|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: arach writes: the translation i gave you is the official translation of the jewish publication society. it's about as authoritative as you can get, as far as jewish translations. quote:http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0101.htm This is a direct quote from the The Hebrew Bible in English according to the JPS 1917 Edition correct, but i'm referring to the 1985 translation which you can now read online here. it begins,
quote: i've read a fair portion of this translation, and it is by far the best i've ever read. i've also read the notes on it, by harry orlinsky, and it is exceptionally well researched. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: There is no reason whatever why anyone would have believed in a Trinity if it weren't that they found it in the Bible. It's in fact awfully hard to persuade people of it so your idea that scriptures were picked to justify a preconceived idea is nonsense,. there was a massive debate until about the end of the fourth century CE. your description above:
quote: kind of gets part of the idea, but isn't really following it through. the trinity was a solution to conflicting texts with conflicting theologies, or just plain confusing christologies (like the gospel of john). it was reactionary to various other theologies that caused the orthodoxy to react negatively, in quite a few different controversies -- some of which are still points of dispute between the orthodox churches (ie: does the spirit proceed from the father and the son, or just the father?). many of these disputes are remarkably subtle. but this is not an idea present in the bible; it's an idea constructed from the bible, a compromise that allows somewhat contradictory theologies to both make sense.
And the passages that ARE in the Bible speak so clearly and unequivocally to the Trinity as it was subsequently defined in the Councils, this just isn't the case. the doctrine was designed so that it could plausibly explain parts of the text, but it is anachronistic eisegesis to think that the later doctrine somehow represents the views of the earlier authors. in fact, many of the authors much more plausibly represent older christologies. (eg: why does mark not begin with a nativity? he might be adoptionist, with his biological parentage being irrelevant.) and there are seemingly verses that outright deny the trinity, representing "one god, the father, and one lord, jesus" or introduce a hierarchy, where the father is greater than the son. so, it's a bit more complex than that. and "close enough" is a pretty sure path to heresy, when these christological disputes are as subtle as they are. in fact, i would wager that if i asked you to describe in detail the trinity of the bible, or your own belief, and i asked you enough questions about it, you would tell me one heresy or another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: The Trinity was the answer to the heresy of Arianism that denied the deity of Christ. Period. this is not accurate, no.
quote: arianism denied that christ was eternal, and claimed that he was distinct from god/the father:
quote: according to arianism, the son was the first creation, through which all other things were created. the nicene fathers condemned arius not because he denied the divinity of christ, but because he supposed a hierarchy in his dyad/triad, and made christ too distinct from the father, such that the nicene fathers claimed he was a polytheist and an idolater for worshiping a created god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: That's because it fits your worldview. no, because it reads very well, and represents the hebrew very well.
Does that mean that the scholars who did the 1917 edition were stupid and did not know what they were doing? Or that the scholars who did the 1985 version had incorporated so much of modern Hebrew into their thinking that they missed the boat? neither. in fact, as you'll note, the argument for the translation of the first verse is based on an argument from the middle ages. this is hardly modern hebrew.
I have read enough to know it is not true to Biblical Hebrew. it sounds like you've made up your mind because this verse does not represent your worldview.
It is like several of the new English versions which have had too much added and too much taken out. not even slightly, no. compare it to the NIV, for instance, which is a radically unscrupulous translation that attempts to smooth out contradictions with translations entirely unsupported by or contrary to the hebrew grammar. someone runs a list of such things here.
In fact so much has been changed the man who wrote the Torah would not be able to recognize them. that's pretty hyperbolic, but considering that the torah is at least four separate documents and the contributions of several redactors... yeah. it's a pretty different text now than it was when its authors wrote their sources. but it's also been that way for at least 2,200 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: It may fit what modern Hebrew would say, but it does not fit what Biblical Hebrew says. it does, though. what it doesn't with are traditional translations (like the targums and the LXX) that indicate how the verse was being read some 2,000 years ago, and the vowel points the masoretes gave it. but it fits fine with what's actually in the bible, as represented in older manuscripts like the DSS (which lack vowel points). none of this based on modern hebrew, and i wish you'd stop arguing that. it's nonsensical. in modern hebrew you wouldn't use the suffix construct anyways; modern typically prefers to use a preposition like של in its place.
