Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>I gave several examples (in the section you just snipped),

You're right. I finally took the time to look closely, as I can only
conclude I did a rather inefficient search of the form. There are more
examples of mm`l l- which support your analysis, so perhaps one cannot argue
with much strength that the throne was physically on the firmament.

>>>Again, the "windows of heaven" is imagery--not for rain--but for a
>>>supernatural event, either good or bad, of anything from God.
>>
>>Point assumed, not shown.
>
>Look again at all 3 extant examples. You should see, in linguistic terms,
>that rain is only an incidental component of the phrase "opening the
windows
>of heaven" in only one clear context, while the generic component in *all*
>contexts is a supernatural sending forth of something by God. If you want
to
>claim i assume and don't show this, we're unlikely to make much progress.

This is only obvious: you have already signaled that any language that
doesn't fit your views of what is kosher gets relegated to metaphor, so that
the opening or closing of the heavens, be it windows or doors is not really
meant to mean the opening or closing of doors or windows, but something
else. I know there will be no progress beyond that now.

>**********
>
>But such things are really only an aside, so for the rest--some of which
>involves more subjective interpretation and presupposition--you have
>successfully convinced me that it's impossible to convince you on the basis
>of the text alone. Our presuppositions are determinative, and i can't find
a
>way to show you that yours don't work well with the evidence.

When you don't use the text alone, you cannot convince by text alone. You
have phrased your argumentation now a number of times to say that you don't
let the text talk for itself. You have imposed the notion of divine
revelation upon it, the truth of the text's message.

>As one scholar
>told me, you "don't have a leg to stand on" in regards to the OT evidence.

I usually stand on two. Your nameless scholar is pretty worthless.

>I could deal with those many new issues you brought up too, as there are
all
>kinds of problems with your views,

Uh-huh.

>but i make these posts at work away from
>my library, in-between or during calls doing computer tech support, and it
>would take a few months to cover all those! So if you are determined to get
>the last word in, it's yours!

However, you won't even bother because of your a priori approach to the
texts, right?

>I can only challenge you to study the answers
>that have been given many times before by other scholars on such matters as
>the unity of the OT text, Daniel, etc.

See what I mean? The world is flat.

>It's really quite impossible to understand the text as it was *intended* by
>its writers apart from a willingness to come to it from the same
perspective
>by which it is stated to have been intended, namely, as inspired by God.

What you need to do is follow the basic rules with any text: who is writing;
who is the audience; when was it written; why. These sorts of questions help
you to come to a more objective understanding of a text, which appears to be
something which would be useful for you.

>I
>can also suggest to you that many have and do experience the truth of the
OT
>text's message

Another classic phrase: "the truth of the OT text's message"

Truth is a matter outside the scope of text analysis, which is what we are
talking about. We are dealing with what a text says and how we know what it
says. Your how it is known doesn't come from the text.

Our job amongst other things is to uncover a number of things about a text:
who wrote it; who it was written for; why it was written; what the author's
intentions were; what has happened to the text since it was written. These
are things a philologist can and should deal with. You are out of that ball
park into "the truth of the text's message," something which doesn't come
from the text, but from your a priori commitments.

>in such a way so that to deny its unified origin in God is
>equivalent to denying that one was born to his parents.

Theology is not a principal subject for this list.

>Prophets like Jeremiah certainly had such a conviction,
>and he was well-aware of the problem of false prophets.
>Surely you don't think Jeremiah was a false prophet and deceiver?

Your theological ideas are not directly in the scope of this list. I should
call you to stick to the rules of the list. You have in a number of posts
stepped over the lines. I think the moderators have been rather lenient.
This is a laidback list. Don't abuse it.


Ian