[b-hebrew] )BYMLK vs. Abimelech vs. Abi-Molech

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Thu Apr 16 17:30:02 EDT 2009


Jim:

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:33 AM, <JimStinehart at aol.com> wrote:

>
> George:
>
>  My understanding is that the name )BYMLK
> connotes northwest Canaan, where Baal was worshipped under the name
> MLK/“King”
> .
>
Where do you get this understanding?

The only reference that I know of for a deity named MLK is the one from the
Ammonites, south east of Canaan.

>
> 2.  You wrote:  “I urge you, please go and do some proper research where
> your goal is not to fish for evidence to stock your pre-conceived
> conclusion,
> but rather simply to learn.”
>
> O.K., I’ll research the names of the other two permanent residents of
> Biblical Gerar:  Phicol and Ahuzzath.  Then we can examine whether or not
> those
> two names are redolent of northern Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.  That’s a
> good idea, George.
>
> That is not what George meant. What he was asking was when are you going to
learn some Biblical Hebrew for a change? You can do almost anything with
names taken out of context, especially someone with as wild an imagination
as you have.


> 3.  You wrote:  “Given your evasiveness to a previous question, am I
> correct in concluding that no matter what anyone will say, you will not
> change
> your view on a northern location for the patriarchal narratives?”
>
> (a)   I’m always willing to change my view when it turns out not to be
> supported by the evidence.  I started out on the b-Hebrew list with my own
> interpretation of Genesis 20: 1 that turned out to be impossible under
> Hebrew
> grammar.  That’s what led to my research regarding NGB being Adami-the-NGB
> on
> the west bank of the Sea of Galilee, QD$ being the historical city of QD$
> of
> Upper Galilee, &/$WR being &/CWR, and GRR being GLYL/Galilee.


George also asked you to stop treating Biblical Hebrew as if it were ancient
Egyptian. GRR = GLYL is an impossibility in Hebrew. How many times do we
have to point that out to you?

>
> (b)   As to “a northern location for the Patriarchal narratives”, I see
> the Patriarchs as usually sojourning in southern Canaan, at the lovely
> Aijalon
> Valley (the Patriarchs’ “Hebron”).


One of the places specifically mentioned is Beersheva. During the
Patriarchal period, Genesis describes it as a well surrounded by pastures.
There was no town at that time.

The implication from the context of how it is mentioned is that Bethlehem
was also just a well surrounded by pastures, no town at the time of the
Patriarchs.

Jerusalem was mentioned as a holy place, under an older name of just Salem.

As for Hebron, it was on a height overlooking the Jordan valley, in
particular, the southern Jordan valley.

How does any of this fit your theory?

All of this makes perfect sense when looking at history, linguistics, and so
forth. It is your theory that doesn’t make sense.

>
> (d)  …  In my controversial view, we
> should not blindly accept the Judah-centric Ezra era reinterpretation of
> the
> Patriarchal narratives, which is “late”, non-historical and religious, and
> was adopted under duress when the post-Exilic Jews faced horrible times.
>
> Where do you get this weird idea concerning the Patriarchal narratives?
Don’t you recognize that this claim completely shoots down your theory that
we can use these texts to locate where the Patriarchs lived and wandered?
That it makes your view controversial because it is so illogical?

>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>

Karl W. Randolph.



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list