Rashi's argument would begin between his birth in 1040 AD and 1105 AD. The completed pointed Masorete text was available during his lifetime. so? rashi wasn't a masorete.
Because my worldview has been shaped by the LXX that was the first translation of the Hebrew text. surely you realize that the LXX has a number of translational flaws. at best, it's an indication of how a specific group of translators understood a text, or sometimes what an earlier state of the text was like before the masoretes got ahold of it. it is not the final say on the text itself, though. it's still a translation. the DSS are not, and are about the same age (give or take).
It was also shaped by my studies of Paleo-Hebrew which is very different from what you keep arguing. you know that scholarship has progressed in this area since 1960, right? pretty dramatically. for one thing, we don't call it "paleo hebrew" anymore. "paleo hebrew" is reserved for the name of the script in inscriptions like those in your profile image. most of the extant biblical manuscripts we have are in an aramaic script. the language is generally called "biblical hebrew" or something "ancient hebrew" (preferring "biblical"). first temple inscriptions (like the hezekiah and ahaz bullae) tend to be paleo-hebrew or very similar scripts. we are talking about biblical hebrew in this thread.
Biblical Hebrew had no vowels as consonants were used instead. You agree that the Biblical Hebrew had no vowels and turn right around and use the vowel pointing's to support your arguments. i don't think you're reading my arguments. like, i'm really starting to doubt it. i've pointed out places where the vowel points happen to agree, but only as arguments that the consonants can indeed be read that way. the argument itself is based on the consonants only. the vowels are actually irrelevant, and as i pointed out above, are the primary reason the verse tends to be translated your way in modern (non-scholarly) religious translations.
You take the feminine noun suffix ית that is placed on the masculine noun ראש to make it feminine and make it into a construct suffix, to support your view. as i've pointed out (with sources) ית is (uncommon) feminine versions of the construct suffix for masculine nouns that take י as the construct suffix, and is also an adjective suffix (effectively similar to a construct) for turning a noun into an adjective. the generic suffix for turning a masculine noun into a feminine one is ה, not ת or ית.
The JPS 1985 version and the NIV are like two peas in a pod. they absolutely are not. just look at the famous NIV mistranslation we've discussed on this board a ton:
quote: biblical hebrew has a particular way of representing a pluperfect, and that's not it. that's a clear case of an ideologically motivated translation; one particular way of justifying these stories against one another. the NIV does this, the nJPS does not.
But we have older text than 2200 years. that's a negative. it would really, really cool if we did. we think that genesis (or rather the torah as a whole) entered its present state about 500 BCE. the source documents are older, and went through various stages of redaction. i'm a bit on the conservative side and i currently think the josiah narrative is roughly accurate, making deuteronomy roughly 700 BCE, imply that J and E are both older, maybe 900-800 BCE. some of the text seems to be earlier inclusions, though, with parts like the song of the sea possibly going back as early as 1000 BCE or older. but we have no manuscripts older than about 200 BCE, and no versions of torah that are not the composite text. so my statement that the text has been this way for "at least 2,200 years" is, to the best scholarly knowledge on the subject, accurate.
The Hebrew he knew is what is written in my avatar. if my conservative dates are correct, yes. it would be written in paleo-hebrew script. the language, however, is the same. if you're all trying to suppose a date prior to the 10th century BCE (ie: mosaic authorship) that's much more questionable. the oldest inscriptions we have in paleo-hebrew are about 10th century. older than that would likely be phoenician or maybe even proto-sinaitic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: The DSS support the LXX more than it does the Masorete text. And yes my copy of the DSS does not have vowel points and some of it is in Paleo-Hebrew. Which Bible are you talking about that the 1985 JPS fits fine? the DSS -- without vowel points. the problem is created by the vowel points.
Anytime someone talks of a tense other than perfect and imperfect in Biblical Hebrew they have left the farm. Those other tenses did not exist in Biblical Hebrew. i don't know where you got anything about tense. i was contrasting the construct state in biblical hebrew with the relative lack of construct states in modern hebrew. i'm not talking about modern hebrew; it would have rendered this statement differently.
