Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2017 11:31 PM
395 online now:
CRR, Dr Adequate, NoNukes (3 members, 392 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,018 Year: 9,624/21,208 Month: 2,711/2,674 Week: 135/961 Day: 135/98 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
13141516
17
18Next
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 241 of 257 (785387)
06-03-2016 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by arachnophilia
06-02-2016 10:42 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

er, the masoretic is not a translation.

Sure it is.

It is a translation of ancient Hebrew into Masoretic Hebrew.

arach writes:

we're discussing how to translate the masoretic.

You may be discussing how to translate the Masoretic text. I am discussing Biblical Hebrew and what it says.

arach writes:

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),

At least it is getting problematic finally.

ית is a feminine suffix that makes a masculine noun a female noun.

It is not a construct suffix as you assert.

You keep making the assertion that the first word in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 has a construct suffix.

You have yet to present any evidence to support such an assertion.
Your https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D6%BE%D7%99%D7%AA
source says:

ית feminine singular
For masculine singular adjectives in ־י ‎(-), replacing that ending to produce feminine singular forms.

No place does it say ית is a construct suffix.

arach writes:

no, in fact rashi presents this as a problem.

Actually it depends on what version of Rashi's commentary you are reading at the time.

quote:
[8] Ling. alt.: God as Judge said, "Let there be an expanse dividing the waters." / God said to the waters, "Be Still." And astonished, they became stable. back [9] Ling. alt.: God put the expanse and the waters in their proper condition, with a stable heaven separating the stable waters on earth from the stable waters suspended in an outer sphere. The initial work of creating the waters had begun. back

So yes rashi believed water came first which was the Aristotelian science view in his day.

arach writes:

he's arguing that you can't read it so literally.

Why can't the text be read literally?

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 238 by arachnophilia, posted 06-02-2016 10:42 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2016 8:16 PM ICANT has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 242 of 257 (785741)
06-09-2016 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by ICANT
06-03-2016 5:01 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
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:
Fder ure u e eart on heofonum, Si in nama gehalgod. to becume in rice, gewure in willa, on eoran swa swa on heofonum. urne gedghwamlican hlaf syle us todg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfa urum gyltendum. and ne geld u us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. solice. ("Old English"/Anglo-Saxon)

quote:
Oure fadir that art in heuenes, halewid be thi name; thi kyngdoom come to; be thi wille don `in erthe as in heuene; yyue to vs this dai oure `breed ouer othir substaunce; and foryyue to vs oure dettis, as we foryyuen to oure dettouris; and lede vs not in to temptacioun, but delyuere vs fro yuel. (Middle Enlgish)

quote:
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (KJV, Modern English)

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:
The infinite construct is not consistently morphologically distinct from the imperative (in some stems) or the infinitive absolute (in the so-called derived stems)

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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2016 5:01 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by ICANT, posted 06-11-2016 1:56 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 243 of 257 (785742)
06-09-2016 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by ICANT
06-03-2016 7:21 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2016 7:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by ICANT, posted 06-11-2016 3:26 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 244 of 257 (785744)
06-09-2016 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by ICANT
06-03-2016 11:21 PM


translations
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 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D6%BE%D7%99%D7%AA
source says:

ית feminine singular
For 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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2016 11:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2016 12:11 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 245 of 257 (785786)
06-11-2016 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by arachnophilia
06-09-2016 7:59 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

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.

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.

Vowel points only change words in the Masoretic text. Not in Biblical Hebrew.

arach writes:

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.

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.

arach writes:

uh, the KJV is modern english. let's compare.

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."

arach writes:

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,

Who modified it?

arach writes:

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.

quote:

The partial expresion of the vowels by certain consonants (א י ו ה ) which sufficed during the lifetime of the language, and for still longer period afterwards, must in the main have passed through the following stages.
(a) The need of a written indication of the vowel to be read first made itself felt in cases where, after the rejection of a consonant, or of an entire syllable, a long vowel formed the final sound of the word.

Page 33, 34 of Gesenius Hebrew grammer.


Consonants worked fine until the Masoretes waned to revive the dead language.

arach writes:

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.

