Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   basic reading of genesis 1:1
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 286 of 312 (611891)
04-12-2011 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by arachnophilia
04-11-2011 3:53 PM


Re: "language" and "writing system" are different concepts
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
no. where did you get that idea?
Well you keep asserting the Bible was written in paleo-hebrew.
arachnophilia writes:
mythology is not relevant to this thread.
Well excuse me I thought we were talking about things that are recorded in the Bible. The tower of babel was recorded in the Bible, just like Genesis 1:1.
Oh I forgot you think the whole thing is mythology.
Then why waste your time arguing about what the text says?
arachnaphilia writes:
okay. since you don't have a lexicon from 1500 BC, you have no way of knowing what the word mean, either.
That was the reason the author of the Torah used the writing system that had the ox head and parts of the tent, body parts and tools to write the text in. Each symbol had a specific meaning.
arachnophilia writes:
you only have what so-called scholars have said the words mean.
Well I have what they say they mean. I also have studied Ancient Biblical Hebrew and know what the symbols mean so I don't have to totaly depend on what the scholars say.
arachnophilia writes:
"word order" is called "grammar" genius. or rather, part of grammar.
That is what we call it. They called it word order.
arachnophilia writes:
i find your paranoid delusions and lunatic ramblings insulting, blasphemous, and just downright ignorant. they aren't funny any more. please take your idiotic nonsense somewhere else. you're a crank, and this is getting old.
Now we get to standard atheist argumentation. If you can't win the argument by arguing the message use the standard insult the person, tell them how stupid they are and what an idiot they are. I think that is against the rules but I could be mistaken as it is standard operating procedure here.
Do you know anybody today in America that can not read or write?
There are a lot of them out there, why do they exist in this modern age.
And no I don't think the authors were stupid idiots. I do believe they were not nearly as advanced as we are today.
But you think differently, you think their writing system was just as complicated as ours today.
That shows your ignorance.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by arachnophilia, posted 04-11-2011 3:53 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by arachnophilia, posted 04-12-2011 5:51 PM ICANT has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 287 of 312 (612004)
04-12-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by ICANT
04-12-2011 12:39 AM


Re: self-contradiction, short memory, lack of reading ability getting very tiresome
ICANT writes:
Not where but by whom. MY former professor of Hebrew. He said it did not exist unless someone had wrote one in the last 15 years.
your former hebrew professor said complex prepositions don't exist?
give me his contact information. name and email address. i'll email him and see what he thinks of your argument.
Well it is not a noun. It is not a verb and it is not a preposition.
try again. פנים is a noun, frequently found in construct as פני. for example,
quote:
וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהֹום
-- Genesis 1:2
notice how "face" and "deep" are in construct. "face of the deep". the preposition על has been added to it (with an irrelevant maqef), such that it could be read sort of as a complex preposition. but it's technically a noun, in construct. this case is somewhat analogous to uses of לפני (inseparable prepositional prefix, instead of a stand-alone preposition), except that to two mean slight different things. לפני means "before" (literally: "to the face of") and על-פני means "on the face of".
לפנים is a noun formed from the verb פנה
like an infinitive? but, no, it's not. the noun is פנים.
לפני is a preposition 'before' from the root לפני
and the root is the noun פנים. you'll find that this is how it's listed in strong's concordance and gesenius's lexicon. BDB (pgs 815-817) lists it under פנה, the noun section (not the verb section), and describes in terms of prepositions.
once again, check your sources. it was a lot nicer when you were using reputable sources like BDB, because we could then go check them and laugh at you when you disagreed with your own sources. now you've moved on to this shitty piece of software that is so completely full of errors it's hard to set you straight. i suggest you trash that thing, and stick with sources that know what they're talking about: real, published lexicons and textbooks.
I don't see where they are complex prepositions.
read the textbook, or the examples above.
I do not find ביד translated 'by' or 'through' in the Torah. This is the first example of a complex preposition on page 189.
The noun יד is 'hand'
quote:
וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוּדָה אֶת־גְּדִי הָֽעִזִּים בְּיַד רֵעֵהוּ
-- Genesis 38:20
ביד would be translated 'in the hand' It is found in the Torah 1 time, Leviticus 25:28 and is found in the OT another 20 times.
search harder. the example i gave was not leviticus 25:28.
The second example בתוך is a independent preposition.
try again. the root is תוך and it's a noun.
Some textbook.
yes, it is. just because you don't understand something, or you disagree with something, doesn't mean it isn't a good source. considering the sources you've chosen to disagree with, and the sources you've misunderstood, i think it might actually be an indication that it is a good source. BDB, every lexicon i can throw at you, this textbook, rashi, orlinsky... the list goes on. all of these experts must be idiots, because they don't realize that moses wrote like a fourth grader. their years of study and expertise is getting in the way, obviously.
i think perhaps you should consider the alternative: you're a crank, and you don't know what you're talking about. and the people that devote many years of their lives to studying something full-time probably know a fair more about it than you do.
The first example on page 189 is not used in the Torah for by or through but it is used as a noun with a prefix translated 'in the hand'.
"in the hand of". it's always used in construct. it's a complex preposition, and meaningless without an absolute to modify.
The example given on page 221 is the same as the second one on page 189.
actually, it's not.
Yes I know independent and inseperable prepositions can turn a verb into an infinitive.
I just don't see a noun with a prefix turning a following verb into a infinitive.
There is no evidence to support such action.
seeing evidence requires you to open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears. it's hard to learn anything if you insist on shouting "LALALALALALALALALAALA!" at the top of your lungs. you have to listen, and read your sources. and not think they're all lying to you in some kind of conspiracy.
in any case, as demonstrated above, those examples are all nouns that have been modified into independent prepositions.




nounprepositionexample
פניםלפנילִפְנֵי הָֽאֱלֹהִים (gen 6:11)
תוךבתוךבְּתֹוךְ הַמָּיִם (gen 1:6)
יוםביוםבְּיֹום עֲשֹׂות יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים (gen 2:4)
ידבידבְּיַד רֵעֵהוּ (gen 38:20)
arachnophilia writes:
the argument is that infinitive constructs sometimes follow complex prepositions.
So now we move the goalposts.
...no, that's been the argument for quite some time. for instance, in Message 178, i had reference about a dozen quotes showing you that were misrepresenting my argument. this was, like, five pages ago. one of those quotes references Message 76, in which i say,
quote:
the preposition is really the key -- beginning a sentence with a preposition opens a dependent clause.
this is 14 pages ago. in Message 189, i provide a quote that says,
quote:
the infinitive construct of ברא is preceded by a separate prepositional phrase that acts like the preposition attached to the infinitive construct.
this is 7 pages ago. this is what i mean when i say that i really think you aren't reading. you consistently misrepresent the argument, fail to understand what i write, and contradict your own chosen sources. the fact that you are just getting with the program now, and suddenly understanding what my argument actually is does not mean that i'm moving the goalposts. it means that you're kind of slow on the uptake.
But I have just blown a hole in all your complex prepositions above.
no, you've shown your baldfaced and arrogant ignorance, thinking you know better than experts. if you do this to your medical doctors, it's a wonder the common cold hasn't killed you yet.
arachnophilia writes:
not even in the section on complex prepositions?
Not one that is used in the Torah.
again, you fail. you'll notice that not only are all the examples i have given from the torah, but they're all from genesis as well. you'll have to go back more than a few pages to find examples from exodus. this is an arbitrary restriction i've set myself, just for extra fun.
Unless they are refering to independent prepositions that have been created from nouns.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNAR FOLKS!

