Jim: On 4/5/13, [email protected] <[email protected]> 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. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
