What I object to here is the giving of a unique definition to a term without good reason.
An example of a good reason is GZR in Esther 2:1. In all other Hebrew uses GZR has the meaning of severing, but here that makes absolutely no sense. But recognizing that the Jews living under Persian rule in Susa probably knew Aramaic better than Hebrew, and that the use here is the same as the Aramaic use, GZR here is an Aramaic loan word into the Hebrew text.
But in Jeremiah 5:7 GDD does make sense as incising as part of idolatry, which is the context leading into this verse, consistant with 1 Kings 18 as well. This is consistant with the total context of Tanakh. Whether you trust Tanakh or not is immaterial to the analysis of lexeme use within Tanakh.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.