B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Chris,

Please, please, have mercy on me (us). What is the proposed English translation of
אַל תִּיגַע לְֽהַעֲשִׁיר מִֽבִּינָתְךָ חדל
assuming that חדל is a "participle"? Just the one (two?) English sentence, no more.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried wrote:Chris,

Please, please, have mercy on me (us). What is the proposed English translation of
אַל תִּיגַע לְֽהַעֲשִׁיר מִֽבִּינָתְךָ חדל
assuming that חדל is a "participle"? Just the one (two?) English sentence, no more.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac I have absolutely no clue whatsoever how to translate this intelligently as a participle, it's Karl you should be asking since he is the one advocating this not me. Maybe he would grace us with his final translation.
Kindest regards
chris

Galena wrote:

Karl said : However, there is one constant: the Masoretes were divinely inspired such that they wrote without error. Moses when he wrote Torah wasn’t divinely inspired, because where he differed from the Masoretes, he made mistakes that were corrected by the Masoretes. Isaiah wrote in error, that was corrected by the Masoretes. Likewise Jeremiah and all the other claimed authors of Tanakh. The Masoretes were the real authors of the inspired, without error text.

Do you realize how silly that sounds to someone who believes in Biblical inerrancy?

I have never, and and will never think like this, I have never intimated that I adhere to such a reasoning. Absolutely and categorically not, I have made that clear to you?

Nope, you haven’t. Instead, your to-the-death defense of the Masoretic Text, up to and including the Masoretic points, has given me the impression that I wrote out above.

Galena wrote: What I do believe is that the scriptures were handed down without intentional error,

No problem with that.

Galena wrote: without loss of meaning,

For the most part, true.

Galena wrote: without loss of consonants

This is a matter of faith, while the evidence indicates rare loss or change of consonants.

Galena wrote: and that what Moses wrote is there in the masoretic translation, is there in the ~Spanish bible from 1260, is there in the leningrad codex, probably the Aleppo as well if it were not mostly lost in that fire.

I understand that 2/3 of the Aleppo codex survives, and that it does have a few differences from the Leningrad codex.

Galena wrote: I believe that all that God said from the time of Moses onwards is here with us today.

Anything important was written more than once, though some of the details may have been lost.

What you have here is a statement of faith, made without any reference to the evidence. Does this statement of faith mirror the evidence? I would say “No” and the evidence is visible to all.

Galena wrote:How come the ten commandments, written originally in stone, once by God then by Moses, then transferred to writing material are with us today? What about the Torah itself? Anything missing do you think? Anything missing from the prophets that you are aware of? Your suggestion above inverts the idea and you believe that what we read today the masoretes have altered and left bits out and added bits. On this point I clutch not at a straw but on an iron bar.

Your iron bar is rusted through.

While I have found no evidence beyond a few verses of deliberate change in the MT from what was originally written, that doesn’t rule out unintentional changes. And there’s evidence that those have occurred.

Galena wrote:

Galena wrote:
Can I look forward to an English translation in the future? Karl Randolphs New American Diligently Revised vowel-less version?


Karl said : I already gave it. Do you want me to go back and present it again?

What you have published one? I don't have anything.

I published two versions here on this thread: one a real free paraphrase, the second as close to a literal one as possible while still retaining readability.

Galena wrote:=======================================================================

Exegesis Eisegesis you choose…

My comment here earlier on the prefix and the suffix on that noun was not eisegesis, I was employing a perfectly logical deduction by observing small details. To give you an example I would turn to Numbers 22 to demonstrate how I was thinking:

Verse 20 God says to Balaam to go with them
Verse 21 Baalam rises up and goes with them
Verse 35 God tells Balaam to go with them

The scripture does not inform us of anything about Balaam's motives in verse 21 for going with the men. However I am going to apply Eisegesis (terrible I know). It goes something like this:
I know that Balaam was wrong to go with the men in verse 21 because the men did not come to him,

Look at verse 15.

