Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2017 6:37 AM
372 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 371 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,632 Year: 19,238/21,208 Month: 1,997/3,111 Week: 218/574 Day: 14/46 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   basic reading of genesis 1:1
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 301 of 310 (612911)
04-20-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by ICANT
04-20-2011 12:09 AM


ICANT writes:

מים is a ms3 Pual perfect verb.

it's a noun. please stop looking things up in lexicons. you can't even do it correctly. people who can read never have these difficulties.

אלהים is a plural noun masculine from the root אלוה which is noun masculine singular.

you know very well that "god" is not plural.

I ask again, where is that rule given in a textbook?

You are the only one I can find that makes such an assertion.

look harder. it's no longer worth it to repeat myself so often.

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.

try harder. there are two whole chapters in that book on infinitives. surely you can glean something from those chapters, including their multitude of examples that lack prefixes, or even prepositions of any kind. you learned a rule, sure, but that rules is not an accurate reflection of every usage, and does not exclude other usages.

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.

...

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.

i think you should seriously consider the possibility that you're simply wrong.

arachnophilia writes:

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?

see the bit you've quoted.

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".

of

ראשונה is first which is the Hebrew ordinal number.

אחד is the cardinal number 1.

semantics.

yes, i just accused you of semantics in an argument about grammar.

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.

of

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.

...


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by ICANT, posted 04-20-2011 12:09 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by ICANT, posted 04-20-2011 11:10 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 302 of 310 (612936)
04-20-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by arachnophilia
04-20-2011 1:42 AM


Re Lexicons
Hi arach,

arachnophilia writes:

it's a noun. please stop looking things up in lexicons. you can't even do it correctly. people who can read never have these difficulties.

With the vowel pointings that I searched it came up ms3 pual verb and actually past tense.

מַיֵּם is listed as Piel infinitive tense infinitive noun.

מַיֵּם is also listed as sm Piel imperfect tense.

מֻיֵּם is listed as sm3 Pual past tense.

מִיֵּם is listed as sm3 Piel past tense.

So as you can see they are in the process of changing the Biblical Hebrew again.

You can find the program Here. You can download it and use it for 7 days before it will expire without purchasing it.

It has past, present, future, infinitive, and imperfect tense.

As far as my lexicons go:

BDB has it a noun, dual. waters
GHCLOT noun, singular. water
CHALOT noun, singular. water

arachnophilia writes:

you know very well that "god" is not plural.

I know that אלוה is a noun masculine singular.

I know אלהים is a plural noun masculine.

Maybe one day we can argue why this form translated God is plural.

arachnophilia writes:

look harder. it's no longer worth it to repeat myself so often.

Are you getting tired of making assertions without producing the page that states a prefix on a noun makes it a preposition?

arachnophilia writes:

try harder. there are two whole chapters in that book on infinitives. surely you can glean something from those chapters, including their multitude of examples that lack prefixes

Well I can't find an infinitive example that does not have some type of prefix or suffix.

It is your burden to present one, as it is your assertion, so please do.

arachnophilia writes:

...

I don't understand that comment, could you translate?

arachnophilia writes:

i think you should seriously consider the possibility that you're simply wrong.

I have. That is the reason in the first post concerning what they said, I said I would need to know what they meant by const. and abs..

arachnophilia writes:

see the bit you've quoted.

I looked again and I still do not understand how I can remove ל from לפני and get פנה.

When I remove the ל from לפני I get פני

arachnophilia writes:

...

I don't understand that comment, could you translate?

arachnophilia writes:

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.

of

There is no noun following יום to put it in the construct which would justify the 'of'.

So where do you get the 'of' from?

arachnophilia writes:

...

I don't understand that comment, could you translate?

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 301 by arachnophilia, posted 04-20-2011 1:42 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by arachnophilia, posted 04-20-2011 10:40 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 303 of 310 (612950)
04-20-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by arachnophilia
04-13-2011 5:47 PM


Re: what thing that is over 1200 years old?
Hi arach,

arachnophilia writes:

i'll be more than happy to, the second you present something that actually is more than 1200 years old.

There are fragraments of the LXX from the 2nd century BC and the 1st century BC. There are two almost complete copies of the LXX from the 4th century AD. The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. There is also the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.

