Hebrew Bibles and Interlinear

[DarrelW]

I realize we have the HiSB with Hebrew, Strong's and Interlinear, but I would love to see WLC, WHM and/or Shorishim with interlinear and possibly morphology. It would make my work easier and be able to stay in one Bible rather than several.

[ALbeSh]

Hi Darryl -
I've been working on a bible with strongs number and morphology based on the morphb project which seems to be moving towards completion. http://hb.openscriptures.org/status_all.html. There are some technical quesions that need to be addressed to Costas/Jon about compatibility of the enhanced strongs number used by the project with TW. And/or the a.aa.aa format also used by the project for the BDB definitions. I was thinking in terms of an update to Shoroshim.

But, do you know of an English gloss matched to the Hebrew or strongs? I haven't seen anything quite satisfactory.

This is an experiment in matching the WEB text to strongs numbers. I do use it more that HiSB though:
https://app.box.com/s/9wuvhptbz9mbk3p3yp679b9rz5rpizkg

[DarrelW]

I like where that is heading! How long before the morphology is viewable or am I missing something? Currently I do not know of an English gloss. But I do like the WLC!

Have you ever looked at AramaicNT.com? Tim has put out some very interesting Aramaic Peshitta material that plays beautifully in TW.

Darrel

[ALbeSh]

Sorry for not expressing myself clearly. The attachment is several years old and is interlinear with strongs only. I didn't think the gloss was consistently good enough to put forward officially. The current goal is for an update to Shoroshim with morphology added. Unless some good interlinear text shows up.

I am going to look at AramaicNT, but in the past looked at the Targums at http://cal.huc.edu/searching/targumsearch.html. It is the Hebrew Bible, of course, but also includes that material in Peshitta. Along with the associated http://cal.huc.edu/ it is a very useful tool for the study of Aramaic.

[DarkiYahu]

What is morphology?

[DarkiYahu]

I actually have AramaicNT.com Peshitta but have not installed it of yet - only on my mobile. But it is still only the New Testament and not the old but I think he is working on it.
It did not have the modules in my first download for theWord, I think was the issue - but was corrected but I never got back to it to install it as I had it on my mobile and was not so urgent getting it in theWord.

[DarrelW]

AramaicNT has just about everything. There is a little more to be done on the OT pointed vowel module. This module works on desktop very nicely, but MySword cannot display it on a tablet so it's not there.

If you need stuff on morphology, either search the forum or search the web and you can find everything.

Darrel

[DarkiYahu]

ALbeSh are you the Creator of the HiSB?

Thanks very much - use your work daily

I'm not sure what we are going to use the Notes for music for in the text as it seems to be, some say *Those things that are not nikuds surrounding the words* - but the HiSB sure is a powerful tool.
Another thing, It's not honest to Change the name of Yehovah to Adonai.

I did some research on the Grammer of Yehovah, there is some special things going on when it is Yod Sheva it seems.
Yehovah with Prefixes like Lameth, Beth or Caph - Lihovah, Bihovah, Kihovah and so forth it seems in the Hebrew. At least it seems the Hebrew speaking people pick up on it alright!

One can verify the grammer by the Bible of other people named or other words beginning with Yod Sheva and see how it acts, or read standard hebrew grammer rules for Yod Sheva.
At least if as NechEmYah, a karaite scholar says, he has found 16 hebrew sources and so called Rabbi's that say it is indeed pronounced YeHoVaH starting with an Yod Sheva.

So... Would be nice to see some correction on this, as most Bible versions use the Hebrew title Adonai or even Hashem or translate it into the english Title of the lord and if they have been nice, they at least have made it with Capitalized letters so you can see, if you know, that the name should be there.

Thanks and Jehovah Bless

[ALbeSh]

Yes, I am that HiSB/AlbeSh and your word is appreciated. It has been extremely humbling to see that what began as a personal study tool become, with much help, a text widely used to make the Holy words accessible in a meaningful way to so many.

I am presuming that the Notes you refer to are the accents, the te’amim, on the Hebrew text. The fully accented text is one of the improvements on earlier work that was added to HiSB. Besides helping in pronunciation (they indicate the accented syllables), the accents, in both a grammatical and and musical sense, show the phrasing of a verse. See: https://www.tanakhml.org/d21.php2xml?sf ... q=1&lvl=99 and https://bibleol.3bmoodle.dk/ for people who are diagramming verses based on these marks. In the experimental interlinear linked above in the Forum note that the ‘M’ toggle highlights the ‘et nachta’ accent to remind myself that most verses are split at this point. Look at a few translations with this in mind.

The transliteration in HiSB was intended as an aid for those learning to recite from the Tanach. Since most readers that I am aware of say ‘Adonai’, that was the basis for the decision. Even if Nechamya Gordon does have the correct pronunciation (certainly not the only choice), the question is SHOULD one say it. For most Christians and Jews, using a circumlocution for the name of God has been a common standard in translation (for Jews in recitation also) from at least the time of the Septuagint through all those centuries until the present. This is a lot of tradition to ignore for an arguably correct transliteration. For Jews, it is simple: [Among those who have] “… no share in the World-to-Come [post-Messianic]. Abba Shaul says: Also included in the exceptions is one who pronounces the ineffable name of God as it is written, with its letters.” (from the Koren Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 90a). So, I would suggest that the use of Adonai, or elsewhere LORD, Kyrios, and many others, is not dishonest but both respectful and traditional.

[DarrelW]

Just a thought - we must be careful not to cross lines into theology. This forum is for things relating to TW and not doctrine. So we might want to be a bit careful, since we are flirting with that line. Costas, what is your take on this area?

Darrel

[JG]

I think I will just allow these couple of points of view, but close the thread here.