Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] priest code?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • To: Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] priest code?
  • Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:50:06 -0600

The issue is not whether לשון קדש can manifest in an חל or חלל manner.

The issue is whether לשון קדש actually and in fact incarnated in a קדש
manner in the masoretic text ("MT").

The authors of the original text are unavailable at this time. Hence, the
document itself currently forms the only basis for answering that inquiry.

And anyone לא עמקי שפה וכבדי לשון can readily see that the MT claims to
speak exclusively in an קדש manner from page 1 to page 771. ezekiel 3:5-6.

The issue is not whether word play exists in the MT. The issue is whether
such word play discloses a binding of substance rather than mere form. And
Isaac's post confirms the presence of substance.

The issue ultimately is not whether the hand exists, but whether any
meaningful comprehension of the hand can be had in a vacuum, and absent
reference to the entire body. And the answer to that question, in the
context of the MT לשן קדש, .... is .... no. The pieces and parts of the
language, including homonyms and word play, require reference to the whole
and to each other, for meaningful understanding of the parts.

regards,

fred burlingame.



On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:

> You have every right to your beliefs. However your statements are nothing
> more than descriptions of your beliefs. You give absolutely no evidence for
> any of your conclusions.
>
> Why is it that a book of instruction should be prevented from using
> homonyms? Why is it that the *language* of a קדש book cannot be common?
> Look at other things that are described in that book as קדש. Was the gold
> in the tabernacle and temple קדש *before* it was mined? Was it קדש at the
> time it was being formed into the vessels or laminates? Or was it common
> before it became קדש?
>
> You stated that נחל in Numbers 32 cannot be based on homonyms. What is
> your basis for that? Have you even done a most basic word study of the
> words in your קדש text? There are some 130+ occurrences where the word
> family describes a river, torrent, wadi, or other water feature. There are
> 220+ times where the word describes inheritance, heritage, or possession.
> If this is not a demonstration that we have two roots here that happen to
> be homonyms, then what is your explanation?
>
> Homonyms are not exclusively used for wordplay. It is just that wordplay
> is the easiest way to demonstrate that the homonyms exist. But, as to your
> assertion that wordplay does not exist in the Hebrew scriptures, that it is
> not fit for an instructive work, you obviously have not looked very far into
> the book. One simple illustration is how Esau uses Jacob's name in Gen
> 27:36. According to Gen 25:26, the reason for calling the boy יעקב was
> because he grabbed the heel (עקב) of his brother at their births. Yet, in
> 27:36, Esau makes a play on Jacob's name using another word spelled עקב (but
> pronounced differently) that means "to deceive." How does you קדש text
> belief handle this?
>
> If what you are proposing is that we look at the entire text while we study
> word usage and meaning, you will not get any disagreement from the people on
> the list. That is part of how word studies are done--you examine the body
> of works where the word is found. But that is not what your posts seem to
> be suggesting. Instead, you pull out isolated cases, show no evidence of
> doing even the most basic of research into the words, and leap to statements
> about what you believe to be the case.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Paul Zellmer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:
> b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of fred burlingame
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 11:44 PM
> To: K Randolph
> Cc: B-Hebrew
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] priest code?
>
> Karl:
>
> You could be correct, in all of your points.
>
> but ..... i have some doubts.
>
> As I mentioned in my response to Stephen's post, I see a difference between
> a comic book usage of homonym; and a קדש book usage of homonym. I believe
> the latter type book more inclined to employ a richer usage of the homonym
> than the comic book.
>
>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page