jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-25-2002 at 08:37 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
To all my friends, Genesis 4:1 reads in the KING JAMES: I have begotten a man from the LORD . LXX says: I have gained a man through God (theos). Lamsa says: I have gotten a man for the LORD. My question has to do with the MT Hebrew phrase YHWH eth ish. Does it literally say man the LORD or man (is) LORD. An Aramaic breakdown would be most helpful here ahki Paul. Grace to all, jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
- RE: gotten a man the LORD,
Paul Younan
, Feb-25-2002 at 09:09 PM, (1)
- RE: gotten a man the LORD,
Rob, Feb-25-2002 at 09:38 PM, (2)
- RE: gotten a man the LORD,
Dean, Feb-28-2002 at 04:13 AM, (9)
- RE: gotten a man the LORD,
Rob, Feb-28-2002 at 05:23 AM, (11)
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-25-2002 at 09:09 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Shlama Akhi John, Actually, an Aramaic breakdown here would be useless because Gen. 4:1 is in Hebrew and the Aramaic is only a translation. I would rely only on the Hebrew here. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-25-2002 at 09:38 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Shlama, The 'et' in Hebrew marks the direct object, a.k.a. the accusative. Grammatically, 'ish' (man) is shown to be the accusative in this sentence because the 'et' is in front of it. Hope this helps! Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-26-2002 at 04:49 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
ahki Rob' Is "et" ever translated 'the'. This may sound very simple but some peoplw I know think they know Hebrew and read (Please don't laugh)the 'eht" backwards as if it is equalvalent to the english 'the'. ahki jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-26-2002 at 08:36 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
Shlama. No, 'et' does not mean 'the'. There is a very important distinction to be made between the definite article ('the', Heb= 'ha') and the direct object marker ('et'). If you translate the 'et' as 'the', you'll get some very funny passages! Especially when it occurs before a personal name! You'd end up with "He put the Joseph in prison", and the like! You can see how rediculous that is. The people making this mistake have the direct object marker and definite article confused, and don't know what they even are! Shlama, Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-26-2002 at 08:36 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
John, > Is "et" ever translated >'the'. ta (Sorry I'm not smart enough to fit the segol under the aleph. Guess I need a Heb character chart) is untranslatable. As Rob indicated the purpose of the term is to determine the accusative. The -h prefixed to the noun indicates the definite article. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-26-2002 at 07:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #6
Ahki, I knew you guys could explain it better than me. toda kulam. ahki jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-26-2002 at 07:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #6
Ahkim, Also, any thoughts on the word Lord after the indirect object because YHWH would not have been known or in the ancient text at that time. And if Moses inserted it there why didn't he change elohim to YHWH in Genesis one. just to follow thru on the how it ought to be translated. l'kulam. ahki jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-28-2002 at 04:40 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #8
Shlama, I don't at this time want to get into a full-scale group textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. But I'll say this. Abraham knew the Name 'YHWH', but only from the perspective of His promises, which were magnificent. The famous verse sums it up: "ve-he'emin ba-Yahweh va-yakhshveha lo tzedaqah" (Lit., And (Abraham) believed in YHWH, and He accounted it (his faith) righteousness) To Moses and the children of Israel YHWH REVEALED Himself, as the fulfiller of His word. The One who promised Abraham Isaac and Jacob and is now DOING what He said HE would DO, making good on His Word. cf. Exodus chapter 3;Exodus 9:13-16; Rom 9:17 So, the Patriarchs KNEW YHWH BY FAITH, while MOSES and CO. KNEW HIM BY WORKS. Hope this helps, Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Dean
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-28-2002 at 04:13 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Shlama, I think "et" here could be translated "through" or "by" "I've gotten a man through (or by) YHWH" -Dean > To all >my friends, > > Genesis 4:1 >reads in the KING JAMES: >I have begotten a man >from the LORD . > > > LXX says: > > > > > > > > > I have gained a >man through God (theos). > > > Lamsa says: > > > > > > > > I >have gotten a man for >the LORD. > My >question has to do with >the MT Hebrew phrase > YHWH eth >ish. Does it literally say >man the LORD or man >(is) LORD. > An >Aramaic breakdown would be most >helpful here ahki Paul. >Grace to all, > >jdrywood >face="Estrangelo (V1.1)" size="5"] osyqdw >Nnxwy Nm aml4 >
