Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

George:

Besides this list, I also am on a couple of lists connected with hobbies and 
work. The vocabulary that I use for the different subjects differs 
noticeably, 
but the style of writing is recognizeably similar. However, there are even 
some differences in style. My writing style changes by subject matter and 
audience even though certain aspects remain constant (e.g. I tend to use 
long, run on sentences. And I have gotten to the habit of starting sentences 
with an “And” to show continuation of thought.)

One of my professors commented that had it not been for the naming of Cyrus, 
there is no stylistic reason to assume two authors. There is a shift in 
emphasis leading to a shift in vocabulary used, “but whoever the redactor was 
who combined the two works under one name made a very good call” 
because the authors’ styles are almost identical. That professor not only 
talked about a second Isaiah, but also a third.

Yes, I have noticed a slight change in style, but I have always attributed it 
to a change in emphasis, and the stylistic change is so minor that it can be 
explained by that change in emphasis.

As for your theological claims, beyond mentioning that I do not find them 
logically nor philosophically coherant, I do not wish to argue them on list. 
There is no reason to assume that the God who created the space-time 
continuum with all its laws in the first place, would not suspend them from 
time to time if it fits his purposes in his communication with his 
creation—man. And that includes naming names in prophecy. This is not a 
question of 
probabilities, not even possibilities, but what did God say he did?

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "George F Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
> 
> 
> Karl,
> 
> As the moral law is "written" in the heart of man so also the natural law
> is revealed in the operations of the universe which reveal God's
> faithfulness.  It does not reveal a capriciousness which manifests itself
> in intervening whenever the pool ball needs to be nudged toward the
> proper pocket.  It does not reveal a tendency to satisfy idle curiosity
> regarding names and dates, etc.  Ask yourself just what purpose it would
> serve to reveal the name of Josiah long before his appearance.  It is far
> more probable that the prophecy as originally uttered mentioned no
> specific name but that the name was supplied after the fact.  Do you
> object because this seems to you to take some of the marvellousness from
> it?  Considering the balance of power at the time, wouldn't it be
> sufficiently amazing without the name?  I know, you balk at sacrificing
> the idea that the very words are divinely inspired and infallible.  Just
> where do you get this notion?  Not from the scriptures (besides, are we
> to suppose that a thing is the case simply because it is asserted to be
> so?)  I'm sure you are of the opinion that I don't hold the scriptures to
> be "the word of the Lord."  This is not the case.  I simply have a
> different view of what this word happens to be and how it came to be.
> You claim to have read through the TANAK in (unpointed) Hebrew a number
> of times and to have developed a sense of the changes which the language
> has undergone over time (according to the traditional understanding) and
> yet you can't distinguish the style of 1st Isaiah and 2nd Isaiah?  I find
> that amazing.
> 
> george
> gfsomsel
> ___________
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm