Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-22-2017 10:22 PM
355 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, LamarkNewAge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (4 members, 351 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Happy Birthday: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,866 Year: 27,472/21,208 Month: 1,385/1,714 Week: 228/365 Day: 70/62 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
26NextFF
Author Topic:   Creation
Admin
Director
Posts: 12534
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 226 of 389 (784042)
05-11-2016 9:34 AM


Moderator Concern
I want to register a concern here that I've mentioned before in other threads. Arguments like these are not really arguments:

  • You believe that way because of your worldview.
  • We use the same evidence you do, we just interpret it differently.
  • That's just the way I see it.

Oftentimes these arguments are used as if the author thinks they are a valid objection. They are not. They are at best a starting point. Their proper use is as introductory phrases for the real argument, e.g.:

  • You believe that way because of your worldview, and your worldview is wrong because...
  • We use the same evidence you do, we just interpret it differently, and here's how we interpret it...
  • That's just the way I see it, and here's why...

If anyone objects then please propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics to discuss their validity as arguments when used by themselves.

--Percy


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 227 of 389 (784070)
05-11-2016 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by arachnophilia
05-11-2016 8:31 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach,

arach writes:

no, because it reads very well, and represents the hebrew very well.

It may fit what modern Hebrew would say, but it does not fit what Biblical Hebrew says.

arach writes:

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.

Rashi's argument would begin between his birth in 1040 AD and 1105 AD. The completed pointed Masorete text was available during his lifetime.

arach writes:

it sounds like you've made up your mind because this verse does not represent your worldview.

That is very possible.
Because my worldview has been shaped by the LXX that was the first translation of the Hebrew text.

It was also shaped by my studies of Paleo-Hebrew which is very different from what you keep arguing.

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.

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.

arach writes:

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.

The JPS 1985 version and the NIV are like two peas in a pod.

arach writes:

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.

But we have older text than 2200 years. But the author of Genesis would not be able to read any of what is called the Hebrew text that uses the modern fonts.

The Hebrew he knew is what is written in my avatar.

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 225 by arachnophilia, posted 05-11-2016 8:31 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by arachnophilia, posted 05-11-2016 2:32 PM ICANT has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 228 of 389 (784072)
05-11-2016 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by ICANT
05-11-2016 1:53 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
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:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. (NIV)

And the Lord God formed out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that would be its name. (nJPS)

וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָה כָּל־חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל־עֹוף הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיָּבֵא אֶל־הָאָדָם לִרְאֹות מַה־יִּקְרָא־לֹו וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא־לֹו הָֽאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה הוּא שְׁמֹֽו׃ (MT)


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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by ICANT, posted 05-11-2016 1:53 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 05-14-2016 3:42 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 234 by ICANT, posted 05-21-2016 4:49 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 229 of 389 (784201)
05-14-2016 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by arachnophilia
05-11-2016 2:32 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

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).

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?

arach writes:

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 likeשל in its place.

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.

So you are the one who is trying to make a dead language say and do things that it never did.

arach writes:

so? rashi wasn't a masorete.

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.

Rambam thought so too and he argued in person with rashi.

Anytime you translate from one language to another there is problems as no two languages are alike and the language that is being translated is usually older than the one that is being translated.

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 .

There are 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text.

So much for what text the apostles thought was the best text.

arach writes:

you know that scholarship has progressed in this area since 1960, right?

What has that got to do with God's Word?

arach writes:

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

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.

arach writes:

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,

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.

arach writes:

as i've pointed out (with sources) ית is (uncommon)

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.

That construction does not exist in Genesis 1:1.

I know you have tried real hard to make the verb a noun but it is not a noun.

בראשית is a feminine noun that is not in the construct as it is not followed by a noun.

Neither does the ית make it construct as the word following בראשית is not a noun.

ית is not a construct suffix. If you disagree get me the chart that shows it as a construct suffix.

arach writes:

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 Samaritans have copies of the same Pentateuch (Torah) they have had 3800 years.

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 228 by arachnophilia, posted 05-11-2016 2:32 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2016 7:39 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 236 by arachnophilia, posted 06-02-2016 10:15 AM ICANT has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7511
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(2)
Message 230 of 389 (784205)
05-14-2016 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
05-14-2016 3:42 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
There are 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text.

So much for what text the apostles thought was the best text.

I would have though that the best text to quote if you are a Greek writer, writing a work in Greek to be read and considered persuasive to Greek readers, would be the Greek one. Not sure how this demonstrates which is a more accurate representation of the actual meanings of earlier texts they were translated from.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 05-14-2016 3:42 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2016 1:33 AM Modulous has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 231 of 389 (784341)
05-17-2016 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Modulous
05-14-2016 7:39 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi Mod

Mod writes:

Not sure how this demonstrates which is a more accurate representation of the actual meanings of earlier texts they were translated from.

We were talking about the reliability of the Septuagint, also called LXX compared to the Masoretic Text.

The New Testament writers believed the LXX to be the best source for God's Word as that is what they quoted the most.

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 230 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2016 7:39 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Modulous, posted 05-17-2016 3:09 AM ICANT has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7511
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 232 of 389 (784343)
05-17-2016 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by ICANT
05-17-2016 1:33 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
We were talking about the reliability of the Septuagint, also called LXX compared to the Masoretic Text.

Correct.

The New Testament writers believed the LXX to be the best source for God's Word as that is what they quoted the most.

They believed it to be the best source to quote in their Greek work. I usually use English Translations for the Bible when discussing the text, this does not mean I think it is the most accurate to the originals or the most reliable. There is utility in using the language of your audience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by ICANT, posted 05-17-2016 1:33 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2016 1:18 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 233 of 389 (784411)
05-18-2016 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Modulous
05-17-2016 3:09 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi Mod

Mod writes:

They believed it to be the best source to quote in their Greek work. I usually use English Translations for the Bible when discussing the text, this does not mean I think it is the most accurate to the originals or the most reliable. There is utility in using the language of your audience.

The Scribes who translated the Hebrew text into Greek knew both Greek and Biblical Hebrew and were a lot closer to the time the Hebrew text was written.

You using an English translation is much different. You don't know if you have God's Word or not.

Paul knew the Hebrew probably better than Greek or any of the other languages he knew. Having the position he did before he met Jesus he probably could have quoted the Torah word for word. So he would have knew if the LXX was a good translation or not.

Most English Bibles today are abomination's instead of translations.

BTW that is the reason I spent years studying to learn Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. I don't have to depend on what someone else tells me what the original says.

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 232 by Modulous, posted 05-17-2016 3:09 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 234 of 389 (784662)
05-21-2016 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by arachnophilia
05-11-2016 2:32 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

so? rashi wasn't a masorete.

Lets examine what rashi really said and his reasons for saying them.

This is a quote from rashi on Genesis 1:1.

quote:
Because, wherever the word ראשית occurs in Scripture, it is in the construct state. E. g., (Jeremiah 26:1) In the beginning of (ראשית ) the reign of Jehoiakim; (Genesis 10:10) The beginning of (ראשית ) his kingdom; (Deuteronomy 18:4) The first fruit of (ראשית ) thy corn. Similarly here you must translate בראשית ברא אלתים as though it read בראשית ברוא , at the beginning of Gods creating. A similar grammatical construction (of a noun in construct followed by a verb) is: (Hosea 1:2) תהלת דבר ה׳ בהושע , which is as much as to say, At the beginning of Gods speaking through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea. Should you, however, insist that it does actually intend to point out that these (heaven and earth) were created first, and that the meaning is, At the beginning of everything He created these, admitting therefore that the word בראשית is in the construct state

quote:
Because, wherever the word ראשית occurs in Scripture, it is in the construct state.

That statement is false

Every place in Scripture that ראשית is followed by a noun it is in the construct.

