The Hebrew word for "king" is "melek", the word for "queen" is "malkha". The word for "king or queen" is also "melek".

But here we go. Jesus wasn't a "melek".

And this is where the literal becomes symbolic again, right?

Jesus says in St. Mark chapter 10 verse 18

The Danger of Riches

"But Jesus said to him, "Why dost thou call me good? No one is good but only God."

Paul of Tarsus did not deny being "God" in Acts Chapter 28 verse 6

Malta

"Now they were expecting that he would swell up and suddenly fall down and die; but after waiting along time and seeing no harm come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god."

You will note that there is no passage after that where Paul denies this statement of himself to the natives. Jesus did deny it.

You wanted to talk Acts Lula, but yet you totally ignore the quotations of Acts that I have previously sighted as examples. Why?

I don't believe it because it doesn't make sense.

If K'RY is a verb it would be a verb I cannot find in the dictionary and a grammatical form I don't know (there is a finite number of prefixes and suffixes for roots and I couldn't find a K- or -Y to match for any tense, mode, or gender).

If it is a noun it is either one of the few nouns ending on Y (like "lion") or a noun owned by someone (like "beity" = "my house"). If it is an owned noun, I am struggling to know what a K'R is. Cannot find it in the dictionary.

There is simply not a long list of things a K??Y could be.

Hebrew words are tri-consonantal (meaning that most words have three consonants in their root). Some words have only two (very few), some have four (maybe 15% or so, my guess).

If K'RY is a four-consonantal word, I don't know what it means.

If it is three-consonantal, than it is either Kxxx or xxxY, with the first meaning "like xxx" and the second "my xxx" with "x" being any one of the root consonants.

The translation "like a lion" fits this model. And looking at the xxxY angle, I have no idea what a K'R is or why it would be his (the speaker's).

If it is two-consonantal, I would be surprised that I don't know the word, because there are so few such. In that case it would be "like my xx", with "xx" being the two-consonantal word.

If it is a verb, it must be conjugated and the only conjugated form that consist just of the root itself (with /a/ vowels between the consonants) is third person singular past tense. That would be "he", but not "they".

(Note that it doesn't matter what vowels you assume. The rules I apply above have nothing to do with vowel values.)

It might be an Aramaic word, but that would still follow similar rules.

Sorry.

I am not a Hebrew expert, but neither are the people who copy the translation that uses the word "pierced". If you can find me an explanation for how K'RY translates to "pierced", we will be back in business.

Until then "it says so in my translation" is even less convincing than "G-d said so", especially since, in this case, G-d said something else.

Leauki posts:

This is news to me...could you explain what you mean and where it comes from if other than your own brain?

Lula posts:

nightshades posts:

Nightshades, regarding your attacking the Church and calumnies against St.Paul..this is the last call....You'll find that I mean what I say and say what I mean.

Who approved St. Stephens death? Who took his bloody clothing? What did Jesus say when it came to fruit trees bearing good fruit unto good trees and bad fruit unto bad trees. What did he say when it came to acts being a reflection?



I have said nothing about the church that is not the truth. If that is an attack, so be it. Could it be that it is an "attack" because you so closely associate it with yourself and don't want to be reminded of the truth? You have a problem with the church and Paul of Tarsus being "attacked", however you don't have a problem with attacking the Muslim faith with your own remarks about how they treat women, how they are not the "holders" of truth, but the only truth that is held according to you is that of the Catholic Church. You are acting the hypocrite. I don't truly believe that you are one, but that because you associate yourself so personally with the church and what it did do, even though you yourself are not guilty of the things I cited other than probably "public worship", you feel that it's an attack on you personally. That is your own self importance that is making you feel this way. And to be offended because of what I have said about Paul of Tarsus is only because of the same reason. He appeals to your sense of self importance above your sense of the "God" within you. It would be to your benefit alone, if you would stop and think about why you are feeling this way.

Leauki posts:

KFC POSTS: #651

Yes, there is no doubt that David's Psalm 22 prophetically describes what happened during Christ's Passion and subsequent death by Crucifixion. No doubt whatsoever.

If it's any help Leauki, the Douay Rheims has verses 14-19 as follows:

"14 They have opened their mouths against me, as a lion ravening and roaring. 15 I am poured out like water; and all my bones are scattered. My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels. 16 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws; and thou hast brought me down to the dust of death. 17 For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath beseiged me. They have dug my hands and feet. 18 They have numbered all my bones. And they have looked and stared upon me. 19 They parted my garments amongst them; and my vesture they cast lots."

KFC,

I think Alfred Edersheim is on to something.   

Okay, good we are getting somewhere...

Now, focus in on what comes out of producing good fruits....

What does Acts say about St.Stephen as he was being stoned?

Weird.

Does anybody have a Latin version of the text?



Dug... Looking up "dig" I also find no K'RY. However, it seems like whichever Latin word is translated with "dug" did not mean "pierce". So there is, apparently, no concensus in the Christian community.

(Ironically the word "ari" does appear ealier in the psalm and is translated as "lion" there in Douay Rheims.)

Here's the translation from my Bible at home:

"Dogs surround me; a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like lions [they maul] my hands and feet."

The "like lions" makes perfect sense here as a description of the dogs' behaviour. And there is no other subject in the sentence (only "dogs" and "a pack of evil ones").

Note that I would not use the word "maul" but "are". But in English a lion "being" at your feet very much means a lion "mauling" your feet.

Text is from the Jewish Publication Society.

I found a Luther Bible online:

"17 Denn die Hunde haben mich umgeben, und der Bösen Rotte hat mich umringt; sie haben meine Hände und Füße durchgraben."

It's a bit poetic. But it also uses "dug" ("durchgraben").

I still don't see how it could be a verb though. I explained above.




Put me down as a doubter.

So make it "there is a doubt".

I guess it doesn't help that the Latin version says

"circumdederunt me venatores concilium pessimorum vallavit me vinxerunt manus meas et pedes meos"

= "[...] they encircled my hands and my feet"

The verbs are all in third person plural perfect tense (as opposed to the Hebrew).

Guess we have to go back to the Septuagint and check whether it translates "like a lion" as a verb and assigns a conjugation to it.

Here's what I was able to pull.

Note 21-15 = Psalms 22:14

Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata
(21-15) sicut aqua effusus sum et separata sunt omnia ossa mea factum est cor meum sicut cera liquefacta in medio ventris mei

(21-16) aruit velut testa fortitudo mea et lingua mea adhesit palato meo et in pulverem mortis detraxisti me

(21-17) circumdederunt me venatores concilium pessimorum vallavit me vinxerunt manus meas et pedes meos

(21-18) numeravi omnia ossa mea quae ipsi respicientes viderunt in me

(21-19) diviserunt vestimenta mea sibi et super vestimentum meum miserunt sortem

(21-20) tu autem Domine ne longe fias fortitudo mea in auxilium meum festina

I hope this helps

I found "lekarut" = "to dig". But it is spelt LKRVT and contains no Aleph. The root would be KRT.

An Aleph is not easily added by mistake, but a Yud (/y/) could easily become a Vav (/v/, /u/, or /o/). A Yud looks like an apostrophe ('), a Vav looks like a capital I.

There are perfectly good Hebrew words that do mean "pierce".

I wonder why G-d always uses unclear words when He is trying to make a point?

Luther's translation (which was from the Hebrew) translates K'RY with "dig" (allthough the conjugation still doesn't make sense to me), despite the Aleph.

The Latin text uses "encircle" instead.

King James uses "pierce".

How do we know which version is the holy truth?

I expect someone to explain to me that the true version is of course the one that "predicts Christ", and we know that Christ is the messiah because the Bible predicted him; the Bible we chose based on whether it predicts him, that is...

Here are some notes on Verse 17 from various Church Fathers and Doctors, and others..

Ver. 17. Dogs. The pagan soldiers, who were instigated by the Jews, (Matthew xv. 26.; Calmet) or the latter are here styled dogs, as they are by St. Paul, Philippians iii. 2. (St. Jerome) --- The evangelists could scarcely have explained the authors, and manner of our Saviour's death more particularly; so that we might entitle this "the Passion of Jesus Christ, according to David." (Worthington) --- Dug. The Jews have here, and God knows in how many other places, corrupted their text; reading "like a lion," though it have no sense, to avoid so clear a prophecy. (Worthington) --- They keep cari in the text, though it (Amama) or the margin had formerly the proper reading, caru. The Chaldean has both, "they have bitten like a lion," &c., in some editions only; which shews the antiquity of this variation, as the author, Joseph the blind, is supposed to have lived in the 4th century, though this is uncertain. (Calmet)

--- All the ancient versions of the Septuagint, Syriac, &c., agree with us, as the Protestants do likewise. Even the Masora intimates that cari has not here the sense "of like a lion," as it has [in] Isaias xxxviii. 13; and, though it might be pointed so as to signify the same as caru, they have rejected that punctuation, and obstinately maintain their reading, in opposition to many manuscripts seen by Ben. Chaim, &c. (Berthier)

--- Kennicott mentions another manuscript in the Bod. Lib. which has caru, with cari in the margin; and observes that Dr. Pocock, nevertheless, maintains the accuracy of the Hebrew edition in this, as well as in every other instance, asserting that car is perfodit, and cari the part.[participle?] Benoni, perfodientes, with the m omitted. "But as this omission is very irregular, and never proper but before a suffixed pronoun, or in construct.; and as the ancient versions express it....as a verb, there seems to be but little doubt that this word was originally cru or caru, with an a inserted to express the kametz." (Dis. 1. p. 500.) The proposed interpretation would be rejected by the Jews, while they would exult in their error being countenanced by us. (Calmet, Diss.)

--- This reason is perhaps weak, as their conversion is not expected; if by means of it, the Hebrew Bible may be reconciled with the versions; "the council....hath besieged me, digging my hands." (Berthier) --- But this expedient is at least doubtful; suggested only by Protestants who maintained the integrity of the Hebrew text, which is now given up; and the Jews seem inexcusable, though the variation might originally arise (Calmet) from a mistake of transcribers. (Houbigant)

--- They ought not to have rejected caru even from the margin, which they confess was once in the text, as it is still in very correct copies. Drusius informs us that a Jew threatened Bomberg, when he designed to adopt this correction, that if he did, he would prevent any of his brethren from purchasing a single copy. The pusillanimity of Christians, and the obstinacy of the Jews, keep therefore the text in its present state. (Amam, p. 461.)

--- Ximenes had the courage to insert caru in his Polyglot. (Calmet)

--- In the edition of St. Jerome, 1533, caru appears indeed in the margin; as he translated fixerunt, "they pierced," and cru in that of Mont.[Montanus?] with o over cari, perhaps as a sing that the former was formerly in the margin, or should be translated, as it is by Pagnin, foderunt; though Mont.[Montanus?] alters it for circumdederunt me, sicut leo manus meas, in obedience to the Jews.

--- Thus we behold what dissensions the alteration of a single u or i may occasion; (Psalm xv. 10.) and yet these are letters which the Jews seem to have treated with little ceremony, changing in 100 instances, (Calmet) or omitting them, since the introduction of the vowel points; (Houbigant) and they are so easily mistaken, that the greatest attention is requisite to make the distinction. However, one jot or one tittle shall not pass of the law till all be fulfilled, Matthew v. 18. See Zacharias xii. 10.

Says who?

I haven't seen all those ancient versions.

So far I have seen the following texts:

- The English text you (Lula) quoted: "they dug"

- Luther's German text, from the Hebrew: "they dug" (essentially)

- The common Hebrew text: "like a lion"

- King James and other English translations: "they pierced"

- Latin Vulgate: "they encircled"


You and I try to solve this problem in two different ways, Lula. You try to find someone who says what you want to believe, I try to look for the texts in question and read them.

I think the difference between the two methods is exactly the difference between Christianity and other religions. You seek for answers in dogma, others seek for answers where the knowledge lies.

I found, using Google as I have never seen the text in question, that the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) apparently say "K'RV" ("ka'aru", /a/ vowels guessed). That word doesn't exist. It can either be "K'RY" ("like a lion") or "KRV" ("they dud", past tense).

Do you think it more likely that a Yud is accidentally written a bit longer and becomes a Vav (as I said, they look similar), or that an entirely different letter is just added to the word (Aleph)?

I write Hebrew myself and I can tell you that the first happens a lot, the second really never (unless I don't know the spelling of the word).

I cannot read Greek and don't know what the Septuagint says.

My guess is that the "dig"-based translations derive from a text common around the time the dead sea scrolls were written and the non-word K'RV was in that text. Translators had to decide between K'RY and KRV to make it a word and some went for KRV.

That's fine in a way but I wouldn't base a religion on it.

As for any "argument" that in any way refers to other people I don't know saying that X is true without telling me why, I just don't accept that. I'm not the type for it. And I don't care how many hundreds of years they have believed it.

