Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 5 Jan 2011 at 14:02, fred burlingame wrote:

> The conclusion flows naturally from the facts ...
> 
> Let's examine some facts relevant ...
> 
> a. does the average consumer of the language english have the
> slightest clue
> as to what this law means?
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001631-
> ---000-.html
> 
> b. does even the average trained purveyor of this law understand
> this
> english language?
> 
> c. obviously, the answer to both "a" and "b" = negative.
> 
> d. and likewise, for the similar deuteronomic legal code in 882
> b.c., all as
> illustrated today by david's excellent explanation of the civil
> law
> then. ezra was not needed to "translate" in 442 b.c.; but to
> "explain" as
> david explained today; or so nehemiah 8:8 states.

Sorry, but you are comparing apples to rabbits again.  The law in the Cornell 
link is not 
written in English; it's written in Legalese, an artificial dialect created 
by lawyers to confound 
the rest of us while making themselves sound impressive.  Nothing in the 
Deuteronomic 
code, or any of the rest of the Law for that matter, is even remotely 
comparable.  So your 
conclusion flows naturally from...nothing.

Dave Washburn

http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur