Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Bill:

Again, look at the context. Not just the immediate context, 
but the whole story.

Secondly, just because Uriah spelled out the totality of 
what he expected should he return home, does not mean that 
the words David used even implied that totality. Now we 
know that David wanted that totality, but again the total 
context would inhibit David from _saying_ it to avoid 
suspician.

Occam's razor was designed to deal with evidence, not 
human beliefs and customs. Your reaction is like the 
common, majority belief, medieval claim that the world 
is flat, even though writers since Ptolomy (if not 
earlier) showed evidence that the world is roughly 
spherical. Truth is not decided by popular vote, nor 
even by scholarly consensus. I think you misused Occam's 
razor. The simplest explanation of the evidence is that 
words have one meaning within a language, with some 
exceptions, no matter how it may be translated or what 
other people believe.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Rea" <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>

> 
> Karl wrote:-
> 
> > Occam's razor says that the simplest answer is usually the correct one,
> > not that lexemes have multiple meanings.
> 
> You are taking Occam's razor to the wrong part of my post. My
> question was -- Why do people continue to reject your model?
> Simplest explanation -- the evidence does not favour it.
> 
> Karl further wrote:-
> 
> > I have not advanced the theory before this recent discussion, merely used
> > the results in previous discussions. It is interesting that when I
> > reported the results in previous discussions, it was rare for anyone to
> > question how I came to the results that I had.  The questions were fewer
> > than the fingers on one hand.
> 
> I'll take your word that you had not explictly advanced your theory
> previously. However, it was so obvious what you were doing I'm
> surprized anyone had to ask.
> 
> > Again, one of my favorite commands, "Look at the context." Uriah had just
> > spent time out in the field, [snip]
> 
> Recall David's words:-
> 
> Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house, and wash your feet."
> 
> Feet being RGLM.
> 
> Now let's look on just a few verses.
> 
> 10.           Now when they told David, saying, "Uriah did not go down to 
> his
> house," David said to Uriah, "Have you not come from a journey? Why did
> you not go down to your house?"
> 11.   Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in
> temporary shelters, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are
> camping in the open field. Shall I then go to my house to eat and to drink
> and to lie with my wife? By your life and the life of your soul, I will
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> not do this thing."
> 
> I see Harold Holmyard agrees with you. But if you're both right
> why does Uriah explicitly mention lying with his wife if he did not
> understand David's intention for him to do precisely that.
> 
> On a literary front we could say that the writer is using this to
> heighten our awareness of David's problem. He turns the heat up on
> David. But underlying any literary purpose there must be a context
> within the society it was written for. If there was no pre-existing
> connection in the minds of the readers between David's ``wash your
> feet'' in v8 and Uriah's ``lie with  my wife'' in v11 then I
> think the dialogue takes on a contrived feel.
> 
> Bill Rea, IT Services, University of Canterbury \_
> E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz               </   New
> Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332       /)  Zealand
> Unix Systems Administrator                   (/'

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm