Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

James,

The reference you mentioned is not the problem.  I only once recall giving
up on a conversation because of the reference cited, and that was when I was
assured that all worthwhile data on a certain subject was freely available
to all in the Akashic record.  Not having access to that database, I could
only bow out of the conversation.  While you cite records I can access, I'm
happy with that.

FWIW, on the basis of the confession "my father was a wandering Aramaean" I
would be inclined to believe that the Bible indicates Abraham spoke Aramaic,
as did his family that remained behind (see the story of Laban).  Whether
there is a meaningful distinction between Aramaic and Canaanite in the C18th
BC is a different question.  I see no reason to believe that the Hebrews who
left Egypt spoke anything except Hebrew, which appears to be a Canaanite
dialect.  With the one exception of the 'wandering Aramaean' reference, the
Bible seems to assume Hebrew as the language of the patriarchs from Adam
onward, and of the people of Israel before and after they settled in Canaan.
But I don't recall that being made explicit until the reference where Jacob
names a pile of stones in Hebrew and Laban in Aramaic.  Whenever Jubilees
was written, it would not surprise me that the author presented Hebrew as
the original language of the patriarchs.  Nor does it surprise me that
people who believe God talked to their ancestors face-to-face would
therefore consider that language to be holy.  How literally you wish to take
all this depends on your POV.  

Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: James Read 
Date: 22/05/2009 10:57:23 PM 

I really am starting to regret I even mentioned what Jubilees said on 
The subject. 
 
James Christian 
 
 
 
Quoting Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>: 
 
> James 
> 
> I thought of jumping in because I find the discussion interesting, but
since 
> you started setting the rules for the list I find I don't feel like 
> participating. Perhaps if you spent less time telling us all how to hold 
> the discussion to please you, more people might actually feel like 
> responding. The usual protocol is to allow the moderators to set the rules

> and remind people of them when necessary. If you don't like how someone 
> replies, you always have the option of not replying to them. There is a 
> variety of people here, from dedicated sceptics to dedicated (dare I say, 
> fundamentalist) believers, and if you are willing to listen to all of them

> share in their own way, you can learn a lot from all of them. Not all of 
> them share your dedication to an 'objective scientific' presentation, and 
> there is no reason why they should. 
> 
> Kevin Riley 
> 
> -------Original Message------- 
> 
> From: James Read 
> Date: 22/05/2009 10:29:18 PM 
> 
> 
> Are you going to bring some input into this discussion at any point in 
> The near future? 
> 
> If not, may I suggest we continue this off list? 
> 
> James Christian 
>