Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring' (K Randolph)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ex 6:6 hiphil imperative 'bring' (K Randolph)
  • Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:23:06 -0600

Hi Karl,

 

In reponse to no. (5), you finally said, "I figured that as I was going from memory, and I no longer have access to a copy of the book, I can neither verify nor falsify my memory, so there’s no more that I can say."

 

Actually, let me make a number of suggestions:

 

"I was wrong."

 

"I remembered incorrectly."

 

"I apologize.  I never should have said, 'You were not listening,' when you had the book right in front of you, and I was only going on my faulty memory."

 

Those are some possibilities.

 

With regard to no. (6), you said, "In other words, you are arguing for the idea that I originally guessed at, namely that a “strike” does not mean to miss, rather it means an attempt to hit within a scoring area, or that the ball was delivered in such an area that such an attempt should have been made but wasn’t. You rejected this before, if I remember correctly, so now you push it?"

 

No, what I am arguing is that the word "strike" meaning miss was a development from the idea of "striking"at the ball and attempting to hit it.  By a series of developments, the word came to mean "miss" rather than hit.  The word came to mean something different from what it originally meant.

 

Your headline example, "“Awful derailment in Canada is another strike against tank car design," is not an example of a root from a Germanic language; rather it is simply a metaphorical borrowing of "strike" in baseball.

 

You said, "The only reason this argument is being made in b-hebrew is so that you can argue that Hebrew words have widely varient meanings, even opposite meanings, without being homonyms or homographs. I read this as you wanting to play Humpty Dumpty with the text of Tanakh."

 

Karl, this is just plain silliness.  I treat the text of the Hebrew Bible very seriously and with great reverence.  For me, the biblical text is the Word of God given by his Holy Spirit, and it is infallible.  Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I think it is illegitimate to straitjacket the meaning of the biblical text into a preconceived "single unique meaning" lexeme theory that at the same both ignores sound linguistic theory and subjects the biblical text to one's own whims.  Word meanings do develop over time, and they can in fact develop into opposite meanings or nuances.  Hebrew is not an exception, and the text of the Hebrew Bible, written over the course of a millenniun, is not an exception.  Failure to recognize this phenomenon is a failure to read the Hebrew Bible on its own terms.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
 





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page