Meaning of proverbs 23: 4

[Galena]

Galena wrote:
Oh for crying out loud, those of you who believe that proverbs is about wisdom…

Karl : Have you read Proverbs in Hebrew?

No, do I need to read all the proverbs in hebrew to understand proverbs 1:6-7? I was trying to re-align the emphasis that's all.

Galena : The whole of scripture you will find the following: Do not be wise in your own eyes and even proverbs at the beginning issues a warning to you: Do not trust in your own understanding... and again in another proverb Be not wise in your eyes.

Karl : Don’t take out of context. In each of the examples that you cited, you quoted only part of the Proverb. In each of those, the contrast is made between man’s wisdom verses God.

That is exactly what I was referring to, the contrast between man's and God's wisdom. And it is in Prov 23:4 by implication, a respect for God necessitates that you will be diligent, on your guard against being enticed by the aquisition of riches through partaking in the delights of the invitation/temptation.

Galena wrote:
This verse being discussed is not, I repeat not about wisdom at all, has nothing whatsoever to do with wisdom, it is about your own special brand of insight which man calls wisdom, that cocky arrogance that thinks life and fortune and blessing are in his own hands, under his control. The Word מִבִּינָתְךָ in this context is the self cultured, man-made wisdom that is negated in this particular proverb by the word חֲדָל which some now think they have justification for correcting because of their 'wisdom' .

Karl : Are you sure that it’s not your wisdom that’s at fault here?

I am trying to draw a line between the wisdom of God and mans' wisdom here, once again. Read it carefully, I make that point perfectly clear.

You sent me a strange 50 page article arguing that the Masoretic points are God inspired on equal footing with the consonantal text.

Oh here we go again.....I sent you a document where I clearly said that I do not agree with some things obviously, but that HE MADE SOME VERY GOOD POINTS regarding the existence of SOME, I repeat SOME vowel indications at the time of Ezra and he gave you ample verses to compare yourself. You kept asking for evidence, for scriptures and not man's wisdom, so I sent you scriptures - I am not skilled in this, so I tried to supply you with scriptures by sending you this essay. There are always pearls to be found in the amongst rotting seaweed Karl!

Galena wrote:
To say that this second clause in verse 4 could possibly mean that one should 'continue to have insight' is totally out of rythm and context, and especially so when you continue on to the first line of verse 5. By out of context I mean just take a look at all 8 verses, there is not one positive, they are full of negative particles everywhere, the leading theme is "NOT followed by the RATIONALE". To say : "continue in your own wisdom" is a Complete and utter Break in the theme, it states a positive when there are no positives. Verse 1 lays the foundation for a positive perspective on ALL 8 verses when it begins with: consider diligently everything that is before you. This is the ONLY wisdom you need. Consider diligently.

Karl : The first line of verse five talks about riches, not insight. The grammar, as well as context, tells us that.

Verse 4: Do not toil and wear yourself out with exhaustion to get rich, stop thinking in your own power/with your own intellect/stop rationalising it out
Verse 5: Do you want to set your eyes on emptiness and futility.........
First line of verse 5 is a rhetorical question - I never said that this first line was about 'insight' at all - There is here a provocative allusion to the reality in scripture between doing things in your own way which brings toil and hardship and wearing out and ending in vanity and doing things in God's wisdom which does not bring with it this kind of toil and ardour.

Galena wrote:
And finally Proverbs is not about wisdom, it is about the fear (respect) of God who is the One that gives you wisdom in the first place, it is about His wisdom, not the gaining of it by mental exercise, self taught philosophy and educated intellect, Proverbs 1:1-7

Karl : Have you read those verses? Verse five already mentions people who are wise and have insight.

Karl, do you ever read my whole sentences? Let me explain. Ecclesiastes has wisdom, psalms has wisdom, even Genesis contains wisdom, so what distinguishes proverbs from the rest of scripture then? Is it not verse 1:23, 2: 6-10. Proverbs are wise counselors that need interpreting through God's wisdom, they are about giving instruction in wisdom and justice, proverbs themselves do not give you wisdom if you don't get the meaning. I was attempting to correct the balance.

Galena wrote:
To comment on the grammar I do believe that
1. a negative command can only be used with the imperfect verb, which rules out על influencing בין in this verse.
2. Verse 10, though not a part of this discourse, clearly demonstrates where על is governing also the second verb, and it does this via the addition of the vav.

Karl said : Chris: did you look at the Hebrew of these verses? Or are you just citing some commentary? Your notes on the grammar are inaccurate.

Of course I read them in hebrew, and no I did not look at any commentary, I referred to my grammar books to check the use of this particle, then I checked to see whether you needed a vav prefix on a second verb/noun in order to make it negative so that the particle at the beginning of the sentence can then apply to both words.

So what is wrong with this grammar then? Correct me and supply other verses so that I may learn.

[kwrandolph]

Galena wrote:
Oh for crying out loud, those of you who believe that proverbs is about wisdom…

Karl : Have you read Proverbs in Hebrew?

No, do I need to read all the proverbs in hebrew to understand proverbs 1:6-7? I was trying to re-align the emphasis that's all.

You made the charge that the whole book is not about wisdom, you’re wrong. You need to take those two verses in the context of the whole, not out of context.

Galena : The whole of scripture you will find the following: Do not be wise in your own eyes and even proverbs at the beginning issues a warning to you: Do not trust in your own understanding... and again in another proverb Be not wise in your eyes.

Karl : Don’t take out of context. In each of the examples that you cited, you quoted only part of the Proverb. In each of those, the contrast is made between man’s wisdom verses God.

That is exactly what I was referring to, the contrast between man's and God's wisdom. And it is in Prov 23:4 by implication, a respect for God necessitates that you will be diligent, on your guard against being enticed by the aquisition of riches through partaking in the delights of the invitation/temptation.

That’s an exegetical error called “collapsing contexts”. Look it up.

Galena wrote:
This verse being discussed is not, I repeat not about wisdom at all, has nothing whatsoever to do with wisdom, it is about your own special brand of insight which man calls wisdom, that cocky arrogance that thinks life and fortune and blessing are in his own hands, under his control. The Word מִבִּינָתְךָ in this context is the self cultured, man-made wisdom that is negated in this particular proverb by the word חֲדָל which some now think they have justification for correcting because of their 'wisdom' .

Karl : Are you sure that it’s not your wisdom that’s at fault here?

I am trying to draw a line between the wisdom of God and mans' wisdom here, once again. Read it carefully, I make that point perfectly clear.

The subject of this verse is not a contrast between God’s wisdom and man’s wisdom. Yes, I read your statement, and it’s off subject.

The word בינה does NOT mean a “special brand of insight which man calls wisdom, that cocky arrogance that thinks life and fortune and blessing are in his own hands, under his control.” If you look at its uses, even in Proverbs, with the exception of the time it’s used to contrast man’s insight with God’s, it refers to Godly insight that makes men wise. And even in that one time, the idea is not “special brand of insight which man calls wisdom, that cocky arrogance that thinks life and fortune and blessing are in his own hands, under his control.” rather that man’s insight, even good insight, is not up to the standard that is God’s.

You have added something that is not in the text. What you added sounds like a snow-job intended to prove that the Masoretic points are accurate.

You sent me a strange 50 page article arguing that the Masoretic points are God inspired on equal footing with the consonantal text.

Oh here we go again.....I sent you a document where I clearly said that I do not agree with some things obviously, but that HE MADE SOME VERY GOOD POINTS regarding the existence of SOME, I repeat SOME vowel indications at the time of Ezra and he gave you ample verses to compare yourself. You kept asking for evidence, I am not skilled in this, so I tried to supply you with provocative scriptures by sending you this essay. There are always pearls to be found in the amongst rotting seaweed Karl!

I saw no good points, none whatsoever. All I saw are arguments based on redefining terms to make claims that contradict facts and evidence.

Have you read any of the DSS (I have). Show me in the DSS any evidence that the guy is not off the wall.