He was a little before my time so I am not sure what he was other than a misguided human being when it comes to God's Word. good to know you're the final gatekeeper on all religious tradition!
The LXX was translated by 70 to 72 of the best scribes the Jews had when it was translated into Greek, by order of Ptolemy Philadelphus . and yet there are places were they evidently used greek words incorrectly (for instance, calling dinah parthenos), or where they differ from the DSS (eg: deut 32:8).
There are 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text. uh, yes. for the same reason i frequently quote from the KJV. it's a common translation. i have it on hand. it's in english. the LXX is in greek, and was the predominant greek translation of the day. the NT was written in greek, so. it makes sense. you're reading entirely too much into that.
I assume you are not aware of the Samaritans that have used the Paleo-Hebrew for the past 3400+ years. They still maintain the Pentateuch today in Paleo-Hebrew. i think you have missed the distinction i was making: "paleo-hebrew" is a script, not a language. "biblical hebrew" is a language, which can be written in several scripts including the aramaic script (what you're used to seeing), paleo-hebrew script, or, in this case, the samaritan script. the samaritan torah is not in paleo-hebrew, it's in samaritan. samaritan is descended from paleo-hebrew, just like aramaic. there's also no reason to think that the modern samaritans are at all connected to the historical, first-temple samarians, who populated israel. to begin with, their torah contains texts written in judah. it's a modification of the jewish text.
How can vowel points that were added 2400 years after the fact agree with anything when vowel points did not exist in the original text. they just happen to agree. they may be preserving earlier pronunciations, they may be preserving later pronunciations, and should be taken with a grain of salt. however, they do indicate that such a grammatical structure is indeed possible.
No it is not uncommon. Every time there are two nouns together and the first noun has the feminine ה the ה becomes a ית as the noun is in the construct, as it is followed by a noun. normally it's just ת, not ית. ית is uncommon. in any case, verbs can act as nouns. those are called infinitives. please look this up in your grammar text books. i know we've had this discussion before; i'm really having trouble believing that you still don't understand what an infinitive construct is, and what it looks like in hebrew.
ית is not a construct suffix. If you disagree get me the chart that shows it as a construct suffix. i gave you a source above, which shows it as an adjectival suffix: ’ - Wiktionary this is a very similar concept, considering that adjectives modify nouns.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: quote: That statement is false. ... there are some places it's an implied construct, actually.
quote: In each of these ראשית is followed by a noun which places it in the construct. yeah. let's actually look at this one for a second. the phrase here is,
quote: that noun, מַמְלְכוּת is, מ + מלך+ ות. prepositional prefix (m), plus מלך, plus a genitive suffix (ut). what part of speech is מלך?
quote: Here rashi makes an unsupported assertion. the masoretes render genesis 5:1 similarly, inserting the "o" (waw sound) in ברא with vowel points. clearly it can be read that way.
I do no know what text rashi is quoting but he is not quoting the Hebrew text of Hosea 1:2. The first 3 words of Hosea 1:2 is:תהלת דבר־יהוה The first word is a feminine noun transliterated techillah techilat, that's a tav at the end. because construct suffix.
The second word is a masculine noun meaning 1.speech, word, speaking, thing. uh, check it again. it's an infinitive.
To make the second noun a verb the original writer would have added a מ prefix. Which he did not add. don't be silly.
quote: etc. it's used all the time without the mem prefix. it's a modern convention to differentiate the verb and the noun with the prefix. Edited by arachnophilia, : tag fail
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: After doing a little research where I found that the 1985 translation was produced by the translators without any connection to the 1917 JPS. correct.
Yet the Masoretic text translates Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. er, the masoretic is not a translation. we're discussing how to translate the masoretic. the masoretic text is problematic here because it presents two words, a noun with a construct suffix and construct prefix (as indicated by the vowel points), and a perfect verb (as indicated by the vowel points). this is a grammatical contradiction.
no translation correctly translates the masoretic faithfully, because the masoretic says the equivalent of "in the beginning of god created the heaven and the earth." and that doesn't parse in english -- or in hebrew.
