Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Karljürgen Feuerherm <cuneiform AT rogers.com>]

Hello

Can someone tell me the correct order of entry of holem-waw in Unicode? Are 
they considered equivalent when ô is indicated? (In Ezra SIL, at least, they 
seem to render slightly differently.)

holem, waw, or waw, holem?

Thanks

K

Karljürgen G. Feuerherm
Archaeology and Classical Studies/Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3625
>From waldoslusher AT yahoo.com  Sat Jul 26 11:44:35 2003
Return-Path: <waldoslusher AT yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from web41105.mail.yahoo.com (web41105.mail.yahoo.com 
[66.218.93.21])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id DBA5720019
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:44:34 -0400 
(EDT)
Message-ID: <20030726154434.83138.qmail AT web41105.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [66.191.236.132] by web41105.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:44:34 PDT
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: waldo slusher <waldoslusher AT yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 15:6
To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>, Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030726034117.30069.qmail AT email.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc:
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:44:35 -0000

Karl:


> Here we have God speaking to Abram and Abram
> indicating that he trusted what God said. Thus I
> don’t see how we need to fancy, convoluted answers
> when we have an immediate context connected to the
> trust.

I'm in agreement, I think, with you on this. My
question was to ask whether the idea here expressed by
the unusual verbal construct was that Abram "was
already believing the Lord" before the Lord makes this
particular promise. That is what my friend seemed to
imply. If this belief is restricted to the immediate
promise give by the Lord, then there is no place in
all of Scripture, as far as I can tell, where Abram's
"conversion-faith back in Ur" is ever mentioned.

>From what I gather, the normal reading of this passage
is NOT that Abram "believed what the Lord JUST
promised." The idea is that Abram was PREVIOUSLY in a
state of believing the Lord PRIOR TO this most recent
promise. Thus, here, Abram CONTINUES his belief in G-d
that he had demonstrated in his leaving Ur at the
request of the Lord.

It seems an oversimplification and to some extent
naive to state that we don't "need to fancy,
convoluted answers when we have an immediate context
connected to the trust."

If the surface structure ALLOWS for what my friend is
suggesting, I don't want to dismiss it without giving
it due consideration. I am sure you are aware that
this verbal structure has been the center of numerous
articles and debates.

Having said that, I am not trying to argue for some
mystical, esoteric reference to Abram's previous
belief in the Lord. I'm just wondering why the odd
verbal construct here. It is not the normal verbal
means of indicating "an immediate context connected to
the trust." That is not precluded, but the construct,
as I understand it, may imply more.


====Waldo Slusher
Calgary, AB

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com