Hosea 6:2 New translation and explanation

[S_Walch]

In Hosea 6:2, the word מימים is used: in none of its other uses in Tanakh are seas referenced.

Not even Ezek 26:17 & 27:33 & 34?

Where I take issue is that nowhere else does it mean “after two days”. Every other use has the meaning of “days later”, which can include even many years (Joshua 23:1), and there’s nothing the immediate context that I see that indicates a different reading in this verse, so I say we should go with that.

One may conclude that the fact that it says "on the third day" just after has influenced the meaning "two days".

Looking at the other places that מימים occurs, there's none that have a numbered day afterwards. 2 Chron 21:19 comes close, with the number two making another appearance.

[kwrandolph]

In Hosea 6:2, the word מימים is used: in none of its other uses in Tanakh are seas referenced.

Not even Ezek 26:17 & 27:33 & 34?

Yes, even there. Though you make a good point in that it probably should be translated as “from of old” or similar idea. Ezekiel 27:34 specifically mentions “time”.

Where I take issue is that nowhere else does it mean “after two days”. Every other use has the meaning of “days later”, which can include even many years (Joshua 23:1), and there’s nothing the immediate context that I see that indicates a different reading in this verse, so I say we should go with that.

One may conclude that the fact that it says "on the third day" just after has influenced the meaning "two days".

True, but not necessarily so. That “third day” can come some undefined time later.
'

Looking at the other places that מימים occurs, there's none that have a numbered day afterwards. 2 Chron 21:19 comes close, with the number two making another appearance.

But there the form is plural לימים and not מימים, with the number two to give the number of days.

The word literally means “from days” and is used in a way that’s different from English, which makes it difficult to translate. Five times it’s used in the phrase “from days to days”, probably like “from time to time” in English. The remaining eleven times that I found it refers to an indeterminate length of time, usually following a previous action.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

You can't expect every word to be used two or more times in every possible way, so you can see all of it's possible uses and meanings. You also can't expect poetry to be repeated.

I think it says they will be lifted up from Sheol which is underground, so it says poetically "He will cause us to rise up more than the seas in the third day (of creation)".You can't expect a poetic phrase to be used often. It probably was not a common phrase, but used poetically in just this quote. I think your way of analyzing Biblical Hebrew works for prose, but not for poetry because poetry is very flexible and unusual. I think poetry is the biggest enemy of Bible scholarship because it doesn't follow the rules exactly that people want to make up for Biblical Hebrew.

I think scholars are good at analyzing the structure of Biblical poems, but they can't always understand the poetry itself like in this quote. Maybe when poetry is allowed to be poetry, scholars will be able to understand it better.

'Kenneth Greifer

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

You can't expect every word to be used two or more times in every possible way, so you can see all of it's possible uses and meanings.

But when you have a word that is used 16 times, 15 of which have the same basic meaning, you then look to see if the same meaning fits the 16th context. In this case, it does.

You also can't expect poetry to be repeated.

Hosea 6:2 is not poetry, rather it’s prose.

Furthermore, poetry gets its strength not by acting like Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass by the author putting his own definitions to words, rather by his creative use of words using their commonly understood meanings. This is especially true of poetry meant for worship and/or teaching. Hosea 6:2 is intended for teaching.

I think it says they will be lifted up from Sheol which is underground, so it says poetically "He will cause us to rise up more than the seas in the third day (of creation)".You can't expect a poetic phrase to be used often. It probably was not a common phrase, but used poetically in just this quote.

You are adding things that are not in this prose text. You then take those additions and claim that that’s what the text means, which is eisegesis.

There’s also a second word in this verse that raises questions, namely יקמנו which can come from either נקם or קום. Which fits better? I don’t know. If נקם is the root, then your speculation makes no sense.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

I think it is poetry, and I did not change any word meanings at all. I added "(of creation)" so people would understand what "in the third day" refers to. I put it in parenthesis (I am guessing how to spell this) so you know it is not written there. It is a poetic way of saying that He will raise them up a lot from Sheol. This is all connected to Hosea 13:14 which says He will redeem them from death and Sheol. Hosea 6:2: He will let us live. He will cause us to rise more than the seas in the third day, and we will live before Him. They will live again and rise up from Sheol which is deep underground and live before Him. It is poetry. If it is not poetry, then it is very similar.

All of Hosea sounds like poetry to me. It does not sound like a normal story or speech.

Kenneth Greifer

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

I think it is poetry,

You can think what you want, no one is stopping you. But as the old saying goes, “You have a right to your own opinions, but you don’t have a right to your own facts.”

and I did not change any word meanings at all.

