Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>]

>>From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
>> You mention that "a feminine noun denotes a generalized subject, while a
>> masculine of the same refers to a specific subject."  Can you give me 3
>> examples of such? thanks.
>
> On 22/06/2005 16:58, Karl Randolph wrote:
>Examples of the pattern (dealing only with noun use of the lexemes and only
where the feminine does not refer to the female >use of the masculine
noun) )BYWN needy, )BYWNH neediness; )YB enemy, )YBH enmity; )MWN
trustworthy one, >trustworthy worker, )MWNH trustworthiness; there are many
more such examples.

thanks!

>Karl Randolph wrote:
>QNH, as I pointed out in another posting, means “to acquire and hold, where
the acquisition part of the action can be by >purchase or production (giving
birth is a type of production) without specifying which means of
acquisition.” QNH does not >necessarily involve the paying of a price.

I consider producing a paying of a price as opposed to a gift.

>And where do you get the “noble Man” in your translation? A noble would be
someone like a PRTM or N%Y), maybe even >a %R, not a common )Y$.

"noble" is not the right word. When ish and adam are used together, ish
denotes a person of some dignity (not necessarily good), while adam denotes
a common man. I got this from the 2 verses that Peter shared: Psalm 49:3,
62:10. I also see this in other verses: Isa 2:9; 5:15; 31:8; Prov
19:22;12:14; Num 12:3; Job 11:12; Ps 22:7; Eccl 9:15.

>This is the wrong form for the object of this verb to be also its subject.
With a hiphil verb, it is possible that the subject is also >an object, but
the form here would then be HQNYTYNY, but here we find HQNNY.

This goes beyond my little knowledge. If what you say above is correct, than
that settles it. But I have 2 questions:
1) In "Analytical Key to the Old Testament" by John Owens, he gives the
literal meaning of HQNNY as "has caused me to possess".  Thus he makes the
object "me" the subject of the qal verb "possess".  Is he wrong?
2) Psalm 80:6 הֶאֱכַלְתָּם לֶחֶם דִּמְעָה וַתַּשְׁקֵמֹו בִּדְמָעֹות
שָׁלִֽישׁ׃ . You have caused them to eat bread of tears and caused them to
drink tears in full measure. In the 1st hiphil verb in this verse,
הֶאֱכַלְתָּם, You have caused them to eat, the object them is the subject of
"to eat". Similarly with the 2nd hiphil verb וַתַּשְׁקֵמֹו . How is HQNNY
different than these 2 hiphil verbs?

>I also have trouble squaring the claim that this is Messiah, as the
immediate context is dealing with wickedness and false >prophets. The wounds
mentioned in verse six are consistant with the flagelation that was common
among pagan religions.

That brings up another question I have: Hengstenberg, "Christology of the
Old Testament", claimed that 13:6 refers to pagan rituals because the word,
מְאַהֲבָֽי׃ ס , those who love me, is piel, and the piel form of love is
always sinful. My question is, Is it just the pointing that makes it Piel?

We know that verses 13:2-4 concern the cleaning up of the false prophets. We
know that 13:7 speaks of the death of the Messiah.  In v.6 they ask Him what
are these wounds among Your hands?, and He answers in the 2nd 1/2 of verse 6
and 1st 1/2 of verse 7. They are not just wounds IN His hands, but BETWEEN
or AMONG His hands. The wounds are holes all the way thru His hands, such
that they are not part of his hands but BETWEEN or AMONG His hands. This
agrees with Psalm 22:17,  They digged (not just pierced) My hands and My
feet. If this verse refers to flagelation, it should say wounds in your
back, not between your hands.

thank you for all your answers on this question.
-Steve Miller
Detroit