Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Noam Eitan <bhebrew AT yahoo.com>]

If Reinhard won't (modesty?) , I'll give it a try. The quotes basically say 
in a very German roundabout way that QTN is a penis.

 

Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:

How about a translation into English for those who don't read German? (I can 
sort it out given enough time, but said time is not available at the 
moment...)

On Tuesday 15 June 2004 08:38, Reinhard G. Lehmann wrote:
> Martin Noth, in his 1968 commentary on Kings, wrote p. 275: The answer of
> the children would be a "wahrscheinlich obszöne und vermutlich
> sprichwörtliche Redensart, die eine maßlose Prahlerei mit der eigenen Kraft
> zum Inhalt hat", 

Probably an obscene idiom, an endless boasting about one's own strength

and, less distinguished, on p. 267: It is "zu vermuten,
> daß mit qTn etwas der 'Hüfte' Gegenüberzustellendes gemeint ist; dann aber
> dürfte es sich am ehesten um eine Umschreibung für das männliche Glied
> handeln."

 

QTN has probably to do with what is opposite the 'hip', but it is most likely 
a description for the penis


>
> But translators seem not to have learned from it...
>
> Reinhard G. Lehmann


It is odd that translating from German into English is no easier that from BH 
to English.

 

Noam Eitan, Brooklyn, NY


                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
>From david.kimbrough AT charter.net  Wed Jun 16 14:30:28 2004
Return-Path: <david.kimbrough AT charter.net>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mxsf22.cluster1.charter.net (mxsf22.cluster1.charter.net
        [209.225.28.222])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C51FE200DA
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:30:27 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from mxip18.cluster1.charter.net (mxip18a.cluster1.charter.net
        [209.225.28.148])
        by mxsf22.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
        i5GIAqMh059707
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:10:52 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from fep01.charter.net (HELO 209.225.8.224) (209.225.8.81)
        by mxip18.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 16 Jun 2004 14:10:52 -0400
Message-Id: <36u7hd$t2rvk AT mxip18a.cluster1.charter.net>
X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.12 (webedge20-101-197-20030912)
From: <david.kimbrough AT charter.net>
To: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>,
        "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:10:52 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 
Subject: [b-hebrew] Evolution of Languages & Organisms
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <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: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:30:28 -0000

Although my MS is in air chemistry and my PhD is in water chemistry, my BS is 
in biology.  For the record, evolution is not A theory, it is THE theory.  
The science of biology makes no sense without evolution.  This applies to 
bio-molecular pathways, comparative physiology and anatomy, behavior, 
taxonomy, ecology, and any other branch one can name.  Without evolution, 
biology is a static collection isolated facts.

Has anyone every seen wild packs of Chihuahuas or Great Danes running about?  
 Or indeed, even any evidence that either of these breeds even existed more 
than 2,000 years ago?.  Of course not.  These wildly different breeds of 
dogs, indeed all dogs, are the result of many years of selective breeding of 
wolves (dogs and wolves can inter-breed incidentally).  Only dogs (wolves) 
with certain features, both behavioral and physical, were allowed to breed.  
Selective breeding is exactly how biological evolution works, except there 
are no people involved.  Only organisms with certain characteristics survive 
and reproduce while those that lack them, don?t.  So there is nothing random 
about evolution.  

Languages likewise evolve.  Once there was a language called Latin with an 
extensive written record (linguistic fossils if your like).  It evolved into 
a large number of daughter languages although Latin itself is dead.  There is 
a long written record documenting this evolution.  One can see how these 
languages share certain features (vocabulary and grammar) among themselves 
and their parent language but how differences increased over time.

It is hypothesized that Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit all evolved from some more 
ancient common language (proto-Indo-European).  There is no *fossil record* 
of this evolution.  However, just as Latin?s daughter languages show a 
pattern consistent with *evolution*, so do Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit.  These 
languages share some vocabulary and have similar syntax but show differences 
as well, differences that increase over time and distance, just as Portuguese 
and Romanian did.  So while the hypothesized language of proto-Indo-European 
can never proven to the same degree as Latin is proven to exist, there is 
strong evidence.  The same is true of proto-Semitic or proto-Hebrew.

