Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:54 AM, K Randolph wrote:
> > Yitzhak:
> >
> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> James, this is not a PhD theory.  It is a standard view accepted by all
> >> scholars, even someone as conservative as Kenneth Kitchen.
> >
> > Since when is Kenneth Kitchen conservative?
> > The moment anyone contradicts the Bible, as Kenneth Kitchen does, he is
> not
> > conservative.
> > Further, your sentence above contains two logical fallacies: the appeal
> to
> > authority logical fallacy, and the bandwagon logical fallacy. Do you
> expect
> > to wow us using logical fallacies?
>
> Karl, even if you view Kenneth Kitchen as a heretic, that tells us about
> your
> position rather than about Kitchen's.  Kenneth Kitchen only
> contradicts the Bible
> according to your understanding of the Bible.  Kitchen himself views the
> Bible
> as extremely reliable and some even call him a fundamentalist.
>

My answer to you here is the same as I gave to Jim Stinehart, namely that
words mean what they mean. I come to this study primarily as a
lexicographer. As a lexicographer, one analyses words in their contexts to
understand, if possible, what is the meaning intended to be communicated by
the authors. In looking at the words used in the Bible, there are certain
messages contained in the Bible which Kenneth Kitchen has admitted that he
does not believe. That admission on his part excludes him as a conservative.
It matters nothing what other people call him, it’s his performance, his
fruit, that defines him.

Within liberalism there is a spectrum of beliefs: on the left (looking at a
map facing north) there is Kenneth Kitchen in Liverpool, holding down the
extreme maximalist wing of liberalism; heading east to the right we end up
in Copenhagen where we find the other extreme of liberalism, the
minimalists. Both and all in between are liberalism, conservatism doesn’t
fit anywhere in that spectrum.

>
> Also, I know you disagree with Kitchen, Karl.  I wrote it clearly in
> the post that
> dealt with Kitchen's views on the subject.  However, I don't see how your
> views
> on Kitchen voiced above have anything to do with the list.
>

The same question can be asked as to why you even mentioned him in the first
place.

>
> What I wrote above does not intend to suggest that the standard argument is
> correct.  It just seeks to clarify that the position I voiced is the
> standard
> position.  Had I said that because it is the standard position, or
> that because it
> is Kitchen's position, it must be correct, then that would be a
> logical fallacy.
> But I didn't say that.
>

You certainly implied it.

>
> Karl, I am all for people pointing out logical fallacies in list
> discussions. But I
> think you are over-doing it, and also not doing it correctly.  The mere
> mention
> of a scholar's name or the standard position is not a fallacy, and really,
> these
> consistent interruptions on fallacies are not contributing anything to the
> list.
>

What James has asked for is primary data to back up your claims. So far all
you have provided are tertiary conclusions by “scholars”. You acted exactly
as James predicted. By not providing primary data, you are not contributing
anything to the list.

>
> Let us focus on the subject of Biblical Hebrew and epigraphic Hebrew,
> instead of whether Kitchen is a conservative by your standards.
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>
> OK, so where is the primary data to back up your claims?

Karl W. Randolph.