Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:54:53 -0600 Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
writes:
> 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
> _______________________________________________

Dave,

It certainly seems strange that you would assert that the mention of a
name is "the most important part of the prediction."  I should have
thought that the prediction that a decendent of the "House of David"
would slaughter the priests of the northern sanctuary upon the altar a
far more important matter.  The name is simply a matter of curiosity. 
Curiouser and and curiouser.

george
gfsomsel
___________