that is precisely what complex prepositions are. (generally construct) nouns that have been turned into prepositions.
Because they give themselvs as their roots. ... You give a independent preposition as a complex preposition when:
לפני is a preposition 'before' from the root לפני
as covered above, both strongs/gesenius and BDB list them according to their nouns. your crappy software, however, may not.
A textbook that has more problems than Carter has got liver pills.
They are taking independent prepositions which have been independent prepositions for over 50 years and making them into complex prepositions.
So no you have not nor will you ever present a noun with a beit on it turning the following verb into a infinitive construct.
just because you are willfully ignorant, and want to think the textbook is wrong, does not mean i haven't presented a textbook that says exactly what you're asking for.
Well you are the one who keeps presenting evidence that turns out to not be evidence which you don't understand or ever checked out.
i find it terribly amusing when people offer critiques of other that best applies to themselves. shall we list all the times you've chosen to disagree with a source? i'll go through the thread and compile a list if you're really interested.
So now we are going to argue because there are many cases where ראשית
is in the construct it has to be in the construct in Genesis 1:1.
not "has to be" but "probably is". and this is not "now". this is 2007, Message 1. it's the argument in the OP. it should not be a surprise at this point.
The problem with that is in all the other texts it has a noun immediately behind it putting it in the construct.
okay, that's great. infinitives are also nouns. where's the problem?
Unless you can find a rule that states that a noun with a beit prefix turns the following verb into a infinitive construct you are up the creek without a paddle.
no no, a preposition acting on a verb turns it into an infinitive. the ב placed onto a construct noun, such as ראשית, turns it into a preposition. that preposition turns the verb into an infinitive. i gave you the following examples in Message 270,
quote:
quote:
בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים
"in the day of the making of yahweh elohim"
-- genesis 2:4b
quote:
בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְכֶם
"in the day of your eating"
-- genesis 2:17, genesis 3:5
quote:
בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים
"in the day of the creating of god"
-- genesis 5:1
quote:
לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת יְהוָה
"before the destroying of yahweh"
-- genesis 13:10
quote:
אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ
"after his begetting"
-- genesis 5:7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 30, also through 11, and every other genealogy

you then, extremely ignorantly, argued from translations and didn't bother to look up in a concordance what forms the verbs were actually in: they're all infinitive (constructs).
arachnophilia writes:
generally, a ב prefix.
So when in front of a noun it would normally be translated 'in the'.
Is that correct.
or "in" but that would depend on the vowels you're ignoring. in any case, as covered above, a lot of those prepositions have much more literal, mechanical renderings, based on their roots. the preposition לפני, which you incorrectly said above is it's own root, is the noun פנים (face) and the preposition ל (to), literally "to the face". however, the best translation is generally "before", and it's used to mean both "in the presence of" (gen 6:11) and "prior to" (gen 13:10). both of these examples have been used above.
arachnophilia writes:
to mean some abstract concept of how you think the bible was originally written, and seemingly making it up as you go along because you don't understand what was added later and what was not. where biblical hebrew, proper, was written:
Well a lot has changed since I studied Hebrew in the 60's.
arachnophilia writes:
which, of course, is significantly harder to read.
Yes seperating the words and adding verses and chapters helps.
indeed. but this hasn't changed. the "biblical hebrew" you undoubtedly read in class was that of the masoretes, not the bible as written -- as we don't actually have those texts. it's rather pointless to speculate on what they would have said. the text is as we have it, not how we would wish it to be.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by ICANT, posted 04-12-2011 12:39 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2011 1:07 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 292 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2011 1:57 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 288 of 312 (612006)
04-12-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by ICANT
04-12-2011 12:46 AM


Re: "language" and "writing system" are different concepts
ICANT writes:
Well the Biblical Hebrew that is spoken today is only a thousand years old.
biblical hebrew is not spoken today. it's a dead language -- the language spoken today is called modern hebrew. the biblical hebrew you're thinking of, the masoretic, is the only biblical hebrew that exists. you're thinking of some hypothetical version hebrew, of which few inscriptions can even be found. the closest you can get, really, are the DSS. but even those weren't written entirely the way the bible originally was.
The Bible was written in Ancient Biblical Hebrew that has not been spoken for 3000 years.
So I guess you are right about them being different systems.
you're still not understanding. punch "ancient hebrew" into wikipedia. it'll give you a page like this:
quote:
Ancient Hebrew (ISO 639-3 code hbo) is a blanket term for varieties of the Hebrew language used in ancient times. It can be divided into:
  • Paleo-Hebrew (such as the Siloam inscription)
  • Biblical Hebrew (including the use of Tiberian vocalization)
  • Mishnaic Hebrew
  • Medieval Hebrew
Ancient Hebrew language - Wikipedia
"paleo-hebrew" takes you here:
quote:
The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: כתב עברי עתיק‎), is an abjad offshoot of the ancient Semitic alphabet, identical to the Phoenician alphabet. At the very least it dates to the 10th century BCE. It was used as the main vehicle for writing the Hebrew language by the Israelites, both Jews and Samaritans.
Paleo-Hebrew alphabet - Wikipedia
notice that it says paleo-hebrew is an alphabet that was used to write the hebrew language. "biblical hebrew" takes you here:
quote:
Biblical Hebrew, also called Classical Hebrew, is the archaic form of the Hebrew language, spoken by the Hebrews/Israelites The most notable text in Biblical Hebrew is the Hebrew Bible; in addition, various Israelite inscriptions have also been found. The language is attested from the 10th century BCE to the late Second Temple period, after which the language developed into Mishnaic Hebrew.
Biblical Hebrew - Wikipedia
notice that it says language, and that the periods coincide. ie: the biblical hebrew language was written in the paleo-hebrew script for most of the OT period.
And everyone today trying to apply today's Hebrew rules to the Ancient Biblical Hebrew is what causes the problems.
no. modern hebrew is different. we're applying the rules of biblical hebrew to biblical hebrew. you just don't want to believe that those are the rules of biblical hebrew. you'll note, if you follow the wiki around a bit, that the rules of modern are completely different. ie:
quote:
Biblical Hebrew is a VSO language with a tense-aspect-mood system
Biblical Hebrew - Wikipedia
vs.
quote:
Most but not all Hebrew sentences have a subject as well as a verb, and possibly other arguments and complements. In this case, the word order is usually Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), as in English
Hebrew language - Wikipedia
in other words, the languages don't even follow the same word order. modern hebrew uses sentence structurs much more similar to english.
Edited by arachnophilia, : smiley face

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by ICANT, posted 04-12-2011 12:46 AM ICANT has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 289 of 312 (612015)
04-12-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by ICANT
04-12-2011 1:15 AM


Re: "language" and "writing system" are different concepts
ICANT writes:
Well you keep asserting the Bible was written in paleo-hebrew.
as i just explained in the post above, it probably was. you still don't seem adequately grasp the difference between the paleo-hebrew script and the biblical hebrew language.
so let me give you another example.
quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
bereshit bara elohim et ha-shamim v'et ha-aretz
these two are the same language: biblical hebrew. but they are in different writing systems: the first is in modern/masoretic/aramaic hebrew script, the other is in latin script. same language, different writing systems. now,
quote:
bereshit bara elohim et ha-shamim v'et ha-aretz
when god began creating the heaven and the earth
these two are in the script: latin. but they are in different languages: the first is in biblical hebrew, and the second is in english.
so, in other words, the torah was written in the biblical hebrew language and the paleo-hebrew writing system. do you understand this yet? i honestly can't believe we have to go over something this rudimentary so very many times.
arachnophilia writes:
mythology is not relevant to this thread.
Well excuse me I thought we were talking about things that are recorded in the Bible. The tower of babel was recorded in the Bible, just like Genesis 1:1.
correct. and we talking about what the bible says not how to interpret it.
Oh I forgot you think the whole thing is mythology.
Then why waste your time arguing about what the text says?
well, a) i didn't say that, and b) perhaps i think it's interesting. i think it's extremely insulting that you can't see any value or beauty in the text other than as a dry and boring statement of fact.
arachnaphilia writes:
okay. since you don't have a lexicon from 1500 BC, you have no way of knowing what the word mean, either.
That was the reason the author of the Torah used the writing system that had the ox head and parts of the tent, body parts and tools to write the text in. Each symbol had a specific meaning.
no, the words have meaning, and that meaning is not constructed from original symbolic meaning of the individual characters. perhaps you have better look up phonetic and adjab alphabets. for an example, let's look at a specific word:
אלהים
א = "ox"
ל = "crook"
ה = "fence"
י = "arm/hand"
ם = "water"
okay, now, how do we add this all up to get "god"?
Well I have what they say they mean. I also have studied Ancient Biblical Hebrew and know what the symbols mean so I don't have to totaly depend on what the scholars say.
you're heading more steadily into crank territory.
arachnophilia writes:
"word order" is called "grammar" genius. or rather, part of grammar.
That is what we call it. They called it word order.
they probably didn't call it anything. that doesn't mean they didn't use grammar.
arachnophilia writes:
i find your paranoid delusions and lunatic ramblings insulting, blasphemous, and just downright ignorant. they aren't funny any more. please take your idiotic nonsense somewhere else. you're a crank, and this is getting old.
Now we get to standard atheist argumentation.
yes, i accused you of blasphemy because i'm an atheist. want to try that one again?
If you can't win the argument by arguing the message use the standard insult the person, tell them how stupid they are and what an idiot they are. I think that is against the rules but I could be mistaken as it is standard operating procedure here.
there is no winning arguments. and i can't convince you of basic points -- that your chosen sources aren't all conspiring against you, that scholars don't make things up wholesale, that the experts in a chosen field probably know what they're talking about. this is not an insult, it's a statement of fact. your arguments are precisely the kind of arguments that conspiracy theorists and cranks make. that makes you a crank.
this isn't name-calling in place of an argument. this is 20-pages of argumentation, a large portion of which is repeating the same basic points, citing respected sources you disagree with, citing sources you supposedly do agree with, and explaining very rudimentary remedial points in something you claim to have studied but probably have not. all while you are continually appealing to religious traditions (many of which are your own, and not generally founded in actual, establish traditions), and just plain failure to grasp the obvious. we've gotten off-track discussing things that shouldn't even need to be discussed, like well established points of grammar, because you don't believe those things even exist.
no, this is a statement of fact, after much evidence has been contributed. you're a crank. you don't know anything, and yet you persist in arguing about things you do not understand. you stick to your points even when conclusively proven wrong. you insist that no evidence has been submitted because you fail, probably willfully, to understand the evidence. these are all things that a crank does -- and it is no longer worth arguing these points with you, over and over and over again.
so perhaps instead of continually responding to your nonsense, i will simply link you to the message where your nonsense has already been answered, or simply reply, "look it up."
Do you know anybody today in America that can not read or write?
i'm not convinced that you can read, no.
There are a lot of them out there, why do they exist in this modern age.
And no I don't think the authors were stupid idiots. I do believe they were not nearly as advanced as we are today.
But you think differently, you think their writing system was just as complicated as ours today.
That shows your ignorance.
again, you have repeatedly shown your ignorance of the language. your ignorance is not an argument for the simplicity of the language. it just means you're ignorant of more complicated grammar.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by ICANT, posted 04-12-2011 1:15 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2011 2:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 290 of 312 (612085)
04-13-2011 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by arachnophilia
04-12-2011 5:01 PM