Galena wrote: Upon this assumption and one tiny grammatical change I see a hidden unrevealed story-line. I see that God used the word 'with' in verse 20 in a sort of formal distant manner (I suppose to mean go with the men but do not fellowship with their thinking). I also noticed (like I noticed in Job in another thread) that the hebrew word for 'with' changed Once only, in verse 21. It changed from formal/distant nuance to intimate/cosy nuance. I conclude that Balaam justified what the Lord had said, added to His word and snuggled up to the men and went with them. Verse 35 God uses the cosy/intimate word for 'with', Question Karl: do you interpret this as God submitting to Balaam here? Or is that God's Spirit will not impinge Himself upon someone who is being a little stubborn or rebellious?

Where is your evidence for these different nuances of “with”? Do you think that the slaves snuggled up to the donkey Genesis 22:5? Pray tell how to snuggle up when separated by hundreds of miles Genesis 24:10, 12?

Galena wrote:Exegesis or eisegesis, Oh I hate those words, I prefer to call it observing very subtle details and believing everything is written exactly for a reason.

“Exegesis” means reading what’s in the text. That includes observing subtle details. Eisegesis is adding to the text what one wants to see. These are not words to be hated.

Galena wrote:This was my reasoning about the use of the mem prefix and the pronoun suffix attached to the noun for 'understanding'. You call it imposing my view, I call it not taking grammar for granted, observing the minute details and recognising that the hebrew way of expressing things is so far removed from an English way of expressing sentiments. Hebrew condneses and complexes its grammar to convey subtle sentiments is what I am beginning to learn, and I find this exciting, English will add a ton of adjectives and exclamation marks, adverbs and apostrophes to convey the same sentiment.

Hebrew and English just have different ways of conveying the same ideas.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl asked : Do you think that the slaves snuggled up to the donkey Genesis 22:5? Pray tell how to snuggle up when separated by hundreds of miles Genesis 24:10, 12?

Karl can you possibly conceive the visual imagery that is presented, grammar is a tool, not a mathematical device. The answer is Yes, a resounding yes, they did snuggle up to the donkeys, perhaps they were cold. And in Genesis of course one can see that the informal "with" is most appropriate in this verse especially since it about 'kindness'. Maybe I am mistaken to use the word 'snuggle' (a bit too light-hearted choice of words) I shall employ a more grammatical term, let's try Formal as opposed to informal. But to be more serious about the donkeys, "stay with the donkeys"...Mmm why would this be informal? Becasue Karl, I see Abraham talking to his servants, not as slaves, but as friends. This is the visual imagery, it actually has nothing to do with the donkeys at all. If Abraham had used a formal word 'with' then this would imply the expected distance one usually keeps from servants. Example: I would say to the Queen of England, stay here with את the donkeys, Formal. Respectful. I would reflect this speech in careful choice of words if I was writing an account.

A note from the last post that I forgot to get cross about......

Galena wrote:
2. the prefix מן carries a nuance of 'source' 'point of origin' due to the prefixed particle, the source origin would be inside your self, in other words not from outside, ie God's wisdom.


Karl said : Nope. Elsewhere בינה is described as something that men can possess, but that doesn’t negate that God is the ultimate source of בינה.

Just one tiny example how you sometimes misunderstand me, and make a reply based on something I did not say. I know that men can have בינה , but I did not say that they could not, I said, with a mem prefixed gives it a slightly accentuated purpose of perhaps being in the domain of the man's flesh, rather than its source being from God.

And what is your contention with verse 15 in numbers ch 22? Obviously you think that it denies some credibility in what I explained, I'm looking forward to see this one.

And please answer Isaac, he's getting desperate.

Karl says : Your iron bar is rusted through.

Nope, I alloyed it with chromium metal....

Kind regards
chris

I would gladly snuggle up to the donkey for the mere pittance of one line of English --- a translation of
אַל תִּיגַע לְֽהַעֲשִׁיר מִֽבִּינָתְךָ חדל
assuming that חדל is a "participle."

