Posted on 07/10/2011 5:10:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
“...whities better have a place to hide because Blacks will be out to even the score.”
####
Are you serious?
And why should WE hide? I don’t know about you, but when the SHTF, I’m prepared to play offense, not defense.
Blacks have no clue what it will be like when whites FINALLY return fire after all these decades of one-sided, cowardly gang violence.
No clue whatsoever......
Actually, I do appreciate the edit. I’m just embarressed that it is needed. C’est la vie.
BUMP!
We didn’t hear about it in the national news because the Associated Press (AP) doesn’t want the country to know what is going on. Our press is worse than PRAVDA.
9mm carry with DRT ammo....very very messy....never leave home without it.
Why do these flash mobbing ‘slackers’ always seem to be black, then?
According to what Biblical Hebrew lexicon? According to what textual data from BHS or BHQ?
Some feel that crackers owe them,dumb ones are slakers in any color.
Enosh. Hebrew word for man. Strong’s # H582 blood thirsty diverse, persons (any species). This is the primary word, and sometimes includes wicked Adamites. Translated as “man” in your Bible.
Ahh, I see. I assumed that you were a greater student of Hebrew; my apologies for mistaking your level of knowledge of the language.
Strong’s takes its Hebrew and Aramaic glosses from Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, and BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs) Hebrew and English Lexicon.
Vine’s is fine, but outdated; it is best used when coupled with Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary.
BDB is known for being outdated. However, it is commonly sold because it is a cheap (and famous) lexicon. The editors’ failure to update BDB with findings from the Dead Sea Scrolls, failure to update BDB with linguistic findings based on studies of Ugaritic and other sources, and their failure to include the Hishtaphel stem make BDB a less valuable lexicon than others on the market.
Holladay (a condensation of HALOT) is a much better cheap lexicon. Its user needs to be familiar with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Once you have that familiarity, you can find any word you like without resorting to transliteration.
HALOT (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament), TWOT (The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament), and TDOT (the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament) are better resources from which to do a word study; but they also require familiarity with the Hebrew alphabet.
Having explained that, I will give you the opportunity to defend your original claim that “ENOSH=animal and/or two-legged beast”, which you have thus far failed to accomplish.
Strong’s does not corroborate your claim.
Neither does BDB.
Look up Beast of the Field...
Which of the Hebrew lexicons lists “beast of the field” as an acceptable gloss?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.