Meaning of proverbs 23: 4

[kwrandolph]

Karl said : Do stative verbs have direct objects? Can you give an example of such in English?

Karl you never cease to amaze me...I really thought to myself, ok he asked a direct question, to this I can answer directly with universally accepted grammatical definitions and I gave examples, wow, I actually provided evidence that can be observed and verified, what could go wrong, I thought?

Definitions, my boy, definitions.

I was surprised at your answer, because it was not according to the definition that I was taught.

Karl said : Does the fact that an activity takes place in the mind negate the fact that it is an activity? If I add a column of numbers in my mind without using a calculator or pen and paper, does the fact that it happened solely in my mind make it no longer the activity of adding?

And then you surprised me with this tricky issue, ah, I sipped my coffee and took a minute to debate with myself, Karl has been thinking, is this a trick question, another 2 coffees and some careful typing, better not mess this up I thought to myself.....but guess what............careful reasoning just did not seem to quite do it eh?

That was not a trick question, it was an attempt to verify that the answer you gave me, the one that surprised me because it differed from what I previously had learned and which is the scientific operative meaning, is what you really meant.

… (not quoted, but you reminded me of the book “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”) …

I made another boo-boo, typed 'static' instead of 'stative', whoops, but then Karl if you had used some of that Greek reasoning you might have spotted that this was a slip-up? After all the context demanded it.

I didn’t analyze it deeply, and I’m not smart enough to catch such a boo-boo on the fly. Further, it seemed to fit.

Galena wrote:
Karl said : Let’s break that down: Linguistics, the language used in Tanakh can be scientifically studied.


Never denied that - it's the uneven balance you seem to worship that is wrong.


Karl asked : “uneven balance”??? What uneven balance? Worship?????????

Within the context of what I said, the worship of the scientific method to the exclusion of all other faculties, including those Greek twits somewhere in the aegean.

When I see this claim of “worship”, a picture in my mind comes up showing Obelix tapping his head with a balloon above his head with the words “Ils sont fous” while Asterix looks on.

Galena wrote:
Linguistics of course has cultural rules, …

Karl asked : What?? What cultural rules?

The peculiarities and subtleties of communicating humour, sarcasm and feelings within a discourse or poetic medium is the area of semantics, but these semantics are controlled by cultural upbringing and environment. Noam Chomsky, fantastic fellow, do you like him? Very intelligent gentleman, anyway, good old Noam said:
"""In accounting for the astonishing rapidity with which children assimilate complicated and subtle grammatical rules because we are all born with an innate capacity for language..... that this makes children able to generalize the grammatical principles of their native tongue from a small set of 'generative rules' that are hardwired into how they think. He goes on to say that languages change alter and develop when the parameters of these rules become reset within a culture.""""" These are the cultural rules I mean, if they are not what you understood then I apologise.

No, I’m not a fan of Noam Chomsky. While he in some places makes some interesting statements, there are other times that I find questionable. Basically, I’ve ignored him for decades.

My biggest objection is where he leverages his international fame as a linguist to push destructive social and political policies. True, I should keep these separate, but I’m human and find that my emotional disgust at his political advocacy colors how I view his linguistic work as well.

And no, this is not what I understood.

And finally

Karl said : The question before us, and the disagreement between us, is what is the precise structure of this sentence?

Nope, that was not the question that I was answering to you,

In other words, we’ve been talking past each other, as that is the goal towards which all my other discussion has led.

When I discussed other issues, it was an attempt to find common ground upon which to advance towards that goal.

I answered Norman's questions and put forward the grammatical rule necessary.

That was based on something that I found untrustworthy, namely the Masoretic points. What I want is something I can understand apart from the Masoretic points.

The verb חדל without points can carry any of a range of meanings as modified by its grammatical forms, including those indicated by third person Qatal Qal, Piel, Pual; participle Qal; imperative, and what others did I miss?

That it’s directed to a second person concerning his actions, that rules out the Qatal, but leaves possibilities for participle and imperative.

You suggested based on a single use, that בינה has a very negative meaning. However, in all the other uses, it has a positive meaning, only coming up short when compared to God (that one use). In that one use, the understanding is that even that positive meaning has its limits, not that it is a negative. Among other uses, it is a quality that people can possess. In this verse בינה is found in the form מבינתך “from your insight” indicating that it’s possessed.

The meaning of חדל does have somewhat a negative meaning, namely the stopping of other action, even going so far as to prevent action.

