JamesH wrote:The first word we can look at is " snake" the Interlinear I am using, uses Strongs #5175 (snake) and then says that the word snake comes from the root, Strongs #5172 ( to prognosticate )
English definition of prognosticate
1. To forecast or predict ( something future) from present indications or signs; prophecy.
2. To make a forecast; prophecy.
Again when a word is derived from another word, the root word informs the understanding of the word, but you cannot simply replace the word with its root.
Here the root literally means “hiss” and by extension to whisper, and by extension to practice divination, interpret omens and signs. Because of its literal meaning of “hiss” the derived meaning of serpent arose. The word used here is the exact same word used for serpent in the Garden. So by studying the root we see why nahas means serpent.
Also the word is used in this verse as a noun, not a verb. So as I pointed out already it could be saying that he is a prognostication, and enchantment, a sorcery a magic, but it cannot be saying that he is prognosticating, enchanting practicing magic or sorcery.
But in the context, considering Ya’aqob is describing the dominate traits of his sons, and in more than one instance has compared them to animals, it is pretty obvious that snake or serpent is what was intended.
JamesH wrote:Next word " horned snake" Strongs #8207 which comes from the root, Strongs #7779 (to overwhelm )
English definition of overwhelm
1. To overpower or overcome, especially with superior forces; destroy; crush.
Actually Strong’s 7779 literally means gape or snap at, and figuratively means to overwhelm. The very fact that it has a figurative meaning evidences against your point. Look up examples of figurative language, which is what a figurative meaning is, and you will see that a metaphor is a type of figurative language. So if you were to take a literal approach as you are suggesting then your defining the derived word as the root and saying that overwhelm is what was intended, even though the word used means viper, you would have to say that the word is snap at, but that doesn’t fit either because once again the word used is in the noun form not the verb form.
In Hebrew most nouns are derived from a verb which informs us to the nature of the noun. So the noun viper, siphphion, is derived from the verb snap at, siph. Just like the noun snake, nahas, is derived from the verb hiss, nahas. But those roots are not the words being used. So they inform us as to what the word means, the word still has its own meaning. Snap at and overwhelm informs as to the nature of vipers, hissing informs us as to the nature of serpents.
JamesH wrote:Next word " that bites" Strongs#5391 which is a root ( to strike, to oppress)
English definition of strike
1. To deal a blow or stroke, to (a person or thing) , as with the fist, a weapon, or a hammer; hit
English definition of oppress
1. To put down; subdue or suppress.
It’s seems to me that you are relying solely on Strong’s, something I would advise against as it is one of the worst sources. But even then it appears that you are ignoring the Strong’s definitions that don’t fit your interpretation. Strong’s definition of 5391 is, “A primitive root; to strike with a sting (as a serpent);” so you left off the parenthetical because it didn’t fit your agenda.
Further even Strong’s goes on to say, “figuratively, to oppress with interest on a loan: - bite, lend upon usury.” So the literal word for bite carried the figurative meaning to oppress. And even then the oppress definition is only in terms of interest on a loan, so unless Dan is a banker it would appear that this definition is not applicable here.
Further Strong’s seems to be the only dictionary that uses the strike definition, with all others having the definition as bite, to grasp with the teeth or jaw, as a serpent.
DBL: נָשַׁךְ (nā∙šǎḵ): v.; ≡ Str 5391; (qal) bite, i.e., to seize with the teeth or jaws, intending to injure or wound
BDB: bite, especially of snakes
GHCLOT: to bite, as a serpent
CHALOT: bite
TWOT: Wherever the verb “to bite” occurs in its literal physical sense in biblical Heb, it has a snake or serpent as its subject. Interestingly, the modern Amharic cognate is used not only of snakes but of dogs and other mammals, and even of the bee. (While classical Ethiopic has nasaka, the Amharic verb has a consonantal metathesis to nakkassa.) One is led to suspect that the broader usage of this verb is the more primitive, since the noun “interest” preserves a sense of "biting off’ a portion, whereas this is not the impression given by a snake’s bite.
Synonyms for “bite” in Hebrew are such verbs as qāraṣ “pinch, snip, tear” (the Ethiopic cognate of which has a noun derivative “tariff, customs”), bālaʿ “swallow, eat greedily, devour” (with a beast as subject in Ex 7:12), and the common term for “eat,” ʾākal, also “consume.” Samson calls the lion “the eater” (Jud 14:14). Arabic writers employ the same epithet for lion.
I would also point out that your practice of getting a one or two word translation and then looking at the definition of the English word is not the best way to go about understanding what was written. If you truly want to examine the Hebrew you need to look at Hebrew dictionaries and lexicons, not English ones, and see how the word was defined and understood in Hebrew, not how English defines the words that the translators choose to translate it as.
