Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 176 of 1482 (783710)
05-07-2016 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
04-22-2016 3:13 AM


there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
ICANT writes:
This verse tells us that "In the beginning" is when the heaven and the earth was created.
in fact, it does not tell us this. genesis 1:1 reads,
quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
בְּרֵאשִׁית has a construct ending, had it meant "in the beginning," comma, the word here would be בתאשונה. the ית- here ties to the next word in a construct chain. see for instance, genesis 10:10,
quote:
וַתְּהִי רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ בָּבֶל, וְאֶרֶךְ וְאַכַּד וְכַלְנֵה, בְּאֶרֶץ, שִׁנְעָר.
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,
quote:
בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ.
where it serves a similar function. it must have these points (note that none of the consonants change) because it must be functioning as a noun, because the word that precedes it is in the construct state.
note that this means the phrase forms a subordinate clause, "in the beginning of god creating," or "when god began to create," (cf: the nJPS, under orlinsky), and the next verses describe precisely what the cosmos was like when god began to create (verse 2) and what god's first action was that began creation (verse 3). see rashi's commentary:
quote:
as our Rabbis stated (Letters of R. Akiva , letter beth ; Gen. Rabbah 1:6; Lev. Rabbah 36:4): [God created the world] for the sake of the Torah, which is called (Prov. 8:22): the beginning of His way, and for the sake of Israel, who are called (Jer. 2:3) the first of His grain. But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darknessand God said, ‘Let there be light.’ But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, to say that these came first, for if it came to teach this, it should have written:At first (בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה) He created the heavens and the earth, for there is no רֵאשִׁית in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state] like (ibid. 27:1):In the beginning of (בְּרֵאשִית) the reign of Jehoiakim ; (below 10:10)the beginning of (רֵאשִׁית) his reign ; (Deut. 18:4)the first (רֵאשִׁית) of your corn. Here too, you say בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אלֹהִים, like בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא, in the beginning of creating. And similar to this is,At the beginning of the Lord’s speaking (דִּבֶּר) to Hosea, (Hos. 1:2), i.e., at the beginning of the speaking (דִּבּוּרוֹ) of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, etc.
Just a moment...
so the idea that there is somehow a gap immediately following genesis 1:1 is untenable -- the first verse is literally, grammatically dependent on third verse. there is no gap, because genesis 1:1 categorically does not tell us that creation happened in some time we're calling the beginning. that doesn't really even make any sense.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 04-22-2016 3:13 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 1:40 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 189 by kbertsche, posted 05-08-2016 11:10 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 177 of 1482 (783711)
05-07-2016 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2016 3:51 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
Well, people have always read the Bible as meaning they were created at the same moment. So your argument would have to be that the Bible is in fact correct, but is so badly written that no-one knew what it meant until we could read it in the light of modern science.
in fact, there is part of this verse that is grammatically unclear (in the hebrew), but it's mostly a product of masoretic addition of vowel points, and it's been understood since the middle ages in jewish commentaries (notably rashi). see my post above.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2016 3:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 178 of 1482 (783712)
05-07-2016 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by jar
05-05-2016 10:21 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
jar writes:
The Trinity was not even included in the original version of the Nicene Creed.
well, the nicene creed was the first major step towards a codified version of the doctrine of the trinity, particularly in its rejection of arianism. the fun part is that they were definitely still figuring out how to properly phrase their beliefs, as it contains this particular anathema at the end:
quote:
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεωςοὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, [ἢ κτιστόν,] τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, [τούτους] ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία.
But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
the bolded words, "hypostasis" and "ousias", which the nicenes here are saying identical between the son and the father, became the two different categories of numbers in trinity, 3 hypostases in 1 ousia. so, in a sense, the nicene creed actually denies the trinity as it came to be formulated.
Edited by arachnophilia, : tagging difficulties

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 05-05-2016 10:21 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 05-07-2016 10:20 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 183 of 1482 (783721)
05-08-2016 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by ICANT
05-08-2016 1:40 AM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
ICANT writes:
Where can I find a list of construct endings?
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/..._construct_relation.html
granted, this is a slightly irregular one. but it's a construct suffix.
For a noun to be in the construct there must be one noun followed by a second noun. The first noun is in the construct
correct.
In Genesis 1:1 you have a noun followed by a verb,
incorrect. in genesis 1:1, you have a noun followed by a noun; the verb is an infinitive. and it must be a noun, because to preceding word is in the construct state. you can't have a construct state with a noun and a verb, and one word here is beginning a construct, so the other has to be a noun. meaning the verb is an infinitive: a verb functioning as a noun.
this is pretty common, actually. the construct noun in gen 10:10 above is actually constructed out of a verb as well, but that form's common enough we just count it as a noun.
There are no two nouns in a chain to form a construct chain.
again, incorrect. because the first noun is in a construct state, the second word must be a noun.
But Biblical Hebrew had no vowels.
correct. this means the mistake belongs to the masoretes, who added the niqudot. read without niqudot, you'd just read it like you read it in gen 5:1, as an infinitive, a verb functioning as a noun.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 1:40 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 9:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 190 of 1482 (783754)
05-08-2016 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by ICANT
05-08-2016 9:24 AM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
ICANT writes:
What makes a kal perfect verb a noun?
when it's an infinitive.
A verb has to have a suffix added to it to make it a noun.
incorrect. look at the other verse i gave you:
quote:
זֶה סֵפֶר תֹּולְדֹת אָדָם בְּיֹום בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֹתֹֽו׃
what tense is בְּרֹא here? does it have a suffix?
But the first noun is not in the construct state because it has a feminine suffix ending on it.
it is in the construct state, as rashi shows. that suffix is only used for construct pairs; if it were indefinite, it would say בראשונה
Your circular reasoning will not get the job done. You say the first noun is in the construct but there is no noun following it to make it into the construct. Yet the verb following the noun must be a noun as the first noun is in the construct. That is a vicious circle.
no, it's not. it proceeds linearly: the first word as a construct suffix, so it's in construct with the next word. the new word has to be a noun.
Give me a list of suffixes that makes a noun in the construct.
i did. here it is again: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/..._construct_relation.html

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 9:24 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 4:46 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 201 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 12:59 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 191 of 1482 (783755)
05-08-2016 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by kbertsche
05-08-2016 11:10 AM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
kbertsche writes:
I agree with you and Rashi that the first word ( בְּרֵאשִׁית ) could be in construct. The shortened vowel under the preposition suggests this, in fact.
it does.
But as ICANT said, if the first word is in construct, the next word ( בָּרָא ) must be a noun. But it's not a noun; it is a finite verb (Qal perfect, 3rd person masculine singular). For you and Rashi to be correct requires a change in the vowel points on ( בָּרָא ). This word is not an infinitive, as it must be for you and Rashi to be correct. How do you explain this?
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 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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by kbertsche, posted 05-08-2016 11:10 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by kbertsche, posted 05-08-2016 1:48 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 1:02 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 192 of 1482 (783756)
05-08-2016 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by ICANT
05-08-2016 9:27 AM


two stories
ICANT writes:
jar believes there are 2 stories regardless of what he believes they are about.
there are definitely two stories. the first one begins,
quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
when god began to create the heaven and the earth...
and ends,
quote:
אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם
these are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created
see the framing device? the second one begins,
quote:
בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם.
when yahweh god made earth and heaven
notice the similar structure to genesis 1:1. complex preposition and infinitive verb in a construct state, beginning a subordinate clause, with the next sentence going on to describe an initial state, and then the first actions.
the second story doesn't have a clear bookend like that, because it's part of a larger work. for all intents and purposes, it ends here:
quote:
אָז הוּחַל, לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה
the two stories have entirely different focuses and theological agendas. gen 1 wants to show us a god who creates perfectly, without error, and plans everything ahead for his perfect creation. he creates man and woman without strife, and commands them to get busy copulating/populating. and moreover, gen 1 is part of the P source which is concerned with timekeeping and genealogies. gen 1, for P, sets up shabbat and provides an explanation for it, and the reason we have for time being ordered as it is.
note that if you skip directly from gen 2:3a to gen 5:1 (the next P text), it doesn't seem like you've missed anything. P is telling a different story from J.
J's story, gen 2:4b to 4:26, tells us about a god who makes mistakes. he forms man first, to tend his garden, and brings animals to him in the hopes of finding him a mate. when that's not good enough, he splits the man in two and makes a woman out of him. and they get into trouble, taking something of god's -- apparently his creative knowledge. note that sexuality is a theme in these three chapters, with the knowledge immediately making them ashamed of their genitals, their punishments all relating the family structure, and that when they leave eden, the man knows his wife, she conceives, and says that she has taken a man from yahweh. so here you have the etiologies for marriage, sexuality, and family struggles.
you can see why, when P covers this, he chooses to leave some of this out, and gloss over other parts, making them more perfect.
while we're here, there's actually a third story that's missing, possibly part of J, where yahweh battles and kills leviathan. it's attested to in other hebrew literature, like job and psalm 74.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 9:27 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 1:11 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 195 of 1482 (783760)
05-08-2016 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by kbertsche
05-08-2016 1:48 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
kbertsche writes:
I think we can agree that the voweling of at least one of the first two words is either non-standard or wrong. But which one? You would re-vowel the second word ( בָּרָא ). I would re-vowel the first word ( בְּרֵאשִׁית ), or at least take it as non-standard grammar.
Why do you think it is the second, not the first word, which should be re-voweled?
because re-voweling the second word solves the problem, re-voweling the first does not. regardless of vowels, בְּרֵאשִׁית still has a construct ending with its consonants. read without vowels, you would naturally read the next word as an infinitive. the vowels should reflect the intuitive reading.
But there is no mystery as to the re-voweling of YHWH. This a "ketiv-qere" issue. The consonants are YHWH, but to avoid pronouncing the name of God, the word is read as "Elohim". Thus the vowels for YHWH were changed to be the vowels for "Elohim", which is what is actually read.
"adonai" usually. there's not really much mystery here either, as removing the vowels clears everything up. ignore them entirely, and you end up with a fairly straightforward grammar.
quote:
Theologically these different translations are of great consequence, for apart from #4, the translations all presuppose the existence of chaotic preexistent matter before the work of creation began.
which would be similar to every other ancient near eastern creation story. i'd suggest finding harry orlinsky's notes on the new translation of the torah, there's several pages devoted to this iirc.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by kbertsche, posted 05-08-2016 1:48 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 1:38 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 196 of 1482 (783761)
05-08-2016 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
05-08-2016 1:19 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Faith writes:
Especially since I know nothing about Hebrew. If I have to consider the Hebrew I'm going to trust more seasoned theologians than anybody at EvC.
i'd suggest looking to rashi; he almost certainly knows hebrew since he wrote in hebrew.
As for dismissing your argument, I also dismiss jar's, because both are basically the interpretations of a single person and seem to be imposing modern assumptions about how we would write history on the ancient writers.
the P account is written in a pseudo-historical style (mostly grouped that way because the rest of P is largely concerned with history). the J account is not a history at all.
this isn't based on how modern writers would write histories; it's based on comparisons to ancient historians. and it's a question of genre and style, not contents or accuracy.
I just saw that arach has two stories and two different Gods so of course I'm going to dismiss his argument too.
P almost certainly intends to talk about the same god as J, and that is yahweh, the god of abraham/isaac/jacob. but P and J characterize that god very differently. P doesn't actually use the name "yahweh" (where J does), but that doesn't matter. there isn't a good reason to think that he would mean some different god (or multiple gods; the verbs are almost all singular).
that there are two different stories, though, should be uncontroversial.
I do think it's interesting to consider that there might have been a creation prior to the six days of Genesis 1
as i covered above, grammatically, the first verse of genesis reads, "when god began to create the heaven and the earth..." and does not allow for any such gap. if you trust other sources, fine. i cited sources, including jewish commentary from the middle ages. this is not some weird argument i'm making up; this is the standard jewish translation.
in which the drama of Lucifer plays out.
that whole business is entirely un-biblical.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 1:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 3:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 207 of 1482 (783848)
05-09-2016 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by ICANT
05-08-2016 4:46 PM


collected replies for ICANT
ICANT writes:
Give me the specific suffix in your link that turns the first noun in Genesis 1:1 to a construct.
it's a non-standard suffix. as i believe i covered above (as did rashi), the absolute form is ראשונה.
quote:
When a feminine singular noun is in the construct state, it may or may not undergo vowel changes, but if the word ends in a Hey, it changes to Tav.
this one is slightly unusual in that it also adds a yud. however, the tav if the important part -- it's the construct suffix.
What makes the verb in Genesis 1:1 an infinitive?
the fact that it follows a construct noun.
The verb [in genesis 5:1] בְּרֹא is kal perfect 3ps. No suffix. Why?
check it again. here's a link that lists that verb conjugation: Genesis 5 (KJV) - This [is] the book of
click on the little bit that says "parse" next to the stem. note that it says,
quote:
Stem: Qal
Aspect: Infinitive
not also the lack of a suffix. this is an infinitive construct, and those sometimes have all the same consonants.
But Rashi requires the use of Masoret vowel pointing system to be able to make it construct.
he does not; rather he points out that ראשית always appears in the construct state. the vowel don't actually matter, and the editorial note that chabad adds (chabad being the easiest place to find rashi online), says:
quote:
This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation because according to its simple interpretation, the vowelization of the word בָּרָא, should be different, as Rashi explains further
so his explanation is actually in contrast to the vowels, for at least part of it. he does try to read it both ways, though.
Unless you are referring to the irregular construct of house ית־ as it has a maqqef which still requires a noun to be attached to the maqqef.
the maqef is irrelevant; those are also added later.
quote:
you'd read it as a infinitive,
Why?
for the same reason you'd read it as an infinitive in gen 5:1; the other reading doesn't make sense, given that word that precedes it acts as a complex preposition. sure, we could read, "in the day, comma, god created man." but in what day? like, when the sun was shining? that's clearly not what it means. it's a subordinate clause, "in the day of yahweh making man," he did something else, "he made man in his image". and this is for a noun without a clear construct suffix. יום can be read perfectly fine as an absolute.
also note that here the vowel points agree.
quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
when god began to create the heaven and the earth...
Wrong.
this is the translation used in modern scholarly editions, and the newer JPS tanakh, and for the reasons i've been spelling out in this thread.
The phrase "These are the generations of" appears in the Bible 17 time and all 17 times it precedes the list of the generations. So why are you trying to put it after your version of the generations?
the verse was likely added by a redactor anyways; it's possible it was meant to precede gen 2's story.
In other words it suites your worldview that you keep arguing.
no, not really. i don't happen to think any of this particularly represents the real world, so believe me when i say, it wouldn't really matter to me if it did fit your view. i wouldn't really care. but, it doesn't. so. yeah.
no, my argument is not based on my worldview in the slightest. it's based on hebrew grammar, and reading meaning from the text rather than into the text. i have no particular agenda, theology, or ideology i'm looking to impose on the text; i just want to explore what the text actually says and means, and how it came together in its present state.
if that supports your view, fine. if it makes your view untenable, that's fine too. i'm only going where the text supports, free of any ideological commitments.
Why not just ignore all of [the vowel points] as they did not exist in the original text and solve all the problems.
yes; that is precisely what i'm arguing we should do in this case.
