basic reading of genesis 1:1

no, the two do not appear in conjunction elsewhere. we are left to examine other instances of b'reishit. bara is not particularly special. i have never heard anything to that extent. the text above is a copy from mechon-mamre's side-by-side hebrew/english tanakh. for writting myself, i use a (semi-phonetic) web applet. i find this to be the least complicated method.

that's not an article, that's a vowel point -- which were added several hundred years after christ, and are not part of the original text. and REALLY easy to screw up, btw. hmm, ok, that's a good one. well, that's what i mean. it's not an issue -- you can read the word either way, so this does not hamper the construct reading. yes. i would like to add, possibly at the expensive of my own case, that a possessive is mysteriously missing. i'm not sure how big of an issue this is, based on the grammar. well, this is just a quibble -- i would render it "when god began creating..." the infinitive is just an awkward translation into english where it isn't needed. in either language. "creating" works just fine, and is more literal. the nJPS isn't concerned with precision in translating the grammar exactly as it is in the hebrew -- they're more concerned with reflecting the ideas and making it read smoothly in english.i prefer to split the difference between idiomatic and literal. that's all i meant.

---

Re the missing article in "In [the] beginning": Yes; when a preposition is prefixed to a noun with article, the article disappears as a character and becomes a vowel point. And I agree that it is very easy to mess up. But as my Hebrew scholar friend claims, the first few verses of the Bible would have been widely memorized and repeated, and it is much less likely that the Jewish community would have lost the vowel points on this verse.

The "construct" form shows genitive case (which can show possession), and doesn't need any other markers.
From wikipedia (Hebrew language - Wikipedia):

quote:

---

Hebrew's genitive case is achieved by placing two nouns next to each other. This is called a noun construct ( [smiut]). The second noun can be viewed as an adjective modifying the first noun.
The first noun in a noun construct must be in its construct form. For most nouns, the construct form is derived fairly easily from the normal (indefinite) form:
...
In addition, the definite article is never placed on the first noun (the one in the construct form).

---

I noted that for Rashi's translation "bara" MUST be read as an infinitive, though it is not written as one. But your translation WOULD need some sort of possessive marker, because it would not follow the noun construct paradigm. A construct requires two or more nouns next to each other, as noted in wikipedia. To be in construct, the word "bara" must act as a noun. It cannot do this while a finite verb; the only way for it to act as a noun is to be an infinitive.(Note: there may be some terminology and usage differences between biblical and modern Hebrew. I have studied biblical but not modern Hebrew, whereas I suspect that you are more fluent in modern Hebrew.)

there are all kinds of vowel copy errors all over the bible, and even a few consonant errors (nun becomes bet, etc). and this is a particularly easy one to mess up, because the emphasis is off this vowel. for bet- and mem- and vav- prefixes, i don't even pronounce the vowel (which is why you'll see me render them in latin letters as b' or m' or v' even though this is NOT the accepted standard). and because most people memorize it in a spoken or chanted form, there's little gaurantee.this is the easiest kind of vowel to lose, or screw up, and it's the kind of precision of subtlety that i don't feel is exceptionally important. it's sort of like making an entire point out of comma placement in english -- it can be quite important, yes, but it's also commonly screwed up.

---

quote:

---

Hebrew's genitive case is achieved by placing two nouns next to each other. This is called a noun construct ( [smiut]). The second noun can be viewed as an adjective modifying the first noun.

---

oh, right, duh! sorry.it's quite possible that bara elohim is such a construct. i'm not familiar with any other such uses, however. but as a contruct, it need not be. it would just have to function as a noun -- a gerund not an infinitive: i'm not sure about gerunds in hebrew. let me take some time to research that a bit, and see. from a brief look (i'm at work) it doesn't seem that they look like that, but bara is a strange verb to begin with. not sure i would say "fluent." there's a pretty good chance you know more than i do.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

Pardon me for the intrusion, but would you be able to assist in the following matter?http://EvC Forum: misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory -->EvC Forum: misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theoryIt's Greek and Latin not Hebrew, but your talents and expertise are welcome.

i'm not particularly well versed in greek or latin. in fact, i know basically nothing at all. from what i can tell, the word "theory" does contain the theos root -- but it's important to remember of course that the origin of a word may not bear much on the current usage. and in this case, in western societies, religion was the only form of academics for a thousand years or so.i don't want to junk up this thread too much with an aside, but do you have a link to the conversation that prompted the PNT? i'll look at it, and if i feel so inclined, i'll comment once the thread goes through.

---

after looking at the "all topics" page and wondering where this page went, i went looking through the bible study forum, to discover it was the very last post.somehow, we've been posting more than 4 years in the past!

quote:

---

Message 21 of 23
07-27-2007 04:41 PM

​

Message 22 of 23
04-02-2003 05:30 PM

​

Message 23 of 23
04-02-2003 06:00 PM

---

it's funny to have posts from before you joined:

quote:

---

Registered: 05-21-2004

---

Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle

---

I wondered if your linguistic prowess included the Greek and Latin... I guess not. Even so, your other knowledge of morpholgy and language useage is certainly relevant.Arach: Excellent observation! I think that is part of Paul Davies' analysis as well.Arach:I understand... Thank you. And I invite you to read the whole thing if you wish. If I am missing something, I need to know from a source other than Kuresu who seems very worked up over the issue.Here is where the recent trouble began: http://EvC Forum: The "Digital Code" of DNA -->EvC Forum: The "Digital Code" of DNA

ah -- after a look or two, i'd like to revise my opinion. it seems you are overlooking something. something i missed on the first pass too. i'll save it for the appropriate thread, should it be promoted.

That is not what I wanted to hear. But reality is the issue, so bring it on. I'd like to speculate, but no...The thread appears to be coming, but I have to make some changes. Perhaps in the process I will find what you are saying myself.

well, it's short. so i'll add it here.thea and the feminine case of theos appear to be homonyms.

So that's it.... how so?I am (hopefully) awaiting thread promotion, so feel free to wait to respond.

It is a challenge to translate from original languages to modern . That much is obvious. However either rendering of the opening verses allows for an indefinite period of time. This agrees with scientific evidence that the universe may be billions of years old. It also says that there was a beginning- we are just not sure when. The events taking place during the six creative days describe the preparation of earth for life. These time periods were not limited to 24hrs but were much longer in length - again fitting with scientific evidence.