Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[3]: Summary of relevant data so far

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>, <barre AT access1.com>
  • Subject: Re[3]: Summary of relevant data so far
  • Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 18:18:35 -0500


Please, list moderators, do I have to sit and accept this type of
unprovoked attack? (mostly snipped below, but you at least have seen
the full original)

Peter Kirk

See a few further comments below.


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Summary of relevant data so far
Author: <barre AT access1.com> at Internet
Date: 10/02/2000 04:16


> ** Original Subject: Re[3]: Additional data on El and Jacob
> ** Original Sender: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
> ** Original Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 22:41:37 -0800

> ** Original Message follows...

>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
> Subject: Re[2]: Additional data on El and Jacob
> Author: <barre AT access1.com> at Internet
> Date: 09/02/2000 03:21
>
> <snip>
> >
> > 3): you have made here an important but unjustified assumption, that
> > Lab'aya was not an Israelite.
>
> I did not assume. It follows from my hypothesis.
>
> PK: Watch out for circular arguments! You cannot use as evidence for
> your hypothesis arguments which depend on conclusions from your
> hypothesis.

Ok. I'll watch out. Now define "Israelite" and how it is applicable to the
14t
h century. The
legend of Jacob's name change shows that the people of Jacob/Jeshurun created
th
is new
name. Make your case that Lab'aya was one of the "sons of Jacob." I am
still w
aiting for
you evidence for a discovery of Jacob's house and Joseph's tomb...

PK: For the record, I DID send to LMB on 9th February (off-list, and
on the same day as I received his request for it) a lengthy E-mail of
"evidence for a discovery of Jacob's house and Joseph's tomb", from
David Rohl's book. For the time being I will define "Israelite" as
"descendant of Jacob".

.. I am waiting f or a defense
of the genealogical traditions as compelling evidence that Jacob preceded
Lab'ay
u. I am still
waiting for the compelling evidence that Nuzi customs date Jacob as offered
by W
.F.
Albright and G.E. Wright...

PK: LMB will not get these from me as these are not part of my
argument.

.. And if it is found that Lab'aya was one of Jacob's gr oup, how
does that affect my argument that Lab'aya and Jacob were contemporaries? You
do
n't have
a clue regarding Jacob's dates or how to argue them, do you Peter? You seem
sim
ply to be
perpetually cantankerous and unable to offer any positive contribution toward
hi
storical
reconstruction...

PK: LMB should look in his incoming mailbox. From this point on his
argument descends into personal abuse which I will make no attempt to
answer and will not repeat on the list.

<snip>

> PK: OK, in Joshua Shechem was possessed and there is no report of a
> conflict. That does not imply that there was not a conflict.

Oh but it does that very thing.

PK: Now who is the one who has no idea of how to do research? The
absence of a report of something is NOT the same as a report of its
absence.

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page