Edited by arachnophilia, : tag fail

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 4:46 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by kbertsche, posted 05-09-2016 1:22 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2016 2:05 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(2)
Message 208 of 1482 (783849)
05-09-2016 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
05-08-2016 3:07 PM


exegesis and eisegesis
Faith writes:
I'm going to trust the Christian theologians. If they think Rashi is authoritative I'm sure he'll be referred to.
it's not really a matter of whether or not rashi is "authoritative"; it's only a matter of whether he's right. and he is. look at all the uses of ראשית in the bible, and nearly all of them (except for a few idiomatic uses) are in the construct state.
I doubt I'm going to agree with it in the end, or much of it, but it's an interesting read.
the problem is, you're approaching the text with a preconceived idea. you're not doing exegesis, you're doing eisegesis. your theologians are not biblical scholars, they are apologists, aiming to defend a certain ideology using the bible. not attempting to ascertain what the authors of the bible thought or believed.
that's fine for faith, i suppose. the expression in literature is that the author is dead. literature exists in the minds of the readers, and if they read it to mean something else that matters to them in a different context, that's not wrong either. in a traditional framework like catholicism, we would even say that the scriptures exist as part of that framework rather than the basis for it. scripture is based on tradition, not vice versa.
but for a sola scriptura, protestant christian? you should probably go with what the bible says, and not what people are trying to shape it into to defend their theologies.
I don't have any interest in learning Hebrew.
and that's the thing; you're going to have to take these peoples' words for it. it's not that you know enough about the subject to say, "okay, these people are right, these people are wrong." you have to pick a side, not really knowing enough to justify it, on the faith that your chosen side isn't mistaken, biased, ignorant, or lying.
so how do you chose a side, except by picking the one that confirms what you already believe?
how can you really determine the truth here, if you're not willing to study the topic yourself?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 3:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 11:46 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 11:51 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 209 of 1482 (783850)
05-09-2016 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by ICANT
05-09-2016 1:45 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
ICANT writes:
The other rabbi's of his did not accept his translation.
the translation i gave you is the official translation of the jewish publication society. it's about as authoritative as you can get, as far as jewish translations.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 1:45 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2016 2:14 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 216 of 1482 (783950)
05-10-2016 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
05-09-2016 11:51 AM


Re: exegesis and eisegesis
Faith writes:
One thing I know, I'd be in a much worse position if I tried to learn some Hebrew because it takes years in a language to know enough to judge its idioms and idiosyncrasies and exceptions to rules. A beginner is only risking making very crude mistakes in understanding. The writers who discuss Gap Theory ALL discuss the Hebrew. No need for me to add my errors to the mix.
sure, but you can't be sure they know what they're talking about... i see plenty of crude misunderstandings of hebrew used to support points it clearly does not. remember eddy pengelly?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 11:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 217 of 1482 (783952)
05-10-2016 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by kbertsche
05-09-2016 1:22 PM


kbertsche has a good point
kbertsche writes:
The form in Is 46:10 is identical to the first word of Gen 1:1 (except that the preposition is a mem instead of a bet: "from" instead of "in"). The word in Is 46:10 DOES have the tav, but it is NOT in construct, is it?
it doesn't appear to be, no.
How do you explain this?
well, as i see it, there are two main uses of ראשית in the bible. one is to say "the first of" something, or "the beginning of" something in a construct pair. the other is a more idiomatic usage, where the ראשית is actually the object that is the first, ie: "the firstfruits" of something (probably a derived usage from leaving off the other noun in the construct chain).
it doesn't normally seem to mean some absolute "beginning" in a temporal sense, although isaiah 46:10 does seem to use it this way. so, frankly, this is a really good point.
however, isaiah also has highly poetic style, and this could just be an example of that. i'm not sure we can read this example as representative of genesis 1:1, because the styles are so different, and the grammar that follows is different -- it's followed by another noun with a similar suffix, אַחֲרִית, which also normally exists in construct.
it could also be that absolute readings of genesis 1;1 actually influenced deutero-isaiah here. we know that, historically, this verse was read as an absolute extremely early, as various targums and the LXX all translate it as such.
