Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Post by ralph »

ducky wrote: ּSo why should we flip-flop in the air and doing all that we can to read it as "piercing", when all of the other evidence never see this root comes as "pierce".
I mean - put it on a scale. You put almost everything that we know on one side, and then, on the other side we can only put the "It Could Be because English has it too".
Forget "piercing".

If you ask why ["one would do all one can"] to read (some manuscripts) as karu/kaaru.

An answer is because that's what those manuscripts say! One doesn't have to do much. Just saying what the word says!

ducky wrote:an English speaker doesn't see a problem when he read this verse with the meaning of "pierce". Because in his tongue, he is used to it.
What you described about the difference in hebrew is the same as in English. I think it's the same issue hence I would prefer to translate karu/kaaru as bore or dug

ducky wrote: English's Dig = English's Pierce
No it isn't.

Pierce does tend to be clean, in one go, not removing stuff.

Dug tends to mean removing stuff and often not in one go.

To Bore is kind of between the two.. Something going straight through, but might not be in one go, and often something coming out.

And if all other cases of Kara / Kaara are dig i'd prefer to keep it as dig.
ducky wrote: But anyway, the other usage of "digging" is used also according to the movement of the sharp object being used as a shovel. And not about any piercing in the attempt of making a hole. And surely not about any brutal-act.
The majority of the time in English, digging would not be used to describe something going through flesh. It tends to be through mud. And therefore isn't used to describe a brutal act.

But that's not to say it can't be used that way.

It might be 1/1000 times that it is used that way, but the usage is clear and logical if/when it is.
ducky wrote: 6. So even if I accept the form of כארו/כרו, there is no way that it can be understood as "piercing" - There is just no way.
well i'd favour digging/boring..

but how would you understand it then, if you were to " accept the form of כארו/כרו"?
ducky wrote: pierce a hole in the door and it is called נקב.
or cheek and so on.
Also, these examples are brutal and the pieces of the body are also brutally taken out from the other side, or from the arrow when it is taken out.
and when you create a hole in a wooden door - you also knock it a few times. and still, it is called נקב.
I am not saying that digging is brutal and piercing isn't brutal. If describing piercing through a head then piercing would be brutal, usually ending in death.

You said in the case of נקב (which we might agree could be translated as pierce), in some examples, "pieces of the body are also brutally taken out from the other side"

But you also said
ducky wrote: Digging in Hebrew (כרה and חפר) is to create a wide and deep hole (relatively).
The act is to take Y out from X, and therefore, the specific place of the X becomes a hole. Like you take out dirt from the ground, and therefore, the specific place of the ground becomes a hole.

When you "dig" a nail inside the wall - you just stick it - and even though you made a hole in the wall. You didn't "dig" a hole. but you just pierced it.
And if you make a hole in the bucket - you don't "dig" the hole but you pierce it.

And this is the usage of the word anywhere. Not only in Hebrew, but also in the other Semitic languages.
Yet you agree that piercing can involve taking Y out of X.

So the process has a common factor, driving something into something, making a hole..

Then is the emphasis on taking stuff out of it making a substantial hole.

Or, on it finely going through.

There may be cases where in English one could say pierce or dig.

And there may be cases where it'd be really bizarre to say dig.

For example it would typically be bizarre to say for somebody doing an ear piercing to say they're going to dig through or into somebody's ear. As the emphasis is not on if a bit of ear lobe comes out. The emphasis is on that it goes through with minimum fuss.

In the case of a spear through he head, it'd usually be pierce.. but it's a large enough object, and may take stuff out, and it's not a fine procedure, somebody may say dug. I think either could work.. Pierce could work 'cos the emphasis could be that it is swift and maybe even fairly clean.

But if a person is alive and feeling it, feeling something going through his hand and writhing in pain, the emphasis may well be that there's a substantial hole in his hand and stuff coming out and maybe their instruments were a bit blunt and maybe the word "dug" sounds more apt.

In English the words pierce and dig are not the same and they have different connotations and in almost all cases one is used over the other. You dig earth, you dig rock.. you pierce ears.. A spear may pierce.. Rather like the examples you gave for hebrew. But the essential process of making a hole through something is still there, and the words have different connotations, and a person could sometimes use one word in place of the other, to emphasis differently.
ducky wrote: Or if I go to the doctor and he can't find my vein, and he plays around with the needle from side to side, then I would say that he "dug" *IN* my arm" (not "dug my arm", by the way).
(but I think that this usage is only in Modern Hebrew and I think it is influenced by English, I'm not sure about it).
Well in English that'd be a meaning of dug in English like prod. Not really what we are referring to

In both cases of "as a lion", or "dug", you have to add some words.. like "at" or "into"

"as a lion, [at] my hands and feet"

"they dug, [at/into ] my hands and feet]"

If somebody were to say They XXXXX the ground and said is XXXXX pierce or dug, i'd bet on dug. I have almost never in my life as a native English speaker, heard anybody say they pierced the ground. (Though with my knowledge of how English is used, how any word can be used in an unusual sense, i wouldn't say that just because I haven't heard it, it can't be said).. And if I was told that XXXXX is "pierced". Then I wouldn't say oh it must be a mistake, it must be "dug".

ducky wrote: I mean - put it on a scale. You put almost everything that we know on one side, and then, on the other side we can only put the "It Could Be because English has it too".


On the other side is "it could the case in those manuscripts because the Hebrew in those manuscripts says it".

And I understand it in light of that fact.

And it's not a stretch.

Even in English, to say pierce the ground would be a 1/500 usage, or dig into somebody's hand, is a 1/1000 usage. In English and perhaps Hebrew too. But one wouldn't rule it out in Englisih just because we don't find it used that way in a large novel. There is a striiking similarity between the words in the sense of making a hole. If we were to make a prediction of what word was there, without ever seeing the word, we'd probably not estimate that it'd be that word(unless perhaps it's clearly a person alive writhing in pain, and the author is choosing a word to denote a relatively large hole given the object). But generally, ordinarily, one might not predict that.. One might predict oh it's through a hand, so the author would say pierce/NKV not Karu. But when that word karu/kaaru is actually written there, the odds change! And we're not talking about a word that is completely out of place, like "they listened my hands and feet". We're talking about two words that are in one sense very similar and in one sense very different, one being dug(karu) one being pierce(nkv), that just have slightly different connotations, in English or Hebrew. But both involve making a hole..I'd still translate as dug, maybe dug, or 'bored' (because I like to translate the word consistently), and one could add the word 'at' or in or 'into' in brackets. Just like you might add "at" after kaari(as a lion).

Ralph Zak
Ralph Zak
ducky
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Post by ducky »

Hello Ralph, and thanks for the Explanations about the English usages.

First, a note:
I said (I think twice) that for now, I go with you and accept the spelling of כרו/כארו. But you still comment about the spelling as if it is an issue.
For now, I don't even argue about the spelling. And I comment about the word as if it was a verb כארו/כרו.


You know, When I wrote the difference between "dig" and Peirce", I didn't mean that we should define it mathematically. But I just wanted to show you the image of the act.

To see this more clearly,
You just need to see in your mind the image of someone digs a hole in the ground.
and then see in your mind the image of someone bangs a nail into the wall.
and that's it.

These are the two images that Hebrew differs one from the other.
This image is called "dig" (כרה - חפר).
And that image is called "pierce" (נקב).

There is no link between the images. and each one is considered to be a different action that is used by a different root.
That is why no one can "dig" a palm, or a fingernail, or a cheek or a nose or anything that cannot be imagined as the image of one digging a hole in the ground.

And you still read this Hebrew verse with an English mind.
(You can agree with me on this or not - but this is what you're doing) (no insult here).

No matter how you would play with this verb כרה and give it definition as dig, bore, pierce, it just doesn't happen in Hebrew.

You're also playing with the English words as this is defined like this and that is defined like that.
So I would say: Let's make it simple.
Any type of definition that means that someone made a hole in the palm is wrong.
you can call it Dig, Bore, Pierce or whatever.
It is just a game played with English words.
But there is no usage like that for root כרה/כור.

And when you finished your thread by saying "I'd still translate as dug, or bored", you still give it the image of one making a hole in the palm.
But in your mind, you don't see it weird.
You use the word "dig" (as a base) because it is the translation of the word כרה that you see in the Biblical dictionaries.
And then you use Dig as making a hole in the palm only because English allows it (in the way you explained English).
But Hebrew doesn't allow it.

And you also finished your post by saying that you "Like to translate the word consistently".
But if you really like to translate the word consistently, Why didn't you push it to see it as:
"Tied my hands and feet". or maybe:
"Surrounded/Circled my hands and feet" (as if the hands and feet symbolize his body).

These two ways are way more close to the method of "Translate the word consistently".
But you chose to go far away in a twisted road to try to see it as "Making a hole in the palms".
So if you're really like to read it consistently, then you may find better ways to do it than the way you tend to see now which is not used in Hebrew.
And you go here and go there to prove it, while you can read כארו/כרו in other ways that would satisfy your "consistent reading".
But for some reason, you stick only for that one, which is far away from the Hebrew way.


And one last note because I mentioned the Biblical dictionaries.
The Biblical dictionaries that write כרה=Dig are not accurate.
If you would check the Arabic dictionaries, for example, you would see that they always write:
"Dig (the ground, a tunnel, the earth)".
And that is accurate and was written like that to not let the English readers be confused.
But the Biblical dictionaries, for some reason, (and we can guess), just write in their definitions: "Dig", And that's it.
And that confuses the English reader and he doesn't understand the real accurate definition.
David Hunter
Schubert
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:05 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Post by Schubert »

Hi Ralph and David,

I've followed most of this lengthy thread with interest.

Craigie in his commentary on this psalm (vol. 1 of the three volume Word Biblical Commentary on the psalms) has an interesting comment on this passage. I'll try to post a jpeg image of it, but probably not until tomorrow.

He (like the English NRSV) does not follow the pre-Christian Septuagint in translating this passage with "dig/pierce"). But my recollection is that he's of the view that it's not possible to be dogmatic about the meaning of the Hebrew text.
John McKinnon
ducky
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Post by ducky »

Hello Schubert and thanks for your comment.

I actually say that the reading with כארי=as a lion is proved by the text itself in a few ways.
I said (in one of the threads) that maybe one day I would write here the exact reading of it with all of the support that leaves almost no room to doubt it.

But for me, right now, is just to show why it cannot be read as "dig/pierce" and that is because I saw this opinion all over the internet. And it is like one said once that 1+1=3 and then everybody follows it without doubting it and check it.

I actually wrote it once on the internet in another place when the same discussion was raised.
And after I wrote all of my words and my support, another person was convinced (and he was Christian), and not only that he was convinced, he also added another support to my words that I didn't see before.
Because when you read it as "lion" it fits the whole literary style of this psalms, and it is hard to argue with what you see clearly.
David Hunter
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Post by ralph »

ducky wrote: You just need to see in your mind the image of someone digs a hole in the ground.
and then see in your mind the image of someone bangs a nail into the wall.
and that's it.
or NKV can be a spear into somebody's head. Not necessarily a nail into a wall.

so NKV isn't so limited in what surface it goes into.

Yet you want to strongly limit what surface KARU can refer to.
ducky wrote: The Biblical dictionaries that write כרה=Dig are not accurate.
If you would check the Arabic dictionaries, for example, you would see that they always write:
"Dig (the ground, a tunnel, the earth)".
As far as an arabic dictionary is concerned, i'm not sure that arabic countries have a rich literary tradition.. I don't know that there's a lot of reading and writing other than the quran and politics. But supposing there is..

Even if we look at an English dictionary at the word 'dig', https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dig The only hole related definitions involve soil. I don't see any creative usage that would cover to dig through flesh, but that doesn't mean it can't be used that way. Dictionaries tend to not include absolutely any clever/creative usage of a word. Or limit authors that much. As a native English speaker I can tell you it can be used that way in English, it's unusual but it can, so as to give a certain connotation, and it'd be good and clever use of English, and yet that dictionary only mentions soil. So that's how dictionaries often are.
ducky wrote: These are the two images that Hebrew differs one from the other.
This image is called "dig" (כרה - חפר).
And that image is called "pierce" (נקב).

There is no link between the images.
Things can work conceptually..

There is a link. Making a hole in something.

Hebrew has the word Kaf כף . And if you look at it in an image, well there isn't one image. It can be the sole of a hand, or the sole of a foot. There's a commonality.

Anyhow, you are willing to accept Karu as Dig for the ground, but you just won't accept the surface as the hand.

Yet you are willing to accept נקב on a surface of flesh or wood.


ducky wrote: And then you use Dig as making a hole in the palm only because English allows it (in the way you explained English).
But Hebrew doesn't allow it.
your argument for hebrew not allowing for it was very weak.. you quoted an Arabic dictionary. As if to say that Arabic doesn't allow for it because an arabic dictionary doesn't include that surface of flesh, and it only has it for a surface of ground.

Well I quoted an English dictionary that when it comes to the definition that is related to making a hole, only mentions soil/earth. It doesn't mention a surface of flesh, for dig, though that doesn't mean it can't be used there.. it'd just be unusual and creative use of English..

Words exist to communicate. Digging into/at flesh is fairly clear when we have the concept of digging earth.

ducky wrote: And you also finished your post by saying that you "Like to translate the word consistently".
But if you really like to translate the word consistently, Why didn't you push it to see it as:
"Tied my hands and feet". or maybe:
"Surrounded/Circled my hands and feet" (as if the hands and feet symbolize his body).

These two ways are way more close to the method of "Translate the word consistently".
How.. I look up Karah

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3738.htm

https://biblehub.com/bdb/3738.htm

I don't get encircling. And I don't get 'tied'. I don't see it mentioned there.

I know you quote a quirky guy who you don't agree with.. that thinks you can get encircled , well, I haven't studied what he said that much but I prefer to go with what is acceptable academically.



Consistent means you translate it the same way in one place as other places. So if it is translated as dig in one place, it's translated as dig in another. That's consistent!

ducky wrote: And you go here and go there to prove it, while you can read כארו/כרו in other ways that would satisfy your "consistent reading".
But for some reason, you stick only for that one, which is far away from the Hebrew way.
I don't understand where you get your translations of e.g. "tied" Does any dictionary have that? What other verses use Kara like that?

Ralph Zak
Ralph Zak
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Post by ralph »

Schubert wrote:But my recollection is that he's of the view that it's not possible to be dogmatic about the meaning of the Hebrew text.
This is exactly right.. I agree.

We can use a concordance, and see how a word is used.. And we can see commonality and patterns.

But imagine if all we had to see correct usage of English words, was one massive novel. But we have far more so our English dictionaries have a far wider amount of information.

But if we listen to a master of the English language, we can quickly hear words used beautifully in ways we haven't heard before.

A non-native speaker, Somebody from China might say "the word dig, when digging a hole, can only apply to soil, because https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dig when mentioning digging a hole only mentions soil. Well, a native English speaker knows you can use the word dig in terms of diggnig a hole, on other surfaces.. even flesh e.g. in an extreme graphical case.

And yet today, when we have no native biblical hebrew speakers, ducky wants to use an arabic dictionary, to try to say that because it doesn't mention anything other than soil, for digging a hole, so it can't be anything other than soil.

Ralph Zak
Ralph Zak
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Post by ralph »

ducky wrote: 1+1=3 and then everybody follows it without doubting it and check it.
I told you already I am not coming from a Christian perspective. If I was i guess you'd try to use that as an argument against me, which is pretty low.

I've quoted from biblical hebrew dictionaries.

You are the one that keeps bringing up Jesus as part of you making presumptions about my beliefs or lack thereof, and now you bring up the Trinity because you wanted to throw in your argument against the trinity.

If you want to do that how about you start your own thread and get your own thread locked instead of bringing my thread into disrepute and risk getting my thread locked. Besides the fact that your crude simplistic 1+1+1 = 3 argument is not nice to those that believe the Trinity. You are actually threatening conversation in this thread.

All I am doing is trying to have a civilized conversation with you about the text specifically one word of it. This is not about theology. (Not that I even subscribe to any particular theology). This is about a language and a particular word.

Ralph Zak
Ralph Zak
ducky
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Post by ducky »

My Friend Ralph

I give up.
As for "tie" and "circle" I would let you understand it by yourself why this is a better way to see it - even though It is not perfect and of course I don't agree with it.
But I wrote it just let you see another simple way if you insist on that spelling.

Anyway, I give up.
I tried to show you the differences between the roots
I showed you clear examples of the roots
I told you that I checked other Semitic dictionaries, and all of the Hebrews one.

And I don't know if you give it weight or not, but I read a lot of Hebrew literature since birth, from the Biblical era up to modern (and also study it academically: Hebrew literature and Hebrew linguistic), so the Hebrew natural way is in my mouth and ear, in all of its levels and eras. And it is just not the Hebrew way, no matter how you switch it.

If you want to convince yourself by making all kinda links that bring you from here to there, then do what you do.

And maybe in time, when you read more and more, you would sense this roots in a more natural way, (instead of just a Lexicon number), and then, in the future, when you would say כרו ידי it would just sound weird to you.
Because there is no such usage in Hebrew - no matter what.

(And by the way, when I talked about Arabic dictionaries, I checked at least four, and they all write it like that. but just was just an example.
Because as for the Hebrew, we don't need a dictionary, Just read these roots usages in the Bible (and even in the post-biblical texts) and anyone can understand it alone.)
David Hunter
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Post by ralph »

ducky wrote: As for "tie" and "circle" I would let you understand it by yourself why this is a better way to see it - even though It is not perfect and of course I don't agree with it.
But I wrote it just let you see another simple way if you insist on that spelling.
So what exactly are you trying to do with this. You are not going to convince me by advocating for a definition you yourself do not agree with and provide no argument for. And if your own argument doesn't even convince you then your argument, whatever on earth it is, can't be very good.

Earlier you wrote
ducky wrote: I guess that when they pushed to see it as a verb, they saw it in the meaning of "round".
If we see it as a verb in the matter of "roundness", it fits the other two verbs in the verse:
הקיפוני - סבבוני - they surround me - they circled me.
and so, and since the root כור in Hebrew is based on the meaning of "round", they understood it as something like: "they surrounded my hands and feet", which would be parallel to the other two descriptions in this verse.
(or maybe by that, "they tied my hands and feet").
But still, this interpretation is kinda weak for me to accept, but I guess that this is the best way they thought it was - since the "lion" word also gave them a problem.
So by 'verb' you've meant karah/ כרה as opposed to when you say 'the noun' by which you meant/mean כארי that you believe it's meant to be.

Now you've switched things a bit and when you say "By verb", you mean כור

You say that כור in Hebrew is based on the meaning of "round"

checking in bibleworks, it has כור as a noun meaning a smelting pot or furnace, and no occurrence as verb.

BDB has כור only as a)a noun or b) a verb same as karah to dig and meaning of כור as verb, and besides meaning dig, it has meaning as verb as dubious https://biblehub.com/bdb/3738.htm

So nothing about 'round' in a very authoritative biblical hebrew dictionary.

And even if it was כור i'm not sure what morphology you think it is meant to be matching. And if it didn't match, I suppose you'd have an excuse for it not matching. But you've said you don't believe your own argument(whatever it is) anyway.

In looking for כור I have noticed that Klein's dictionary has 'round', but Klein's dictionary is described here "Klein’s is the first etymological dictionary in the proper sense of Hebrew as a totality, comprising both the vocabulary current in present-day Hebrew — which includes a large percentage of Biblical, Mishnaic and Rabbinic, as well as medieval words used in earlier periods but not current in today’s usage."

So to even say כור is round, you are projecting later hebrew onto earlier hebrew. Perhaps that's why BDB makes no mention of it.

besides that I'm not sure the syntax would match for that declension anyway with כור but it definitely looks like you are definitely projecting later hebrew onto earlier hebrew..

And you only say you aren't convinced by your own argument.. rather than stating your argument and why it's weak and why it doesn't convince you, but maybe that's why.

You are pulling things from later hebrew, projecting them onto earlier hebrew, and possibly also ignoring that syntax doesn't match.

And if you want to argue that karu doesn't match because 'dug my hands' doesn't work without adding a word 'at'. The same goes for kaari. 'As a lion my hands'. You have to add 'at'. So be consistent.

Ralph Zak
Ralph Zak
ducky
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Regarding the translation of karu/pierced/bored/dug Or Kaari(as a lion), in Psalm 22:17

Post by ducky »

No.

I really don't try to convince you to accept any possible way.
And I said it before, that my intention here is just to talk about the wrong view of כרה means to make a hole in the body - That's all.

As for my interpretation, I said that maybe I'll write it here in the future.
But I don't feel the urge to do it.
And it is very good, logical and fits the text better than any kind of stretching that I saw (and I saw many).

The כור doesn't come as a verb (I said it in this thread before).
And its basic meaning is the matter of roundness (that is why you see its definitions)
(Also the basic meaning of כרה is roundness, by the way).

don't assume what I think.
I said before, If you want to read it as כארו/כרו or whatever - do it.
and it's "never mind" if it is כור or כרה
(by the way, I wrote all of this before in this thread).
But at least give it a definition that is possible to accept, even if we would accept it in a tough way. But the "Pierce, bore, dig, hew" - all of these just doesn't fit. and the only reason that people (and dictionaries) bring it - is known.

About Klein's book...
You probably don't understand what Etymology means.
Etymology is trying to find the ancient range of meanings or the basic aspect for a word.
And by that, we can explain how the word's meaning was evolved to what it is now.
When Klein's said that his book contains words from all eras - he refers to the entries.
but the etymologies are based on the ancient basic meanings.
So כור as roundness is actually the ancient aspect, which from this aspect - the Hebrew definitions of כרה and כור were created.

So you say that I'm projecting later Hebrew, But you say that because you didn't understand what you read.

Klein's book is about Etymology - and as I said, the basic meaning of כור/כרה is about roundness.
When you try to push the meaning of כארו as a verb - it is a better way to use the basic meaning to find an interpretation than to take the כרה as digging the earth and then play with it and stretch it to a non-logical and possible way.

By the way, notice that the verse has also two verbs - הקיפוני and סבבוני - they are both in the meaning of round.
So if you want to see the כארו as a verb and find it a meaning, it is better to use the basic meaning of כור/כרה as roundness, and use it as one of the parallelisms for הקיפוני and סבבוני.
ּand then you can say that you supported your definition in two way:
1. Parallelism with the other two verbs in the verse.
2. The etymology of the root.
(I don't agree to see it as a verb, but if I would, I would go on that path).

Or you can find other meaning using the ancient aspect of "roundness".
(that is why I also said "tied my hand and feet")
But anyway, I also said that I don't agree with seeing it as a verb, but if I try to read it like that, I would search for something in that area.

Or maybe you can find another way that is not about the aspect of roundness, but no matter how you bring it, it must get at least a decent support.

So to sum it:
1. I don't care if you read it as a verb from root כור or כרה.
2. The only thing that I do in this post is just explaining that כור/כרה cannot be "making a hole in the palm".
3. Even though I don't read it as a verb, and I am sure of it being a noun, I don't come here to convince you about it. Only about the wrong definition of "making a hole in the palm".
4. If you still want to see it as a verb, so the best way (that I found) is to use the etymology and basic aspect of this root - which is roundness.
5. And so it would fit the other verbs in that verse that also say "round".
6. I still think it is wrong, but that is the best way I could think of, when I try to read it as a verb.
7. I don't use "later Hebrew" to explain things, and you didn't understand what Klein's book is all about.
David Hunter
Post Reply