|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Aug 2, 2010 16:48:59 GMT -5
No it is not. The title is Shiyr haShiriym asher liSh*lomoh. The correct title is "Shiyr H'Shelomah." I typed it wrong. It is part of Megilloth. There is no book in TN"K titled Shelomah h'shiyr. For the record profanity (even disguised) is not allowed here. This is not ES and so epitaphs are also not allowed (my name is not son). Nor will you goad me into locating the pasuq for you. If you can read Hebrew you can readily find it. Failing that anyone can lookup Shulamith, that would be the simplest of scholarship. |
|
|
|
Post by gigantic on Aug 2, 2010 17:02:50 GMT -5
Shulamith cannot be her name since it is not a proper noun. In 6:13 that you quote, Shulamith is preceded by the letter "heh." Heh (The) is a definite article. You don't use definite articles in front of proper nouns. The mistress is given the title "shulamith" but that is not a name, as you are suggesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by gigantic on Aug 2, 2010 17:09:36 GMT -5
I am looking at my Megilloth, Edited by Cohen, M.A., Ph.D., D.H.L., revised and expanded by Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg and the title of the first Megillah states: Shiyr H'Shelomoh. I am not ready to depart from what this book says. I am sticking to my guns on this one. No it is not. The title is Shiyr haShiriym asher liSh*lomoh. The correct title is "Shiyr H'Shelomah." I typed it wrong. It is part of Megilloth. |
|
|
|
Post by gigantic on Aug 2, 2010 17:14:56 GMT -5
altakruri, you are taking the opening line (1:1) of the book as title. I did not even realize that until I pulled out my Megilloth: 1:1 shiyr h'shiyrim asher lishlomo translation (Gigantic): 1:1 song of the Songs that is Solomon's It is the opening line. No it is not. The title is Shiyr haShiriym asher liSh*lomoh. |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Aug 2, 2010 18:55:59 GMT -5
The books of TN"K are in general titled from their first line.
There are many fine Jewish editions and commentaries available
including the Soncino Books of the Bible series of which you have.
You may want to check the intro for the book's Hebrew title, also
the commentary running with the text of the Shulamith pasuq.
Even in contemporary vernacular a person is nicknamed by their locale.
|
|
|
|
Post by gigantic on Aug 2, 2010 21:47:42 GMT -5
The books of TN"K are in general titled from their first line. Not the entire line as you are suggesting in the case of the song of Songs. Case in pt.: 1:1 B'reshiyth bara Elohim et h'shamayim v'et h'eretsThe title for the first book of Tenach is "Bereshith," not the entire phrase. Strike two. And what about the book "Wayyikra?" It is not even mentioned in the opening line. Strike three. Sorry but you are wrong. Dude, the title is right there in fine print and it does not say what you are saying. That is fine but there is a definite article in front of Shulamit. You are interpolating her name but your interpolation goes against the syntax. Shulamit is a title (adjective), not a proper name. BTW... why have you now changed your argument to "nick-name?" This is not what you said originally. Why the change? |
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Aug 2, 2010 23:02:50 GMT -5
The Southwest Asians are the people with dark yellow complexions. They certainly aren't white, but they don't look black to me, unless you consider Halle Berry, Barack Obama, or other people of mixed heritage "black".  he don't "look" black to you? wtf? |
|
jari
Scribe
Posts: 289
|
Post by jari on Aug 3, 2010 8:12:19 GMT -5
Anansi, for argument's sake, assuming the Shemites were Black, how does that prove the hebrews were Black? The first Hebrew, Abram, was ten generations removed from Shem; that is a millennia period (approximation). In a thousand years, through admixture, diet and environmental factors, an ethnic group can undergo drastic changes in their phoenotype. Be that as it may, when one reads Sefer_h'Hanowk (The Book of Enoch), Shem is described adomee (ruddy), while Ham and Yafet are described shacor (dark) and laban (light), respectively. You need to pursue more scholarship. What you've presented in the query is extremely flawed. First off before we get into debate, I don't believe all Hebrews were a certain look. As a matter of fact I believe the Patriach Abraham was Reddish brown as everyone prior who descended from Adam(Red Earth). Take not of that. Next Ruddy: rud'-i ('adhmoni (1 Samuel 16:12; 17:42; Genesis 25:25 the Revised Version margin), 'adhom (Song of Solomon 5:10); verbs 'adham (Lamentations 4:7), and eruthriao, "to blush" (Ad Es 15:5)): "Ruddy" is the form taken by the adjective "red" when used as a term of praise of the human skin, and this is its use in the Bible (the Hebrew and Greek words are all usual words for "red" or "to be red"). The dark-skinned Hebrews found great beauty in a clear complexion. www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T7496 ^^^^^^^ Image of a possible Hebrew Migrant notice his skin is "Dark" nearly that of the Egyptians. |
|
jari
Scribe
Posts: 289
|
Post by jari on Aug 3, 2010 8:18:46 GMT -5
Were there dark people among the shemetic and possibly Hebreac ranks? Yes. But I take exception to this idea that because you are dark skin it means you are "Black
Afronut from my research you and I hold the same idea....I believe there were some "Black" individuals amoung the Hebrews, my conclusion from studying the evidence proves that the Hebrews were not all black, also the evidence out of the bible connecting Hebrews with black people in America is too weak for me, thus I dismiss any claims of Hebrew Tribes doctrine. This is from my personal research.