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-28-2002 at 05:23 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Shlama, Please forgive me, everyone . I must confess I never checked the Hebrew on this verse. I 'retranslated' it in my mind from the KJV quote that was given in the original post, and was dealing with my poor memory rather than the actual text. Others be warned and learn from my mistake! Thank you, Dean, for bringing this to my attention (although be it inadvertently!). You are correct. There are two et's in Hebrew. The one in this verse (I assure you I've SEEN it this time! ) is NOT the direct object marker. I repeat NOT the direct object marker! The 'et' used in Gen 4:1 is the same as Akkadian 'itti', and means 'with', just as Dean correctly stated. I'm learning to be VERY careful! b'Yeshua, Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-28-2002 at 05:42 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #11
Akhay, Reading the preposition here does make more sense than the DO marker. We should have noted that the Massorets hyphenated it and used the segol. This points to the preposition instead of DO marker. Even the LXX picked up on the preposition and also translated YHWH as GOD instead of Kurios. Blanket statments ALWAYS get me in trouble and I can NEVER get out. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-28-2002 at 07:44 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #12
Perhaps Akheinu Paul will put a Hebrew font on this site! (That is, if there's not one already that I just don't know about!) Eve says, "qaniti ish et YHWH" Clearly "ish" is the object here, NOT YHWH! Taking the 'et' here as D.O. marker allows for no grammatical sense whatsoever to be made of the sentence! Yes, the LXX has anthrwpon (accusative case)(w=omega)
Yaqub- check out LXX 4:1, "Adam de egnw Euav ten gunaika autou" Notice the Hebrew yad'a becomes egnw, and this is definitely a sexual idiom. But also look at the word in LXX for 'wife'! Is there a Greek pun going on here between egnw and gunaika? For those reading the Greek LXX with the Hebrew in mind, consider gana (garden) is also a woman (Shir haShirim/Song of Solomon). How sweet it is! Shlama, Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
StephenSilver
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-28-2002 at 09:35 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #13
Sh'lama Akhi Rob: There are a couple of things that I would like to comment upon. 1)The use of the "ALEF-TAV", in conjunction with YHVH. 2)The literal meaning of "Gan Aiden". >Perhaps Akheinu Paul will put a >Hebrew font on this site! > (That is, if >there's not one already that >I just don't know about!) > > >Eve says, "qaniti ish et YHWH" > > >Clearly "ish" is the object here, >NOT YHWH! Taking the 'et' >here as D.O. marker allows >for no grammatical sense whatsoever >to be made of the >sentence! Stephen Silver wrote: The use of "ALEF-TAV", in conjunction with any "noun", is not so much "grammatical", as it is "pointing to the power, motivation, spirit, context", of the conjuncted word. In Genesis 1:1, "et-hashamayim v'et haaretz", "the heavens and the earth", the use of "ALEF-TAV", points to the "omnipotence of the CREATOR". When comparing Genesis 1:1, with John 1:1, it becomes clear that this is "ET-YHVH", or "ALEF-TAV YHVH". Who is "ALEF-TAV YHVH"? It is Yahshua. Revelation 1:8, when understood to have been originally written in Aramaic, reads, "I AM ALEF-TAV, says Adonai YHVH, He who is and was and is to come, Whom is the Almighty." So, ALEF-TAV YHVH is in fact YHVH the SON, being made manifest as "atributes of YHVH. When Khavah remarks on Kayin's birth, (Genesis 4:1, "kaniti ish et-YHVH"), it is my understanding that she was giving thanks to "ALEF-TAV YHVH", for the birth of her "first-born son". It was not anticipated by Khavah, what would follow, after the birth of "et-akhayiv et-Havel", "his brother Hevel". I am not saying that "et" is always used to describe "positive attributes", for it is conjuncted with some "evil names", but it does point to "attributes", "powers", and "strong, deliberate motives". These thoughts are by no means conclusive. They only reflect my own personal study. > > >Yes, the LXX has anthrwpon (accusative >case)(w=omega) > >Yaqub- check out LXX 4:1, >"Adam de egnw Euav ten gunaika >autou" > >Notice the Hebrew yad'a becomes egnw, >and this is definitely a >sexual idiom. But also look >at the word in LXX >for 'wife'! Is there a >Greek pun going on here >between egnw and gunaika? > >For those reading the Greek LXX >with the Hebrew in mind, >consider gana (garden) is also >a woman (Shir haShirim/Song of >Solomon). Stephen Silver wrote: The original phrase, "Gan Aiden", means quite literally, "Pleasure Garden". The word, "aiden", also appears in what appears to be a "word-play", "poetic utterance", by Sarah, in Genesis 18:12, "akharai b'loti hayata-li ed'nah vadoni zakan" Let me explain. The phrase, "akhrai b'loti hayata-li" literally means, "after my being without", referring to "Sarah's barrenness". It is possible that Sarah's barrenness was caused by the fact that Abraham married his "half-sister",(Genesis 20:12), but that is a side-issue. The word, "ed'nah",(Genesis 18:12), has the same root, "Ayin-Dalet-Nun", as "Aiden",in Genesis 2:8, 10, 15. 2:8, "gan-b'aiden", 2:10, "maiaiden" 2:15, "b'gan-aiden" The "word-play", is between the ROOT of "ed'nah", "AYIN-DALET-NUN", and the ROOT of "adonai", "ALEF-DALET-NUN". It's my understanding that this "prophetic utterance", is what is being referred to in I Peter 3:6. "As Sarah was subject to Abraham and called him, "adonai", whose daughters you are by good works, while you are not troubled by any fear." Sh'lama w'Burkate, Stephen Silver. " > >How sweet it is! >Shlama, >Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-28-2002 at 11:21 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #14
