Bryant: Two thoughts come to mind:
1) in the Yiqtol conjugation, in an unpointed text, there are no differences between the Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual, and hophal for regular verbs. So how do you know which binyan was used for this verb? 2) the reading of “be extinguished” is a quirk of the English language. If instead we read it as “their fire will not go out” we have an active reading of the text. No need even to consider a passive. The reference to D(K synonym I understand has the meaning “to sputter out, die down (of flame)” used most often of its nine appearances in Tanakh for the sputtering out of a lamp’s flame. Therefore, from the Hebrew, I see no need for a passive reading of the verb. As for the theology, … well … let’s save that for another post. Karl W. Randolph. On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Rev. Bryant J. Williams III < [email protected]> wrote: > ** > Dear List, > > Below is an article by Dr. Claude Mariottini. What are your thoughts? > > The Dr Glenn Peoples' article referred to is at > http://www.rethinkinghell.com/2013/06/what-the-qal-revisiting-the-unquenched-fire/ > . > The Blauser response of Peoples article at > http://rethinkinghell.com/2012/10/the-meaning-of-apollumi-in-the-synoptic-gospels/ > . > > > Although the discussion is one of importance for other reasons, ALL I want > is a discussion on the *HEBREW grammar and syntax NOT the interpretation > or theology of the text!* > ** > Rev. Bryant J. Williams III > > http://rethinkinghell.com/2013/06/the-passive-qal-and-other-issues/. > >
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
