B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I have spent many years doing my own textual criticism of difficult Hebrew Bible quotes and then self-publishing my ideas in little books. I put a lot of my ideas in two new versions of my books that can be read for free on my internet site, if anyone is interested. I especially like to divide the Hebrew letters into words differently when a quote doesn't make sense.

http://www.hebrewbiblequotes.com

Kenneth Greifer wrote:I have spent many years doing my own textual criticism of difficult Hebrew Bible quotes and then self-publishing my ideas in little books. I put a lot of my ideas in two new versions of my books that can be read for free on my internet site, if anyone is interested. I especially like to divide the Hebrew letters into words differently when a quote doesn't make sense.

The very first example that you give, Genesis 1:24, you confuse a Hebrew word, which has no English equivalent, with the attempted “translation” used in usual English translations. The Hebrew word מינה doesn’t refer to “species” or any other word used in taxonomy today. So translators use “kind” to get as close to the Hebrew meaning as possible without confusing the issue by using a term that has a specific meaning in taxonomy.

But the English word “kind” also has meanings not included in מינה and it appears that you were confused by including those other, wider English meanings in your discussion.

Genesis 2:5–25 here it appears that you don’t understand that Biblical writers didn’t always relate events in strict chronological order, nor did Biblical Hebrew have tenses to indicate when events were told out of chronological order. As such, Genesis 2:5–25 depends on Genesis 1:1–2:4 to give the chronological order, while filling in other details.

This is as far as I have gotten in your book. With problems this serious, is there any benefit to reading further in it?

Karl,

You are saying that a word in Genesis 1:24 translated as "kind" has no English equivalent and somehow you don't like my translation which is what most translations use. Actually, I translated it as "her kind" and not "kind", but I am not sure if that is really important to what I was discussing. I am not sure how the word "kind" matters so much in what I was discussing.

I think you are saying that earth or the living soul can't have a "kind" the way I am saying. I am just giving possible alternative translations and explanations. What the word meant thousands of years ago is iffy, I think. Maybe it can't be used that way. I am just saying maybe it was used that way.

Also, how do you know exactly what that word meant in Hebrew thousands of years ago when you say that it has a different meaning than how I use it? What is your argument based on?

Karl,

About Genesis 2:5-25, I guess you think there wasn't a second creation (actually making or forming) of animals to find a mate for Adam, but that does not mean I misunderstood the Hebrew. It is possible that I am interpreting it differently. I didn't expect that kind of argument against what I am saying, so I don't know what to say. Are you saying that the Hebrew can't be understood the way I am explaining it?

Karl,
What you call mistakes, I consider to be different interpretations and explanations of what words can mean.

While I was looking at my ideas about Genesis 1:24, I thought of some more ideas that I added to the book on Amazon, but they are not in there yet. It takes time, but I didn't add them to the internet site yet. I want them to go through on Amazon first.

I could be wrong, but I am willing to consider the possibility that the meaning of the word translated as "kind" in Genesis 1:24 can be used about the earth's kind of living things or the living soul's kind of living things.

Now I have another idea about Genesis 1:24, but I already tried to fix the book today. Anyway, I think the usual translation of Genesis 1:24 does not make sense as it is, and I think it says something slightly different that I am still working on because it is very difficult to understand. I think my new idea makes more sense, but I have to look up some words to understand them better.

kwrandolph wrote:

Kenneth Greifer wrote:I have spent many years doing my own textual criticism of difficult Hebrew Bible quotes and then self-publishing my ideas in little books. I put a lot of my ideas in two new versions of my books that can be read for free on my internet site, if anyone is interested. I especially like to divide the Hebrew letters into words differently when a quote doesn't make sense.

The very first example that you give, Genesis 1:24, you confuse a Hebrew word, which has no English equivalent, with the attempted “translation” used in usual English translations. The Hebrew word מינה doesn’t refer to “species” or any other word used in taxonomy today. So translators use “kind” to get as close to the Hebrew meaning as possible without confusing the issue by using a term that has a specific meaning in taxonomy.

But the English word “kind” also has meanings not included in מינה and it appears that you were confused by including those other, wider English meanings in your discussion.

Genesis 2:5–25 here it appears that you don’t understand that Biblical writers didn’t always relate events in strict chronological order, nor did Biblical Hebrew have tenses to indicate when events were told out of chronological order. As such, Genesis 2:5–25 depends on Genesis 1:1–2:4 to give the chronological order, while filling in other details.

This is as far as I have gotten in your book. With problems this serious, is there any benefit to reading further in it?

You know that the ה suffix is not part of the lexeme מין, right? It is the 3fs suffix, corresponding to a female possessor, in the same way that מינו has the 3ms suffix.

I'm sure this must be in the range of things that you know of the language, but it struck me as odd that you mentioned מינה several times in this post as though it were a word in its own right.

I know you don't like vowel points, but it's clear that מִינָהּ means "its kind" with a feminine referent and that מִינוֹ (or מִינֵ֫הוּ) means the same with a masculine referent. These three forms are all based on the same lexeme, namely מִין (not מינה).

Thanks, Jason, for a quick correction.

Karl W. Randolph.