Case in point is the translation of Gen. 2:16. In the Heb. Tanakh Gen. 2:16 states, “So he lays charge, yhwh >elohiym, upon the human archetype in regard to saying,'From the whole tree of the garden eat you must eat'.”
Gen. 2:16 conveys the beginning of God’s “command.” However, every English translation of this verse employs the English auxiliary verb “may” when rendering the final clause, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden." The auxiliary verb “may” is not only completely incongruent with the Heb. verb tzavah=lay charge/command, but it is also completely incongruent with the repetitive verbal clause at the conclusion of the verse, >akol tho>kel=eat you must eat.
The English auxiliary verb “must” is the only accurate translation; "From the whole tree of the garden you must eat." When translated accurately, however, the Deity’s “command” to the human archetype becomes considerably more complex and more difficult to interpret.
The verbs are both the same (qal imperfect) as you note. But the grammatical note I looked at says "The imperfect verb form probably carries the nuance of permission." I'll try to find my Hebrew grammar text to find more info, but this makes sense. Even in English, we say, "you may do such-and-such" (meaning you are allowed to, but you don't have to), and we say "you may not do such-and-such" (meaning you are not allowed to). Same verb form, but the negative carries the connotation of command in one case and permission in the other.
If the sense were as you translate, shouldn't it have used the perfect rather than the imperfect form?
™ Version 4.2