b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!
- From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
- To: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>, B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!
- Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:57:34 +0000
Hey Karl, I hope I am not being stubborn or bothering you all but when you
say: "This is not a case of nakedness vs. clothed, rather between being and
non-being."
Response: But I think the word 'came' as in 'They came into being
naked."sounds like something has changed. Sort of like if I said "and I
became ill." Signals that at one time I was not ill but something changed
and now I am ill. Or even in the biblical text when the word of God 'hayah'
someone. It comes to them meaning that it at one time was not there and now
is. It just seems to me that the author of Genesis is simply making a
statement about the two. "They were naked."
You go on to say:What is the subject of YHYW? I read it as YMYM $LW$H three
days. There was so much booty that "it became three days" they were
plundering the booty.
Response: But it seems like you have 'hayah' doing double duty. Three days
is the subject but in your translation you use a null subject 'it.' 'It' is
the subject of your translation, and then you have 'became' as the verb which
I assume is 'hayah' but then you have 'they were plundering.' Which seems
like you linked hayah to the participle as well.
In my opinion, it seems best to take the participle as a predicate to hayah.
For three days they were plundering.
--
Kelton Graham
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> Kelton:
>
> On 10/5/06, kgraham0938 AT comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > So that is how I have always seen it, not to be say this is a trump card
> > or
> anything but just my understanding of it and where it came from. And with
> regards to Gen 2:25 when you said "they came into a state of being naked."
> Were'nt they already naked? It does not seems to me that they were becoming
> nake but already naked.
>
> This is not a case of nakedness vs. clothed, rather between being and
> non-being.
>
> > ... Another example I'd like to get your opinion on is 2 Chr 20:25.
> >
> > vayih:yw yamiym $:lo$h boz:ziym , it looks to me that the verb is
> > functioning
> more like a past progressive 'were plundering.' What are your thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Kelton Graham
> > KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
>
> What is the subject of YHYW? I read it as YMYM $LW$H three days. There
> was so much booty that "it became three days" they were plundering the
> booty.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net Thu Oct 5 13:02:50 2006
Return-Path: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from rwcrmhc15.comcast.net (rwcrmhc15.comcast.net [216.148.227.155])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772A24C00D
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:02:50 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from rmailcenter78.comcast.net ([204.127.197.178])
by comcast.net (rwcrmhc15) with SMTP
id <20061005170249m1500lbmeie>; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:02:49 +0000
Received: from [69.246.10.143] by rmailcenter78.comcast.net;
Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:02:49 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>,
B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:02:49 +0000
Message-Id:
<100520061702.15237.45253AB900053F7300003B852200761394C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Apr 11 2006)
X-Authenticated-Sender: a2dyYWhhbTA5MzhAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.8
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:02:50 -0000
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
> Hi Kelton,
>
> Re Gen 2:25, they came into being naked. That means from the start,
> from their being created, they were naked. The verse is not just saying
> that they were naked (read verbless clause, sheneyhem `arumiym). It is
> stating that they came about or came into being naked (read wayyiqtol
> clause, vayyihyu sheneyhem `arumiym).
Response: Oh I see, (light bulb). I did not realize that you were talking
about their origin. That is very interesting.
>
> Re 2Chr 20:25, we can read it "three days transpired (vayyihyu)
> plundering the spoil..." or "Those plundering the spoil did their thing
> (vayyihyu) three days..." I think the word order recommends the former.
>
> Shalom,
> Bryan
Response: That is cool as well, I always took the participle as a predicate
to hayah here. But at least I understand your point.
--
Kelton Graham
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
>From janpieter AT giessen.fol.nl Thu Oct 5 14:57:08 2006
Return-Path: <janpieter AT giessen.fol.nl>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mailrelay01.solcon.nl (mailrelay01.solcon.nl [212.45.32.107])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F4D4C00D
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:57:08 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from [83.247.49.84] (helo=solcon.nl)
by mailrelay01.solcon.nl with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <janpieter AT giessen.fol.nl>)
id 1GVYOz-0002dE-RS; Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:57:02 +0200
From: "JP vd Giessen (FOL)" <janpieter AT giessen.fol.nl>
To: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:03:56 +0200
Message-Id: <20061005184522.M35250 AT solcon.nl>
In-Reply-To: <45241F40.5080906 AT ont.com>
References: <m1GSvbm-000GhjC AT exc.com>
<0J6G0037J1JPFE90@l-daemon><e6ea6c000610010033m398ed21cg79d62fe633fa8923 AT mail.gmail.com><e6ea6c000610010045r19e8c1e5l7141977f57aababb AT mail.gmail.com><451FF4BE.7040809 AT qaya.org>
<e6ea6c000610021256o1eb25ba6q2f22ed195661d7f2 AT mail.gmail.com>
<006f01c6e715$2e077d10$0300000a@SRVVAD>
<4522A881.8010206 AT qaya.org> <20061004054822.M65102 AT solcon.nl>
<45241F40.5080906 AT ont.com>
X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.50 20050106
X-OriginatingIP: 10.0.0.2 (jpvdgiessen)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Num 11: 5 khaw-tseer'
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <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: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:57:08 -0000
Thanks for all comments,
As far I understand the word has this meaning in post-Biblical translations,
further it is not an Egyptian loanword because in this language the name is
"iaqet" (see: Medinet Habu calendar and the Ebers papyrus).
Because in this verse 2 other "alliums" are mentiond (the onion and garlic) it
is logical khaw-tseer' is also an allium.
Jan Pieter van de Giessen
Blog: http://bijbelaantekeningen.blogspot.com/
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!
, (continued)
- Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!, Jerry Shepherd, 10/03/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!,
kgraham0938, 10/03/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!, B. M. Rocine, 10/03/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!, Peter Kirk, 10/06/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!,
kgraham0938, 10/05/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!, K Randolph, 10/05/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!,
B. M. Rocine, 10/05/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!,
Yonah Mishael, 10/05/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!, Yonah Mishael, 10/05/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!, B. M. Rocine, 10/05/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!,
Yonah Mishael, 10/05/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!, kgraham0938, 10/05/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!, B. M. Rocine, 10/06/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!, kgraham0938, 10/06/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] Judges 16:30 - Verb with no use, MY PROBLEM!, George Athas, 10/08/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.