They probably use Rashi as you do. they do. see orlinsky's notes.
The problem with Rashi's translation is that he was trying to make the Hebrew text conform to the scientific view of his day. no, in fact rashi presents this as a problem. he goes on to describe how this reading can't be correct, and also why the other reading can't be correct. seriously, keep reading from the part i quoted. rashi isn't trying to make it match up; he's arguing that you can't read it so literally. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: So quit using the vowel points added by the masorets and the problems will go away. right -- you no longer have a verb pointed as a perfect verb. you have an infinitive following a construct noun. it is only the vowel points that make this a verb.
Nobody said it was perfect. But it is much better than the Masoretic text with their vowel points. you're kidding right? like, you can't possible be serious. really? really? vowel points are a much lesser modification of the text than translating it into a whole different language.
If you were to go into an area in England that the people used the original 1611 KJV Bible would you think they had just started using old English or would you think they were descendants of people that used it and had never changed to modern English. uh, the KJV is modern english. let's compare.
quote: quote: quote: modern english as we know primarily started in the late 16th century and early 17th century, with the likes of authors like shakespeare. spelling became more standardized (and recognizably modern). it's early modern english and uses slightly different vocabulary (eg: "thee" and "thou" and "thy" cases, instead of "you" and "your" for everything). but it's modern. now, the point of your argument. the samaritans are not using an older version of the bible. they are using a modified version of the jewish scriptures, written in a script that evolved from a script still in use upon return from the babylonian exile. as you know, some paleohebrew is still present in the DSS. obviously it was still use. the other script is aramaic, and didn't come into use until aramaic was the dominant language. samaritan is descended from paleohebrew.
Biblical Hebrew had no need for the Masoret's vowel points as it had consonants that served as their vowels. it's comments like this that make me wonder if you even know what you're talking about. firstly, the hebrew present in the masoretic text is called "biblical hebrew". that's just what it is. it's the same language, period. secondly, all of the consonants in biblical hebrew are consonants. they don't "serve as" vowels, though certain consonants are "semi-vowels" or imply some vowels. others, like alef and ayin, are actually consonantly sounds that have been lost or softened by pronunciation in modern times. in biblical times, alef was a glottal stop. it's a noise you make with your throat. thirdly, there is no significant different in spelling between the masoretic and the DSS with regards to those semi-vowels "standing in" for vowels, except for the extra waw in "elohim" (which seems to have been a consistent application of qumran theology). fourthly, there isn't particularly "need" for vowel points in the masoretic, either. they're there to preserve pronunciation and aid newer readers who don't speak hebrew as their first language. there isn't a need for vowels points in modern hebrew, either. you think street signs in israel use them? think again.
Yes when a prefix is added to the verb. sometimes. i know we've discussed this before. in fact, i gave you a link to a textbook some nine years ago. note how the second paragraph of that chapter begins:
quote: ברא is a primitive root verb which makes it Qal perfect 3ps. again, for old time's sake, check the tense of ברא in gen 5:1. i'll wait.
Are you saying ראש is an adjective instead of a masculine noun that means 1.head, top, summit, upper part, chief, total, sum, height, front, beginning? the concept is similar; it is describing the beginning of something.
ראשית is the masculine noun ראש that has the feminine suffix ית added to make it a feminine noun. incorrect. ראשית is the construct form of ראשן. the feminine form of ראשן is ראשנה. this happens to be the name of the girl i sat next to in hebrew class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: arachnophilia writes: what part of speech מלך? מלך is a primitive root verb. how is a verb in a construct state?
Add a prefix מ to מלך and a ה suffix, change the final kaf to a regular kaf and you get a feminine noun. ממלכה. so you agree that biblical hebrew can turn verbs into nouns, and use them like nouns?
This is not the construction that exists in Genesis 1:1. it's pretty close. you have the complex preposition, you have a verb acting as a noun, and you have it being modified by a further subject. the only thing that's different is that this noun is made by modifying the verb more. as i've point out numerous times, this depends on the verb -- as you can see in genesis 5:1, the verb in genesis 1:1 does not get significantly modified in its infinitive state.
