[b-hebrew] gen 28 sulam

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 09:20:09 EST 2012


Jim:

You didn’t answer my central question, viz.: Where is your documentation?
So far all you have sent me is your speculation.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 7:08 PM, <jimstinehart at aol.com> wrote:

>  Karl:
>  **** **
>  You wrote:  “Incidentally, it was the translators of the LXX who called
> it the land of the Chaldeans. They knew the Hebrew name, yet they chose to
> use a different name. What did they know that our modern scholars don’t, or
> don’t want to, know?”
>

Look, places change names. For example, records say that my ancestors 3000
years ago lived in Turkey. Turkey is the modern name, not the name the
place had at that time. Yet my statement is accurate. So likewise the LXX,
were they giving the “modern” name for the place when they made their
translation? Probably. And our common English name for the place comes
through the LXX. And why did the LXX give that name? Was it because another
place then had a name so similar to the ancient Hebrew name that it could
cause confusion to its readers if they merely transliterated the Hebrew
name? So how is using the “modern” name for the place negating the Hebrew?

>  ** **
>  I thought the question we were discussing is whether the unpointed
> received  H-e-b-r-e-w  Masoretic Text …
>

You keep emphasizing that the Hebrew text is accurate, then why don’t you
follow it? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that if you read it as it is
written, then it indicates that Abraham lived centuries before even an old
date for the Amarna Letters? Likewise his sons, grandsons, and
great-grandsons? How can we take you seriously if you don’t take the text
as written? Either the text as written is myth, or accurate history, but
not both.

You need to be honest with yourself that you are treating the Hebrew text
as myth, a fiction that was historical fiction like *Ivanhoe* when it was
written because according to your claim, the authors were putting the
protagonists in a far more ancient milieu than when you claim they lived.
The Hebrew language used in Genesis as analyzed by standard linguistic
tools completely contradicts your claims. The text as written indicates
that those were datable events in history with clues as to their dates, and
to convince us of your claims, you need to show us why we should not follow
those dates, why we should treat the text as myth.

You don’t have a single linguistic clue to back up your claims.

This latest try you tried to claim that SLM was a loan word, but others
(plural) showed that it is a normal Hebrew word from a Hebrew root derived
by Hebrew rules. It refers to an object that was known and used in ancient
Canaan, even in Jacob’s time. So why don’t you just accept the linguistic
findings?

> **
>
> **
>  Jim Stinehart
>  Evanston, Illinois
>
>
Karl W. Randolph.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20121130/1864dddc/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list