Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George Athas" <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>]

Modern Greek has a similar concept: FIGAME literally means, 'we have left', 
but can be used as a statement of intent, 'we are leaving'. It's as though 
the future action is so certain that it is an already established fact.

Best Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
(Sydney, Australia)


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Shoshanna Walker 
  To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:42 AM
  Subject: [b-hebrew] PS: Re: VERBS


  and it's not only motion verbs

  "Gamarnu!" = End it!

  or "Gamarnu?" = Are we/you done yet?

  Shoshanna




  In Modern Hebrew, past-tense motion verbs (but not other
  verbs) are used for future-tense suggestions (e.g., "HALAXNU?,"
  literally "did we go?"  meaning "shall we go?") [This example is
  doubly interesting because "SHARNU," "did we sing?" cannot mean "shall
  we sing?"  It basically only works with motion verbs.]



  It's "halachnu?" - and it's an idiom, idioms are in a class by themselves.

  _______________________________________________
  b-hebrew mailing list
  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>From yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com  Thu Jul 28 02:19:59 2005
Return-Path: <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.199])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334F94C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:19:59 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 13so274103nzp
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:19:58 -0700 
(PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s¾ta; d=gmail.com;
        
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        
bü1jtAeG7QgoHilFHaKN7sBiysYxN30SoyqqSGjpIlcSCZCCDTEOccJwlntCyKTh468BTKP7X3Cm8WC+sEAW0Jx1qaVNaV8duyv2gzW2gkqNAmIjxjGjUQzMqi5w68i7ZU96q1fgfiuZ9bUFUHQNKWA/jbAK30m8QnF7xI5oFvgReceived:
 by 10.36.8.10 with SMTP id 10mr1593171nzh;
        Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.60.9 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e6ea6c000507272319321073cd AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:19:58 +0000
From: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
In-Reply-To: <v0421010dbf0e0f444b00 AT 66.236.160.150>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <v0421010dbf0e0f444b00 AT 66.236.160.150>
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Fwd: Re: YHWH
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
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: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:19:59 -0000

Shoshanna Walker wrote:
> But if the Torah is not Divine, then anything and everything is possible, 
> correct?

Anything and everything is possible regardless.  But if we don't assume a 
priori
that the Torah is divine, or any specific belief about the Torah, then
our only method
is what can be told by the text itself, and perhaps how we may connect what 
the
text says with what we might found out through archaeology and related 
sciences.
This still doesn't mean that the Torah is not divine, however.  The Torah may 
be
divine; it may be divinely inspired; parts of it may be divine and
others not; it may not
be divine at all.  However, there is no scientific way to determine
which parts of the
Torah are divine.  We may however be able to confirm or disprove other beliefs
as regarding dates and beliefs of events in the Torah and whether these 
events 
were historical or not.  By confirm or disprove, I mean, conclude that
in all likelihood
a section of the Torah was written not prior to a certain date.  Also,
since it is
generally held that the "Torah speaks in the language of men," we might 
explain 
non-historical parts as the way the Torah elaborated some
non-historical concept using
terminology and literary genre of its time.  

> Quoting Sujata:

> > If we want to accept God's word in Gen 31:30 35:2, and
> > Ex 12:12 that there are other gods, then is it not
> > logical to accept His word when He explains elsewhere
> > that what He means by "other gods" is stones, wood and
> > other hand-made gods? What is the reasoning behind
> > accepting one and rejecting another?

> So, why have none of you experts here answered this VALID question?

First, the Torah, or Tanakh, are not necessarily one consistent document.  In
fact, the Tanakh most certainly isn't, and it's clear that on the
surface the Torah
isn't that consistent either.  It's quite possible that two differing
viewpoints of
theology are maintained in different parts of the Tanakh.  It's
possible that, say,
Deuteronomy has one point of view, and Genesis has a different point of view.
It's possible that Exodus has within it two differing points of view,
one of which
agrees with Numbers, the other agreeing with Leviticus.  So just because the
Torah says in one place one thing, and in another place something else, 
doesn't
mean we should harmonize the two.  We should attempt to analyze the simple
meaning (the pshat) of each section on its own, and if it is consistent with
another section or paragraph, great.  If not, also great.  In both
cases that is yet
another thing we can study (why is it consistent here and not there?)   Also,
I don't see Sujata or you cite any specific verses that say "when I
refer to other
gods, I mean handmade objects."  For example, Psalm 115 appears to hold
that point of view, but that's not God speaking.  On the other hand, Judges 
11:23 - 24 appears to very clearly hold the viewpoint that Kemosh is a
real god.

Yitzhak Sapir