Galena wrote:
To say that this second clause in verse 4 could possibly mean that one should 'continue to have insight' is totally out of rythm and context, and especially so when you continue on to the first line of verse 5. By out of context I mean just take a look at all 8 verses, there is not one positive, they are full of negative particles everywhere, the leading theme is "NOT followed by the RATIONALE". To say : "continue in your own wisdom" is a Complete and utter Break in the theme, it states a positive when there are no positives. Verse 1 lays the foundation for a positive perspective on ALL 8 verses when it begins with: consider diligently everything that is before you. This is the ONLY wisdom you need. Consider diligently.

Karl : The first line of verse five talks about riches, not insight. The grammar, as well as context, tells us that.

Verse 4: Do not toil and wear yourself out with exhaustion to get rich, stop thinking in your own power/with your own intellect/stop rationalising it out

That’s probably what the Masoretes thought when they applied their points. But is it accurate?

Verse 5: Do you want to set your eyes on emptiness and futility.........
First line of verse 5 is a rhetorical question - I never said that this first line was about 'insight' at all -

That’s not what the verse says.

Galena wrote:
And finally Proverbs is not about wisdom, it is about the fear (respect) of God who is the One that gives you wisdom in the first place, it is about His wisdom, not the gaining of it by mental exercise, self taught philosophy and educated intellect, Proverbs 1:1-7

Karl : Have you read those verses? Verse five already mentions people who are wise and have insight.

Karl, do you ever read my whole sentences?

Of course! For example the question I just answered here.

Let me explain. Ecclesiastes has wisdom, psalms has wisdom, even Genesis contains wisdom, so what distinguishes proverbs from the rest of scripture then?

The purpose of the book. Mentioned at the very beginning of the book.

… I was attempting to correct the balance.

That’s not the purpose of this discussion. The purpose of this discussion is to bring out the meaning of this verse, not some philosophical treatise on the whole book of Proverbs.

Galena wrote:
To comment on the grammar I do believe that
1. a negative command can only be used with the imperfect verb, which rules out על influencing בין in this verse.
2. Verse 10, though not a part of this discourse, clearly demonstrates where על is governing also the second verb, and it does this via the addition of the vav.

Karl said : Chris: did you look at the Hebrew of these verses? Or are you just citing some commentary? Your notes on the grammar are inaccurate.

Of course I read them in hebrew, and no I did not look at any commentary,

Then why did you use different words than what are in the verses?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Karl I am fed up with the way you argue your points. Instead of answering to what I said in the Beginning which was Spot on topic you have this habit of ripping through every syntactical unit I write and then we end up arguing over each darn sentence, this always leads to argument and counter argument and ends up going off topic. Why don't you just answer the faulty premise with the correction, instead of pulling to shreds and dissecting every little syllable. Answer by correcting my reasoning as a whole, not in bread crumb pieces. I answered my objection by stating my reasoning, not by pulling to pieces every sentence that was spoken. This leads to so much misunderstanding because I end up having to explain my own explanations about my explanations. My initial response was short and as explicable as I could make it, you turn this into a complex discourse, instead of just stating your objection first to my reasoning as a whole, then correct the darn grammar if it is wrong, instead you string the whole thing out in a torturous dialogue. Correct my grammar if it is wrong.

My objection centred around two peoples' comments, one of them was this which I strongly disagreed with:

The whole context of the book of Proverbs is the acquisition of wisdom and insight, not the abandonment thereof. If this were an imperative, that would go against the whole rest of the book. But as a participle, it modifies the first part of the sentence indicating that the main effort of a man is not getting rich, but in acquiring and maintaining insight.

I then tackled the emphasis laid on the first half of the first sentence because it appeared that you were reasoning out that "not the abandonment of wisdom and insight" based on the fact that the whole book of proverbs was about wisdom so I then sought to tackle the point that was made after the comma in the first sentence, I then sought to argue against what was said at the end of this paragraph using grammar and reasoning.

That is what I was answering in my original post.


And what may I ask does this mean? Last thing you asked about what I said previously, it makes no sense.