However this does not mean that there were no evidence of Hebrews amung the Natives of West Africa and the Americas, not is there any to support that the Hebrews were white.
|
|
|
|
Post by gigantic on Aug 3, 2010 12:52:58 GMT -5
^Jari, a simple DNA test should determine those who are of Asiatique extract and those who are not. If one claims that hebrews exist among the Natives of west Africa, well I'm sure that they would carry, at the minimum, the genetic marker for people of the orient. The only people I know of that carry a genetic marker of jews is the Lemba tribe.
As for light skin hebrews, yes they did exist. Actually, this was the normal skin tone for the hebrews.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Aug 3, 2010 16:47:02 GMT -5
Your B*reshiyth example proves my point that the first line in nearly every book in TN"K provides the book's title. It is self evident the the phrase Song of Songs which is Solomons is not actual part of the song. It's obviously the title and byline. But I've had enough of this now and invite you and any others interested to peruse standard Jewish works on Shir haShiriym to understand who the characters are and what the idioms mean. BTW Wayiqra is the very first word of the same named book. The books of TN"K are in general titled from their first line. Not the entire line as you are suggesting in the case of the song of Songs. Case in pt.: 1:1 B'reshiyth bara Elohim et h'shamayim v'et h'eretsThe title for the first book of Tenach is "Bereshith," not the entire phrase. Strike two. And what about the book "Wayyikra?" It is not even mentioned in the opening line. Strike three. Sorry but you are wrong. Dude, the title is right there in fine print and it does not say what you are saying. That is fine but there is a definite article in front of Shulamit. You are interpolating her name but your interpolation goes against the syntax. Shulamit is a title (adjective), not a proper name. BTW... why have you now changed your argument to "nick-name?" This is not what you said originally. Why the change? |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Aug 3, 2010 16:51:24 GMT -5
MODERATOR NOTE
Please leave ES its tags and its name calling behind |
|
jari
Scribe
Posts: 289
|
Post by jari on Aug 3, 2010 19:30:21 GMT -5
^Jari, a simple DNA test should determine those who are of Asiatique extract and those who are not. If one claims that hebrews exist among the Natives of west Africa, well I'm sure that they would carry, at the minimum, the genetic marker for people of the orient. The only people I know of that carry a genetic marker of jews is the Lemba tribe. As for light skin hebrews, yes they did exist. Actually, this was the normal skin tone for the hebrews. First off WHO are you testing to be the Authentic Jew bloodline?? The Ahkenazi?? Who are you are anyone to judge who is the Authentic Jew...Like Akoben says the so called Jew is a convert. Unless you can provide a sample of Abraham's DNA. |
|
jari
Scribe
Posts: 289
|
Post by jari on Aug 3, 2010 19:32:47 GMT -5
MODERATOR NOTE
Please leave ES its tags and its name calling behind Takruri, "Afronut" is what Gigantic used to call himself(Afronut slayer) not a "Name" just like XXYman calls him RAA(Recovering Afroholic).If he has a problem with it I will no longer use the name. |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Aug 4, 2010 14:02:41 GMT -5
Whether he has a problem or not don't do it.
ES is ES and ESR is ESR. Leave ES on ES.
I thought one reason ESR was made was to rise
above the immaturities of ES. Perhaps I'm wrong.
But while I am moderator of the Egyptology and
General Topics folders I will not tolerate dragging
ES immaturities over here including name calling
and other baiting tactics spurring flames.
I encourage anybody who doesn't appreciate my
moderating style to post their complaints on the
Staff Messages and New Members folder.
Just remember, everybody was up in arms about
the lack of moderation on ES that totally destroyed
what posters like Rasol, Supercar, Thought, Wally,
Ausar, DougM, Djehuti, S.Mohammad, and others
had built it up to be over years of academic labor.
|
|
The correct title is "Shiyr H'Shelomah." I typed it wrong. It is part of Megilloth.
There is no book in TN"K titled Shelomah h'shiyr.
