tensorpath at gmail.com
Thu Dec 30 12:41:35 EST 2010
Perhaps you have set an arbitrary, geographic boundary on your
contextualization; a boundary never intended or created.
For the approval this king's few,
2 samuel 3:1-5;
contrasted with the disapproval of this king's many,
1 kings 11:1-13;
validates my point ....; that the contrast in deuteronomy 17:17 was then;
and should be ... today .... the many versus the few; rather than the many
versus the one.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:26 AM, K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com> wrote:
> You have just done one of the oldest logical errors as pertains to reading
> Tanakh, namely to take two statements out of the contexts where they were
> written, then to put them together in a way as to claim that they refer to
> the same context. They don’t.
> Just read the contexts, and your whole question falls apart.
> Karl W. Randolph.
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:00 AM, fred burlingame <tensorpath at gmail.com>wrote:
>> a common & popular feature of the language; and so we have
>> וראיתם את הארץ מה הוא ואת העם הישב עליה החזק הוא הרפה המעט הוא אם רב
>> במדבר יג יח
>> sounds routine and uneventful ...
>> but then we arrive at .....
>> ולא ירבה לו נשים ולא יסור לבבו וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו מאד
>> דברים יז יז
>> and voila ... מעט becomes אחד , at least in the modern,
>> implied, understanding of the latter passage.
>> certainly, the experience of דוד and שלמה testify to vitality of the
>> antonyms רב and מעט ; rather than רב and אחד . How did this transformation
>> in antonyms occur from the written language then ... to the modern
>> understanding of that language today?
>> fred burlingame
More information about the b-hebrew