Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

    It is noteworthy that the biblical term for Egypt retains the dual:
    Mis(.)rayim, reflecting a time when Egypt was known as a country
   combining  two parts, upper and lower.
   
    Also interesting is that the Arabic term for the country, identical to
   the biblical, occurs in the the singular: Mis(.)r, or Mas(.)r.
   
    Uri Hurwitz
   
    
---------------------------------
  

On 21/03/2007 04:13, Yigal Levin wrote:  > Yohanan,  >  > The Bible does not 
say that "Mizraim" is what we call "Egypt" or that "Aram" is what we call 
"Syria". ...    This is a strange statement. "Mizraim" is simply the Hebrew 
word for   Egypt, used repeatedly for the land of the Nile and the Pharaohs 
which   is what we call "Egypt". "Aram" is the Hebrew word transliterated in  
 some English versions and translated "Syria" in others, which refers to   a 
rather ill-defined territory roughly comparable to the modern state of   
Syria and of which Damascus was for some time the capital. So I don't   know 
what you mean here. Because the Bible is not a dictionary it does   not 
explicitly tell us which Hebrew words correspond to which English   ones. But 
it provides enough geographical information to make these   identifications 
completely certain.    As for Kush, the biblical information may not be quite 
so certain, but   Ezekiel 29:10 seems to put the border of Kush at Aswan,
 strongly   suggesting that at least here Kush refers to Nubia.    --   Peter 
Kirk  E-mail:  peter at qaya.org  Blog:    http://www.qaya.org

 
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40?  Find a flick in no time
 with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
>From hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net  Wed Mar 21 11:10:00 2007
Return-Path: <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net
        (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391E74C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:10:00 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [68.166.204.243] (helo=[192.168.1.33])
        by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34)
        id 1HU2Rr-0003h2-Sw
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:10:00 -0400
Message-ID: <46014AC0.6060706 AT earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:09:52 -0500
From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
References: <bc5.d472213.33328555 AT aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <bc5.d472213.33328555 AT aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 
4d8cbcf25a45eb95a7d551d5673cf272239a348a220c260981dd130be32e23575df8d4ab19cad9663ca473d225a0f487350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.166.204.243
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:28:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Overview and comments on Furuli,
 A New Understanding of the Ve...
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:10:00 -0000

Dear Solomon,
> Although the Furuli dissertation and the New World Translation have  become 
> intertwined in this discussion, I cannot help but question the  connection. 
>  In 
> the appendix of the NWT Reference Bible (3C, "Hebrew Verbs  Indicating 
> Continuous or Progressive Action") the publishers make clear the  reasons 
> for the 
> NWT renderings, with examples going back to Benjamin Wills  Newton 1888, 
> and 
> including the work of James Washington Watts in 1963.  
>  
> So, where is Furuli in any of this, that he has to "defend" the readings of 
>  
> the New World Translation, or harbor such a defense as some sort of secret  
> agenda?  The New World Translation is in actual use by millions of people  
> all 
> over the world, and has been rendered in 57 different languages.  It is  
> perhaps the most critiqued Bible in the world, and stands on its own.
>   

HH: I think you greatly inflate the importance of this translation, 
which if it has been critiqued, has often been criticized for its 
distortions.
>  
> Unlike many here, I have also read Furuli's dissertation and book.  It  is 
> his own work, and in my estimation, it is not congenitally tied to the  
> readings 
> of the New World Translation.I really feel these two matters are  not 
> connected at all. 
>   

HH: But you are another Jehovah's Witness, and the potential connection 
between NWT thinking and that of Rolf is obvious.

>    If Furuli's conclusions do not conflict with some  readings of 
> the NWT, that is no more sinister than the conclusions of other  scholars 
> who 
> are or were not Jehovah's Witnesses, and who have not read the New  World 
> Translation.  
>   

HH:  Look, nobody is accusing Rolf of anything. The comments made were 
aimed to make Rolf think about his own presuppositions and the possible 
basis for them. There is a certain amount of potential explanatory power 
in considering the NWT's thinking about WAYIQTOL verbs in conjunction 
with Rolf's premises in his dissertation.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard