Isaiah 54:6

[ducky]

Hi Chris,
I see it now. Didn't know how I didn't see it before.
I wonder why.

Hi Karl,
Theoretically, you are right, because the spelling does fit also Pual and Hophal.

But this root is found dozens of times in the bible, and not once it appears as clear Piel nor as clear Hiphil (which are the active forms of Pual and Hophal).
I mean there is no ממאס for example (clear Piel) Or ממאיס/המאיס (clear Hiphil).
Everything that is found are Qal and Niphal.

And it is hard to accept a "pop-up" of Pual/Hophal for this root when there are no other uses in these forms (passive or active).

[kwrandolph]

Hi Karl,
Theoretically, you are right, because the spelling does fit also Pual and Hophal.

But this root is found dozens of times in the bible, and not once it appears as clear Piel nor as clear Hiphil (which are the active forms of Pual and Hophal).

Dear David:

You wouldn’t know that it is never used as a Piel because the consonantal spelling for the Piel and Qal are identical.

I mean there is no ממאס for example (clear Piel) Or ממאיס (clear Hiphil).

Those two forms are not verbs in Biblical Hebrew.

Everything that is found are Qal and Niphal.

And it is hard to accept a "pop-up" of Pual/Hophal for this root when there are no other uses in these forms (passive or active).

To be fair, I take the Niphal as the most probable reading for the verb. Just from the context. I mentioned the others just to show the possibilities.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi Karl,

I don't remember saying that ממאס and ממאיס (or any participle) are supposed to be verbs.
I did mention the participle because it uses the verb forms.
Meaning that for every Qal verb, there is a Qal participle. And for every Piel verb, there is a Piel participle.
Therefore, I mentioned the participle forms as a potential indicator for the form of that a specific verb uses.

As for your view that "We Cannot Know..."
Basically, I don't argue with that principle you present here often - as a principle.
But eventually, and practically, you have to put a little bit of trust in the tradition.
Even if there are cases that are arguable, we can't make these examples the rule.

You, in your comment, said that the verb תמאס fits also Pual, and Hophal.
But according to your view:
How do you know that there is even a Pual form or a Hiphil form, Or a Qal form?
It could be that there were completely different forms - after all, no pointing - and it could be that the whole mainstream verb-forms are wrong.
But you still suggested them.

So eventually, we need to have a common ground - so discussion can move on.
And when there is a specific case that is arguable for a specific reason, then it would be a subject to discuss about.

[kwrandolph]

Hi Karl,

I don't remember saying that ממאס and ממאיס (or any participle) are supposed to be verbs.
I did mention the participle because it uses the verb forms.
Meaning that for every Qal verb, there is a Qal participle. And for every Piel verb, there is a Piel participle.
Therefore, I mentioned the participle forms as a potential indicator for the form of that a specific verb uses.

Even the participial uses can mislead. Context is the real determinant. Also we need to understand what the different forms mean.

As for your view that "We Cannot Know..."
Basically, I don't argue with that principle you present here often - as a principle.
But eventually, and practically, you have to put a little bit of trust in the tradition.
Even if there are cases that are arguable, we can't make these examples the rule.

That’s the problem—I have found that we can’t trust tradition. In this particular case, I referred to the consonantal form as not being the clue that would indicate which form.

You, in your comment, said that the verb תמאס fits also Pual, and Hophal.
But according to your view:
How do you know that there is even a Pual form or a Hiphil form, Or a Qal form?
It could be that there were completely different forms - after all, no pointing - and it could be that the whole mainstream verb-forms are wrong.
But you still suggested them.

I merely pointed out the possibilities from the form. The real test is the context.

So eventually, we need to have a common ground - so discussion can move on.
And when there is a specific case that is arguable for a specific reason, then it would be a subject to discuss about.

The context in this case indicates a passive. Which passive? I understand it as a simple passive, which would use a Niphal.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hi,
Sorry for the long time.

Again I'll say, I have nothing against your position.
My point is that it is meaningless to present this position if there isn't anything specific to "trigger" you to do so.
If not, then you could just bounce into any thread posted in this forum and write that Anything that is said on this thread is doubtful.
But it would be meaningless if there is no point to point at.

For example, If someone would say that he thinks that this verb should be read "tum-as", Not as Huphal, but as the passive form of Qal (a form that the Masoretic points tried to ignore as much as they can), then there is something to talk about, because there is a "trigger" (and not that I think that it is not Niphal). But to just throw the general doubt to the air for no reason, is like saying nothing at all.

By the way, just a note: the Niphal is not really considered a passive.