Re: self-contradiction, short memory, lack of reading ability getting very tiresome
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
your former hebrew professor said complex prepositions don't exist?
That was not the question I asked.
I asked was there a rule that a beit prefix on a noun would turn the following verb into an infinitive construct.
arachnophilia writes:
Well it is not a noun. It is not a verb and it is not a preposition.
try again. פנים is a noun, frequently found in construct as פני. for example,
quote:
וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהֹום
-- Genesis 1:2
I was wrong פני is a verb Piel Sing. Fem. imperfect.
In your example from Genesis 1:2 there is a prefix on the verb פני that makes it an infinitive construct.
פני is a verb from the root פנה.
Yes פנים is a noun that is formed from the verb root פנה.
Sorry about the lamed I am going to have to stop typing so late, actually early in the morning.
arachnophilia writes:
and the root is the noun פנים. you'll find that this is how it's listed in strong's concordance and gesenius's lexicon. BDB (pgs 815-817) lists it under פנה, the noun section (not the verb section), and describes in terms of prepositions.
I find on page 816 Part II פני with Prepositions.
#2 is with a stand alone preposition.
#3 is with a inseperable beit.
#4 is with a inseperable lamed.
The preposition does not come from the Noun but from the verb.
arachnophilia writes:
search harder. the example i gave was not leviticus 25:28.
They did translate your example with by but the beit does not mean by.
arachnophilia writes:
"in the hand of". it's always used in construct. it's a complex preposition, and meaningless without an absolute to modify.
So it is a noun with a prefix that is followed by a noun that places it in the construct in your example.
The preposition has nothing to do with placing the noun on which it is inseperable in the construct. That is performed by the following noun in the absolute.
So what was your point.
arachnophilia writes:
in any case, as demonstrated above, those examples are all nouns that have been modified into independent prepositions.




nounprepositionexample
פניםלפנילִפְנֵי הָֽאֱלֹהִים (gen 6:11)
תוךבתוךבְּתֹוךְ הַמָּיִם (gen 1:6)
יוםביוםבְּיֹום עֲשֹׂות יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים (gen 2:4)
ידבידבְּיַד רֵעֵהוּ (gen 38:20)
VERB                                 PREPOSITION
        לפני                                        פני
The first example is a verb from a verb root with a lamed prefix placing the verb in the infinitive construct followed by a noun.
The second example is a noun with a beit prefix followed by a noun in the absolute.
The third example is a noun with a beit prefix followed by a verb.
The beit on the noun does not make the verb an infinitive construct.
Translation 'in the day the Lord God made
The fourth example is a noun with a beit prefix followed by a noun in the absolute.
arachnophilia writes:
this is 7 pages ago. this is what i mean when i say that i really think you aren't reading. you consistently misrepresent the argument, fail to understand what i write, and contradict your own chosen sources. the fact that you are just getting with the program now, and suddenly understanding what my argument actually is does not mean that i'm moving the goalposts. it means that you're kind of slow on the uptake.
Ok not a problem as we are back to בראשית being a preposition because it has a prefix on it so it has to modify the verb
ברא.
The problem with that is I have been asking you for a rule that says the beit on a noun will modify itself into a construct or modify the verb that follows the noun.
You have just given 4 examples you as evidence for such action but they all fail, in fact only one of them is followed by a verb.
arachnophilia writes:
that is precisely what complex prepositions are. (generally construct) nouns that have been turned into prepositions.
Lets see now a noun turned into a preposition is no longer a noun as it is a preposition.
Just like a verb that is turned into a noun is no longer a noun.
בראשית is a noun with a prefix and is listed as a noun it is not listed as a preposition. In other words the beit does not turn the noun into a preposition.
Now if you can find that rule and a textbook example stating the beit on a noun turns the noun into a preposition that will be a different story.
The only examples you have given of a prefix turning a word into a preposition the word was a verb.
arachnophilia writes:
just because you are willfully ignorant, and want to think the textbook is wrong, does not mean i haven't presented a textbook that says exactly what you're asking for.
I did qualify my statement with an unless.....
arachnophilia writes:
not "has to be" but "probably is". and this is not "now". this is 2007, Message 1. it's the argument in the OP. it should not be a surprise at this point.
Well all those places that it is in the construct it is followed by a noun in the absolute except the few times it in the absolute following another noun.
There is no noun in Genesis 1:1 following בראשית to place it in the construct so it can't be in the construct.
ברא is not a noun.
arachnophilia writes:
okay, that's great. infinitives are also nouns. where's the problem?
ברא is not an infinitive.
arachnophilia writes:
no no, a preposition acting on a verb turns it into an infinitive. the ב placed onto a construct noun, such as ראשית, turns it into a preposition. that preposition turns the verb into an infinitive. i gave you the following examples in Message 270,
What makes the noun a construct noun that the prefix is placed on?
So you are going to back up one assertion with another assertion.
I don't think so.
SO NO, as I have asked for a textbook statement that a beit turns a noun into a preposition with an example without which you ain't got a preposition as the first word in Genesis 1:1 is listed as a noun. No place can I find it listed as a preposition except in your messages.
I can find all the prepositions that was created from nouns except
ראשית, does not show up anywhere as a preposition.
Are you now arguing that any noun that has a prefix automatically becomes a preposition?
Stoping for tonight.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by arachnophilia, posted 04-12-2011 5:01 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 12:25 PM ICANT has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 291 of 312 (612133)
04-13-2011 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by ICANT
04-13-2011 1:07 AM


