ברכו in Job 1:5

[kwrandolph]

Ok
I said to myself that thats the end of the discuss or argument or any other way tou wanna see it.

But youre really full of s***

Hahahaha!

But you really shouldn’t do that. It’s against the forum rules and the moderators take a dim view of that.

And a guy that doesnt see that החתת is second singular when in the same verse there more verbs in second singual and החתת is one of them

You really should read more carefully before making erroneous statements.

Need to use another dictionary
Clearly not yours

Which dictionary is better than mine? Wait, you’ve never seen my dictionary, you don’t know how good it is, or how bad, so how can you say that another dictionary is better?

And the ברך still a verb
YOU should bring the proof that this is a noun.
You just tell that this is is a noun but you don't say what form is it or give other examples to support that

Let’s look at Psalm 10:3: כי-הלל רשע על-תאות נפשו    ובצע ברך נאץ יהוה
The first half is straight forward: The wicked boasts upon the desire of his life
In the second half: בצע is a noun, usually used in the negative sense as a cut of unjust gain. יהוה is a name. נאץ is the one verb of the clause, meaning to have contempt for. ברך can either be a verb or a noun, but because the clause already has its verb, it’s a noun with a meaning of “one who blesses”. That makes the translation of the second clause “and the one who blesses unjust gain has contempt for the Lord.”

Everythig i bring is with sources …

So what are the sources that claim that ברך in this verse is a verb?

I have no problem to admitt that i wrong if you will show me something else than "this is what i think according to context but i have no other source to support my thought"
Ill even be glad if youll open my eyes and learn more from others like i do all my life
But if i dont see nothing except for "this is not fit"
It doesnt tell me anything

I assumed greater knowledge of Biblical Hebrew than apparently what you have.

The bible is full with "exception" and "should nots"
And thats the way it is. The bible was not written by one guy, right?
And sometime we'll find stuff that look different than what we expected. But with the same meaning and idea.

The biggest difference I see is between before the Babylonian Exile and afterwards. Before is when there were native speakers of Biblical Hebrew, afterwards when Hebrew was only a second language, what is known as a dead language.

Most of the “exceptions” and “should nots” are from people who don’t know Biblical Hebrew grammar, and so mangle the language by trying to impose the grammar from their own language onto Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew grammar is pretty consistent throughout.

אין סכין מתחדדת אלא בירך חברתה
Not modern but from the talmud
And it was a compliment to you
A knife doesn't sharpen but on its friends thigh
And if you writing dictionary yourself and expert on the bibelical root and conjugations
Then you should understand this sentence except from the word אלא
But like i said...

Thanks for the compliment.

However this shows how much Talmudic Hebrew changed from Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew would be something like:
אין סכין חדה כי אם המתחדדת על ירך רעה
but even this is an idiomatic phrase unlike any in Tanakh.

When i was talking bout other sources to check, i meant about checking the lexicon. Even though can be just a simillar meaning but if you dont have other resources you should check everywhere.
Nowhere to find ברך as neglect. Only in your mind and your dictionary.

We don’t find in any language that a word can have two meanings that are opposites. The only exceptions is slang usages, which are both temporary and of limited range. There’s no evidence that I know of that slang was ever used in Tanakh.

On the other hand, there are homonyms, different words that have the same pronunciation. For example, in English there are four words from different roots that have the pronunciation of tū. Another example of a homonym in English is “strike” which for over 600 years meant both “to hit (at)” as one root, and a second root “to make a count”.

In written Biblical Hebrew we have to talk about homographs, because written Biblical Hebrew has no vowels, we don’t know if they were pronounced the same or not.

We have ברך with its primary meaning of “to kneel”, and because kneeling is connected with blessing, came to mean “to bless” as well. No problem.

However there are a few uses of ברך that clearly have no connection with kneeling or blessing. With these uses we have two choices: 1) the copyists deliberately changed the text or 2) we are dealing with a homograph that has a different meaning. One of those uses is connected with the action of removing, moving away. So how best to give a dictionary definition for the term? Why would “neglect” not be part of removing God and King from one’s life?

What i was trying to say about a dead lang (and dont pick about little semantic thing. You already know this is not my native lang)
Is that although the style has change but the hebrew was always alive.

The English definition of “dead language” is of a language that is not spoken at home, nor in the daily market, rather it can be, though not always, spoken as a second language by an educated group of people. By that definition, Hebrew was a dead language for close to 2500 years.

By that definition, Latin is still a dead language, even though people still speak it, and still adapt it to fit modern life.

I mean by that, that the hebrew didnt start and stop in the bible and the other siurces which are also old still talked the hebrew. So yes theres another style and some of the words change their meaning to a simillar one. But you cant ignore that. Cuz if you have doubt about a word. Lets say ברך.
If you will find that word in the meaning of neglet or leave in the qumran or in ben sira or in the mishna and talmud. It can support your assumption.

1) It’s not an assumption, rather it’s a conclusion.
2) Even if the conclusion isn’t found in those late writings, that doesn’t disprove that that term existed in Biblical Hebrew from centuries earlier. There’s already evidence that many little used terms were forgotten when Hebrew became a dead language during the Babylonian Exile and were unknown by the translators of the Septuagint from before Qumran. So likewise a little known homograph for ברך could very well be forgotten long before Qumran.

About the modern hebrew. I told you that if you dont know the lang. You dont know how much youre wrong.
If a guy start learning modern hebrew in the level of reading books
He will understand also most of the bible.

When I first learned Hebrew, I was taught Tiberian Hebrew as it was adapted to fit the Masoretic text. True, I understood much of the Bible, but I also realized very quickly that much of what I was taught was wrong as far as Biblical Hebrew was concerned. The uses of the verbs as taught in class didn’t match the uses found in Tanakh. Many word meanings had nonsense definitions when applied to Biblical contexts. The two together led to many tortured and convoluted explanations with the result that many students throw up their hands in despair of ever learning this exceedingly complex language. Yes, enough is the same that if we limit ourselves to dictionary meanings, we could work out a meaning, but it’s not always accurate.

My understanding is that modern Israeli Hebrew is largely based on Tiberian Hebrew.

Im done with this thread

This time for real?

Karl W. Randolph.