Need Hebrew help in understanding something that...

Page 2 of 3 (43 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 42 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 7 2012 5:44 AM

Gloria:

David Thomas:

Gloria:

Which way is your way? (Why am I hearing Princess Bride movie quotes in my head)  Maybe I should try something new.

I am seminary trained as a pastor so I have invested more money in original language resources and when I right-click I "search Lemma" to get to definitions in lexicons and dictionaries or use reverse Interlinears.  If I had your skill-set I would also be using Strong's numbers (or another system called GK numbering) to discover the Hebrew or Greek words that underlie English translations.

 

David, can you tell me what the GK numbering system is called on Logos.  I would like to look at it.  Thanks for recognizing my "skill-set" which could also be called "no skill-set."  If I weren't consumed with taking care of my ill husband and bible study, I would be working on that "skill-set" so I appreciate you mentioning the using of Strong's is okay for me.  I have tried the Lemma thing, and even took John's webinar trying to learn it, but it's just too much.  BUT...

That's why I am saying a huge THANK YOU to you all for your input.  You guys are like having a bunch of professors available to me.  I appreciate every single point of all the input.  And maybe this time, we all learned a little something maybe.

Poor George, whoever he is.  I'll pray for his Broken Heart

Now, to check on whether it's worth it to me to update to Logos 5.  The help that I get from your input is often worth the most to me.  So thank you very much for your responses to me and to others.

Gloria

I am the "George" referenced, and I can assure you that my heart is not broken because, as usual, David is wrong since Strong's is not more accurate than HALOT.  The lemma is simply the dictionary form.  If you were to look for a definition of "running" in an English dictionary, you would look under "run" rather than "running", and the situation is similar in Hebrew.  If you have either BDB (EBDB) or HALOT, you can simply click on the word in the Hebrew text and your Hebrew lexicon should open to  that lemma (or word). 

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 13379
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 7 2012 5:53 AM

Gloria:
David, can you tell me what the GK numbering system is called on Logos.  I would like to look at it.

GK stands for Goodrick-Kohlenberger, but it's a numbering system that's not available in Logos, only in paper-resources.

Gloria:
I have tried the Lemma thing, and even took John's webinar trying to learn it, but it's just too much.  BUT...

Hebrew's much harder to get your head around than Greek, so the OT is harder than the NT for original language study. If you have time, next time you're doing an NT study, you might find it worth experimenting a little with lemmas in the reverse interlinear. (The lemma is simply the dictionary form of the Greek word, and knowing the lemma means you can go straight to the dictionary entry without needing to translate the word into a number and back.) When you're comfortable in the NT, you'll be reading to try the OT.

If you've not already seen it you might find this video helpful: http://www.logos4training.com/videos/reverse-interlinears/ - there's a segment towards the end (about 25 minute in) where I discuss Strong's numbers.

Posts 58
Gloria | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 7 2012 6:03 AM

George, can you tell me what the BDB or EBDB and HALOT resources are called, spelled out?  I know I have seen HALOT in my books, but the names would make it easy for me to find them, and then if they are helpful, I can prioritize them to find them easier the next time.  Thanks.  BTW, "whew" on that broken heart thing.  Glad your good.  :)

gloria

Posts 58
Gloria | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 7 2012 6:06 AM

Mark, thanks for the video link.  I don't think I have seen that one, and I will check it out.  I've been leading Bible Study for 4 years now, and word studies are MUCH easier for me in the Greek, but still have lots to learn there, as well.  But, yes way easier. Thanks.

Posts 22227
Forum MVP
Graham Criddle | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 7 2012 6:08 AM

Hi Gloria

  • BDB is Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (which is why George referred to it as EBDB)
  • HALOT is Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament 

Graham 

Posts 1899
David Thomas | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 7 2012 6:17 AM

David Paul:

So it sounds like you are saying that Strong's is more correct than HALOT.

I don't know if "correctness" is the right scale to assign to this discrepancy. The difference has to do with numbering of entries as it relates to the Piel and Qal stems. As a brief explanation for the masses, Piel is an intensive form of a verb (think of an exclamation point rather than a period). If I were to make a list of words, should "to break" (Qal stem) and "to shatter" (Piel stem) be one entry or two? Are they essentially the same word or are they significantly distinct?

HALOT is written as a resource for those who understand the differences of Hebrew intensity to both words can be listed in one section. Strong's numbering is written as a guide for English readers to indicate to someone reading in English "something is different about these words so you will want to investigate further"--as Gloria originally asked "what is the difference between 2567 and 2571."

Specifically in the text Gloria asked about one could write "the Israelites approached in military formation" or "the Israelites approached with complete combat readiness". Is the first statement incorrect or is the 2nd statement more precise? By differentiating 2567 and 2571 a student can make that distinction.

Making Disciples!  Logos Ecosystem = Logos8 on Microsoft Surface Pro 4 (Win10), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone, [deprecated] Windows App, Proclaim, Faithlife.com, FaithlifeTV via Connect subscription.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 7 2012 6:34 AM

Graham Criddle:

Hi Gloria

 

  • BDB is Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (which is why George referred to it as EBDB)
  • HALOT is Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament 

 

Graham 

Graham beat me in replying while I was out walking the dog. 

Just to expand slightly:  It's strange that some works are referenced by their authors while others are reference by title.  Graham has given you the basics.  Brown-Driver-Briggs are the compilers of one of the widely accepted Hebrew lexicons.  HALOT is the title of the newer lexicon of Hebrew which can also (though rarely is) be called Koehler-Baumgartner-Stamm after the compilers.  It depends upon how serious you are with studying the original languages whether you wish to invest in these works.  Strong's gives you just enough to be dangerous, but no depth.  If you do decide to invest in more scholarly works, BDB is still good though dated since it lacks some of the more recently discovered materials of cognate languages such as Ugaritic (BDB does reference Akkadian).  If you invest in these, I would recommend that you purchase the BDAG (Baur, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich) and HALOT bundle since you will save some $$ that way (BDB is cheaper since it's older and doesn't link as reliably to the Hebrew text). 

https://www.logos.com/product/5228/bdag-halot-bundle

EDIT:  If you can't afford HALOT or BDB, there is an Abridged BDB which isn't as useful, but is worth far more than its price (free)

https://www.logos.com/product/677/the-abridged-brown-driver-briggs-hebrew-english-lexicon-of-the-old-testament

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4780
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 8 2012 8:37 AM

Mark Barnes:

Hebrew's much harder to get your head around than Greek, so the OT is harder than the NT for original language study.

I disagree 1000%. Yes, I was able to teach myself Greek with little problem (to the extent I know it), whereas I couldn't get over the hump with Hebrew. The right-to-left, the similarity of certain letters, the 'aleph and the `ayin, the vowel points (niqquudh), and other things stymied me until I took a class. But literally after just a week of Hebrew class, I was off to the races. Of the two languages (both of which have their share of whacky rules), I find that Hebrew grammar is far simpler and more straightforward than Greek. For the most part, Hebrew is logically processional in its grammar. Greek is anything but. Just look at the Lexham Greek/English Interlinear (not reverse interlinear) and notice how they have to number the sentences so that someone can comprehend the order. It is not at all unusual to see a numbering pattern that looks like 5, 4, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 3, 12, 9, 10, 14, 15, 11, 13, 17, 18, 16, 19. Regardless of whatever grammar rules may "make sense" out such a mishmash, the thought breakdown of many such sentences is inescapably bizarre.

Posts 912
David Knoll | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 8 2012 9:00 AM

George Somsel:

Gloria:

 

A group of us is studying Exodus.  We use the NASB.  In Chapter 13:18 in the NASB it says, the “sons of Israel went up in ‘martial’ array.”  In the interlinear, the strongs # for the word “martial” is #2567, and the dictionary I use tells me it means “to take one-fifth.

 

The Hebrew word here is חָמֻשִׁים which comes from the word חַמֵשׁ which is the number "five."  In the plural form which appears here it signifies "fifty."  According to HALOT it refers to groups of fifty.  It would seem therefore to signify "companies" or groups of military units.