Personally, I trust the Masoretic text and don't think that digging hands and feet makes sense. (Piercing them would, but that word is simply not an option according to either Hebrew text. Although I am not sure how dogs would do that, and there is no other subject in the sentence.)

Oh, and Lula, two things:

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id746.html

Give sources when you repeat what others said. And remember that I don't care if you quote somebody else. Their words are as good as your words. You are just shifting the discussion from between you and me to between that other person and me. It doesn't help anybody.

Also note regarding punctuation:



Yud and Vav usually represent long /i/ and /u/ sounds respectively at the end of words. No punctuation is needed to write either of those two vowels.




So how does it do your position any good if instead of you accusing the Jews of corrupting the text, somebody else did and you quote him? It's still an unfounded accusation at best and anti-Semitism at worst.

The Christians made K'RV into KRV and the Jews made it into K'RY (if K'RY didn't exist in an independent Hebrew text). So how can you tell that the Jews and not the Christians corrupted the text? Both versions are different from the DSS? (Or should I ask the person you quote?)

Dogma, btw, is Hebrew for "example". But I think it goes too far if it used in research.

 

I have been following this discussion and find it very interesting.  The psalm, as I understand it is about a person suffering.  Jewish tradition, according to the JPS Study Bible commentary, is that it is a "lament by David over the future exile, more specifically the threat against the Jews by Haman in the book of Esther."  For this reason, this psalm is read at Purim.

 

It seems to me this lament is about abandonment.  I can see Jesus using it, or alluding to it.Divine abandonment seems to be a major theme in the psalms. But it is the psalmist who is in distress, it is the psalmist who feels he is but a worm since God apparently abandoned him.

The JPS Study Bible suggests that it is common for the psalmists to mix metaphors, etc.  Hence bulls as predators, as well as dogs.  Bashan, the area in northern Transjordan, is famous for "its fat, strog cattle."  At his lowest point, says the study Bible commentary, "the psalmist calls on God to save him..."

So, as is typical in biblical tales, a deal is struck, deliver me from death, illness, whatever this pain is about and I will praise you.  The psalmist is talking about the Holy One, HaShem, not himself, (i.e. Jesus).

Just my two cents.

 

 

"See ya"

WTF?  Doesn't take much to make the thin veneer of civility disappear, now does it?  Stop with the attacks on Christians, or don't be such a baby when we retaliate in kind.

 

That he forgave those who stoned him. It does not say however that Saul was one of those. I does not also account for the others forgiving him whom he admits that he dragged out of their homes because of their belief in the gospels.

This is what Paul says in his discourse in Jerusalem to the people in Acts 22 verse 1-5

Discourse to the People

"Brethren and fathers, listen to what I have to say in my defense. (please note that Jesus himself offered no defense) And when they heard them speak to them in Hebrew, the became even more quiet, And he said: "I am a Jew, and I was born at Tarsus in Ciliia, but was bought up here in this city, a pupil of Gamaliel, and instructed according to the strict acceptation of the Law, according to the Law of our fathers, I was zealous for the Law just all of you are today. And I persecuted this WAY (please note that he doesn't mention Jesus, nor even Jesus as being the way) even to the death, binding and committing to prisons both men and women, as the high priest can bear me witness, and all the elders. In fact I received letters from them to the bretheren in Damascus, and I was on my way to arrest those who were there and bring them back to Jeruslalem for punishment."

He does go onto describe his encounter on the road, in verses 7-8

"and I fell to the gound and heard a voice saying to me, "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?" And I answered, "Who art thou Lord? And he said to me, "I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou art persecuting".

First of all it wasn't Jesus he was persecuting according to his own tesitmony, but those that preached about his truth and believed in Jesus. Second he didn't refer to Jesus as being the "Christ" or the saviour either. He simply refers to him as "Jesus of Nazareth".

In one passage Ananais is refered to as a disciple, yet Paul later in Acts 22 verse 12 refers to Ananias this way, "Now one Ananias an observer of the Law, respected by all the Jews who lived there, came to me and, standing beside me, said to me, "Brother Saul, regain thy sight. And instantly I looked at him."

In Acts chapter 9 verse 10 Ananaias is described this way;

"Now there was in Damascus a certain disciple named Ananias." And "And he saw a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands upon him that he might recover." and "So Ananias departed and entered the house, and laying his hands upon him, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord has sent me-Jesus, who appeared to thee on they journey-that thou mayest recover thy sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Strange that none of these descriptions do not have simply subtle differences as with the apostles descriptions, but are radically different. Care to explain?

