Windows 3 described in the Bible

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

The hebrew for 1:26,27 says "dm" and not "ishi", therefore, the text accuratley translated says "Let us make Adam in our image".

---

Hi WILLOWTREE,I respectfully disagree. איש (ish) is used to refer to an individual man in both the generic sense and in the sense of one among others. IOW, if there was only one apple in the world and you had it, you would say, "I have the apple". As it happens in the real world (full of apples), you say, "I have an apple".This real world apple (used in both the generic sense and in the sense of being one among others) is synonymous to the usage of "ish" as "a man".The use of the definite article prefixed to the term "adam" האדם (h'awdawm), precludes its usage as either "one among others" or as a proper name, i.e. "Adam".IMO, the first usage of "Adam" (as a proper name) is in Gen. chapter four. Curiously, for possible theological or editorial reasons, this first usage as a proper name occurs in connection with the birth of Seth.Genesis chapter 4 also provides a wonderful opportunity to see the distinction between these terms and their usages:Gen. 4:1 והאדם (v'h'adam) "And the man" knew Eve his wife and she conceived and bore Cain. . .Note the definite article ה (h') "the", i.e., this is translated as "the man" instead of the proper name "Adam" because one wouldn't say "the Adam" anymore than one would say "the Cain".Gen. 4:1 . . .and said, I have gotten איש (ish) "a man" with the help of YHWH.Again, "ish" (a man),i.e., an individual man among others. Note, she can't very well say, "I have gotten 'the man'" any more than you would say, "I have gotten 'the apple'".Gen. 4:25 "And knew אדם (Adam) again his wife. . ."Note, no definite article and the following pronoun ("his"). This is the first usage of the term אדם (Adam) without the definite article where the grammar and context indicate a single person. Hence, a proper name.In the earlier usages, such as Gen. 1:26-27, God says, "Let us make אדם (adam) "mankind", in our image." In the very next verse (27), God creates האדם (h'adam) "the man" in his image. If the usage in verse 26, i.e. "adam" (mankind) was intended to indicate a proper name (Adam), the term in the following verse (27) wouldn't include the definite article. Otherwise, one would be forced to translate: "Let us create Adam . . . and he created the Adam in his image." It just doesn't work grammatically.As ever, namaste'AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-22-2004 11:46 PM

what amlodhi said.strongs lists root words, not their actual use in the text. if see the word "books" in a text, and want to know what it means, i look up "book" in the dictionary. this does not accurately reflect what i see in the text, because the text contains a plural and the dictionary contains a singular.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arachnophilia

​

. . . because the text contains a plural . . .

---

or a possessive
or an attached preposition
or a conjugate
or a jussive
or a cohortative
or a causitive
or a reflexive
or a conversive
or any number of other grammatical constructions.P.S. Arachnophilia > This is for Eddy's benefit, not for you. I enjoy reading your informed posts and marvel at your patience.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-23-2004 08:55 AM

exactly. well, i'm not as informed as i may sound. i am however looking forward to learning more. unfortunately, introductory hebrew is full this semester, but i'm gonna try to get into it next semester an actually learn some of the language.

Hi Amlodhi: 'ish' or 'ishi', like you say is 'man' in the generic sense. How can this be ?The definite article reinforces the specificity of the object.But where is this definite article in the original text ? OK, if you insist the original contains a def/art then so be it.But your rendering is controlled by english grammar standards which is in defiance of the text/"dm"/h'awdawm. But the passage we are arguing says "dm" and not "ish", it was you who already established "awdawm" or I prefer "odom".It is a proper name distinguishing a certain creation, singling out from all the other "beasts of the field". So you are saying the def/art determines if "dm" becomes proper, why say "dm" to begin with ? Why not say "ish" ?What about the patriarch "Dan" ? Is his proper name ever treated like "dm" ? "it just doesn't work grammatically"My exact point above.You are admitting that the text translation is controlled by english grammar.The def/art should be dropped OR just say "the odom". The def/art is there to prevent exactly what you are doing.I respectfully submit that you are corrupting the text, which we agree to be "dm" to suit english grammar.Earlier I questioned the existence of the def/art, but now I accept it. My sources agree.There is no way around it.God inspired "the odom/Adam" to specifically relate that Adam and his kind are special.I also submit that the rendering of "man" or "mankind" for "dm"/"odom" is motivated by an 'a priori' theological position brought into the translation/debate.