ברא in gen 5:1 is a primitive root verb which makes it Qal perfect 3ps.

arach writes:

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:

Yes and I have the text book in my library

arach writes:

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.

A suffix does not make a noun in the construct state.

That happens when one noun is followed by another noun.

Maybe you should have changed seats so you could have learned the lessons.

But then again you were studying modern Hebrew. That you are trying to apply to Biblical Hebrew.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : correct Hebrew writing

Edited by ICANT, : remove Smilies


"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 242 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2016 7:59 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2016 7:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 246 of 257 (785788)
06-11-2016 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by arachnophilia
06-09-2016 8:08 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

how is a verb in a construct state?

When the נ or ת suffix is added, or a pronominal suffix is added as well as the inseparable prepositions added.

arach writes:

so you agree that biblical hebrew can turn verbs into nouns, and use them like nouns?

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.

arach writes:

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.

The verb in Genesis 1:1 and 5:1 are not modified at all which leaves them in their primitive state which is Qal 3ps.

arach writes:

and that verb is an infinitive.

They are in their primitive state which is Qal 3ps. There is no prefix nor suffix so what makes the verb an infinitive?

arach writes:

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.

quote:
Feminine Derivatives

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.


http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_anatomy.html

You will notice there are 3 suffixes added to a noun to make it feminine.

If memory serves me correctly when you have two nouns in the construct a feminine noun will always end with the ת.

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 243 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2016 8:08 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2016 7:45 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 247 of 257 (785999)
06-14-2016 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by arachnophilia
06-09-2016 8:16 PM


Re: translations
Hi arach

arach writes:

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 --

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.

arach writes:

in the original language. masoretic hebrew is just ancient, biblical hebrew with vowel points added. it is not a different language.

The Masoretic Hebrew bible was finished in 1100 AD that is not ancient. In fact it is almost modern compared to what Moses wrote.

The original had no vowel points rather, they used specific consonants as vowels.

You claim to be able to take those vowel points and change the meaning and structure of words and sentences of the original.

That means you have a modified original text which is what a translation is.

arach writes:

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.

Yes English is a different language. But if we set here and typed Biblical Hebrew you would not understand a word that was typed as you do not accept what the text says.

arach writes:

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!

We will go over it until you get it right.

You have not presented any list that ית is a infinitive construct suffix which you have claimed.

I do not know what modern Hebrew says it is as I have not studied modern Hebrew nor do I have the time to waste to learn it at my age.

But yes suffixes do specific things. Following is a list that includes ית telling you that it is used to modify a masculine noun.

quote:

Feminine Derivatives

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. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_anatomy.html


arach writes:

adjectives aren't nouns! come on, ICANT. you know this.

But Biblical Hebrew nouns are used as adjectives.

arach writes:

what does a construct state do? how is it using one noun to modify another?

The construct state occurs when you have one noun following another noun.
The first noun is modified by the second noun as the first noun is in the construct state and the second in the absolute state. When this construction occurs the first noun translation is to be followed by 'of' as it is in the possession of the second noun.

arach writes:

because, according to rashi, both readings are preposterous -- water precedes creation, or the text is out of order.

Water covers the earth in Genesis 1:2. According to verse 2 the earth existed.

quote:
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

"And the earth" requires the earth to exist. It just exists covered in water.

But don't you put forth that the second story in Genesis 2:4-4:26 is a much older story than the one in chapter one?

The heavens and earth created in Genesis 1:1 that has its history recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:26 did not have any seas. It only had a river that flowed from Eden and went out and divided into 4 rivers that watered the land. There were no fish or sea creatures made or created in this story.

So the earth in the first story had no seas.

Water did not come first according to the Bible and the BBT theory would have produced a earth that water could not exist on until long after the earth existed.

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 244 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2016 8:16 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2016 7:56 PM ICANT has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 248 of 257 (786168)
06-17-2016 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by ICANT
06-11-2016 1:56 AM


vowel movement
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:
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.

