While researching another issue, I inspected 2 Kings 1:2
- וישלח מלאכים ויאמר אלהם
- then he sends tasked-men/representatives and telling them
- לכו דרשו
- to go summon
- בְּבַעַל זְבוּב
- in Baal Zvuv
- אֱלֹהֵי עקרון
- gods of Akron
- אם אחיה מחלי זה
- if I shall live beyond this injury
I realise that translations interpret that Baal Zevuv as a person and that the phrase {בְּבַעַל זְבוּב אֱלֹהֵי עקרון} is translated {Baal Zebub god of Akron}.
I dispute those translations, mainly and solely based on the grammar.
{אלהים elohim} is used in the Hebrew of the Bible in two ways.
- A reference reserved for the singularity of the Almighty.
- For all others, is used as plural "gods"
The phrase does not say {מבעל זבוב = from Baal Zvuv} or {את בעל זבוב = datively-directed at Baal Zvuv}. But says {בבעל זבוב = in Baal Zvuv}.
- {אלהי} is the adjunctive form of {אלהים}.
- Since in Gen 2, {מלאכת} = {commission/committed-task}, therefore {מלאך} should not be "angel" or "messenger" but "commissioner" or "tasked-person".
Question: Could you please argue against my opinion that in 2 Kings 1:2, Baal Zvuv is not a person?
This is a grammatical question. A technical rather than a spiritual question. I am requesting for arguments in form of grammatical analysis to demolish my opinion, for arguments that is unfavourable to this opinion.
If possible provide cross-reference to other passages in the Hebrew of the Bible - for example perhaps the usage and structure somewhere else proves that {ב} can be used as {from} rather than as {in}.
If you quote "established authors/authorities", their opinions you quote should be based on grammatical analysis and logic, not on ethereal inspiration/revelation.
For example,
Akron is already the place, how could Baal Zvuv be the place.
BTW, this is not a question on the grammar of the greek text of the septuagint. Therefore, quoting the septuagint will not help with understanding the Hebrew text. (And since my religion rejects the septuagint).