Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:55 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
> Karl:
>
> A.  You wrote (in part):  “Eylam (YLM [is]…a proper noun, i.e. a name,
> referring to various people….”
>
> Those “various people” are Hebrews.

Wrong! The use of the name in Genesis 10 and 1 Chronicles 1 shows that
the name predates the Tower of Babel and the division of languages,
and the designation of anyone as a “Hebrew”.

>  That suggests that (YLM is a west
> Semitic word, being used as a west Semitic name for west Semitic-speaking
> people, namely various Hebrews.  For example, I Chronicles 26: 3 refers to a
> man named (YLM as being a Levite who was a contemporary of King David.
> Wouldn’t a Levite in that time period be portrayed in the Bible as having a
> west Semitic name?
>
Invalid conclusion, as the name could have been held onto as a
historic artifact.
>
> If (YLM is a west Semitic word, a Hebrew word, rather than being an exotic
> non-west Semitic foreign loanword, then isn’t the yod/Y a matres lectionis?
> Doesn’t (YLM clearly derive from the Biblical Hebrew verb (LM, which is the
> root?
>
The answer to both your questions is “Not necessarily.” (YLM could
just as likely be a concatenation of (Y LM.
>
> [delete baseless speculation]
>
> C.  In 5,000 years of human history, there was only one event comparable to
> the “four kings against the five” at Genesis 14: 9, where all four of the
> following key elements apply:
> [skip details]
>
> Why accept the view of university scholars that this is a tall tale about a
> fictional king of Elam fictionally rampaging through the Northern Negev
> Desert?  There’s nothing in secular history or linguistics to back up that
> strange, unconvincing view of the case.
>
Who says I accept the view of university scholars? I don’t, as you
should well know by now.

> But if we match the defective spelling MLK (LM to the unique, historical
> title of Ugaritic kings, MLK (LM, then we can quickly discern the solid
> secular historical basis for the “four kings against the five” at Genesis
> 14: 1-11.  No scholar has ever looked to Late Bronze Age northern Canaan in
> analyzing the Patriarchal narratives.  That’s why all scholars have missed
> this key, letter-for-letter match:
>
> MLK (LM.
>
Sorry, but my knowledge of Hebrew rules out your speculation. This is
n-o-t a letter-for-letter match.
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
You are repeating already refuted claims.

Why don’t you do what almost everyone on this list has been asking you
to do, namely get your own blog, and publish it all in one spot? It
would help you spot inconsistencies.

By the way, you did not keep your word that you would publish only one
pamphlet a week.

Karl W. Randolph.