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Galena wrote:

Karl asked : Do you think that the slaves snuggled up to the donkey Genesis 22:5? Pray tell how to snuggle up when separated by hundreds of miles Genesis 24:10, 12?

Karl can you possibly conceive the visual imagery that is presented, grammar is a tool, not a mathematical device.

Mathematics is a tool, not a science. My father, who was a mathematician, didn’t like to hear that.

Galena wrote: The answer is Yes, a resounding yes, they did snuggle up to the donkeys, perhaps they were cold. And in Genesis of course one can see that the informal "with" is most appropriate in this verse especially since it about 'kindness'. Maybe I am mistaken to use the word 'snuggle' (a bit too light-hearted choice of words) I shall employ a more grammatical term, let's try Formal as opposed to informal. But to be more serious about the donkeys, "stay with the donkeys"...Mmm why would this be informal? Becasue Karl, I see Abraham talking to his servants, not as slaves, but as friends. This is the visual imagery, it actually has nothing to do with the donkeys at all. If Abraham had used a formal word 'with' then this would imply the expected distance one usually keeps from servants. Example: I would say to the Queen of England, stay here with את the donkeys, Formal. Respectful. I would reflect this speech in careful choice of words if I was writing an account.

This is all well and good, very inventive use of language, but do you have any evidence to back up your claims? Where? Anywhere outside of your very inventive mind?

Galena wrote:A note from the last post that I forgot to get cross about......

Galena wrote:
2. the prefix מן carries a nuance of 'source' 'point of origin' due to the prefixed particle, the source origin would be inside your self, in other words not from outside, ie God's wisdom.

Karl said : Nope. Elsewhere בינה is described as something that men can possess, but that doesn’t negate that God is the ultimate source of בינה.

Just one tiny example how you sometimes misunderstand me, and make a reply based on something I did not say. I know that men can have בינה , but I did not say that they could not, I said, with a mem prefixed gives it a slightly accentuated purpose of perhaps being in the domain of the man's flesh, rather than its source being from God.

And that is where you added to the meaning, to which my response was to say that your addition is invalid. Your addition redefines terms. I don’t consider eisegesis as valid.

Galena wrote:And what is your contention with verse 15 in numbers ch 22? Obviously you think that it denies some credibility in what I explained, I'm looking forward to see this one.

You said the men didn’t come to Balaam, verse 15 says they did. Exact quote from you, “… because the men did not come to him.”

Galena wrote:Kind regards
chris

In closing, we are going around in circles. In spite of all evidence to the contrary supplied by the DSS and other manuscripts, grammatical analysis, contextual clues, etc., you insist that the MT, including its points, are without error. That’s a perfect example blind faith. Or shall we say, a leap of faith?

I, along with those who teach Biblical inerrancy, teach that the original documents were without error. However, those who copied the documents made inadvertent mistakes, most of which are on the level of typos in spite of the fact that they were very careful. They were so careful in fact that I was told that there are only seven significant variants between the DSS Isaiah scroll and the MT text a thousand years later. Even the “significant variants” almost never touch on an important teaching.

Bottom line, can we trust the documents that we have? The answer is that though we don’t have the originals, what we have is close enough that it doesn’t make a practical difference. There’s no question that the Masoretic points don’t reproduce Biblical era pronunciations. I’m not the only one who questions them on whether or not they reproduce accurate meanings, I just have been more vocal about it than many. But the consonantal text is close enough that we can trust it.

So unless you have something significant other than redefining terms to fit your presuppositions, I really don’t think this discussion is going anywhere. In fact, I’m tempted to put you onto my no read list, that already has two other people who are noted for their inflexibility and teachings that don’t pass the smell test.

Karl W. Randolph.

