Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Graham" <kevlds AT hotmail.com>]

Hi Karl,
== Even your characteristic that physical references are allegorical is a 
concession to Greek philosophical thinking, one that I am not
willing to make.
That's fine, we can agree to disagree. I just find it highly coincidental, 
hence suspicious.
== Along the same lines are the anthropomorphisms for God. An English 
equivalent would be the statement "He walked into that situation with  open 
eyes" which all but the most obtuse would recognize that the person in 
question did something fully recognizing what he was getting into;

No, that is an idomatic expression.

== I see no reason to say that ancient Hebrews did not recognize these as 
figures of speech.

What you guys can't seem to come to grips with is the fact that you're 
assuming these woprds are idomatic expressions without evidence. When the 
literal reading makes perfect sense, there is no reason to go hunting for 
plausible, variant explanations. Explanations which merely beg the question.

It isn't enough that the Hebrews couldn't have used these as idomatic 
expressions. Following this rationale, they "could have" understood 
"backparts" to mean green pea soup. I mean, can you prove that they didn't?

When the plain reading makes perfect sense, metaphor and allegory must be 
proved, not assumed.