 חָמֻשִׁים is not the plural of חַמֵשׁ. HALOT reconstructs the etymology of the word as a derivative noun from חַמֵשׁ  whose putative singular would be חָמֻשׁ. As for fifty that is חֲמִשִּׁים.

In Modern Israeli Hebrew the singular is no longer putative. Thus you can hear on the radio that a Palestinian חָמֻשׁ (gunman) or three חָמֻשִׁים (gunmen) were killed tonight etc.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 8 2012 9:05 AM

David Paul:

Mark Barnes:

Hebrew's much harder to get your head around than Greek, so the OT is harder than the NT for original language study.

 

I disagree 1000%. Yes, I was able to teach myself Greek with little problem (to the extent I know it), whereas I couldn't get over the hump with Hebrew. The right-to-left, the similarity of certain letters, the 'aleph and the `ayin, the vowel points (niqquudh), and other things stymied me until I took a class. But literally after just a week of Hebrew class, I was off to the races. Of the two languages (both of which have their share of whacky rules), I find that Hebrew grammar is far simpler and more straightforward than Greek. For the most part, Hebrew is logically processional in its grammar. Greek is anything but. Just look at the Lexham Greek/English Interlinear (not reverse interlinear) and notice how they have to number the sentences so that someone can comprehend the order. It is not at all unusual to see a numbering pattern that looks like 5, 4, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 3, 12, 9, 10, 14, 15, 11, 13, 17, 18, 16, 19. Regardless of whatever grammar rules may "make sense" out such a mishmash, the thought breakdown of many such sentences is inescapably bizarre.

As anyone who has read our exchanges knows, I have considerable differences with David.  Here, however, we find a point of agreement.  Initially Hebrew is a bit difficult to get into, but, once the initial phase is passed, Hebrew really is quite a bit simpler than Greek.  Just consider the many uses of the genitive in Greek (or other cases as well).  In fact, consider the different cases themselves in Greek (5 or 8 depending upon which convention you follow).  Hebrew does have a few points which aren't well understood by many who never get beyond the "See Spot … see Spot run … run, Spot, run" stage of reading Hebrew, but compared with Greek, they are relatively few.

EDIT:  I was unaware that the Greek interlinears number the clauses since I never use them and have hidden a number (I do find that, if I enter "interlinear" in the library, I still find a couple.  I'll need to correct that).

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 8 2012 9:18 AM

David Knoll:
חָמֻשִׁים is not the plural of חַמֵשׁ. HALOT reconstructs the etymology of the word as a derivative noun from חַמֵשׁ  whose putative singular would be חָמֻשׁ. As for fifty that is חֲמִשִּׁים.

Apparently I didn't express myself with sufficient clarity.  I did not claim that  חָמֻשִׁים is the plural of חַמֵשׁ.  I said that חֲמִשִּׁים is the plural of חָמֻשׁ.  I regret any confusion this may have caused.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 912
David Knoll | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 8 2012 9:41 AM

I am sorry to be insistent but חֲמִשִּׁים is semantically no plural (50 is not the plural of 5) morphologically however its singular would have to be reconstructed from  חַמֵשׁ or חֲמִשָּׁה (the vowel i under the מ) and certainly not  חָמֻשׁ (note also the long a vowel...).

Don't get angry for pointing that out it is for the sake of accuracy...

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 8 2012 10:05 AM

David Knoll:

I am sorry to be insistent but חֲמִשִּׁים is semantically no plural (50 is not the plural of 5) morphologically however its singular would have to be reconstructed from  חַמֵשׁ or חֲמִשָּׁה (the vowel i under the מ) and certainly not  חָמֻשׁ (note also the long a vowel...).

Don't get angry for pointing that out it is for the sake of accuracy...

