Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:15 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  Karl:
>
>
>
> In response to my writing “What does that have to do with Amorites?  
> Genesis 14: 7 refers to Amorites being at XCCN TMR”, you wrote:
>
>
>
> “Other than your presuppositions, what problem is there with that?”
>
>
>
> One of the main arguments that scholars make against the historicity of the 
> “four kings against five” at Genesis 14: 1-11 is that Amorites are 
> allegedly portrayed, non-historically, as living south of the Dead Sea.
>
>
This is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy. Just because a limited
number of timewise disputed histories do not mention that there were
Amorites living south of the Dead Sea does not mean that a group of Amorites
did not set up shop south of the Dead Sea in the EBA (early bronze age) as
mentioned in another history.


>   When you say, “what problem is there with that?”, you’ve got the whole 
> historicity of the Patriarchal narratives riding on it!
>
>
Here you contradict yourself, the mother of all logical fallacies, as you
have made it very clear that you do not believe that the Patriarchal
narratives are historical.

>
>
> Karl, about the only part of the Bible that university scholars concede is 
> very old, pre-dating the 1st millennium BCE, is chapter 14 of Genesis.
>
>
Again, who are they that we should follow them? This sentence is an appeal
to authority logical fallacy. Secondly, looking at the history of why they
make that claim shows that such a claim is ideologically driven, and if I
reject their ideology (which I do), the whole superstructure of their
theories tumble down with that rejection.


>   If the “four kings against five” is a truly ancient composition, as many 
> (perhaps even a majority of) university scholars concede is the case, then 
> how could an ancient author portray Amorites as living south of the Dead 
> Sea, when every single person in the ancient Near East at the time knew 
> that the Amorites lived primarily in Lebanon, and were never south of the 
> Dead Sea?
>
>
See above. Further, just because they lived primarily in Lebanon does not
rule out the possibility that a group of them moved south of the Dead Sea.

>
>
> Karl, if we give up on that key point, we’re dead ducks.
>
>
You already gave up on that key point long ago.

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