Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Dear Vadim:

This is the last response I plan to make to your postings. The more you 
respond, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself. Proverbs 17:28.

----- Original Message -----
From: "UUC" <unikom AT paco.net>

> Dear Karl,
> 
> Only when you don't understand the logic of this language. When you do, the
> changes are easy to account for and they are actually few. Certainly not
> "major."
> >There are major differences between Biblical to modern Hebrew.<
> 
> So your translation of "they gave him death" hinges just on a guess. Quite
> unfounded, I would say. Besides, considering that the situation depicted in
> the verse was pretty common, we might expect this idiom to be widespread.
> However, there is not a single instance.
> >How many terms are used only once in Tanakh? Why not idioms only once?<

Not necessarily so.
> 
> Joshua19:11, 22
> >> Come on, prefix le does not make pga into "to intercede." In Joshua,
> > attached is also with le.
> Which verse?<

I checked those verses in Online Bible unpointed text, a paper Biblia 
Hebraica, a paper Qoren edition of Tanakh, and in a Hebrew concordance: not 
one of those editions had PG( connected with a lamed prefix on a noun or 
pronoun in either verse.
> 
> kill, attach, intercede (inter-cede, come in between), etc: what do they
> have in common? to touch harshly, to clash
> >Of the 46 times it appears in Tanakh, I don't see a single time that it
> means "clash". <
> 
> >> I take your mention of your dictionary work as a call for my credentials.
> A
> > book on Hebrew grammar and an 800-page book on the NT would suffice?
> No.<
> I also need to be a good Christian, right? That's what you mean?

No, but you do need to maintain certain standards of decorum and scholarship. 
I don’t see you doing either.
> 
> Me?? You've just invented a supposed idiom out of thin air, rejected the
> plain reading of the text, and you're accusing me of the doctrinal bias??
> >The most serious aspect of your claims is that you have decided for reasons
> other than linguistics to rule out certain readings.<
> 
I thought it was rather obvious.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Vadim Cherny

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm