Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

John:

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com> wrote:

>  K Randolph wrote:
>
> John:
>
> OK, let's get this out of the way first: why do you think they are not
> participles? Please give me your rationale.
>
> Remember, as I have repeatedly said, the points that the Masoretes bestowed
> on us are sometimes wrong as far as meaning is concerned, so explain it on
> the basis of an unpointed text.
>
>
> I already said why: because according to WTS (Westminster Theological
> Seminary - the people who maintain the WLC and MORPH) they are not
> participles, but are rather prefixed prepositions.
> Now I'm sure there are some errors here and there, but for them to have
> thousands of them all on the exact same thing seems kind of unlikely - hence
> me asking what your rationale is for holding the opposite view.
>
> So I told you my rationale, now please tell yours.
>
> B"H
> John Steven
>

I reject your reason as being valid. Simple as that.

The good people at Westminster are into accurately transmitting the text,
including all the points, unchanged from when the text of the WLC was
written centuries ago. They are not into second guessing the Masoretes and
why they (the Masoretes) chose to use which points where. There is much to
commend this effort.

On the flip side, this effort can lead to perpetrating error if the points
were wrong in the first place.

I have been very open that I read the text without points. In this way of
reading the text, I have to use the context to tell me which words are
connected to which roots and what their uses are in the sentences. With this
being the case, I have found it not unusual that I disagree with the WLC
points. In fact, some of the points are easily demonstrable as being wrong.
Other times it is more of a judgment call.

Two days ago I gave my read of how the words in question fit into their
respective sentences. That is based on how the words fit into their
contexts. In those three cases, it is obvious that I disagree with the
Masoretic points. Your reason is that you accept the Masoretic points as
being accurate, which I reject. But in this I understand you as being
inconsistent, as you seem to be disagreeing with the points as found in
those two verses in Chronicles, with which you opened this thread.

I asked you to explain on the basis of the unpointed text, which you failed
to do.

Karl W. Randolph.