Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>]

Could you please inform me about the difference between Lo-Ammi , and 
Lo-Ruhamah , and I am looking at Hos 1:6 , and Hos 1:9 there I see these 
names , with a footnote  of  "no mercy" for Lo-Ruhamah and for Lo-Ammi , "Not 
my people"

 Then in Hos 2:1 I see , "say to your brethren "My people" which my NKJ tells 
me is "Ammi" , no longer Lo-Ammi , and to your sisters , "Mercy is shown"

Hos 2:1   Say to your , 'My people",
              and to your sisters , "Mercy is shown"

There is surely a connection to the previous two groups. Is the removal of 
the word Lo changing this title to mean a move from rejection to acceptance , 
and is this then the two groups merged together , who are to tell their 
mother , firstly Gomer , who I am told is Israel , that she is out , of 
course from Hos 2:14-20 she is then restored as a bride .

I am not trying to cause a problem ,  I just need to know , I am a christian 
and I believe that as Paul directed us to read Hos 1:11, which according to 
him , is what  "God also has previously said" in  Rom 9:24 , and he sends us 
to Hos 1:11 , but I need to know about the Hos 2:1 characters.

I do hope this is acceptable , 

doug belot
>From yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com  Sat Nov  1 20:32:39 2008
Return-Path: <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
        id 70B254C01D; Sat,  1 Nov 2008 20:32:39 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
        version=3.2.3
Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com (hs-out-0708.google.com 
[64.233.178.249])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05354C01B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat,  1 Nov 2008 20:32:38 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: by hs-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 55so972684hsc.14
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:32:38 -0700 
(PDT)
Received: by 10.100.248.9 with SMTP id v9mr2085994anh.115.1225585958596;
        Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.139.1 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Nov 2008 17:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e6ea6c000811011732m14a6b567vddfa6d0187eda8a9 AT mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 00:32:38 +0000
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <03de01c93c5b$36973720$66a314ac@xp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <017601c93b25$f67289a0$33355142@oemcomputer>
        <490ABEC7.7699.642363C AT dwashbur.nyx.net>
        <011801c93bd5$2a9ee8e0$89345142@oemcomputer>
        <03de01c93c5b$36973720$66a314ac@xp>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] New Inscription of Hebrew?
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: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:32:39 -0000

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Yigal Levin wrote:

> a. One must distinguish between language and script. No one has ever claimed
> that there was a "proto-Canaanite language". "Proto-Canaanite" is the title
> given by epigraphers to the earliest known forms of the 22-letter alphabet
> which would eventually be used by the Hebrews, the Phoenicians, the Arameans
> and others. In a way it is a mis-nomer, since it seems to imply that it was
> used BEFORE the Canaanites, but this is not what is meant when modern
> epigraphers use it.

In linguistics, "Proto-Canaanite" would refer to the
assumed/hypothetical ancestor of a
Canaanite genetic group.  There is agreement amongst scholars such as
Huehnergard
for a genetic grouping including Phoenician, Hebrew, and Amarna "Canaanite,"
but not Ugaritic.  This group is labeled Canaanite, and therefore, the
linguistic term
"Proto-Canaanite" would designate the ancestor of these languages after they 
had
diverged from Northwest Semitic.  "Proto" means first, so
"Proto-Canaanite" when
refering to language would be the first language to be genetically
within a Canaanite
subgroup.  I disagree with Huehnergard's classification of a Canaanite
subgroup but
it is currently the established opinion.

>From Faber's article in Hetzron's "The Semitic Languages":
http://books.google.com/books?id=nbUOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA10

> d. The fact that the Hebrews spoke a language that was closely related to
> Canaanite does not contadict anything that is stated in the Bible.

Ibn Ezra commenting on Is 19:18 writes that this verse allows us to conclude
that the Canaanites spoke Hebrew.

> g. So - in giving this ostracon to a professional epigrapher such as Hagai
> Misgav, the excavators did the right thing. In refusing to offer even a
> priliminary reading befor completing all of the relevant tests, Misgav did
> the right thing. I assure you that as soon as a reliable reading can be
> published, it will be. Until that time, anything that anyone says about the
> inscription is probably nonsense.

I agree, and the little information that was publicized (such as in Prof.
Garfinkel's interview on Israeli television) where he discussed only a
handful of words is the best they have in any case at the moment.

Yitzhak Sapir