Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

Do you do a disservice to your argument with this one?

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 6:31 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> In the prior posts on this thread, I noted that the second version of item
> #102 on the Thutmosis III list was no longer "Jacob-El", but rather seems
> to
> have become YQB-(M, meaning "Winepress People".  It is that later version
> of
> the town name that had started out as "Jacob-El" that we may be able to
> find in
> the Bible.
>
> ...
> When we look at the oldest manuscript of the Septuagint, the Vaticanus
> Codex
> (which is 600 years older than the oldest Masoretic text manuscript), we
> see
> Iarikam.  We immediately note that the suspect dalet/D is not present in
> this
> old Septuagint version.  Since the Septuagint is not translating an old
> Hebrew
> text here, but rather is merely transcribing a city name from that old
> Hebrew
> text, the oldest extant version of this Biblical city name in the
> Septuagint
> is significant.
>

Far enough.

Look again at the LXX—why do you omit all the other differences? Is it
because they cause more problems to your theory than solutions? There are so
many differences, even to the number of cities involved, that just pointing
to one name on the list looks like cherry picking. How could you have missed
"nine cities and their towns" clearly indicating that not all town names
were recorded?

Look again at http://www.specialtyinterests.net/ and their article on
Thutmosis / Shisherka / $$Q and they raise some linguistic, geographic and
archaeological evidence that points to him as having lived in the latter
10th century BC. Can your mainstream theory survive a serious analysis if
you followed their example and put it all out in one place on your own site,
instead of scattered over several messages on B-Hebrew?

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: One problem we who have studied Biblical Hebrew run into are those whose
knowledge of Hebrew is merely that which they picked up from Strong's
Concordance, who then presume to preach to us what they think the Hebrew
means. The more you post, the more I get the impression that your knowledge
of Biblical Hebrew is on the same level, only you got your knowledge from
"mainstream" writings instead of Strong's. Is that why you never join into
discussions where the language itself is being discussed?