Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Dear Karl:

Thanks for your message.

I appreciate your learned comments.

To continue with the analogy, I would think that a matter of foundational
import, would include the question of whether the transmission operates in
the flat lands of chesapeake bay, or in the rocky mountains of vail,
colorado.

Or to put it another way, examining the bark, the leaves and the roots of
the tree undoubtedly necessary & useful to a proper understanding of the
forest ...; but the beginning of the inquiry should perhaps include whether
the forest located on planet mars or planet earth .... :)

Biblical hebrew language appears created and used for the sole purpose of
revealing a deity. To put that deity in a closet, in order to achieve peace
and sanity at the forum, may well become a laudable goal. But hope for
proper understanding of the language may become lost in the process.

regards,

fred burlingame

Regards,

fred burlingame

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:43 AM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Fred:
>
>
> To take your truck analogy, we on this list are trying to reverse engineer
> a truck, an 18 wheeler, we have never seen. Some of us have pored over
> repair manuals over and over again, others glanced at those manuals but have
> found a sports car, or a sedan, maybe both and try to see how similarities
> in those designs give clues on how to build the truck.
>
>
> What you are trying to do is to assemble and drive that truck, when the
> rest of us are still trying how to figure out the transmission, did we cut
> the gears correctly so that they mesh together smoothly? What about the
> steering linkage? Was that ball joint supposed to be here or there, or were
> there supposed to be two ball linkages?
>
>
> Biblical Hebrew has not been spoken for over 2000 years, therefore none of
> us have heard it spoken, there are no native speakers to whom we can go with
> questions concerning the language, there is only one surviving book with a
> few surviving other letters and short documents in that language. What’s
> worse, we have only the consonants, no vowels, so we don’t know how it was
> pronounced, which results in that there are homographs (words written the
> same way) that very likely were pronounced differently so that they were not
> homophones (pronounced the same way). Among the many homographs are words
> that had very different meanings. Among those homographs we sometimes
> disagree which meaning to assign to each occurrence.
>
>
> Now theologians march boldly where angels fear tread, making confident
> statements concerning the messages in Tanakh that linguists recognize are
> not clearly understood. Other theologians are more humble, willing to admit
> that there are verses that they don’t understand, but go with verses that
> they do understand. And Bible translators are the most hidebound, claiming
> that if they produced translations that reflect the latest findings in the
> language, that their translations won’t sell.
>
>
> In earlier messages you made confident statements concerning the meaning of
> the text based on your understanding, but where I was almost shouting to my
> computer  “Whoa there!” You need to consider this aspect, or that meaning,
> or recognize that you are dealing with a homograph, and so forth. Often
> there were multiple issues to each of your statements, and you had several
> statements to each message. In our careful way, we are commenting on one
> issue per message, so that one of your messages brought up as many
> linguistic issues as we would bring up in a few months, linguistic issues
> that may negate your understanding of each verse.
>
>
> In closing, we don’t have all the parts yet for that truck. You are welcome
> to help us reverse engineer that repair manuel (which does not include a
> complete parts list, nor instructions on how to make all them) so we can
> figure out what all was in that truck, but it is far from ready to assemble,
> let alone drive.
>
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM, fred burlingame 
> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello George:
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> I understand the forum policy that forbids theology. Discussion of the
>> latter point frequently provokes non-productive emotional response.
>>
>> I do not understand however, how:
>>
>> a. an effective discussion of language can arrive;
>>
>> b. when such language becomes expressed exclusively in the context of
>> "truck
>> transmission manuals;"
>>
>> c. and yet the purpose and character of truck transmissions cannot be
>> discussed; rather only the "nuts and bolts" that comprise the transmission
>> can be ventilated.
>>
>> It seems like this forum cures "cures the cancer," but loses the patient
>> in
>> the process.
>>
>> In other words, how can you access the true meaning of words that describe
>> a
>> Person; and yet not discuss that Person?
>>
>> I cannot imagine any reasonable discussion of middle english
>> language expressed in canterbury tales proceeding in this manner; or
>> shakespeare, etc.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>>