tensorpath at gmail.com
Thu Dec 30 13:47:53 EST 2010
the entire document serves as the proper context .... for any piece or part
of the language in a single verse, including the proper antonyms, many & few
(versus improper antonyms many & one).
hence, 1 samuel 13:13-14; 16:1-15; invests 2 samuel 3:1 with
implicit disapproval of saul and corresponding approval of david; saul
weakened and david strengthened by wives and children.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:41 AM, fred burlingame <tensorpath at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hello Karl:
>> 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;
> There is nothing in these verses that said that God approved of the few.
> These verses don’t say that God disapproved, rather they merely mention the
> fact that David had a few wives. You have no point.
>> 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.
>> fred burlingame
>> Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew