Oops minor corrections Re: More on Turkels latest (Part 5)

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

On 1 Feb 99, at 18:50, Achilles wrote:

> Achilles

> I agree that this section was intended as just the sort of rhetorical 

> "demonstration" that Turkel posits. This agreement does not rule out the 

> possibility that the passage was intended to convey ONLY that, however. 


Achilles
Obviously an artifact of incomplete editing. Should read "... does not 
necessarily imply that the passage was intended to convey..."


> Achilles

> Once again Turkels argument turns out to involve more hair-splitting legalism 

> based on what he thinks particular hebrew words mean. Once again his miraculous 

> insight (for a person we know does not speak Hebrew) looks suspiciously like it 

> is based, not on the Hebrew, but rather on the words the KJV translators chose 

> to use in rendering them. 

> 

> Let's take a look at the Hebrew words translated here "beast" "fowl" and 

> "cattle" and see if there is any reason to believe his argument. 


Achilles
Another artifact of incomplete editing. Examination of "fowl" and "cattle" 
turned out to be totally unnecessary, although if Jason would like to respond 
to these posts (which I spent quite a bit of my time on entirely for his 
benefit,) I would be happy to examine them for him, should he request it.

Should read "... Hebrew word translated here as "beast" and "field" and see if 
..." 


/Achilles     achillesz@usa.net

All rights reserved.

Random thought for the moment:

    From the strictest humanitarian viewpoint, any attempt to stop the
    processes by which over crowded cities purge themselves is not a
    kindness. 
           -- 'Boss', Dr. Baldwin in Friday

• Previous message: More on Turkels latest (Part 5)
• Next message: Oops minor corrections Re: More on Turkels latest (Part 5)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]