B. M. Rocine
brocine at twcny.rr.com
Wed Nov 20 13:12:02 EST 2002
Hi Yigal, you wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
> Your right that it's not simple - if it was we'd have nothing to discuss.
It is indeed a nice discussion!
> Assuming that we don't know what "sephoth" means,
why would we assume that?
>what we have is that this
> unruly person thinks he can get away with whatever he's doing, "lema'an -
> in order to - (somthing) the saturation, the thirsty".
lema`an + infinitive is often used to predict resulting consequence
including resulting judgement. See Deu 2:30, Josh 11:20, 2Ki 10:19.
You are right that
> "the thirsty" is the object. "harawah" would then be the subject, and
> "sephoth" the verb.
> What about reading "hassim'ah", "the thirst", instead of "hasseme'ah",
> thirsty". Then the saturation would be quenching the thirst (what else
> could it do).
One thing that folks seem to be agreed upon is that 'et is of the
preposition variety rather than the marker of the direct object.
Might you criticize tha possibilites proposed in my first post on this
verse? The tranlsation was something llike this: "...resulting in the
wipe-out of the saturated with the thirsty." To put it another way: you
mentioned that you don't like the JPS--"...to the utter ruin of moist and
dry alike"--why not? I wonder why.
More information about the b-hebrew