earlier dictionaries? was [b-hebrew] Offend/dealt corruptly - chet bet lamed (nehemiah 1:7)
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Sat Jul 3 09:42:33 EDT 2004
>When you read Tanakh for pleasure or your
>devotions, which language do you read it in?
>Which is the translation that you use? Which is
>your favorite? Every time you bring this up, you
>refer to one or more translations. Why not the
>Hebrew text itself?
HH: I read in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and
English. I use NIV, HCSB, NET, and KJV. I don't
have a favorite translation. There is nothing
wrong with English translations as a way to
present the text. I presented the Hebrew in my
post when it was relevant. I said:
> HH: Your translation is incorrect. N&) has its
> meaning of bear guilt or punishment, not "lift
> up." God is not the One who is talking but the
> One who is spoken to here.
HH: Transliteration is time-consuming, so I try
to avoid it unless it is necessary.
>For me, I have a NIV or two around the house
>which I havent opened in months. Somewhere
>there is a NKJV and another translation. I dont
>think there is a NASB in the house. The
>archaicisms in the KJV made Hebrew easier to
>read than it. Dont you see, I read Hebrew, not
>any translation? And in some of the translations
>below, I disagree with far more than just XBL.
HH: You dealt wrongly with the verses I asked you
about, and I gave you specific reasons why.
>My technique is derived from my experiences
>learning modern languages, where I learned that
>most lexemes have one and only one root meaning.
>Therefore, when I see in all its uses that a
>Biblical Hebrew lexeme can be understood from
>one root, why look for another? In the case of
>XBL, fewer than 10% of uses are understood by a
>different root, and they can be understood with
>the primary meaning as well.
HH: Your technique unquestionably produced poor results in several cases.
>For Song of Songs 2:15 Take hold for us foxes,
>little foxes MXBLYM vineyards, and our vineyard
>is in blossom. Every URL you referenced
>concerning foxes and vineyards except one say
>that foxes do NOT damage vineyards, vines nor
>grape blossoms. They damage only ripe fruit, but
>they can cause a lot of damage. And the vineyard
>in Song of Songs was in blossom. But foxes prey
>on mice which burrow into roots and gnaw
>branches. They prey on damaging birds. They prey
>on grasshoppers and other arthropods that eat
>leaves and blossoms. In other words, foxes are
>not totally a negative to vineyards. The one
>exception was the Tasmanian site which claimed
>that Australian foxes gnaw branches as well as
>fruit, but it was unclear if the foxes do so to
>get at the fruit. And why the take hold for
>us? Since foxes dont damage vineyards in
>blosssom, how does damage or corrupt fit here?
HH: I gave you so much evidence that foxes are
considered a danger to vineyards. I showed you
that little grapes would already have been on the
vine when they were flowering. I indicated that
the time of flowering would have been right to
catch the young foxes traveling with their
parents. I explained that it would be good to
catch the foxes BEFORE they had a chance to get
at the ripe fruit.
>I agree that some of the verses could be read
>either way when read in Hebrew, but given the
>above understanding of languages, leads me to
>prefer one to the other.
HH: You asked someone to show you where you were
wrong. I took the time to respond to your
interpretations of numerous verses, giving
specific reasons why your view does not work or
>Nehemiah 1 (6)
(prayer) for your slaves
>Israels sons but admitting
our error to you
>(7) we are surely tied (joined) to you but we
>have not guarded your commands
>verses we have the pattern Gods people, but who
>do not do Gods commands.
HH: You have not responded to my comments except
to try to justify this weak translation of one
verse (Neh 1:7) that probably has no support
among existing published translations. I doubt it
has any among commentaries either.
More information about the b-hebrew