Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>]

Ken,
I don't see how there could be such a rule because then the language would
limit the writer's ability to break a string of waw-consecutives with the
meaning he intends. 

There is pretty much a string of waw-consecutives starting from v8-v16.  So
these events are sequential. I understand these events to take place at the
Messiah's (2nd) coming.  Vv17-20 refers to the rapture of the godly saints.
If v17 started with a waw-consecutive, then we'd know that the this rapture
occurs after the drying up of a great body of water (Isa 11:15) .  But,
without the waw-consecutive, v17 is ambiguous in its time relationship to
the previous verses, which is the intended meaning.

Translators often translate imperfects in the past tense because they don't
think a present or future tense makes sense in context. If v17-19 was
translated in the future or present, then that would seem to mean in English
that vv8-16 happened in the past and v17-19 will happen in the future, which
is not the intended meaning. 


Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
www.voiceInWilderness.info
Though an army should encamp against me,
my heart won't fear from anxiety.
Though a war rise up against me to rent,
in this thing I will be confident. (Ps 27:3)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Litwak
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:07 PM
> 
> Simple Question:
> 
> Is YiSLaC MiMRoM at the start of Ps 18:17 MT translated like a waw-
> consecutive because WaYeRa)u at the start of 18:16 is a waw-consecutive?
If
> so, how "long" can such a construction be?  Many sentences (or verses for
> the Massoretes)? I thought that there had to be more occurrences of waw-
> for a series of verbs like this to be considered a waw-consecutive.
Thanks.
> 
> Ken