El Shaddai

[WAB]

You have found others, outside of the editors of Scofield, who believe this? Who?


BDB was originally published in 1906. It is also based on Gesenius' lexicon, which was published in 1833.

Just did a search of my Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, and there was no mention of Shaddai or if you prefer Shadday'.

But... there is mention in the NIV Exhaustive Concordance under a ref. to # 8716... "(female) breast, breasts..." but the Anglicasation is: sad (sawd) rather than the spelling in the notes quoted from Genesis 17:1.

Also, under # 7705 in Strong's as a ref. from 7703 & 7706, we have... "a wife...shiddah'"

Only if one refuses to consider the evidence, can one declare himself to be irrefutably correct.

 

[WAB]

Just did a search of my Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, and there was no mention of Shaddai or if you prefer Shadday'.

But... there is mention in the NIV Exhaustive Concordance under a ref. to # 8716... "(female) breast, breasts..." but the Anglicasation is: sad (sawd) rather than the spelling in the notes quoted from Genesis 17:1.

Also, under # 7705 in Strong's as a ref. from 7703 & 7706, we have... "a wife...shiddah'"

Only if one refuses to consider the evidence, can one declare himself to be irrefutably correct.

I should have said "...all the evidence", not just pick and choose to support a pre-conceived position.

 

[justified]

Just did a search of my Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, and there was no mention of Shaddai or if you prefer Shadday'.

But... there is mention in the NIV Exhaustive Concordance under a ref. to # 8716... "(female) breast, breasts..." but the Anglicasation is: sad (sawd) rather than the spelling in the notes quoted from Genesis 17:1.

Also, under # 7705 in Strong's as a ref. from 7703 & 7706, we have... "a wife...shiddah'"

Only if one refuses to consider the evidence, can one declare himself to be irrefutably correct.

Give me your edition and printing. I will go find it in the Bod and give you a page number. The fact that you do not know Hebrew probably is the problem.

 

[WAB]

Give me your edition and printing. I will go find it in the Bod and give you a page number. The fact that you do not know Hebrew probably is the problem.

Then the vast majority of Bible believing Christians are in the dark... all but you?

 

[justified]

The vast majority of Bible-believing Christians would never pretend to know something like Hebrew etymology. I've given you the testimony of several authors, experts in the field of philology (not just presidents of seminaries!) who are also "bible-believers." Yet you continue your ad hominem. I ask again,

give me your edition and printing of Gesenius and I check it out. This is how scholarship is done, WAB. You check each other...

 

[WAB]

The vast majority of Bible-believing Christians would never pretend to know something like Hebrew etymology. I've given you the testimony of several authors, experts in the field of philology (not just presidents of seminaries!) who are also "bible-believers." Yet you continue your ad hominem. I ask again,

give me your edition and printing of Gesenius and I check it out. This is how scholarship is done, WAB. You check each other...

Well... since you think my responses are "ad-hominem", I suggest you research (check out) the references given already; the latest ones in the NIV.

 

[justified]

Listen, WAB, PM me if you ever decide to get serious.

You've told me what Scofield's notes were. His notes were based on Lexicons -- just reading the note, the content of which you have already provided for me -- will do no good. Unfortunately, Scofield is known within scholarship of basically being an idiot. Man of God, probably -- but he definitely did not know what he was talking about. Reading the note in the Strong's edition of the NIV concordance will do no good. It's a concordance, and the dictionary in the back is based on the one put together by James Strong (though modified) and was never meant to replace a real lexicon. You claim to have looked it up in Gesenius' Lexicon. I didn't believe you were looking at the correct reference -- now I wonder if you even looked it up in Gesenius' Lexicon since you refuse to give a reference. I am happy to continue this debate if you decide to use real etymological data.

 

[WAB]

Listen, WAB, PM me if you ever decide to get serious.

You've told me what Scofield's notes were. His notes were based on Lexicons -- just reading the note, the content of which you have already provided for me -- will do no good. Unfortunately, Scofield is known within scholarship of basically being an idiot. Man of God, probably -- but he definitely did not know what he was talking about. Reading the note in the Strong's edition of the NIV concordance will do no good. It's a concordance, and the dictionary in the back is based on the one put together by James Strong (though modified) and was never meant to replace a real lexicon. You claim to have looked it up in Gesenius' Lexicon. I didn't believe you were looking at the correct reference -- now I wonder if you even looked it up in Gesenius' Lexicon since you refuse to give a reference. I am happy to continue this debate if you decide to use real etymological data.

Since you introduce the suggestion that I am not being honest or straightforward, here is the volume...

"Gesenius'; HEBREW AND CHALDEE LEXICON; to the; Old Testament Scriptures; translated by; SAMUEL PRIDEAUX TREGELLES, LL.D.; NUMERICALLY CODED TO STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE; WITH AN ENGLISH INDEX OF MORE THAN 12,000 ENTRIES."

The above published by: BAKER BOOK HOUSE; Grand Rapids, Michigan.

And, why would I ever want to listen to you, either privately or publicly, since you denigrate the Word Of God repeatedly.

That does not mean that I don't pray for you... I do. Primarily that the Holy Spirit will gain entrance to your thinking processes, and that you will come to a place where you love His Word, so that rather than finding fault with it, you will become obedient to it, thereby entering into the peace that only He can give.

 

[Nazaroo]

Permit me to show my own ignorance:

(1) Isn't there a copy of Gesenius in the back of every (complete hardcover) edition of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance? (or at least an abridged version?)

(2) Aren't you being a little hard on WAB here?

Quote

Of course you can come up with contradictory opinions from recent "experts" who are liberal and often agnostic.

BDB was originally published in 1906. It is also based on Gesenius' lexicon, which was published in 1833.

