[philman_36]

...I am saying that the meaning of "Barack" is related to Strong's 1288, barak, "bless," and NOT to Strong's 1300, baraq, "lightning."
I'm not saying that it's related to 1300 either. That's some more of your deliberate attempts at the confusion of two separate replies of mine. Not a nice thing for "a man of the cloth" to do.

Which Strong's reference do you think it is related to?
Since I haven't weighed in one way or the other till now I'll go with 1288.
Do you concede that 1289 isn't a root and 1288 is the root from whence 1289 came?

[Charles Henrickson]

Since I haven't weighed in one way or the other till now I'll go with 1288.

Thank you! I agree! That's what I've been saying all along: "Barack" is from "bless" not "lightning." I am arguing against the opening post, which contends it means "lightning."

Do you concede that 1289 isn't a root and 1288 is the root from whence 1289 came?

There's nothing to "concede." Strong's 1289 is simply the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew 1288--as Strong's itself indicates:

http://jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB12.htm#S1289

brak
ber-ak'
(Aramaic) corresponding to 'barak' (1288):--bless, kneel.