My summary is simple, I have gone out of my way to try to show you at times where I agree with you and where I have been misunderstood by you, to give you room by agreeing with you where I could. Throughout all our threads there has not been one single occasion where you have in the slightest suggested that there was any possibility of a grain of sensible speech in anything I have said. I made it clear that I was not discussing masoretes with you. You have actually not provided any evidence whatsoever about this verse being wrongly pointed. Instead you have turned the argument in your favour by trying to discredit my understanding of the masoretes pointing.

In the last post I answered your objections accurately, but you ignored them. Evidence evidence evidence, there is no room for imagination and intuition and probability? When applied correctly and sensibly Intuition and creative thinking can be evidence.

You have finally drawn the bow by saying I got the Balaam thing wrong, verse 15 has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I proposed, this is precisely where you totally ignore my reply and find a particle of dust of an objection that might try to destroy the original idea I was proposing.

I never said once that the masoretes produced biblical era pronounciation throughout their works which you seem to think I think.

The answer is that though we don’t have the originals, what we have is close enough that it doesn’t make a practical difference.

I hold exactly the same opinion. Exactly the same opinion Karl.

So unless you have something significant other than redefining terms to fit your presuppositions

What you accuse me of is wrong! I apply clues and a keen eye for detail to extract what might be there in the intention of the author. This is not trying to find something to fit my presumption, it's trying to reason by logical deduction of aspects of the grammar that I felt are important to consider.

I, along with those who teach Biblical inerrancy, teach that the original documents were without error. However, those who copied the documents made inadvertent mistakes, most of which are on the level of typos in spite of the fact that they were very careful. They were so careful in fact that I was told that there are only seven significant variants between the DSS Isaiah scroll and the MT text a thousand years later. Even the “significant variants” almost never touch on an important teaching.

Bottom line, can we trust the documents that we have? The answer is that though we don’t have the originals, what we have is close enough that it doesn’t make a practical difference. There’s no question that the Masoretic points don’t reproduce Biblical era pronunciations.

I absolutely Agree 100% with everything you said here. Get it? I AGREE KARL. But you argue your case as if any defence of the masoretes is despicable behaviour. I give all the arguments and grammatical points and reasoning to contest what you say about this verse; and you annihilate all my arguments,but not with any evidence or correction or suggestive reasoning and without ever acknowledging any chance that I might have made at least ONE good point. Your method of arguing is not conducive to encouragement. You don't seek to explain your arguments, you don't strive to put forward your case, your method is to blow the other guy's reasoning away with a howitzer by capitalizing on the method I have employed to try and reason with you. This is not what is conducive to any fruitful outcome, and that's why I continue to argue.

So if you want to strike me off your reading list - I am so sorry that you feel you need to do this. Maybe if we were in discussion of another topic things could be more fruitful? Your method of arguing is not by reason or appealing to understanding, its by total obliteration of the other persons' ideas and points, and your authoritative fall-back is evidence that I can not see and that others on this forum and off it think like you. I just can not provide them for the reasons I just mentioned. Tell me, since when has majority opinion ever been evidence of correctness?

Do you believe in Evolution? No? then you are outnumbered both in popularity and the evidence against you is over-whelming. Do you get at all what I am saying here? Evidence can also be subjective and biased, twisted and contorted.

We actually agree on so many things, but you have not promoted an environment within which that can be fostered in order to extract levels of understanding on both sides, instead you have attacked my postion on the masoretes because I defended the translation of this verse with arguments and reasonings and without any evidence.

Three times you objected to something I said because what I said was based on Faith, not on evidence. Then I say to you Karl, who asked me once whether I believe God or man is the author of the original text, who claimed faith has no place in acknowledging the trustworthiness of the masoretes: I ask you this: Where is the evidence that the 10 commandments were written on stone? That God exists? Was the Torah a man made document? ; Was King David an historical figure? I have seen the scholars refute this with clever arguments from extant manuscripts that make no mention of him and a lack of evidence to support him; That the Exodus out of Egypt was no mass exodus at all, rather a trickle of depressed refugees - I have also seen how these scholars have argued this and can be quite convincing. Are you in line with these people Karl? Do you agree with these people? Then to disagree requires faith for there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these scholars are misinterpreting the evidence that is in their favour.