You have the same identical construction in Genesis 1:1 and [5:1] You have a noun followed by a verb followed by a noun. and that verb is an infinitive.
The feminine suffix ת does not cause the construct state. yes. it does. why do you think it's a ת and not a ה? there is a suffix that is just for signifying feminine gender, and it's ה.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: It is a translation of ancient Hebrew into Masoretic Hebrew. the masoretic hebrew is not a translation. it is the same language as ancient hebrew. it has only added vowel points. the vowel indicators were designed as points so that they could be added without disturbing the original text -- in the original language. masoretic hebrew is just ancient, biblical hebrew with vowel points added. it is not a different language.
You may be discussing how to translate the Masoretic text. I am discussing Biblical Hebrew and what it says. you're doing it in english. that is a translation. english is not hebrew. it is a different language.
ית is a feminine suffix that makes a masculine noun a female noun. no it isn't! how many times must we go over this? the generic feminine suffix is ה. not ת. not ית. not ות. different suffixes mean different things!
Your ’ - Wiktionary source says: ית feminine singularFor masculine singular adjectives in ־י (-), replacing that ending to produce feminine singular forms. adjectives aren't nouns! come on, ICANT. you know this. ponder this out for a second. if i wanted to render the word as an adjective, how would i do it? what would that look like? what would it mean? this isn't an indefinite noun. what does a construct state do? how is it using one noun to modify another?
he's arguing that you can't read it so literally. Why can't the text be read literally? because, according to rashi, both readings are preposterous -- water precedes creation, or the text is out of order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: Without any vowel points bra ברא is a primitive root verb which makes it in the Qal stem which makes it a perfect 3ps verb uh, no, that's not how grammar works. it's contextual, and the vowels you'd pronounce verb stems with is contextual. the vowel points, as written in the masoretic text, record a specific pronunciation, which in this case goes against that context. ברא could be qal, it could be infinitive. context dictates infinitive in some places, like gen 5:1.
Vowel points only change words in the Masoretic text. Not in Biblical Hebrew. masoretic is biblical hebrew, and without vowels, you'd just use other contextual clues. in this case, it is the vowels that are indicating a qal perfect, contrary to the other contextual clues. the maroretes included the wrong vowels.
I am very serious. Anytime you can take Masoretic vowel point and add them to a word and change the word into something it is not those modifications are pure Heresy. that's a less significant modification than translating into another language. masoretic hebrew is biblical hebrew, just with vowel points added. it's like saying that my posts aren't modern english because i don't use capitals.
Yes but I use an original 1611. It reads kinda funny according to what we are used too. Here is Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth." correct, this is early modern english, prior to standardized spelling (eg: "u" for "v"). you see this with shakespeare all the time too; it's still modern english. just early modern english. it is not old english or middle english. see my comparison, which you ignored, that includes old english and middle english. i bet you can't even read the old english.
the samaritans are not using an older version of the bible. they are using a modified version of the jewish scriptures, Who modified it? the samaritans, obviously.
The partial expresion of the vowels by certain consonants (א י ו ה ) ... it's... it's like you're not reading or comprehending my posts. let me repost what you're replying to:
quote: note the bolded section, where i talk about semivowels -- yud, hei, and waw -- and the other bolded part where i talk about the consonantal sound alef makes.
ברא in gen 5:1 is a primitive root verb which makes it Qal perfect 3ps. incorrect. try again. check an actual grammar description.
Yes and I have the text book in my library next step, try reading it.
A suffix does not make a noun in the construct state. That happens when one noun is followed by another noun. yes, but some nouns have to take certain suffixes when they are placed in a construct state, and those suffixes don't appear in other uses. that's the case here.
But then again you were studying modern Hebrew. That you are trying to apply to Biblical Hebrew. no, modern hebrew would phrase this differently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: When the נ or ת suffix is added, or a pronominal suffix is added as well as the inseparable prepositions added. please look up infinitive constructs next in that book you supposedly have on your shelf, and note that they do not always require suffixes.
