But seeing from your silence when asked if you had ever read the text even
once through, cover to cover, in Hebrew, indicating that you never have,
does that not leave you to being uninformed and misguided through ignorance?
First you said that there were only 18 places, in 17 verses, where the
Masoretes admitted to changing the text. These verses were not included in
those 17.
Now you are saying that there were more changes admitted to, including these
verses.
Which is it? Or are you including suspected changes which were not
specifically admitted to?
You took my words out of context, I said outside of slang usage. Your
example comes from slang. I further said I see no such usage of slang in the
Bible.
3) Comparing the use of the idiomatic phrases in the verse with their use
in
other verses gives no compulsion for a change. In other words, it makesHH: It does not make perfect sense as written, nor do the other texts.
perfect sense as written.
That is why modern translations do not translate these verses, about six
of them in the Bible, the way you are suggesting. The jerry-built
solutions you offer for these texts are not believable. And )M L) has a
pattern of usage in the Bible that shows what the likely sense is in
Satan's speech, where )M L) evidently means "surely." And you have Satan
not saying that Job will do anything wrong.
Harold, you are losing credibility here. That is not what I said. Didn't you
read it?
What I said, and I'll repeat myself here, though rewording so that maybe you
will understand, is that as long as God blesses Job, Job has no reason not
to bless God in return. What Satan states is that if God allows misfortune
to come upon Job, then Job will sing a different tune. This is the meaning
in the text, keeping )M L) as "if not" instead of "surely" and BRK as
"bless". This is from the Hebrew use in other verses as well as these
verses.
Now how best to translate it, is a different question.
Could it be that most modern scholars and translators, because they are more
familiar with the text in translation instead of the original Hebrew, that
they are the ones, to use your terms, are "uninformed and misguided"?
Or did hisHH: There is nothing said about Mikiyahu in relation to Naboth. Mikiyahu
"blessing" for the king turn out like that friendly encouragement of the
prophet Mikiyahu in the next chapter?
is neither God nor the king.
Huh? Your response makes no sense.
HH: But the text accuses him of blessing God and the king, not failing to bless the king.Or in 1 Kings 21:13 was this anHH: Then the accusation would be that he did not bless the king.
imperative, and when Naboth was unable to fulfill the command completely,
i.e. the "blessing" for the king stuck in his throat, that he was then
executed for civil insubordination?
Exactly, and it needn't be spelled out in the text.
Where is the necessity that the only way
to understand this verse is through claiming that it is a euphemism?HH: Other explanations don't really make sense
Neither does yours. Don't you see that's what I am saying? Why else would I
entertain other explanations?
HH: No, the context does not indicate that it is an improper blessing
due to error. There is nothing said about such ideas. There is mention
that the children may have sinned. What in the world is an improper
blessing, anyway?
Do you think God would be pleased if praised for sin that someone did? That
God is so great because one is a glutton or drunkard (both condemned in the
Bible)? Do you not see how blessing God for an error is an improper
blessing?
HH: The phrase means "to your face" in Job 6:28. The meaning is given in
the lexicon. The phrase has a wide range of meanings that could apply,
including "in front of," "before," and "in the sight of." See, for
example, Jer 6:7; Ex 33:19; Gen 32:22; Job 4:15; Lev 10:3; Ps 9:20.
Did you not read earlier postings? I wrote )L PNY has three basic uses: 1)
upon the surface of, 2) related to #1, in the presence of, of which before,
in front of are subsets of presence, and 3) when bowing down, face to the
ground. Job 6:28 fits meaning #2. Likewise Job 1:9, 2:5.
You grammarians make mountains out of molehills. There's no oath here, just
simple action and consequence. Why not just take things at face value?
HH: The writing above assumes that there is an accusation, and that is
exactly why the idea of "bless" does not fit. If Job's wife had told him
to bless God and die, then there would have been no real reason to
accuse his wife of speaking like one of the foolish women.
Look at the context! In the immediate previous words, Job's wife accuses him
in an exclamatory question. There's a lot that can be read into those words,
but her following words, "Bless God … and die!" is the opposite of
laudatory. Instead it sounds like exasperation.
And how do you think your credibility is standing up, when you accuse me of
saying the opposite of what I actually said? Where your knowledge of Hebrew
looks more like book larnin and not experience? Where you take out of
context or don't read carefully? Sometimes I think you go out on a limb,
merely because you want to prove me wrong.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.