Kind regards
chris

Isaac Fried wrote:I would gladly snuggle up to the donkey for the mere pittance of one line of English --- a translation of
אַל תִּיגַע לְֽהַעֲשִׁיר מִֽבִּינָתְךָ חדל
assuming that חדל is a "participle."

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Hi Isaac, I think you are on Karl's blacklist. I like your humour. But you are more qualified in hebrew than me, so why can you not offer your views?
Kind regards

Chris:

This is a thread discussing Proverbs 23:4, yet you bring in all sorts of extraneous material. Then accuse me of changing the subject?

I have presented linguistic reasons I came to the determination for my reading, a determination that concludes that the Masoretic points are wrong. The only answer you have for that is to change the definition of words, in particular בינה. As far as I can tell, you did that in order to say that the Masoretes were correct.

Galena wrote:…
I never said once that the masoretes produced biblical era pronounciation throughout their works which you seem to think I think.

The answer is that though we don’t have the originals, what we have is close enough that it doesn’t make a practical difference.

I hold exactly the same opinion. Exactly the same opinion Karl.

Then why do you fight tooth and nail to defend the Masoretes even when their copy is clearly nonsense, as in Psalm 22:17? Where there are other manuscripts that indicate that they are wrong? Where early, pre-Masoretic translations say that the MT is wrong? When grammatical and contextual clues say that the MT is wrong? So why would you defend it if, as you say here, that you have exactly the same opinion as I?

You say one thing here, then do something different.

Galena wrote:

So unless you have something significant other than redefining terms to fit your presuppositions

What you accuse me of is wrong! I apply clues and a keen eye for detail to extract what might be there in the intention of the author. This is not trying to find something to fit my presumption, it's trying to reason by logical deduction of aspects of the grammar that I felt are important to consider. I learned such things from the rabbis, who I admire with the greatest respect despite disagreeing with some of their methods, and their oddities in scriptural analysis, but what I do admire is the way they can pick up on a tiny whiff of a scent from a grammatical point and reveal something that non hebrew speakers would miss or gloss over. It's complimentary to our understanding, and I might add quite wonderful and beautiful at times. But then this has no evidence, and the rabbis do not speak biblical hebrew and they do not give a lot of weight to many extant manuscripts, so they must be in error eh? Don't listen to them, they read the masoretic text. I hear all your objections already.

Yes, you’re right that one of my objections is that not one of the rabbis is a native speaker of Biblical Hebrew, not one. In fact, most know less Biblical Hebrew than I. But most know a lot more Aramaic than I, especially medieval Aramaic as found in Talmud and Rashi.

I also reject the rabbinic style of Biblical interpretation, with it’s levels of Pshat, Darosh and Sod. I recognize only Pshat as legitimate. Only Pshat is exegesis, the other two levels practice eisegesis. Your “keen eye for detail” becomes foolishness when it contradicts exegesis.

Galena wrote:You have presumptions also, based on your interpretation of extant manuscripts, they may not be on this forum, but I know you would not be able to stand up to some scholars who would refute the way you see this evidence, the little that I have read has arguments on both sides, I just can't frame them as well as they do because I do not have that insight. I am just not clever enough to fully know everything I need to know. But I know enough to realize that your reasoning over this verse has no evidence except in your Understanding!

There’s a big difference, mine is based on evidence. If someone can show from evidence that what I conclude is wrong, I will change and have changed my mind. But that evidence must be from exegesis in order to be valid.

On the other hand, you have shown no evidence, only a matter of faith. Your faith.

Galena wrote: And don't think that you are free from everything you have accused me of!

I, along with those who teach Biblical inerrancy, …

I absolutely Agree 100% with everything you said here. Get it? I AGREE KARL.

You say it, but you don’t practice it. Actions speak louder than words.

