Elle,

I hope we're not simply down to a "it means what I want it to mean, and I found a dictionary I like that says it that way" kind of thing here. You have to understand something about word definitions provided in Strong's and other concordances. When they speak of a "root" they are speaking of the word stem from which the current word under consideration is derived. You are looking at what they are saying the root meaning was, but they are not providing that meaning for "ratsach."

Consider the following English example to illustrate:

1) rap
2) rapacious
3) rape
4) rapt
5) raptor
6) rapture

All of these come from the same root word "rap." But they all have distinct meanings: #6 can mean a person is in a state of ecstasy or delight; #5 is an order of birds that includes eagles, hawks, falcons, etc.; #3 means to take by force and/or violate; and #2 speaks of the violent manner in which something is done.



This example provided above demonstrates that about 30 different dictionary entries all come from the same "root."

In Strong's, he gives the root meaning, then follows that with the actual meaning for the word in question--just like many dictionaries do. While the root meaning can be helpful, for it traces the concepts back to their source for us, it is not the sole determinant of a word's meaning. If it were, all 30 of the above dictionary entries earlier referred to should mean "To strike with a quick sharp blow; to knock; as, to rap on the door." Obviously, that would not help us much to understand that "raptor" refers to birds of prey, or that "rapture" can mean such things as "ecstasy" and "delight."

Here is Strong's defition of "ratsach":



Notice in the above that everything after the ":--" is the definition for the word in question. Prior to that is the meaning of the "primitive root" from which this word has been derived.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So would you agree that in Numbers 35:30, at least one of the ratsach is used as a verb?

kland,

According to the sources I already cited, BOTH uses are verbs. In fact, "ratsach" is ALWAYS a verb in Hebrew.

Are you an expert in Hebrew? I doubt it. Neither am I. So perhaps it will not be a simple thing for us to understand, but the fact is, it is more often than not translated to a noun in English.

KJV translations of "ratsach":
slayer+16,+murderer+14,+kill+5,+murder+3,+slain+3,+manslayer+2,+killing+1,+slayer+++0310+1,+slayeth+1,+death+1

At most, 13 times it is translated as a verb (I didn't check to see if "killing" might be used as a gerund noun). Of 47 total occurrences, this means that it is treated as a noun in English well over 70% of the time. If you're expert enough to inform us why that would be the case, I would not mind being enlightened. However, I suspect, having done a lot of translation work, that Elle may be onto something in saying that Hebrew tends to emphasize verbs. English doesn't. English emphasizes nouns. We use nouns for subjects, objects of prepositions, objects of verbs, as subjective complements, as adjectives, etc., and verbs in English can frequently be used as nouns as well. So, translating from a verb-centric mode of thought to a noun-centric one means changing the grammar.

Considering these facts, I feel we do disservice to this study to overemphasize the particular parts of speech of the Hebrew. One thing is clear: Hebrew should be consistent with itself, even though the English is not.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have already answered this to Asygo.
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=179982#Post179982
No ---- Hebrew doesn't work the same way as with other language. You are assuming Hebrew is the same as other languages -- it is not so.


No that's not how it works. It starts with the proper definition it Hebrew. Then it follows with how it was found applied in the Biblical text. Some Hebrew words, as you saw with retsach, had only two application, thus not that much and it was only translated in English in those two ocurrence as "sword" and "slaughter". Whereas ratsach proper meaning "to dash in pieces" was mainly associated in the Bible towards a man thus the 47 occurrences has many translation as "kill", "murder" "slay", and "put to death" . These English translation are NOT the definition of the Hebrew word.

If you speak the Hebrew language, they only say "ratsach" and for them "ratsach" means "to dash in pieces". It does not mean to "kill" "murder" "slay" and "put to death". They have other words for many of these.

The proper definition is applied in diverse circumstances. If an animals gives you a lot of heartache, let's say a bull gores your son. Then when you tell the story how you slaughtered that bull you might use the word "ratsach" instead the typical "hareg" word; because when killing that bull you simply didn't "hareg"(strike him in the intend to kill him) but you have striked him so many times even after he was already dead out of hatred for he has kill your beloved son. Then to express this type of killing you will use "ratsach" and not "hareg". The individual understand that "ratsach" means "to dash in pieces" thus he can visualize that this bull was heavily slaughtered because of the proper definition that word has in Hebrew.


You are relating to the Hebrew language like the English and other languages. You speak out of complete ignorance Green. You do not know the Hebrew and you are assuming a lot of things again without knowing the facts and having done any investigation. You have been repeating this speaking with so many assumptions over and over again since the beginning of this discussion. What you are doing there is called worshiping Baal of Peor. Big time! Sorry to be so blunt, but you keep on repeating this and keep on showing yourself again and again to jump into conclusion without doing the proper investigation and filling the gaps with supposition that you are totally unaware of or without receiving any revelation from above to confirm these assumptions that you treat as TRUTH. This is worshipping Peor and not the Lord. Your approach to investigate the unknown and your speech is far from what we are commanded to do and what we should aspire to be like. We are call to only repeat His words of Truth and in Truth. When we do not know or have not received a double witness from above to confirm what we assume -- we are not to speak these as if these things were truth -- but treat these as in the same category as "heart idols" or "unclean things" until the Lord confirms these to you.


No Green. everything after the ":--" is NOT the definition for the word in question. It is what the KJV has translated in ENGLISH the Hebrew word in the occurrences found in the Bible.

Notice what it says at the beginning of the definition of the Hebrew word it says "properly, to dash in pieces". The underlined is the proper definition of the Hebrew word. For someone that is strong in languages you should know very well what proper definition means. I shouldn't have to tell you this at all.