Then why did you use different words than what are in the verses?

[Jemoh66]

Oh for crying out loud, those of you who believe that proverbs is about wisdom and therefore this verse can not possibly be asking you to abandon wisdom are mistaken. The whole of scripture you will find the following: Do not be wise in your own eyes and even proverbs at the beginning issues a warning to you: Do not trust in your own understanding... and again in another proverb Be not wise in your eyes

This verse being discussed is not, I repeat not about wisdom at all, has nothing whatsoever to do with wisdom, it is about your own special brand of insight which man calls wisdom, that cocky arrogance that thinks life and fortune and blessing are in his own hands, under his control. The Word מִבִּינָתְךָ in this context is the self cultured, man-made wisdom that is negated in this particular proverb by the word חֲדָל which some now think they have justification for correcting because of their 'wisdom' .

To say that this second clause in verse 4 could possibly mean that one should 'continue to have insight' is totally out of rythm and context, and especially so when you continue on to the first line of verse 5. By out of context I mean just take a look at all 8 verses, there is not one positive, they are full of negative particles everywhere, the leading theme is "NOT followed by the RATIONALE". To say : "continue in your own wisdom" is a Complete and utter Break in the theme, it states a positive when there are no positives. Verse 1 lays the foundation for a positive perspective on ALL 8 verses when it begins with: consider diligently everything that is before you. This is the ONLY wisdom you need. Consider diligently.

Chris, I totally agree with your treatment of the text here. It is good discourse analysis, and is consistent with the whole, with the syntax, and with the grammar.

And finally Proverbs is not about wisdom, it is about the fear (respect) of God who is the One that gives you wisdom in the first place, it is about His wisdom, not the gaining of it by mental exercise, self taught philosophy and educated intellect, Proverbs 1:1-7

Here I don't fully agree with you. Of course we are to fear the LORD. It IS the beginning of wisdom. But the book is a collection of proverbs, which are being imparted to a younger generation. And this passage is the impartation of wisdom, a specific word of advice. You are correct when you say we are to shun self-taught philosophy. This is imparted wisdom. Also, I think I get what you mean by mental exercise, as opposed to "considering diligently." Both are mental exercises, but with different goals.

To comment on the grammar I do believe that
1. a negative command can only be used with the imperfect verb, which rules out על influencing בין in this verse.
2. Verse 10, though not a part of this discourse, clearly demonstrates where על is governing also the second verb, and it does this via the addition of the vav.

Just a note: it's אל not על. I am sure that was just a slip up

Kindest regards
chris[/quote]


Kindest Regards as well

[kwrandolph]

Karl I am fed up with the way you argue your points. Instead of answering to what I said in the Beginning which was Spot on topic you have this habit of ripping through every syntactical unit I write and then we end up arguing over each darn sentence, this always leads to argument and counter argument and ends up going off topic. Why don't you just answer the faulty premise with the correction, instead of pulling to shreds and dissecting every little syllable.

OK, you want an overall critique?

I wrote before that I’m a son of the Reformation. As a son of the Reformation, there are certain principles by which we operate and research.

You go by reason, we go by evidence. (In science, that’s mathematical models vs. observation.)

You go by “experts”, we go by research.

You go by form, we go by function.

In other words, your whole approach is medieval, which, oddly enough, is also the approach of the post-modernists. Our approach is modern, the modernism that was ushered in by the Reformation.

Answer by correcting my reasoning as a whole, not in bread crumb pieces. I answered my objection by stating my reasoning, not by pulling to pieces every sentence that was spoken. This leads to so much misunderstanding because I end up having to explain my own explanations about my explanations.

If your reasoning weren’t so full of errors, then there wouldn’t be any reason to pull it apart sentence by sentence.

My initial response was short and as explicable as I could make it, you turn this into a complex discourse, instead of just stating your objection first to my reasoning as a whole, then correct the darn grammar if it is wrong, instead you string the whole thing out in a torturous dialogue. Correct my grammar if it is wrong.

It’s your whole reasoning that’s wrong, not just your grammar.