The oldest MT text abailable is 950 AD. It seems they destroyed all old text's when they had copied them. Which leaves nothing to compare those available too.

There are also much of the OT in the DSS that are available for study.

The LXX was vilified as a louzy translation until the DSS surfaced and then it was proven that the LXX was a reliable translation.

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 299 by arachnophilia, posted 04-13-2011 5:47 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by arachnophilia, posted 04-20-2011 10:50 PM ICANT has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 304 of 310 (612998)
04-20-2011 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by ICANT
04-20-2011 11:10 AM


Re: Re Lexicons
ICANT writes:

With the vowel pointings that I searched it came up ms3 pual verb and actually past tense.

that should be your first clue something's very wrong.

מַיֵּם is listed as Piel infinitive tense infinitive noun.

מַיֵּם is also listed as sm Piel imperfect tense.

מֻיֵּם is listed as sm3 Pual past tense.

מִיֵּם is listed as sm3 Piel past tense.

yeah, no. it looks like it's giving stardard vowel pointings to any three letter root, and thus making up words. i'm not aware of any usage of מים as a verb -- it's one of the earliest "exception" dual nouns you learn in hebrew. this is not something that anyone who knows the slightest bit of hebrew ever messes up -- and yet you insist on it. but then again, for the kinds of errors you routinely make, this isn't particularly a surprise.

you are welcome, of course, to provide an example of any sentence that uses מים as a verb, in biblical or modern hebrew.

So as you can see they are in the process of changing the Biblical Hebrew again.

no, you have a crap source. you evidently can't tell the difference between a crap source and a good source, if you're using this nonsense over waltke, or BDB, or anything else, really.

You can find the program Here. You can download it and use it for 7 days before it will expire without purchasing it.

you do understand that i actually laughed audibly when i saw that? i wouldn't dream of paying for that crap.

It has past, present, future, infinitive, and imperfect tense.

which, for biblical hebrew at least, makes it wrong.

As far as my lexicons go:

BDB has it a noun, dual. waters
GHCLOT noun, singular. water
CHALOT noun, singular. water

these sources happen to be correct. the distinction between "dual" and "singular" are moot, of course, as dual nouns are nouns that look plural but act singular.

I know that אלוה is a noun masculine singular.

I know אלהים is a plural noun masculine.

Maybe one day we can argue why this form translated God is plural.

i have argued it already. in fact, as i mentioned above, "dual nouns are nouns that look plural but act singular." when you have a dual noun, and it's the subject of a clause, it's easy to tell if it's singular: the verb takes singular conjugations. for instance, in genesis 1:1, ברא אלהים, is a singular verb, and a dual noun. the noun acts in the singular, as is translated "god" instead of "gods". there are of course other contextual hints. a person who reads hebrew has no issues with this stuff.

Are you getting tired of making assertions without producing the page that states a prefix on a noun makes it a preposition?

no. i'm getting tired of you asking for the same information over and over again because you've failed to understand it.

Well I can't find an infinitive example that does not have some type of prefix or suffix.

It is your burden to present one, as it is your assertion, so please do.

there are two whole chapters in that book on infinitives. i have presented several examples from those chapters in this thread already. i cannot do more than hand you the textbook and copy examples from it. you're just going to have to try harder.

arachnophilia writes:

...

I don't understand that comment, could you translate?

it means i don't actually need to say anything, because your argument is nonsense and contradictory.

I have. That is the reason in the first post concerning what they said, I said I would need to know what they meant by const. and abs..

yes. i suggest you look it up. here's a hint: i've given you a textbook already.

I looked again and I still do not understand how I can remove ל from לפני and get פנה.

i don't understand it either. perhaps you should be more careful with spelling next time. and, um, find a better source.

When I remove the ל from לפני I get פני

yes, you do. or rather, you should.

There is no noun following יום to put it in the construct which would justify the 'of'.

infinitives are nouns.

So where do you get the 'of' from?

context.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by ICANT, posted 04-20-2011 11:10 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by ICANT, posted 04-23-2011 3:20 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 305 of 310 (612999)
04-20-2011 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by ICANT
04-20-2011 12:36 PM


Re: what thing that is over 1200 years old?
ICANT writes:

There are fragraments of the LXX from the 2nd century BC and the 1st century BC. There are two almost complete copies of the LXX from the 4th century AD. The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. There is also the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.

oh, okay, so you can look things up at wikipedia. great.

