Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] (no subject)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] (no subject)
  • Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:48:15 -0500

Dear Karl,

On the question of Job 39:13, these are the steps I took to tease out a simple sentence that made sense and fit the context. Do you remember? I didn’t need to do the final step with that verse.

HH: I only remember vaguely. I don't think I was following that thread
closely.

Harold, are these the steps you take when you disagree with me?

HH: I've been studying the Bible for over thirty years, reading translations, reading the original, studying grammar, and reading commentaries. I take whatever steps I need to take to gain some certainty before I criticize someone else's thinking. You can be sure of that.

But if all you do is to present someone else’s translation, how convincing is that? Especially when I may disagree with the translator on several points? Or do you have another methodology that you haven’t explained?

HH: I didn't just present somebody else's translation. I made points with each verse. You have not responded to those points. You did notice that I made my own comments on each verse, didn't you?

With what aspects of this methodology do you disagree and why?

HH: I've already told you what I disagreed with and why. It was the results you came up with on the verb XBL and the translation ideas that you produced for verses that used it.

Is there any way to improve this methodology?

HH: Yes, compare your results with the findings of other people. And give the results of others the respect that they deserve. The NIV and NASB, for example, are both major translations by independent translation committees. So if they agree, and agree with many other translations, you have to have good reasons for disagreeing. Correct your findings on XBL when you are shown to be wrong.

Oh yes, this methodology is combined with my presupposition borne out in practice that lexemes usually, though not always, have only one root definition and its definition will be recognizable in other lexemes from the same root.

HH: I don't know what makes you think you can ditch the almost uniform conclusions of lexicons, commentaries, and translations on XBL, as far as I know. Your theory, in itself, does not give you that right. Nor do your forced translations based on it. You aren't even willing to defend your results on most of the verses that we have discussed. But this is where the rubber meets the road. So when somebody shows you something, it seems as though you shrug it off. Then you are free to say that no one has proved you wrong.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard




  • [b-hebrew] (no subject), Karl Randolph, 07/05/2004
    • Re: [b-hebrew] (no subject), Harold R. Holmyard III, 07/05/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page