Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

George:

My last note was written somewhat tongue in cheek, but there are several 
reasons why I don’t accept the documentary hypothesis, including historical, 
ideological and linguistic. I’ve mentioned them before, so I won’t go into 
that again.

If your only argument for your reading is based on the documentary 
hypothesis, it doesn’t convince those who don’t believe the documentary 
hypothesis.

Secondly, I’m involved with another group who regularly refer to the 
Babylonian Captivity as the “Galut Babel”, my use of the term here was not an 
affectation, just an example of not thinking. After all, why use nine 
syllables when four will give the same idea? And 10 letters instead of 19? 
Does it bother you? If so, I’ll try to remember not to use it again here.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>

>
> 
> It makes no difference whether you call it the work of Moses (which any
> reader who is not precommited to the proposition and who reads the text
> carefully cannot accept) or the work of the Deuteronomist.  The fact is,
> that's where the tendency appears.  I used to be committed to the Mosiaic
> hypothesis, but found that it is untennable.   Your position is based
> upon a refusal to EXAMINE THE FACTS which would reveal that a Mosaic
> authorship is impossible.  You declare what scripture MUST BE then make
> it conform to your conception.
> 
> Why do you continually use the AFFECTATION "Galut Babel"?  Does this
> supposedly add something to the concept that "Babylonian Captivity" does
> not contain?  
> 
> george
> gfsomsel

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm