Apikorus

Many thanks to spin for breaking his silence and sharing his expertise, with characteristic force and clarity.

Steven Avery

Spin, quite interestingly you did not even mention the ludicrous vav VERSE NUMBER argument on which a ton of pixels was wasted, with Api trying again and again to refine and rehabilitate and qualify the strangest argument going, a grammatical translational argument (of no real import) that was reduced to verse numbers connections in a single book.

If you can read the thread and don't even mention that, while trying to play favorites, then you clearly came to the table without clean hands.

Beyond that, as folks well know (at least the moderators and the principle), I withdrew from any threads with Api on integrity issues of bearing false witness as to my personal experiences and actions.

That was made crystal clear.

Meanwhile I invited the Masoretic Text textual discussions to be continued elsewhere.

Spin actually added very little. One point of interest, however. I quoted what he calls the "metaphor" (his term, not mine) from rabbinics, however I never claimed that it was anything other than an interesting interpretation, exegesis, midrash.

And you could add as such it also shows how some Hebrew experts actually looked at the text.

So Spin spun some straw-man stuff, claiming that I was engaged in a contradiction by referencing that commentary. I expressed no view that this was what you might call the authors intent. If I am misremembering, Spin can quote me.

Anyone who reads his post will see that he uses this claim as his major argument, while ignoring the integrity issues (understandable) and the vav verse number insipidity (glasses, bias).

Shalom,
Steven

Chris Weimer

Excellent analysis spin. As always, you're knowledge of Hebrew clearly shuts out those who haven't the clue what they're talking about. I can only hope you at least continue to read this. And don't worry, I'm still working on it.

best regards,

Chris

Apikorus

Ahem... praxeus is oblivious to the full force of my observation regarding the KJV's treatment of the vav's. Apparently he thinks that if he uses enough capital letters, he can make the argument go away just by his own indignation. Nevertheless it is a sound argument, and Steven's frustration, I suspect, is due to the fact that it simultaneously and devastatingly attacks his a priori commitments to both the Masoretic Text and the King James translation thereof.

The argument, once again, is that the KJV translators, in virtually every single case, with perhaps a handful of exceptions throughout the entire Hebrew Bible (and no others in all of 1 Samuel, so far as I can tell), directly translated each vav at the beginning of a verse. 1 Sam 13:2 is therefore anomalous in the extreme, because the vav in vayivchar is left untranslated. My claim is that this is strong evidence that the KJV translators recognized a problem with 1 Sam 13:1. Indeed, they deliberately mistranslated it, in two locations, so as to ameliorate the corrupt Hebrew text.

kais

The main force of his argument comes from a straightforward linguistic analysis which tends to support Apikorus' reading of the text. Given my background in linguistics, I find spin's commentary far more persuasive than your own hand-wavy, insult-laden rhetoric; suggestions about "unclean hands" and "glasses" do nothing to mitigate his technical analysis of enthronement statements in the text.

Apikorus

Anyone interested in learning why Steven has "withdrawn" from threads in which I contribute can check here. You can also learn what he means by an "integrity dialog". Basically, it involves his being able to insult and falsely accuse his interlocutors, and then complain bitterly when his own errors are revealed.