Genesis 6:1 "born"

[kwrandolph]

Karl,
Can you give one or two examples of verses that you translate in a very different way than the usual common translations, so I can see how big a difference there is?

Because I haven’t read Tanakh with points for over a decade, it’s hard for me to think of any examples.

Proverbs 1:19 כן—ארחות כל-בצע בצע    את-נפש בעליו יקח

Such are the travel ways of all who take unjust gain, unjust gain takes the life of its master.

The two words בצע בצע are two nouns, the first a participle indicating the actor, the second a noun of the object, probably a sheggolate noun.

A second example also from Proverbs, Proverbs 13:1 בן חכם מוסר אב    ולץ לא-שמע גערה

A wise person has insight of his father’s correction, but a babbling fool doesn’t listen to scolding.

The opening word בן can either be a noun, “son”, or a third person singular Qatal verb from the root normally listed as בין. Because Hebrew sentences and phrases almost always have a verb or an understood “to be”, taking בן as the verb fits.

What other examples can one bring up?

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Isaac,

Each active has its passive and they are both part of the same conjugation.
the Hiphil is related to Hophal, right?
and the piel (qittel) is related to pual (quttal)
and the paal (qatal) is related to pual (qutal-->quttal)

Karl,
The two example that you gave don't represent any change of grammar of pattern.

The first one - you just read it with another syntax.
But you don't have an argument with the known grammar or syntax rules (that you see in the books)

The second one - you read the word in another way (which is fair).
But also here, you don't have a problem with the known grammar or the syntax rule - you just claim that the word should be read as a verb and not as a noun.
and that is because unvoweled word can be read in different ways.

But there is no argument with the rules that you see in the Hebrew teaching book that you reject.

[Isaac Fried]

ducky writes

and the piel (qittel) is related to pual (quttal)
and the paal (qatal) is related to pual (qutal-->quttal)

No, they are not "related". piel is one verbal form, and pual is another verbal form. paal is a verbal form, and pual is another verbal form.

Isaac Fried Boston University

[Jason Hare]

ducky writes

and the piel (qittel) is related to pual (quttal)
and the paal (qatal) is related to pual (qutal-->quttal)

No, they are not "related". piel is one verbal form, and pual is another verbal form. paal is a verbal form, and pual is another verbal form.

Isaac Fried Boston University

הֵם חִנְּכוּ אֶת הַיְּלָדִים שֶׁלָּהֶם בְּבַ֫יִת מָסָרְתִּי.
הַיְּלָדִים שֶׁלָּהֶם חֻנְּכוּ בְּבַ֫יִת מָסָרְתִּי.

One is not the passive of the other? How can you even say that?

[ducky]

Really?

so it just happens that they are having the same principles?
Piel has a Dagesh and the pual has a dagesh
Hiphil has its prefix H and the Hophal has its prefix H

The only difference in the form would be the "u" sound for the passive
(which by the way, the Niphal was used in the Mishna as "nuphal" - also with the U sound to make it "more passive")

You want to tell me that just by coincidence, the Hophal was used as the passive for Hiphil (and not for Qal or Piel)?

It just happen that the passive fits the form of the active?

But never mind... because it doesn't change nothing about the subject we're talking about. You can see it as two different conjugations with no related source. it changes nothing.

[Jason Hare]

I don’t remember a single correction.

You wrote in the thread called עדן הקורונה the following:

שלום חברי טובים תלמידי יהודית: גם בשבתי בביתי כבר חדש אחד וחפצתי לדעת מה שלומכם ומה אתם עשיתם בעת הצר הזה:

The expression חברי טובים was shown by myself and by David (ducky) to be incorrect, that the presence of the possessive prononimal suffix on חבר is definite-making and would require טובים to carry the article (חברי הטובים). That's just one of the mistakes here. Do you not remember that? Denial of the commission of a mistake does not mean that you didn't commit a mistake. You've demonstrated concord issues in many of your posts, and not using vowels has been a way to cover up ignorance of the basic structure of the language.

[Jonathan Beck]

::Goes back for more popcorn.::

[Mitchell Powell]

Karl,

I appreciate that you've laid your cards on the table by producing a publicly viewable alternative to mainstream Hebrew lexicography, and that you've outlined your basic viewpoints and methods. That helps immensely in getting a grasp on just what it is that you and the other contributors are fundamentally disagreeing about.
I noticed that you primarily refer to Gesenius and to Davidson and Lisowski's concordance, and note that at a formative stage in your work you were unable to have sustained access to BDB. I'm curious -- in the time that has passed since, have you had the opportunity to look over HALOT and DCH? DCH, in particular, has a philosophy of taking cognates into consideration less than HALOT, and I'd be interested to see whether you consider their approach similar to yours, or still inadequate in some fundamental way.

[kwrandolph]

I don’t remember a single correction.

You wrote in the thread called עדן הקורונה the following:

שלום חברי טובים תלמידי יהודית: גם בשבתי בביתי כבר חדש אחד וחפצתי לדעת מה שלומכם ומה אתם עשיתם בעת הצר הזה:

The expression חברי טובים was shown by myself and by David (ducky) to be incorrect, that the presence of the possessive prononimal suffix on חבר is definite-making and would require טובים to carry the article (חברי הטובים).

Can you point to passages in Tanakh that unquestionably demonstrate your claim here?

Yet your sentence that I corrected had a few mistakes. Most glaring the Aramaic you included. Also a word not found in Tanakh. And a few more.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

I noticed that you primarily refer to Gesenius and to Davidson and Lisowski's concordance, and note that at a formative stage in your work you were unable to have sustained access to BDB. I'm curious -- in the time that has passed since, have you had the opportunity to look over HALOT and DCH? DCH, in particular, has a philosophy of taking cognates into consideration less than HALOT, and I'd be interested to see whether you consider their approach similar to yours, or still inadequate in some fundamental way.

The dictionary was never my main focus. My main focus was and is reading Bible for understanding and worship. I’m about as conservative theologically as you can get, with the emphasis of knowing God’s Word, the Bible, as best as I can.

My dictionary came about because I was already multi-lingual before learning Hebrew. Whereas in the New Testament, there’s only one word where I disagree with tradition—μυστεριον—which in ancient Greece had a meaning similar to “doctrine”, when I came to Tanakh I found readings that didn’t follow the patterns I had learned in all the other languages I had studied. I checked how words were actually used in Tanakh as found in the concordance to try to get a handle on the readings. Very often I found that the word usages didn’t match the glosses in dictionaries by “authorities”, hence started my dictionary. At that time there was no interest in sharing my dictionary with others. Only later I concluded that since this dictionary helps me understand Tanakh, it should be helpful for others as well.

Years ago I was told on this forum that all published dictionaries subsequent to Gesenius were based on the philosophy (religion) and methodology of Gesenius, e.g. BDB. That killed my interest in spending the time and money on comparing my dictionary with others. For if, as I was told, that these dictionaries are based on what I had found to be a faulty foundation, how can they be but tweaks on that faulty original? Would it be worth my time comparing my dictionary with others? Or would that time be better spent studying Bible? So no, I haven’t studied those other dictionaries.

Karl W. Randolph.