Putting all these thoughts together—if we have חדל as an imperative, then the command is to stop something that is a positive. This is assuming that מבינתך חדל is a self-contained second clause. When we look at the rest of the book of Proverbs, this reading directly contradicts the urging to acquire and keep this quality, one of the main themes of the book.

The other option, that it is a participle, makes the second clause a dependent clause that modifies the main clause. In this secondary use it actually strengthens the main clause by indicating that there is something more important than what is being commanded against in the first clause and is being presented as something to continue.

Therefore and in conclusion: חדל is a participle in this verse.

Looking back over this list, I have presented all of these ideas before, some more than once, maybe just not all in one place as in this reciting.

Your reasons as I remember them (without taking the time to read all of them over again) are:

The Masoretic points, which in other places I find as untrustworthy, therefore I consider this not a valid objection.

Your definition of בינה which I found at odds with all other uses of the term.

Your use of “stative” in a way contrary to and different from the scientific use that I learned and use.

That others take this as an imperative. But when we look at why, they point back to the Masoretic points. See objection listed first above.

Did I accurately list your reasons? Do you have any that don’t ultimately depend on the Masoretic points?

Kind regards
chris

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Karl said : When I see this claim of “worship”, a picture in my mind comes up showing Obelix tapping his head with a balloon above his head with the words “Ils sont fous” while Asterix looks on.

A big sigh of contented relief oozed out from between my horizontally elongated lips (otherwise know as a 'smile' in scientific terminology) as I read these words I thought, ah... Karl...he does have a sense of humour.

Karl said : You suggested based on a single use, that בינה has a very negative meaning.

Well then, does the word 'Dog' have a positive meaning or a negative one? Only adding an adjective will tell. Would the word "Laughter' have a positive or negative meaning? Depends on the nature of the context in the sentence, or whether a good or a bad adjective was applied.

Karl said : Putting all these thoughts together—if we have חדל as an imperative, then the command is to stop something that is a positive. This is assuming that מבינתך חדל is a self-contained second clause. When we look at the rest of the book of Proverbs, this reading directly contradicts the urging to acquire and keep this quality, one of the main themes of the book.

Keeping in context but focusing on the underlined sentence I would ask you this: Throughout the book of Job, Job's 3 friends (not the fourth one) speak a considerable number of theological truths about the very nature of God and living before him with consequences. Job speaks nothing but agony, bringing into question everything his friends say and in his friends' eyes questioning the very essence of their theological foundation. Now the scriptures as a whole confirm what Job's 3 friends say generally speaking. So suppose this - What if God had not answered Job? What if the book had ended at chapter 32:1? Where it says ...so Job's friends ended their conversations with him and stopped answering him because he was righteous in his own eyes.... How many people do you think would have agreed with the friends and disagreed with Job? How would people have interpreted Job's behaviour, his answers. Yet we know the outcome, thank goodness, Jobs friends were in the wrong because they spoke within a set of theological rules that allowed for no possible inclusion of the diversity of God's dealings with man, they spoke from their own understanding, they used only a limited knowledge of God's ways as a yard-stick for measuring up Job's uncomfortable questioning, this was them using their own understanding.

The points I am trying to withdraw from this are two-fold:

a) Generally speaking, the arguments that the friends used are theological truths in scripture; they are aspects about God and the consequences of right and wrong as living before Him. Yet, they are refuted by God, and thus are negative comments and these truths become 'un-truths'; not because they are wrong in themselves but rather because Job's friends had a limited understanding and also never answered Jobs pain at all, also they were seriously challenged by something that they could not fit into their understanding of God. Correct and wise theology becane incorrect and unwise theology.

b) In this context their understanding was also negative. It was how they used their intellect within this context that God gave then a ticking off for. Understanding and wisdom is a positive element, but here it became a negative element because it was an understanding that forgot to allow for the unknown and the unexpected and the unimagineable.

So we have their wisdom as negative and God's truths becoming negative in the manner that they were applied.

I really hope you understand what I am trying to explain here Karl.

Karl listed : Your reasons as I remember them are:

The Masoretic points, which in other places I find as untrustworthy, therefore I consider this not a valid objection.

Your definition of בינה which I found at odds with all other uses of the term.

Your use of “stative” in a way contrary to and different from the scientific use that I learned and use.

That others take this as an imperative. But when we look at why, they point back to the Masoretic points. See objection listed first above.

Did I accurately list your reasons? Do you have any that don’t ultimately depend on the Masoretic points?

