Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Peter:

On 1/9/07, Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org> wrote:
> On 09/01/2007 17:49, K Randolph wrote:
> > ...
> > I have made an observation (actually three), but have not made an
> > organized study of it. You dispute my observation on the basis of
> > theory. Either you make a statistical study of the frequencies of
> > shared roots, complete with appendices showing the words you studied,
> > or you shut your mouth up. I have noticed something. I have not made a
> > detailed study of what I observed. In order to prove or disprove it,
> > one needs to make a statistical study, and you have not done that.
> >
> >
> You have made a claim on the basis of three alleged observations. I have
> shown that two of the observations are extremely unsafe, being based on
> clear textual corruptions, and the third one is merely conjectural.

I have not forgotten your letter, I just have not had the time to go
and make what I consider a proper response to it. I figure that should
take a few days, if I have the time.

> ...  Your
> claim requires more evidence before it can be taken seriously.

But to brush it off without evidence also cannot be taken seriously.

> ... You have
> been asked for that. You say that you don't have time to find it. Indeed
> this needs a proper statistical study (which actually wouldn't take very
> long at all with proper computer tools), but until that has been carried
> out what you are saying is nothing more than unsubstantiated
> speculation. When you put forward a speculation, it cannot be presumed
> true until others disprove it, but must be presumed probably false until
> you prove it, or at least provide a proper body of evidence in its
> favour. In the absence of that, the rest of us will ignore you.
>
> ...
> > What I find interesting is when they made that observation, you simply
> > claim that they are scholars. But when I made exactly the same claim,
> > you try your hardest to disprove me. Why?
> >
> >
> Could it be because the claims which you made, when they were put
> forward long ago by scholars, were thoroughly disproved? If your theory
> was false then, it is false now. If you want to overturn the conclusions
> of past scholarship, you need to provide new evidence, or convincing new
> interpretations of the old evidence. Otherwise you will simply be ignored.
You can ignore me, that's no problem. But why were those others
"disproved"? Was it on the basis of theory, or new observation? The
amount of new discoveries from known Biblical Hebrew in the last
century is miniscule, so what was it? For all intents and purposes, we
all are working from the same data.

> --
> Peter Kirk
> E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
> Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/
Karl W. Randolph.