Strongs definition: H-word 6440 "face" {plural of an unused noun} gives 'the face (as the part that turns)'.
Plural word (like 430 God) and likewise deemed to be a singular. Strongs: H-word 3556 "stars" - (in the sense of blazing); a star (as round or as shining).
Thus 'blazing stars' that are either round or shining. The "sea creature" (tanniyn) gives both 'land' and 'sea' classifications.
Thus 'birds above the earth'; and 'marine or land monsters'. 'mankind in the image of the gods' is a comment.
Thus in the creation sequence: a male - a female.I don't mind being told that in the Hebrew context, grammatically the words are plural while dictionaries provide just a singular definition.
This is why I am clarifying the criteria before I view the cd-rom again.Final criteria
Introduction: god{s} - the sky created - the earth created.
Sequence begins:
Dark void - a surging mass of water (with noisy breaking surf) - a spirit - turning face{s} - an illumination - darkness (end of Day 1).
Day 2 - the sky (where clouds are located) and water (divided in the middle).
Day 3 - dry land - gathered water (spec. the Mediterranean Sea) - let the earth bring forth sprouting grass - herbs with seeds - fruit trees.
Day 4 - luminous bodies appear in the expanse of the sky (which is the cause of new days): they are - a greater luminous body - a lesser luminous body - blazing stars (round or shining).
Day 5 - a moving creature that has life - birds above the land - 'marine or land monsters'. Let the birds enlarge/increase.
Day 6 - let the earth bring forth - a cow - creeping thing - a beast - mankind (male & female) in the image of god{s} - a male - a female. See the glistening green thing (like grass) for food - end of Day 6.
Day 7 - the god{s} now restI have returned my original 'singular' words to your deemed 'plurals'.I will view the Ancients cd-rom next week and write a commentary, then post it here.CORRECTION: (for "face" I originally typed 6220 instead of 6440)This message has been edited by Eddy Pengelly, 07-26-2004 08:57 AM

Hello again, WILLOWTREE,

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

'ish' or 'ishi', like you say is 'man' in the generic sense.

---

It is "ish", i.e. Hebrew איש. As a Hebrew term for "a man", "ishi" is not an option. Rather, your "ishi" would indicate a 1st person, common singular pronomial suffix attached to the construct form of the noun to make it possessive. IOW, "ishi", Hebrew אִישִי, literally means "man of mine". This is usually translated to KJV English as "my husband", as in Gen. 29:32: . . . כי עתה יאהבנִי אִישִי׃See, what kind of trouble you can get into? . . . when you're pointing out a man to your Hebrew friends and they think you are introducing them to your husband.As to the term "ish", the description "generic" apparently hasn't conveyed to you the sense I had intended. There is a subtle nuance here that needs to be grasped. There is no usage of a plural construction of "adam". It is, then, used with much the same construction and connotations that we use for "man" in the sense of "human" or "human species", i.e. not singular/plural but rather, singular/collective.In contrast, "ish" does utilize plural forms. It is used with much the same connotation that we ascribe to "fellow" or "guy". Thus, while a plural construction of "ish" may be used to describe a specific group of men (as separate in some way from the rest of humanity, i.e. "those guys"), "adam" would only be used to refer to the afore mentioned "humanity" collectively.In the same sense, "ish" without the definite article would have the connotation of "a guy" or "a fellow", whereas "adam" without the definite article has the connotation of "humanity/mankind".Then, "ish" with the definite article would indicate "the guy" or "the fellow", whereas "adam" with the definite article would carry the sense of "the human being".

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE:

​

But where is this definite article in the original text ?