Yes to all of the above. And yes I do have a reason that does not depend on the masoretic points? It's called בינה (or should that be בַנִי )?

[Isaac Fried]

Chris,

Would you elucidate me (us) as to what is the proposed English translation of
אַל תִּיגַע לְֽהַעֲשִׁיר מִֽבִּינָתְךָ חדל
assuming that חדל is a "participle"?

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

Karl said : Putting all these thoughts together—if we have חדל as an imperative, then the command is to stop something that is a positive. This is assuming that מבינתך חדל is a self-contained second clause. When we look at the rest of the book of Proverbs, this reading directly contradicts the urging to acquire and keep this quality, one of the main themes of the book.

Keeping in context but focusing on the underlined sentence I would ask you this: Throughout the book of Job, Job's 3 friends (not the fourth one) speak a considerable number of theological truths about the very nature of God and living before him with consequences.

This is what I thought the first time I read Job, also the second, even the tenth times. But after 20 times, I now recognize how the three friends didn’t say a single thing that was right.

Job speaks nothing but agony, bringing into question everything his friends say and in his friends' eyes questioning the very essence of their theological foundation.

And he was right.

Now the scriptures as a whole confirm what Job's 3 friends say generally speaking.

Nope.

So suppose this - What if God had not answered Job? What if the book had ended at chapter 32:1? Where it says ...so Job's friends ended their conversations with him and stopped answering him because he was righteous in his own eyes.... How many people do you think would have agreed with the friends and disagreed with Job?

All too many. Biblical ignorance is very wide spread, it infects the majority of those who call themselves “Christians”.

How would people have interpreted Job's behaviour, his answers. Yet we know the outcome, thank goodness, Jobs friends were in the wrong because they spoke within a set of theological rules that allowed for no possible inclusion of the diversity of God's dealings with man, they spoke from their own understanding, they used only a limited knowledge of God's ways as a yard-stick for measuring up Job's uncomfortable questioning, this was them using their own understanding.

They answered Job according to the basis of pagan religions, not according to God’s teachings. They didn’t have בינה. They lacked the Godly insight that makes people wise.

The points I am trying to withdraw from this are two-fold:

a) Generally speaking, the arguments that the friends used are theological truths in scripture; they are aspects about God and the consequences of right and wrong as living before Him. Yet, they are refuted by God, and thus are negative comments and these truths become 'un-truths'; not because they are wrong in themselves but rather because Job's friends had a limited understanding and also never answered Jobs pain at all, also they were seriously challenged by something that they could not fit into their understanding of God. Correct and wise theology becane incorrect and unwise theology.

Sorry, you have misunderstood Job and his three friends.

b) In this context their understanding was also negative. It was how they used their intellect within this context that God gave then a ticking off for. Understanding and wisdom is a positive element, but here it became a negative element because it was an understanding that forgot to allow for the unknown and the unexpected and the unimagineable.

It was theologically wrong.

So we have their wisdom as negative and God's truths becoming negative in the manner that they were applied.

Job was right, his three friends wrong. The problem with Job is that he overstated his case.

I really hope you understand what I am trying to explain here Karl.

I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but it’s supported neither in Job nor here in Proverbs.

Karl listed : Your reasons as I remember them are:

The Masoretic points, which in other places I find as untrustworthy, therefore I consider this not a valid objection.

Your definition of בינה which I found at odds with all other uses of the term.

Your use of “stative” in a way contrary to and different from the scientific use that I learned and use.

That others take this as an imperative. But when we look at why, they point back to the Masoretic points. See objection listed first above.

Did I accurately list your reasons? Do you have any that don’t ultimately depend on the Masoretic points?

Yes to all of the above. And yes I do have a reason that does not depend on the masoretic points? It's called בינה (or should that be בַנִי )?

You’ll have to explain what you mean by that.

Karl W. Randolph.

[normansimonr]

Hi, I've just come up with proverbs 24: 28, which reads:

אַל־תְּהִי עֵד־חִנָּם בְּרֵעֶךָ וַהֲפִתִּיתָ בִּשְׂפָתֶֽיךָ׃

The meaning is pretty clear for me: 'Don't be a witness without cause against your neighbour, and don't deceive with your lips.'

However, that second 'don't' had to be added for clarity in English. That second 'don't' wasn't in the original. And the verb in the second colon looks like a Hifil perfect, doesn't it?

Now, here's proverbs 23: 4

אַל־תִּיגַ֥ע לְֽהַעֲשִׁ֑יר מִֽבִּינָתְךָ֥ חֲדָֽל׃

Is there any way that we could add a second 'don't' here so that it says: 'Don't toil to get rich, from your understanding (ie, wisdom) don't depart'?

