Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:32 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> Until the Enlightenment, none of that much mattered.  The theology was
> still good.


You completely misrepresent the theology of Tanakh! The whole theology was
based on the expectation that the history was accurate, unlike other
religions in other countries. As such, if the history is wrong, then the
theology means nothing.

And that includes Ezra.


> ….  Quoting from the mainstream Anchor Bible Series: …
>

How many times do we have to repeat that whether or not a source is
“mainstream” carries no weight with this group?  Why do you keep pushing it?

>
> …  But if we do as scholars do in analyzing Genesis 14: 5-7
> and look solely in southernmost Canaan, per Ezra, none of those
> geographical
> place names will ever be found in secular historical inscriptions from the
> ancient world.


This is an argument from silence, which has repeatedly been shown to be
flawed.


> … QD$ and GRR are big as life in Bronze Age northern Canaan,
> but are nowhere to be found in the secular history of southern Canaan.
>

Your change of GRR to GLYL is bad linguistics, especially for Biblical
Hebrew. Further, it was listed as being near Philistia, which n-e-v-e-r
extended north from about modern Gaza.

By limiting your version of “secular” history to that found in Egyptian
temples and recounted by their priests, you admit that those pharaohs would
not go mucking about in the southern desert looking for relatively small
oasis when much richer pickings were available to the north. Therefore your
argument is logically flawed saying that because they were not listed in
Egyptian religious history, therefore they didn’t exist.

>
> My threads keep getting closed, but the substance of my geographical
> arguments is not refuted.


Yigal Levin refuted your geographical arguments. You just conveniently
ignore it.


>  The pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 14: 1-11 is
> absolutely breathtaking, if one is willing to look to  n-o-r-t-h-e-r-n
> Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, and give the common Biblical Hebrew word $WB
> at
> the beginning of Genesis 14: 7 its normal meaning.  That’s all I’m asking.
> If that’s too controversial, then so be it.
>

Your threads keep getting closed because you refuse to acknowledge
correction. Even after being corrected time and time again, you keep
returning with the same faulty arguments. Your arguments are not
controversial, they are simply wrong.

>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
> Karl W. Randolph.