Yuku free message boards

Or you can do it the hard way (if you know HTML) by typing

<A HREF="http://www........" TARGET="anything">link text</A>

Nikolai wrote:

---

Would it also make sense to view Exodus 19:6 as another example? With the logic being that as a nation of priests, the nation of Israel is intended to be in the minority?

---

Not a "nation of priests", Nikolai; כֹּהֵן kohén can also mean a "minister" (or a "preacher"). This word is used in the sense of a government minister in Sh'muel Beit 8:18 (where וּבְנֵי דָוִד כֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ cannot possibly mean that David's sons were all priests because obviously they all belonged to the tribe of Y'hudah) and also in B'réshιt 41:45, 41:50 and 46:20 where כֹּהֵן אוֹן kohén on means "Minister for the Armed Forces" (the word אוֹן on isn't the name of a place "On" as the christian translators would have you believe, but rather means strength, force, power and occurs twelve times in the Scriptures − in B'réshιt 49:3; D'varim 21:17; Y'shayahu 40:26, 40:29; Hoshé'a 12:4, 12:9; T'hillim 78:51, 105:36; Mishlei 11:7; and Iyyov 18:7, 18:12, 40:16).

Uri − in addition to B'midbar 23:9, a similar idea is also expressed in

יֵשֵׁ֤ב בָּדָד֙ וְיִדֹּ֔ם כִּ֥י נָטַ֖ל עָלָֽיו׃

"Let him sit alone and [contemplate his fate] in silence, because [God] has decreed [lit. 'laid'] it on him" (Eichah 3:28)

וַיִּשְׁכֹּן֩ יִשְׂרָאֵ֨ל בֶּ֤טַח בָּדָד֙ עֵ֣ין יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ דָּגָ֣ן וְתִיר֑וֹשׁ אַף־שָׁמָ֖יו יַֽעַרְפוּ־טָֽל׃

"Yisraél will reside alone in security according to [the blessings of] Ya'akov, in a country of grain and wine − even their Heavens [or, 'skies'] will be dripping with dew!" (D'varim 33:28)

Nikolai wrote:

---

Even when the word takes the meaning of "minister", does it not still follow the same logic that Israel is intended to be in the minority?

---

There are other passages that express this idea more explicitly, such as the two I gave in my previous post.

Nikolai wrote:

---

I ask because I had used this verse (and indeed a large part of the chapter) as a very solid argument against christianity's claims about the nature of the covenant made at Mt. Sinai.

---

The claims made by christians in their vain attempts to support their unsupportable and deceitful cult are all bogus deceptions, because in every case they are based on mistranslated and often only partial excerpts, invariably taken out of context. It is fruitless even to try to argue with christians about their claims; you will have lost (in their eyes) before you have even opened your mouth, because they will have made up their minds that they are right and you are wrong; nothing you can say and no appeal to reason − however logical − will ever convince them otherwise. And they call us "stiff-necked" and "blind"!

Nikolai wrote:

---

I have a question regarding the examples from Beresht 41:45 and 46:20. Every text I've looked at does not contain the word אוֹן, but rather contains this phrase: כֹּהֵן אֹן. However, in 41:50, the phrase is as you write it: כֹּהֵן אוֹן [snip]

---

There is no difference in meaning between אוֹן and אֹן. The vowel-letter וֹ, called חוֹלָם holam, can also be written "defectively", that is without the ו vav (in which case it's called חוֹלָם חָסֵר holam hasér or "defective holam") and the two forms are used more-or-less interchangeably: for example, in T'hillim 145:20 we find שׁוֹמֵ֣ר יְ֭יָ אֶת־כָּל־אֹֽהֲבָ֑יו "Adonai protects all who love Him", while in T'hillim 146:9 there is יְיָ֤ ׀ שֹׁ֘מֵ֤ר אֶת־גֵּרִ֗ים "Adonai − He protects proselytes...."

Nikolai wrote:

---

Would I be correct to assume that context is important in determining when one is encountering a "defective holam" or is this something that becomes easy to spot with greater proficiency in reading Hebrew?

---

This has nothing to do with context. The full holam is written as a vav with a point above it, thus: וֹ, while the vav is missing in the case of חוֹלָם חָסֵר and only the point above and to the left of the preceding letter indicates its presence − if that preceding letter is a shin, as it is in the case of the example I gave from T'hillim 146:9, the letter appears to have a point on each side of the top: the point on the right indicates that it is shin (שׁ) as opposed to sin (שׂ) and the point on the left is the defective holam. Note that when defective defective holam is applied to the consonantal vav, the point appears marginally further to the left than in the cast of the vowel-letter "full holam", i.e. וֺ (articulated as "vo"), as distinct from וֹ (the pure vowel "o"). This is actually very rare and can be detected by the presence of a sh'va mobile (שְׁוָא נָע) under the letter before the vav (as in מִצְוֺתָיו mitz'votav "His commandments", עֵדְוֺתָיו éd'votav "His testimonies" − both of these words can be seen in M'lachim Beit 23:3). In modern Hebrew, when vav is vowelled with holam, it is normally written out in full, i.e. as ווֹ (especially in unpointed text, e.g. מצוותיו).