NationStates Jolt Archive


Hebrew question

East of Eden is Nod
19-09-2006, 01:35
What excactly can
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9597/hebrewvf4.gif
mean?
Call to power
19-09-2006, 01:46
"if you can read this your drunk"?
PsychoticDan
19-09-2006, 01:48
What excactly can
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9597/hebrewvf4.gif
mean?

"Sarah Goldberg has a sweet coochie."
New Xero Seven
19-09-2006, 02:07
"I love potatoes."
Tanal
19-09-2006, 05:36
Literally translates as "Angels of Evil".
Lord of Hosts
19-09-2006, 05:43
It's from Psalms 78:49, meaning "evil angels" as per previous reply.
Soheran
19-09-2006, 06:05
It's from Psalms 78:49, meaning "evil angels" as per previous reply.

"Evil angels" would be "malachim ra'im" - this is "malachei ra'im," "angels/messengers of bad things."
Lord of Hosts
19-09-2006, 06:31
"Evil angels" would be "malachim ra'im" - this is "malachei ra'im," "angels/messengers of bad things."
* takes out his Horev Bible and THUMPS it at Soheran*

"Ra'im" is an adjective, not a noun. You don't wanna argue Biblical grammar with a Bible Thumper.
Murderous maniacs
19-09-2006, 06:57
"Evil angels" would be "malachim ra'im" - this is "malachei ra'im," "angels/messengers of bad things."
well, shows that though i can read hebrew. i have no idea what the words mean. i read it and thought to myself: "what the <expletive deleted> does that mean?"
Soheran
19-09-2006, 06:58
* takes out his Horev Bible and THUMPS it at Soheran*

"Ra'im" is an adjective, not a noun. You don't wanna argue Biblical grammar with a Bible Thumper.

It's both. Like "tzadik."

Again, if it were used as an adjective here, it would be "malachim ra'im." Just as you might say "anashim ra'im."

The form, instead, is "of (noun)." Like "tapuchei adama."
Kreitzmoorland
19-09-2006, 07:03
It's both. Like "tzadik."

Again, if it were used as an adjective here, it would be "malachim ra'im." Just as you might say "anashim ra'im."

The form, instead, is "of (noun)." Like "tapuchei adama."
Soheran is correct. The the word "ra'im" in this case is an noun equivalent to "those who are evil," though it can be used as an adjective too if a plural noun with no possesive suffix preceeded it.
East of Eden is Nod
19-09-2006, 08:35
Are there any alternative readings, especially if the words were slightly misspelled?
What would "kings" or "rulers" be in Hebrew? And what would "sphepherds" be?
Is there a good (biblical) Hebrew dictionary on the web somewhere?

.
Kreitzmoorland
19-09-2006, 17:06
Are there any alternative readings, especially if the words were slightly misspelled?
What would "kings" or "rulers" be in Hebrew? And what would "sphepherds" be?
Is there a good (biblical) Hebrew dictionary on the web somewhere?

.http://www.dictionary.co.il/index.php

http://www.morfix.co.il/defaultp.asp-this works in the english-hebrew direction, though it is in Hebrew. If you want definitions, press the button to hte immediate left of the typing space, and if you want translation, press hte button to the left of the first.

The works for angel and king are morphologically similar with a difference of one letter, but this definately does not mean that they are related in root grammatically. Shephard is totally dissimilar. However, as soheran said, angel and messenger are both common usues of the same word.

מלאכים- angels
מלאכים- messengers
מלכים- kings
רועים- shepards

By the way, if this is for some far-flung kabbalistic interpretation, you really need to go learn Hebrew before you stray too far from the path. Though rabbis are notorious for doing just that, it is usually a bad idea to begin with what you want to prove and set out to manipulate the words so that you can. Also, the whole field of using numerologies of words, and similarities not based in grammar is very dubious, and not very easy to convincingly argue, and to be honest, regarded as full of shit by most rabbis. If this isn't your aim at all - sorry.
PsychoticDan
19-09-2006, 17:10
"How's my driving?"
Dial 1800-eat-shit
East of Eden is Nod
22-09-2006, 15:14
http://www.dictionary.co.il/index.php

http://www.morfix.co.il/defaultp.asp-this works in the english-hebrew direction, though it is in Hebrew. If you want definitions, press the button to hte immediate left of the typing space, and if you want translation, press hte button to the left of the first.

The words for angel and king are morphologically similar with a difference of one letter, but this definately does not mean that they are related in root grammatically. Shephard is totally dissimilar. However, as soheran said, angel and messenger are both common usues of the same word.

