Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

I'll keep out of the mudslinging. Is everyone reacting like this 
because of indigestion from turkey reheated too many times? But I will 
try to answer your points about the actual meaning of the Hebrew. See 
comments below starting "PK:".

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: New Subscriber
Author:  <michaelwm AT earthlink.net> at Internet
Date:    27/11/1999 19:06

<snip>

All,

Why is the word REPLENISH used in Genesis 1:28 when YHVH speaks to the 
people created on the sixth day; those allowed to eat of any tree?  Check it 
in the Hebrew.  Some work for dissectors.

PK: I fear that you have been led astray by KJV here, or perhaps the 
word "replenish" had a different meaning 400 years ago. The Hebrew 
word here [UWMIL:)UW] simply means "fill" and conveys no implication 
of refilling something that had been full and had then become empty. I 
suggest that you use a reliable modern translation if you are not able 
to use the Hebrew text directly.

Who is "thy seed" in Genesis 3:15, when YHVH is speaking to Satan?

PK: Note that in Hebrew the addressee is not Satan, not even some 
special "serpent", but an ordinary snake [NFXF$]. Surely the seed of 
Eve and the seed of the snake are simply all future generations of 
humanity and all future generations of snakes. I have not noticed even 
today a general friendly relationship between humanity and snakes, the 
latter still bite the heels of former and the former still smash the 
heads of the latter. This is I think the primary meaning of this 
passage. There may be other typological meanings, but they go beyond 
this Hebrew text.

Who are the Kenites as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:55; tacked onto the end 
of the listing of the tribe of Judah and what does their name mean?  Again, 
work for dissectors of Hebrew.

PK: Perhaps the name means "descendants of Cain", but then the name 
"Qayin" simply means "get", as in Genesis 4:1, and so it would hardly 
be remarkable if the name was reused. But if the Kenites were 
descendants of Cain, they must have survived the flood, despite 
Genesis 7:21-23. Is that what you teach? Anyway, this is irrelevant to 
your main thesis.

What does the word <Strong's 8435 Hebrew> (to-led-ah) mean?  Check it's 
every use in all of the Hebrew Scriptures and kindly explain why people 
argue it to be used as a recapitulation of the creation of the sixth day 
people when in fact it is not a recapitulation at all and serves to prove 
that THE Adam, with the article and particle, was made on the eighth day, 
after YHVH rested and found He had no man to till the soil.  More work for 
dissectors.

PK: So what happened to the men and women whom He created on the sixth 
day? Was His blessing (Genesis 1:28) so weak that they could not even 
survive two days? These chapters are hard to reconcile, but I don't 
think this is a path towards a meaningful reconciliation. Anyway, not 
long ago I did check all occurrences of TOL:DOT (always in the 
plural!) and found that they all introduce an account of the person 
named and his descendants. Only in Genesis 2:4 is the account not of a 
person but of "the heavens and the earth", and presumably also 
includes the human descendants of "the heavens and the earth" who are 
Adam, Eve and their family as described in the following chapters. So 
the word does not mean a recapitulation, it means the start of a new 
account.

Just a friendly exercise in Hebrew both for those seeking truth and those 
snooty with worldy wisdom but blinded by oneupmanship in the "scholarly 
realm".

Think on these things.  They are fundamental in truly UNDERSTANDING the 
Biblical Hebrew.  I would assume that a Ginsu knife would be all that one 
needs to merely dissect it.  Oh, and perhaps bandaids.

PK: Dissection, or at least analysis, is the first step to 
understanding. There is more to finding out why someone died than 
cutting up their body, but without making those cuts there is no way 
of finding out the state of their internal organs. So let's not be 
afraid to start with some dissection rather than assuming we know the 
answers before looking at the evidence.

Regards,
Michael

<snip>