Later Paul says in Act 23 verse 6 Before The Sanhedrin

""Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisees: it is about the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial."

Nothing here about Jesus either. The argument between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was that the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, no angels or spirits, whereas the Pharises believe in both. The Pharisees insisted that Paul could have indeed spoken to angel of a spirit, so they could not find any guilt in him. They sure found guilt in Jesus, why is that do you think? No mention of Jesus by either the Pharisees or the Sadducees. Nor does Pual bring anywhere into the conversation that the way of Jesus was the only way. That his way was indeed the truth and the light, and he the son of God.

This is what Paul says to the jews in Rome in Act Chapter 28 verses 17 - 22 At Rome

"Three days later he called together the leading Jews, and when they had assembled he said to them, "Brethren, although I have done nothing against the people or against the customs of our fathers, yet I was handed over to the Romans as a prisoner from Jerusalem. After an examination they were ready to release me, since I was innocent of any crime that deserved death; (please note that Saul LEGALLY persecuted unto death with the blessing of the sanhedrin those that followed Jesus) but as the Jews objected, I was forced to appeal to Caesar-not that I had any charge to bring against my nation. This, then, is why I asked to see you and speak with you. For it is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain." But they said to him, "We ourselves have received no letters about the from Judea, and none of the brethren, upon arrival, has reported of spoken any evil of thee. but we want to hear from thee what thy views are; for as regards this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against."

Paul stayed there for two years after this. Apparently they had not found him guilty of the same heresies that jewish populations found in the apostles. They had heard nothing of him, and yet they had heard about the disciples as evidenced by the statement that they had heard about the sect. Care to wonder why this is?

check this out, I find the literal translation at the end interesting:

Modern Hebrew
כי סבבוני כלבים
עדת מרעים הקיפוני
כארי ידי ורגלי׃


Paleo-Hebrew (Before 585 B.C.)
22:16

Hebrew Transliterated
22:16 KY SBBVNY KLBYM 'yDTh MUr'yYM HQYPhVNY K'aUrY YDY VUrGLY.


Latin Vulgate
22:16 circumdederunt me venatores concilium pessimorum vallavit me vinxerunt manus meas et pedes meos


King James Version
22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.


American Standard Version
22:16 For dogs have compassed me: A company of evil-doers have inclosed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.


Bible in Basic English
22:16 Dogs have come round me: I am shut in by the band of evil-doers; they made wounds in my hands and feet.


Darby's English Translation
22:16 For dogs have encompassed me; an assembly of evil-doers have surrounded me: they pierced my hands and my feet.


Douay Rheims Bible
22:16 For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet.


Noah Webster Bible
22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.


World English Bible
22:16 For dogs have surrounded me. A company of evil-doers have enclosed me. They pierced my hands and my feet.


Young's Literal Translation
22:16 And to the dust of death thou appointest me, For surrounded me have dogs, A company of evil doers have compassed me, Piercing my hands and my feet.

here's the link: http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B19C022.htm

I just want to commend all here in their civility towards one another given these very controversial subjects keeping in mind we are all coming from various backgrounds and belief systems.

A special bow to Sodaiho for his allowing us to take his blog all over the place regarding these spiritual things. It's been very interesting to get the diff thoughts and ideas here.

well it's not that he is/was not. It's that he wasn't accepted as such. Remember he was mocked as King of the Jews. He had a kingly welcome when he rode into Jerusalem that Palm Sunday but it didn't last long. Again if you look back at David's life you'd see he was rejected and run out of town as King for a time. In fact, again, there are parallels between David and Jesus forshadowing the coming future King.

He's coming back as the King of Kings but you're right, the first time he came as a servant, leap years away from a King.

We watched part II of the movie Joseph last night. I've had it for years but this is the first time I've watched it. It's excellent but I had a question for you Leauki.

In the movie Joseph is given an Egyptian name by the Pharoah. His new name was Zaphnath-panneah. I never knew that and ran to the scriptures and sure enough it was right there in Gen 41:45. In the movie they said it meant Savior. Do you know any Egyptian by any chance?

I thought it very interesting given the fact that Joseph is more like Christ than any other Christ-types in the OT scriptures. But he did, in fact, at that time in history become the Savior in saving the known world from famine.

KFC,

The translation is called "Literal", but it isn't literal.

You can see the word כארי ?

That's K'RY = "like a lion".