Re: self-contradiction, short memory, lack of reading ability getting very tiresome
ICANT writes:
arachnophilia writes:
your former hebrew professor said complex prepositions don't exist?
That was not the question I asked.
I asked was there a rule that a beit prefix on a noun would turn the following verb into an infinitive construct.
perhaps that should have been the question you asked. you make up a strawman that sounds ridiculous, and he tells you it's ridiculous. go figure. instead, you should ask if there are preposition that have roots that are nouns, and if they can make verbs into infinitive. but to do that, you'd actually have to understand the argument.
I was wrong פני is a verb Piel Sing. Fem. imperfect.
In your example from Genesis 1:2 there is a prefix on the verb פני that makes it an infinitive construct.
פני is a verb from the root פנה.
Yes פנים is a noun that is formed from the verb root פנה.
no, look it up again. i gave you a concordance/lexicon, and i gave you the reference in BDB. it is not a verb in that sentence.
I find on page 816 Part II פני with Prepositions.
#2 is with a stand alone preposition.
#3 is with a inseperable beit.
#4 is with a inseperable lamed.
The preposition does not come from the Noun but from the verb.
no, that's dumb. the noun comes from the verb. the preposition comes from the noun. there are no rules that turn a verb into a preposition with prefixes -- that'd be the same way you construct an infinitive; nouns.
They did translate your example with by but the beit does not mean by.
why do you think i care how they translated it? we're not discussing english; we're discussing hebrew. and there's the word you were looking for, being used as a preposition, in hebrew.
So what was your point.
read the thread again. i'm not bothering with this nonsense anymore.
VERB                                 PREPOSITION
        לפני                                        פני
The first example is a verb from a verb root with a lamed prefix placing the verb in the infinitive construct followed by a noun.
wrong.
The second example is a noun with a beit prefix followed by a noun in the absolute.
acting as a preposition. this was an example from the textbook.
The third example is a noun with a beit prefix followed by a verb.
acting as a preposition, and followed by a noun, because infinitives are nouns as well as verbs. this means the case is exactly the same as above.
The beit on the noun does not make the verb an infinitive construct.
okay, then please explain why the verb is an infinitive construct.
Translation 'in the day the Lord God made
"in the day of yahweh god's making". please consult your lexicon. any of the lexicons i have linked to, and BDB, will tell you that this verb is an infinitive, and functions as a noun. i am getting really tired of repeating this, simply because you don't understand the difference between how the grammar functions in hebrew and what it says in english.
The fourth example is a noun with a beit prefix followed by a noun in the absolute.
acting as a preposition. this was an example from the textbook. you're just going to have to accept that this is what it's talking about. i don't care that you're a crank, and that you can't understand this, and you don't want to accept what anyone who doesn't think that moses was a third grader says. you're wrong, get over it.
Ok not a problem as we are back to בראשית being a preposition because it has a prefix on it so it has to modify the verb
ברא.
The problem with that is I have been asking you for a rule that says the beit on a noun will modify itself into a construct or modify the verb that follows the noun.
and it has been give to you repeatedly. i'm not wasting my time directing you back to this very thread anymore. look it up, reread the thread, and think about it harder.
You have just given 4 examples you as evidence for such action but they all fail, in fact only one of them is followed by a verb.
the examples don't fail. you fail to understand them. i have given you precisely what you asked for, and you reject it, because you're a crank.
Lets see now a noun turned into a preposition is no longer a noun as it is a preposition.
Just like a verb that is turned into a noun is no longer a noun.
בראשית is a noun with a prefix and is listed as a noun it is not listed as a preposition. In other words the beit does not turn the noun into a preposition.
you'll find it's listed without the ב. just like לפני is listed as a noun with the ל. because without out the prefix, they are nouns.
Now if you can find that rule and a textbook example stating the beit on a noun turns the noun into a preposition that will be a different story.
i did. but you're a crank, and don't accept when your demands are actually fulfilled. go back and read the thread again.
The only examples you have given of a prefix turning a word into a preposition the word was a verb.
wrong.
Well all those places that it is in the construct it is followed by a noun in the absolute except the few times it in the absolute following another noun.
There is no noun in Genesis 1:1 following בראשית to place it in the construct so it can't be in the construct.
the noun is an infinitive verb.
ברא is not a noun.
it is in genesis 2:4, 5:1, and 5:2, all in clauses that are grammatically identical.
ברא is not an infinitive.
it is in genesis 2:4, 5:1, and 5:2, all in clauses that are grammatically identical.
the fact that you keep arguing this point, even though every one of your own sources disagrees with you, means you're a crank. you've been shown that BDB disagrees with you, that the sources you plagiarized from disagrees with you, that even creationist sources disagree with you. you're wrong, and you can't accept it, because you're a crank.
What makes the noun a construct noun that the prefix is placed on?
form. as stated in the OP, it's the difference between ראשונה and ראשית. or, more recently, between פנים and פני.
SO NO, as I have asked for a textbook statement that a beit turns a noun into a preposition with an example without which you ain't got a preposition as the first word in Genesis 1:1 is listed as a noun.
yes, and i as pointed out, all of those complex prepositions listed in the textbook are constructed from nouns in precisely the same manner.
No place can I find it listed as a preposition except in your messages.
perhaps. it's kind of hard to sift through all the other cranks on the internet, because everyone and their mother wants to say something about genesis 1:1.
Are you now arguing that any noun that has a prefix automatically becomes a preposition?
no. just certain nouns that relate to things like position, or time -- the sort of things that prepositions generally handle. to give you an english analogy:
"top" is a noun. "on top of" is a prepositional phrase.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2011 1:07 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2011 5:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 292 of 312 (612147)
04-13-2011 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by arachnophilia
04-12-2011 5:01 PM


Re: self-contradiction, short memory, lack of reading ability getting very tiresome
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
no no, a preposition acting on a verb turns it into an infinitive. the ב placed onto a construct noun, such as , turns it into a preposition. that preposition turns the verb into an infinitive. i gave you the following examples in Message 270,
Yes I know you keep asserting many things.
The problem is you have no support for your assertions.
arachnophilia writes:
quote:
בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים
"in the day of the making of yahweh elohim"
-- genesis 2:4b
quote:
בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְכֶם
"in the day of your eating"
-- genesis 2:17, genesis 3:5
quote:
בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים
"in the day of the creating of god"
-- genesis 5:1
בְּיוֹם, is listed nowhere as a preposition.
arachnophilia writes:
quote:
לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת יְהוָה
"before the destroying of yahweh"
-- genesis 13:10
לִפְנֵי is a preposition which means 'before' derived from the verb פנה.
This preposition is followed by a verb it is explanatory of, which is followed by the subject of the verb.
Which does not support your translation.
arachnophilia writes:
quote:
אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ
"after his begetting"
-- genesis 5:7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 30, also through 11, and every other genealogy
Here you have the preposition 'after' followed by the sing. masc. Hifil verb הולידו derived from the verb ;ילד.
The Masoretes have made seven verbs that is like the preposition by using different vowels.
What is this supposed to be an example of?

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by arachnophilia, posted 04-12-2011 5:01 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 4:06 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 293 of 312 (612154)
04-13-2011 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by arachnophilia
04-12-2011 5:51 PM


Re: "language" and "writing system" are different concepts
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
so, in other words, the torah was written in the biblical hebrew language and the paleo-hebrew writing system. do you understand this yet?
Nope I don't understand how the Torah was originally written in paleo-hebrew when it was written 500 years before paleo-hebrew began to exist.
arachnophilia writes:
well, a) i didn't say that, and b) perhaps i think it's interesting. i think it's extremely insulting that you can't see any value or beauty in the text other than as a dry and boring statement of fact.
On the contrary. I think it is the most fasinating book I have ever read. It tells me where I came from, why I am here, and where I am going.
It tells me how this marvelous universe got here.
It has some fasinating poetry in it.
It has history recorded that we can find no where else.
It also has some of the dullest reading I have ever tried to read. Have you ever tried to read all the begats in the Torah?
arachnophilia writes:
okay, now, how do we add this all up to get "god"?
Ah but all the symbols had sounds including the ox which became the alef. The sound of the ox was not silent as alef is silent today. It was pronounced.
arachnophilia writes:
you're ignorant of more complicated grammar.
So how did the author of the Torah have the knowledge of all this complicated grammer you keep talking about?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by arachnophilia, posted 04-12-2011 5:51 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 4:21 PM ICANT has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 294 of 312 (612168)
04-13-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by ICANT
04-13-2011 1:57 PM


