[Magdalen] Church vacancy

[Lynn Ronkainen]

David>>> The palms are always of the hands anatomically.  So a 
non-redundant
>> phrase would be "And hold you in the palms."

but the word palm alone does not signify 'of the hand' with out a qualifier 
and the word palm(s) has more than one meaning in that spelling as well 
David, so the word or phrase 'of his hands' clarifies the noun palm... just 
as 'hold them in his palm' might,  ... I'm sure the grammarians among us 
might weigh in with prepositional and declarative phrase info...

Lynn

website: www.ichthysdesigns.com

When I stand before God at the end of my life I would hope that I have not a 
single bit of talent left and could say, "I used everything You gave me." 
attributed to Erma Bombeck

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jay Weigel" <jay.weigel at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 10:57 AM
To: <magdalen at herberthouse.org>
Subject: Re: [Magdalen] Church vacancy

> *facepalm* I think it's also in the Bible, David.
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Cantor03--- via Magdalen <
> magdalen at herberthouse.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 6/18/2015 11:49:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> houstonklr at gmail.com writes:
>>
>> Why is  combining palm and hand redundant? The palm is only one side of 
>> the
>> hand is it  not?
>> Lynn >>>>>
>>
>> The palms are always of the hands anatomically.  So a  non-redundant
>> phrase would be "And hold you in the palms."  "of His hands" may  be
>> poetic, but isn't necessary to convey the whole meaning.   Granted,
>> there is a spiritual aspect to this, as well, they may be better  served
>> by adding the "of His hands."
>>
>> But there are no palms elsewhere to be confused with those on  the
>> ventral aspect of the hands.
>>
>>
>> David Strang.
>>
>>
>>