Creation

a version that was nearly identical to what we've recovered of the text from dead sea scrolls, some of which date to the second century BCE, and mostly concordant with the septuagint. the only major addition of the masoretic text is the system of vowel points, cantilation marks, and the emendations. the text itself -- the consonants -- are unmodified. maybe you should look this topic up somewhere; you seem very confused about it. are you sure you studied hebrew? sometimes the same set of consonants can be pronounced slightly differently. a language is the system of vocabulary, grammar and syntax that make up speech or writing.a script is the set of characters used to write that language.do you seriously not understand the difference between the two? i'm writing right now in english, using the latin script. spanish, french, german, etc are all separate languages, but also use the latin script. you can, believe it or not, write english in other scripts. for instance, braille.biblical hebrew can be written in any abjad alef-bet with the appropriate characters present. is has been written in paleo-hebrew (the script in your avatar), aramaic script (as in the masoretic), samaritan script, mishnaic script, rashi script, and modern simplified hebrew script. this doesn't change the language -- it just changes the bloody font. i can't even figure out what you mean by this. did you use vowels, or not? alef and ayin are NOT vowels. uh, because their handwriting was a little different: Hebrew alphabet - Wikipediait's the same alef-bet and the same language, just written in a different script. i can't believe you're having such a hard time understanding this. just to mess with you, i'm going to write the rest of my post in a different "language". why do you think moses would have a hard time understanding it? it's a simple matter of learning a slightly different script. that's a negative. without the vowels, it reads as infinitive, for reasons already discussed. incorrect. the masoretic text contains a contradiction in its vowels; they are wrong by default. neither translation is supported by the vowels. sometimes an infinitive construct is spelled using the same consonants, but pronounced different with different vowels. you have been shown that this is the case with ברא, as gen 1:1 amd gen 5:1 use different vowels. the pronunciation changes, but so does the part of speech. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

the vowels you choose to pronounce them with. though biblical hebrew did not originally contain a system to write vowels, people still used them in speech, obviously. no, i'm saying a script change does not equal a language change. the KJV is written in english, regardless of what script i write it in. biblical hebrew is biblical hebrew, even if i were to use the latin alphabet to represent it. correct, minus the word "and".though a proper transliteration (not a translation, transliteration) would be:

quote:

---

BR'SHYT BR' 'LHYM H-SHMYM W-ET H-'RTZ

---

in fact, you can find tons of older texts that represent biblical hebrew this way, due to typesetting issues. it's the same language -- the same vocabulary and grammar and syntax -- but a different alphabet. incorrect, א is a glottal stop, ע is a voiced pharyngeal frictive. neither of those are "ah". they are consonantal sounds. each consonant had several sounds, depending context, and the vowel sound it implies. that's how abjad alef-bets work. i don't use capitals. you do. do you contend that the addition of capitals to your post means we are speaking in different languages. because it sure feels like it sometimes. once again, i am arguing that we should ignore the vowels in this case, because they are wrong. no, try to keep up. it is a different script, but the same language. yes, learning a new script is trivial compared to learning a new language. surely you ran into this in your hebrew classes; how long did you spend studying the alef-bet? how long studying the language? what percentage of the course was devoted to each? i bet you moved past the alef-bet after the first week or so. i know i did.and that's coming from english; our letters don't align 1:1. we don't have a letter for "sh" for instance. no. "biblical hebrew today" is like saying "old english today". that doesn't make sense. biblical hebrew is the language the bible is written in. the primary biblical hebrew manuscripts we have are the masoretic text and the dead sea scrolls. the language has evolved from there, yes, but it's no longer called "biblical hebrew". it's currently called "modern hebrew".and if you had studied any modern hebrew at all, you'd know that modern hebrew is actually much simpler. biblical hebrew as rather complex constructions of infinitives and genitive cases that moderns tends to shy away from in favor of simpler prepositions and such. context. infinitive constructs do not always need prefixes. read your damned textbook or something.