[b-hebrew] Isaiah 53
unikom at paco.net
Tue May 18 04:14:09 EDT 2004
> The more you respond, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself. Proverbs
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise;
and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed as a man of understanding.
Are you applying to yourself the first or the second part, I wonder?
> >How many terms are used only once in Tanakh? Why not idioms only once?<
> So your translation of "they gave him death" hinges just on a guess. Quite
> unfounded, I would say. Besides, considering that the situation depicted
> the verse was pretty common, we might expect this idiom to be widespread.
> However, there is not a single instance.
>>Not necessarily so.<<
"Not necessarily"? You claimed "they gave him death" is an idiom. I say,
it's meaningless in Hebrew and is never encountered. You said, It still
might be an idiom. I said, It's just a guess against a grammatically
standard translation. What "not necessarily?" Is is not a guess, a
>prefix le does not make pga into "to intercede." In Joshua19:11,22,
attached is also with le.
>>not one of those editions had PG( connected with a lamed prefix on a noun
or pronoun in either verse.<<
Joshua19:11: upaga el-hanahal. Or would you say that el and le are
meaningfully different? Then check the etymology of le.
You claimed that paga with le means "intercessed." So I gave you an example
of paga with be without le, which is "attached," and another with le (el)
without be, which has a different connotation, approximately "reached to."
Do you imply that one territory somehow intercessed for the other? You don't
have a monopoly of the "intercession" meaning. "Attached" is also possible.
And, given the preposition, "attached" is supporterd by precedent, while
"intercessed" is not. Or you don't care about the rules of interpretation,
> Dear Vadim:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "UUC" <unikom at paco.net>
> > Dear Karl,
> > Only when you don't understand the logic of this language. When you do,
> > changes are easy to account for and they are actually few. Certainly not
> > "major."
> > >There are major differences between Biblical to modern Hebrew.<
> > So your translation of "they gave him death" hinges just on a guess.
> > unfounded, I would say. Besides, considering that the situation depicted
> > the verse was pretty common, we might expect this idiom to be
> > However, there is not a single instance.
> > >How many terms are used only once in Tanakh? Why not idioms only once?<
> Not necessarily so.
> > Joshua19:11, 22
> > >> Come on, prefix le does not make pga into "to intercede." In Joshua,
> > > attached is also with le.
> > Which verse?<
> I checked those verses in Online Bible unpointed text, a paper Biblia
Hebraica, a paper Qoren edition of Tanakh, and in a Hebrew concordance: not
one of those editions had PG( connected with a lamed prefix on a noun or
pronoun in either verse.
> > kill, attach, intercede (inter-cede, come in between), etc: what do they
> > have in common? to touch harshly, to clash
> > >Of the 46 times it appears in Tanakh, I don't see a single time that it
> > means "clash". <
> > >> I take your mention of your dictionary work as a call for my
> > A
> > > book on Hebrew grammar and an 800-page book on the NT would suffice?
> > No.<
> > I also need to be a good Christian, right? That's what you mean?
> No, but you do need to maintain certain standards of decorum and
scholarship. I don't see you doing either.
> > Me?? You've just invented a supposed idiom out of thin air, rejected the
> > plain reading of the text, and you're accusing me of the doctrinal
> > >The most serious aspect of your claims is that you have decided for
> > other than linguistics to rule out certain readings.<
> I thought it was rather obvious.
> > Sincerely,
> > Vadim Cherny
> Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew