“Regarding your question about the use of the word “nivrechu” to mean more than just “blessing” but rather as “mixed” or “grafted”:
In Hebrew, Beresheit/Genesis 12:3 literally reads: “Ve’nivrechu bekah kol mishpachot ha-adamah.” “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you and in you all the nations of the earth shall be mixed! The Hebrew word translated in most translations as “blessed”, is the Hebrew word “ve’nivrechu.” “ve-Nivrechu” appears only three times in the Tanak at Beresheit 12:3, 18:18 and 28:14 and all three times it speaks of how Avraham will affect the nations of the earth. This word can also mean “mixed” or “grafted” as much as it connotes blessing. This is important when one understands the greater plan of Yahuwah to fulfill His promise to Avraham and his descendants to, yes, certainly “bless” the nations but also in “how” He would do that blessing: via “grafting” or “mixing” of his seed into all the nations.
For a greater understanding of “nivrechu” you could go to,
http://yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/questions/?page=summer2003&type=2
Now Gen 12:3 is not my only scriptural premise to base my beliefs on, there are many from Genesis through Revelation.
Just as a starter I recommend Jim Staley, a Pastor in St. Louis, who has a great teaching that is solid named “Identity Crisis” It’ sound scripturally or if you want to check out my web page www.forthispurpose.tv. I offer my free ebook on what was the Gospel Jesus preached...He didn't preach about his death, burial, and resurrection...yet that is the gospel traditional Christianity has preached. So what was the Gospel Jesus and his disciples preached for 3 1/2 years? My book answers that question. If your interested. But what I have found is that only if the Holy Spirit draws a person to see these truths, it just ain't going to happen. And if it doesn't, that's ok...none of my business, it's between the person and Yahweh.
However you choose to pursue or not to pursue, I am sure you are a very nice man as you showed me great respect in your thoughtful answer so I ask Yahweh to bless your relationship with Him and if I am scripturally out of order I pray Yahweh stop me from continuing on as a Bible teacher of these truths or correct me where I am wrong.
I am as pleased as you to be having this conversation on cordial terms. One never knows how it will go at the beginning of such dialogues. I am pleased to discuss this in a spirit of peace.
But of course I will also be honest with you. Therefore, I must apologize. I made an error in my previous post. I said the vav prefix made it a past perfect. Exactly wrong. It should have be future imperfect. It has no impact on the root analysis, so we still end up at the same place, but I wanted to clear that up. Sorry.
Anyway, yes, I am familiar with Koniuchowsky’s argument, and I am not impressed. Let me see if I can break this down for you into the pivotal issues.
Rabbi Koniuchowsky (hereinafter just RK) makes an argument from uniqueness of the word form that it must have a special meaning, and that meaning must be “mixed.” As I said before, there is nothing about the form of the word that requires a special interpretation. It is simply a Niphal conjugation of “to bless.”
Nevertheless, RK attempts to justify a special treatment for the term as conjugated because, he claims, several Talmudic authorities may use the word as possibly meaning “grafted/mixed.” However, only one of those authorities even begins to make a case, and even that one instance is embroiled in controversy.
Nevertheless, let’s review his offers of proof to see what we can make of them.
1. Rashbam.
In what I think is probably the best argument for “grafted,” the medieval rabbi Rashbam argues that the root here was not “b-r-k” at all, but a rare passive form of b-r-kh, which means “to kneel.” From this he abstracts kneeling to bending, and from bending he posits an agricultural use where a vine is bent into the ground to produce a new shoot, viewing it as a step in the grafting process.
However, other rabbinical scholars have reviewed his work and found it unconvincing.
For example, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, one of the top thinkers of medieval rabbinical studies, openly disagreed with Rashbam, saying, “A great scholar wrote in his book that ‘they shall bless themselves by you’ means ‘to graft’ other nations onto your stock. I don’t know where he got this from.”
I agree with Rabbi Ezra. The inferences are too attenuated, too stretched out and weak, to have any authority. The strongest case is that the root is still simply b-r-k, “to bless,” set in passive form.
2. Babylonian Talmud, Nashim, Tractate Sotah 43a
The controversial section RK relies on for his “proof,” in English, is this:
“it is all one whether he planted, bent or grafted it, …”
But if you go to the Hebrew, b-r-k is never translated “grafted” in this passage. Instead, the word translated “grafted” above comes from a form of the root r-k-b. b-r-k does appear, but in proper sequence it is translated “bent,” suggesting it might be derived from b-r-kh, not b-r-k.
If you want to check this out, you can see the Hebrew here:
http://www.e-daf.com/index.asp
Just select the Tractate Sotah 43a from the dropdowns above. They also provide a link to an English translation of the folio.
So what was RK thinking? If he’s a good, honest man, he probably is just using the wrong reference, or else he took the words out of order in a moment of carelessness. It happens. But it still works against him, because this passage actually shows r-k-b is the root you would expect to be used in Genesis if mixing or grafting was really in view. Thus, he inadvertently disproves his own theory.
Inasmuch as I have been unable to verify that any other Talmudic references to “graft” (there are at least 10) are based on the Niphal form of b-r-k, I see no reason to rely on that line of evidence, at least until further, better proof is offered.
There is more to say, but I think the essential points are on the table, and I’d rather not drag this part of the discussion any longer than necessary. For the next round, I’d like to discuss your views of the Gospel. I have a copy of your ebook, and when I have read it, perhaps we can resume the conversation. It may take a few days. I will contact you by freepmail if you are interested in continuing. Just let me know.
Peace,
SR