Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:49 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>  Karl:
>
>
>
> … 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.”
>
>
Too bad you don’t know German, or I would refer you to the popular
reprinting of the PhD dissertation “Zur Datierung der Genesis ‘P’ Stücke” by
Dr. Samuel Külling. In this dissertation, Dr. Külling researched the ideas
and history behind the claim that the rest of Genesis could be considered
late, and found that as of the early 19th century, it was based on a belief
that the Jews were intellectual and social midgets compared to their more
evolved neighbors. That’s why they could believe the myths contained in the
Bible. Later iterations of the theories obfuscated those origins, but never
repudiated those ideas.

That’s why the alphabet is called the “Phoenician alphabet” rather than
admitting that the Phoenicians learned it from the Hebrews.

I totally repudiate that ideology, making the theories based on that
ideology like cobwebs to be swept away, not worthy of serious consideration.
That your theory that the Bible is but a collection of myths and fables is
based on those theories, makes it also not worth serious consideration.
That’s why you can’t get anyone to take you seriously, and why I repeatedly
pan them. Your numerous logical fallacies do not help your cause.

>
>
> Jim Stinehart
>
> Evanston, Illinois
>
> I take Genesis to be accurate history, which puts Abraham in the early
bronze age, a time period of which so little is known that Genesis is one of
the very few surviving records of that time period.

Karl W. Randolph.