מלאכים- angels
מלאכים- messengers
מלכים- kings
רועים- shepards

By the way, if this is for some far-flung kabbalistic interpretation, you really need to go learn Hebrew before you stray too far from the path. Though rabbis are notorious for doing just that, it is usually a bad idea to begin with what you want to prove and set out to manipulate the words so that you can. Also, the whole field of using numerologies of words, and similarities not based in grammar is very dubious, and not very easy to convincingly argue, and to be honest, regarded as full of shit by most rabbis. If this isn't your aim at all - sorry.

What?
I just want to know if the passage in Psalm 78 could originally have refered to "shepherd-kings" and if the biblical redactor might have thought this was a misspelling and changed it to "messengers of bad things". Or if it even was a play on similar words as would be so typical for the Bible.
Psalm 78 recounts the events leading up to the Exodus and what happened after it. Following Artapanus (cited by Josephus and Eusebius) the Exodus took place at the end of the 13th Dynasty of Egypt (under pharaoh Tutimaos/Dudimose, while Khenepherês/Khaneferre (Sobekhotep 4) was the pharaoh to raise Moses at his court in Auaris). And right after the the Israelites had left Egypt Amalekite tribesmen invaded Egypt and set up the rule of the Early Hyksos, who were called the Shepherd-Kings and who could indeed be seen as messengers and bringers of bad things.
East of Eden is Nod
14-10-2006, 11:23
Hello?
Gorias
14-10-2006, 14:00
something about murdering childen i guess.
Pyotr
14-10-2006, 14:02
Where the hell is Green Israel or IDF?
Green israel
14-10-2006, 16:47
What?
I just want to know if the passage in Psalm 78 could originally have refered to "shepherd-kings" and if the biblical redactor might have thought this was a misspelling and changed it to "messengers of bad things". Or if it even was a play on similar words as would be so typical for the Bible.
Psalm 78 recounts the events leading up to the Exodus and what happened after it. Following Artapanus (cited by Josephus and Eusebius) the Exodus took place at the end of the 13th Dynasty of Egypt (under pharaoh Tutimaos/Dudimose, while Khenepherês/Khaneferre (Sobekhotep 4) was the pharaoh to raise Moses at his court in Auaris). And right after the the Israelites had left Egypt Amalekite tribesmen invaded Egypt and set up the rule of the Early Hyksos, who were called the Shepherd-Kings and who could indeed be seen as messengers and bringers of bad things.I am secular so I may understood it wrong, but misspell transalation may occure.
if I remember correctly Mal'achei Ra'im is connected to the bad things happened to egypt when the israelites leave.
what relevancy it had if egypt get bad things, or occuption of shepherds tribes?
Where the hell is Green Israel or IDF?
I didn't was on the PC, and my basic knowledge about the bible won't help in such threads.
Keruvalia
14-10-2006, 16:50
What excactly can
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9597/hebrewvf4.gif
mean?

It means you should put down your Tanakh and go outside and play.
East of Eden is Nod
14-10-2006, 17:08
I am secular so I may understood it wrong, but misspell transalation may occure.
if I remember correctly Mal'achei Ra'im is connected to the bad things happened to egypt when the israelites leave.
So maybe the original writing was not a mistake and some later redactor only thought it was one and changed the spelling?

what relevancy it had if egypt occuption of shepherds tribes?It would confirm that the chronology of Egypt as it has been around since the Victorian age is severely flawed. It would also confirm the scenario I just rendered.
Green israel
14-10-2006, 17:43
So maybe the original writing was not a mistake and some later redactor only thought it was one and changed the spelling?maybe, or maybe it is honest mistake.

It would confirm that the chronology of Egypt as it has been around since the Victorian age is severely flawed. It would also confirm the scenario I just rendered.

personnaly I think it better to trust archiological finding than a book (even if it is the holy bible).
but therotically, you may be right in your suggestion although I am not an expert who will now about this subject.
East of Eden is Nod
14-10-2006, 17:51
maybe, or maybe it is honest mistake.But a mistake.

personnaly I think it better to trust archiological finding than a book (even if it is the holy bible).
but therotically, you may be right in your suggestion although I am not an expert who will now about this subject.
Of course I only trust arechological findings (if they are sound) but I also welcome confirmation from other sources (including the bible). This would be just another point where the bible itself contradicts the currently held interpretation of the bible.
Green israel
14-10-2006, 18:09
Of course I only trust arechological findings (if they are sound) but I also welcome confirmation from other sources (including the bible). This would be just another point where the bible itself contradicts the currently held interpretation of the bible.

maybe, what if the current version supported by the arecheoligical findindings it is useless to interupt the bible.
East of Eden is Nod
15-10-2006, 16:30
maybe, what if the current version supported by the arecheoligical findindings it is useless to interupt the bible.

The current version is not supported by any archeological findings.