) and 
XBR (bind, join together)
 
(perhaps not exactly as Jim does) as well as 
 
XWB (indebted (is bound))
XBB (embrace)
XB? (hide (emrbace oneself))
 
XBSh (bind up, saddle, bind up in layers)
XBS (crush under enormous pressure)
XBTs^ (crowd, push, shove in Syriac) (beat into a pulp, scramble - Hebrew)
XBT^ (beat out, thresh)
 
XBK (Arabic - braid, plate, weave, knit, draw tight, bind, make firm / solid)
XBQ^ (Embrace, fold hands)
 
and I see great value in using cognates in the analysis of Biblical Hebrew.  They are not perfect, but they are tremendously valuable.
 
Does no one on this list see that XB and its expansions means "to join and bind" and in some forms evolves bind up > crowd in > push together > beat together > beat apart
 
Sincerely,
 
david kolinsky


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list