Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Karl,

> When you read Tanakh for pleasure or your 
> devotions, which language do you read it in? 
> Which is the translation that you use? Which is 
> your favorite? Every time you bring this up, you 
> refer to one or more translations. Why not the 
> Hebrew text itself?

HH: I read in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and 
English. I use NIV, HCSB, NET, and KJV. I don't 
have a favorite translation. There is nothing 
wrong with English translations as a way to 
present the text. I presented the Hebrew in my 
post when it was relevant. I said:

>  HH: Your translation is incorrect. N&) has its
>  meaning of bear guilt or punishment, not "lift
>  up." God is not the One who is talking but the
>  One who is spoken to here.

HH: Transliteration is time-consuming, so I try 
to avoid it unless it is necessary.

> For me, I have a NIV or two around the house 
> which I haven’t opened in months. Somewhere 
> there is a NKJV and another translation. I don’t 
> think there is a NASB in the house. The 
> archaicisms in the KJV made Hebrew easier to 
> read than it. Don’t you see, I read Hebrew, not 
> any translation? And in some of the translations 
> below, I disagree with far more than just XBL.

HH: You dealt wrongly with the verses I asked you 
about, and I gave you specific reasons why.

> My technique is derived from my experiences 
> learning modern languages, where I learned that 
> most lexemes have one and only one root meaning. 
> Therefore, when I see in all its uses that a 
> Biblical Hebrew lexeme can be understood from 
> one root, why look for another? In the case of 
> XBL, fewer than 10% of uses are understood by a 
> different root, and they can be understood with 
> the primary meaning as well.

HH: Your technique unquestionably produced poor results in several cases.

> For Song of Songs 2:15 “Take hold for us foxes, 
> little foxes MXBLYM vineyards, and our vineyard 
> is in blossom.” Every URL you referenced 
> concerning foxes and vineyards except one say 
> that foxes do NOT damage vineyards, vines nor 
> grape blossoms. They damage only ripe fruit, but 
> they can cause a lot of damage. And the vineyard 
> in Song of Songs was in blossom. But foxes prey 
> on mice which burrow into roots and gnaw 
> branches. They prey on damaging birds. They prey 
> on grasshoppers and other arthropods that eat 
> leaves and blossoms. In other words, foxes are 
> not totally a negative to vineyards. The one 
> exception was the Tasmanian site which claimed 
> that Australian foxes gnaw branches as well as 
> fruit, but it was unclear if the foxes do so to 
> get at the fruit. And why the “take hold for 
> us”? Since foxes don’t damage vineyards in 
> blosssom, how does damage or corrupt fit here?

HH: I gave you so much evidence that foxes are 
considered a danger to vineyards. I showed you 
that little grapes would already have been on the 
vine when they were flowering. I indicated that 
the time of flowering would have been right to 
catch the young foxes traveling with their 
parents. I explained that it would be good to 
catch the foxes BEFORE they had a chance to get 
at the ripe fruit.

> I agree that some of the verses could be read 
> either way when read in Hebrew, but given the 
> above understanding of languages, leads me to 
> prefer one to the other.

HH: You asked someone to show you where you were 
wrong. I took the time to respond to your 
interpretations of numerous verses, giving 
specific reasons why your view does not work or 
is inferior.

> Nehemiah 1  (6) … (prayer) for your slaves 
> Israel’s sons but admitting … our error to you … 
> (7) we are surely tied (joined) to you but we 
> have not guarded your commands …   In both 
> verses we have the pattern God’s people, but who 
> do not do God’s commands.

HH: You have not responded to my comments except 
to try to justify this weak translation of one 
verse (Neh 1:7) that probably has no support 
among existing published translations. I doubt it 
has any among commentaries either.

                                        Yours,
                                        Harold Holmyard