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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by ICANT, posted 06-11-2016 1:56 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 249 of 257 (786169)
06-17-2016 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by ICANT
06-11-2016 3:26 AM


suffering suffixes
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:
ידבר אלהים אל־נח לאמר

noun or verb?

quote:
ויקר יהוה אל־בלעם וישם דבר בפיו ויאמר שוב אל־בלק וכה תדבר

noun or verb?

quote:
וידבר אלהים את כל־הדברים האלה לאמר

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:
  • Appended to certain masculine nouns denoting men, forming feminine counterparts denoting women.
    מלצר ‎→ מלצרית ‎(miltsart, waitress)

  • Appended to certain masculine nouns denoting large items, forming feminine counterparts denoting corresponding small items.
    שק ‎(big bag) ‎→ שקית ‎(sakt, small bag)

  • Forming proper nouns denoting languages (identical to feminine singular adjectives).
    צרפתית ‎(tsarfatt, French)

  • Forming female given names; especially, appended to male given names to form female counterparts.
    דור ‎→ דורית ‎(dort, Dorit)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D6%BE%D7%99%D7%AA


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:
ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל וארך ואכד וכלנה בארץ שנער

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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by ICANT, posted 06-11-2016 3:26 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 250 of 257 (786170)
06-17-2016 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by ICANT
06-14-2016 12:11 PM


Re: translations
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2016 12:11 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2016 6:10 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 251 of 257 (786178)
06-18-2016 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by arachnophilia
06-17-2016 7:56 PM


Re: translations
Hi acrah
arach writes:

sort of correct, however, masoretic hebrew is still biblical hebrew. it is not a translation; it is the addition of vowel points.

In Message 191 you said:

arach writes:

the simplest explanation is that vowels are incorrect. the consonants were written around 2,500 years ago, and the vowels only added some 1,000 years ago. there's a 1,500+ year gap between when ent.the author of genesis 1:1 wrote, and when someone added points this consonants. and here, the points are incoherent and inconsistent, if you read the text without vowels, you'd read it as a infinitive, and the text existed that way for a long time before the masoretes got ahold of it.
we already know that the masoretes added incorrect points elsewhere intentionally, based on how they though the texts should be read, rather than what they thought the authors actually meant. for instance, they fairly consistently mis-point the name of god. it's entirely possible that they mis-pointed the text here as well to represent their doctrine.

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. Just like the guys that translated the KJV into the New World Translation.

arach writes:

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.

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.

arach writes:

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.

They translated something into the masorete text as the masorete text did not exist before they finished it in 1100 AD.

In Message 191 you said:
"the simplest explanation is that vowels are incorrect."
"the consonants were written around 2,500 years ago"
"the author of genesis 1:1 wrote, and when someone added points this consonants. and here, the points are incoherent and inconsistent"
"the text existed that way for a long time before the masoretes got ahold of it." About 1500 years.
"we already know that the masoretes added incorrect points elsewhere intentionally,"

Every vowel point is put exactly where they wanted it to be put as there was no vowel points before they put them to the text.

"based on how they though the texts should be read, rather than what they thought the authors actually meant."

So the results of their work is made to conform to their doctrine and what they believed.

"it's entirely possible that they mis-pointed the text here as well to represent their doctrine"

They didn't point it so as to support your doctrine or beliefs.

In Message 176 you said:בְּרֵאשִׁית
is in the construct state without a noun following it to make it in the construct.

In Message 176 you said:

quote:

בְּרֵאשִׁית has a construct ending

In Message 247 I gave you evidence where ית was a feminine ending.

In Message 249 you gave a source where every one of the examples has ית listed as a feminine suffix.

Nowhere is ית listed as a construct ending (suffix.

You also tell me "the ית here ties to the next word in a construct chain.

A feminine suffix does not tie anything to anything. It just turns the noun it is attached to into a feminine noun. It has no other purpose.

arach writes:

where it's tied in a construct pair, רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, "the beginning of his kingdom". obviously this poses a problem as written, because here בָּרָא has the incorrect niqudot, and should be pointed as an infinitive construct as in genesis 5:1,

ית is not tied in a construct pair. It is the feminine suffix on a masculine noun that is in construct to the absolute noun that follows it.

