Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

Do you remember George Athas’ earlier response concerning nested ifs, that
the more ifs needed to show your argument, the less likely it is to be true?

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:03 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> Canaan’s Southern Boundary:  Genesis 10: 19
>
> In this post, I will try to “harmonize” my view of the southern border of
> ancient Canaan with the view of Prof. Yigal Levin in his fine article, “
> Numbers 34: 2-12, The Boundaries of the Land of Canaan, and the Empire of
> Necho”
> , in “Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society”, Vol. 30 (2006), pp.
> 55-76.
>
> Prof. Levin has already started with a series of ifs, all of which have to
be answered a certain way, in order for his conclusion to be considered
possible.

His ifs include those set forth in the history of the Documentary
Hypothesis, such as if naturalism (a religion) is true, and if evolution is
an accurate history of the earth, and if the ancient Jews were inferior to
their neighbors, leading to a partial conclusion though also another if, if
the ancient Jews learned literacy from their neighbors leading to another
partial conclusion though also another if, if the Bible were written by late
authors and passed off as earlier writings, ... going back to George Athas’
posting, we’re getting to the realm of “tendentious” to “Are you kidding?”
and that is before we start adding all your ifs as well.

This is just not believable, rather it is in the realm called “science
fiction” by George Athas.

You have to have so many conditions all go just your way for your theory to
be correct. By hitching your horses to Prof. Levin’s wagon, instead of
making your theories more believable, merely adds more conditions that have
to go your way. Which results in that the probability that your theories are
correct are vanishingly small.

On top of it all, you are still arguing history, not Biblical Hebrew
language.

Karl W. Randolph.