b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
Re: [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?
- From: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
- To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:34:58 +1000
Jim, you are committing so many exegetical fallacies here (and this is not
the first time) that it's difficult to know where exactly to start in
addressing them. I'll therefore limit my comments.
Yes, the 'core' meaning of NG( is 'to touch', but it is by no means the full
extent of the semantic range. Most words have a semantic range and when a
word appears in a context, especially a prose context, it is almost always
just one point within that semantic range which is being brought forward.
(You can make a different case for poetry because of its ability for allusion
and imagery.)
In the case you have mentioned, there is 'touching' happening with 'great
touchings'. That means that something is being used in the 'touching'. It's
just not literally 'touching' anymore. It's worth exploring, therefore, what
else in the semantic range might be indicated.
"Plague" is perfectly acceptable within the semantic range. The subject of
the verb in Gen 12.17 is a deity and the object is a human. Furthermore,
NEGA(IM are being used as an object of some kind in the action also. Under
these contextual conditions, what is the likely scenario?
Your reasoning sounds analogous to arguing that because the core idea of the
word 'strike' is a hitting or beating of some kind that therefore a "work
strike" is not really employees protesting by not working, but rather must
indicate that they are violently attacking their employer or workplace. Or
alternatively, because the core idea of 'run' means to move quicker than a
walk, then someone who 'runs a computer' must be moving briskly while holding
a computer. Your reasoning is very weak and lacks both contextual logic and
semantic awareness.
To put it another way, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells
like a duck, it's probably not sticky tape.
I know you'll probably produce an essay in reply to this, but I'm not going
to venture any more discussion on such a desperately weak argument, nor do I
think anyone else should either.
So, to conclude, IT MEANS "PLAGUED"!
Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney)
Ph: 9577 9774. Mob: 0449 758 100
www.moore.edu.au
-
[b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?,
JimStinehart, 08/18/2008
- Re: [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?, K Randolph, 08/18/2008
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
[b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?,
JimStinehart, 08/19/2008
- Re: [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?, George Athas, 08/20/2008
-
[b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?,
JimStinehart, 08/19/2008
- Re: [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12:17?, Yigal Levin, 08/19/2008
-
[b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?,
JimStinehart, 08/20/2008
- Re: [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12:17?, Bryant J. Williams III, 08/20/2008
-
[b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?,
JimStinehart, 08/20/2008
- Re: [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12:17?, Yigal Levin, 08/20/2008
-
[b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?,
JimStinehart, 08/20/2008
- Re: [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12:17?, Bryant J. Williams III, 08/21/2008
-
[b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12: 17?,
JimStinehart, 08/21/2008
- Re: [b-hebrew] Was Pharaoh "Touched" or "Plagued" by God at Genesis 12:17?, Yigal Levin, 08/21/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.