To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>, "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] barak (bless? curse?) in the Book of Job
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Karl,
"But outside of slang where thereis a deliberate attempt at obfuscation, no
where is that semantic range so
broad that a word can have one meaning and its opposite."
What about olam (and in Greek, aion/aionios) ? Can't that refer to both time
and eternity? Aren't these opposite meanings?
John Estell
________________________________
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:09:45 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] barak (bless? curse?) in the Book of Job
John:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:24 PM, John Estell <oldearther AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> "*The functional meaning of a word does not change from context to
> context.*"
>
> Maybe I don't know what you mean by "functional meaning", but when a word
> has different meanings, then context determines what meaning is in view.
>
Yes and no. Words have what I call a "semantic range", some with a wide
range of meaning, some with a narrow one. But outside of slang where there
is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation, no where is that semantic range so
broad that a word can have one meaning and its opposite. I have seen no
evidence that such slang was ever used in the Bible, have you?
For words that have a broad semantic range, the context can indicate where
within that semantic range the understanding may lie, and in translation,
which is the best word to use in the target language, but it cannot change a
word's meaning.
> If BRK is indeed used euphemistically to mean something like "renounce"
> or "blaspheme", then your criticism does not apply.
>
>
That's just my point, I see no evidence that it is used euphemistically to
indicate the opposite of its meaning. I have no problem with euphemisms in
the Bible, one of the more common being )BD meaning to become lost, being
used as a euphemism for to die ("He is lost to us"). Furthermore, many words
are used semi-poetically, even in prose texts. But euphemisms do not have
the opposite of a word's regular meaning, and in the context of these verses
in Job, even the contexts indicate that such a euphemism is not necessary.
> Great discussion, fellas.
>
> John Estell
>
>
Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:23 AM, John Estell <oldearther AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> Karl,
>
> *"But outside of slang where thereis a deliberate attempt at obfuscation,
> no where is that semantic range so
> broad that a word can have one meaning and its opposite."
> *
>
> **
>
> What about *olam* (and in Greek, *aion/aionios*) ? Can't that refer to
> both time and eternity? Aren't these opposite meanings?
>
> The question of (WLM was debated in greater detail before. It comes from
the same root as "to cause to be unknown" i.e. to hide, (LMWT alamut the
unknown, T(LMH unknown thing, and in reference to time, it is to a time of
unknown span. By extension, eternity also extends off into the unknown. So
the two are related, not opposite.
This has often led to misunderstanding of texts, as when people see (WLM
they assume that eternity is meant, when only a time span of unknown length
but which has a definite end is meant in the text.
The Greek word refers to an eon, a very long span of time, and by extension,
eternity. But that's Greek.
>
> John Estell
>
Karl W. Randolph.
Re: [b-hebrew] barak (bless? curse?) in the Book of Job
, (continued)