aavichai wrote:hi karl
Huh?? In Psalm 10:3, it’s a noun referring to the person who makes a blessing.
what? the ברך is a noun? how did you got that?
It’s clearly that from the context.
aavichai wrote:the ברך is clearly a verb
From where do you get that idea?
aavichai wrote:It's funny that you talk about my native tounge and tell me not to argue in english
when my native tounge is hebrew
and before you jump like the avarage student of hebrew
to claim that it is like two different languages (the bible and the modern)
if you dont speak hebrew - you dont know how much you wrong
and if you dont speak hebrew - try not to argue about that
it is right that we don't talk like in the bible
I cannot read מעריב because the languages are so different—all the weird spellings, the words used in strange ways, and so forth. No, I don’t know modern Israeli Hebrew—it has a different grammar, different spelling rules, different pronunciations, different vocabulary, different rules of noun derivations from roots, all the signs that it is a different language. That you didn’t recognize that ברך in Psalm 10:3 is a noun is a good example of that you don’t know Biblical Hebrew.
aavichai wrote:like you dont talk like Shakespeare - but still if you read Shakespeare you will understand it
No I don’t understand Shakespeare. I need to have it translated to modern English in order to understand it. Well, I can understand it partially, not completely.
The differences between Shakespeare and modern English are far smaller than the differences between Biblical Hebrew and modern Israeli Hebrew.
aavichai wrote:more than a hebrew guy that read it with one eye on the book and the other on the dictionary
I
wrote the dictionary that I use.
aavichai wrote:Take every teenager in Israel and let him read the bible and he will understand it
in school we study the bible stories in the sixth grade (12yo) with the original text
and everybody understand it because like I said, It doesn't really so much diffrent
You can talk about the tenses and all that, but eventually
if I sit you next to a 15yo kid from Israel and put Samuel or Kings or the Tora in front of you
(its harder to understand Isa, Jer and the preach of Job, But I'm talking about the classic biblical lang)
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Job, Psalms, they are all “classic Biblical language”.
aavichai wrote:I'm sure to tell you that he will read better than you and understand better than you
even though you can talk about the biblical grammar better than him
and if you dont believe you can check it out somehow
maybe in chat find someone
I have chatted with adult Israelis, and with the humility of adulthood have admitted that they don’t understand Tanakh. Teenagers with a little knowledge think they know everything, but with more knowledge in adulthood recognize that they don’t know everything.
I have heard that there are now translations of Tanakh into modern Israeli Hebrew so that modern Israelis can really understand Tanakh, not just think they do. Beyond just hearing that they exist, I don’t know any details about these translations.
aavichai wrote:but the word קללה and the verb קלל got the meaning of curse (next to take lightly)
and I will show you verses that show that
I put verses with those two roots ברך next to קלל so you can see the clear connection
I won’t go into detail in each example, but in all of them you make the mistake that translation = understanding within the language. English doesn’t have a word to refer to the concept contained in קללה, so a translator uses a word with a similar but not the same meaning for easy reading in English.
Did you notice that not once in those examples did ברך or any of its derivatives have the meaning of “curse”?
aavichai wrote:---and what you say about proof
you should say it to yourself
the fact that we don't have a time machine
doesn't make it right to take some word and give it a new definition because it sound right
when we have doubt we should look for another sources to help us
look for more occasions in the bible
other Semitic languages
With this you show that you don’t know lexicography, the writing of dictionaries.
aavichai wrote:more written stuff in Hebrew like Qumran or Ben Sira or other
or mishna and talmud
There’s evidence that the meanings to many words were forgotten before the Septuagint was written, and the Septuagint is older than most of Qumran, ben Sira, not to mention Mishnah and Talmud. Those who have studied Qumran Hebrew admit that already at that time Qumran Hebrew had different grammar, different spelling rules, some of the vocabulary was different, from Biblical Hebrew. In other words, it was already a different language.
aavichai wrote:and even if you want, you cannot ignore that
the Hebrew was never dead as a religious language
Latin is a dead language. Yet Latin has not ceased to be spoken since the time of the Romans. The definition of a “dead language” is one that is not spoken in the home, nor in the market, even though it may still be spoken with new writings among the educated elite.
From the evidence we have, Biblical Hebrew was already a dead language among most of the returnees from the Babylonian Exile, and completely so by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.
aavichai wrote:אין סכין מתחדדת אלא בירך חברתה
I didn’t understand this modern Israeli sentence. Google translate gives “No knife is sharpened but congratulated her friend”. It still doesn’t make sense.
aavichai wrote:so maybe next time I hope we agree
Avichai Cohen
There is the concept of “to agree to disagree”. That means that we have come to an impasse where an agreement cannot be made, but that we won’t argue about it. In fact, we won’t even discuss it.
I think you want to agree to disagree. OK, fine with me.
Karl W. Randolph.