Without any evidence, you claim a word has a different meaning than what it has in every other use of which we know. If that isn’t changing word meanings, then what is?

I added "(of creation)" so people would understand what "in the third day" refers to.

Christians for generations have recognized that this refers to the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day. That is the central teaching of the New Testament, that Jesus’ resurrection verified all his other claims. Further, Jesus’ resurrection gives the promise that we too shall be resurrected, i.e. in his resurrection, we too have resurrection.

You don’t have to agree with the Christian understanding, that centuries before it happened that God told about it.

There’s no reference to creation in this passage, for you to add it is eisegesis.

I put it in parenthesis (I am guessing how to spell this) so you know it is not written there. It is a poetic way of saying that He will raise them up a lot from Sheol. This is all connected to Hosea 13:14 which says He will redeem them from death and Sheol. Hosea 6:2: He will let us live. He will cause us to rise more than the seas in the third day, and we will live before Him. They will live again and rise up from Sheol which is deep underground and live before Him. It is poetry. If it is not poetry, then it is very similar.

All of Hosea sounds like poetry to me. It does not sound like a normal story or speech.

In prose, there are different formats of speech. There’s informal conversation. There’s narration. Hosea has neither informal conversation nor narration, so you’re right that it isn’t such. There are also exhortation, instructive, teaching, entertainment, parable, etc. each of these has a different style in all languages.

Kenneth Greifer

Your not recognizing that this passage is prose illustrates one of the reasons that we often don’t answer your posts: it illustrates your need to learn more Hebrew. Your often practice of eisegesis only adds to the reasons. Your eisegesis often changes a discussion from a linguistic one to a philosophic (50¢ word for “religious”) question.

At this point, I think that the discussion should end, or at least my participation therein. You are not listening to the linguistic evidence, and I’m trying not to bring up religion. Further, this discussion is going around in circles, not getting anywhere. Therefore I think I should stop.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

I understand if you are done, but I can still say something to you. First of all, I have no idea which word you are saying I changed the meaning of because you never said which word. Secondly, I did not know that Hosea 6:2 was important in the New Testament because it is usually translated as "we will rise up in the third day." I have heard people like Danielkim on this discussion forum say it was about a day as a thousand years. That is all I ever heard about it. If I had known that is was interpreted the way you said then I would have understood why some people have to protect the usual translation and explanation for religious reasons and linguistic reasons.

Kenneth Greifer

[Kenneth Greifer]

I looked up "hosea poetry or prose" on Google books and mostly it seems that scholars say the first 3 chapters are prose and the rest is poetry, but then some say that it is somewhere between poetry and prose. I guess they aren't sure either.

Kenneth Greifer

[kwrandolph]

Karl,

I understand if you are done, but I can still say something to you. First of all, I have no idea which word you are saying I changed the meaning of because you never said which word.

KLUUNK! [the sound of a jaw hitting the ground] Duuh!

Everybody else, from the Masoretes to moderns, as has been repeatedly stated in this thread, also to you specifically, says that מימים refers to days. A disagreement among others is whether it refers to two days, as the Masoretes pointed it, or indeterminate time, as it is used 15 other times in Tanakh. You have changed that to “seas”.

Now for you to claim “First of all, I have no idea which word you are saying I changed the meaning of because you never said which word.” shows the futility of trying to discuss ideas with you.

Secondly, I did not know that Hosea 6:2 was important in the New Testament because it is usually translated as "we will rise up in the third day." I have heard people like Danielkim on this discussion forum say it was about a day as a thousand years. That is all I ever heard about it. If I had known that is was interpreted the way you said then I would have understood why some people have to protect the usual translation and explanation for religious reasons and linguistic reasons.

Kenneth Greifer

After coming to an agreement linguistically, then comes the theological question, what does it mean theologically. I have tried to avoid the theological questions on this forum, because this is a diverse group of people with different theological persuasions who have agreed to set aside theological arguments in order to discuss Biblical Hebrew, its words, phrases, grammar, idioms, etc.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,

This might sound silly, but I got confused between the word "meaning" and "translation." I translate the word differently, but I thought you meant I gave the word a new "meaning" as in "I define a word differently than everybody else." That is what confused me. You often read the vowels differently than other people, even if you keep the letters the same. I did that in this quote, so I just read the word differently and translated it differently. I did not literally give it a new meaning, except in this translation, I suppose. You understand words better than me, so you can tell me if I am wrong about how I understood the word "meaning" compared to "translation."

Kenneth Greifer