[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by llthomasjr

Gill is wrong about alot of things... but you should consider his skill with the hebrew language. Gill is not the only hebrew expert that makes the case verse 7 can not be associated with verse 6.

However John Gill's case in this instance is based on one (somewhat superficial) point only,

"Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine"

I'm quite sure that John Gill was well aware that Aben Ezra was well aware of grammatical gender . So he should have thought a bit more deeply before being dismissive.

Overall this is a very thin reed of rejection and Thomas Strouse and John Hinton have gone into probably the most depth on the grammatical issues, giving multiple reasons, grammatical and contextual, why the gender is masculine and not controlling the translation into the poor rather than the words. And, significantly, giving analagous verse examples, even involving the words of God. Have you read carefully their analyses ? Do you have cogent responses for their and our consideration ?

The fact that John Gill gave a superficial analysis on this verse does not negate his overall expertise. Gill is to be respected and considered in exegesis and he is generally miles above the modernists in his understanding of the word of God, including the Biblical languages and grammar.

However in this case .. he simply erred.

And you can see by simply reading his section that he did not really tangle with the issues.

Shalom,
Steven Avery