Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] El-Paran

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] El-Paran
  • Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 16:05:00 -0700

Jim:

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:48 PM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

>
> James Christian:
>
> You’re failing to consider when the various parts of the Bible were
> composed.


Not at all. With the exception of the last chapter of Deuteronomy, the rest
of the Pentateuch was written by the time of Moses’ death, at about 1410 BC.
Genesis has signs that it is an editing and compilation of older documents,
some many centuries before Moses.


> The one and only prose section of the Bible that university scholars
> will concede may date all the long way back to the Late Bronze Age is
> chapter
> 14 of Genesis. Moreover, Genesis 36: 8-43 is clearly a very late addendum
> to
> the original Patriarchal narratives, with such addendum dating to the 1st
> millennium BCE. That’s why it refers to the 1st millennium BCE state of
> Edom, and such state of Edom having kings before Israel.
>

Those theories are not worth the paper they’re written on. They are totally
based on a religion, a religion founded on German rationalism and a belief
in evolution. This religion is at its heart anti-Semitic with a hatred of
Christianity as defined in the New Testament. That’s the basis for the
attacks on the historicity of the Bible. Only afterwards, particularly at
the time of Wellhausen, did the purveyors of these beliefs add a loincloth
of supposed linguistic markers to give an appearance of intellectual
justification: an after-the-fact excuse.

In short, what they say is, “Because your religion doesn’t agree with my
religion, it is wrong.” And again, “My religion is right, because I say it
is.” Are their arguments convincing?

>
> )YL means “oak tree”. It’s as simple as that. The place to find mighty
> oak trees was in the Transjordan, not south of the Dead Sea.
>

Not true.

You asked for an analysis of the word )YL, and when it did not fit your
theory, you ignored it.

>
>
> Paran means “desert”.


What a laugh! If this word has a Hebrew root, it would refer to festooning
or foliage, the opposite of desert.


> The city of Hebron 20 miles south of Jerusalem is too dry for sheep and
> goats in the summer, and too cold and wet for camels in the winter.


The present is not the key to the past. Just because it is that way today
does not mean that it was that way 4000 years ago.

>
> The Valley of Siddim is a “valley of tilled fields”.


Nope, and you would know why if you knew Hebrew.

>
> If you would focus on chapter 14 of Genesis,


You can’t do that unless you leave it in its context. Its context is of an
event from around 2000 BC.


> My goal in life is to re-establish the historicity of the
> Patriarchal narratives, especially the “four kings against five” at Genesis
> 14:
> 1-11. I’ll let others worry about the rest of the Bible.
>

You don’t establish their historicity by denying their historicity. That is
an oxymoron.

>
> Jim Stinehart
> Evanston, Illinois
>
> You came on this list and it was obvious that you didn’t know Hebrew. Since
then you have become pretty good at listing Hebrew references, but you still
make elementary mistakes revealing that you still don’t know Hebrew.

You came on this list using logical fallacies. If anything, they have become
more prominent recently.

You came on this list with a theory, then looked for facts to back it up.
That’s backwards. When facts contradict your theory, you ignore them.

This is not going anywhere, because you keep going back to already disproven
statements. We are running around in circles.

Karl W. Randolph.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page