Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

@Yitzhak:

Cool, thanks alot I appreciate it.  I was just double checking against the 
NWT of 

"God is your throne to time indefinite, even ever more."

I knew that was weird but it is always best to double check.

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

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

> On 10/31/05, Kelton Graham wrote: 
> > @yitzhak: 
> > 
> > Let me ask you something, giving the munah, one cannot translate 
> > this as "God, is your throne for ever and ever." 
> > 
> > In otherwords the subject/predicate can't flip flop. 
> 
> The Massoretic marks can't provide that. There are only two possibilities 
> from the Massoretic marks: either "ksak )lhm" is a unified block or it is 
> divided into two. If it was divided into two, the verse would read: 
> 
> [ Your throne ] { [ God ] [ eternal ] } 
> 
> Translated meaning, "Your throne, God is eternal"? I am not sure what 
> that means. I guess this means that the division of this verse portion is 
> rather straightforward. 
> 
> > And which do you think is stronger translation? 
> > 
> > Your throne, O God... 
> > vs 
> > Your throne is God... 
> 
> Like I said, I understand that vs 3 reads "God blesses you forever" and 
> starting with vs 4 reads the blessing to his king. So God can't be speaking 
> to Himself. God is speaking to His king, blessing him, saying He is the 
> foundation for his throne/reign. 
> 
> > In regards to Isaiah 8:11, if this is a piel this would mean that bible 
> > works 
> > is in error, for they mark this as a qal imperfect 3 masculine singular. 
> > I 
> > usually don't go against bible works, but in this case I can't see how 
> > they 
> > got there morphology. 
> 
> Perhaps by using a variant that I listed. None of the variants that I 
> pointed out 
> had a dagesh in the Samekh. Do they claim to follow the Ben Asher Codex? 
> The dagesh is clear at http://www.aleppocodex.org/aleppocodex.html 
> 
> Yitzhak Sapir 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From peter AT qaya.org  Mon Oct 31 17:42:31 2005
Return-Path: <peter AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail.link77.net (mail.kastanet.org [208.145.81.89])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B370E4C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:42:31 -0500 
(EST)
X-ExternalMail: External
X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Clamd http://raeinternet.com/mpp
Received: from [213.162.124.237] (account peter_kirk AT kastanet.org HELO
        [10.0.0.1]) by mail.link77.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.8)
        with ESMTPSA id 91360523; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:42:31 -0500
Message-ID: <43669DDB.8040508 AT qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:42:35 +0000
From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
References: <20051031191513.109BA83C0D AT ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051031191513.109BA83C0D AT ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Lev 21:18 - Passive Participle
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: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:42:31 -0000

On 31/10/2005 19:15, Karl Randolph wrote:

> ...
>
>On the contrary, it is because I see a unanimity of 
>meaning in the Hebrew uses ...
>

What, cutting/slaughter/mutilation and consecrating are "a unanimity of 
meaning"? I really can't buy that. I could accept that they just could 
come from the same root as extended senses, but they certainly don't 
show the kind of unanimity which anyone could even dream of taking as 
evidence that these must be the same root.

...

>
>Evidence that Arabic has two roots becomes moot when 
>there is no evidence that two roots are used in Hebrew.
>  
>

There is good, although not conclusive, evidence in Hebrew for two roots 
from the highly divergent meanings.

>Do you agree or disagree with Jack's definition of XRM 
>and why?
>
>  
>
Your question presupposes that XRM is a single word with a single 
definition. The evidence clearly proves that this presupposition is 
incorrect. So I cannot answer the question, any more than I would expect 
you to answer "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/