Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
66 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,288 Year: 4,400/6,534 Month: 614/900 Week: 138/182 Day: 18/27 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 204 of 1482 (783844)
05-09-2016 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
05-08-2016 1:19 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi Faith

Faith writes:

I read it to say everything was created by the end of Genesis 1, and Genesis 2:1 pronounces it all finished.

So what do you do with the generations of the heaven and the earth in the day the heavens and the earth began to exist?

Faith writes:

where the order of things isn't relevant.

Why do you say part of God's Word is irrelevant?

Faith writes:

HOW the man was formed -- from the dust of the ground -- and it's not about WHEN the man was formed

Genesis 2:7 says he was formed from the dust of the ground. But Genesis 2:4 says that was accomplished the same day God created the heavens and the earth.

Faith writes:

Because it's possible to get all kinds of things out of the Bible if a person has a mind to and all one can argue is that this or that interpretation is more reasonable than another,

Then take my statements in the message you was replying too and take it verse by verse and explain how I am mis-interperting what the Bible says.

Faith writes:

Not in my experience.

Explain what each of the following says:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

When you get through explaning what these verses say answer the following questions.

When was the heavens and the earth created.
Where do you find the history (generations ) of the heavens and the earth?
When was the man in Genesis 2:7 formed from the dust of the ground?

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 193 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 1:19 PM Faith has taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 205 of 1482 (783846)
05-09-2016 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by arachnophilia
05-08-2016 2:11 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
Hi arach

arach writes:

because re-voweling the second word solves the problem, re-voweling the first does not.

In other words it suites your worldview that you keep arguing.

arach writes:

ignore them entirely, and you end up with a fairly straightforward grammar.

Why not just ignore all of them as they did not exist in the original text and solve all the problems.

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 195 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 2:11 PM arachnophilia has taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 206 of 1482 (783847)
05-09-2016 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
05-08-2016 3:07 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi Faith,

Faith writes:

I don't have any interest in learning Hebrew. I'm going to trust the Christian theologians. If they think Rashi is authoritative I'm sure he'll be referred to.

The other rabbi's of his did not accept his translation.

Faith writes:

I am just now beginning to consider Gap Theory

It is a nice study but it did not happen for the heavens and the earth was completed in 6 light periods and 6 dark periods.

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 197 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 3:07 PM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:27 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 213 of 1482 (783924)
05-10-2016 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by arachnophilia
05-09-2016 2:12 AM


Re: collected replies for ICANT
Hi arach,

arach writes:

it's a non-standard suffix. as i believe i covered above (as did rashi), the absolute form is .ראשונה.

Yes it is really non-standard as I can not find it.
Neither can any of my translation programs find ראשונה..

arach writes:

the tav if the important part -- it's the construct suffix.

The tav is a feminine noun suffix showing gender.

arach writes:

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.

arach writes:

not also the lack of a suffix. this is an infinitive construct, and those sometimes have all the same consonants.

Why does ברא need to be in construct?

תרלדות השמיס והארץ is a construct chain.

arach writes:

he does not; rather he points out that øàùéú always appears in the construct state.

Does it?

arach writes:

the fact that it follows a construct noun.

There is no construct chain in Genesis 1:1.

arach writes:


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.



not also the lack of a suffix. this is an infinitive construct, and those sometimes have all the same consonants.

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.

arach writes:

he does not; rather he points out that בראשית always appears in the construct state.

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.

arach writes:

the maqef is irrelevant; those are also added later.

Thanks, I wasn't sure it was added but it was not in my studies of Paleo-Hebrew that I studied in the 60's.

But all it does is connect two nouns.

arach writes:

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.

arach writes:

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.

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.

arach writes:

yes; that is precisely what i'm arguing we should do in this case.

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.

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 207 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:12 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by arachnophilia, posted 05-10-2016 11:29 AM ICANT has taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 214 of 1482 (783925)
05-10-2016 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by arachnophilia
05-09-2016 2:27 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

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.

quote:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0101.htm

This is a direct quote from the The Hebrew Bible in English

according to the JPS 1917 Edition

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 209 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 05-10-2016 11:42 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 215 of 1482 (783926)
05-10-2016 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by kbertsche
05-09-2016 1:22 PM


Re: collected replies for ICANT
Hi kbertsche

kbertsche writes:

The word in Is 46:10 DOES have the tav, but it is NOT in construct, is it?

The word טראשית is followed by a adverb noun. So yes it it in the construct.

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 212 by kbertsche, posted 05-09-2016 1:22 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 223 of 1482 (784018)
05-10-2016 11:59 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.

That's because it fits your worldview.

Does that mean that the scholars who did the 1917 edition were stupid and did not know what they were doing?

Or that the scholars who did the 1985 version had incorporated so much of modern Hebrew into their thinking that they missed the boat?

I have read enough to know it is not true to Biblical Hebrew. It is like several of the new English versions which have had too much added and too much taken out.

In fact so much has been changed the man who wrote the Torah would not be able to recognize them.

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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 05-11-2016 8:31 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 227 of 1482 (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 replied

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

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 229 of 1482 (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 replied

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

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 231 of 1482 (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 replied

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

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 233 of 1482 (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 seen this message

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 234 of 1482 (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 God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 replied

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

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 235 of 1482 (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.

Rashi’s 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 replied

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

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 239 of 1482 (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 replied

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

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 191 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 240 of 1482 (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 áøà 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 replied

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022