​

Amlodhi writes:
Note the definite article ה (h') "the", i.e., this is translated as "the man" instead of the proper name "Adam" because one wouldn't say "the Adam" anymore than one would say "the Cain".

​

OK, if you insist the original contains a def/art then so be it.

​

But your rendering is controlled by english grammar standards which is in defiance of the text/"dm"/h'awdawm.

---

On the contrary, the rendering is in accordance with Hebraic grammatical standards.Give me a reference to any other proper name of a man in the biblical text that is preceded by the definite article and I will concede the point. If you cannot, you should concede the point.

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE:

​

Amlodhi writes:
Gen. 4:1 . . .and said, I have gotten איש (ish) "a man" with the help of YHWH.

​

But the passage we are arguing says "dm" and not "ish", it was you who already established "awdawm" or I prefer "odom".

---

As was explained, chapter 4 provides a wonderful opportunity to see just how each of these terms are used. You know, for contrast and comparison?Incidentally, you should really use "adm" for "adam" instead of just "dm" when transcribing the Hebrew characters into English ones, regardless of your personal preference. The word "adam" in Hebrew begins with "aleph" and, although it is itself silent, it is a consonant that carries a vowel here. As it is, the transcription "dm", read "dam", is the Hebrew word for blood.

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE:

​

So you are saying the def/art determines if "dm" becomes proper . . .

---

Let's be clear; I'm saying that if it's prefixed with the definite article, then it's not a proper name. Look at Ecclesiastes 2:11-12 for example:

quote:

---

Ecc. 2:11-12, "Then I faced all my works that my hands had done, and on the labor that I had labored to do . . . And I turned to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly. For what can the man (h'adam) who comes after the king do when they have already done it?"

---

Ecclesiastes is said to have been written by king Solomon. The term for "the man" in the above passage is "h'adam", i.e. "adam" prefixed with the definite article "h". Thus, if you say that "adam" with the definite article should be translated as the proper name "Adam", then you must also be saying that Adam was born after king Solomon.Now let's consider the use of the term "adam" without the definite article. Look at Ezekiel 28:2 for example:

quote:

---

Ez. 28:2, ". . . say to the ruler of Tyre . . . because your heart is lifted up, and you have said, 'I am a god' . . . yet you are man (adam), and not a god."

---

This is addressed to the ruler of Tyre. The term for "man" in the above passage is "adam", i.e. without the definite article. Thus, if you say that "adam" without the definite article should be translated as the proper name "Adam", then you must also be saying that Adam was the ruler of Tyre.Here, then, we see that even without the definite article, the term "adam" doesn't necessarily indicate a proper name. Thus, it becomes apparent that rather than simply choosing when we'd like the term "adam" to indicate a proper name (I might, for instance, decide that I would like to make Adam the king of Tyre), we should instead look to the structure and context to see where we should understand the term as a proper name.As was explained above, probably the best connotation for the term "adam" is the sense of "human". We then have three possible choices for translation; i.e without the definite article > "humanity, mankind"; without the definite article > a proper name for Adam; and with the definite article > "the human".The point I was trying to convey to you is that up until Gen. 4:25, anytime the term "adam" is used without the definite article, not only is there no grammatical indication that a proper name should be applied, but more importantly, in the continuing text following this term (adam), we find the use of the term with the definite article (h'adam) again.Thus, with an understanding of the explanations above, it just doesn't make literary sense to refer to "Adam" by his proper name and then, a few sentences later, revert back to calling him "the human".

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE:

​

. . . why say "dm" to begin with ? Why not say "ish" ?

---

As noted above; in the sense of "Let us make adam/humanity/mankind" and "God put ha'adam/the human being in the garden . . ." as opposed to "Let us make ish'im/some men" and "God put ha'ish/the guy (with the implication that others exist) in the garden . . ."

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE:

​

What about the patriarch "Dan" ? Is his proper name ever treated like "dm" ?

---

If the question is, "Does the proper name 'Dan' ever take the definite article?", then the answer is no.