What do the dates have to do with whether or not Gesenius was a liberal/agnostic/heretic? Or Brown/Driver/Briggs for that matter? Both these (groups of) scholars are I think quite rightly classed as 'liberal' to say the least!

Surely you're not trying to pull the wool over WAB's eyes here, Justified?

(3) And this:

The vast majority of Bible-believing Christians would never pretend to know something like Hebrew etymology.

Come on. The field of 'etymology' is joke. And the field of 'Biblical Hebrew etymology' is a quicksand pile of liquified horse manure. If anyone can get ten coherent non-contradictory sentences out of the field of etymology they should be crowned as the successor to David Copperfield.

 

[justified]

Thank you, WAB. I will be checking it out tonight. Unfortunately, Tregelles' translation only comes out in in the Bodleian as the following:

Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament scriptures, tr., with additions and corrections from the author's other works, by S.P. Tregelles

It's not exactly your title, but I am sure it is close enough.

Now, Nazzy,

Isn't there a copy of Gesenius in the back of every (complete hardcover) edition of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance? (or at least an abridged version?)

I don't know what source is of what they put back there. In the first place, it's more a dictionary. Secondly, it is EXTREMELY abridged, and not useful for this type of discussion. Tonight I will find out how useful WAB's lexicon is.

(2) Aren't you being a little hard on WAB here?

He tried to show that the bible isn't misogynistic by claiming that the words El Shaddai have to do with women's breasts. I mean, in the first place, if his etymology were correct, it's a whole nother thing to prove what he seems to be attempting. Secondly, he's wrong. Hard on him? No. I just expect people who talk about languages to know what they're talking about.

What do the dates have to do with whether or not Gesenius was a liberal/agnostic/heretic? Or Brown/Driver/Briggs for that matter? Both these (groups of) scholars are I think quite rightly classed as 'liberal' to say the least.

What does whether he was liberal/agnostic/heretical have to do with his correctness in terms of northwest semitic philology? I was relatively liberal theologically for my school, but I still scored high on all the conservatively-biased tests. You can still know what you're talking about and be liberal (though I'm not Driver-liberal...)

Come on. The field of 'etymology' is joke. And the field of 'Biblical Hebrew etymology' is a quicksand pile of liquified horse manure. If anyone can get ten coherent non-contradictory sentences out of the field of etymology they should be crowned as the successor to David Copperfield.

Nazaroo, there's a word for you in Spanish I would love to apply. Because people disagree does not mean no one is right. It does not mean there is no field. And it does not mean the field is a crock. Northwest Semitic Philology is, truly, a relatively young field. This is why there is so much disagreement. But that does not mean it is anything like that paragraph. Simply because you know little about it is not a good reason to bash it. Come on, man. Your drama is getting so tiring.

 

[justified]

Just did a search of my Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, and there was no mention of Shaddai or if you prefer Shadday'.

As I mentioned, I could only procure Bagster's edition translated by Tregelles. The publication date is 1849...

In this one, check out page DCCV, col. 2, the entry for שדד which reads "strong, powerful." And then, I quote" whence Hebr. שדה, שדי, " (read both those entries with a dagesh forte (ie, "dot") in the middle radical)

Then on page DCCVI, col. 2, the actual entry for שדי (again with dagesh): 'most powerful, almighty': "an epithet of Jehovah, somtimes with אל prefixed..."

 

[WAB]

As I mentioned, I could only procure Bagster's edition translated by Tregelles. The publication date is 1849...

In this one, check out page DCCV, col. 2, the entry for שדד which reads "strong, powerful." And then, I quote" whence Hebr. שדה, שדי, " (read both those entries with a dagesh forte (ie, "dot") in the middle radical)

Then on page DCCVI, col. 2, the actual entry for שדי (again with dagesh): 'most powerful, almighty': "an epithet of Jehovah, somtimes with אל prefixed..."

Have already stated plainly that I am not a Hebrew scholar, but that if one must be conversant in the original language to understand God's Word, then the vast majority of people who read and trust said Word in their native tongue are "out of luck".

And... how many members of rural tribes that missionaries spend years (sometimes lifetimes) translating the Scriptures into the native tongue... how many of them are going to wind up Hebrew scholars?

How thankful I am that your thesis is not legitimate, but that sometimes whole tribes turn to the Lord when the Word is translated into their tribal tongue.

That said... you still have not responded to the post (or rather the question in the post) about what is found in the NIV Exhaustive Concordance re Shaddai.

It very plainly states that in context the root refers to women's breasts.

Again, perhaps someone can remind me (got a lousy short-term memory) of where some ladies posted questions about the supposed anti-feminine bias of the Scriptures? After all, that was what the original post was trying to address.

Shalom... WAB

 

[justified]

That said... you still have not responded to the post (or rather the question in the post) about what is found in the NIV Exhaustive Concordance re Shaddai.

It very plainly states that in context the root refers to women's breasts.

The rest of the information I have supplied means that if this truly is what the concordance says, it is wrong.

 

[WAB]

The rest of the information I have supplied means that if this truly is what the concordance says, it is wrong.

So what you expect us to believe is that contrary to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, and the NIV Exhaustive Concordance, we should/must accept your word, and anyone who provides contradictory evidence must be in error.... my, my....

 

[justified]

So what you expect us to believe is that contrary to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, and the NIV Exhaustive Concordance, we should/must accept your word, and anyone who provides contradictory evidence must be in error.... my, my....

I already went through the effort of ordering a book and providing you with a page number of Gesenius' Lexicon to show you how you were wrong. Did you miss that? I adduced several other resources, and I adduced my known knowledge as a researcher in this field. Frankly, my guess is that you are reading your concordance wrong. You've certainly managed to read everything else having to do with this incorrectly