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

Dear Karl,

>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 haven’t opened in months. Somewhere 
>there is a NKJV and another translation. I don’t 
>think there is a NASB in the house. The 
>archaicisms in the KJV made Hebrew easier to 
>read than it. Don’t 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 don’t 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 
is inferior.

>Nehemiah 1  (6) 
 (prayer) for your slaves 
>Israel’s sons but admitting 
 our error to you 
>(7) we are surely tied (joined) to you but we 
>have not guarded your commands 
   In both 
>verses we have the pattern God’s people, but who 
>do not do God’s 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.

					Harold Holmyard

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list