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE:

​

I also submit that the rendering . . . is motivated by an 'a priori' theological position brought into the translation/debate.

---

Yours may be, but I have no emotional investment here. It wouldn't make a bit of difference to me if the "first man" was referred to in Genesis as "Adam B. Finkelmeier, esquire" all the way through. But he isn't, so I prefer to base my opinions on:Study of the text in the Hebrew:Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia with Masora and Critical Apparatus, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. תורה נביאים כתובים, Koren pub., Jerusalem Ltd.; Jerusalem, Israel.And reference to:The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Benjamin Davidson, Hendrickson pub.The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Francis Brown, D.D.,D. Litt., S.R. Driver, D.D., Litt. D. and Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D. Litt., Hendrickson pub.The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 vol., Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Brill pub.As ever, namaste'Amlodhi[Edited to correct minor typo]This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-26-2004 12:43 PM

When the 1995 Ancients Civilizations of the Mediterranean cd-rom is run on a computer, after the "E.M.M.E. PRESENTS" and the ACTA/SCALA logo preambles, we see:The screen cleared to a blank BLACK screen.
Then, as the SOUND of thunderous BREAKING SURF is heard, we see in the lower half of the screen, a MASS OF WATER which is given a two image animation of its waves moving, and above the horizon we see a few clouds in the sky.
Animated over this screen shot, are the images of gods fading in and out - like ghosts or the SPIRIT of the each GOD.
There are five gods that ghost in and out, but they start on the left side, and alternate sides, as the FACES of the gods appear to TURN and face each other.
When the last god disappears, in their place the screen is ILLUMINATED by the gold block letters "ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS OF THE MEDITERRANEAN".
Then the screen becomes completely blank and BLACK.
(end of Day 1)The same background Sky-Sea image appears, but now without the distraction of the gods coming and going, we have time to see that it is DIVIDED across the middle horizontally, and contains the SKY with a few CLOUDS above, and the SEA below. (There are other things seen, but they are specifically documented later in Genesis.) This is the Voyage screen upon which is an icon that when selected, takes us to a contents screen.
(end of Day 2)"Let thewaters be gatheredthe dry appear" informs us that the START VOYAGE icon has been selected and we have commenced our travels - the next screen is
the MAP PAGE (as Pegg calls it). It presents a map of the Mediterranean region with the DRY LAND being yellowish in colour, and the water being the same sea image from the introduction sequence. But this GATHERED TOGETHER WATER is specifically the water body called the MEDITERRANEAN SEA. There are seven icons on this map through which we are taken to other screens.
"Let the earth bring forthsprouting grass, herb yielding seed, fruit trees" informs us that one of the civilizations has been selected, and we are viewing some of its information. When the Greek icon from the map is selected, in the Trade presentation of the Economics section, we see WHEAT FIELDS, GRAPE VINES, and an OLIVE TREE.
Returning to the Voyage Screen in order to select another civilization indicates an end of a day's journey.
(end of Day 3)Having been returned to the Voyage screen, we now have time to view what other things are thereon - the LIGHTS.
The bright white sloping computer's cursor arrow has been replaced in this cd-rom by a small bright white SAIL BOAT. But it is a two image animated cursor. When it passes over an active icon, the sail of the boat raises and it becomes a GREAT white LIGHT, but when not over an icon its sail is lowered and it gives off LESSER LIGHT.
In the top left corner of the sky is the Start Voyage icon. Figuratively it looks like the sun in the sky on a clear sunny day, but its composition is more like a ROUND eight pointed BLAZING STAR. It is a red Windrose (ie. a navigation compass).
Also pictured is a large grey sailboat that takes up nearly all of the right hand side of the screen.
It is figuratively the 'wind' from the windrose that makes this large sailboat journey to the different civilizations - when the sailboat cursor passes over an active icon and makes the sail rise.
When the sailboat cursor passes over this red windrose, not only does the sail rise, but the words START VOYAGE flicker in red block letters that too, also look like a blazing or SHINING STAR.
So in respect of the described LIGHTS, these three luminous bodies appear in the expanse of the sky which are the cause of new days - first the lesser sailboat cursor moves over the blazing star at which time the sail becomes greater. Figuratively like the sun in the evening sky, or the morning star in the morning sky, this represents the daily cycle during which we may take or complete another day's journey.
(end of Day 4)Clicking on the windrose takes us to the MapPage - which looks somewhat like a farm yard or den of animals, as the icons for the various cilivilizations consist of mostly animals. First described are the birds and the sea creatures. (The land animals are described on 'the next visit'.)
The only animated object on this screen is the sailboat cursor which looks like a MOVING CREATURE THAT HAS LIFE as its sail moves up and down when it darts around the screen.
ABOVE the LAND in the top left corner is the Up Arrow icon that returns us to the Voyage Screen - which looks somewhat like a BIRD in the sky. The darting motions of the sailboat cursor also gives the impression that it too is a BIRD flying above the land - its sail rising and falling looks like the flapping wings of a seagull or dove.