But as I stated in Message 213

בראשית is in the Bible 51 times in 49 verses. 46 are followed by a noun, 1 time it is followed by a adjective noun, making them construct. 3 times it is followed by verbs, 1 time it is followed by a adjective.

When בראשית is followed by a verb it is not in the construct so rashi is wrong.

quote:
E. g., (Jeremiah 26:1) In the beginning of (ראשית ) the reign of Jehoiakim; (Genesis 10:10) The beginning of (ראשית ) his kingdom; (Deuteronomy 18:4) The first fruit of (ראשית ) thy corn.

In each of these ראשית is followed by a noun which places it in the construct.

quote:
Similarly here you must translate בראשית ברא אלתים as though it read בראשית ברוא , at the beginning of Gods creating.

Here rashi makes an unsupported assertion.

quote:
A similar grammatical construction (of a noun in construct followed by a verb) is: (Hosea 1:2) תהלת דבר ה׳ בהושע , which is as much as to say, At the beginning of Gods speaking through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea.

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 and means 1.beginning, first.
The second word is a masculine noun meaning 1.speech, word, speaking, thing.
The second word is connected to the third word by a maqef.
The third word is a feminine noun meaning 1.Jehovah = "the existing One"

Rashi uses the masoretes vowel pointings to make the second noun into a verb.

To make the second noun a verb the original writer would have added a מ prefix. Which he did not add.

quote:
Should you, however, insist that it does actually intend to point out that these (heaven and earth) were created first, and that the meaning is, At the beginning of everything He created these, admitting therefore that the word בראשית is in the construct state

Here rashi makes an assertion and tells you that you must admit that בראשית is in the construct state.

Why? Because he believed water came first not the heavens and the earth.

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 228 by arachnophilia, posted 05-11-2016 2:32 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by arachnophilia, posted 06-02-2016 10:35 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 235 of 389 (784813)
05-23-2016 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by arachnophilia
05-10-2016 11:42 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

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.

After doing a little research where I found that the 1985 translation was produced by the translators without any connection to the 1917 JPS.
They claim it was translated from the Masoretic text to more strictly follow the Masoretic text.

Yet the Masoretic text translates Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

So I guess they get their translation from somewhere else.

They probably use Rashi as you do.

The problem with Rashi's translation is that he was trying to make the Hebrew text conform to the scientific view of his day.

Rashi seems to have allowed eleventh century Aristotelian science to guide his interpretation more than linguistics or the opinions of his rabbinic forbearers.

Maimonides and Nahmanides, lived after Rashi and in a time of Aristotelian science, yet they disagreed with Rashi on Genesis 1:1.

Rashis translation is based on antiquated, disproven scientific arguments, and therefore has no application today, or when he rendered it.

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 219 by arachnophilia, posted 05-10-2016 11:42 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by arachnophilia, posted 06-02-2016 10:42 AM ICANT has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 236 of 389 (785317)
06-02-2016 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
05-14-2016 3:42 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
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: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D6%BE%D7%99%D7%AA

this is a very similar concept, considering that adjectives modify nouns.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 05-14-2016 3:42 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2016 5:01 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 237 of 389 (785318)
06-02-2016 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by ICANT
05-21-2016 4:49 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
ICANT writes:

quote:
Because, wherever the word ראשית occurs in Scripture, it is in the construct state.

That statement is false. ...

there are some places it's an implied construct, actually.

quote:
E. g., (Jeremiah 26:1) In the beginning of (ראשית ) the reign of Jehoiakim; (Genesis 10:10) The beginning of (ראשית ) his kingdom;

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:
בְּרֵאשִׁית מַמְלְכוּת

that noun, מַמְלְכוּת is, מ + מלך+ ות. prepositional prefix (m), plus מלך, plus a genitive suffix (ut).

what part of speech is מלך?

quote:
Similarly here you must translate בראשית ברא אלתים as though it read בראשית ברוא , at the beginning of Gods creating.

