Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

   The changes from   literary Arabic to the colloquial language are
   in many ways equal to the changes from proto-Semitic to BH. 
  Now, in classical Arab. the term for 'we'  is NAH(.)NU, compared,
   for instance,  to the spoken Palestinian or Egyptian EH(.)NA .
   In the colloquial the first Nun drops out, exactly as in the case
   of Anu in relation to Anahnu.
   
    It appears that in Heb. there is rather a diachronic development. 
  In fact,  Mandelkern lists only one occurrence of Anu in the HB, 
  in Jer. 42:6  (actually with defective vowelling and the Qeri is: Anahnu! 
). 
  I assume that the Mishnaic literatue and what followed is full with 
  the shorter form.
   
   On the other hand there are of course many occurrences of Anokhi
   as well of Ani in BH; as I mentioned they seem to be a fusion of
   usages in different dialects and languages. 
   
   Uri
   
   
   

 
---------------------------------
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and 
get things done faster.
>From rosewalk AT concentric.net  Mon Nov 13 17:48:50 2006
Return-Path: <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from rodney.cnc.net (rodney.cnc.net [207.155.252.37])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB0D4C00D
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:48:50 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [64.3.184.22] (ts002d0022.nyc-ny.xod.concentric.net
        [64.3.184.22])
        by rodney.cnc.net (ConcentricHost(2.54) Relay) with ESMTP id 6768FE024
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:48:48 -0500 
(EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: rosewalk AT rosewalk.cnc.net@pop3.rosewalk.cnc.net
Message-Id: <v04210104c17ea5f07e11@[64.3.184.22]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:48:46 -0500
To: 'b-hebrew' <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
From: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 2:15 and 2:17 is garden feminine?
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: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:48:50 -0000

Adam was demoted spiritually, his soul originally contained all the 
souls of everyone, he also repented, was taught by the angel, Raziel 
and was considered a prophet, and the Garden is eternal, and also a 
symbol of G-d's spiritual nourishment to the world, according to that 
part of Oral Torah which is called Kabbala.

Shoshanna



On 13/11/2006 16:09, Steve Miller wrote:
> Additionally, the garden did not die in the day Adam ate off the tree of
> knowledge. Gen 3:22-24
>

Nor did Adam die. Well, we know that from the text, that he lived
another 930 years(!), which is of course the basic problem with the "you
shall surely die" interpretation, whereas your argument about the garden
is in fact from silence. So, while I would not argue for the garden
dying interpretation, this argument is of no help.

A better argument against the garden dying interpretation is from 3:2,3,
in which the plural form TEMUTUN cannot refer to the singular garden and
also clearly refers back to 2:17.


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

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