Schubert wrote:I'd been following this thread with some confusion about the relevance of equating BH words with Greek words. I was uncertain whether or not my lack of clarity about the discussion was the result of a failure to understand some underlying issue. If there is some underlying issue, it would be helpful for me to have it spelled out.
There’s no relevance to equating BH words with Greek words. At times there are similarities, but more often differences outweigh similarities. What similarities there are can either be attributed to loan words or even just chance. One of the clues that we deal with loan words is that the BH word has no verbal or “primitive” root in Hebrew.
Even comparing close cognate languages can be problematic, for example שכח in BH means “to forget” while in Aramaic, a close cognate language, it means “to find”. Comparing across language families just doesn’t make sense.
The gold standard in the evaluation of any language is how it is actually used. Even those using standard linguistic practices who disagree with me on particulars or some of my conclusions, yet they agree with me on methodology. I use exactly the same methodology in evaluating and learning modern languages as I use in studying and learning Biblical Hebrew. In both, the etymological fallacy is to be avoided.
Karl W. Randolph.