all of this has been addressed already. repeatedly.
ICANT writes:
Yes I know you keep asserting many things.
The problem is you have no support for your assertions.
no, the problem is that you're a crank, and don't believe any of the support, even when someone provides precisely what you're looking for. you just go on claiming your strawmen, denying evidence, and rambling against even your own chosen sources as if this someone refuted the experts. these are behaviours of a cranks. you are a crank; no evidence will ever be good enough for you. you'll just go right on believing what you want to believe.
בְּיוֹם, is listed nowhere as a preposition.
Message 189, seven pages ago.
quote:
Genesis 5:1—2
זֶה סֵפֶר, תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם: בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בְּרָאָם; וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמָם אָדָם, בְּיוֹם, הִבָּרְאָם
This is the book of the Genealogy of Adam when God created him. In the likeness of God he made him. Male and female he created them and blessed them, and he called their name Adam, when he created them.
These two verses have particular bearing on the proper interpretation of Genesis 2:4. Both times that בְּיוֹם (bəym) occurs in Genesis 5:1—2, it has the same grammatical structure as in Genesis 2:4. בְּיוֹם precedes an infinitive construct without an intervening preposition. In 5:1, the infinitive construct is the verb ברא (br’, "to create") in the qal. ברא only occurs in the infinitive construct six times in the Old Testament: four times in the niphal, once in the hiphil, and here in the qal. Four times (Gen. 5:1, 5:2; Ezek.28:13, 15) the infinitive construct of ברא is preceded by a separate prepositional phrase that acts like the preposition attached to the infinitive construct. Three times it is the prepositional phrase בְּיוֹם. (bəym) while Ezekiel 28:15 uses מִיּוֹם ((miyym) "when"). In each of these instances, the grammatical collocation functions to denote "when" not "in/from the day."
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_119-122.pdf
לִפְנֵי is a preposition which means 'before' derived from the verb פנה.
derived from the noun. the noun is, in turn, derived form the verb. i realize that this is confusing to someone who is so easily confused by parts of speech and, well, letters. but it's important.
This preposition is followed by a verb it is explanatory of, which is followed by the subject of the verb.
Which does not support your translation.
it's a prepositional prefix, followed by a construct noun, followed by an infinitive. look:
object(s)subj.inf.n.prep.verse
אֶת־סְדֹם וְאֶת־עֲמֹרָהיְהוָהשַׁחֵתפְנֵי-לִGen. 13:10
אָדָםאֱלֹהִיםבְּרֹאיֹום-בְּGen. 5:1
אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץאֱלֹהִיםבָּרָארֵאשִׁית-בְּGen 1:1
arachnophilia writes:
quote:
אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ
"after his begetting"
-- genesis 5:7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 30, also through 11, and every other genealogy
Here you have the preposition 'after' followed by the sing. masc. Hifil verb הולידו derived from the verb ;ילד.
The Masoretes have made seven verbs that is like the preposition by using different vowels.
What is this supposed to be an example of?
an infinitive following a preposition. it's not quite the same form as above. but it's the same basic rule.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2011 1:57 PM ICANT has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 295 of 312 (612170)
04-13-2011 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by ICANT
04-13-2011 2:24 PM


a fascinating bore
ICANT writes:
Nope I don't understand how the Torah was originally written in paleo-hebrew when it was written 500 years before paleo-hebrew began to exist.
the links are talking about definite dates, based on actual samples of the writing. we don't have a torah manuscript that was written in the 15th century BC. we have several that were written much later. and many internal hints that there likely wasn't a torah in the 15th century BC, but that is not a topic for this thread. you will have to take the dating concerns elsewhere.
arachnophilia writes:
well, a) i didn't say that, and b) perhaps i think it's interesting. i think it's extremely insulting that you can't see any value or beauty in the text other than as a dry and boring statement of fact.
On the contrary. I think it is the most fasinating book I have ever read. It tells me where I came from, why I am here, and where I am going.
...at a kindergarten level. perhaps then, this is really a statement about you, that you think something was written by kindergartners and is fascinating.
It has some fasinating poetry in it.
all of which you've denied.
It also has some of the dullest reading I have ever tried to read. Have you ever tried to read all the begats in the Torah?
ahem, i believe i've actually referred to them in this thread. so, yes. yes i have. and i've read the entirety of the mosaic law, as well. i think they're both fascinating -- to try to understand genesis without understanding the ethnographic history of the jewish people is to not have understood genesis. there is a very valid reason those parts are there, and it's not simply to bore you. the genealogies trace the history of the jewish people back to god, and describe the relationships between them and all of their closest neighbours. and they provide important context for the etiological stories found in the rest of the book -- which in turn provides the context and rationale for the necessity of the law. and why the law is a blessing.
most christians i run into, and indeed i myself at some point in my history, have a "lol this is dumb, can i flip ahead to the jesus part yet?" mentality regarding most of the old testament, and especially the two sections you describe. this leads to ignoring those parts, and not fully understanding them. this admission is the surest sign of a shoddy biblical scholar.
arachnophilia writes:
okay, now, how do we add this all up to get "god"?
Ah but all the symbols had sounds including the ox which became the alef. The sound of the ox was not silent as alef is silent today. It was pronounced.
oh, okay, so it was phonetic, like i've said all along. like i said, perhaps you had better look up these terms, because you don't seem to understand what they mean.
and no, the alef is not silent today unless you are ashkenazi. it is pronounced as a glottal stop, which is not silent.
So how did the author of the Torah have the knowledge of all this complicated grammer you keep talking about?
the author of the torah used this grammar. he may not have been able to explain all of the rules, but that is irrelevant. we are only looking at what is on paper, and what is on paper uses those rules.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2011 2:24 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2011 5:12 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 296 of 312 (612172)
04-13-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by arachnophilia
04-13-2011 12:25 PM


