Hi Rolf,
2009/12/23 Rolf Furuli <<mailto:furuli AT online.no>furuli AT online.no>
Dear Shoshanna,
I agree with you that the verbs of Exodus 3:15 have future
reference. But please note that the Hebrew verb HYH normally is not
a stative verb but a fientive one (a verb of action)-it signals
existence rather than being. This means that the clause in Exodus
3:15 can be translated, "I will become what I will become." This
means that God signals that he in the future will do great things for
his people to whom Moses was the leader. In Greek, the verb EIMI
means to be (stative). It occurs 6,469 times in the LXX while HYH
occurs 1,594 times in the Tanakh. So, just the numerical differences
shows that the two verbs have different meanings.
I'm quite surprised Rolf. You usually give such convincing linguistic arguments that show a level of professionality. How can you possibly see these numbers as being significant of anything? You have yourself in the past on this list discussed semantic fields and described how their centres are well defined but their edges get quite fuzzy. You have also acknowledged that there are both pragmatic and semantics features. Further you have noted that the semantic fields of words and phrases which are translations of each other rarely have semantic fields which map exactly. This renders your numerical observation absolutely meaningless.
You have also made a strong case on several occasions for the Hebrew verb system to be predominantly aspectual and then continue to give an argument for a future tense translation and oppose a present tense translation. It is clear that both the past, present and future can be indicated by aspectual verbs and this is quite clearly what the phrase O WN in Greek is trying to express.
You have also not commented on the contextual line of evidence that later YHWH says EHYEH is sending you... This would seem to support the view that it is only the second EHYEH that was intended to be understood as this name.
Further, the vowel pointing we have received is not causative and not reflexive. It cannot be understood as 'causing himself to become' (I trust you are familiar with this theory as presented in the Watchtower literature).
James Christian
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.