@Susan thanks, nice that he mentions Exodus, I though I made up the link ;)

Is In John 3:16, What does it mean to “Believe Into” Christ? different from What is the difference between πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ and πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν??

(Where links = quotation marks and semantic considerations trump appearances.)

@Davïd Thank you for fixing it. Although it may be totally irrelevant to the OP (an unregistered user who hasn’t come back since posting), it’s actually a decent question now.

@Susan Looks like a dupe to me, and just recorded that. (It actually looked like it on first seeing it yesterday, but let it settle.)

When I look at this (and every other place where we have Hebrew and English on top of each other here), I wonder why the Hebrew font can’t just be bigger. I imagine English is always going to be longer because we have so many words, but the Hebrew font itself seems to be smaller.

The vertical dimension (seen in the in-line text in that Q) seems to use the top lower-case line in English as the line for the Hebrew, and only lamed touches the top English line. Why oh why? (Of course, if Hebrew used the top English capital line, the lamed might create a problem (running into y above it or something). But just cut it off, I don’t care. I can barely distinguish the vowels as it is.)

(Venting; I realize none of this is negotiable.)

@Susan Snap!

@Davïd Ha, don’t think I had ever seen that. ’Twas before I was participating much. Good point!

@Susan And is that just early evidence for piscine hermaphroditism? ;)

(Needed link for context!)

@Davïd Indeed! I just wrote that and I was still very confused there for a few seconds.

Other connection potential for confusion, or surrealism, or both.

@Davïd I’m assuming you know the answer to that question, but it’s one that’s actually got me confused.

@Susan Ha - kind of you, but I don't think anyone "knows". I'm interested to see the answers you get!

@Davïd Oh. Well probably you know of somebody that has at least talked about it. The HALOT entries seemed to proffer that explanation as if it made sense.

@Susan Page 49 in this book has a nice discussion surveying some of the main options.

Last sentence of which: "One may be better served by Trible's conclusion that the shift in gender is 'inexplicable' (158)."

@Davïd Oh, the same series as the Ruth one that you recommended. (I ordered, and it looks very similar to that. But I haven’t started it yet.) I just don’t see how the ‘collective’ theory has any relevance.

@Davïd That’s really funny. OK.

@Susan Agreed. Interesting considering the possibilities, and a learning exercise in any case.

@Susan Horse's mouth: Trible, p. 158.

@Davïd I’m sure this is a dumb question, but I’m stumped. Gen 2:23: לְזֹאת֙ יִקָּרֵ֣א אִשָּׁ֔ה - here יִקָּרֵ֣א is masculine?

RTL problem there. Not sure how to fix it.

Ha.

Fascinating new info for 10k+ (and those of us who cheat our way there): /tools/question-close-stats . See related meta.SE post.

Longer time periods would be useful, especially on a relatively low volume site like ours.

Actually, it's probably 4k+ here. Not sure. (@JackDouglas?)

@Susan 2k=10k

dba.stackexchange.com/help/privileges

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges

@JackDouglas Oh yeah, I just said that and then promptly forgot. :-) Thanks.

I was just asking you to confirm by clicking the link - evidently it worked.

@Susan The reference grammars all have things on passives, agreement, neglect of feminine (or "uninflection"); this would be thought of as "impersonal" passive: "to this one it was called 'woman'", kind of thing. See new best friend p. 160 (bottom).

@Davïd Ha, new best friend indeed. Thanks.