Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 30/09/2006 08:49, Vadim Cherny wrote:
> ...
> To ask, as Peter does, for the proof that the word cannot mean "pierced," is
> illogical. Negative proof could never be formally asserted. ...

True, and in fact that was my point, it cannot be proved. But it was not 
illogical to ask. Moshe had made an unqualified statement "none of the 
variants can correctly translated as 'pierced.'" and I was asking him 
for proof of his statement - while being well aware that none could be 
forthcoming. I don't think that people should make unqualified 
statements of this kind unless they are prepared to back them up with 
proof, or at least rather good evidence. This is all the more true when 
such proof is in principle impossible.

> ... We can only say
> that nowhere else the word means "pierced."
>
>   
True. But that by no means implies that the word doesn't mean "pierced" 
here. There are many cases in the Hebrew Bible of words being used in 
unique senses.


--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/