Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:27 AM, <jimstinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> 1.      If the attackers come from the east and start their military
> campaigning at Ashteroth in the northeast (per Genesis 14: 5), then in my
> view, it
> is impossible that they could “return”/$WB to Kadesh-barnea, a remote
> desert oasis on the border of the Sinai Desert.  That is as far west as the
> attackers ever go, on the conventional view, and as such the attackers from
> the
> east could not have “returned”/$WB to their farthest western point.
>

Correction, the text does not say that they went to Kadesh-barnea, rather to
a place called Kadesh, which is listed elsewhere as having been to the south
and east of Moab. The kings had travelled further south and west from there
in their invasion, then returned to that point. The text makes perfect sense
as written.

>
> …  My argument on the b-hebrew list is primarily a
> Hebrew language argument.  I do not think that Biblical Hebrew can rightly
> be
> contorted to fit the conventional understanding of the Hebrew wording of
> Genesis 14: 7.  In my opinion, the conventional, forced translation and
> understanding of Genesis 14: 7 should be abandoned.
>

What do you define as “conventional understanding”? From a strictly
linguistic standpoint, it makes perfect sense as written. You contort Hebrew
to fit your theories, as I mentioned earlier.

>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>

Karl W. Randolph.