Hi Fred, It might be possible that pigs can fly, but we have no facts at this time that would support such a claim. In other words. it could be possible that even-toed ungulate omnivores are capable of flight, but no facts extant at this time support such a claim. We just don't know at this time.
Cheers, David D.W. Roe Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany -----Original Message----- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:48:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the little things From: fred burlingame <[email protected]> To: K Randolph <[email protected]> Hello Karl: Thanks for your comments. Let me see if I understand correctly the current status of biblical hebrew ("BH") language, facts (versus faith). 1. We have a circa 1,000 a.d., BH vocalization code (nikkud); and 2. We have a circa 400 b.c., written BH language, implied by the dead sea scrolls which contain documents composed in mishnaic hebrew and in BH language. 3. The written BH text that we have (masoretic text, "MT") might equal a much older language form, but we have no facts at this time which would support such claim. In other words, the language of the MT might date from 1400 b.c., or earlier, but no facts extant at this time support such claim. 4. Furthermore, the 1,000 a.d., vocalization of the MT, might have existed in 1,000 b.c.; but no facts exist at this time to support such a claim; or any date earlier than 1,000 a.d. So, when we (or anyone else) discusses the written BH language, such language dates at the present time, only to approximately 400 b.c.? It may or may not be an older language; we just don't know at this time? regards, fred burlingame On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM, K Randolph <[email protected]> wrote: > Fred: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:30 PM, fred burlingame <[email protected]>wrote: > >> If we discuss here how biblical hebrew evolved and became chanted in 900 >> a.d.; how come we do not discuss here how biblical hebrew evolved and >> became >> written in 90 a.d.,; aka mishnaic hebrew? >> >> regards, >> >> fred burlingame >> >> Biblical Hebrew didnt evolve (unless you claim that copyist errors are > evolving) and some of us ignore those pesky dots as being irrelevant. They > certainly are not authoritative. > > Because those dots are attached to the Biblical text is the only reason > they are discussed. Were it not for that, they would be ignored, just as > Mishnaic Hebrew is. > > Karl W. Randolph. > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
