Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Jim, I really don’t want to engage with your views because they appear to be 
based on faulty method and, therefore, logic. So, I’m forcing myself to 
engage here.

First of all, your etymology just doesn’t work. If there is a ghayin in שׂער 
then you would expect this reflected in cognate languages, such as Arabic, or 
in transliteration into other languages, such as Greek. But it isn’t. It just 
plain isn’t. So that theory is dead.

Where do you possibly see שׂער meaning ‘forest’? You simply have not nailed 
this down. There is a big difference between ‘hair’ and ‘wooded forest’. 
Until you can produce a firm linguistic connection there, you are either 
speculating at best, or just making it up. Either way, that’s NOT GOOD 
METHOD! If you were doing a research degree, you’d be panned by your 
supervisor for this and sent back to do some basic linguistics.

So please stop trying our collective patience with these way-out theories 
that have little factual basis. I have no doubt you’ll come back and protest 
against this claim, and deliver an essay in support of your theory. Yet I’m 
fairly certain, based on past form, that what you produce in reply will not 
advance your cause any further.


GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au