meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 4 months |
| seen | 16 hours ago | |
| stats | profile views | 2 |
|
Apr 16 |
comment |
Are kruvim also angels? Who says that Ezekiel 28 is talking about Satan? I don't see any reference to Satan in this chapter. |
|
Apr 8 |
comment |
Where is the citation of John 7:38 taken from? I'm not sure if this is relevant to point out, or if everyone already knows this, but John 7:37 is a quotation from Isaiah 55:1. Is it possible that "as the Scripture has said" is referring back to that previous quotation? |
|
Apr 3 |
comment |
Genesis 3:12: What is the underlying Hebrew word translated into English as “with me” (in KJV)? Well, that's a different situation because the base verb is וַיִּקַח, and so the הָ is clearly a suffix. A mappiq is only used in ambivalent situations as a differentiation to indicate that a final ה is to be pronounced - as in, for example, אַרְצָהּ, "her land", vs. אַרְצָה, "to the land". Joüon does list a few examples of "3rd f. ה without mappiq" as "rare forms with suffixes" but I do not believe this is one of them. |
|
Apr 3 |
comment |
Genesis 3:12: What is the underlying Hebrew word translated into English as “with me” (in KJV)? Just butting in: As far as I know, 'immi and 'immadi are synonymous prepositions from עם, (the root is actually ayin-mem-mem), with a 1s suffix. The dalet is a prolonging form with no semantic value (that I know of) - similar to the energic nun (that gets inserted in forms like mimmeka instead of mimkha). If anything it's possibly for prosodic value, i.e. more syllables. נָתַתָּה is, as noted, the 2ms of n.t.n. "to give". The qametz-he is NOT a 3fs suffix - if so it would have a mappiq (diacritic dot) to indicate that. In this case it is simply a scribal oddity of an extra mater lectionis. |
|
Mar 20 |
comment |
Blessed is the man who WALKS NOT or HAS NOT WALKED? Technically speaking "zman 'avar" is Modern Hebrew. In Biblical Hebrew, [lo] halakh is in the simple perfect[ive] aspect - the verbal system in Biblical Hebrew is somewhat different than Modern (as well as European languages like English). Perfect verbs generally indicate that the action or concept is whole or complete, which is usually (but not always) an indication that they happened in the past - or the past up until the present. Classical Biblical Hebrew, especially in poetry, avoids participles, so "lo halakh" could definitely be translated as "does not walk" as well as "has not walked". |
|
Mar 8 |
comment |
What is the difference between ζωὴ and ψυχὴ? I think some of the Greek words got mixed up... ψυχὴ (psukhe) is what is translated as "soul/person/mind/etc." and refers to our own lives. ζωὴ (zoe) is translated as "life/living" and refers to the concept of life itself. |
|
Feb 7 |
comment |
Why did the tabernacle use the colors blue, purple and scarlet? As it turns out, yes, @MonicaCellio, we do have some archaeological evidence of overdyeing in Biblical Israel. Dr. Zvi Koren (an expert on ancient Near Eastern textiles) briefly discusses a garment with a stripe of "purple" produced by overdyeing first with madder and then woad (picture on pg. 172, discussion on pg. 174): edelsteincenter.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/… But that is not argaman, even if it might have approximately the same colour... Later in the article he discusses a fabric found at Masada dyed with actual argaman purple, pp. 184-186. |
|
Feb 7 |
comment |
Why did the tabernacle use the colors blue, purple and scarlet? Oh, now I feel guilty! But leaving my feelings aside, I think you're right. The point that I was trying to make was that when we think of "blue", we're thinking of the generic colour. But "tekheleth" is not a colour, it's a specific material dye made in a specific way (in this case, from the Murex trunculus shell). Same with argaman and shani. In our minds, "purple" is made from "red" and so they are related in that way; but argaman is not made from shani, so we really have to think about each "colour"/dye on its own terms, and then how they are related to each other in Biblical usage. |
