|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Am'alek | |||||||||||||||||||
The Revenge of Reason Inactive Member |
In Ex 17:14 And the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Am'alek from under heaven."
Except now Am'alek's rememberance is preseved for all time in The Bible! Any thoughts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: Check out the context. Note the statements in caps and you have your answer in this and in the Deuteronomy text. Putting out the remembrance of Amalek is obviously a qualified statement. What Amalek did to Israel and how God avenged Israel of the evil done to them by Amalek was to be written in a book as history, but as a culture, a nation and a people, they were to vanish from the world scene.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7044 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Buz, I have a question: it should be quite easy to answer:
Utterly blot out the remembrance of whom? ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
netbible suggests:
[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-14-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7044 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Ah, that's good to hear. Whenever a part of the bible contradicts itself, it's an idiom. I wish modern authors could get away with that...
Reader: "But you said that Mr. Brown died, back in chapter 2!"Author: "Yes; it was an idiom, since it would self-contradictory otherwise. Mr. Brown clearly died a "spiritual death", instead of a physical death." ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Grow up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
To whom is that directed? About what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RebWlmJames Inactive Member |
The Hebrew word "zecher", which is under discussion, does not just mean something stored in the memory. It also has the sense of "reminder," i.e., that which reminds you that the Amalekites were once present. Zecher is distantly related to "zachar" meaning "male," i.e., that which was understood to be the progenitor. Wiping out the "zecher" could have the sense of wiping out any reminder, any progeny, not erasing from the memory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
The Revenge of Reason Inactive Member |
So Reb, your stance is that Ex 17:14 should read....And the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the reminder of Am'alek from under heaven." Yet, we are still reminded of him when we read Ex 17:14. I guess I missed what you were getting at?
And Conseq. it appears that netbible (and you, I assume) believe that God is refering to the Amalekites, when he clearly is refering to only Am'alek. In which case he is very clear on what his intentions are, to "...utterly blot out the remembrance of Am'alek from under heaven." Note, no referance made to destroying the Amalekites...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
And Conseq. it appears that netbible (and you, I assume) believe that God is refering to the Amalekites, when he clearly is refering to only Am'alek. In which case he is very clear on what his intentions are, to "...utterly blot out the remembrance of Am'alek from under heaven." Note, no referance made to destroying the Amalekites...
Note that what is clear to you is not clear to the author(s) of the reference who, in fact, see an idiomatic reference to the Amalekites. It is interesting that, even today, observant Ashkenazi Jews 'remember' there deceased relatives by naming their children after them; every child carries a name explicitely intended as rememberance, and it is a matter of concern when a beloved one does not have someone to carry on his/her name. Whether or not we're dealing with idiom here is a question of fact, not belief and I have no reason to challenge the assertion quoted above. If you do, simply present and defend it. But for someone to dismiss the statement solely because it denies a target and opportunity for juvenile ridicule is petty prejudice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RebWlmJames Inactive Member |
"that I will utterly blot out the reminder of Am'alek from under heaven." Yet, we are still reminded of him when we read Ex 17:14. I guess I missed what you were getting at?"
Here, zecher would mean "vestige" and/or "progeny." Entirely wipe them out, but not erase them from memory. The more problematic passage from Deuteronomy, problematic because it seems incoherent, is "blot out the memory -- don't forget." Here is what I am getting at: Whatever faults one may ascribe to the biblical A(a)thor, that kind of blatant incoherency is probably not one. A better translation of the Deut passage would be: blot out any reminder/progeny -- don't forget/neglect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
-
Here, zecher would mean "vestige" and/or "progeny." Entirely wipe them out, but not erase them from memory. At issue is not the lexicon entry for a word, but the idiomatic meaning of the phrase. Again, the reference states:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RebWlmJames Inactive Member |
I think I understand your point. I think you are saying that the phrase "timcheh et zecher amalek" (erase/blot out the "zecher" of Amalek") is an idiom. I don't think "zecher" is an idiom. As far as I understand the word "idiom," it means something like: "an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up."
The phrase under discussion is well understandable by anyone who knows Hebrew. The meaning may be inferred from the words. It is not a special expression that requires "inside knowledge." For example, "step on the gas" as a way of telling someone to hurry up is an idiom, because you need to know that "gas" refers to the accelerator pedal in an automobile, and even have to know about cars a bit. A person could understand all the words "step on the gas" but not know what you were asking them to do. Any reader of the Bible who knows what each of the words "timcheh et zecher Amalek" means, knows what the phrase means. In my opinion, the word "zecher" is not an idiom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6269 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Any reader of the Bible who knows what each of the words "timcheh et zecher Amalek" means, knows what the phrase means.
That is a remarkable assertion. Presumably, those at netbible who suggested idiom 'did not know what each of the words meant' and simply fabricated something for our amusement, leaving it to you, who apparently does not know what idiom means, to clarify matters. No, the word "zecher" is not an idiom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
The Revenge of Reason Inactive Member |
So Con, how do you come to this being an idiom? Where is proof of this statement? It must be an idiom in Hebrew, because it is not one in English, or I would understand it as such (being that I speak English and all). And as you state "whether or not we're dealing with idiom here is a question of fact, not belief" then I must ask you were these facts are. Please prove this to be an idiom.
And Reb, you said that zecher means: rememberance, something stored in memory, and reminder; and that it is "distantly related to zachar" which means: male, understood to be the progenitor, progeny, and vestige. But why sould we substatute the meaning of zecher with the meaning of zachar? What is this distant relationship you are referring to? If the original authors meant zachar why did they write zecher?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024