My objection centred around two peoples' comments, one of them was this which I strongly disagreed with:

The whole context of the book of Proverbs is the acquisition of wisdom and insight, not the abandonment thereof. If this were an imperative, that would go against the whole rest of the book. But as a participle, it modifies the first part of the sentence indicating that the main effort of a man is not getting rich, but in acquiring and maintaining insight.

I then tackled the emphasis laid on the first half of the first sentence because it appeared that you were reasoning out that "not the abandonment of wisdom and insight" based on the fact that the whole book of proverbs was about wisdom so I then sought to tackle the point that was made after the comma in the first sentence, I then sought to argue against what was said at the end of this paragraph using grammar and reasoning.

That is what I was answering in my original post.

Unfortunately………………You’re wrong. Throughout the book, over and over again, it mentions the acquisition, retention and use of wisdom. It mentions the actions that a wise person does. That was listed at the very beginning as the purpose of the book. Do I take Proverbs at its word, or do I follow some theory that fits the presupposition of some “expert”?

And what may I ask does this mean? Last thing you asked about what I said previously, it makes no sense.

Then why did you use different words than what are in the verses?

Look at the words you mentioned, and look at Proverbs 23:4–5, are the same words found in both places?

In closing, I just realized a very curious thing—there’s a group of people who claim that a Dutch humanist who didn’t even believe it, was uniquely inspired by God to prepare a copy of the New Testament that is without error, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.—those were not the inspired writers.

Likewise, it was the Masoretes who were inspired by God to write a copy of Tanakh that is without error, not Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, et al. Even the points which they invented were divinely inspired.

Don’t you find it curious too, that such a group exists?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Dear Karl,

Just a note: it's אל not על. I am sure that was just a slip up

Well I am red faced here, I kept reading this whole section in the hebrew and I am shocked that I read ayin lamed instead of aleph lamed, how on earth I made this blunder left me speechless. So I am terribly sorry for that.

So let me please backtrack. You are saying that מִבִּינָתְךָ is a participle and therefore translating this section as (roughly worded): ... your understanding/integrity do not cast off... or shall we say: ...do not leave off from your understanding... and then the negative particle in the beginning applies then obviously to this word as well?

My only argument at this moment (leaving reasoning aside) is the absence of a vav prefixed to this participle.

One last note if I may:

Karl said: You go by reason, we go by evidence. (In science, that’s mathematical models vs. observation.)

You go by “experts”, we go by research.

You go by form, we go by function.

Reason: The art of Reason can certainly be used to promote error I agree, but then so can misinterpretation of factual, empirically observed phenomena right? I have never seen God, I have no idea what He looks like, but by looking at the things I believe He has created (like my two pet ducks and how they waddle and clumsy they can be ) I reason out that God has a sense of humour, I look at the perfection of colour harmony and delicate things and reason out that God must be beautiful because an artist creates in his own image and can not create something that is he is not. There is no evidence to back any of this up. If my reasoning does not contradict what Truth is (that is biblical truth for me) then reason is acceptable I think.

Experts: Experts are simply people who have dedicated their years to an academic area where I can not. I need their expertise.

Careful research and functional evidence, empirical observation and solidified testimony in a highly acclaimed academic world has convinced the majority that your great great great grandparents were single celled amoeba that through genetic mutation by accidental mis-replication of the DNA by the ribosome, eventually brought about the fully functional human being. What does this say about evidence, and yet I have not studied enough, neither do I know enough in order to hold my own in defence of the opposite, so I turn to reason. What else can one do? So reason is not that bad Karl surely.

Form and Function: No idea what you mean here - sorry.

Kind regards
Chris

[kwrandolph]

Dear Karl,

Just a note: it's אל not על. I am sure that was just a slip up

Well I am red faced here, I kept reading this whole section in the hebrew and I am shocked that I read ayin lamed instead of aleph lamed, how on earth I made this blunder left me speechless. So I am terribly sorry for that.

You also had the verb בין instead of the noun בינה.