Ahki stephen, don't want to vere from your trial but if YHWH is another name or appellation for 'the promised seed' then havah believed Cain to be the Messiah but this line of apostacy tells us that this lineage believed in the false Christ or 'black Messiah' and thus came the pagan belief of the incarnation. what say you migthy one stephen. ahki jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
StephenSilver
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-01-2002 at 01:38 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #17
Bar Anash Drywood: I have no intention of "debating with you", except to strive honestly with you, to assist in the salvation of your soul. therefore, I will not enter into "doctrinal midrash" with you. Rather I think it necessary to encourage you to seek the Spirit of YHVH ELOHIM, "the only true Mighty One", Whom has graciously manifested Himself as the SON of ELOHIM, Yahshua (Jesus) the Messiah, who died for the sins of the world. Sh'lama, Stephen Silver.
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-01-2002 at 04:49 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #14
Shalom, Akhi Stephen (TzephanYahu? YHWH has indeed hidden...) Yes, the Scriptures are deep, from which I love to drink and in which I love to dive, searching out the sod! And indeed, Yehoshua is the 'ot' (YeshaYahu 7:14) I also understand 'Aleph and Tav' as a parallel with "the beginning and the end, the first and the last", the beginning of the creation of Elohim. In Yeshua, Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-28-2002 at 10:55 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #13
Ahkay, Now that we have turned to sexual idioms that should get the presses rolling. check out Ezekiel 23:8 they bruised the breasts of her virginity. Gesenius says immodestly equivalent to sexual intercoarse Be discrete here now guys. Also all the examples in this chapter show hyphen + segol so how do we distinguish between D.O and the preposition. Any more examples nearby ? Ahki jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-28-2002 at 10:55 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #13
>Perhaps Akheinu Paul will put a >Hebrew font on this site > (That is, if >there's not one already that >I just don't know about!) br yxa ynh
> >Yaqub- check out LXX 4:1, >"Adam de egnw Euav ten gunaika >autou" > >Notice the Hebrew yad'a becomes egnw, >and this is definitely a >sexual idiom. But also look >at the word in LXX >for 'wife'! Is there a >Greek pun going on here >between egnw and gunaika? Well perhaps but a better punn would have been 'ginosko' with 'gunaika'rather than'agnoeo'. I guess that makes Adam the first 'Gnostic' The 'gno-' cognates usally translate (dy. Interesting given that 'oida' is phonetically closer. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-01-2002 at 04:49 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #12
Shlama, One note: >We should have noted that the >Massorets hyphenated it and used >the segol. This points to >the preposition instead of DO >marker. Actually, the maqef (hyphen) between the et and following word occurs with both D.O. marker and preposition, so it does not tell us how to translate. b'Yeshua, Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-01-2002 at 05:55 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #19
Ahkay, Comparing this to Genesis 5:22 Enoch walked with the elohim , is this D.O. only marker with the definite article or preposition combined and does the POT make any distinction in Aramaic to this type of construct. Grace ahki jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-01-2002 at 07:31 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #21
Haven't checked the P.O.T., but the Hebrew is clear. The hitpa'el binyan is reflexive (non-transitive), so there is no direct object. Hence, no direct object marker. Here, the 'et' is a preposition. Shlama, Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-04-2002 at 07:20 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #22
ahkay, If Aramaic is derived from Akadian and has no D.O. marker did Hebrew derive directly from Akadian? Hummm. jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-04-2002 at 05:53 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #23
Last edited by Rob on Mar-04-2002 at 06:48 PM (GMT3) Shlama. Akkadian uses case endings, so the accusative is understood w/o a direct object particle. I'm still learning Aramaic, but from what I've seen already, the Targumim Onkelos and Yonatan both use the D.O. particle "yat". Hebrew and Akkadian share many Semitic roots, but these roots have different meanings in Akkadian than in Hebrew. Akkadian is 'verb final'- the verb at the end of the sentence is!(Greek too like that is) .There are a few instances of archaic case endings in Biblical Hebrew, however. The locative 'heh' is the most common. Shlama, Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|