JamesH wrote:Next word " heels" Strongs#6119 which comes from the root, Strongs #6117 ( to circumvent )
English definition of circumvent
1. To avoid ( defeat, failure, unpleasantness, etc.) by artfulness or deception; avoid by anticipating or outwitting.
Your twisting of the language and cherry picking of definitions is getting a bit tiresome. Once again, I will say this as many times as I have to, a root word cannot replace the derived word. So while 6117 can inform us as to what is meant by 6119, it cannot replace it.
That said let’s examine why your translation is once again wrong. Let’s look at 6117 and 6119.
6117 according to Strong’s:
A primitive root; properly to swell out or up; used only as denominative from H6119, to seize by the heel; figuratively to circumvent (as if tripping up the heels); also to restrain (as if holding by the heel): - take by the heel, stay, supplant, X utterly.
So the circumvent is a figurative definition derived from the idea of tripping up the heels, with heels being the most literal definition of the word.
6119 according to Strong’s:
From H6117; a heel (as protuberant); hence a track; figuratively the rear (of an army). (lier in wait is by mistake for H6120.): - heel, [horse-] hoof, last, lier in wait [by mistake for H6120], (foot-) step.
According to DBL:
עָקֵב (ʿā∙qēḇ): n.masc.; ≡ Str 6119; TWOT 1676a—1. LN 8.9–8.69 heel, i.e., the back of the foot below the ankle on a mammal (Ge 3:15; 25:26; 49:17; Job 18:9; Ps 41:10[EB 9]+); 2. LN 8.9–8.69 hoof, i.e., the curved covering of horn on the bottom of a horse’s foot, corresponding to a nail or claw (Jdg 5:22+); 3. LN 41.1–41.24 movements, formally, footstep, i.e., the places one moves about in a daily routine as a figurative extension of a footstep (Ps 56:7[EB 6]; 89:52[EB 51]+); 4. LN 15.224–15.229 track, footprint, i.e., the imprint of a foot in dirt, as a by-product of walking or stepping (Ps 77:20[EB 19]; SS 1:8+); 5. LN 8.9–8.69 private body parts, formally, heel, i.e., the personal parts of the body not normally exposed such as the genitals or buttocks (Jer 13:22+); 6. LN 55.7–55.13 rear guard, i.e., back part of an army or military band (Ge 49:19; Jos 8:13+)
According to BDB:
heel, footprint, hinderpart
GHCLOT even lists rear of an army, which you tried to argue was what was intended last time, as a metaphorical definition:
עָקֵב constr. עֲקֵב, plur. constr. עִקְבֵי (in some printed copies עִקְּבֵי with Dag. euphon.) m.
(1) the heel—(a) of men, Gen. 3:15; Psa. 56:7; Job 18:9; Jer. 13:22; Cant. 1:8.—(b) of horses, the hoof, Gen. 49:17; Jud. 5:22.
(2) metaph. the extreme rear of an army, Josh. 8:13; Gen. 49:19.
(3) plur. עִקְּבֹות prints (of the heel or foot), Psa. 77:20; 89:52 (compare Cant. 1:8).
(4) verbal adj. of the root No. 3, a lier in wait, Ps. 49:6.
עָקֹב m.—(1) a hill, acclivity, i.q. Arab. عَقَبَةُ Æth. ዑቀብ፡ Isa. 40:4. (A hill is said to be so called from its retarding and keeping back those who go up, but see the remarks on the root No. 1).
(2) adj. fraudulent, deceitful, Jer. 17:9.
(3) adj. denom. from עָקֵב No. 3. Hos. 6:8, עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם “trodden (trampled) in blood,” i.e. full of bloody footprints.
TWOT gives several metaphorical usages of ‘aqeb:
עָקֵב (ʿāqēb). Heel. From the literal idea of “heel” (cf. Job 18:9, a man caught by the heel), ʿāqēb extends itself to describe horses’ hoofs (Gen 49:17; Jud 5:22) or anything at the rear. ʿāqēb denotes the rear guard of a troop (KB, p. 279; attacked, literally, at their heels, Gen 49:19) or the exposed buttocks (euphemistically, “thy heels made bare,” Jer 13:22) of captive individuals (v. 19; cf. Ugaritic ʿqbt “tendon” of a bull). At Ai, the Israelitish army’s ʿāqēb (Josh 8:13) is the concealed detachment directed against the Canaanitish “heel” (cf. Ps 49:5 [H 6]), therefore not so much a Hebrew rear guard (RSV) as an ambush, “liers in wait” against Ai (KJV, ASV; KD, p. 86). ʿāqēb may also connote the motion of the heel, i.e. a step—so in Ps 56:6 [H 7]. David’s foes watch “his steps.” The actual word is “heels,” or the mark left by the heel, i.e. a footstep, whether of a man (Ps 89:51 [H 52] where enemies “reproach the footsteps” of God’s anointed. perhaps referring to King Jehoiachin as he was led captive in 597 B.C.). It can also refer to a flock (Song 1:8), or even to God (so Ps 77:19 which speaks of Yahweh’s leading Israel through the Red Sea; but after the water returned, “Your footsteps are not known”).