So let me please backtrack. You are saying that מִבִּינָתְךָ is a participle and therefore translating this section as (roughly worded): ... your understanding/integrity do not cast off... or shall we say: ...do not leave off from your understanding... and then the negative particle in the beginning applies then obviously to this word as well?

Of course not! It’s a feminine noun ending in a Heh, in construct case to the appended personal pronoun which is a masculine singular. It has a prefix shortened from מן. As a noun, it is used 14 times in Proverbs alone, I didn’t count how many times in the rest of Tanakh.

My only argument at this moment (leaving reasoning aside) is the absence of a vav prefixed to this participle.

Here you’re trying to make something fit your model, instead of analyzing what’s there.

If you were so confused in the past, why didn’t you ask? Instead of starting an argument?

One last note if I may:

Karl said: You go by reason, we go by evidence. (In science, that’s mathematical models vs. observation.)

You go by “experts”, we go by research.

You go by form, we go by function.

Reason: The art of Reason can certainly be used to promote error I agree, but then so can misinterpretation of factual, empirically observed phenomena right? I have never seen God, I have no idea what He looks like, but by looking at the things I believe He has created (like my two pet ducks and how they waddle and clumsy they can be ) I reason out that God has a sense of humour, I look at the perfection of colour harmony and delicate things and reason out that God must be beautiful because an artist creates in his own image and can not create something that is he is not. There is no evidence to back any of this up. If my reasoning does not contradict what Truth is (that is biblical truth for me) then reason is acceptable I think.

Experts: Experts are simply people who have dedicated their years to an academic area where I can not. I need their expertise.

Careful research and functional evidence, empirical observation and solidified testimony in a highly acclaimed academic world has convinced the majority that your great great great grandparents were single celled amoeba that through genetic mutation by accidental mis-replication of the DNA by the ribosome, eventually brought about the fully functional human being. What does this say about evidence, and yet I have not studied enough, neither do I know enough in order to hold my own in defence of the opposite, so I turn to reason. What else can one do? So reason is not that bad Karl surely.

Form and Function: No idea what you mean here - sorry.

Kind regards
Chris

Yup! You’re very medieval and pre-modern in your thinking.

Your description of seeing God is formal, whereas Bible describes him by what he has done, functional.

For us, truth is not reason, but action. Its measure is what are its fruits, its results, not whether or not it fits a certain logical pattern.

When I went to college, I was taught that science was defined as a method. Anyone who followed that method did science, no matter what was his level of education. For example, it was two housewives who established the existence of lyme disease through a careful epidemiological study while all the “experts” pooh-poohed their efforts. The fruits of their efforts showed truth.

However, in post-modern science, just like it was in pre-modern science, “science” is what the “experts” say is “science”. So when some “experts” claim that a certain ancient religious belief is “science”, it is to be considered science even when there’s no scientific methodology to back up that claim. It is that ancient religious belief that you describe in your description of “experts”. Even your description of who are “experts” is based on who they are, not what they do.

I recognize no experts, rather I look at what they do. If an “expert” messes up, I’ll show him where and why.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Bloody hell Karl - After humbling and accepting my mistake I decided to clarify (because I was afraid to make another mistake) to clarify from YOUR point of view, I was trying to be polite by attempting to work from your seating position so that I might then be able to reason very carefully, that was my idea. Talk about crushing under foot someone who has fallen.

Galena wrote:
My only argument at this moment (leaving reasoning aside) is the absence of a vav prefixed to this participle.

Karl said : Here you’re trying to make something fit your model, instead of analyzing what’s there

I was asking a bloody question! Not fitting a model!

If you were so confused in the past, why didn’t you ask? Instead of starting an argument?

A classic case of entrapment, when one starts to respond emotionally this is what happens - so my fault yes absolutely my fault, I am making mistakes now, yes, yes, I know. But and However my first two posts to this topic were well thought out and without grammatical errors. My last posts are obviously becoming full of mistakes because my responses go from carefully thought out to emotional as you begin to dissect and punch. You often do not answer the question you simply reply with a hidden smack in the mouth having focused like a heat seeking missile on a particular error of thought, accusations and judgements follow as the posts continue based on just a few words I might write that steer from your ideas on how I should put forth a case :

Karl said: You go by reason, we go by evidence. (In science, that’s mathematical models vs. observation.)