Re: self-contradiction, short memory, lack of reading ability getting very tiresome
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
no, look it up again. i gave you a concordance/lexicon, and i gave you the reference in BDB. it is not a verb in that sentence.
Where did I say it was a verb in the sentence used.
I said it was a verb that had a prefix that turned it into an infinitive construct.
arachnophilia writes:
no, that's dumb. the noun comes from the verb. the preposition comes from the noun. there are no rules that turn a verb into a preposition with prefixes --
But you create a infinitive construct by placing a inseperable prefix on a verb or a stand alone preposition in front of the verb.
You do not make an infinitive construct by placing a prefix on a noun and neither do you create a preposition out of a noun by placing a prefix on the noun.
If you disagree give me the page I can find the rule that a prefix on a noun turns the noun into a perposition.
The textbook you referenced says there are two types of infinitives, construct and absolute.
It then makes the statement the infinitive construct can be used without a preposition.
Well until all the rules were rewritten there was only two types of verbs. Perfect and imperfect.
Everything else has been invented.
But the textbook goes on to say "the most frequent use of the infinitive construct is with prepositions especially ב, כ and ל".
So without a prefix what constitutes a infinitive?
It is not derived from the text that preceeded the Masorete vowel pointings.
arachnophilia writes:
acting as a preposition. this was an example from the textbook.
It doesn't make any difference where it came from the first noun is in the construct to the following noun in the absolute.
You still have not produced the rule that a prefix turns a noun into a perposition. Until then it is a noun with a prefix.
Textbooks have been known to be wrong. The fellow that wrote this book does have an agenda. I have other writings of his.
arachnophilia writes:
acting as a preposition, and followed by a noun, because infinitives are nouns as well as verbs. this means the case is exactly the same as above.
You still have not produced the rule that a prefix turns a noun into a perposition. Until then it is a noun with a prefix.
arachnophilia writes:
okay, then please explain why the verb is an infinitive construct.
Because you want it to be so you believe it is. There is no other reason.
arachnophilia writes:
you'll find it's listed without the ב. just like לפני is listed as a noun with the ל. because without out the prefix, they are nouns.
If you take the ל from לפני you have פני which is a verb.
בראשית is a noun with the ב prefix. Take the ב away and you have ראשית a noun.
But you will find nowhere בראשית is listed as a preposition.
arachnophia writes:
form. as stated in the OP, it's the difference between ראשונה and ראשית.
So the word used in Genesis 1:1 means in the beginning and there is a big difference that and a number.
arachnophilia writes:
the noun is an infinitive verb.
Yes I understand you keep asserting that.
arachnophilia writes:
it is in genesis 2:4, 5:1, and 5:2, all in clauses that are grammatically identical.
Yes I know you keep asserting that.
arachnophilia writes:
no. just certain nouns that relate to things like position, or time -- the sort of things that prepositions generally handle. to give you an english analogy:
Could you present the rule from a textbook that says that the beit prefix on a noun such as day turns that noun into a preposition.
arachnophilia writes:
"top" is a noun. "on top of" is a prepositional phrase.
ראש is a noun summit and בראש is a noun with a beit prefix 'On the summit'.
Unless you present the rule from a textbook that says that the beit prefix on a noun such as summit turns that noun into a preposition.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 12:25 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 5:42 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 297 of 312 (612174)
04-13-2011 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by arachnophilia
04-13-2011 4:21 PM


Re: a fascinating bore
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
the author of the torah used this grammar. he may not have been able to explain all of the rules, but that is irrelevant. we are only looking at what is on paper, and what is on paper uses those rules.
Well the problem is you won't consider anything that is over 1200 years old.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 4:21 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 5:47 PM ICANT has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 298 of 312 (612180)
04-13-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by ICANT
04-13-2011 5:07 PM


לפני
ICANT writes:
Where did I say it was a verb in the sentence used.
I said it was a verb that had a prefix that turned it into an infinitive construct.
that' still dumb. it's not an infinitive in the sentence. it's a complex preposition.
But you create a infinitive construct by placing a inseperable prefix on a verb or a stand alone preposition in front of the verb.
it's the preposition, not the verb.
there is a verb פנה. notice the three letter root. this is important. there is also a noun, פנים. this noun does not occur in the singular form, which would be identical to the verb. unless verb is qal 3mp, that's how you tell them apart. i realize that since you routinely mix up letters, making a distinction based on a single letter is going to be difficult. but please try.
פנים is a dual noun, because it is one of those concepts that doesn't exist in a proper easily definable singular case, much like מים, שמים, and אלהים.
dropping the final mem, פני signifies that the noun is in construct. this is standard form for construct nouns. for instance, פְּנֵי תְהֹום in gen 1:2. you can see other nouns that actually are plural do similar things. for instance, הָרֵי אֲרָרָֽט in gen 8:4, the word being הרים, the plural of הר, "mountain". it is a construct noun.
adding a prepositional prefix, such as ל, to a construct noun turn it into a preposition.
You do not make an infinitive construct by placing a prefix on a noun and neither do you create a preposition out of a noun by placing a prefix on the noun.
If you disagree give me the page I can find the rule that a prefix on a noun turns the noun into a perposition.
no. you've been given it time and time again. you're a crank who doesn't agree with textbooks, articles, lexicons, or any other form of evidence, and so there's no point. you're wrong, but you will never acknowledge it, and instead endlessly repeat that i haven't provided evidence that i have.
The textbook you referenced says there are two types of infinitives, construct and absolute.
It then makes the statement the infinitive construct can be used without a preposition.
Well until all the rules were rewritten there was only two types of verbs. Perfect and imperfect.
Everything else has been invented.
no. you're a crank, and you're wrong. you have all kinds of crazy ideas about the authors did or didn't know, nevermind what the evidence actually is. you think everything is some kind of academic conspiracy, where the people who actually study the subject are making things up, while you, the barely-schooled old internet crank, know the real truth. nevermind that you don't even know your alphabet.
But the textbook goes on to say "the most frequent use of the infinitive construct is with prepositions especially ב, כ and ל".
So without a prefix what constitutes a infinitive?

grammatical context!

and verb form.
It is not derived from the text that preceeded the Masorete vowel pointings.
you mean the text we don't have? yeah, that's a good one. but no, none of this is particularly dependent on the vowel points.
It doesn't make any difference where it came from the first noun is in the construct to the following noun in the absolute.
You still have not produced the rule that a prefix turns a noun into a perposition. Until then it is a noun with a prefix.
i have, but you're a crank. you'll have to read the thread again, and determine what you've somehow responded to, but also missed.
Textbooks have been known to be wrong. The fellow that wrote this book does have an agenda. I have other writings of his.
yes, and i happen to know he doesn't support the argument in the OP. however, i think he knows a good deal more about the language than some old internet crank that doesn't even know his alphabet.
You still have not produced the rule that a prefix turns a noun into a perposition. Until then it is a noun with a prefix.
i have, but you're still a crank.
arachnophilia writes:
okay, then please explain why the verb is an infinitive construct.
Because you want it to be so you believe it is. There is no other reason.
okay, so BDB, gesenius, strong, your crank sources, and creationist apologetic websites are all wrong. it's not just me. it's the sources you've chosen, that you are now disagreeing with -- because you're a crank. you cite what you think will support your argument, and then run away from it when you find out it doesn't.
If you take the ל from לפני you have פני which is a verb.
no, it's not. see above. פני and פנה are not the same word. one is spelled with a yud and the other with a hey. this is the difference between "ICANT" and "UCANT". do you understand how different letters make different words, or is this a problem for you too?
בראשית is a noun with the ב prefix. Take the ב away and you have ראשית a noun.
But you will find nowhere בראשית is listed as a preposition.
and you will find nowhere that פנים is listed as a preposition. except that it is. just like "top" is nowhere listed as a preposition, yet "on top of" is a prepositional phrase. adding a few latters changes things.
arachnophia writes:
form. as stated in the OP, it's the difference between ראשונה and ראשית.
So the word used in Genesis 1:1 means in the beginning and there is a big difference that and a number.
ראשונה is not a number. אחד is a number.
arachnophilia writes:
it is in genesis 2:4, 5:1, and 5:2, all in clauses that are grammatically identical.
Yes I know you keep asserting that.
that's not an assertion. look it up. your choice of lexicon this time, since gesenius and BDB already proved you wrong. oh, but i'm sure you'll find some cranky know-nothing source that will vindicate you, like that shitty piece of software you've been using. try to be a real reputable source, this time.
Could you present the rule from a textbook that says that the beit prefix on a noun such as day turns that noun into a preposition.
i have, but you're a crank, and you don't like accepting evidence.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2011 5:07 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by ICANT, posted 04-20-2011 12:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 299 of 312 (612182)
04-13-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by ICANT
04-13-2011 5:12 PM


