Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: The 24 hour "evening and mornings" ??? (Peter)


> At 14.50 01/09/00 +0100, Peter Kirk wrote:
> >Yes, because the only argument you have offered...
>
> I think you've missed at least four others, Peter.

PK: OK, there were some others. I won't waste time dealing with them again.
Just to say that Michael's arguments are quite easily dealt with by saying
that any number of repetitions of one sense of a phrase are no proof (in a
limited corpus) that another instance has the same meaning. And in the
Daniel verse cited the evenings and mornings are 12 hours each not 24.
>
<snip>

> >...depends on an interpretation
> >of kl ymy xyyk which conflicts with that given in standard Hebrew
grammars,
>
> You have made this so far *unsupported* claim several times. I think you
> should back it up or stop repeating yourself uselessly.

PK: I'm away from my grammar books at the moment. Perhaps someone else can
cite Gesenius, Muraoka, Waltke & O'Connor, or someone like that.
>
> So far all you have done is to use an analogy (about hot dogs) to attempt
> to support this claim: <<By exactly the same argument, KOL YEMEY XAYYEYKA
> in Gen 3:17 does not mean "every day of your life", it means "the whole of
> your life".>> You've got no further.
>
> Why didn't the author simply write kl xyyk?

PK: Ask him/her, or another native speaker of Biblical Hebrew ;-)
>
> >and you have offered no evidence to support your non-standard
understanding
> >of the Hebrew language.
>
> This is a new unsupported claim. Peter, you seem to be talking nonsense.

PK: No, it's the same claim which has support though I have not actually
cited it, plus your rejection of that understanding. As I don't want to
suggest that you are being malicious, I have to conclude with Dave that you
simply do not know Hebrew well enough to take part in this sort of
discussion.
>
> Please try to follow the basic rule of not attacking someone without at
> least evidence to support your statements. What you have done recently is
> what is normally defined as flaming.

PK: I have made no personal attacks. If what I have done is "flaming" by
your definition, then so is what you have done.

Peter Kirk
>
>
> Ian
>