Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
no, according to the bible. man is made on day day 6. do i need to cite the verse?
Yes, specifically the one that uses
עשה with the beginning of man to exist.
arachnophilia writes:
nonsense. genesis 1 is the etiology of shabbat. the days are literal.
So Genesis is the origin of the Sabbath.
Could you please point out the verse that
שבת appears in prior to Exodus 16:23 and forward, when the Sabbath was first instituted and observed.
acrahnophilia writes:
again, you're reading it wrong.
So asserts arachnophilia.
arachnophilia writes:
and the notes i gave you -- no, i didn't write that -- are the notes by the man responsible for that translation, harry orlinsky. the above lengthy quote is the reason why that translation renders that verse that way. note that it cites rashi. if you're going to appeal to authority because you suspect that professional translators know what they're doing, you don't really get much more authority in the jewish scriptures than rashi.
I can't help it if your sources ignore the rules concerning Biblical Hebrew to support their personal beliefs.
acrahnophilia writes:
yes. it's an idiomatic translation. i know you haven't come to realize this yet, but biblical hebrew is not english. it does not function the same way, or obey the same rules of grammar. sometimes, changes are necessary to maintain the idea present in the text.
Idiomatic translation=
An idiom is an expression which is unique to a language and cannot be understood simply from the meaning of its individual words. In other words, the actual meaning of an idiom is not the total of the meaning of its individual parts. An idiom is a figure of speech.
Source
So you prefer what some man says rather than what the text says.
I think I can tell the difference in Hebrew and English.
But you don't seem to be able to tell the difference in Biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew.
Could you explain how the verb
ברא which is the Qal perfect which is completed action can become imperfect which means continuing action.
Which is required for your following statement.
arachnophilia writes:
in any case, this is the reason that when i have rendered the first verse myself, it goes, "when god began creating the heaven and the earth" because it then retains the grammar as literally present.
arachnophilia writes:
no, it doesn't. infinitive are not gerunds.
What does infinitive and gerunds have to do with a preposition placed on a noun turning it into a verb in Biblical Hebrew?
arachnophilia writes:
blah blah blah. it switches the subject and the verb, too! oh noes. clearly only "at front created god" can be correct!
What does your statement have to do with what is stated in Genesis 1:1 concerning
אלהים being the subject of
ברא which is a Qal perfect verb that declares God completed the action of creating the Heaven and the Earth.
To get your interpertation of "when god began creating the heaven and the earth" you have to change the perfect verb into an imperfect verb.
How do you acomplish that feat?
arachnophilia writes:
err, no, the verse is a dependent clause.
Only if you can change the verb
ברא from being Qal perfect to an imperfect state.
How do you do that?
arachnophilia writes:
note the "waw conjunction" between the dependent clause, "when man began to multiply..." and the independent clause "the sons of god saw..."
Trying to support one idiomatic translation with another idiomatic translation is not going to get you any points with me.
If I am going down the road with cruise control on and hit the brakes the cruise control releases and the vehicle begins to slow but when I hit the resume button the vehicle will resume the set speed.
quote:
When the story of creation is resumed later, in 2.4,
Definitely seems to me that the story in Genesis chapter one is being resumed later in Genesis 2:4. That may not be what was intended but it is what was stated.
arachnophilia writes:
so, you think "in the day" is literal, but the evening and morning kind of "day" is metaphor? yeah, that's a good one. no, "in the day" is clearly a temporal construct -- not referring to a literal 24 hour period. i suggest you find some other verses yourself.
Yes I know "in the day" is literal.
God gave the definition of day.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
God called a light period Day.
God called a light period and a dark period Day.
God declared the light period that had ended in Genesis 1:2 and the following light period that ended that dark period as the first day.
So I will take God's definition of what Day is over anything you want to say or anyone else as He is responsible for Day existing.
So "in the day" is a literal light period during which God created Heaven and Earth, and the history of that light period is given in Genesis 2:4-4:24.
And yes that light period and the first dark period that ended was declared the first day by God, which makes it a literal day.
Each following light period followed by a dark period that ended with a new light period is a literal day.
Any light period from Genesis 1:1 until today is a literal day.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
™ Version 4.2
(1)