 

חָמֵשׁ: MHb., JArm. חַמְשָׁא: Sam.M43 ʿammeš, CPArm. ḥmyš, Syr. ḥammeš, ḥamša; Ug. ḫmš, Ph. חמש(ת) (DISO 91), Arb. Eth. ḫams, OSArb. ḫms; Akk. ḫamšu, ȟamiȟtu; plural, fifty: Ph. חמשׁם, Moab. EgArm. Palm. JArm. inscr. חמש(י)ן (DISO 91): cs. חֲמֵשׁ, fem. חֲמִשָּׁה (Ezk 453 Q; K חָמֵשׁ), חֲמֶשֶׁת: five: חָמֵשׁ יָדוֹת five times Gn 4334, חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים five years 56; חֲמֵשׁ הַיְרִיעֹת the five curtains Ex 263; חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה fifteen Gn 510; הַחֲמִשָּׁה the five of them 149, אַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה forty-five 1828; חֲמֵשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים the five men Ju 187, חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, fifteen Hos 32, יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר the fifteenth day Est 921, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה לַחֹדֶשׁ on the fifth day of the month Ezk 11; twenty-five Ezk 4030, sixty-five Is 78, five hundred Lv 268, seven hundred and seventy-five Ezr 25, five thousand and four hundred Ezr 111, six hundred and seventy five thousand Nu 3132 etc.: —pl. חֲמִשִּׁים (164 ×): fifty: חֲמִשִּׁים אִישׁ רָצִים fifty men (runners) 2S 151, חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם fifty days Lv 2316; שַׂר חֲמִשִּׁים captain of fifty 2K 19; שְׁנַת הַחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה the fiftieth year Lv 2510; suffix חֲמִשָּׁיו his fifty 2K 19, חֲמִשֵּׁיהֶם their fifty 114. Der. חמשׁ, I חֹמֶשׁ,

חֲמִישִׁי

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 912
David Knoll | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 8 2012 11:16 AM

You mean qamatz for the pre tonic lengthening? I agree.

Posts 58
Gloria | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 10 2012 4:27 AM

Hi George:

I don't have either of these.  What I'm wondering is do you think there's a good chance I might find them in "real" book form at half price or Better Books or...Because my skill set is so low, I don't want to invest in the 2 references you suggested, although having them in my "real" library could benefit me.  Having them linked to my logos sounds great, but I would use them so little.  At least for now I would.  Would I search for the BDAG by the author's name?  ( I do have that free BDB you mentioned) So, just wondering.

Gloria

And, again, thanks to all of you for all of your help.

Posts 18
Eric Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 10 2012 4:59 AM

I belive that the idea being protrayed here is more one of being ready for battle. The smaller units being able to respond more quickly to any threats, than larger units, while at the same time acting as a blocking unit in order to cause a delay until additional units could arrive to reinforce the smaller units. . The array portion I believe has to do with the stragic placement of units so as to form a type of cover (blanket) for the battle area.  Interestingly enough we see that same idea being employed in the book of Joshua.  the words share, allot, apportions, and assign come to mind. In any case, It is still one in which they are to be alert and prepared for, if in the event it should be necessary to either defend and repel, or defend and attack. It it to maintain a state of battle readiness. In this case a moving battle field. As far as harnessed goes, it may indicate that they have a responsibility to the greater whole community.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 10 2012 5:00 AM

Gloria:

Hi George:

I don't have either of these.  What I'm wondering is do you think there's a good chance I might find them in "real" book form at half price or Better Books or...Because my skill set is so low, I don't want to invest in the 2 references you suggested, although having them in my "real" library could benefit me.  Having them linked to my logos sounds great, but I would use them so little.  At least for now I would.  Would I search for the BDAG by the author's name?  ( I do have that free BDB you mentioned) So, just wondering.

Gloria

And, again, thanks to all of you for all of your help.