Here is the word with Vav instead of Yud at the end: כארו

See how a Yud can easily become a Vav in hand-lettering? This is how the word appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the word like that means absolutely nothing.

And this is KRV ("karu" = "they dug"): כרו

None of the three mean "pierced".

My theory is that כארי ("like a lion") became כארו (nothing) in the Dead Sea Scrolls and survived intact in other Hebrew versions of the text.

The opposing theory is that כרו ("they dug") was the original, became כארו (nothing) in the Dead Sea Scrolls and was finally purposefully corrupted by the Jews to כארי ("like a lion").

Neither theory can explain how it could mean "pierced". I don't know where that word comes from. It's not in the German Bible translation nor in the Latin. I wonder if it is in the Greek? It's not in either known Hebrew version.

To agree with me, all you have to believe is that in some texts the Yud at the end of כארי would have changed into a Vav as in כארו .

To agree with the other theory you have to believe that an Aleph was accidentally added to the middle of כרו so it would become כארו _AND_ that the Jews later purposefully changed the Vav to a Yud for the word to become כארי .

KFC, do you believe that an Aleph א is more likely to appear in the middle of a word than a Yud י is likely to become a Vav ו accidentally?

Try it out! Write down the three words (two words and one collection of letters).

That is quite possible, as Jesus was a Jewish leader (and was executed by the Romans for being one).




Indeed.




Which movie is that? I have the Disney movies "Prince of Egypt" and the second one. "Prince of Egypt" was really neat. Didn't watch the second one.



I don't. (I can read it though.)

Egyptian is related to Hebrew and is based on the same system (tri-consonantal roots with prefixes and suffixes) but all the words are different. I think it's about as different from Hebrew as Polish is from German. I would assume words like "father" and "mother" to be roughly the same and not much else.

But that name is interesting. I looked it up in a Hebrew Dictionary, hoping that maybe it was one of the very few words that share a root in Hebrew and Egyptian, and got the following (you will love this):

The name is spelt צפנת פענח (I am at my Mac now and can copy Hebrew text from Mac OS into Internet Explorer). This transliterates to /tz/ph/n/th/ /ph/3/n/ch/.

The individual letters are important so follow this closely!

The "Z" is really a /tz/ sound, as in "eretz". The reason you get it as "Z" is because the German alphabet was used for transliteration in the past and German "Z" is pronounced /tz/. This applies to words like "Zion" as well.

The /ph/ is really a P, but it is pronounced as /f/ after a vowel and /p/ before a vowel. We can thus assume that it is a /p/ in the second word and an /f/ sound in the first, as you write it above.

The /3/ is an Ayin, a letter that doesn't exist in the Latin alphabet, a sound that doesn't exist in any European language, and a consonant that is very common in Egyptian (and typical in Hebrew and Arabic words). The word pharaoh has an Ayin (PR3H = "phara3o", the /h/ symbolises an /o/ sound after an Ayin, long story). I don't know if Egyptian has a /p/ sound. (Arabic does not. Hebrew does. Difficult to tell if Egyptian might.)

The /th/ signifies a female suffix for a noun. Take a root, say an adjective or other noun, add a /th/ and you get a female noun describing the thing: "abd" = "servant" -> "abdut" = "servitude", "chaver" = "friend" -> "chavrut" = "friendship".

An /ch/ at the end of a word typically also implies that the vowel before the /ch/ is an /a/ even if another vowel precedes the /a/. (This is maybe because a Het /ch/ is difficult to pronounce if you don't start with an /a/.)

(And put an L in front of a word to get the infinitive of the verb for the word. It's very simple.)

FROM THE DICTIONARY:

לצפון to conceal (the last letter is the /n/, the second-last is a Vav standing for a vowel)

לפענח to decipher, to decode


The first is the root for conceal made into a noun (maybe "concealment"), the second is the root for decipher or decode (perhaps meant as an adjective).

I don't know if it together means "deciphered concealment" or how old these meanings are. Perhaps the two are modern Hebrew based on the name. Or the name was supposed to mean something based on concealment or decipher or a combination of the two.

My guess is that modern Hebrew invented these words (i.e. these meanings for the words) based on the name.

But since I don't know what, if anything, the two words mean in Egyptian, I don't know.

(To make it a little less interesting, "tzaphon" also means "north".)




That may very well be.

Some circles call him...Yeshua Hamashiach ben Yoseph. The Messiah like Joseph (ie servant).