Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

Oh I think the reason for the plural is because it is a masculine plural 
construct. W:`AL ELOH"Y....

The only reason I would see for translating it as a singular is because the 
verb BYN is singular, and usually that is how you know whether or not one God 
is in view or many gods are in view.  The LXX has KAI EPI TOUS QEOUS.  So it 
is probably plural from what I can see.


--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> In Daniel 11:37, I have found some translations 
> rendering it as “Neither shall he regard the gods”, 
> while others render it as “Neither shall he regard the 
> God”. Does anyone on the list have an explanation for 
> the variation, and which rendering would be more 
> accurate contextually? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________ 
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Mon Aug 22 20:43:41 2005
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
        (webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E084C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:43:41 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        8F9391800127
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:43:40 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.49)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 23 Aug 2005 00:43:40 -0000
Received: by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id 750C54BEAD; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:43:40 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:43:40 -0500
Received: from [69.227.52.23] by ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:43:40 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 69.227.52.23
X-Originating-Server: ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20050823004340.750C54BEAD AT ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] XSD
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
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: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:43:41 -0000

Harold:

You are right that my "translation" was not exactly word=20
for word, rather it was more free, trying to have a=20
smoother reading in English. Therefore it is more of a=20
paraphrase, attempting to be true to the meaning.

Strictly speaking, the translation should have read,=20
"undeserved good favor of peoples is erroneous" in other=20
words missing the mark of justice which exults a nation=20
(see first clause context).

As far as accepting previous lexica, for most definitions I=20
have no problem. However, I found that in most languages, it=20
is rare for a lexeme to have more than one meaning (though=20
it is not uncommon for lexemes in one language to lack=20
equivelants in another). What finally took the cake for me=20
was when I looked up one lexeme (that was so many years ago=20
that I forgot which one it was) that was given five distinct=20
definitions in Gesenius, but it was used only four times in=20
Tanakh. That is ridiculous! No language has such undefined=20
terms! The exceptions are loan words that happen to have the=20
same form as a previous word in a language (meaning that we=20
are looking at two different roots), application of a lexeme=20
to a new situation than originally, and convergence where as=20
languages change, two lexemes change to having the same form.

The reasons I wrote my own lexicon are two fold: one was to=20
try to find the one meaning that a lexeme possesses, whether=20
broad or narrow, comparing not only its uses but contrasting=20
it to synonyms and antonyms, and secondly to understand=20
lexemes according to their actions. Yet I found that for=20
most terms, I do not have a significantly different=20
definition than provided in other lexica (I am not about to=20
change for change's sake, only where I can justify such a=20
change) and most of the changes are a matter of degree=20
rather than kind (i.e. a close, overlapping synonym).

(The reason I don't mention earlier translations is because=20
earlier lexica have done that for me already.)

How is that different than what any good, careful=20
lexicographer does?

I've noticed that when you see someone who has a PhD and=20
a reputation, that you seem to accept his words almost as=20
canon. Hence you go into kniptions trying to justify the=20
statements of the "experts" that you espouse. I question=20
everyone, including myself. Give me a good argument based=20
on the language, and I may change how I understand the=20
text: merely quoting "experts" aint goin te cut th'=20
butter.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>

>=20
> Dear Karl,
> ...
> >
> > In Proverbs 14:34 I understand as "Justice exults a nation,
> > but undeserved good favor of peoples errs." The root meaning
> > of X+) is to miss the mark, to err from which the theological
> > meaning of sin is a derivative. (The New Testament use of
> > hAMARTIA is a parallel to this use, a direct copy of Hebrew
> > usage.) This is one of the cases where I think translating
> > using the theological understanding errs.
>=20
> Hh: The problem with this translation is that XSD
> is a masculine noun and the form X+)T is also a
> noun. But even if X+)T were viewed as some
> strange verb form, it would have to be feminine
> and so would not agree with the masculine
> subject. Karl, you need to accept the findings of
> regular lexicons on such basic topics where there
> is widespread agreement. Peter is right that
> there is a second meaning for XSD and your denial
> of this fact drives you into strange
> interpretations.
>=20
...
>=20
>                               Yours,
>                               Harold Holmyard

--=20
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm