Originally Posted by spin

That's not honest, judge, not honest.


spin

Originally Posted by Spin

It is often used to mean the man of a woman, ie husband,

Originally Posted by judge

It is a man who has a son IOW a father not necessarily a husband though.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

While a man who has a son is a father, that doesn't make the word "man" mean "father". The sentences you provided all seem to me to read just fine with "man". Do you have an example sentence where the meaning must be "father"?

Originally Posted by spin

It is you who are ignoring the significance of the word GOWRA as used everywhere in order to plead a special meaning in Mt 1:16.

Please read Mt 19:5 to understand your problem:

... a man (GOWRA) shall leave his father (ABWHY, ie AB-WHY his father) and his mother ...

The linguistics of the situation are simple: look at how the word is used in other situations and see how that applies to the specific case you are analysing. GOWRA means "man" always has, and doesn't mean "father". Your one attempt in the past is to forget that GOWRA means "man" in order to attempt to force a second word for "father" because a verse talks about a man (GOWRA) and his daughter.

You ignore every other use of GOWRA. That's why I asked you to look at them in order to check your premises for your wayward analysis of Mt 1:16. So you ignored my comments on Mt 1:16. Funny, judge, very funny.

Originally Posted by spin

Obviously, GBRH does not mean "father". It is the basic Aramaic word for "man". When the word is governed by a genitive it means "husband", just as the Aramaic word for woman )NTTH, when governed by a genitive, usually means "wife" - "his woman" or "her man". B(LH (coming from Baal = "lord") is often translated as husband.

If we turn to the genealogy, we find that it is a long series of X begat Y. This ends with Joseph, ie Jacob begat Joseph in 1:16 with a last use of the word "begat". "Jacob begat {)WLD} Joseph, man (=husband) of Mary, of whom (ie Joseph) was begat {)TYLD} Jesus, called the messiach."

In an effort to make sense out of the discrepancy regarding the last section of the genealogy, ie that there appears to be 13 generations rather than 14, you follow an erroneous linguistic change to bring Mary into the line to make the 14th person, choosing to baselessly change GBRH from "man" to "father". The excuse being that in Mt 7:9 the man {GBR)} has a son, so GBR) must mean "father", even though there is nothing wrong with saying that a man had a son and the word "man" doesn't mean "father" though the sentence does imply that the man is a father.

There is already a word meaning "father" in Aramaic, )B), so there is no need to invent another in order to create a missing generation for the genealogy.

GBRH is never used to mean "father", despite the fact that a sentence can be construed to imply a man is a father (as in Mt 7:9). (It's like saying "that woman has a daughter", so "woman" means "mother": the logic simply doesn't work.)

There is not sufficient motivation in the genealogical problem to consider taking the unprecedented step of redefining GBRH. Summary:

1. GBRH doesn't mean "father"
2. The text uses male names in the genealogy
3. The genealogy is constructed using the verb YLD and Mary isn't connected with the verb to the genealogy.

Bye, bye. :wave:


spin

Originally Posted by spin

judge is back repeating the same refuted stuff. Not honest, judge, not honest.


spin

Originally Posted by Johnnyboy

and not examples like "if a GBRH has a son", that only means that "a man has a son", I guess the aramaic GBRH is equal to the german word "Mann", which can be read as "man" and as "husband" aswell. The problem exists only in english. Besides if its true what spin claimes, that there is a word for father in aramaic, it would be stupid if Mathew did not use ist, espacially when he is writting a genealogy.

Greetings from Heidelberg.

Originally Posted by judge

Yes! Matthew 1:16

The word must mean father in Matthew 1:16 because husband is indicated just three verses later by a different word!