...This is a significant point. If BDB and HALOT are to be trusted on the basic facts, there are two distinct verbs in Arabic corresponding to XEBEL, one starting with Unicode U+062D ح HAH and the other starting with U+062E خ KHAH (the same letter with a dot above it), the former meaning something like "tie together" and the latter something like "confound" or "corrupt". These consonants were distinct in the common ancestor of Hebrew and Arabic, and were still distinct in early Hebrew, but later came to be pronounced identically; apparently they were always written identically. It is probable, though not certain I admit, that the two Arabic verbs and the two senses of the Hebrew verb XBL, which correspond well in meaning, are derived from two separate verbs in the common ancestor of Hebrew and Arabic, which implies that the two Hebrew senses have different origins.
Are these the only examples in Tanakh where you claim that XBL has the “to
destruction” meaning? If so, I read the verses so differently from you
that I do not see how your definition fits at all. Does the “to
destruction” come from cognate languages? In both verses, I think the
“binding together” meaning fits the context better than the “to
destruction” meaning.
HH: The letters XBL represent two roots. Yes, the idea of destroy occurs a
number of places. Check the standard Hebrew lexicons. Also, check the
standard translations.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.