The oldest MT text abailable is 950 AD. It seems they destroyed all old text's when they had copied them. Which leaves nothing to compare those available too.

yes, it's all a giant jewish conspiracy.

There are also much of the OT in the DSS that are available for study.

The LXX was vilified as a louzy translation until the DSS surfaced and then it was proven that the LXX was a reliable translation.

you're welcome to start a thread on why you feel the LXX is or is not a good translation in comparison to other sources.

there are some key differences between the MT and the LXX that the DSS has backed up, yes. but these are by far the exception. mostly, the same things -- and it's important to remember that for particular concerns like this one, that the LXX is a translation. it might inform how the text was read when the text was translated, but it doesn't particularly supersede the implications of the source language, even if the particular document of the source isn't wonderful.

you're welcome to make an argument from greek in this thread if you would like, but i do not expect to be wowed given your grasp of hebrew. and english.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 04-20-2011 12:36 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by ICANT, posted 04-21-2011 11:51 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 306 of 310 (613152)
04-21-2011 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by arachnophilia
04-20-2011 10:50 PM


Re: what thing that is over 1200 years old?
Hi arach,

arachnophilia writes:

oh, okay, so you can look things up at wikipedia. great.

I don't have to read about them on wikipedia. I have the documents on my computer.

arachnophilia writes:

yes, it's all a giant jewish conspiracy.

I don't know if you would call it a conspiracy. I just know they did not preserve the old copies and the oldest there is is 950 AD.

arachnophilia writes:

you're welcome to start a thread on why you feel the LXX is or is not a good translation in comparison to other sources.

Not enough time.

Gesenius Hebrew Grammar 2nd English Edition uses it a lot.

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 305 by arachnophilia, posted 04-20-2011 10:50 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by arachnophilia, posted 04-25-2011 6:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 307 of 310 (613260)
04-23-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by arachnophilia
04-20-2011 10:40 PM


Re: Lexicons
Hi arach,

arachnophilia writes:

that should be your first clue something's very wrong.

Well there are people who are pushing that agenda and they believe they are correct.

arachnophilia writes:

yeah, no. it looks like it's giving stardard vowel pointings to any three letter root, and thus making up words. i'm not aware of any usage of מים as a verb

I don't know if מים is used as a verb. I was just pointing out that there are people with some far out ideas.
You are basing much of your understanding of Biblical Hebrew by what you read that someone said in 1990.

On page 189 in "An Introduction To Biblical Hebrew Syntax" by Waltke it says:

quote:
...and the complex preposition, made up of a preposition + a noun...

This statement does not appear in Gesenius Hebrew Grammar 2nd English Edition.

If you can find a textbook that agrees with Waltke please present it.

arachnophilia writes:

no, you have a crap source. you evidently can't tell the difference between a crap source and a good source, if you're using this nonsense over waltke, or BDB, or anything else, really.

This crap you are referring to will become fact in the future.
If you disagree go back and read the textbooks of the 1500's and see how much they have changed getting us to today.

arachnophilia writes:

you do understand that i actually laughed audibly when i saw that? i wouldn't dream of paying for that crap.

You don't have to pay for it if someone is discarding it and gives it to you .

arachnophilia writes:

which, for biblical hebrew at least, makes it wrong.

So if someone adds tenses to Biblical Hebrew they are wrong.
An introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Waltke on page 347 says:

quote:
Biblical Hebrew has no tenses in the strict sense.

On page 580 it says:

quote:
The Semitic languages generally distinguish two categories of non-finite verb forms, the infinitive, which designates the action or situation of the verb and the participle which refers to the actor or patient of the verb.

So they have added two types of verbs to cover things covered by the Hebrew perfect and imperfect verb. To be fair with Waltke he did not invent the infinitive and participle verbs in Biblical Hebrew. He was just repeating what he had learned that was supposed to be fact.

Perfect is completed action. Most refer to this as past but that is not always the case.
Imperfect is incomplete action. Action that is ongoing.

arachnophilia writes:

these sources happen to be correct. the distinction between "dual" and "singular" are moot, of course, as dual nouns are nouns that look plural but act singula

Dual and singular are two different things. Dual is used when talking about things that come in pairs, such as eyes, hands, feet, etc. So they don't just look plural they are more than one and less than three.

arachnophilia writes:

i have argued it already. in fact, as i mentioned above, "dual nouns are nouns that look plural but act singular." when you have a dual noun, and it's the subject of a clause, it's easy to tell if it's singular: the verb takes singular conjugations. for instance, in genesis 1:1, , is a singular verb, and a dual noun. the noun acts in the singular, as is translated "god" instead of "gods". there are of course other contextual hints. a person who reads hebrew has no issues with this stuff.

Are you saying you can't read Hebrew because you have an issue with this stuff?

BDB אלהים noun, masculine plural.

Is BDB all of a sudden wrong?

arachnophilia writes:

no. i'm getting tired of you asking for the same information over and over again because you've failed to understand it.

Somebody said, "if you can't explain something where someone else can understand it you do not know the subject yourself".
But it is not that I do not understand what is said. It is that you have not tried to present what it says.

arachnophilia writes:

there are two whole chapters in that book on infinitives. i have presented several examples from those chapters in this thread already. i cannot do more than hand you the textbook and copy examples from it. you're just going to have to try harder.

If there are only two types of verbs in the Hebrew language, what is there to look for?

If there is only perfect and imperfect verbs in Biblical Hebrew then there are no infinitives other than those that has been invented to make Biblical Hebrew read smooth in English.

There is the statement on page 189 by Waltke that a preposition + noun = complex preposition.

You take that statement to mean that any time a noun has a prefix attached to it the noun automatically becomes a preposition.
There is very little support for such a statement.

arachnophilia writes:

yes. i suggest you look it up. here's a hint: i've given you a textbook already.

Yes you did, one that was written in 1990. I don't think Brown, Driver or Briggs had an opportunity to read that book and form their opinions.

BTW on page 220 Waltke says:

quote:
By complex prepositions we mean the combinations of various prepositions and nouns or adverbs to constitute new entities often with meanings not predictable from the parts.

On page 221 he also says:

quote:
Some nouns show a frozen union with a preposition. These complex constructions function syntactically as prepositions, that is, THEY LINK AN AD-VERBAL NOUN TO THE VERB and specify the nature of its relationship to the governed noun.

arachnophilia writes:

I looked again and I still do not understand how I can remove ל from לפני and get פנה.

i don't understand it either. perhaps you should be more careful with spelling next time. and, um, find a better source.

I do understand how I can look for the root of לפני and find as the root פנה..

arachnophilia writes:

it means i don't actually need to say anything, because your argument is nonsense and contradictory.

Are you saying a preposition and a Prepositional phrase are the same thing?

arachnophilia writes:

infinitives are nouns.

First you have to create an infinitive out of the verb to turn it into a noun. You have no means of doing that.

arachnophilia writes:

context.

In other words say it says what you want it to say.

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 304 by arachnophilia, posted 04-20-2011 10:40 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by arachnophilia, posted 04-25-2011 6:06 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 308 of 310 (613504)
04-25-2011 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by ICANT
04-23-2011 3:20 PM


Re: Lexicons
ICANT writes:

Well there are people who are pushing that agenda and they believe they are correct.

yes, ICANT. it's all a big evil atheist/jewish/academic conspiracy. take your pick.

I don't know if מים is used as a verb. I was just pointing out that there are people with some far out ideas.

no, you made yet another big old goof. you didn't say, "look at what these crazy people say!" you posted it to bolster your argument. it's wrong.

You are basing much of your understanding of Biblical Hebrew by what you read that someone said in 1990.

you're basing yours on (faulty) assumptions and stuff you've made up. i think basing it on actual research is a much better standpoint.

On page 189 in "An Introduction To Biblical Hebrew Syntax" by Waltke it says:
quote:
...and the complex preposition, made up of a preposition + a noun...

This statement does not appear in Gesenius Hebrew Grammar 2nd English Edition.

... i don't care.

If you can find a textbook that agrees with Waltke please present it.

This crap you are referring to will become fact in the future.
If you disagree go back and read the textbooks of the 1500's and see how much they have changed getting us to today.

no, it's crap. crap is universal.

textbooks from the 1500's are different because we know more things today. in 1500, nobody had been to the moon. nobody had discovered dinosaurs. photography didn't exist. most people thought the earth was the center of the universe. older ≠ right. in fact, the more we progress, the more likely we are to get things right. it's most certainly not whatever bullshit someone puts out just gets accepted and becomes the new "truth" leading us away from the real truth.

You don't have to pay for it if someone is discarding it and gives it to you .

okay, so i made a mistake above. when i said that the tenses should have been your first hint? that should have been your second. the fact that someone discarded it should have been your first hint.

So if someone adds tenses to Biblical Hebrew they are wrong.
An introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Waltke on page 347 says:

quote:
Biblical Hebrew has no tenses in the strict sense.

On page 580 it says:

quote:
The Semitic languages generally distinguish two categories of non-finite verb forms, the infinitive, which designates the action or situation of the verb and the participle which refers to the actor or patient of the verb.

So they have added two types of verbs to cover things covered by the Hebrew perfect and imperfect verb.

no. you still don't understand grammar at all, do you? have you ever taken an english grammar course? like, in elementary school? it might be helpful to actually understand what these terms mean.

perfect and imperfect are aspects. in english, we can have perfect or imperfect verbs in any tense -- biblical hebrew doesn't have proper tenses, and uses imperfect roughly like future tense and perfect roughly like past or present tense.

finite and infinitive are forms. in english, only finite verbs can have tenses. in biblical hebrew, it's irrelevant because there aren't proper tenses. perfect and imperfect are the two aspects of the finite verb form.

on top of that, there are several stems (something like "moods") that hebrew verbs can take: qal, nifal, piel, hifil, etc. these stems describe all verbs, finite or infinitive.

so in biblical hebrew, tense is made up of form, aspect, and stem. though listing both form and aspect is generally redundant: if it's finite, you just list the aspect, if it's non-finite, you just say "infinitive" as it can't have an aspect.

To be fair with Waltke he did not invent the infinitive and participle verbs in Biblical Hebrew. He was just repeating what he had learned that was supposed to be fact.

Dual and singular are two different things. Dual is used when talking about things that come in pairs, such as eyes, hands, feet, etc. So they don't just look plural they are more than one and less than three.

okay, so having looked it up, apparently your text that lists מים, שמים and אלהים as dual is in fact mistaken. they are singular, but morphologically dual.

however, it is also incorrect that dual nouns always refer to pairs -- just things that are typically (or conceptually) paired. the can, in fact, be found with other numbers, and the text give several examples.

Are you saying you can't read Hebrew because you have an issue with this stuff?

no, i'm saying you can't.

BDB אלהים noun, masculine plural.

Is BDB all of a sudden wrong?

no, there are places in the bible where it's plural. it lists quite a few of them in points 1 and 2. but notice that this entry continues for like two pages? points 3 and 4 are all singular. it helps to read the whole thing. or at least skim it. or check to see if it's there. don't just go with the first entry -- ignoring usage leads to time machines and cd-roms.

Somebody said, "if you can't explain something where someone else can understand it you do not know the subject yourself".
But it is not that I do not understand what is said. It is that you have not tried to present what it says.

i have, you're just a crank. the truth of the matter is that you can't always realistically explain something so that every idiot can understand it. some things take research, and knowledge, and just generally not being a crank. your failure to understand, at this point, is your failure to understand, not my failure to explain. you've been given outside sources, textbooks, etc. it's not just me that can't explain it to you -- it's anyone, including the people who write professionally and academically on the subject. the people who are the very best at explaining this stuff. that means nobody can explain it to you, and that makes you a crank.

If there are only two types of verbs in the Hebrew language, what is there to look for?

If there is only perfect and imperfect verbs in Biblical Hebrew then there are no infinitives other than those that has been invented to make Biblical Hebrew read smooth in English.

There is the statement on page 189 by Waltke that a preposition + noun = complex preposition.

You take that statement to mean that any time a noun has a prefix attached to it the noun automatically becomes a preposition.
There is very little support for such a statement.

no, notice i gave some specific examples?

