Bible Study Compare ORIGINAL Hebrew Words?

[Origen]

Hi dear Brother Origen, and welcome to CF.net. Your interest in words is welcome and I would like to ask your opinion as to the correct interpretation of the language used in the KJV with Daniel, or other scripture. The volumes of bibles produced certainly have the propensity to change doctrines, and of course I realize yours is but another viewpoint. Thanks.

Could you be more specific please. I am not sure what you are referring to in regard to "the language used in the KJV with Daniel."
Thanks

 

[kickedoutofchurch]

I can explain the differences.

Example One
אֹתוֹ
אֹתָם
The form אֵת is grammatical particle. It is not translated because it has no meaning but is the sign of the direct object. The particle sometimes take a suffix. The letter waw (אֹתוֹ in red) is a suffix and means "him." The letter mem (אֹתָם in red) is also a suffix and means "them." There is really nothing mysterious about it. There dozens of example of this in the Hebrew text.

Example Two
הָאָדָם
אָדָם
In both examples the word/name is the same, אָדָם. The first example of the word/name אָדָם has the article (the letter ה is the article). There is no difference in meaning. It is a normal grammatical construction in Hebrew.

Example Three
בָּרָא from Gen. 1:1
בָּרָא from Dan 2:38
Though they make look the same they are not, not even close. The example from Gen. 1:1 is the verb "bara" and means "to create." That example is Hebrew.

The example from Dan 2:38 is not Hebrew but Aramaic. The word there is the noun בַּר which means "field, countryside." The letter aleph (בָּרָא in red) is the article in Aramaic. The Hebrew verb and the Aramaic noun are not related in any way.

The differences between Hebrew and Aramaic are many but they use the same script. Hebrew uses the letter ה for the article and attaches it to the front of the word. Aramaic uses the letter א for the article and attaches it to the end of the word. Without some knowledge of the languages most people simply do not know what they are looking at and therefore cannot understand what is happening.

This is all very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I would like to learn more about Biblical Hebrew and am doing some self-study.

Here is something you may be able to help me understand.

How two words that look exactly the same can mean two different things from God (who is outside of time, ages and doesn't change)?

That is the million-dollar question I am trying to answer.

I see how man changes and man's languages change over time and ages, but this is God's Word and not man's. According to his Word, he is infinite (outside of space and time) and unchanging. Same for his Word. Mal 3:6, Psalm 102.27, Matt 24:35, Numbers 23:19

Shouldn't each specific "word" he gave us refer (point) to one spiritual thing and one spiritual thing only and never change?

 

[Eugene]

Could you be more specific please. I am not sure what you are referring to in regard to "the language used in the KJV with Daniel."
Thanks

I hope I can clarify my question. You said:
“The example from Dan 2:38 is not Hebrew but Aramaic”, and “Without some knowledge of the languages most people simply do not know what they are looking at and therefore cannot understand what is happening.”

I’ve always took the interpretation as written, and attempt to apply the example or type inferred when comparing it to other scripture. Thanks again.

 

[Origen]

How two words that look exactly the same can mean two different things from God (who is outside of time, ages and doesn't change)?

I see how man changes and man's languages change over time and ages, but this is God's Word and not man's.

Shouldn't each specific "word" he gave us refer (point) to one spiritual thing and one spiritual thing only and never change?

That is simply not how language works. God used the Hebrew language with its syntax, grammar, and vocabulary (and the Greek as well). I can simply find no reason why God would change the rules of grammar when it those very rules that help us understand a text.

The reasons that words that look alike might have two difference meaning are many. First, as with your example בָּרָא looks can be deceiving. You thought because they looked alike they were the same but the letter aleph from the Dan. 2:38 example is an article which was added to the noun while the aleph on בָּרָא from Gen. 1:1 is part of the root of the verb. Second, Hebrew like most languages took loan words from other languages. Hebrew was not the only language around and they all borrowed from each other.

The authors of the Bible wrote from the point of view of their own cultural. It is their historical situation that matters. The LORD chose people to write the Hebrew and Greek texts, and people write using grammar, in styles understood by their peers. Thus the literary genres and language used by the authors of the Bible have to be understood from their historical, cultural, and theological perspective.

 

[jasonc]

That is simply not how language works. God used the Hebrew language with its syntax, grammar, and vocabulary (and the Greek as well). I can simply find no reason why God would change the rules of grammar when it those very rules that help us understand a text.

The reasons that words that look might have two difference meaning are many. First, as with your example בָּרָא looks can be deceiving. You thought because they looked alike they were the same but the letter aleph from the Dan. 2:38 example is an article which was added to the noun while the aleph on בָּרָא from Gen. 1:1 is part of the root of the verb. Second, Hebrew like most languages took loan words from other languages. Hebrew was not the only language around and they all borrowed from each other.

The authors of the Bible wrote from the point of view of their own cultural. It is their historical situation that matters. The LORD chose people to write the Hebrew and Greek texts, and people write using grammar, in styles understood by their peers. Thus the literary genres and language used by the authors of the Bible have to be understood from their historical, cultural, and theological perspective.

transliterated word found in genesis one is the word ELOHIM. its aramiac in origin. it originally meant chief god of the congress of gods.

 

[Origen]

I hope I can clarify my question. You said:
“The example from Dan 2:38 is not Hebrew but Aramaic”, and “Without some knowledge of the languages most people simply do not know what they are looking at and therefore cannot understand what is happening.”

I’ve always took the interpretation as written, and attempt to apply the example or type inferred when comparing it to other scripture. Thanks again.

Dear Eugene

I am really sorry but I am still not understanding what you are asking me. Your question seem to have to do with the Hebrew and Aramaic. If I understand, and I am not sure I do and that is my fault, the point I was addressing had to with the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic and grammar and syntax. Both languages use the same script (i.e. look the same) but they are not. This, however, really has nothing to do with the interpretation of a text. First comes translation, then exegesis.