How does Hebrew understand "ruwm qeren"?

DMB

Answering https://community.logos.com/forums/t/216676.aspx from LAUGEON Joachim (no reply button due to no discussion)

I don't know if you're referring to Psa 89:17/18 > v25 but in general, the Hebrew is ancient (OT) and therefore meaning is by context/usage.  In the 'horn' case, the semantic range is quite extensive ... literal horns, figurative horns, instruments, references to an alter, and metaphor for either strength or annointing (a king).

The translations, as well as LXX and Targums, tend to go with 'horn' (singular) but syriac and early translations of the MT reflect plural, which confuses matters. Commentaries ignore the question (typically literal horn).  My first impression suggested an alter, but v25 forces strength (or a unicorn).

Encre & Soupirs

I am referring to : Psalms 75:11 ; 148:14; 112:9. 

I am learning the Hebrew thinking: 

" Greek thought views the world through the mind (abstract thought). Ancient Hebrew thought views the world through the senses (concrete thought).

Concrete thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted and/or heard. All five of the senses are used when speaking and hearing and writing and reading the Hebrew language. An example of this can be found in Psalms 1:3; "He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season, and whose leaf does not wither." In this passage we have concrete words expressing abstract thoughts, such as a tree (one who is upright, righteous), streams of water (grace), fruit (good character) and an un-withered leaf (prosperity).

Abstract thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that cannot be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard. Hebrew never uses abstract thought as English does. Examples of Abstract thought can be found in Psalms 103:8; "The LORD is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger, abounding in love." As you noticed I said that Hebrew uses concrete and not abstract thoughts, but here we have such abstract concepts as compassionate, gracious, anger, and love in a Hebrew passage. Actually, these are abstract English words translating the original Hebrew concrete words. The translators often translate this way because the original Hebrew makes no sense when literally translated into English.

Let us take one of the abstract words above to demonstrate how this works. Anger, an abstract word, is actually the Hebrew word אף (awph) which literally means "nose", a concrete word. When one is very angry, he begins to breathe hard and the nostrils begin to flare. A Hebrew sees anger as "the flaring of the nose (nostrils)." If the translator literally translated the above passage "slow to nose", it would make no sense to the English reader, so אף, a nose, is translated to "anger" in this passage."

Source: https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/philosophy/ancient-hebrew-thought.htm

They use a concrete concept to express an abstract one. What about "horn"? When we say it is a symbol of strenght, do we do the same gymnastic than nose --> angry? Or as it is a symbol, in their mind, they have already the abstraction of the strenght? Yesterday, I was thinking that we have to get back to the essence of Hebrew thinking : concrete concept is a support for the abstract concept. Therefore, if there is already an concrete concept (horn), Hebrew didn't think about another concrete concept (army) to lead to the abstract concept. I complicated all. After, am I right? 

Because there is another concrete word which means "strenght" : army. Seems to be synonyms. But I was imagining that when a Hebrew thinks in everyday life, he has consistently concrete concepts to think abstraction by analogy/metaphor. 

nose --> angry (analogy) 

heavy (kavod) --> glory (analogy)

But if it is a common symbol of strenght as says Benner ("The imagery of the ox and shepherd staff were common symbols of strength, leadership and authority in ancient times. Chiefs and kings commonly wore the horns of a bull on their head as a sign of their strength and carried a staff representing their authority over their flock, the kingdom. Both of these symbols have been carried through the centuries to the modern day where kings and queens carry scepters and wear crowns. The Hebrew word "qeren", meaning horn, is the origin of the word "crown".)... "strenght" is an abstract concept. To think about it, we have to have a concrete concept. We have already one : "horn". But as "horn" is a symbol, does Hebrew do the same mental process than nose --> angry when they read "lift up the horn" in the Psalms? Or as it is a symbol, it evocates him "army", because it is the analogy he does in his mind to think "strenght". 

So, if Hebrew reads "horn", as it is a symbol (and not an analogy), he thinks horn (first concrete) --> army (second concrete) --> strenght (abstraction). 

nose --> angry (analogy) 

heavy (kavod) --> glory (analogy)

horn --> strenght (symbol of)

I don't know if Hebrew thinking differenciates theirs symbols and theirs everyday life words that express at first concrete things, then abstract ideas, if their thinking process is different between these two things (analogy and symbol). Maybe we have to get back to the essence of their thinking, simply. 

After, I should get back to simplicity... My Bible (Louis Segond - I am French and that is why I don't write as fluently as I should) translate "horn" as all the others words (concrete concept --> abstract concept). They translate "force"... After, I don't know if Hebrews, when they read "horn", as it is a common symbol, for thinking "strenght", thinks "army" before "force". Do common symbol work as the other words? We don't say that nose is a common symbol of angry... unless we do. I don't know if differenciating common symbol (horn common symbol of strenght) and analogy (nose --> angry) is relevant...