Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Jim:
Why do you keep wanting to make connections to a language which, by your own
claim, did not exist at that time? That's nuts!

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:33 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> XBR vs. XBL:  One Key to Understanding the Patriarchal Narratives
>
> One surprising key to understanding the secular historical context of the
> Patriarchal narratives is to focus on the words XBR [heth-bet-resh] and XBL
> [heth-bet-lamed].  An analysis like this is the long suit of the b-hebrew
> list.
>
> While linguistic study is the focus of B-Hebrew, insisting that it be tied
to a certain interpretation of history is a no-no on this list. You are
violating the rules you agreed to to join this list.


> 1.  Similar Meanings
>
> We start by noting that XBR and XBL, both as verbs and nouns, often have
> similar meanings.
>
> But far enough different as to be different words:
XBL to tie knots
XBR to join together

To be complete, you need to bring in other synonyms as well, such as:
)SR to tie to, such as yoking oxen to a plow
XB$ to bind on, e.g. saddle, bandages
)QR to tie up, wrapping a rope around
RKS to knot on
and a few others. As you can see, some of the synonyms have meanings closer
to XBL than does XBR, weakening your argument.


> (a)  As one example of the close connection between XBR and XBL in Biblical
> Hebrew, consider the following two small portions of the definitions of
> these
> two words in BDB.


You have already been repeated told that you need more than BDB to make an
argument. That this argument is based solely on BDB shows you don't know
what you are talking about.

>
> 2.  XBL:  "Rope" and "Rope Imagery"
>
> The basic meaning of XBL as a noun is "rope".


Wrong. The basic meaning is something that is tied to something else, such
as the fields around a city, contractual agreement, moral limits. A rope is
only sometimes connected with the action of "tying knots".

XBR is never used in connection with rope. And when talking about people, it
is about a voluntary association, without the idea of being tied down to
remain part of the group.


>
> We may be able to isolate when the immediate predecessors of the Hebrews
> lived, by honing in on the unique fascination of the language of Biblical
> Hebrew
> with a great manifold of positive "rope imagery", in the context of XBR and
> XBL.  There was only one small window of time in secular history when a
> fascination with "rope imagery" like this would make historical sense.
>
> A related question is why it is that XBR is in the Patriarchal narratives
> as
> a common word (at Genesis 14: 3), but there's no XBL in the Patriarchal
> narratives.


Have you considered that maybe the context did not call for a "rope"? Did
you check all the synonyms for "rope" such as (BT, MYTR, and others; were
they also not used?


> Moreover, we haven't even really begun to take a serious look yet at the
> Bronze Age predecessors of XBR and XBL.  In fact, we are just getting
> started on
> this fascinating journey.


With this language, you indicate that you are writing a book. You may find
it fascinating, but we groan as each new chapter burdens our mailboxes.
Probably the majority of the members of this list trash your messages
unread.

>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois


What are your qualifications? By not answering, what are you hiding? What
religion do you believe in?

This is a discussion list, not a private place where you can preach to a
private congregation. By not responding to objections, you show that you are
preaching, not debating nor learning. Further, if you want to be believed
while preaching, you need to show your qualifications, which you so far
refuse to do. You are proselytizing to your private religion, a practice
which should get you banned from the group.

Do as Kenneth Greifer said, write your book and publish it on Amazon. You
may even get some payment that way.

Karl W. Randolph.