The icon for the Greek civilization is a Capital (a column with a dual spiral top) which appears to be coming out of the water onto land - like an amphibian. Figuratively, this 'unknown animal' is both a MARINE and a LAND MONSTER.
The other "marine/land monster" refers to the perception of the outline of the coast as the shape of an animal. Whether you perceive it as a blue shaped animal made by the water, or the outline of the coast of the yellow land mass, the image is one of a LAMB. (The Mediterranean Sea is its body, with the Black Sea its head with ears. The Red Sea forms its front legs tied together, with the sea between Spain and Africa forming its rear legs tied together.)
"Let the bird enlarge/increase" indicates that we click upon the BIRD up arrow and return to the Voyage Screen.
(end of Day 5)"Let the earth bring forth" indicates that we have returned to the EARTH Map Page.
The land animal icons are now described.
The Roman Empire icon is a She-Wolf, but it looks like a COW.
The Greek spirally 'capital' icon looks like something CREEPING out of the water.
The Etruscan icon is a Chimera - which is a mythical beast with the tail of a serpent, the body of a goat, and the head of a LION. (The lion is said to be the King of the BEASTS.)
The male and female icons of the remaining three civilizations are the SAME IMAGES as two of the GODS from the introduction sequence.
Carthage and Phoenicia have a male Phoenician Head as their icons, while the Egyptian icon is a bust of the female Nefertiti.
(*end of Day 6)Rested on Day 7 indicates that the presentation of the Ancients cd-rom is not being viewed any more.* See the glistening green thing for food = for knowledge, put in the Grolier cd-rom which is a green and silver coloured compact disk (that glistens in the light as cds do when they are moved around).
At this point, in Genesis, "the Creation" narration is replaced by "the history" introduction, which provides the described location of Iraq (Genesis 2:10-14) as seen on the Grolier cd-rom presentation.Key Word references:Dark void = the blank black screen seen after the SCALA logo preamble.
a surging mass of water (with noisy breaking surf) = the animated images of moving water accompanied by a sound track of thundering breaking surf.
spirit of gods = the images of gods that fade in and out - like ghosts or 'spirits'.
turning faces = five faces of gods turn and face each other, alternatively from each side of the screen.
an illumination = the yellowish words in block letters "Ancient Civilizations of the Mediterranean".
darkness (end of Day 1) = a blank black screen.Day 2 - a new screen appears, where...
the sky (where clouds are located) and water (divided in the middle) = the sky and sea Voyage screen which has the water divided from the sea in the middle of the screen.Day 3 - a new screen appears, where...
dry land = the land mass of the map of the Mediterranean on the Map page.
gathered water (called the Mediterranean Sea) = the water within the Mediterranean basin as depicted on the map that is called the Mediterranean Sea.
let the earth bring forth sprouting grass - herbs with seeds - fruit trees = once the Greek icon from the map is selected, in the Trade presentation of the Economics section, we see wheat fields (sprouting grass), grape vines (herbs with seeds), and an olive tree (fruit tree).
End of Day 3 - return to the Voyage screen.Day 4 - luminous bodies appear in the expanse of the sky which are the cause of new days = using and clicking upon them 'takes' us to the next screen (perceived as a new Day).
a greater luminous body = the white sailboat with its sail raised.
a lesser luminous body = the white sailboat with its sail lowered (ie. lesser).
blazing stars (round or shining) = (1) the red wind-rose that looks like a roundish blazing star. (2) the red block letters START VOYAGE that flicker on and off which behave like a shining star.Day 5 - by clicking on the blazing star with the sailboat cursor - a new screen appears, where...
a moving creature that has life = the moving sailboat cursor.
birds above the land = (1) the Up-arrow icon which is above the land mass of the map to the left. (2) the sailboat cursor that flits around the screen above the land like a bird in the sky.
marine or land monsters = (1) the outline of a Lamb that the coast makes, whether you perceive it as a blue lamb of the water, or the outline of the coast of the yellow land mass. (2) the spirally capital icon that appears to be coming out of the water onto land - like an amphibian.
Let the bird enlarge/increase = click on the Up-arrow (to enlarge and go back one screen).Day 6
let the earth bring forth = go back to the Map page, where
a cow = the Roman 'she-wolf' icon that looks like a cow/calf.
A creeping thing = the Greek spirally 'capital' icon that looks like something creeping out of the water.
a beast = the Etruscan 'lion' icon which is actually a chimera. The association of beast to lion is that the lion is said to be the king of the beasts.
Mankind (male & female) in the image of the gods = the 'human faces' that are used as icons are the same ones that were seen in the introduction sequence5.
a man = the two 'phoenician heads' of the Carthage and Phoenicin civilizations.
a female = the Egyptian 'Nefertiti' icon.
See the glistening green thing for food = for knowledge, put in the Grolier cd-rom which is a green and silver coloured compact disk (that glistens in the light as cds do when they are moved around).
end of Day 6 = end of viewing the Ancients cd-rom.Day 7 - the gods now rest and end this "deputyship" = the ancients cd-rom that has the five gods therein is removed, and replaced by the Grolier cd-rom - the other cd-rom in this deputyship (being the green glistening 'food' as knowledge for man).(C) July 2004 Eddy Pengelly