You go by “experts”, we go by research.

You go by form, we go by function.

Chris Replied:
Reason: The art of Reason can certainly be used to promote error I agree, but then so can misinterpretation of factual, empirically observed phenomena right? I have never seen God, I have no idea what He looks like, but by looking at the things I believe He has created (like my two pet ducks and how they waddle and clumsy they can be ) I reason out that God has a sense of humour, I look at the perfection of colour harmony and delicate things and reason out that God must be beautiful because an artist creates in his own image and can not create something that is he is not. There is no evidence to back any of this up. If my reasoning does not contradict what Truth is (that is biblical truth for me) then reason is acceptable I think.

Experts: Experts are simply people who have dedicated their years to an academic area where I can not. I need their expertise.

Careful research and functional evidence, empirical observation and solidified testimony in a highly acclaimed academic world has convinced the majority that your great great great grandparents were single celled amoeba that through genetic mutation by accidental mis-replication of the DNA by the ribosome, eventually brought about the fully functional human being. What does this say about evidence, and yet I have not studied enough, neither do I know enough in order to hold my own in defence of the opposite, so I turn to reason. What else can one do? So reason is not that bad Karl surely.

Form and Function: No idea what you mean here - sorry.

Kind regards
Chris

Karl Responded:
Yup! You’re very medieval and pre-modern in your thinking.

Your description of seeing God is formal, whereas Bible describes him by what he has done, functional
It is that ancient religious belief that you describe in your description of “experts”. Even your description of who are “experts” is based on who they are, not what they do.

.

Your reply has just blown me away, I am in total shock, stupified!, it's mind-boggling, but this is an example of how difficult it is becoming to reason anything out with you, and I have learned, painfully, that I am becoming fearful of discussing anything at all with you. The only thing I can say is "All Praise to the middle ages, may they live forever, and may their dots light up the heavens"

[Galena]

Norman asked : אַל־תִּיגַע לְֽהַעֲשִׁיר מִֽבִּינָתְךָ חֲדָֽל׃

How could I understand it? I could make a translation like: 'Don't toil to get rich, from your understanding it desists.' But it doesn't make any sense. I mean, I'm translating the last word as a Qatal, but this approach has the problem of not having a clear subject (which, apparently, also happens in verse 5, thus giving me the idea that in both verses the subject is just implied.) Or can it be treated as an imperative, as many translations seem to do?

A stative is a verb that expresses a mood or state rather than doing something, a state of the mind or of the emotions instead of an action. This Verb that some think could be a participle has been pointed by the masoretes to represent precisely this, as a peh gutteral conjugation this verb חֲדָֽל is a stative verb but also an imperative. I searched even-shoshan and found only one other case like this in Jeremiah 40:4 at the end of this verse, but this is in pause due to an atnah underneath and so not an imperative. So basically it is telling us to have a certain attitude within the context of these verse, not to actually suddenly stop thinking or using our understanding, but adopt a certain attitude in this regard.
Kind regards
chris

[Isaac Fried]

Chris,
Jeremiah 40:4
וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה פִתַּחְתִּיךָ הַיּוֹם מִן הָאזִקִּים אֲשֶׁר עַל יָדֶךָ אִם טוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ לָבוֹא אִתִּי בָבֶל בֹּא וְאָשִׂים אֶת עֵינִי עָלֶיךָ וְאִם רַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ לָבוֹא אִתִּי בָבֶל חֲדָל
is translated as
NIV: "But today I am freeing you from the chains on your wrists. Come with me to Babylon, if you like, and I will look after you; but if you do not want to, then don’t come."

Appears to me that it is חְדַל except that the "guttural" letter xet turns the schwa into the compromise marking xataph-patah, and the end of sentence is what turns the patah under the letter dalet into a qametz.

Isaac Fried, Boston University