Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Karl W. Randolph.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:05 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> On my prior thread, George Athas wrote:  “The methodological flaw in your
> argument is that you are treating Hebrew as if it is ancient Egyptian. It
> isn't. Everything you do progresses on that premise, and it is a false
> premise.
> Ergo, your argument is fatally flawed and ill-conceived. It just doesn't
> work.”
>
> Let me take George’s good advice and not mention anything about the
> Egyptian language in this post.


You don’t need to refer to Egyptian language in order to treat Biblical
Hebrew as if it were ancient Egyptian.

Case in point: (I don’t know ancient Egyptian, so I am going from what I
read about it) ancient Egyptian did not make a phonemic differentiation
between “l” and “r” so that transliterations into Egyptian from foreign
languages that had those phonemes could lead to confusing results. Biblical
Hebrew, on the other hand, had those sounds as separate phonemes, and never
confused them. So when you say that GRR = GLL, you are treating Biblical
Hebrew as if it were ancient Egyptian, which it isn’t. The equation you make
is Egyptian, not Hebrew.

This is a fatal flaw right at the beginning of your article (it’s too long
to consider as a posting) so I saw no need to read the whole article.

>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>

George Athas is right, you are in a parallel universe, right?

Karl W. Randolph.