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy Pengelly

​

. . .the other cd-rom in this deputyship (being the green glistening 'food' as knowledge for man).

---

The revised Genesis 1:29, "Behold, I have given to you every cd-rom seeding seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree in which on it is the fruit seeding seed."Doesn't quite roll off the tongue, does it?Amlodhi

Hi Amlodhi: I'm sorry but this makes no sense.We are both in agreement that Genesis 1:26 says "dm"/Adam."ish" or "ishi" is hebrew for man or mankind.British = Brutus founded New Troy/London, descendant of Zarah/Genesis 38."brit" = covenant."ish" = man.Hence, British = (O.T.) covenant man. Generic "ish" in action.According to Dr. Scott the def/art cannot relegate "dm" to mean "ish".The text says "dm" because the writer intends to single out this creation from every other "beast of the field". The def/art reinforces the object of this singling out.The text says "Let us make Adam in our image" and no amount of grammatical contortions can change what you have admitted.It should read "Let us make the Adam in our image" and in the previous post you admit that the ONLY reason this is not done is for proper english grammar considerations.There can be no intent of the hebrew for the def/art to render "dm" - "ish". The very purpose of the def/art is to single out not just any man but Adamkind.Your rendering is used by evolutionists to hijack Genesis and assert an ambiguity which allows them an ajar door to corrupt the source for their purposes.The definite article does not convert "dm" to translate "ish".What else could the author of Genesis done ? That person said "dm" because he meant "dm", if he wanted "ish" he would of said "ish".The definite article, like I said, is intended to prevent exactly what you are doing.source: Dr.Gene ScottBTW, Dr. Scott routinely points out the errors of Brown-Driver and Briggs. "definite article" singles out not just any but THE something.Prove the definite article, preceding the proper name, renders the proper name generic - why say a proper name if it is not meant ?BUT there is no way to prove "dm" a proper name - it is the specific name given to a special creation, a special creation that receives the all important added element of God's breath/ruash/nefish."ish" is subsequently used to describe all the generic kinds of Adamkind. You cannot leap from the objective undisputed Holy Writ of Genesis to a problematic Solomonic source. Superiority is not subject to correction by inferiority.My sources say the only function of the definite article is to single out, and that it in no way can change "dm" to translate "ish". IF what you say here is correct - I concede the point.I am going to check you out.I need a source for hebrew, unlike you who actually know it. No emotion except in your response - concede the point

