Evangelical Humanists writes:
Ex-nihilo either way you look at it changing words does not change it.
i believe you have ignored my argument, perhaps because you didn't understand it? can i help explain it to you in any way?
I am aware that the Hebrew is ברא bara' for (creation)
correct. and that's actually neither here nor there (though ICANT likes to make some kind of nonsense issue about it). the issue is that the first word, ראש ("first"), is in the construct state, ראשית ("first
of"), which means that it's joined to the next word. it's common in hebrew for words to be paired this way, but you can only have a construct between
two nouns. that means the verb, ברא ("create") must be functioning as a noun ("creating"). in other words, an infinitive (or gerund, in english terms).
the issue is that, in hebrew, verb tenses are determined by the vowels and/or semi-vowels that have been applied to modify the three letter root. in this case, the people who added the vowel points added the vowels for a simple (qal) perfect (generally translated as past tense) verb, instead of the points for an infinitive. the points, of course, were not part of the original text.
in this case, i haven't changed any of the words, just made an educated inference about what the vowels
should have been. this inference is supported by rashi and orlinsky, both of whom know what they're talking about. (rashi is the tenth century jewish rabbi responsible for one of the most comprehensive commentaries on the torah. he wrote in hebrew, so i believe that counts as fluent.)
as rashi notes, if the author had meant to say "in the beginning, god created" in an abstract sense, to give a timeframe for the story, instead of "in the beginning of god creating" ("when god began creating") he would have used ראש in the abstract sense, not in the construct. so instead of ראשית ("first of"), it would say ראשונה ("first").
since, in this case, ברא is not an actual verb, we have ourselves a subordinate clause. no action has taken place here. the clauses that proceed from this verse describe what it was like
at the beginning of god's creation. so, if you read from there, it says that, "when god began creating the heaven and the earth... the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep." that's what it was like,
when god began creating.
this is actually a common way to begin stories. genesis 2:4 says,
quote:
אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם
"these are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created: in the day of yahweh god making earth and heaven..."
i don't expect you to follow the grammar here specifically, but you should know that it's exactly the same. ביום is a complex preposition, similar to בראשית, and means "in the day of" something. the verb that follows it, עשות ("making") is (correctly pointed as) an infinitive construct. the whole thing begins a subordinate clause. here is genesis 5:1:
quote:
זֶה סֵפֶר, תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם: בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ.
"this is the book of the generation of adam: in the day of god creating adam, in the image of god he made him."
same structure. complex preposition, constructed with an infinitive noun (this time, ברא pointed
correctly), forming a subordinate clause. the independent clause, "in the image of god he made him" tells what happened
when god made adam.
yes? so in genesis 1:1-3, the second and third verses tell what happened
at the beginning of god creating. ergo, no
ex-nihilo creation. the hebrew doesn't support it. further, as i tried to point out above, even if you miss all of these points, the rest of the chapter goes on to tell the actual story of creation, in which god creates from raw materials.
And since I do not speak fluent Hebrew I got no idea what you posted in Hebrew.
does this post help any?
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
אָרַח