And maybe the last word is actually a Qal Perfect?

[Galena]

Abandoning Ship...

...but before I jump...

Isaac asked : Would you elucidate me (us) as to what is the proposed English translation of
אַל תִּיגַע מִֽבִּינָתְךָ לְֽהַעֲשִׁיר חדל
assuming that חדל is a "participle"?

Participles can only be attributive, predicate or substantive. The predicate participle can express the past present of future. As I consider this as a participle I find the following:

1. It does not ascribe a quality to a noun, therefore it can not be attributive.

2. Does it work as a noun? I can not see how (the ceaser, the abandoner, the stopper?) No, neither is there any genitive/possession role here - so it can not be substantive.

3. Last option is predicate therefore, which is a verbal adjective with the English idea of 'ing' on it. It says something about a noun, it asserts something particular such as : "Good is the man that came to me" or " this cell that I cultured is living" Let's try it, from your understanding do not ceasing, do not stopping, do not ending, how about: from your understanding ceasing, stopping. Nothing works.

My assertion is that there is no way that this can be a participle, and the masoretes were right in pointing it as an imperative. And my assertion is that this refers to fleshly understanding improperly applied for the following reasons:

1. Poverbs 3:5 and 30:2 are the only two places where the word בינה translated 'understanding' is used negatively (to counter one of Karl's points).
2. the prefix מן carries a nuance of 'source' 'point of origin' due to the prefixed particle, the source origin would be inside your self, in other words not from outside, ie God's wisdom.
3. a weaker argument though no less worth considering is the idea that when a pronoun is attached to the verb as opposed to being seperate, it can carry the nuance of being 'intimate' 'more personal', this alludes to the double idea that this understanding is from the intellect of the person rather than being the wisdom of God.
4. The writer of this proverb did not say, from understanding.... or from wisdom....forcing a definite article to be assumed when translated, this is not THE wisdom, if the writer had said this then I would have to conclude the possibility that God's wisdom would have been intended. No, the writer added a prefix to indicate origin and a suffix to strengthen the relationship in order to Point Away from the wisdom that comes from God.
5. Another point to counter Karl's idea that this could be: "..do not abandon your own understanding" is this:- Nowhere in proverbs is wisdom or understanding to be assumed to be the right or the intellect or the possession of the man, it is always referred to as simply Wisdom, and is always assumed to belong to God. Proverbs NEVER says or even alludes to the idea that " Get Your Wisdom from God, Get Your Understanding from God" It says Get Understanding - For the proverb does not say : .."do not abandon wisdom" or "from wisdom cease" which would assume God Kind of Wisdom, but what does it say? It says YOUR wisdom/understanding. Proverbs 3:7 says "do not lean upon YOUR own understanding".

Kind regards
chris

[kwrandolph]

Hi, I've just come up with proverbs 24: 28, which reads:

אַל־תְּהִי עֵד־חִנָּם בְּרֵעֶךָ וַהֲפִתִּיתָ בִּשְׂפָתֶֽיךָ׃

The meaning is pretty clear for me: 'Don't be a witness without cause against your neighbour, and don't deceive with your lips.'

However, that second 'don't' had to be added for clarity in English. That second 'don't' wasn't in the original. And the verb in the second colon looks like a Hifil perfect, doesn't it?

This is not a literal translation, rather somewhat of a paraphrase that gets the main idea across.

Waw has a wider use in Hebrew than just “and” in English, therefore sometimes a different word in English fits translation better. One of its uses would be better rendered in English as “that” or “in order that” or “such that” making this proverb “Don’t be a witness without cause against your neighbor, such that you entice (as in “lead astray”) with your lips.” Basically the same idea.

Isaac asked : Would you elucidate me (us) as to what is the proposed English translation of
אַל תִּיגַע מִֽבִּינָתְךָ לְֽהַעֲשִׁיר חדל
assuming that חדל is a "participle"?

Participles can only be attributive, predicate or substantive. The predicate participle can express the past present of future. As I consider this as a participle I find the following:

1. It does not ascribe a quality to a noun, therefore it can not be attributive.

Yes it does, in that it ascribes non-ceasing to the noun “insight”.

…
3. Last option is predicate therefore, which is a verbal adjective with the English idea of 'ing' on it. It says something about a noun, it asserts something particular such as : "Good is the man that came to me" or " this cell that I cultured is living" Let's try it, from your understanding do not ceasing, do not stopping, do not ending, how about: from your understanding ceasing, stopping. Nothing works.

Sorry, you have taken it out of its context. When you take the whole verse as a unit, then it works.

As a verbal adjective, that’s the same as point #1 above.

My assertion is that there is no way that this can be a participle, and the masoretes were right in pointing it as an imperative. And my assertion is that this refers to fleshly understanding improperly applied for the following reasons:

1. Poverbs 3:5 and 30:2 are the only two places where the word בינה translated 'understanding' is used negatively (to counter one of Karl's points).

Proverbs 3:5 indicates neither positive nor negative attribute to בינה. It’s when we look at its other uses, we find where there’s enough context to indicate whether or not the meaning is positive, that it’s always positive. Thus the indication here is not that it’s a negative, rather that it’s insufficient.

Proverbs 30:2 the writer is claiming that he doesn’t even have the insight of man. In other words, he lacks the positive.

2. the prefix מן carries a nuance of 'source' 'point of origin' due to the prefixed particle, the source origin would be inside your self, in other words not from outside, ie God's wisdom.

Nope. Elsewhere בינה is described as something that men can possess, but that doesn’t negate that God is the ultimate source of בינה.

3. a weaker argument though no less worth considering is the idea that when a pronoun is attached to the verb as opposed to being seperate, it can carry the nuance of being 'intimate' 'more personal', this alludes to the double idea that this understanding is from the intellect of the person rather than being the wisdom of God.

There’s no pronoun attached to this participle.

4. The writer of this proverb did not say, from understanding.... or from wisdom....

Yes he did.

forcing a definite article to be assumed when translated, this is not THE wisdom, if the writer had said this then I would have to conclude the possibility that God's wisdom would have been intended.

This is a theological argument, not a linguistic one.

No, the writer added a prefix to indicate origin and a suffix to strengthen the relationship in order to Point Away from the wisdom that comes from God.

This is not what the text says. This is eisegesis, adding to what the text says.

5. Another point to counter Karl's idea that this could be: "..do not abandon your own understanding" is this:- Nowhere in proverbs is wisdom or understanding to be assumed to be the right or the intellect or the possession of the man,

Look at Deuteronomy 4:6, 1 Kings 10:24, etc. for “wisdom”. “Insight” with a possessive suffix or in construct is used only five times, three of them disputed in this message, one of the others is also Deuteronomy 4:6.

Kind regards
chris

I still see you as clutching at straws to defend the Masoretes. And I keep seeing reasons to cut the straws.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

" a weaker argument though no less worth considering is the idea that when a pronoun is attached to the verb as opposed to being seperate, it can carry the nuance of being 'intimate' 'more personal', this alludes to the double idea that this understanding is from the intellect of the person rather than being the wisdom of God."

Boo boo I meant Obviously the word for understanding not the verb of course, I know that there is no pronoun attached to the verb, that should have been obvious but sorry for that typing error!

Karl said : I still see you as clutching at straws to defend the Masoretes. And I keep seeing reasons to cut the straws.

I wouldn't put it quite like that....I am fully confident that there are fluent readers of BH that would put such a strong argument for the masoretes in this verse that would have you clutching at straws - I am just a novice, an amateur, un-trained and un-skilled,

I perceive in your methodology in arguing your case a consistent pattern and it goes something like this:

1. I write 4 sentences in a reply
2. You spot 2 sentences that are weak
3. You give no credence to the other 2
4. You hone in and target the 2 that are weak
5. You build a case against those 2 weaker points.

Can I look forward to an English translation in the future? Karl Randolphs New American Diligently Revised vowel-less version?

Kind regards

[kwrandolph]

Karl said : I still see you as clutching at straws to defend the Masoretes. And I keep seeing reasons to cut the straws.

I wouldn't put it quite like that....I am fully confident that there are fluent readers of BH that would put such a strong argument for the masoretes in this verse that would have you clutching at straws - I am just a novice, an amateur, un-trained and un-skilled,

I have yet to meet one, either on line or in person.

I perceive in your methodology in arguing your case a consistent pattern and it goes something like this:

1. I write 4 sentences in a reply
2. You spot 2 sentences that are weak
3. You give no credence to the other 2
4. You hone in and target the 2 that are weak
5. You build a case against those 2 weaker points.

A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. When I break the weakest link, then the whole chain falls down.

Concerning your methodology—you make a constantly shifting target. When I cut some of your straws, you then grab different ones.

However, there is one constant: the Masoretes were divinely inspired such that they wrote without error. Moses when he wrote Torah wasn’t divinely inspired, because where he differed from the Masoretes, he made mistakes that were corrected by the Masoretes. Isaiah wrote in error, that was corrected by the Masoretes. Likewise Jeremiah and all the other claimed authors of Tanakh. The Masoretes were the real authors of the inspired, without error text.

Do you realize how silly that sounds to someone who believes in Biblical inerrancy?

Can I look forward to an English translation in the future? Karl Randolphs New American Diligently Revised vowel-less version?

I already gave it. Do you want me to go back and present it again?

Kind regards

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Karl said : However, there is one constant: the Masoretes were divinely inspired such that they wrote without error. Moses when he wrote Torah wasn’t divinely inspired, because where he differed from the Masoretes, he made mistakes that were corrected by the Masoretes. Isaiah wrote in error, that was corrected by the Masoretes. Likewise Jeremiah and all the other claimed authors of Tanakh. The Masoretes were the real authors of the inspired, without error text.

Do you realize how silly that sounds to someone who believes in Biblical inerrancy?

I have never, and and will never think like this, I have never intimated that I adhere to such a reasoning. Absolutely and categorically not, I have made that clear to you? What I do believe is that the scriptures were handed down without intentional error, without loss of meaning, without loss of consonants and that what Moses wrote is there in the masoretic translation, is there in the ~Spanish bible from 1260, is there in the leningrad codex, probably the Aleppo as well if it were not mostly lost in that fire. I believe that all that God said from the time of Moses onwards is here with us today.

How come the ten commandments, written originally in stone, once by God then by Moses, then transferred to writing material are with us today? What about the Torah itself? Anything missing do you think? Anything missing from the prophets that you are aware of? Your suggestion above inverts the idea and you believe that what we read today the masoretes have altered and left bits out and added bits. On this point I clutch not at a straw but on an iron bar.

Galena wrote:
Can I look forward to an English translation in the future? Karl Randolphs New American Diligently Revised vowel-less version?


Karl said : I already gave it. Do you want me to go back and present it again?

What you have published one? I don't have anything.

=======================================================================

Exegesis Eisegesis you choose…

My comment here earlier on the prefix and the suffix on that noun was not eisegesis, I was employing a perfectly logical deduction by observing small details. To give you an example I would turn to Numbers 22 to demonstrate how I was thinking:

Verse 20 God says to Balaam to go with them
Verse 21 Baalam rises up and goes with them
Verse 35 God tells Balaam to go with them

The scripture does not inform us of anything about Balaam's motives in verse 21 for going with the men. However I am going to apply Eisegesis (terrible I know). It goes something like this:
I know that Balaam was wrong to go with the men in verse 21 because the men did not come to him, Upon this assumption and one tiny grammatical change I see a hidden unrevealed story-line. I see that God used the word 'with' in verse 20 in a sort of formal distant manner (I suppose to mean go with the men but do not fellowship with their thinking). I also noticed (like I noticed in Job in another thread) that the hebrew word for 'with' changed Once only and then remained like this from verse 21 onwards. It changed from formal/distant nuance to intimate/cosy nuance. Why? I conclude that Balaam justified what the Lord had said, added to His word and snuggled up to the men and went with them, in other words Balaam partook closely and was one with them, God wanted Balaam to go but not be a part of so to speak, and perhaps he was more afraid of displeasing Balak than God which explains his enthusiastic " Balaam rose up and went with the men...". Then suddenly, unexpectedly God changes His mind and in Verse 35 God uses the cosy/intimate word for 'with', Question Karl: do you interpret this as God submitting to Balaam here? Or is that God's Spirit will not impinge Himself upon someone who is being a little stubborn or rebellious? Or do you just see the writer using two different words because he was bored, or do you think the masoretes messed with it somehow?

Exegesis or eisegesis, Oh I hate those words, I prefer to call it observing very subtle details and believing everything is written exactly for a reason.

This was my reasoning about the use of the mem prefix and the pronoun suffix attached to the noun for 'understanding'. You call it imposing my view, I call it not taking grammar for granted, observing the minute details and recognising that the hebrew way of expressing things is so far removed from an English way of expressing sentiments. Hebrew condenses and complexes its grammar to convey subtle sentiments is what I am beginning to learn, and I find this exciting, English will add a ton of adjectives and exclamation marks, adverbs and apostrophes to convey the same sentiments.