Hi Amlodhi,
No, verse 1:29 refers to the wheat, grape vines, and olive tree of 1:11 being food for man.Verse 1:30 confirms the next theme/context which was introduced in 1:12 (Key Word 'good' knowledge) and is preambled in 2:4 to 2:14 - being knowledge (history) of Iraq.Q4U -
Are the Hebrew words in Genesis 1:30 for "Wherein life, every green herb for meat" =
tavek chay cabab yereq eseb kiy oklah -
being H-words 8432, 2416, 5437, 3418, 6212, 3588, 402 (from Strongs) ?It is my understanding that word "life" has an associated word 5315 nephesh.Also, my concordance shows "every" 5437 as a verb.Thanking you in advance for your reply, Eddy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amlodhi

​

Ez. 28:2, ". . . say to the ruler of Tyre . . . because your heart is lifted up, and you have said, 'I am a god' . . . yet you are man (adam), and not a god."

​

This is addressed to the ruler of Tyre. The term for "man" in the above passage is "adam", i.e. without the definite article. Thus, if you say that "adam" without the definite article should be translated as the proper name "Adam", then you must also be saying that Adam was the ruler of Tyre.

​

Here, then, we see that even without the definite article, the term "adam" doesn't necessarily indicate a proper name. Thus, it becomes apparent that rather than simply choosing when we'd like the term "adam" to indicate a proper name (I might, for instance, decide that I would like to make Adam the king of Tyre), we should instead look to the structure and context to see where we should understand the term as a proper name.

---

quote:

---

Posted by WILLOWTREE

​

IF what you say here is correct - I concede the point. I am going to check you out.

---

Yes, check it out. Then couple this with the fact that you were apparently unable to provide me with any OT reference where a proper name was prefixed with the definite article. Then be true to yourself and your word.As ever, namaste'Amlodhi

Hello Eddy,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy Pengelly

​

No, verse 1:29 refers to the wheat, grape vines, and olive tree of 1:11 being food for man.
Verse 1:30 confirms the next theme/context which was introduced in 1:12 (Key Word 'good' knowledge) and is preambled in 2:4 to 2:14 - being knowledge (history) of Iraq.

---

Eddy, you're letting your imagination run wild. This stuff is so far off base it's difficult to even respond to.The word you are mangling into "cd-rom" is עשב (eseb). Though it is thought to be derived from an unused root meaning "to be green", the word (eseb) itself, is not the same as the root.The word "eseb" means "herb" or "herbage", much as we would say "greens", as in "green vegetation". It is used many times throughout the OT and context is the key:Gen. 1:11, ". . . the herb seeding (or yielding) seed . . ."; cd-roms do not yield seeds.Gen: 3:18, ". . . eat the herb of the field . . . "; cd-roms don't grow in fields for creatures to pick and eat.Ex. 9:25, ". . . hail smote every herb of the field . . .", shouldn't leave those cd-roms out in the field to get hailed on.Is. 42:15, ". . . and dry up all the herbs . . .", cd-roms don't dry up.Jer. 12:4, ". . . the herb of every field wither . . . ", neither do they wither.As to "not Genesis 1:29":In Gen. 1:11, And God said, "Let sprout the earth tender sprouts (grasses), the herb seeding seed;
In Gen. 1:12, And the earth bore tender sprouts (grasses) and the herb seeding seed;
In Gen. 1:29, God tells the man and woman that every herb seeding seed is to them for food;
In Gen. 1:30, God tells the man and woman that every herb is also to be food for every beast, bird and creeper on the earth.Also, there is no "KeyWord 'good' knowledge" in either Gen. 1:12 or in Gen. 1:30. The words (respectively) are "tob" and "tob mod", i.e., simply "good" and "very good".