Yes you did, one that was written in 1990. I don't think Brown, Driver or Briggs had an opportunity to read that book and form their opinions.

BTW on page 220 Waltke says:
quote:
By complex prepositions we mean the combinations of various prepositions and nouns or adverbs to constitute new entities often with meanings not predictable from the parts.

On page 221 he also says:

quote:
Some nouns show a frozen union with a preposition. These complex constructions function syntactically as prepositions, that is, THEY LINK AN AD-VERBAL NOUN TO THE VERB and specify the nature of its relationship to the governed noun.

...yes.

arachnophilia writes:

I looked again and I still do not understand how I can remove ל from לפני and get פנה.

i don't understand it either. perhaps you should be more careful with spelling next time. and, um, find a better source.

I do understand how I can look for the root of לפני and find as the root פנה..

i do too: you went one too far. you skipped right over the noun, and went right to verb it might possibly be derived from. this is precisely the same practice the peggs used to find time machines and cd-roms.

arachnophilia writes:

it means i don't actually need to say anything, because your argument is nonsense and contradictory.

Are you saying a preposition and a Prepositional phrase are the same thing?

arachnophilia writes:

infinitives are nouns.

First you have to create an infinitive out of the verb to turn it into a noun. You have no means of doing that.

arachnophilia writes:

context.

In other words say it says what you want it to say.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by ICANT, posted 04-23-2011 3:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 309 of 310 (613505)
04-25-2011 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by ICANT
04-21-2011 11:51 PM


Re: what thing that is over 1200 years old?
ICANT writes:

I don't know if you would call it a conspiracy. I just know they did not preserve the old copies and the oldest there is is 950 AD.

sooooo.... conspiracy then?

look, scribes existed because papyrus and vellum didn't last too well. yes, if carefully preserved, they can last a long time. but touched by human beings? they deteriorate. there are always complete fluke miracles like the DSS preserved over 2,000 years, but they are by far the exception. most of the oldest texts we have are in stone.

they're not junking the old texts because they say things they didn't want you to know. indeed, if anything, the DSS mostly backs up the masoretic text. it's not 100% like the MT or the LXX.

arachnophilia writes:

you're welcome to start a thread on why you feel the LXX is or is not a good translation in comparison to other sources.

Not enough time.

quite wasting my time here, repeating the same old nonsense. go start another thread about the topic you want to discuss.

Gesenius Hebrew Grammar 2nd English Edition uses it a lot.

a text on hebrew grammar might well use the LXX, yes. but not as hebrew grammar. instead, as evidence of how that grammar was read and then translated into another language. which is what the LXX is good for -- it's a record of people of a certain read the text and thought it should be written in another language. it also, perhaps, may indicate a few places that have changed for whatever reason -- mostly scribal (copyist) errors.

but as i said, stop beating around the bush. you are more than welcome to make an argument from greek in this thread.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by ICANT, posted 04-21-2011 11:51 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Davidjay
Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 310 of 310 (811739)
06-11-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by kbertsche
07-24-2007 2:12 AM


Genesis 1..1 is literal and means exactly what it says
People and posters, evolutionists and atheists have little if no reading comprehension as they always try to change what is written by compromising it and changing it into their belief system or fantasy or unscientific theory.

http://www.davidjayjordan.com/Creationin24HourDays.html

Creation took place in 7 creative days of 24 hours each.

Hours is a designed time that fits into the designed revolution of the designed Earth, as well as the designed revolution of the Moon around us, and our designed time frame of revolving around the Sun. Time is by Design and can be absolutely proven to be so. Speed, Time and Distance is all by Design and nothing is at random or by chance as the unscientific and non mathmatical evolutionists and atheists would have us believe.

The plants were created before the Sun was created, they would not last eons or ages or billions of years withoput the Suns rays, 24 hours Yes.

Mystery solved and confirmed..Gensis 1 is true and correct and gives the proper timeframes and the real CREATOR.


Thanks to the webmasters HERE for allowing me to defeat atheists and evolutionists HERE, and show they have no math, no science backing them up and that they are totally dependant on semantics and luck and chance as their only support for their religion. Thanks again...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by kbertsche, posted 07-24-2007 2:12 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017