You also say ברשית should be pointed as an infinitive construct. I tell you one more time the vowels you want to modify ברשית did not exist in the original text. They were added about 1500 years later.

In Message 176 You tell me: ברא
must be functioning as a noun, because the word that precedes it is in the construct state."

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.

As far as a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 I do not hold that view.

I believe the heavens and the earth were created in 6 light periods and 6 dark periods as recorded in the Bible. Exodus 20:11, 31:17 The seventh light period and dark period God ceased His work.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : Correct message number from 1


"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 250 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2016 7:56 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by arachnophilia, posted 06-18-2016 3:15 PM ICANT has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 252 of 257 (786193)
06-18-2016 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by ICANT
06-18-2016 6:10 AM


Re: translations
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2016 6:10 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2016 6:59 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 253 of 257 (786201)
06-18-2016 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by arachnophilia
06-18-2016 3:15 PM


Re: translations
Hi arach
arach writes:

the masoretic text is the name of a specific set of manuscripts,

A text that was compiled between 700 and 1100 AD. A brand new version of the tanakh.

arach writes:

it is merely the addition of pointers to the text that help the reader with pronunciation.

If it is only for pronunciation why do you keep saying a word has to be pointed in a certain way for a text word to mean one thing and if it is pointed in a different way it changes the meaning to something else.

arach writes:

it is the same language. a translation is when you take something from one language and put it in another.

If It is not another language why doesn't the Masoretic text look like the language in my avatar?

It is not the original language that Moses wrote the Torah in. He could not read or write the Masoretic text. That means it is a different language regardless of what it is called.

arach writes:

as far as i'm aware, the NWT is translated from hebrew, aramaic, and greek

It takes Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scholars to accomplish that.

arach writes:

yes, that is what i'm telling you: alef and ayin are not vowels, they are consonants.

But we got along just fine without vowels. We simply used the designated Hebrew symbols like we do the English designated symbols we call vowels today.

arach writes:

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.

Yes I know you keep saying it is not a translation.
So why don't it look like my avatar which is Genesis 1:1?

I am having a hard time understanding how the Masoretic text could be the same language of the text Moses wrote as he would not be able to read or understand it.

arach writes:

correct, they pointed it incorrectly to support your beliefs. the vowels force a particular reading, where the consonants imply a different one.

Well they did not have to point it to support my beliefs. Because it supports my beliefs without the Masoretic vowel points.

So the vowel pointing supports my beliefs, according to you.
According to you the vowel pointing's are wrong.
If the vowel pointing's are changed it would support your beliefs.

But according to you the vowel pointing's don't do anything but help with the pronunciation.

arach writes:

it is merely the addition of pointers to the text that help the reader with pronunciation.

SUMMARY
1. The Masoretic text supports the standard translation of Genesis 1:1.
2. According to arachnophilia the Masoretes pointed the verse wrong
which makes the standard translation wrong.
3. If the vowels pointing's are changed the text will support Rashi's beliefs.
4. But according to arachnophilia the vowel points do not change anything but the pronunciation.

5. Therefore according to arachnophilia the standard translation of Genesis 1:1 is accurate.

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 252 by arachnophilia, posted 06-18-2016 3:15 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by arachnophilia, posted 06-20-2016 7:47 PM ICANT has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 254 of 257 (786366)
06-20-2016 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by ICANT
06-18-2016 6:59 PM


Re: translations
ICANT writes:

A text that was compiled between 700 and 1100 AD. A brand new version of the tanakh.

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.

If it is only for pronunciation why do you keep saying a word has to be pointed in a certain way for a text word to mean one thing and if it is pointed in a different way it changes the meaning to something else.

are you sure you studied hebrew? sometimes the same set of consonants can be pronounced slightly differently.

If It is not another language why doesn't the Masoretic text look like the language in my avatar?

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.

But we got along just fine without vowels. We simply used the designated Hebrew symbols like we do the English designated symbols we call vowels today.

i can't even figure out what you mean by this. did you use vowels, or not? alef and ayin are NOT vowels.

