Phlox Pyros

It is literally dig. However, the scholars behind the NIV translation disagreed with you.

There are problems with both translations, I'm just surprised that it is the "Christian version" that is so picked on. It makes just as much sense (dogs digging at or piercing a person's hands and feet with their teeth) as does "like a lion my hands and feet".

JoeWallack

JW:
Hi Anat. I haven't gotten into Context yet because I want to go in Order of what I consider the best Categories of Evidence here. While we're on the subject though I think "like a lion" doesn't just fit the Context, it's a perfect fit with the threatening animal imagery in general and specific mention of lions as well as the "like" fitting with the presentation of a possible but hypothetical imagery. The problem with "like a lion" is not a Context issue but a Grammar issue with apparent omission of a verb for the phrase. "Dig" does not fit the Context.

The only potential Category of evidence that could overcome the Original language Textual evidence would be Original Language Commentary evidence. We'll see though that that is unanimous for "like a lion" which seals the tomb. Not that it's needed but I've already provided evidence for confusion in the Greek with the elongated "yods" that look like "waws" for this time period.

Since you're asking though here is a Lexicon which identifies the uses of "Karu" (dig) in The Jewish Bible (emphasis mine saith The Lord):

4125 I. כָּרָה (karah): v.; ≡ Str 3738; TWOT 1033—1. LN 19.55 (qal) dig into the ground (Ge 26:25; Ex 21:33; Nu 21:18; Ps 7:16[EB 15]; Ps 57:7[EB 6]; 119:85; Pr 26:27; Jer 18:20, 22+); (nif) be dug into the ground (Ps 94:13+); 2. LN 19.14-19.26 (qal) hew stone, i.e., to hollow out rock (Ge 50:5; 2Ch 16:14+); 3. LN 19.14-19.26 (qal) pierce, cut, i.e., run through a mass with a sharp object (Ps 22:17; 40:7[EB 6]+), note: for another parsing of the MT text in Ps 22:17, “as the lions,” see 3869 + 2021 + 787; for a cj of the same verse, see 4128; 4. LN 30.56-30.74 (qal) plot, plan, formally, dig a hole, i.e., to purpose and plan for a future situation (Pr 16:27+)

Swanson, J. 1997. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor


JW:
Note that this is a Christian Lexicon. The Type they use in Seminary. The only supposed support for the desired "Pierce" of 22:17 is Psalms 40:7: (emphasis mine)

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2640.htm

ז זֶבַח וּמִ�*ְחָה, לֹא-חָפַצְתָּ-- אָזְ�*ַיִם, כָּרִיתָ לִּי;
עוֹלָה וַחֲטָאָה, לֹא שָׁאָלְתָּ. 7

Sacrifice and meal-offering Thou hast no delight in; mine ears hast Thou opened; {N} burnt-offering and sin-offering hast Thou not required.

JW:
You can see in context that "pierced" is not even a Possible meaning. "Piercing" the ears wouldn't do much towards understanding what God wanted here. "Open" is the meaning. Thus Liars for Jesus have Created a dishonest Lexicon for fellow Liars for Jesus as well as those more interested in trying to prove themselves right and others wrong than in trying to prove what word is right and what word is wrong, such as Phlox Pyros and Loomis.


יוסף

INADMISSIBLE, adj.
Not competent to be considered. Said of certain kinds of testimony which juries are supposed to be unfit to be entrusted with, and which judges, therefore, rule out, even of proceedings before themselves alone. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because the person quoted was unsworn and is not before the court for examination; yet most momentous actions, military, political, commercial and of every other kind, are daily undertaken on hearsay evidence. There is no religion in the world that has any other basis than hearsay evidence. Revelation is hearsay evidence; that the Scriptures are the word of God we have only the testimony of men long dead whose identity is not clearly established and who are not known to have been sworn in any sense. Under the rules of evidence as they now exist in this country, no single assertion in the Bible has in its support any evidence admissible in a court of law. It cannot be proved that the battle of Blenheim ever was fought, that there was such as person as Julius Caesar, such an empire as Assyria.
But as records of courts of justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/h...onversion.html

Phlox Pyros

First, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply looking at the data, and I don't find your position with respect to the data any more convincing than the Christian position.

