> HH: That's the verb. I asked about the noun. That was my point. One
meaning of the verb is not necessarily transferable to this noun.Harold, unless you are extremely dense, you know that one
Does the noun show this meaning elsewhere. The lexicons do not give
"error" as a meaning of the noun X+)T. The word occurs 298 times, and
the lexicons never give "error" as its meaning.
of the features of Biblical Hebrew language is that most
expressed terms are derived from roots, at least
morphologically. Secondly, unless there is evidence to
the contrary, derivitive lexemes also carry root meanings
expressed as verbs, nouns, etc. This is not the root
fallacy. The root fallacy is to claim that the root
meanings trump all other indications.
The root meaning of X+) is "to err" and, as an exception
to another rule that lexemes don't have two distinct
meanings, "to make amends for error", the contexts tell
us which meaning to use. There is no indication that the
noun X+)T is an exception to the rule in the above
paragraph. Hence, the noun's meaning parallels the verb's
meaning. While most uses of words derived from X+) are
used in a theological context, that is not true of all.
> > > > > > "Justice exults a nation,
> > >> but undeserved good favor of peoples errs."You are wrong in your definitions.
>
> > HH: Even the general use makes no sense. Kindness is a good thing to
>> show people.
>>
> Not in the context, where kindness is done at the expense
> of justice. If a murderer is set free instead of executed,
> that is undeserved kindness that is injust. Genesis 9:6.
HH: But the word means kindness, goodness. You can't insert the idea
"undeserved" and then claim that that is a main idea in this verse.
> HH: You have neither refuted the old or proved the new.
Don't need to. All I need to do is to show that the old is
not necessary, as the non-standard definition is based on
the belief that it is necessary to fit the context. That I
have done.
> > > HH: I don't see that you have tried to prove this assertion anywhere.
>> I don't see how it would work in Prov. 25:10.> >>
> To put that verse into modern English, if you have an> > reveal other consultations, lest the one who hears it
> argument with someone else, argue with him, and don't
> treats you well undeservably and your evil report will> > is as pretty does".
> not return. As I understand these verses, if one gets
> people to treat him well based on falsehood (more likely,
> one sided portrayal), when they find out that they have
> been snookered into supporting him (taking sides in his
> argument), they will make sure that he has a bad
> reputation at least in their own hearts. Like all
> proverbs, I am reading between the lines, looking at
> the actions, to try to make sense of what is said.
>
> This is the same sort of reading between the lines to
> make sense of "a stitch in time saves nine" or "pretty
> your idea.
HH: The proverb does not say what you're claiming it does. It would
need more words to say all that. As it stands, it can't say that:
HCSB Prov 25:9-10: make your case with your opponent without
revealing another's secret; otherwise the one who hears will disgrace
you, and you'll never live it down.
HH: You want for verse 10: "otherwise the one who hears will treat
you well undeservedly, and you will never live it down.
HH: That makes no sense. You would need more explanatory words to get
It is important to know that the verb XSD means to be
kind, as many lexicons and many scholars have established. The nounThe man owed Joseph nothing. Joseph merely did his job as a
is similar. The idea that the word XSD explicitly includes the idea
"undeserved" or "undeservedly" is incorrect. Look at this verse for
example:
Gen. 40:14 But when all goes well with you, remember me and show me
kindness; mention me to Pharaoh and get me out of this prison.
HH: Joseph is asking for kindness specifically because the man owes
it to him, not because it is undeserved.
trusty in prison, to try to quiet restless inmates to make
it easier for the jailor. Joseph was asking for a favor.
> HH: And you never dealt with one main objection I had to your
handling of Lev 20:17. Since you did not like the NIV translation, ISo the HCSB (whoever that is) also parses the sentence
will use the HCSB:
HCSB LEV 20:17 If a man marries his sister, whether his father's
daughter or his mother's daughter, and they have sexual relations, it
is a disgrace. They must be publicly cut off from their people. He
has had sexual intercourse with his sister; he will bear his
punishment
HH: The punishment is not the XSD here. It is the sexual relations
that are the XSD, and they are not "undeserved good favor."
wrongly? What sort of evidence is that? Look also at
preceding verses, starting with verse 10, for context.
Are you satisfied?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.