If you search for a used copy of BDAG, you must be very careful since there are several editions (3–referenced as BAG, BAGD, BDAG).  BAG (1st edition) was good.  In fact, it is what I used in the cemetary.  BAGD (2nd edition) was once offered in Logos (I still have it—once you own a Logos resource it is yours forever).  I really don't see, however, that there is a truly suitable replacement for BDAG in Logos.  There is Louw and Nida's lexicon using based on semantic domains which can be useful under certain circumstances (and whose domain numbers are given in a number of—dare I say it?—interlinears [now I need to sterilize my keyboard].  I say that it can be useful in certain circumstances.  Its utility comes into play when you begin to wonder why a particular word was chosen rather than another or you want to know what other words are related in meaning.  For scholarly work BDAG is a necessity.  That doesn't mean, however, that it is a necessity for you.  You say you wouldn't use it that much.  I can appreciate that, but electronic editions are ever so much handier than the paper edition (or as you call them, your "real" books).  This is particularly true if you are using BDB (and, of course, its abbreviated version) since every word is subsumed under its presumed root.  This can result is some searching if you don't already know the root. I remember having some problems with that when I was in cemetary.  I really thing electronic is the way to go.  There are other lexicons in the Logos stable as well such as Holladay's A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (http://www.logos.com/product/7850/a-concise-hebrew-and-aramaic-lexicon-of-the-old-testament).  As with BDAG, there is really nothing to equal either BDB or HALOT, but you need to assess your own needs.  In any case, ditch Strong's.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 10 2012 5:43 AM

Eric Gregory Miller:
I belive that the idea being protrayed here is more one of being ready for battle.

This is basically what I was suggesting by indicating that it (חֲמֻשִׁים) was a cohort of fifty (חֲמִשִּׁים).  Cf. the captain of fifty in 2 Kg 1.9 שַׂר־חֲמִשִּׁים.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 10457
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 10 2012 6:47 AM

Gloria ... there is NO WAY you want the hard-copy. It's listed in hebrew and unless you can read hebrew (or greek for that matter), you're going to be out of luck (the word headers ... how you look things up).

What you want is http://www.logos.com/product/7850/a-concise-hebrew-and-aramaic-lexicon-of-the-old-testament  (this is the smaller version of HALOT that Logos used to put in its Original Language packages. The definitions are shorter and more precise. Later on, if you want to expand, then the full HALOT/BDAG package is best (and pricey).

On the greek side, quite frankly I'm not so sure everyone needs BDAG etc. A Strongs is fine for everyday Bible study. BDAG also is pricey but does show which definitions relative to which verses, which can be helpful.

I have all the big books for both hebrew and greek but I prioritize a hebrew/greek combined Strongs to quickly get to the short definitions. Then I use the right-click to actually search the usage in the text. That's what you'll end up doing anyway, since your Bible study partners will want to see the Bible text.

EDIT: Just saw your following message. Frankly, if you believe the text goes all the way back to Moses' time (and most Christians do), then I think you have to be patient with the hebrew and not demand too much from it .... language changes over time ... scholars do their best.


Posts 58
Gloria | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 10 2012 6:49 AM

TCBlack:

Words take their meaning from context. The idea here being "in groups" The history of the account, it's place in the story, it's overall intent flavors the final meaning.

If I write the sentence "Hal is running" you'll picture a fellow named Hal making loops around a running track. But if you know that Hal is the name of the computer in "2001 a space Odyssey" than you now picture a computer that is functioning properly. Context has changed the meaning of the sentence.

A simple rule: "Context is king" will help with dilemmas like this be they big or small.

The Hebrew root here "HMS". Left alone it is an ordinal number: "5".  Taking it's actual form together with all the contextual clues it means much more than five. Since they understand this, the translators are trying to indicate that they were grouped, and they were grouped in a specific manner that historically could be consistent with the way that armies would march. The various translations all convey some aspect of this very organized (not chaotic) march out of Egypt.

As I continue in my studying, it seems like the context could support an "armed for battle" meaning, based on Exodus 17:13. "So Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people w/ the edge of the sword."

If I start to look at the Hebrew meanings of the words "edge" and "sword" it would appear that once again Strong's would give me just enough information to make me "dangerous" and then I would have to buy the HALOT/Briggs software recommended. NONE of which I can afford, particularly in light of the new Logos 5 update. But that's another thread.

So, I'm still a bit confused here. I'm ready to go for the easy out.

"Okay, Ladies, it's quite possible, that when the waters of the Red/Reed (not going there) Sea covered over them, the tide brought in some swords from the dead Egyptians and they used them."

Gloria

 

Page 2 of 3 (43 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS