Biblical Hebrew Forum

[davidfentonism AT aim.com]

 Dear Kevin,
 
 For those who know the interpretive power of PaRDeS can not only use 
deconstructionism but know there are multiple layers of meaning in the text 
beginning with the aleph-beis itself. The aleph itself is communicative of 
meaning that escapes translation and is one example of many. The inerrantists 
you allude to who reject more than a plain meaning out of hand are no better 
off than those who deny meaning in the letters at understanding all of what 
is being communicated in the text in the b-hebrew and especially in the 
English. Although, I have to disagree with you that the interpretive 
difference is not necessary. It is not if apprehending the meaning is not 
essential to the investigation but otherwise it is.
 
 My regards,
 David Fenton
    ----------------------------
 Gal. 27-29: For as many as have had a tevilah into Moshiach have clothed 
yourselves with Moshiach. There is not Yehudi nor Yevani (Greek), there is 
not eved (servant) nor ben chorin (freedman), there is not zachar (male) nor 
nekevah (female), for you are all echad in Moshiach Yehoshua/Yeshua. And, if 
you belong to Moshiach (YESHAYAH 53:10), then you are of the ZERAH of Avraham 
Avinu, you are yoreshim (heirs) according to the havtachah (promise).   
 -----Original Message-----
 From: klriley AT alphalink.com.au
 To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
 Sent: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:36 AM
 Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deconstructionism
 
  In practice inerrantists are very likely to be opposed to deconstruction as
it strikes at a central issue for the overwhelming majority of inerrantists
- that the text has one plain, intended meaning and all other meanings are
to some degree false.  To accept deconstruction as a valid way of
approaching scriptural texts is only possible if you have rejected most of
the assumptions on which inerrancy is based and are at least willing to
assume that the text *may* have more than one valid meaning.  The idea that
a Biblical author may in fact have communicated more than a plain reading of
what the text itself reveals is not likely to sit well with most
inerrantists.  The "interpretive lenses" of inerrantists and
deconstructionists are in reality likely to be very different, even if on a
strictly logical basis it may not be a necessity that this be so.
 
Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: Yitzhak Sapir 
Date: 5/04/2007 12:22:39 AM 
 
Dear David, 
 
In your original use of the word "desconstructionists," it was used in 
The following sentence: "I am not making an argument for the inerrancy 
Of the TN'K here but the unbridgeable difference between the interpretive 
Lenses of those who accept the inerrancy of the TN'K as originally 
Scripted and those deconstructionists who work from their own 
Preconceived notions." As such, it places deconstructionists in 
Opposition to those who hold by biblical inerrancy. This is not 
Deconstructionism. While you have quoted a dictionary definition, 
This definition is a very succinct summary of the entire method and in 
Fact does not do much to explain what it really is. So, here are 
Examples of deconstruction of some biblical texts: 
 
http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/Postmodern1/Ethics.html 
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_66.pdf 
 
I suggest you read them, and then ask yourself how really are 
The deconstructionists opposed to inerrancy? In reality, it seems that 
You have used deconstructionism as a label, emptying it of what it 
Really means. 
 
Yitzhak Sapir 
 
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
   
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading 
spam and email virus protection.