I will repeat -- this is the proper definition of the word in question. Strong and other Lexicon will start as such by giving in the first part of the definition of the word its proper definition. What comes after that could be some diverse application as "literal" or "figurative" or "causative" or etc... forms. These is diverse form the proper meaning of the word may be found in the Bible. Then after that with ":--" is how the words was translated in ENGLISH according to the context used.

I have patiently dealt with all your resistance for over 10 pages of posts now. I understand you don't know the Hebrew language and you made a lot of assumptions. But at least acknowledge that you need to look these up instead of arguing with assumptions that you treat as truth.

I'm assuming that what is behind all this resistance, its probably because you have used these "English Words" arguments with APL over Num 35:30 in those long discussions for years, and from what I'm saying with the Hebrew, this means that these "English Words" arguments doesn't hold water. That's what I believe is the real issue and what is behind all of this resistance and argument.

I think 10 pages is enough for me. I am no longer answering all your resistance post that many of your argument makes no sense like what was said that I've answered in this post and many other posts. At times, it does make sense and I can understand that you say things in ignorance of the Hebrew. That's ok and I don't mind answering those. But I do not appreciate answering things that you should know better and only a device to find anything to hold to your idols.

Now, I'm at a point that either you(or others in the forum) agree to proceed to looking at the other texts with ratsach in it like in Jud 20:4 (with Hos 4:2; 6:4; Is :21; Jer 7:9). If either you or others does NOT take the initiative to continue our investigation of ratsach, then I have 5 other discussions to attend to and I will do this study on my own.

It is yours (& others) call if you want to proceed.

So then you would agree that the instruction of Numbers 35:30 is that the one who has killed is to be murdered, to be dashed in pieces.

I sure wouldn't. I suggest you scroll back and read my posts in this thread.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green,

My first objection was you saying both words were nouns. You then said they are both verbs. Now you seem to contradict yourself.

This is none other than further evidence why you refuse to give a definition. You were afraid someone would show your inconsistencies, that what you say may not be supported. You said Numbers 35 was clear. You refused to say exactly what. I presented a text. You objected and said it didn't say what it did. Then you went on and on about it being nouns. Then verbs. Now you object to yourself.....

Leads me to be in agreement with Elle:
She hit the nail on the head!

As you did not respond to my suggestion that you make a pro and con chart of the verse, it appears to me that you are not an inquirer of truth but a believer who seeks to support what you already pre-believe. That is, you believe something is true because you believe it.

You take multiple pages using all kinds of novel approaches of making no sense about a verse which should be perfectly clear, a verse in a chapter which you stated was clear. It's not to find out the truth the verse is saying, but to make the verse support what you think is truth. Therefore, you make an individual private interpretation of scripture contrary to those who do study Hebrew. No witnesses to back you up.

Have a good day,

kland

You haven't properly read my posts, apparently. I just now did an "Advanced Search" here on this site, limited the search to display name "Green Cochoa" and looked for "nouns" as the search term. I extended the time, to be sure to catch any possibility, back a full year to present. Upon clicking "submit," I was presented with three options. The oldest post in this thread was the one that addressed YOUR assumption that I had said both uses were nouns. In that post I said they were both verbs. I have been consistent in that from the beginning, i.e., I have NEVER said what you claim. You will be unable to prove it, for you are claiming a falsehood.

So far from someone showing my inconsistencies, it would appear I have been consistent and that those with opposing views have not. If you wish to rely on fictions of your own imagination like this about what I have said or believe, please feel free to believe anything you want about me so that you can . . .

Have a nice day.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So, is it only "murder" (since you say that "ratsach" has the same root meaning as "retsach") prohibited by the sixth commandment if one uses stones, hammers, etc. to do the deed? If a sword is used, it would not violate the sixth commandment? Is that what your definitions are leading you to conclude?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, the tool can be anything as specified in Num 35 : iron tool (v.16) stone (v.17) or wood (v.18). Thus a hammer would fall into the category of an iron tool.

What I was saying above is "retsach" was translated by KJV in Ps 42:10 as "sword".( "[As] with a sword[retsach, meaning "a crushing"] in my bones, mine enemies reproach me; while they say daily unto me, Where [is] thy God?") Other version used other English words, however no matter. But I thought that the KJV should of used a better instrument that would actually "crush" his bones like a sledge hammer. I visualized a sword cutting the bones, not crushing it.


No. A sword is an instrument of iron and fit in the category in Num 35:16. I view Num 35:16-18 naming all the possible tools used to murder someone in those days. Thus to me the spirit of the law is saying anything used to murder(ratsach) someone is murder. Tools makes no matter.


I answered this post because I forgot to say the following:

ratsach & retsach are basically the same word for they are spelled exactly the same way : Resh, Tsade, Chet. The difference is found in the vowels that are represented by those little markings on top, bottom or side of the consonants. Vowels do not constitute the meaning of the word. It is the consonants that does as each character has a meaning and it is the sum of the characters meaning that constitute the word meaning. So both words have the same consonants thus that's why their meaning are relatively the same.

ratsach = "to dash in pieces"
retsach = "a crushing"

None of these words means "murder", "put to death", "kill", or "slay" like the KJV and other translation has translated these.

ratsach means "murder" only when applied toward a man. As far as I can see, all the occurences in the Bible of ratsach was towards a man, thus that's why we only see the word translated in those 4 similar words in the KJV.

But you can ratsach a pumpkin, a cow, a rock, a glass window, etc... If the context of ratsach would of been used with any of these words in the Bible, the KJV or other version might of translated it as to "crush", "slaughter", "crush", "smash" respectively. The English translation of the word "ratsach" depended on its application. But in Hebrew, they don't have 100 words to expressed all the possible applications. They have one word, and it is ratsach. You only need to say ratsach and can apply it to any possible circumstances.