As I mentioned to Anat, Joe, the scholars behind the NIV translate this as "pierced" in Psalm 40:7. The word there does not mean "open" as you say, and you should know that if you truly know Hebrew like you've been bragging about. The word is "to dig" and comes from the same root that we've been talking about. The reason many translation have "open" is because this particular phrase is an idiom.

Loomis

Isaiah 51:9 says Yahweh (or the arm or sword of Yahweh) cut Rahab in pieces and pierced or wounded a dragon monster.

Loomis

Isaiah 27:1 says Yahweh will punish a Leviathan – also called the dragon Yamm.
KTU 1.5 i 1-4 says Baal will do the exact same thing.
Note that the Baal version goes on to say that the Lotan has seven heads.

Here is the picture of the worm getting pierced by Baal with the iron rod.

http://www.ifar.org/cunieformfig5.jpg

Note that the worm in the picture also has seven heads.

Loomis

In the Baal Epic, Yamm is the beloved son of El, who rules over the earth and who has authority in heaven at the divine council.

Psalm 89 says Yahweh is better than Yamm because Yahweh controls him. It says Yahweh split Yamm in two with his arm.

Loomis

Psalm 22 begins with Yamm asking his father for help.
In verse 6 Yamm reminds us that he is a worm.
Yamm complains to El that Yahweh is beating him up. The other gods who see what is going on ask El to stay out of the way and let Yahweh have his way with him.
Yamm tries to kiss El’s ass. He makes numerous supplications and uses tender words. (Just like Job 41:3 says he does)
But El blows Yamm off.

In the mean time Yahweh is doing to Yamm the exact same thing that Baal did to Yamm.
Compare to the Baal Epic (KTU 1.2 IV 19-34) …

JoeWallack

JW:
So, what did you think of:

"Among the {Dead Sea} scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads "They have pierced my hands and my feet"!

--The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, Abegg, Jr., Flint, and Ulrich"

now?



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Just keep repeating this Ad Nazorean. It becomes more likely each time you do. Dude, being young, drunk and stupid is no way to go through college.



Joseph

"I Love BaaLA" - Loomis

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=71

spin

This is rubbish, Phlox. You've tried to prove against the text, which clearly has K)RY, ie "like a lion", that the word could be "pierced", despite the fact that there is nothing that equates to "pierced" in the text. The best that has been done is that the vaguely similar looking "to dig" has been thrown into the fray, which strangely enough must have an alef in the middle of it which is unaccountable in any usage of the verb "to dig", KRH. You have simply joined the fantastication to pervert the text for what ever reason you haven't disclosed. You have shown a willingness, sadly doing contortions, to have a WAW at all costs at the end on K)R- on the Nachal Hever psalm fragment to support the wayward reading. You are deliberately exaggerating the evidence in an effort to promote a reading which the text doesn't carry.

(And if you are so concerned about the preposition I put in to smooth the Hebrew, how about in 1 K 19:6, "at his head (pillow)", where is the "at" in the Hebrew? or Ex 33:8, "at his tent door", where is the "at" in the Hebrew?)

First BDB, who have attempted to get all meanings of all the words in the Hebrew bible, after going through all the uses of KRH gave for Ps 40:7, "ears hast thou dug (with allusion to the cavity of the ear) for me, thou hast given me the means of hearing and obeying thy will." As you support the apparently silly reading given by the christian NIV, justify it. I mean supply the logic as to where one could possibly have got "pierced" for Ps 40:7, based on the way KRH is used in the Hebrew bible -- for this is ultimately our only guide bible usage of terms, not scholarly (or un-scholarly) opinions.

The text makes sense using the literal meaning of KRH from which the reader is able to see that it is a metaphor. The step from "dig" to "pierce" is an unjustified linguistic passage: why change the idea from "dig" to "pierce" and then read it as a metaphor? a metaphor for what that's different from making a cavity, ie "dig"?? The effort to insinuate "pierce" here is simply vain, as is the case in Ps 22:17, which is even more ridiculous, given that the text clearly says K)RY, ie "like a lion" and not a form of KRH (unless of course you really would like to argue that it was a mater lectionis not parallelled in any recognized usage of KRH. )

Despite your denial, you seem to be trying to prove something as can be seen by just how far you have gone out on a limb for the non-reading you champion. Otherwise why are you so far out on that limb?

:wave:


spin