Galena wrote: But you don't argue your case as if this was your standpoint, you come across that just because you are convinced that the pointing is wrong on a word, any defence of the masoretes is despicable behaviour.

Here you eisegete into what I wrote things that I never said nor wrote. For example, I never used the term “despicable”.

Galena wrote: I give all the arguments and grammatical points and reasoning to contest this, you annihilate all my arguments without ever acknowledging any chance that I might have made at least ONE good point. Your method of arguing is not conducive to encouragement. You don't seek to explain your arguments, you don't strive to put forward your case, your method is to blow the other guy's reasoning away with a howitzer. This is not what is conducive to any fruitful outcome, even if the two people disagree.

You are getting emotional here. If you have a good argument, I’ll listen to it. But if it’s weak, I’ll poke holes in it. Instead of getting emotional about it, learn. That’s one way that I learned.

Galena wrote:Do you believe in Evolution? No? then you are outnumbered both in popularity and the evidence against you is over-whelming. Do you get at all what I am saying here?

In science, one person who is correct outweighs all others who are wrong, even when he is a minority of one.

The same is true in theology.

As for evolution, there’s no scientific evidence for it, only religious belief. In fact, its very definition shows that it’s not scientific.

Galena wrote:… three times you say that I was wrong because what I said is based on Faith, not on evidence. …

You claimed that the MT is exactly the same, letter by letter, even the pronunciation points, as what Moses wrote, or Isaiah, or any of the other named authors of Tanakh. It is to that claim that I ask, where is your evidence? You have provided none except a faith statement.

You claimed that the Masoretes were dummies, not capable of inventing a scheme to represent vowels (I give them more credit than you do), rather they inherited the vowel points from at least Ezra. But when I asked you to show one document from before the Masoretes that has those points, you showed none.

I don’t remember your third time.

From the New Testament we can see a pattern. According to those who trust the New Testament, God had the original authors write without error. Then he left it in man’s hands to copy them. No two manuscripts are exactly the same. Yet such care was taken that we can be 99% certain that we have God originally had written.

We have the same pattern for Tanakh. We have the same confidence in the consonantal text as preserved in the MT.

But the vowel points are not from God, they are man’s interpretation. The points are not canon. That’s why I feel free to challenge the points when they don’t make sense. They are merely man’s opinions, of men who were not native speakers of Biblical Hebrew and worse, their understanding was corrupted by the local dialects spoken at their time. We cannot give the Masoretic points the same confidence we give the consonantal text. When the points contradict the consonantal text, we go with the consonantal text.

Karl W. Randolph.

Dear Karl

Karl said : You claimed that the Masoretes were dummies, not capable of inventing a scheme to represent vowels

Never said that, never thought this, would never have thought like this, maybe you misunderstood, I did say that I read that by the time of the 6th century that the masoretes were in possession of extensive grammatical notes from the talmud which included a lot of info on pronounciation, and that there might have been some vowel pointing from Ezra onward within the texts that they had received, this was based on language studies done on the DSS and other texts and a set of conclusions based upon comparing detailed language development within the BH text to the DSS and even the Samaritan scrolls and the hundreds of handwritten hebrew texts that are non-biblical. I hardly could follow it so I read the conclusions and the results at the end of a document when I find one. But I am also aware that the masoretes developed the major system of vowel pointing. No I have no evidence, though I would not say this, had I not have read these comments in various pieces of literature that were about the dead sea scrolls. I never saved the websites, I don't have the references, all is based on my memory which I accept is no evidence to you, I appreciate that.

Karl : You claimed that the MT is exactly the same, letter by letter, even the pronunciation points

Letters yes, but as for pronounciation, never said this either. Never thought like this, I know this is not correct. What I did say earlier in a thread, if I remember without looking, was that I believe the masoretes had inherited some biblical hebrew pronounciation which would have come down to them in the form of Liturgy, through the synagogue from very earlier on, but that the texts had aramaic and medieval influences in them. I have read a number of documents that quite clearly state that medieval hebrew and aramaic pronounciation is in the texts, but again I also remember reading from the same sources that remnants of BH are to be found in the medieval texts. I read a lot about the different dialects and the general languages of that period and day, so I am not ignorant of at least some of the realities, I can not follow the arguments and the detailed analysis, it is over my head, but I make sure that I fully understand the major points and conclusions of the studies at the end of such documents, if I did not do this I could never learn. So just clearing things up here, no evidence to back anything I say, so I accept your objections.

Karl said: When the points contradict the consonantal text, we go with the consonantal text.

This perhaps for me is the very heart of the whole issue, the foundation, how can you say that sometimes the points contradict the consonantal text, and please leave out the ketiv and the quere since these are obviously issues which the masoretes themselves noticed. I want to know upon what authority you can claim this? You then have to insert your own points and claim infallibility right? You think this proverb says something different so I assume that you are really saying is that the masoretes got it wrong, this is the foundation of the whole issue, your claim, on this particular issue in hand, is simply your understanding and nothing more. You say the context demands it, I say the context demands what is written, this is the heart of the issue, it does not matter that I accept the masoretes pointing, what matters is that you want to change it, and I don't see any reason to alter what it already implies. This is my argument. I am not defending the masoretes as you put it, I am agreeing with the essential meaning that this verse already conveys, in hebrew.

Karl said : psalm 22:17 ....Where there are other manuscripts that indicate that they are wrong? Where early, pre-Masoretic translations say that the MT is wrong?

This is not a valid enough piece of evidence, absence of observed evidence is not proof to the contrary Karl and I tried to reason why on several occasions, I am not alone in this, as you are not alone in your point, but my reasoning was utter rubbish to you. But this so called evidence is not entirely trustworthy - I also tried to explain why, but you would have none of it. Pre-masoretic translations???? A lot of the scholars writing about the LXX can not agree on its date of completion, and many agree that the psalms could have been translated into Greek after 1 AD, there is no evidence at all for the psalms being translated before OR after this period, I have only found doubt and conjecture. But I have tried to stress this point, but again, you don't accept this as a possibility. The DSS on this point is a scrap of paper - forgive the insult, but that is basically what it is and I tried to reason out why it may not be held up as utter proof, it is noteworthy, but not trustworthy, I also tried to reason this out with you, and again there was nothing wrong with my reasoning, it is a valid and professional objection, but again, this was not sufficient for you to even consider, I was never asking you to change your mind, I was simply saying that acceptance of this DSS as evidence is pure blind faith nothing more. And acceptance of the LXX as evidence is dubious, not to be rejected, but not to be held up as a victory against the MSS - this too is the same as what the evolutionists do

Dear Karl

Chris asked :
Do you believe in Evolution? No? then you are outnumbered both in popularity and the evidence against you is over-whelming. Do you get at all what I am saying here?

Karl responded : As for evolution, there’s no scientific evidence for it, only religious belief. In fact, its very definition shows that it’s not scientific.

But Karl you missed my point, it was a philosophical point, I was trying to reason with you about the nature of evidence, and the ability of you, me, to be convinced of something by what we call evidence. What we observe can be filtered to exclude something so minor that we ignore its relevance. But like a photographer, what we we are looking at and what we see are so often two very different things. I am not innocent in this respect I am not claiming that I know better - but I see the undermining of scripture in many ways, and a lot of this is through so called extant critique, I don't mind there being two or three possibilities for the interpretation of a particular verse, I don't mind whether if you remove the pointing and can read something else, so long as it does not contradict because I appreciate the possibility of ambiguity. But what I will fight tooth and nail for is the idea that the masoretes got it wrong and you are right because, as you mentioned above, these very expert grammarians can sometimes contradict their own consonantal text with faulty vowel pointing due to a lack of knowledge or a deliberate religious motive to alter the script. This is what I am coming against. That's all Karl, nothing else, this is the heart of the division.

Kindest regards
chris