Hi Steve. I don't know if you remember me or not but we meet at Bible.org several months or years ago. Its been so long... I can't remember. Thank you for replying and not simply one to start calling names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
[COLOR="Navy"]Hi Folks,
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 ? |
I don't think Gill was superficially nothing. I disagree strong on many many things Gill wrote but he was never superficial. I don't think you can take a small note in his commentary to mean that he didn't consider Aben Ezra lacking in Hebrew grammar skills. You can be certain his comments was one of great thought. I have never read Hinton or Strouse. If you will supply the links, I'll read through them. Yet, it does not dismiss to the work of others that have done the opposing work to show.....
Quote:
|
tn The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender.
|
.NET Bible
This is witnessed by many scholars and we can review anyone you like. It should be noted that the greek texts of Psalm 12 attest to verse 7 is in reference to verse 5.
Quote:
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.
|
I disagree. I think Gill is as qualified as any scholar to attest to the use of the Hebrew text. In the end.... you simply have one scholar against another. You can say that one had his agenda and I can say the other does as well.
The issue is that you will not agree that Gill's comments are a possibility... because.... if they are then you lose what hold you have on what you consider preservation.
Steve....
Will you admit that it is possible that the scripture in verse 7 is talking about the poor?