Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Chris and Nel" <wattswestmaas AT eircom.net>]

Judges 16:30

Sorry Folks, but for those who are bemused at my 'daft'? question please
allow me to indulge.  For someone who is still young at the art of trying
to understand the hundreds of ways to translate without looking at the
english,  YES, Judges 16:30, does present a minor confusion for me.  The
context and the word RaBaH (many) seem to me to translate just as well
without the verb "to be"?  Now it is obvious that I am utterly wrong -  that 
I
know! There are myriads of sentences where the verb "to be" is not used and
yet 'known and correctly assumed' from the translation.  My problem is that
beginning this particular sentence with that verb actually threw me off
course, when I continued to translate it as if the verb was not there then
to my shock I actually translated it correctly (Mmmm, now that's a miracle). 
This shows that I am doing something wrong (even though I got the answer 
correct).  I am so used to
reading sentences without "to be " in them that I still can not fathom its 
purpose here, considering that without it I actually arrived at the correct 
translation without looking at the English.

Now can someone be kind enough pleeeease..... to relieve me of my making a 
fool of
myself on this board?

Chris

Ireland.