kwrandolph at gmail.com
Tue Jun 15 12:11:28 EDT 2010
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Pere Porta <pporta7 at gmail.com> wrote:
> this view of yours (Pr 1:19) implies
Not imply, directly stated.
> that the second BC( starts the second sentence.
> Even if we strip away the points, this pausal form (vowelized as such) says
> to us that ancients understood the second BC( as an "internal object" of the
> first BC(.
I always thought the Masoretes as medieval, not ancient. If you strip away
the points, there is no pausal form. For an ancient reference, I understand
the LXX as supporting my reading (I just looked it up, I had not done that
> (By the way, beside this, take into account that B(LYW is in plural and not
> in singular)
Not an issue, as the plural of this word is sometimes used for a singular
master, e.g. Exodus 21:29, 36, Isaiah 1:3, etc.
> To better see the different meaning implied in different pointing
> possibilities I think you should provide another more clear example than Pr
Your whole reason to question my reading is based on the points which I
already said were wrong. Do you have anything based on the unpointed text
that would back up the points? I know of nothing to back up the points, but
I know of arguments from grammar, syntax and context that argue against the
points as being correct, and I listed them. As a result, I thought Proverbs
1:19 is pretty clear.
I already gave you a second one, Isaiah 30:14.
> But calmly, please, no need that you give another sample in 24 hours.
> Pere Porta
Karl W. Randolph.
More information about the b-hebrew