Biblical Hebrew Forum

[davidfentonism AT aim.com]

 Dear Harold, I meant Yitzhak as you might did notice from the context and 
his name at the bottom of the post as you rightly pointed out. Please forgive 
the error. You don't need to say sorry for Yitzhak's assumptions 
either.--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: hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net
 To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
 Sent: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 4:11 PM
 Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deconstructionism
 
  Dear David,
>   Dear Harold,
>   

HH: It was not me who addressed you about this topic. It was Yitzhak 
Sapir, as you can see by looking at the name at the bottom of this post. 
But I am sorry for thinking you were a Christian.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard
>  
>  I presume from this that you wish to discontinue the discourse on this 
> topic 
and respect your request and bear no ill will for asking or anything else 
that 
was said. To clarify, I am NOT Christian and my comments about emunah and 
believers/nonbelievers were all general. I did not target you in my 
discussions 
but ideas in general. Further, the Boman text has many other anti-Torah 
problems 
I annotated throughout the work myself. I didn't think I would have to say 
this 
but I cite Freud, Jung, Vygotsky, Derrida, and many other divergent theorists 
on 
a whole host of topics but that ought never be taken as my endoresement of 
them 
or allegiance to their views or anything beyond what I said in the context in 
which they were quoted. It leads to the misunderstanding of my personal 
beliefs 
and what theories I agree with as in this case. I have been known to quote 
haSatan (taken from Scriptures) from time to time, too.
>  
>  Best 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: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com
>  To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>  Sent: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 9:44 AM
>  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deconstructionism
>  
>   Hello David,
>
> Since I posted the message to which you reply, several developments took
> place.  One of these is that Bryant discussed inerrancy as he saw it, and
> added an aside that he felt this was off-topic.  I read Bryant's message to
> be related only to the discussion of what is inerrancy itself, but then a
> second development took place - the moderators posted a message
> suggesting the entire topic is marginal to the list purpose.  I completely
> disagree with this claim.  I think deconstructionist analysis (or a 
> discussion
> like Harold and I were having) is perfectly suitable.  In fact, it is in my
> opinion, much more suitable than a discussion of the differences between
> "dine" and "have dinner" (I can understand the reason the relevance of the
> dinner issue to the larger discussion at hand though).   But my feelings
> are not the moderators'.  So subsequently, I felt little purpose in posting 
> on
> the list (at all!) due to this moderator  decision.  However, the other day
> came the stab at Ibn Ezra to which I had to respond.
>
> I think it would have been better for you to concede that you were using
> a word in the earlier discussion that has a specific meaning in
> scholarship.  Instead, you are doing it again now -- using a definition of
> deconstructionism to make conclusions about all "skeptical scholars."
>
> But that topic is closed now.  You revived it somewhat, and while the
> topic is "closed," I think I deserve to issue a short rebuttal of some
> offensive comments and themes in your posts.  Specifically, these are
> the attempts to identify Hebrew and non-Hebrew thought.  Of course,
> you are dependent on scholarship(!) for your idea there that you can tell
> such a difference between Hebrew and non-Hebrew thought.  But it is
> bad scholarship.  Back in November you made reference to Boman's
> "Hebrew Thought Compared With Greek."  At the time (actually in
> response to someone else, a couple of days before you made
> reference to it), it was suggested that Barr's work, "The Semantics of
> Biblical Language," published within a year of the english translation
> of Boman's work, be read.  From one description, Barr "effectively
> demolished any claim by Boman of scientific objectivity, knowledge of
> or commitment to the science of linguistics.  Boman is unmasked by
> Barr as selective, sloppy and inconsistent, arguing for an antiquated
> form of linguistics that scholars in the field [this was 40 years ago!] no
> longer take seriously," whereas Boman "is without embarrassment
> trying to demonstrate the sublimity of the Bible, its reliability and the
> superiority of Christianity over other world religions, ancient and
> modern."  Maybe you disagree with this description but it is a fact
> that reference to Boman's book appears to be somewhat sparse in
> scholarship but very frequent in Christian sites. I was going to post a
> discussion of the "Jewish view" of inerrancy in response to Bryant's
> description (much the same as yours) which I see as a "Christian view",
> but I did not in view of the above mentioned moderator message.
>
> However, let me just say several things: your claim that I do not use
> "Hebrew" thought is ridiculous and offensive; similarly, the implications
> that I am not a "believer", (and variations such as that I do not have
> "emunah", etc.) are also offensive.  Whether you are aware of it or not,
> your consistent use of the Hebrew/non-Hebrew thought differences is
> rooted in works of Christian supremacy and this shows in some of your
> posts where you appear to simply state as a matter of fact to me how
> you understand Jewish sources better than I do.  This is really what lies
> behind the Hebrew and non-Hebrew rhetoric of yours and I think it has
> no business on this list.  That I did not touch on these points earlier is
> not because I agreed, it is just that they were much more explosive and
> problematic to deal with.  Since you brought it up, though, I felt I
> deserve to point these issues out.
>
> Go ahead.  Read Barr's "The Semantics of Biblical Language."
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>   


_______________________________________________
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.