When a verb is turned into a noun it is no longer a verb in Biblical Hebrew it is a noun. Most nouns as well as other words are made from verbs by adding suffixes or prefixes. and in some cases, no suffixes at all. for instance, דבר, noun or verb? where's the suffix?
quote: noun or verb?
quote: noun or verb?
quote: noun? verb? i've removed the vowels so you can't cheat. i also avoided definite articles and plural suffixes, because i'm aware those could confuse you.
In Hebrew all nouns are either masculine or feminine. In most cases a feminine noun is formed by adding ה(ah), ת (et) or ית (iyt) to the end of a noun. you found a page that agrees with you somehow. okay. most places do not list ית that way, the standard endings are ה or sometimes ת. http://www.hebrew4christians.com/...ouns/feminine_nouns.html wiktionary goes into more detail:
quote: does this fit any of the other uses? is denoting a person? is it corresponding to a small item? is it the proper name of a language (or nationality)? is it a female given name?
If memory serves me correctly when you have two nouns in the construct a feminine noun will always end with the ת. i mean, the counterexample is obvious here:
quote: it's in the construct there -- a noun follows it -- and look at the ending. you can compare other words if you'd like, but that's how this word is spelled in the construct state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: Biblical Hebrew was a dead language as far as speaking was concerned.The Masoretic text was devised to make the Hebrew text speakable again. Modern Hebrew that is taught today is totally different than the Hebrew the Bible was written in. The vocabulary is similar, but the grammar and pronunciation are different. Biblical grammar is generally more terse and complex, modifying words rather than using additional words. sort of correct, however, masoretic hebrew is still biblical hebrew. it is not a translation; it is the addition of vowel points.
The original had no vowel points rather, they used specific consonants as vowels. again, this is incorrect. thinking of them "as vowels" is a modern shorthand. academically, historically speaking, the entire hebrew alef-bet is consonants, including alef and ayin, which have consonantal pronunciations in (spoken) biblical hebrew. that's why when the masoretes put vowel points around them, they put many different vowels -- those consonants can take different vowel sounds. alef was a glottal stop, and ayin was a voiced pharyngeal frictive. these are both consonants; please look this up. this is how they were pronounced in biblical hebrew.
You claim to be able to take those vowel points and change the meaning and structure of words and sentences of the original. no, i am claiming that the masoretes changed the meaning or reading of some words with their choice of vowels, and this is the case here. we can tell this because they inconsistently applied those changes to the same consonantal spellings of the same word in the same grammatical contexts.
That means you have a modified original text which is what a translation is. no, a translation is when you take a text in one language, and render it into another language. adding what amounts to punctuation is not a translation.
Water covers the earth in Genesis 1:2. According to verse 2 the earth existed. try reading rashi again, you have misunderstood his argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: According to you the masoretes changed the text to represent their doctrine. That means they translated the original text into what they wanted it to say, by adding the vowel points. no, that is not a translation. it is merely the addition of pointers to the text that help the reader with pronunciation. it is the same language. a translation is when you take something from one language and put it in another.
Just like the guys that translated the KJV into the New World Translation. as far as i'm aware, the NWT is translated from hebrew, aramaic, and greek just like every other translation of the bible, and is not sourced from the KJV. i'm not sure where you got this idea.
We did not just study Paleo-Hebrew, we had to read it out loud. We had no vowel pointings to read. All we had was the consonants. yes, that is what i'm telling you: alef and ayin are not vowels, they are consonants.
They translated something into the masorete text as the masorete text did not exist before they finished it in 1100 AD. the masoretic text is the name of a specific set of manuscripts, not a translation. the text is not a translation. i do not understand why you are having a hard time with this. it's in the same language. it's not a translation.
They didn't point it so as to support your doctrine or beliefs. correct, they pointed it incorrectly to support your beliefs. the vowels force a particular reading, where the consonants imply a different one.
In Message 247 I gave you evidence where ית was a feminine ending. a feminine ending that is only used in constructs for this word!
You also say ברשית should be pointed as an infinitive construct. you're confused. i stated that ברא should read "bero" as in genesis 5:1 and not "bara".
The word ברשית is not in the construct state as there is no noun following it. It is followed by the verb ברא which is not a noun and has no prefix to make it a noun. ברא does not need a suffix to make it a noun, as evidenced by genesis 5:1. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024