You have every right to your beliefs. However your statements are nothing more than descriptions of your beliefs. You give absolutely no evidence for any of your conclusions.
Why is it that a book of instruction should be prevented from using homonyms? Why is it that the *language* of a קדש book cannot be common? Look at other things that are described in that book as קדש. Was the gold in the tabernacle and temple קדש *before* it was mined? Was it קדש at the time it was being formed into the vessels or laminates? Or was it common before it became קדש? You stated that נחל in Numbers 32 cannot be based on homonyms. What is your basis for that? Have you even done a most basic word study of the words in your קדש text? There are some 130+ occurrences where the word family describes a river, torrent, wadi, or other water feature. There are 220+ times where the word describes inheritance, heritage, or possession. If this is not a demonstration that we have two roots here that happen to be homonyms, then what is your explanation? Homonyms are not exclusively used for wordplay. It is just that wordplay is the easiest way to demonstrate that the homonyms exist. But, as to your assertion that wordplay does not exist in the Hebrew scriptures, that it is not fit for an instructive work, you obviously have not looked very far into the book. One simple illustration is how Esau uses Jacob's name in Gen 27:36. According to Gen 25:26, the reason for calling the boy יעקב was because he grabbed the heel (עקב) of his brother at their births. Yet, in 27:36, Esau makes a play on Jacob's name using another word spelled עקב (but pronounced differently) that means "to deceive." How does you קדש text belief handle this? If what you are proposing is that we look at the entire text while we study word usage and meaning, you will not get any disagreement from the people on the list. That is part of how word studies are done--you examine the body of works where the word is found. But that is not what your posts seem to be suggesting. Instead, you pull out isolated cases, show no evidence of doing even the most basic of research into the words, and leap to statements about what you believe to be the case. Hope this helps, Paul Zellmer -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of fred burlingame Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 11:44 PM To: K Randolph Cc: B-Hebrew Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] priest code? Karl: You could be correct, in all of your points. but ..... i have some doubts. As I mentioned in my response to Stephen's post, I see a difference between a comic book usage of homonym; and a קדש book usage of homonym. I believe the latter type book more inclined to employ a richer usage of the homonym than the comic book. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
