I wouldn't go with Strong's lexicon for determining meanings and semantic ranges. It would be much better to go with HALOT.
But I think even HALOT here has overstated things. It mentions Isa 28.28 and 36.17 as meaning 'grain for food'. But in both those cases, the text may imply grain, but only does so in the sense that it's 'incipient' bread. It's a bit like us talking about getting petrol from the ground. What that would mean is getting oil, which is then processed into petrol. But petrol doesn't actually mean oil. By talking about 'bread' in those two references, the texts are merely stating what goes into the making of 'bread'. I'm open to correction on that, but the word itself doesn't mean 'grain' as far as I can see. GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) Sydney, Australia From: Mike Burke <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: Mike Burke <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 2:22 PM To: George Athas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, B-Hebrew <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] ובלחם >>>>No. לחם can mean food, or more specifically 'bread', but not grain.<<<< So James D. Strong was wrong when he defined the word as follows? 1. bread, food, grain * bread * bread * bread-corn * food (in general) Michael Burke
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
