Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Edward Andrews" <edandrews AT roadrunner.com>]

Kevin:

Knowledge of what, implications, inferences and circumstantial evidence that 
really is nothing more than an overactive imagination. 

You write: Among Christians it seems to be mainly among conservative 
evangelicals who hold to the concept of an inerrant Bible that any form of 
documentary sources are unacceptable.  They do not make up the totality, or 
even the majority, of conservative Christians and Jews who would consider 
themselves to be biblical scholars.  

Ed: This is the exact thing I am talking about. The majority of nothing 
equals being in the right. If we were to apply that status, more Christians 
and Jews in the last 2,000 have accepted inerrancy and Moses as the writer of 
the Torah. Evidence is what makes the case, not winsome words. If one looks 
at both side, the conservative scholar offers the better case. When 
discrepancies come up, it is all to easy for the liberal progressive to go 
into some spin about JEDP authors and a Redactor. However, the conservative 
scholar looks for reasonable and logical answers that still maintain the 
integrity of God's Word.

Conservative scholarship took their eye off the ball in the 19th century, 
seeing liberal scholarship as no serious problem; viewing them as a small 
nuisance at best. They gave no consideration until the 1970's forward, by 
that time universities were overrun with liberal scholarship. True enough, 
they have taken the lead, but it hasn't been for the betterment of anything. 
What is church attendance today? What is the conversion rate of evangelism 
today? How many are moving to atheism? Was this the case when conservative 
scholarship was in the driver's seat?

Conservatives have rebounded, but they will not likely recover because of two 
reasons. 1.) Liberal scholarship refuses to make the same mistake as the 
conservatives; they are not taking their eye off the ball. 2.) Tabloid sales! 
If someone writes an article that Jesus was a bastard son and and married a 
prostitute to father 12 boys that all formed a new Israel based on some new 
gospel; the sales would be off the charts. But if an article is written on 
the validity of the resurrection; it will have no such success in sales. The 
world we live in is tabloid hungry. The liberal progressive scholarship feeds 
that world and does nothing more than plant atheists and agnostics. Liberal 
scholarship only gives fuel to the atheist and diminishes the validity and 
trustworthiness of God's Word all in the name of scholarship and wishful 
thinking.

Edward Andrews
Liberty University


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: LM Barre 
  To: b-Hebrew 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources


  What is your point? Knowledge is impossible?


  Lloyd Barré
  http://freewebs.com/lmbarre


  --- On Wed, 2/4/09, Edward Andrews <edandrews AT roadrunner.com> wrote:

  From: Edward Andrews <edandrews AT roadrunner.com>
  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources
  To: "Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>, "b-Hebrew" 
<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 9:11 AM

  You wrote: "that depends on how you define. . . ." This is the second
  time this idea has been said in the last two posts.

  This is a part of the problem. Everyone has their own definition of this or
  that. This independent spirit has caused 28,000 varieties of Christianity. 
But
  then again, I guess that depends on how you define Christianity.

  I guess that depends on how you define Christianity
  I guess that depends on how you define Conservative
  I guess that depends on how you define inerrancy
  I guess that depends on how you define inspired
  I guess that depends on how you define evidence

  Edward Andrews
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Kevin Riley 
    To: b-Hebrew 
    Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:10 AM
    Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Many scholars accept the documentary sources


    I suspect that depends on how you define "conservative".  I think
  you will
    find that there are many who would define themselves as conservative in
    religious terms who would either accept the idea of documentary sources
    [even if not in the classical EDJP form] or have an open mind on the 
subject
     Among Christians iIt seems to be mainly among conservative evangelicals 
who
    hold to the concept of an inerrant Bible that any form of documentary
    sources are unacceptable.  They do not make up the totality, or even the
    majority, of conservative Christians and Jews who would consider 
themselves
    to be biblical scholars.  

    Kevin Riley
     
    -------Original Message------- 
     
    From: Bryant J. Williams III 
    Date: 4/02/2009 5:54:49 PM 
     
    Dear Lloyd, 
     
    Amongst "mainstream" scholars "so-called" it is accepted.
  Amongst
    conservative 
    Scholars it is NOT accepted. 
     
    Rev. Bryant J. Williams III 
     
    _______________________________________________
    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



        
  _______________________________________________
  b-hebrew mailing list
  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>From if AT math.bu.edu  Wed Feb  4 19:29:40 2009
Return-Path: <if AT math.bu.edu>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id A08304C016; Wed,  4 Feb 2009 19:29:40 -0500 (EST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE
        autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net 
[207.172.4.11])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E256D4C015
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,  4 Feb 2009 19:29:39 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from 146-115-65-179.c3-0.bkl-ubr1.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO
        [192.168.2.3]) ([146.115.65.179])
        by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2009 19:29:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: <cad.49e2ba82.36bb7628 AT aol.com>
References: <cad.49e2ba82.36bb7628 AT aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
Message-Id: <3AFE8A7F-2714-47C1-A6DD-8F2BD88087B6 AT math.bu.edu>
From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:29:38 -0500
To: JimStinehart AT aol.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=WINDOWS-1252;
        delsp=yes;
        format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Cc: b-hebrew posts <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Halhul, Jezreel and Timnah
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:29:40 -0000

Jim,

You are saying
“Hilly” is not part of the definition of MDBR.  But much MDBR in  
Canaan is hilly.
You are right. MIDBAR is an uncultivated and unsettled, or only  
sparsely settled, land, be it flat or be it hilly. You don't need a  
dictionary to understand this. Yet there may be a little more to the  
name than that.
The root of the name is DBR containing the letter R. In my opinion  
every Hebrew root that contains the letter (or the uni-litteral root)  
R refers to a multi-particle material state. You can verify this by  
going over all the Hebrew roots containing this letter.
The question is what is being aggregated or dispersed in the MIDBAR  
for it to be so called. Some think it is in reference to the flocks  
of sheep being brought there, while some think it in reference to its  
landscape of piled sand, earth and stones.

Let's look at other words derived from the same root:
DIBER, MIDBAR, 'speech, conversation' (Jeremiah 5:13 and Song of  
Songs 4:3). Essentially the fine chopping and the articulate  
stringing of the meaningful bits of sound.
DOVER, 'congregation of sheep, corral', (Mica 2:12.)
DOBRAH, 'raft', (1 Kings 5:23.) Essentially an aggregated pile of  
tied tree trunks.
DBORAH, 'bee'.
DBIR, 'elevated structure?, platform?', (1 Kings 6:19.)
HA-DBARAH, 'extermination, piling up of corpses', (Psalms 47:4.)
DEBER, 'plague', (Exodus 9:3). The sickness of multiple abscesses or  
pox, or an illness of mass destruction.

Closely allied to the root DBR are the roots
*ZBR, TBR (with tet), SBR, CBR, $BR, TBR (from which mount TABOR)
SPR, CPR (from which CIPOR related to DBORAH), $PR, TPR (with tav)
CWR (from which CAWAR, 'neck')
All having the essential meaning of CBR, 'accumulate'.

*Not in the HB but the root of the latter ZIBURIT, 'worthless land',  
and ZBORIT, 'ballast', (of sand and stones?)

Isaac Fried

On Feb 4, 2009, at 5:52 PM, JimStinehart AT aol.com wrote:

> “Hilly” is not part of the definition of MDBR.  But much MDBR in  
> Canaan is
> hilly.