Isn't it possible that the first word of Gen 1:1 is also NOT in construct?
i suppose it's possible, but i don't think it's likely. P has a much more rigid, formal style than deutero-isaiah, and by far most of the uses in the bible fall into one of those two categories i outlined above.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by kbertsche, posted 05-09-2016 1:22 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 218 of 1482 (783958)
05-10-2016 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
05-10-2016 2:05 AM


Re: collected replies for ICANT
ICANT writes:
Yes it is really non-standard as I can not find it.
quote:
Suffix
־י ‎(transliteration needed)
2. (-) -ic, -ish, -like, -al, -an, -ian (used to form adjectives from nouns, demonyms and language names from place names, and so on).
4. (-i) Construct form of plural suffix ־ים.
’ - Wiktionary
quote:
Suffix
־ית ‎(-t) f ‎(plural ־יות)
1. For masculine singular adjectives in ־י ‎(-), replacing that ending to produce feminine singular forms.
’ - Wiktionary
that explain it a little more?
Neither can any of my translation programs find ראשונה..
it's the feminine of רִאשׁוֹן
quote:
רִאשׁוֹן תואר
earliest ; first ; best
רִאשׁוֹן מספר סודר
first ; Sunday
’ ’ | ‘’ | ’ ’
it was also the name of the girl i sat next to in hebrew class. so. there's that i guess?
The tav is a feminine noun suffix showing gender.
hebrew is a gendered language. everything shows gender. you're thinking of:
quote:
Suffix
־ה ‎(-a, -)
1. used in feminine singular forms of most adjectives
פשוט ‎(pasht, simple) + ‎־ה → ‎פשוטה ‎(p'shut, simple)
2. used in singular indefinite and definite forms of many or most feminine nouns
טיסה ‎(tis, flight)
דוד ‎(dod, uncle) → דודה ‎(dod, aunt)
- Wiktionary
which pretty much only shows gender. it's also what you'd add to ראשון to get ראשונה.
the fact that it follows a construct noun.
There is no such varmint, unless two nouns are connected with a maqqef or one noun is following another noun placing the first noun in construct.
there is, as i showed above, because there are such things as construct suffixes. the maqef is unnecessary.
Why does ברא need to be in construct?
because it follows a noun in a state usually reserved for constructs.
Does it?
it actually doesn't; rashi is mistaken. kbertsche provided a counterexample.
I thought that aspect was the type of action the subject of the verb was doing. Simple, intensive, and causal. The verb in Genesis 1:1 is causal action.
and here (gen 5:1) it's an infinitive.
for the same reason you'd read it as an infinitive in gen 5:1; the other reading doesn't make sense, given that word that precedes it acts as a complex preposition. sure, we could read, "in the day, comma, god created man." but in what day?
Why would you need a comma?
God only created mankind 1 time and that was in Genesis 1:27 on the sixth day.
i added the comma to emphasize that we are not reading "in the day" as its own absolute statement. we are reading "in the day that god created man" and not that "god created man in the day".
If I understand what you have said over the years you believe the Bible is just a bunch of junk put together by a bunch of religious people.
that's remarkably dismissive! do you think i would bother trying to learn and understand the grammar and intentions of the authors if i thought it was "just a bunch of junk"?
Why not in any case? They did not exist until a little over a thousand years ago. Hebrew is much simpler without them. Just like all the other stuff that has been forced upon Biblical Hebrew.
sure. you'll note that very little of my argument rests on niqudot. i do point out some places where the masoretes agree with my arguments, of course, but i don't think i've ever said, "this must be the case because of the vowels!"
Edited by arachnophilia, : i accidentally a word.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2016 2:05 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024