JamesH wrote:James
Your contradiction comes when you agree and state that Hebrew is a literal and concrete language and then say, "it's a metaphor"
I said that Hebrew is a concrete language in that its understanding of words are derived from concrete understanding of things, yes, but that does not preclude the ability to use the words that are derived from concrete understandings being used to create metaphors. The word nachas is derived from the word for hiss because serpents hiss, nachas is a concrete word derived from a concrete understanding BUT THEN you take that word and put it with other words and form a sentence, certain combinations of words are put together in order to draw a comparison between two objects which are similar, but not the same, and sometimes (frequently in Scripture) those words are put together where one is said to be another when they are not in fact the same but share some trait, we tend to call this type of sentence a metaphor (probably because it is easier to say metaphor than to say a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.)
So it is not a contradiction at all. Hebrew words are concrete, but then those words get put into sentences and sentences can be metaphors.
JamesH wrote:The statements I have made are not my opinion, they come from any basic language study.
I just spent the last twenty minutes on Google trying to find where any linguistic scholar states that Hebrew has no metaphors, and could not find a single one, and it appears our linguistic scholar in residence (
couldn't resist Dajstill) disagrees with you. So for something that comes from the basic language study it seems to me that you are the only person in the world that has come to that conclusion.
The very fact that, as I cited previously, so many Hebrew words have FIGURATIVE definitions listed shows that either you are wrong, or the Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries are wrong. No offense but I am going to go with them and not you.
JamesH wrote:Please look up what a " literal " language is , the definition actually says, " not a metaphor "
Again you can’t seem to see the forest from the trees. The words are the tress, they are concrete, the forest is sentences, paragraphs and books, they use the concrete words in order to convey ideas, and sometimes metaphors are used to convey those ideas.
JamesH wrote:You are also not understanding the use of the " Figure of speech " The figure of speech is in our Greek /English language translated from the literal Hebrew.
This is a ridiculous statement, a metaphor is there or it isn't, either the words used create a metaphor or they do not. If there is no metaphor in the Hebrew than you can not translate it into a metaphor without it being a mistranslation. So if you are saying that my translation is errant it is incumbent upon you to do what I have been asking you to do all along, show me how my translation is wrong. You have failed to address the translation; you have not even attempted to show that my translation is wrong using evidence. You have stated it is wrong, but not provided a single source, I on the other hand have cited as source the most well-known and respected Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries in the world.
Why do you not do as I have done and address point by point everything I have written to you? Is it because you are unable to?
JamesH wrote:You also contradicted your self when you said Hebrew parent root words define the understanding of the child roots and then you do not use the parent root in " YOUR badly twisted translation of metaphors"
I have not ignored the Hebrew root in my translation; I just did not replace the word with its root as you do. I addressed the Hebrew root of most every word and explained how it informed us as to the nature of the word. You however seem to see no need to bother with the word written on the page and instead choose to only look at the root. That is unless the word written fits your agenda.
Why do you insist that nachas is serpent literally in the Garden, but then in 49:17 you say it is the verb root that is meant even though a noun derived word is written?
JamesH wrote:Until you understand the difference between the two simple words
Literal
And
Metaphor
I understand the difference, you just can’t seem to understand the difference between words and sentences and ideas conveyed through them.
JamesH wrote:Your reasoning and your translations will be flawed
Hebrew language, " literal, concrete"
Greek/English language, " metaphor, abstract "
I am still waiting for you to show me how my translation is flawed. And I mean using evidence, not just stating it because my translation differs with your understanding.
JamesH wrote:The only reason we can use the Hebrew language today is because it is concrete and has NOT changed!
Actually modern Hebrew and Scriptural Hebrew are very different languages. The Hebrew language has changed a lot over time.
JamesH wrote:No abstract metaphor! No circular reasoning ! In the Hebrew """"""" LANGUAGE """""""
please understand the difference between the two languages and quit accusing me of making something up as my opinion.
Seems like what you posted is opinion
It is your opinion because you have not been able to back it up with any evidence. And the circular reasoning is on your part, I have cited evidence for everything I have stated, you have not offered a shred of evidence for you position.
If you are saying that my translation of 49:17 is errant I challenge you to do what we said we would do earlier and as I have consistently done, and address point by point using EVIDENCE what I wrote.