Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Tuesday 05 April 2005 10:15, George F Somsel wrote:
> 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.

There is a perfectly simple answer to this, based on the Torah, but it is 
peripheral to my point about your methodology, so I won't go into it and will 
bow out of this thread.  Since you chose to dodge my main point and focus on 
something else, I'm not going to respond any more.  

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