Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 7

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
  • To: dwashbur AT nyx.net
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 7
  • Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:15:35 -0400

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
___________




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page