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:
וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־נֹחַ לֵאמֹֽר׃

וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלָיו יְהוָה וַיֵּלֶךְ אִתֹּו לֹוט וְאַבְרָם בֶּן־חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה בְּצֵאתֹו מֵחָרָֽן

וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָם עַל־פָּנָיו וַיְדַבֵּר אִתֹּו אֱלֹהִים לֵאמֹֽר׃


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


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by ICANT, posted 05-21-2016 4:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2016 7:21 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 238 of 389 (785319)
06-02-2016 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by ICANT
05-23-2016 8:15 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 05-23-2016 8:15 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2016 11:21 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 239 of 389 (785374)
06-03-2016 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by arachnophilia
06-02-2016 10:15 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

the DSS -- without vowel points. the problem is created by the vowel points.

So quit using the vowel points added by the masorets and the problems will go away.

arach writes:

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).

Nobody said it was perfect. But it is much better than the Masoretic text with their vowel points.

arach writes:

the LXX is in greek, and was the predominant greek translation of the day.

It was the only Greek text.

arach writes:

there's also no reason to think that the modern samaritans are at all connected to the historical, first-temple samarians,

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.

My point to you was that there were people who still use a Torah that is written in Paleo-Hebrew as you were asserting all we had was the Masoretic text.

arach writes:

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.

It is possible only because the Masoret's spent at least 300 years adding their vowel points.

Biblical Hebrew had no need for the Masoret's vowel points as it had consonants that served as their vowels.

arach writes:

verbs can act as nouns.

Yes when a prefix is added to the verb.

arach writes:

i'm really having trouble believing that you still don't understand what an infinitive construct

An infinitive construct is not inflected for person, gender, or number.
Infinitive construct is a tenseless verbal form.

ברא is a primitive root verb which makes it Qal perfect 3ps.

It is not an Infinitive construct.

arach writes:

i gave you a source above, which shows it as an adjectival suffix: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D6%BE%D7%99%D7%AA

this is a very similar concept, considering that adjectives modify nouns.

Your source says ית is a feminine suffix.

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?

ראשית is the masculine noun ראש that has the feminine suffix ית added to make it a feminine noun.

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 236 by arachnophilia, posted 06-02-2016 10:15 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2016 7:59 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 240 of 389 (785375)
06-03-2016 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by arachnophilia
06-02-2016 10:35 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

there are some places it's an implied construct, actually.

So you have asserted many times.

arach writes:

yeah. let's actually look at this one for a second. the phrase here is,

OK

arach writes:

what part of speech מלך?

מלך is a primitive root verb.
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.
Change the suffix כה to ות and you get a masculine noun ממלכות which is what you have in Genesis 10:10

(ראשית a feminine noun, followed by ממלכות a masculine noun placing (ראשית in the construct.

This is not the construction that exists in Genesis 1:1.

arach writes:

the masoretes render genesis 5:1 similarly, inserting the "o" (waw sound) in with vowel points. clearly it can be read that way.

You have the same identical construction in Genesis 1:1 and 1:5.

You have a noun followed by a verb followed by a noun.

If you read Genesis 1:1 as a Hebrew in the days of Moses it would read: "In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth".
Genesis 5:1 as: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day created God man, in the likeness of God made he him;".

The problem comes about when we try to make Hebrew into English putting the noun before the verb.

arach writes:

techilat, that's a tav at the end. because construct suffix.

First word: חלה a root verb.
Add the feminine suffix • and you get חלהת a feminine noun.

You are adding a suffix to make the verb a noun it does not put the noun in the construct.

The second word: דבר a root verb.
־ maqqef connecting the verb to:
יהוה a masculine noun placing
חלהת in the construct.

The feminine suffix ת does not cause the construct state.

arach writes:

don't be silly.

Why not? Just because I spoke in reverse order. The mem from will turn a verb into a noun.

But in this case the verb is connected to the following noun placing the noun in the construct.

The construct state did not occur because the feminine suffix • was place on a masculine noun to make it a feminine noun.


"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 237 by arachnophilia, posted 06-02-2016 10:35 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2016 8:08 PM ICANT has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
26NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017