Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George Athas" <george.athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Hi Harold!

No, it would not go against the tenor of Hebrew grammar to translate the way
most English versions do. The issue you are raising is that of semantic
range. One word may have a range of meanings, and it is the context which
narrows down the range to usually one option within the semantic range. For
example, the English word 'run' has a range of meanings. Note how the
context affects the way you understand the word in each of the following
sentences:

"The atheletes will run the marathon on Sunday."

"I run a small business".

"My radio runs on batteries."

The context determines what exactly you mean by the word in question. With
regards to Gen 3.8, the word QOL has a range of meanings, including 'voice',
'sound', 'noise', 'thunder'. In Gen 3.8, it describes YHWH walking around in
the garden. It doesn't seem natural to talk about the 'voice' of YHWH
walking around the garden, but it is legitimate to talk about the 'sound' of
YHWH walking around the garden.

Furthermore, the word RWX has a range of meanings including 'spirit',
'breath', 'wind', 'air', 'ambience' (cf., the range in English in such
phrases as 'the spirit of God' and 'in the spirit of the game'). In Gen 3.8,
the RWX is connected closely with YOM ('day'), and therefore seems to be
describing a feature of the day, rather than an attribute of God. As such,
'cool of the day' is an acceptable translation. It's something akin to 'the
day's last sigh' (ie, when daytime is nearly over).

 

Best Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS

Moore Theological College

1 King St, Newtown NSW 2042, Australia

Ph: (+61 2) 9577 9774

 

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold Jenkerson
Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 7:23 AM
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 3.8
Importance: Low

 

 

Sir,
Most translations of this verse translate the Hebrew word "voice" as "sound"
and the word "spirit" as some meteorlogical term such as "cool," rather than
voice and spirit.  Would it not be in keeping with the entire message of the
Bible to keep to "voice" and "spirit"?

To translate as such would it go against the Hebrew grammar of the verse?

Thanks,
Harold Jenkerson
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:> >
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:> >
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10


> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:> 
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:> 
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:> 
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: shwa (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:00:08 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com <mailto:> >
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] shwa
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:> 
> Message-ID: <m1FInai-000GhjC AT exc.com <mailto:> >
>
> >I would like to ask the interested members' opinion on the origin of
> >the word ???? shtayim.
> >Remarkably, this word has a shwa with the shin, but a dagesh in the taw.
> >A so-called shwa na` (mobile) is supposed not to be followed by a
> >sharp begedkepet consonant sign: it should have a soft
> >"veghedhkhefeth" variant, if the shwa we are dealing with had once
> >been a vowel - i.e. if it really is a shwa na`.
> >
> >Of course, to the Masoretes there was only one shwa: representing the
> >absence of a vowel.
>
> Right (though others on this list disagree).  I go through this in
> detail in my NYU book, where I include a discussion of the erroneous
> thought process that led people to posit two kinds of shwa.
>
> SHTAYIM is not the only problem with the two-shwa theory.  Classical
> grammars assume (impossibly) that the vocal shwa is pronounced but
> does not add a syllable.  Then, because of words like SHTAYIM, some
> grammars invent a third kind of shwa.
>
> But once you come to the realization that a shwa represents the lack
> of a vowel --- no more, no less --- everything because eaiser and more
> sensible.
>
> -Joel
>
> Joel M. Hoffman
> http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:> 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
> ****************************************
>
>


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:> 
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

========================================================================
 iBurst Wireless Broadband from $34.95/month   www.platformnetworks.net
 Forward undetected SPAM to:                   spam AT mailsecurity.net.au
<mailto:> 
========================================================================


========================================================================
 iBurst Wireless Broadband from $34.95/month   www.platformnetworks.net
 Forward undetected SPAM to:                   spam AT mailsecurity.net.au
========================================================================