> 
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> Date: 2004/06/16 Wed AM 07:30:48 GMT
> To: "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Eden
> 
> Jack:
> 
> I am not a scientist, that is why I cited Dr. George Gaylord Simpson‘s 
> definition. I have found no textbook (years ago, I looked in several) that 
> contradicted Dr. Simpson‘s definition. Every scientist I asked said his 
> definition is correct.
> 
> I also took Dr. Simpson‘s definition of evolution. Again, other biology 
> textbooks gave the same definition.
> 
> Do you mean to say that Dr. Simpson, who in his day was a famous professor 
> of biology and evolution at Harvard University, didn‘t know what he was 
> talking about? That takes more chutzpah than I have.
> 
> Logically, evolution cannot be scientific, because by definition it 
> violates the definition of science given in science textbooks. ItÂ’s not 
> even historical because it is not based on past observation (though 
> contradicted by some, e.g. 
> http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm ). It is no more 
> than a religious belief developed over thousands of years, which is why it 
> is such a hot button subject.
> 
> This is all that I plan to say on this subject, which should be off list 
> anyway.
> 
> Concerning proto-Semitic, I don‘t deny that there was such a language. Some 
> claim that Hebrew itself may have been that proto-Semitic, but I don‘t see 
> clear evidence beyond philosophic wishful thinking to back it up. Are the 
> oldest extant clay tablets closer to that original Semitic language, or 
> copies of copies originally written on leather? Is there any way to tell 
> from presently available data, or not? I think not.
> 
> But there are those who claim to be able to ”reconstruct“ proto-Semitic, 
> but they do so based on presuppositions that may or may not be correct. 
> They then make confident statements as to Biblical Hebrew based on their 
> theories which may be incorrect. What I want is observation, realizing that 
> it may never come. I prefer to remain without answers to some of these 
> questions based on observation, than have answers that unknowingly may be 
> wrong because they are based not on observation. In other words, I‘d rather 
> have fewer answers but trust the answers I have because they are based on 
> observation, than to have more answers but not know which ones to trust.
> 
> Karl W. Randolph.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
> 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> > 
> > 
> > > Dear Peter:
> > >
> > > Now that you bring in science..
> > >
> > > When I was in college, one of my profs was a missionary for evolution, 
> > > and
> > to aid in his efforts to convert all of us to believing his religion, he 
> > had
> > us use a biology textbook by Dr. George Gaylord Simpson. In its
> > introduction, the textbook had a multipage definition of science complete
> > with examples and counter examples. Briefly, science depends on 
> > observation,
> > but in order for that observation to be scientifically relevant, it must 
> > be
> > a repeatable observation. Upon noting patterns in observations, hypothesis
> > are made which, upon testing by more, repeatable observations, are 
> > developed
> > into theories. Of course, you know that.
> > >
> > > After making that definition, Dr. Simpson defined evolution as the 
> > > theory
> > that teaches that all life are descended by natural means from simple,
> > common ancestors over a long period of time. (I know that's not an exact
> > quote, but it is pretty close.) Though he called it "a scientific fact", 
> > it
> > violates the definition of science he had just spend pages developing. 
> > That
> > theory is not scientific at all. Evolution is a perfect example of "bad
> > science".
> > >
> > > I do not know of a single "evidence" for evolution that does not, at 
> > > least
> > in part, depend on presuppositions that cannot be observed-geologic
> > stratigraphy (Charles Lyell, before Darwin), radiometric dating, 
> > phylogeny,
> > etc.-every one depends at least in part on inobservable presuppositions.
> > >
> > > This is not a claim that "creation science" is science. It is not 
> > > science
> > for the same reasons evolution is not science.
> > 
> > 
> > I really have to put more effort into resisting the temptation to reply to
> > those outrageously ridiculous claims made by posters who are out of their
> > element...because it doesn't stop them anyway.  I will say, however, that
> > the ignorance of science did not prevent a soapbox that, no matter how
> > absurd the claims, has no place in a forum for the discussion of Hebrew.
> > That is the good thing about discussing the nuances of the Hebrew
> > language...you cannot fake it...like Karl's "understanding" of a 
> > scientific
> > theory.
> > 
> > Jack
> > 
> 
> -- 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 

David Kimbrough
San Gabriel