Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Seth Knorr <ftbaccounts AT yahoo.com>]

My question is in regards to "am" (cf. Daniel 8:24) and "goee" (cf. Leviticus 
25:44).
  
These both seem to denote people or nation. 
  
However, in the KJV "am" is generally translated as (men, nation, people), 
where as "goee" in the KJV is generally translated as (Gentile, heathen, 
nation, people).
  
In the Tenach I read, "goee" is almost always translated generically and as 
far as I saw, is never translated Gentile or heathen.
  
Is the KJV adding to the meaning of "goee" when it uses words like "Gentile" 
or "Heathen"? Or is the meaning based solely on the context.
  
My main question is this, is "am" generally in reference to Israel, where as 
"goee" is generally used in reference to non-Israelites or gentiles. Is this 
correct or wrong?
  
It seems like that is generally the case, but is this just a coincidence or 
on purpose?
  
Thanks for any feedback,
  
Sincerely,
  
Seth Knorr


                
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.
>From kwrandolph AT gmail.com  Fri Oct  6 12:35:11 2006
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.237])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA014C00D
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri,  6 Oct 2006 12:35:10 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s10so952959wxc
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:35:10 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: by 10.90.94.2 with SMTP id r2mr1866580agb;
        Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.90.66.12 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <acd782170610060935k17a9a43ancbe3e97b4a02526f AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:35:10 -0700
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
In-Reply-To: <0J6O00IU8UNSUD20@l-daemon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <0J6O00IU8UNSUD20@l-daemon>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Question on decomposing words
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: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:35:11 -0000

Bob:

On 10/5/06, Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca> wrote:
> The words are in psalm 2
>
>
>
> yelideTika appears to have two suffixes, one representing the first person
> and the other representing the direct object (as normally translated). It is
> almost as if the verbal form was being considered as a noun and the result
> modified with a second person singular pronominal suffix
>
> So is it qal perfect first person singular with an 'ownership' by the second
> person singular?
>
The first suffix is the verbal first person singular, as you recognize.

The second is the object of the verb. When the object is a pronoun, it
uses the same suffixes as does the genitive when the genitive is a
pronoun and not a noun. The suffixes are merely grammatical form
referring to a pronoun, they do not in themselves mean ownership.
>
>
> In this same psalm, I notice some nouns ending with the 'o' sound - but both
> being translated as 'their'. I would have expected 'his' for the ones ending
> with an 'o'. e.g. their bonds, their cords both end in mem-vav-holem and not
> mem-vav- with dot following (qibbus with mater) - perhaps eimo after the
> plurals is an explicit them (accusative)?
>
The suffix is not -W but -MW which has a different meaning. It can be
either singular or plural, though more commonly plural. It still is
third person, I do not know of an equivalent for first or second
person usage. It appears to have a meaning pointing to a particular
subject, in this case emphasizing that the bands and ropes
(metaphorically speaking) are God's.
>
>
> Thanks again
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Bob MacDonald
>
> Victoria BC
>
> http://gx.ca
>
> http://bmd.gx.ca

Karl W. Randolph.