Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT escape.com>]

Hi b-hebrew,

>Dear Harold,
>Steve showed evidence of translation of "death" or
>"tomb." He did not show evidence of "intensive plurals."
>Best, Liz Fried A2

Hi Liz,

   If you reread the original post, I think you will see a lot of references, 
most especially from the Hebrew grammar and from the rabbinical expositors, 
to the "intensive plural" and various other related (non-numerical) plural 
forms...  This included about a half-dozen rabbinical expositors.... 

   The death/tomb question most especially comes up in the DSS, and you had 
been of special assistance on that one, so I had quoted you when I did the 
series :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/ 


>> From: Harold R. Holmyard III [mailto:hholmyard AT ont.com]
>> Dear Liz, 
>> Steve just posted a great deal of information showing that people 
>> down through history have understood an intensive plural meaning 
>> death. The fact that translators disagree does not prove them all 
>> wrong. If you look at published major translations, you will see few 
>> that have "altars" or "sepulchers." They have "death."
>>                               Yours,
>>                               Harold Holmyard
>
>> >I think that so many  translators see the word bamot
>> >here (translating altars and sepulchars, etc.) suggest
>> >that the plural form doesn't make sense as "deaths."
>> >To translate it as "death of an individual" you have to
>> >emend the text. Now, I don't see any problem in that
>> >myself, since it just means ditching one small (stray?) dot.
>> >To keep the text as it is tho, requires you to read bamot
>> >I would think, altars, temples, or something cultic, maybe
>> >they had mausoleums. This is post Mausolus, after all.
>> >Liz Fried
>> >A2