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly:

​

Q4U -
Are the Hebrew words in Genesis 1:30 for "Wherein life, every green herb for meat" =
tavek chay cabab yereq eseb kiy oklah -
being H-words 8432, 2416, 5437, 3418, 6212, 3588, 402 (from Strongs) ?

---

I don't know where you got "tavek" (Strong's 8432) meaning "(bi)section > (by impl.), center", but it's not in this verse.And I don't know where you got "cabab" (Strong's 5437) meaning "revolve, surround, border", but it's also not in this verse.The portion of Gen. 1:30 that you appear to be describing is: אשר־בו נפש חיה את־כל־ירק עשב לאכלהIn transliteration: . . . asher-bo nephesh chayah eth-cawl-yereq eseb l'awc'lah.Your Strong's numbers would be: asher-bo > 834-935 (in construct); nephesh > 5315; chayah > 2416; eth - cawl - yereq (in construct) > D.O.(eth) - 3605 - 3418; eseb > 6212; l'awc'lah > ל (attached preposition; to, for) + 402.. . . asher (which) - bo (in it > abiding) (is) nepesh (breath, soul) chayah (living) eth (direct object) - cawl (every) - yereq (green) eseb (greenery, herbage, herb); l'awc'lah (attached preposition "l" (for) + food).Thus, " . . . which in it is abiding the breath of life, every green (vegetation) herb for food."Now let's not forget the context. Note again the direct object 'eth' in the passage. This refers back to the subject (God) in verse 29 with God saying, "I (subject) have given (verb) . . ." What has God given? The green herbs. To whom has he given them? In verse 29, to the man and woman. But in verse 30, "to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to every creeper on the earth which in it is abiding the breath of life.Now if you insist upon saying that "cawl - yereq - ereb" (every green herb) should be read as "cd-rom" in Gen.1:30, then you are saying that God gave cd-roms to every beast of the earth, every bird of the sky and to every creeper on the earth. That is just how silly this notion is.

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly:

​

It is my understanding that word "life" has an associated word 5315 nephesh.

---

"Nephesh" means breath which is usually associated with life.

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly:

​

Also, my concordance shows "every" 5437 as a verb.

---

Again, I don't know where you got "cabab" (Strong's 5437) meaning "revolve, surround, border", but if you mean "every" (Qol > Strong's 3605) then the answer is that it functions as an adverb here.

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly:

​

Thanking you in advance for your reply, Eddy.

---

No worries, but I will say again, it is a terrible shame that you don't direct this zeal and effort towards some serious scholarship instead of (sorry, but there's no other way to say it) wasting your time with this - .As ever, namaste'AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-27-2004 03:07 PM

I have conceded the point out of respect to your level of knowledge.Dr. Scott, the brightest hebrew scholar in the world, says the definite article specifies the actual creation of "dm"/Odom/ahm to be separate and distinct from every other creation.No amount of grammatical twisting can erase "dm" to mean "ish" except if a 'a priori' theological or other agenda is operating.You can surely count on me verifying your claim that the definite article renders "dm" to translate "ish".Only your Ezekiel reference procured the concession.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

Dr. Scott, the brightest hebrew scholar in the world, says the definite article specifies the actual creation of "dm"/Odom/ahm to be separate and distinct from every other creation.

---

I have no problem with Dr. Scott's statement here. According to the Genesis account "the human being" was created separate, distinct and special. He just isn't referred to by a given proper name until Gen. 4:25.P.S.

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE
You can surely count on me to verify your claim that the definite article renders "dm" to translate "ish".

---

This is still wrong so please don't volunteer to speak for me.As ever, namaste'AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-28-2004 12:20 AM