This is not the answer to the question of the specific meaning in Ex. 6:20
and Num. 26:59. that I asked, of course. The question is can "bore" mean
what I have claimed it means? Below, I have included my original post with
the data, discussing the underlying meaning of "bore."
Before we can discuss the Jochebed situation, we need to agree or disagree
on the meaning of "bore." Then, we might be able to discuss the difference
in interpreting the relevant verses concerning Jochebed and Moses, but
unless we agree here, proceeding to other questions is a waste of time.
Clearly my 1/14 did not try to present any data concerning Jochebed and
Moses, per se.
The question now is: Will he attempt to bypass the question again, or can
we get a straight answer from him?
Till 1/14
<@Question snipped>
>Now you won't forget to answer those questions will you?
>
Matthew 1/15
Since you have not answered my question, I see little reason to answer yours.
Actually, though, I have answered your question directly before, or have you
forgotten again?
Anyway, I will be happy to answer it again if you answer my question. Below
again is the last note that you did not answer before:
Matthew 1/14
Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:25:35 -0700
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:22:06 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: burdette@net2.netacc.net
To: Biblical Errancy Discussion List <errancy>
From: Matthew Burdette <burdette@net2.netacc.net>
Subject: Bore: A Test of Till
Resent-Message-ID: <"v_f4k3.0.9p4.zT0to"@alien>
Resent-From: errancy@infidels.org
X-Mailing-List: <errancy@infidels.org> archive/latest/704
X-Loop: errancy@infidels.org
Resent-Sender: errancy-request@infidels.org
I have a small test of integrity for Till. Earlier he downplayed my answer
concerning the Jochebed thread. My point was that he could not prove that
Jochebed was Moses's mother since the only connection between Moses and
Jochebed was "bore."
My test for him is: "Does he now accept my definition for 'bore'?"
For those of you who forget, here is a some more information on "bore,"
including some more information concerning it and "begat."
"Bore" and "begat" are from the Hebrew word "yalad" (Strong number 3205).
Here is the strong's deinition for it:
"a primitive root; to bear young; causatively, to beget; medically, to act
as midwife; specifically, to show lineage"
Sometimes, this definition is simply stated as being to "bring forth" as in
delivery of a child. Therefore, "bore" means to bring forth in a feminine way,
and based on "bore," begat means to bring forth in a masculine sense.
Now here is another piece of the evidence: Genesis 46:16-18 which reads:
16 And the sons of Gad: Ziphion and Haggi, Shuni and Ezbon, Eri and Arodi
and Areli.
17 And the sons of Asher: Imnah and Ishvah and Ishvi and Beriah and their
sister Serah. And the sons of Beriah: Heber and Malchiel.
18 These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to his daughter Leah; and
she bore to Jacob these sixteen persons.
(NAS)
Here we see that Zilpah is shown as having "bore" these 16 children to
Jacob, but she was only the direct mother of two: Gad and Asher. In other
words, "bore" can be used for the direct mother, but also for other
descendants of a woman as well.
You can also look up "yalad" in "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament"
by Harris, Archer, and Waltke, p. 379, on the use of "yalad" in its various
forms where the following comment was made:
"The word does not necessarily point to the generation immediatiately
following. In Hebrew thought, an individual by the act of giving birth to a
child becomes a parent or ancestor of all who will be descended from this
child."
It almost looks like I wrote it, but I did not; look it up.
Certainly, I have other sources for this meaning, some of which I will
include in the Biblically dating the flood thread. Other than Till, all the
many sources that I have which speak to this rather specific application of
"yalad" indicate that it can include skip generations.
In the Biblicall dating the floor thread, Till seems to be admitting that
"begat" can include skipping generations. As such, I am asking in this
thread if he agrees that "bore" can be used this way as well.
Now while I believe that the "bore" having this possible meaning necessary
overthrows Till's alleged Jochebed "contradiction, I am not asking him yet
to admit that. I am only asking that he admit the obvious that "bore" does
mean what I have suggested all along.
In Christ,
Matthew
burdette@net2.netacc.net
burdette@net2.netacc.net
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.