Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

the entire document serves as the proper context .... for any piece or part
of the language in a single verse, including the proper antonyms, many & few
(versus improper antonyms many & one).

hence, 1 samuel 13:13-14; 16:1-15;  invests 2 samuel 3:1 with
implicit disapproval of saul and corresponding approval of david; saul
weakened and david strengthened by wives and children.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Fred:
>
>  On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:41 AM, fred burlingame 
> <tensorpath AT gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello Karl:
>>
>> Perhaps you have set an arbitrary, geographic boundary on your
>> contextualization; a boundary never intended or created.
>>
>> For the approval this king's few,
>>
>> 2 samuel 3:1-5;
>>
>
> There is nothing in these verses that said that God approved of the few.
> These verses don’t say that God disapproved, rather they merely mention the
> fact that David had a few wives. You have no point.
>
>>
>> contrasted with the disapproval of this king's many,
>>
>> 1 kings 11:1-13;
>>
>> validates my point ....; that the contrast in deuteronomy 17:17 was then;
>> and should be ... today .... the many versus the few; rather than the many
>> versus the one.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> fred burlingame
>>
>> Karl W. Randolph.
>