what thing that is over 1200 years old?
ICANT writes:
Well the problem is you won't consider anything that is over 1200 years old.
i'll be more than happy to, the second you present something that actually is more than 1200 years old.
until then, we would just be debating the imaginations of an internet crank -- you might as well have it say anything you want to, because those documents just don't exist. you are assuming a particular document, of a particular age, in a particular writing system and language, and it just doesn't actually exist in the possession of scholars -- or anywhere known to anyone outside of your imagination.
present your document, and we'll discuss it.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2011 5:12 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 04-20-2011 12:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 300 of 312 (612910)
04-20-2011 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by arachnophilia
04-13-2011 5:42 PM


Re:
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes:
there is a verb פנה. notice the three letter root. this is important. there is also a noun, פנים. this noun does not occur in the singular form, which would be identical to the verb. unless verb is qal 3mp, that's how you tell them apart. i realize that since you routinely mix up letters, making a distinction based on a single letter is going to be difficult. but please try.
OK I will try real hard.
פנים. is a noun derived from the root word פנה. which is a verb.
In Genesis 1:2 you have על־פני two times and both times followed by a noun.
על is a preposition "upon".
פני is a noun plural masculine construct.
מים is a ms3 Pual perfect verb.
שמים is a noun masculine from an unused root.
אלהים is a plural noun masculine from the root אלוה which is noun masculine singular.
arachnophilia writes:
adding a prepositional prefix, such as ל, to a construct noun turn it into a preposition.
I ask again, where is that rule given in a textbook?
You are the only one I can find that makes such an assertion.
arachnophilia writes:
You do not make an infinitive construct by placing a prefix on a noun and neither do you create a preposition out of a noun by placing a prefix on the noun.
If you disagree give me the page I can find the rule that a prefix on a noun turns the noun into a perposition.
no. you've been given it time and time again.
You keep asserting you have presented evidence but I have seen none. Just give me the page number it is on and I will find it myself.
arachnophilia writes:
But the textbook goes on to say "the most frequent use of the infinitive construct is with prepositions especially ב, כ and ל".
So without a prefix what constitutes a infinitive?

grammatical context!

and verb form.
Grammatical context when one noun follows another noun the first is said to be in the construct.
I find no such rule for verbs.
I do find when a verb has a preposition whether it is a inseperable or stand alone the verb is an infinitive.
I don't find where the verb is an infinitive without the preposition.
arachnophilia writes:
It doesn't make any difference where it came from the first noun is in the construct to the following noun in the absolute.
You still have not produced the rule that a prefix turns a noun into a perposition. Until then it is a noun with a prefix.
i have, but you're a crank. you'll have to read the thread again, and determine what you've somehow responded to, but also missed.
I can't find the page number anywhere that has recorded on it that a prefix turns a noun into a preposition.
I do know that a preposition directly infront of or on a noun turns the noun into a prepositional phrase.
That is found on page 68 of an introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Bruce K. Waltke.
arachnophilia writes:
okay, so BDB, gesenius, strong, your crank sources, and creationist apologetic websites are all wrong.
The jury is still out as to whether BDB, Gesenius is wrong. I have found a couple of textbooks from the early 1800's that put forth that const. and abs. verbs was considered the same as perfect and imperfect. So after I have studied it much more and searched for more information I will address the issue again, until then I still have questions as to what they believed const. and abs to be.
arachnophilia writes:
If you take the ל from לפני you have פני which is a verb.
no, it's not. see above. פני and פנה are not the same word. one is spelled with a yud and the other with a hey. this is the difference between "ICANT" and "UCANT". do you understand how different letters make different words, or is this a problem for you too?
So if I take the ל from לפני I will have פנה could you explain how that is possible?
achrachnophilia writes:
But you will find nowhere בראשית is listed as a preposition.
and you will find nowhere that פנים is listed as a preposition. except that it is. just like "top" is nowhere listed as a preposition, yet "on top of" is a prepositional phrase. adding a few latters changes things.
And בראשית is a noun with a prefix that constitutes a Prepositional phrase. But it does not turn the noun into a preposition.
Since the definite article would be absorbed in the prefix the translation would be "In the beginning".
The prepositional phrase is the preposition ב and its object ראשית. page 68
arachnophilia writes:
ראשונה is not a number. אחד is a number.
ראשונה is first which is the Hebrew ordinal number.
אחד is the cardinal number 1.
arachnophilia writes:
that's not an assertion. look it up. your choice of lexicon this time, since gesenius and BDB already proved you wrong. oh, but i'm sure you'll find some cranky know-nothing source that will vindicate you, like that shitty piece of software you've been using. try to be a real reputable source, this time.
Sure it's an assertion to prove the point you are trying to prove.
It is true that all three verses, Genesis 2:4, 5:1 and 5:2 all have ביום
They all have: ב which is a prefix meaning in, on, and with.
They all have יום a noun singular, meaning day.
Since the definite article would be absorbed in the prefix you have a prepositional phrase, "In the day", in all three. So if that is what you are asserting you are correct.
arachnophilia writes:
Could you present the rule from a textbook that says that the beit prefix on a noun such as day turns that noun into a preposition.
i have, but you're a crank, and you don't like accepting evidence.
I can't find the page that makes such a statement. That means you haven't presented one yet.
I do know that a preposition directly infront of or on a noun turns the noun into a prepositional phrase.
That is found on page 68 of an introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Bruce K. Waltke.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 5:42 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by arachnophilia, posted 04-20-2011 1:42 AM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024