[b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring' (K Randolph)

Jerry Shepherd jshepherd53 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 14 17:23:06 EDT 2013


Hi Karl,



In reponse to no. (5), you finally said, "I figured that as I was going
from memory, and I no longer have access to a copy of the book, I can
neither verify nor falsify my memory, so there’s no more that I can say."



Actually, let me make a number of suggestions:



"I was wrong."



"I remembered incorrectly."



"I apologize.  I never should have said, 'You were not listening,' when you
had the book right in front of you, and I was only going on my faulty
memory."



Those are some possibilities.



With regard to no. (6), you said, "In other words, you are arguing for the
idea that I originally guessed at, namely that a “strike” does not mean to
miss, rather it means an attempt to hit within a scoring area, or that the
ball was delivered in such an area that such an attempt should have been
made but wasn’t. You rejected this before, if I remember correctly, so now
you push it?"



No, what I am arguing is that the word "strike" meaning miss was a
development from the idea of "striking"at the ball and attempting to hit it.
By a series of developments, the word came to mean "miss" rather than hit.  The
word came to mean something different from what it originally meant.



Your headline example, "“Awful derailment in Canada is another strike
against tank car design," is not an example of a root from a Germanic
language; rather it is simply a metaphorical borrowing of "strike" in
baseball.



You said, "The only reason this argument is being made in b-hebrew is so
that you can argue that Hebrew words have widely varient meanings, even
opposite meanings, without being homonyms or homographs. I read this as you
wanting to play Humpty Dumpty with the text of Tanakh."



Karl, this is just plain silliness.  I treat the text of the Hebrew Bible
very seriously and with great reverence.  For me, the biblical text is the
Word of God given by his Holy Spirit, and it is infallible.  Indeed, this
is one of the reasons why I think it is illegitimate to straitjacket the
meaning of the biblical text into a preconceived "single unique meaning"
lexeme theory that at the same both ignores sound linguistic theory and
subjects the biblical text to one's own whims.  Word meanings do develop
over time, and they can in fact develop into opposite meanings or
nuances.  Hebrew
is not an exception, and the text of the Hebrew Bible, written over the
course of a millenniun, is not an exception.  Failure to recognize this
phenomenon is a failure to read the Hebrew Bible on its own terms.



Blessings,


Jerry

Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
jshepherd53 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/attachments/20130714/5f2d0091/attachment.html 


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list