Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

I won't call you a prophet George because I think we all pretty much
predicted that his reply would be another essay that regurgitates the same
stuff over and over again. Can we just ban the topic but stick to the ban
this time and bring some order back to b-hebrew? It would be nice if we
could have at least one discussion which didn't get hijacked and turned into
'the pinpoint historical accuracy of Genesis 14 when taken out of its
geographical and temporal context and forced into another one'.

This guy is never going to accept that the Horites does not equal the
Hurrians or that his view of the Amorites is misguided. It's really
pointless to continue any discussion. I've personally given up trying to
respond to him and reason with him. I suggest everybody else just ignores
him as well. We had that funny mathematical theory of Hebrew a few years ago
and everybody ended up ignoring him until he went away when he refused to
accept any criticism. We still get the odd email from him but nothing as
persistent as Jim. I vote for ignoring Jim unless he is willing to
participate in other discussions that don't involve his theories. I see no
future for b-hebrew other than constantly refuting his theories if we allow
this to go any further.

It's time to move on folks. It's getting boring. Stop feeding the troll.

James Christian

On 17 May 2010 03:54, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>