Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jim:

On 4/5/13, JimStinehart AT aol.com <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:
>
> II Samuel vs. Patriarchal Narratives
> For at least 35 years now [and possibly much longer than that], it has been 
> known that the spelling and grammar of Hebrew common words in most of the 
> Patriarchal narratives is remarkably similar to the spelling and grammar of 
> Hebrew common words in the second half of II Samuel. In particular, noted 
> Hebrew linguist Robert Polzin has observed that most of the Patriarchal 
> narratives [excluding chapter 14 of Genesis and whatever else he takes not 
> to be the J and E portions of Genesis, and I would also exclude here the 
> poetry of Jacob’s Blessings in chapter 49 of Genesis], and the second half 
> of II Samuel [which is often viewed as being an early 6th century BCE 
> composition, but may have been composed at the end of the 7th century BCE 
> (subject in any event to some later editing)], show a “remarkable 
> grammatical/syntactical homogeneity”. Robert Polzin, “Late Biblical 
> Hebrew”, Scholars Press (1976), p. 20.


Now we know that this is utter balderdash, promulgated by an ideology,
better known as a religion, that opposes the history recorded in
Tanakh. It has no historical evidence, merely belief, to back it up.

Here’s a case of GIGO, when you input wrong beliefs, wrong beliefs come out.

Everything you wrote following this is negated by the above paragraph.

Jim: it’s because you start out with what we consider garbage in is
why we consider your theories to be garbage out.

That I consider your beliefs/ideology/religion as balderdash is
because I believe a different religion. However, my statement
concerning its evidence is scientifically and historically accurate.

Karl W. Randolph.