Yes I know you keep saying it is not a translation.
So why don't it look like my avatar which is Genesis 1:1?

uh, because their handwriting was a little different: https://en.wikipedia.org/...brew_alphabet#Stylistic_variants

it'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".

I am having a hard time understanding how the Masoretic text could be the same language of the text Moses wrote as he would not be able to read or understand it.

why do you think moses would have a hard time understanding it? it's a simple matter of learning a slightly different script.

Well they did not have to point it to support my beliefs. Because it supports my beliefs without the Masoretic vowel points.

that's a negative. without the vowels, it reads as infinitive, for reasons already discussed.

1. The Masoretic text supports the standard translation of Genesis 1:1.

incorrect. the masoretic text contains a contradiction in its vowels; they are wrong by default. neither translation is supported by the vowels.

4. But according to arachnophilia the vowel points do not change anything but the pronunciation.

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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2016 6:59 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2016 2:47 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 255 of 257 (786574)
06-23-2016 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by arachnophilia
06-20-2016 7:47 PM


Re: translations
Hi arach

arach writes:

are you sure you studied hebrew? sometimes the same set of consonants can be pronounced slightly differently.

What changes the sound of the consonants?

arach writes:

a language is the system of vocabulary, grammar and syntax that make up speech or writing.

OK

arach writes:

a script is the set of characters used to write that language.

OK

arach writes:

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.

So if we change the font to the one I am using in this message using certain fonts to represent the fonts in my avatar my KJV Bible is written in Biblical Hebrew according to arachnophilia. The added extra fonts and the rules that govern their use would/would not change the original text.

arach writes:

i can't even figure out what you mean by this. did you use vowels, or not? alef and ayin are NOT vowels.

א alef is a consonant that is pronounced as the first letter of its name.
ע ayin is a consonant that is pronounced as the first letter of its name.

So no we did not use vowels as Biblical Hebrew ( the language the original text was written in) did not have vowels.

It only had consonants and each consonant had its own pronunciation just as our English consonants have.

arach writes:

uh, because their handwriting was a little different:

Not only was their handwriting a little different, they added a vowel system to the language. You and others take that vowel system and change the meaning of what was written by pointing consonants in different ways.

That makes the version produced by the Masoretes a different language even though they use the Jewish script.

arach writes:

it's the same alef-bet and the same language, just written in a different script.

That being the case.

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

brashyt bra alhym hshmym and harts

according to archnophilia are the same thing (Biblical Hebrew), as the above line only uses a different font.

arach writes:

why do you think moses would have a hard time understanding it? it's a simple matter of learning a slightly different script.

Are you saying it would be simple for him to learn a completely new script system to replace the one he had been studying and using for nearly a hundred years?

I don't think so.

You are having a very hard time learning what Moses wrote as your primary language is English. Therefore you are trying to understand what Moses wrote from a western view. In other words you are trying to make the language Moses used into English with all the problems we have with English.

The language Moses used was a very simple language. It was not the convoluted mess that is called Biblical Hebrew today, which is viewed and studied from a western point of view.

arach writes:

that's a negative. without the vowels, it reads as infinitive, for reasons already discussed.

Your assertions do not make do not make your assertions a fact.

You have asserted that ית is an infinitive construct suffix.

You have presented no source that supports such an assertion.

You presented a link that lists ית as a female suffix.

I presented you textbook source that states ית is a female suffix that is added to a masculine noun to make it a feminine noun.

You claim בראשית is in the construct state.

But you have presented no way for בראשית to be in the construct state as it is not followed by a noun to put it in the construct state.

arach writes:

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.

בָּרָא in Genesis 1:1.

בְּרֺא in Genesis 5:1.

What changes the part of speech of either of these verbs?

There are two prefixes that will change the part of speech of a verb.
מ From; also turns a verb into a noun.
משׁ Turns a verb into the person who does it.

Suffixes only add information, and does not change the part of speech.

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 254 by arachnophilia, posted 06-20-2016 7:47 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by arachnophilia, posted 07-01-2016 8:41 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
13141516
17
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017