*Alward: Hebrew Institute Responds Again

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Joe Alward:

The Hebrew Institute of Boston has been kind enough to respond to three
inquiries from list members about the meaning of the word "ken".  One inquiry
came from Tim Taylor; two others from me.  I reproduce below the results of
Tim's letter, then the results from two subsequent ones from me:

===============

Subj:	 The Meaning of "Ken"
Date:	98-11-09 00:26:16 EST
From:	jftill@midwest.net (Farrell Till)
Sender:	owner-errancy@infidels.org
To:	errancy@infidels.org
CC:	ccbe@egroups.com

At 03:29 PM 11/8/98 -0800, Tim Taylor wrote:

TILL
For the benefit of Matt and CCBE members, I am posting the communication
that Tim Taylor mentioned above.  Errancy invites comments from CCBE
members.  Maybe David Lim would care to comment.
*******************************************************
Tim:

My contention is that since all the water was turned to blood (v
20,21) that it would be impossible for the magicians to "do the same
things" (i.e. this phrase translated from Hebrew word "ken") (v.22)
and a contradiction is indicated within the text.

My friend's contention is that the magicians must have had access to a
small amount of water that had not been changed to blood by Aaron, and
that therefore verses 21 and 22 create a context for the use of the
Hebrew word "ken" in which "ken" in verse 22 must mean "same in
nature" but "less in extent" 


My (I admit uninformed) view of "ken" and my friend's contention is
that to make a few pots of water turn red is SUBSTANTIALLY less in
extent than turning a river and all other water to blood, and that
"substantially less" is simply not within the scope of the definition
of the word "ken".

My question for you is who is correct here? Can the definition of
"ken" encompass the idea of doing the same in nature, but
substantially less in extent, or is my friend simply speculating? Or
perhaps are we both
wrong? 

<snip>

Hebrew Institute of Boston Responds:

I find your argument, Tim, interesting, however, the word Ken, means "the
same". May be the magicians got their water outside of Egypt?
*********************************

TILL
So the situation here is that we have the opinion of a bunch of biblicists
who are struggling to try to defend the inerrancy view of the Bible, and we
have the opinion of someone who is knowledgeable in Hebrew and works for a
Hebrew translation service.  Whom should we believe?

What do you think, David [Lim]?

Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

==========
Joe Alward:  

Then, I sent a letter:


Subj:	Use of the Hebrew "ken"
Date:	98-11-09 00:36:28 EST
From:	JAlw
To:	ynave@lynx.neu.edu

Can the word "ken" mean "similar", or, "the same kind, or type, of thing"?

Does it always mean "exactly the same in kind and extent"?

Joe Alward

===========
Hebrew Institute Responds:


Subj:	 Re: Use of the Hebrew "ken"
Date:	98-11-09 01:36:44 EST
From:	ynave@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Yudith Nave)
Reply-to:	ynave@lynx.dac.neu.edu
To:	JAlw@aol.com


Yes it can mean similar.
=============
Joe Alward:

I ask for clarification:


Subj:	Still a Controversy Remains
Date:	98-11-09 19:45:32 EST
From:	JAlw
To:	ynave@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Yudith Nave)

Dear Yudith,

Twice you've been kind enough to answer a question about the use of the word
"ken" in the blood plague story, but there is one very important question
needing an answer.  In your earlier response, given below, you seem to be
saying that the word "ken" doesn't necessarily mean that the magicians did
everything that Aaron had done, and to the same extent.  Otherwise, why would
you have suggested that a way to harmonize the story would be for the
magicians to go find water outside Egypt?


"I find your argument, Tim, interesting, however, the word Ken, means 'the
same'. May be the magicians got their water outside of Egypt?"


Please answer this question again:  Is is possible for the word "ken" in the
blood plague story to mean "the same in kind (i.e., they converted water to
blood), but not in extent (i.e., how much water they converted)"?


Thanks for your patience.

Joe Alward
====================
Yudith responds:

Subj:	 Re: Still a Controversy Remains
Date:	98-11-10 10:23:59 EST
From:	ynave@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Yudith Nave)
Reply-to:	ynave@lynx.dac.neu.edu
To:	JAlw@aol.com


YES.
=================
Joe Alward:

She's pretty emphatic; it appears that Bell finds support for his argument.

• Previous message: Sabbaths (and Chas)
• Next message: The Quality of CCBE Posts
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]