Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Tuesday 05 April 2005 02:52, George F Somsel wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 03:10:55 -0500 "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
>
> writes:
> > George:
> >
> >
> > While this seems off field as far as B-Hebrew linguistic studies, it
> > impinges upon the history of the language, hence recognition of the
> > development thereof. Because I accept the possibility that there is
> > a God who communicates with people, and in his prophecies gave
> > specific information including names, recognize a different
> > development history of Hebrew language than the person who is a
> > naturalist claiming that all "prophecy" was written after the fact.
> > This is where religion (philosophy) affects historical studies, and
> > recognize that because we do not share the same belief system,
> > neither will we share the same view of language history.
> >
> > Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ______________________
>
> Karl,
>
> I really wish that you would cease trying to paint everyone who doesn't
> agree with your view of the text as being a "naturalist" and one who
> claims "that all 'prophecy' was written after the fact."  I think I
> explained to Peter that I did view Is 7.14 and 1 Kg 13 as real
> prophecies, i.e. written before the fact.  You seem intent upon
> mischaracterizing my position.  Please cease and desist.

Actually, you were trying to explain it to me, and you didn't really say you 
see them as "real" prophecies, because in the case of 1 Kings you choose to 
excise the most important part of the prediction as being a later insertion, 
based on...what?  Some arbitrary notion that "real" prophecy doesn't name 
names.  When Karl gave you several examples to the contrary, you wrote them 
off as well, even though you know from previous conversations that Karl (and 
I) don't accept the whole "second Isaiah" notion.  Don't give me the same 
condescending line you gave him, because I have probably read at least as 
many "good introduction[s] to the OT" as you have, maybe more.  There are 
vastly differing opinions, and the fact that you choose to accept the one 
that explains away a prophecy that names a man before his birth is 
meaningless.  So you are still using a pick-and-choose method to claim that 
you accept predictive prophecy while simultaneously ripping out what 
challenges your worldview, and I still claim that it's an illegitimate 
method.  So far, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to change that 
view.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk