I have not seen evidence from you that you can communicate in Biblical Hebrew. Take for example those translations you made from Weingreen from English to Hebrew—those were at best Tiberian Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pmI think you mean to say that it is not a native language for me. It is certainly a living language, since I can communicate in the language—the best of our abilities to recreate the language today. You apparently don’t distinguish between living language and native language, which is another problem with your position.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amFor that matter, Biblical Hebrew is not a living language for you.
Already we see in Ezra and Nehemiah that Biblical Hebrew was not a living language to them. It had already assumed the same status as medieval Latin in Europe 1500 years later. Yes, people spoke it, and the language changed including a new grammar, but they all spoke it as a learned, second language. It was not the language of the market nor at the hearth.
Of course it is. It is a well-known feature of studying close cognate languages, as are modern Israeli Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pmEvery time you mention someone knowing modern Hebrew, it is with the accusation that biblical Hebrew is necessarily different and that the user of modern Hebrew has a polluted approach to the language.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amIt’s not the individual words that are the main difference that I notice. But even with the usage in modern Israeli Hebrew that you mention implies a subtle difference in meaning.
There are many words that are the same in both Biblical and modern Israeli Hebrews. I’ve never said differently. But there are also many words that are different.
You can get short-term expedited learning, but at the expense of deep understanding of the language.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pm
If you could acknowledge that facility with modern Hebrew can assist one in fluency and proficiency in biblical Hebrew, so long as we are aware of usage differences, then we might make some headway.
Don’t make baseless accusations.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pm You persist in dismissing people who can actually speak Hebrew in an apparent attempt to level the playing field. This would not be done in any other language.
Depends on what you want to do with the language.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pm Someone who speaks modern Cantonese is certainly at an advantage in reading older forms of their own language, as long as they keep in mind that words can shift in their specific lexical force. Only someone who wants to force the older language to mean the same thing as the modern language is in danger of creating problems. Simply dismissing the modern language as useless is the peril of the witless.
Is your purpose getting a PhD which in modern practice includes reading from all eras of Hebrew as well as a few cognate languages, becoming a jack-of-all-trades but a master of none, then you do need to learn modern Israeli Hebrew as well.
Based on my theological position, my sole interest in Hebrew is to read and understand God’s word, what he wants to communicate to us. I want to read that as deeply as possible. To master the understanding. For such as use, studying modern Israeli Hebrew would hinder my understanding.
Nope, the text has nothing about him being trapped.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pmDogs surround him — he’s trapped. Evildoers encircle him — he’s trapped. How is this not what the psalmist wrote?kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amWhat you have just described is not what the text of the Psalm says.
The LXX and the English translations that I have seen split this verse into three clauses with three verbs. I made a proposal that maybe a two clause split would better fit the text.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pmHebrew songs / psalms are normally written in parallel structure. I don’t see how splitting it into three separate clauses helps us in any way. Why would there be three verbs?
First of all, strip the dots from that passage, then read it as it was originally written.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pmWe’ve talked about it here on the forum before with regard to Deuteronomy 11 and the שְׁמַע. In the following text, red is used for 2ms and blue is used for 2mp. Is the change in number back-and-forth readily explicable?kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amHow often does that happen without a corresponding shift in the subject?
וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁמֹ֤עַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־מִצְוֺתַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָֽנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם הַיּ֑וֹם לְאַֽהֲבָ֞ה אֶת־יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם֙ וּלְעָבְד֔וֹ בְּכָל־לְבַבְכֶ֖ם וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁכֶֽם׃ וְנָֽתַתִּ֧י מְטַֽר־אַרְצְכֶ֛ם בְּעִתּ֖וֹ יוֹרֶ֣ה וּמַלְק֑וֹשׁ וְאָֽסַפְתָּ֣ דְגָנֶ֔ךָ וְתִֽירֹשְׁךָ֖ וְיִצְהָרֶֽךָ׃ וְנָֽתַתִּ֛י עֵ֥שֶׂב בְּשָֽׂדְךָ֖ לִבְהֶמְתֶּ֑ךָ וְאָֽכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָֽעְתָּ׃ הִשָּֽׁמְר֣וּ לָכֶ֔ם פֶּ֥ן יִפְתֶּ֖ה לְבַבְכֶ֑ם וְסַרְתֶּ֗ם וַֽעֲבַדְתֶּם֙ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִיתֶ֖ם לָהֶֽם׃ וְחָרָ֨ה אַף־יְהוָ֜ה בָּכֶ֗ם וְעָצַ֤ר אֶת־הַשָּׁמַ֨יִם֙ וְלֹֽא־יִהְיֶ֣ה מָטָ֔ר וְהָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן אֶת־יְבוּלָ֑הּ וַֽאֲבַדְתֶּ֣ם מְהֵרָ֗ה מֵעַל֙ הָאָ֣רֶץ הַטֹּבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה נֹתֵ֥ן לָכֶֽם׃ וְשַׂמְתֶּם֙ אֶת־דְּבָרַ֣י אֵ֔לֶּה עַל־לְבַבְכֶ֖ם וְעַֽל־נַפְשְׁכֶ֑ם וּקְשַׁרְתֶּ֨ם אֹתָ֤ם לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יֶדְכֶ֔ם וְהָי֥וּ לְטֽוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵֽינֵיכֶֽם׃ וְלִמַּדְתֶּ֥ם אֹתָ֛ם אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶ֖ם לְדַבֵּ֣ר בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֨ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשָׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃ וּכְתַבְתָּ֛ם עַל־מְזוּז֥וֹת בֵּיתֶ֖ךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶֽיךָ׃ לְמַ֨עַן יִרְבּ֤וּ יְמֵיכֶם֙ וִימֵ֣י בְנֵיכֶ֔ם עַ֚ל הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע יְהוָ֛ה לַאֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֖ם לָתֵ֣ת לָהֶ֑ם כִּימֵ֥י הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
It is not random. What you see here is a shift in emphasis that what effects the whole also effects individuals.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pm The text randomly goes from plural to singular, from singular back to plural, and back and forth again.
Take, for example, if the Soviet Union (yes, it still exists under Putin) and CCP China nuke and invade the U.S. according to plans that they laid out years ago, society as we know it will cease to exist. Freeways will grow weeds for lack of traffic. Bridges will collapse for lack of maintenance. You can forget air traffic as both airports and jets won’t have enough traffic to keep both running. DC-3s may still fly, because they can fly off of grass runways and be serviced by local manufacture. And you don’t think that the lives of individuals won’t be effected?
According to the metric of the Hebrew as used in Tanakh, you are ignorant.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pmIgnorance (lack of knowledge or facility) can be placed on a metric and be demonstrated in an objective manner. It isn’t a subjective matter.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amWhat a laugh! This is my opinion of you. Well, at least we agree on one thing, that the other person is ignorant. LOL!
Of course!Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pmIs this question rhetorical?kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amHas it ever crossed you mind that I might just know Biblical Hebrew better than anyone else? Nah, of course not.
You wouldn’t consider it because you are ignorant.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pm Why would I ever consider the possibility that you know biblical Hebrew better than anyone else?
LOL! As I have described more than once, I had to unlearn some of the things that I learned in class in order to understand Biblical Hebrew. THAT was difficult. It took years and several times reading Tanakh cover to cover.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pmIt’s actually a fantastic way to get into the language, assuming that you don’t start with the position that you already know better than everyone else even before you begin to learn the language.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amDo you count reading Tanakh for understanding as the best way to learn Biblical Hebrew, a type of immersion learning?
When I first joined bhebrew, I expected to be blown away like a country bumpkin on his first visit to a big city. Imagine my surprise to find that that wasn’t the case.
I did that, only to find out later that some of that was wrong.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pm Also, it is advisable to learn the basics of the grammatical features of the language before just reading without any assistance.
It means and is evidence for that you have only partial knowledge. You need to read the prophets and writings as well.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pm It could be the case that you’re repeating mistakes every time you read and that you’re completely wrong in how you understand what is happening in the text — because your methodology is flawed and you have never done anything to correct how you read.
I’ve read directly through the Torah many times, from Genesis directly through Deuteronomy, chapter-by-chapter. Is there a specific set of books that I have to read to fulfill your requirement? The fact that I haven’t read through the entire Tanach in a year — what does this mean to you?kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amBy your own admission on this forum, you haven’t done that.
There were a couple of times that I tried to read Tanakh completely through following the nikkud exactly as written. But in that effort I noticed that the consonantal text at times indicate one reading, while the nikkud a different reading. That led me to the conclusion that the nikkud were wrong more often than I had been led to believe (I had been taught that the nikkud were equal to canon). I finally stopped following the nikkud because I found that where they are correct as far as meaning is concerned, they are unnecessary clutter on the page. Where they are incorrect as far as meaning is indicated, they are a distraction. I read Tanakh for years without nikkud before I joined bhebrew.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pmI don’t imagine that the points as written are perfect. However, I think that the best way to suggest emendations is to use the nikkud system to demonstrate how you think it would be better read.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:22 amDo I know Biblical Hebrew perfectly? I don’t make that claim. I don’t expect that anyone does. You certainly don’t know Biblical Hebrew perfectly. The Masoretes didn’t know Biblical Hebrew perfectly. That’s one reason I don’t trust their points. Not counting the many times their points don’t correspond to the consonantal text.
Who says? Where have I ever made such an accusation? Is this something that you made up because of your understanding of the nikkud?Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pm You achieve little by simply deleting the vowels completely. I wouldn’t claim to know English perfectly. What does that even mean? The problem is that you even accuse biblical writers of not knowing the language because they don’t measure up to your standards.
Weird! Your response is weird.Jason Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 1:41 pm It’s really weird to have such a puritanical approach to language.
Getting back to Psalm 22:17, I threw out the idea that the verse since the LXX has been misunderstood, that it consists of two parts, not three. This idea seems to clear up some problems that the verse presents.
Karl W. Randolph