Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

I started a thread on something completely different, yet you somehow
managed to bring in your theories that make no sense.

However, you mentioned a couple of linguistic things, which I will address.

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:50 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
>
> James Christian:.
>
>
> 1.  HRRM vs. HR
>
>
> As long as HRRM is some kind of plural,
>

That you don’t know, in fact, the structure of the sentence argues against
it. It is used only this once, and more than likely refers to a name of a
city within Seir. That is the best way to explain the grammatical structure
of the context.

>
>
> “Seir” literally means “hairy”, and hence “well-wooded”.


No, it does not. That is a fairy tale that you made up.

>
> Chapter 14 of Genesis knows nothing of an Edom south of the Dead Sea.


That’s news to the writer of Genesis 14.


> …, the troops then “return”/$WB by way of the desert oasis Kadesh-barnea
> in the Sinai Desert.
>

How many times do we have to repeat that Qadesh in Genesis 14 is most likely
the same Qadesh as in Numbers 33:6 and Deuteronomy 32:51, which was in the
wilderness of Zin south of the Dead Sea, and not the same as Qadesh Barnea?
That you keep returning to this theme is not only intellectual laziness, but
also intellectual dishonesty.

>
> Awkwardly for the scholarly view of Genesis 14: 5-7,


Why do you keep returning to “the scholarly view” when you know we consider
that to be irrelevant, an appeal to authority logical fallacy, and a red
herring logical fallacy as well? Do you realize how foolish it makes you
appear when you do this?


> … Karl sees Ezra as being inerrant in
> identifying peoples and places in the truly ancient chapter 14 of Genesis.


Who said anything about Ezra? Is this some fiction that you made up?


>
> On a separate thread, I noted that an Israeli scientist has confirmed that
> there were no “wells, wells of bitumen” at the Dead Sea.


Just because there aren’t any today doesn’t mean that 4000 years ago there
weren’t any that have since dried up. Things change. The present is not
necessarily the key to the past.


> … “return”/$WB back


Stop misusing the term “return” in this context.


> Rather, Genesis 14: 1-11 has pinpoint historical accuracy


If you really believed this, you would recognize that Abraham is portrayed
as having lived in the early bronze age, between about 2000–1800 BC,
centuries before your beloved Amarna letters. That is the linguistic message
of the text. That you don’t recognize this fact makes the above statement
contradictory, the mother of all logical fallacies. That you keep repeating
it over and over and over again … is it polite to say in Anglo Saxon how it
makes you appear?


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