Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:
Right now I don’t see you as a serious scholar, rather you keep repeating
the same claims without substantiating them.

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:51 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> this was your answer to the detailed breakdown of the structure of Genesis
> 5 that I gave you? I've started to notice that this is characteristic. When
> you are given major issues that need to be dealt with in order for your
> theory to be accepted you completely sidestep them as if they weren't there
> or were never even raised.
>
> Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:
>
>  James:
>> Why are you putting so much effort into trying to disprove this
>> understanding of the text?
>>
>>
> I'm not putting effort into disproving anything. On the contrary, your
> theory could only be given recognition if it proved to stand up to this kind
> of test. Evidently it doesn't and that's why you feel the need to completely
> sidestep the major issues being raised e.g.
>
> To what context is the 'them' of Genesis 5:1b referring if Genesis 5:1a is
> a colophon of the preceeding document?
>

There is no “them” in Genesis 5:1b.

>
> You have also been given an outline of the literary structure of Genesis 5
> that both works and stands in contradiction to your theory. Your refusal to
> face these issues head on does not do anything to give more credence to your
> theory. It just makes it look like something you have clearly already
> decided on and are not willing engage fully in an objective consideration
> of.
>
> James Christian
>
> P.S. I find most of what you have outlined below irrelevant as I have
> already made it clear that I agree that 'generations' doesn't work. The
> point is that 'document' doesn't either and you have been asked to consider
> the third possibility 'history' which works for all and has none of the
> problems associated with 'generations' or 'document'. Please, if you are
> going to continue, stay focused on this distinction otherwise we are both
> talking to straw men.
>

>From a lexicographic standpoint, I find “history” to be problematic. That’s
why I don’t consider it. Consider again the following, and the meaning given
in a previous message.

>
>
>  One way I deal with lexicography is to start with the easy cases, then go
>> to
>> the hard ones. If the easy cases give one clear meaning, then I make the
>> assumption that the harder to understand verses use the same meaning.
>> There
>> are times where that practice has allowed me to recognize idioms, literary
>> conventions and sometimes just make sense of a verse.
>>
>> Now it is clear from Genesis 2:4, 6:9a and 37:2a that this does not refer
>> to
>> generations. This is an easy case. Further, there is a disconnect between
>> Genesis 37:2a and what follows. Another easy case. Not so easy, but still
>> noticeable, there is a disconnect, like a full pause, between Genesis 6:9a
>> and 6:9b, and Genesis 2:4 contextually and stylistically belongs to
>> chapter
>> one. Then I look at harder to recognize verses, such as Genesis 5:1–2, and
>> see that they can be understood as a closing title and authorship claim.
>> None necessarily contradict that claim.
>>
>> In order to disprove that these are following title and authorship claims,
>> you need to show that the only way to read the formula is as a preceding
>> title. I don’t think you can.
>>
>>
You didn’t answer my final paragraph above.

Karl W. Randolph.