The metaphorical usage of ʿāqēb includes such ideas as a traitor’s “lifting up the heel” against David (Ps 41:9 [H 10]), i.e. “proving faithless and spurning” him, or, “iniquity at my heels” (49:5 ASV,’ “iniquity of my heels” KJV), i.e. dogging one’s steps (“wicked deceivers” NIV). Greatest of all references is the prophecy in Gen 3:15, that mankind is to achieve victory over Satan and reconciliation with God at the price of Calvary, where the serpent will “bruise the heel” of the seed of woman.
And once again you have forgotten to acknowledge the word for Horse here. And again you do not address the final portion of the verse which refers to everything spoken of as resulting in the rider of the horse falling backwards.
So since that is all of the Hebrew you choose to address I will assume that you were okay with the rest of my translation. So let’s put your definitions in to see what would get if you were correct.
Dan will consistently exist as a prognosticate upon the path, an overwhelm upon the way who strikes horses circumvent so that his mount falls backwards.
That makes no sense. Let’s see what happens if we allow the two nouns to be verbs.
Dan will consistently exist prognosticating upon the path, overwhelming upon the way, who strikes horses circumvent so that his mount falls backwards.
Well that’s a little better, but still not quite to making sense, and we had to ignore that two words were written as nouns and not as verbs.
JamesH, your definitions are twisted extrapolations at best, and do not fit the context at all. Your attempt to twist the written text to support your thesis turns Scripture into a jumbled mess of words with no meaning. Furthermore the very fact that several of the best lexicons and dictionaries list metaphorical meanings to words, and those metaphorical meanings of the words are the ones you cited, destroys your case and your credibility.
Metaphor - An image which suggests similarities between two different ideas, without implying that they are identical. I.e. Isaiah 64:7 we are clay and you are the potter. We are not literally clay but share similar traits to clay everyone understands the metaphor of like a potter shaping clay Yahowah shapes us. Dowd is called the Lion of Yahuwdah he was not physically a lion, but had many of the same traits as a lion.
JamesH wrote:This is concrete Hebrew words not metaphor
Words are concrete, with each word having its own meaning. But then those words get put into sentences with other words to convey ideas, those ideas are conveyed using a variety of different methods, among them being figurative language, and among figurative language we have similes, metaphors, personifications, hyperbole, idioms, allusions, etc. There is an entire book of the tanakh called Proverbs, Mashal (Word Pictures). Word pictures are often drawn using metaphors, similes and other forms of figurative language.
JamesH wrote:James could you explain your metaphor of Dan?
Dan the snake, is Dan an egg eater, Satan, crawl on his belly, have fangs, deceive eve, ? A metaphor means something different to each person, ABSTRACT
The Hebrew language exists today only because of CONCRETE WORDS
Metaphors are usually simple to determine by examining the words used, and what they are refereeing to. In this case Ya’aqob went on to explain the metaphor. He said that Dan would be a snake, and then explained what he meant by saying that he would be viper on the path biting the horses heels causing the riders to fall off.
When examining serpent in Scripture we find that the characteristics first associated with it are in the Garden where we learn that they are sly, cunning and deceitful. For verification of this examine the Scriptures. In Judges 18 we learn that the tribe of Dan introduced idolatry to Israel. In 1Kings 12 Jeroboam set up on of his idolatrous golden calves in Dan, and in Amos 8:14 Dan became the center of Idol worship. Dan is closely associated with religion, and religion is sly, cunning and deceitful.
Like almost the entire 49th chapter of Ba’reshiyth this is a prophecy as to the prevailing nature of the tribes descended from Ya’aqob. This is where we learn that Benjamin would be a wolf, the Yahudah is a lion’s cub, Yissaskar is a strong donkey, and Naphtali is a deer. Ya’aqob used metaphors for all of them comparing them to specific animals, and then explained what he meant.
Metaphors can mean different things to different people sometimes, but most of the time the meaning of the metaphor is clear to all who read it in context. Furthermore Scripture most often explains its metaphors. Anyone reading Scripture beginning to end that comes to this verse would understand exactly what Ya’aqob meant when he called Dan a serpent, even if he didn’t go one to explain it.