Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Aug 23 11:18:34 EDT 2005
> > HHL The problem with this is that X+)T means sin
>> or sin-offering. And your translation for Prov
>> 14:34 makes no sense:
>Harold: I just went through a description of X+)T going
>back to its root meaning of missing the mark, or more
>properly erring. The New Testament hAMARTIA has almost
>the exact same meaning and was chosen for that reason.
>Didn't you listen? Just because it is usually given a
>theological meaning does not mean that the theological
>meaning is the correct one in all uses.
HH: You have not demonstrated that X+)T ever means "error" anywhere
else. It may never have had that meaning in ancient Hebrew. One
lexicon lists five nouns related to the verb X+). They may have
differed from one another in meaning.
HH: You seem to be a practitioner of what is called the "root fallacy":
Root Fallacy - This particular fallacy is perhaps more common in
Hebrew studies than in Greek. But it can be found in New Testament
studies. This fallacy assumes that behind groups of words in the NT
is a root word whose essential meaning can be traced in all of the
words that derive from that root. This is to see the meaning of words
as coming from their etymology.
> > > "Justice exults a nation,
>> but undeserved good favor of peoples errs."
>> HH: XSD means favor or kindness, and the positive
>> sense of the word is understood to be a good
>> thing. It is one of the great things that we as
>> sinners depend on, God's kindness. So to say that
>> it is an error contradicts the sense of the words
>> in the Bible.
>Not at all. Again you start with a theological use and
>apply it to all examples of its use. That's backwards.
>Start with the general use, then recognize the more
>narrow theological use when appropriate.
HH: Even the general use makes no sense. Kindness is a good thing to
> > HH: In these verses you go against all translations I have every seen.
>There you go again, not the text, but the translation
>(works of "experts") is supreme.
HH: You don't seem to realize that if you come up with an
interpretation of Scripture that no one has had in two thousand or
more years of study on the topic, it is probably incorrect. Now,
there is always the outside chance it could have validity, but it
would take a lot of evidence to prove it, including a worthy
refutation of the existing interpretations.
> > > Give me a good argument based
>> > on the language, and I may change how I understand the
>> > text: merely quoting "experts" aint goin te cut th'
>> > butter.
>> HH: The good argument is that there is a related
>> verb at Prov. 25:10 that means to "shame."
>I listed that verse in my original question, as an example
>of how it could be understood as undeserved good favor,
>much like the recipient in Proverbs 25:21.
HH: Is this the statement you're referring to?
Which brings up the reason I titled this message as above:
when looking at the meaning for XSD, used as both a verb
and a noun well over 100 times in Tanakh, I found that it
has the basic meaning as a verb as "to treat with (often
undeserved) good favor", or as a noun "(undeserved) good
favor". So where does it have an opposite meaning? The
concordance I use lists three possible times, Leviticus
20:17, Proverbs 14:34, 25:10, but each makes sense using
the above meaning, so where is the opposite meaning?
HH: I don't see that you have tried to prove this assertion anywhere.
I don't see how it would work in Prov. 25:10.
> > Prov. 25:10 or he who hears it may shame you and
>> you will never lose your bad reputation.
>> HH: The good argument is that every translation
>> I've ever seen takes the noun negatively in
>There you go again, the translation is the authority, not
HH: But you haven't dealt with the text, have you? I don't see it in my files.
More information about the b-hebrew