basic reading of genesis 1:1

I just like the way it sounds:

quote:

---

... and the serpent said to the woman, a dying you will not die, given that Elohiym is knowing that in the day you eat from him then your eyes will be opened up and you will exist like Elohiym knowing function and dysfunction, and the woman saw that the function of the tree is for nourishment and that he is yearning to the eyes and the tree was a craving to make calculations and she took from his produce and she ate and she gave also to the man with her and he ate....

---

but maybe I'm a little twisted. I can almost hear the robovoice saying, "knowing function and dysfunction."

---

You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy

also, their website uses papyrus. and that's just fucking tacky as hell.

from The Positronic Bible, ca. 2525 AD.

---

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

It looks to me like you've already answered this question in Message 54. The vowels on "bara" would have to be changed to make it an infinitive construct. Then it would agree with Rashi's reading. Yes, but the construct form is generally just a shortened form of the absolute, generally only with changes in vowel pointing, not in consonants. And sometimes the absolute is so short that the two forms are identical. So it's often not easy to distinguish. While it looks like a plural form, BDB does not describe it as a plural, but a singular. And instead of "suffix," I think you mean "prefix" ("in").And note that the definite article is missing. The MT (Masoretic Text) says "in a beginning" or "in beginning." But note that this is exactly how one would shorten "in the beginning" to its construct form; if the next word were a noun, the natural way to read this would be "in the beginning of." Yes, as voweled in the MT (Masoretic Text), the second word is a finite verb, a Qal perfect 3rd person singular ("he created").Rashi's translation requires changing the vowels to make it an infinitive construct, "the creating of." Correct, as written in the MT (Masoretic Text). I don't follow. The verb "bara" would have to be changed to a noun for a construct chain; this does not require a prefix, only different vowels. You've got to change the voweling on "bara", turning it into an infinitive construct. I don't think this is what Rashi proposed. Rather, he turned "bara" into an infinitive construct. Then "in the beginning" is in construct with "creating" which is in construct with "God" which is absolute. The first three words then read, "In the beginning of the creating of God," or more smoothly, "in the beginning of God's creating," or more smoothly yet, "When God began to create."But I agree with your reading of the text, not Rashi's. As I explained up-thread, Rashi's reading not only requires changing the vowel pointing, it also removes the first finite verb from the preterite (waw-consecutive) sequence. This is unusual, but not absolutely ruled out, as Arach showed up-thread. So I would judge Rashi's reading as tenable, but less likely than the more traditional Christian reading.ABE: When I use "MT" I mean "Masoretic Text." NOT the "Mechanical Translation" which Arach described a few posts up. (The fact that they shorten this "mechanical translation" to MT is horrible. Why didn't they call it a "literal translation" or something else?)Edited by kbertsche, : clarified MT

just making sure i wasn't completely off base. or, perhaps i was asking rhetorically. i forget. yes. but definite articles go missing when you add a ב prefix anyways. it's generally accounted for in the vowels, however. i respect this, of course, but have to continue to disagree. as you rightly point out, both readings run into some issues. the traditional christian reading denies the clear sense that בראשית is almost certainly being used as a construct ("in the beginning of" something), and that in this grammatical placement typically begins dependent clauses.rashi's (and orlinsky's) reading requires that you ignore the vowel points and a waw-consecutive. but as ICANT pointed out earlier, those vowels were only added about 1,000 years ago. they are as much a product of tradition as they are anything else, as the vowel points on hashem will easily tell you.as for the waw-consecutive, my argument can be found in Message 71, off-topic in the How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls thread. i will now re-post it here, where it is on-topic:

quote:

---

you're making the mistake that every vav is a conjunction. i don't even have to flip very far ahead to find a counter-example. genesis 6 begins in precisely the same way:

​

quote:

---

וַיְהִי כִּי-הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה; וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ

---

​

note the "waw conjunction" between the dependent clause, "when man began to multiply..." and the independent clause "the sons of god saw..."

​

i'll let you look up on your own why the initial vav is often left untranslated.

---

considering that beginning verses with a vav seems to been a stylistic thing that is often better left untranslated, and the vowels simply reflect tradition, i feel that rashi's argument is the stronger of two. also worth considering is that this particular form of construction (when/began + infinitive + subject in dependent clause construct state) is a particularly common way to start stories in genesis. because they're generally ignorant of anything to do with hebrew linguistics?

---

אָרַח

With a quick search I find 51 occurrences in 49 verses (2 verses have 2 occurrences). I find 7 in the absolute:Lev 2:12; Ps 105:36; Neh 12:44; "first fruits"
Deut 33:12; "first part"
Is 46:10; Prov 4:7; "beginning"
Job 40:19; "first"But are any of these the same sentence structure as Gen 1:1? Not really, if you want to be strict. I think it's just that when we use the word "beginning" or "first" we are generally talking about the beginning "of" something. It's rare that we talk of "beginning" or "first" in the abstract.

that's more or less what i found, yes. some of those are kind of questionable, too.

• in leviticus 2:12, קָרְבַּן רֵאשִׁית might well be seen as a construct. it just takes the role of the absolute.
• in psalm 105:36, לְכָל has been injected into the construct, רֵאשִׁית, לְכָל-אוֹנָם so that it reads "the first of all their strength"
• in isaiah 40:10, מֵרֵאשִׁית אַחֲרִית is kind of a strange pair of nouns. could it be seen as a construct? it's clearly not "the beginning of" something, i agree. rather, it's "the end from the beginning" in reverse order.
• proverbs 4:7 shouldn't be on the list, as רֵאשִׁית חָכְמָה "the beginning of wisdom" is a rather simple construct.
• nor should job 40:19, as רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכֵי-אֵל is a three word simple construct too. but you probably meant job 8:7, and simply copied the wrong entry from the concordance, as רֵאשִׁיתְךָ is not in a construct, and just reads "your beginning". of course, it probably says this as the alternative, ראשך would mean "your head".

job 8:7, nehemiah 12:44, and deuteronomy 33:21 (also probably a typo on your part) are the only real examples i can find. we don't have to be too strict. only 3 of 51 uses where it does not appear in a construct doesn't make a very good case that it's really used that way. yes, this is quite likely the case. it doesn't particular have a good meaning apart from something that qualifies it, either another noun, a verb, or some possessive suffix.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

Sorry; I wasn't clear. Yes, the consonant he disappears, but it is reflected in the vowel."In THE beginning." The patah vowel which was under the he remains under the bet.But the MT has a shewa under the bet. This could either reflect the absence of the article ("in a beginning"), or the article in a shortened "construct" form ("in the beginning of").

...interesting.

---

אָרַח

I agree that "korban" is in the construct here. But "reshit" ("beginning") is in the absolute, not the construct. No, I don't think this is technically a construct, even though it would translate the same. Here the text has an explicit preposition "li" ("to, from, of"). This violates the construct form, but uses an explicit prepositional phrase to convey the same idea. Many of the Psalms have the same construction in their superscripts (e.g. "a Psalm of David"). I don't think this can be seen as a construct. Literally it says, "The one declaring, from the beginning, the end" or "The one declaring the end from the beginning." "End" is the direct object of the verbal action "declaring", not the absolute of a construct, which would mean "beginning of the end." I agree with you; the parsing guide in my Bible software was wrong here. No, this was another goof in my parsing guide. You are correct that Job 40:19 is a construct form. But I would read Job 8:7 as a construct also, with the prepositional suffix acting as the absolute: i.e. "in the beginning of you" or "in your beginning." Yes, Deut 33:21 is the correct reference. (Note that this is grammatically the same as Ps 105:36.)I think we should omit Job 8:7 but include Lev 2:12; Ps 105:36; and Is 46:10, for the reasons given above.But your point is well taken; this is only 5 occurrences out of 51. "Beginning" ("reshit") is more often used in construct than in absolute.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : typo

indeed. it's sort of being used like an adjective, actually. yes, i thought that might the be case, but i wasn't actually sure if you could do that. in modern hebrew, you'd say ראשית שלך but i don't think של can really be used as an absolute -- it's more like a preposition. not quite. it's pretty similar, though. in psalm 105, you could just as easily remove the preposition and retain the meaning (forming a true construct). in deuteronomy 33, you can't, as it would then read "the first part of himself". and likely for the reason you said: it doesn't make much sense on its own. the beginning of what?

---

אָרַח

Hi kbertsche, Do you have an example of such construct form? Yes I know they describe it as a singular.The root word is ראש a singular masculine noun meaning 1) head, top, summit, upper part, chief, total, sum, height, front, beginning.A new word was created by adding the suffix ית If my memory serves me this is called a fix.Whether this word is plural or singular is immaterial as In the beginning whenever that was the Heaven and the Earth was created. God did not cease creating until we get to Genesis 2:2. He could have created anything He desired to create during existence from the beginning until He ceased however long that period was.You then have the prefix ב which means in, on, with, by etc.When you add the suffix to the root word and the prefix you have בראשית which would be translated in the beginning. Which would be the smoothest reading in English. But the original was written without vowels.So there would have to be another way which there is if the author had intended Rashi's translation to be correct.The Hebrew word ברא is in the third person singular perfect form, which is the absolute. In Biblical Hebrew to change it to the infinitive construct requires a prefix the ב, ל, כ, serves that purpose. The infinitive construct can be inflected with pronominal endings to indicate its subject or object.A quote from the OP: Since the first letter in the first word is not a vowel as Biblical Hebrew was not written with vowels. This writer has made a false assumption.Biblical Hebrew was written with prefixes and suffixes to change the words the vowels were added in the MT text by the Massorets a little over 1000 years ago.arachnophilia then quotes Rashi or Harry Orlinsky quoting Rashi: In Jer. 27:1 בראשית is followed by a noun which places the first noun in the construct.In Hosea 2:1 בראשית is followed by a noun which places the first noun in the construct.Now as to the claim that reshith is only in the construct to the word following it.In Leviticus 2:12 we have the noun קרבן followed by the noun ראשית which places resheith in the absolute.There is no way a noun can be in the construct without a noun following it.The second word the verb bara' could have been converted by the author into a noun puting the first word in the construct but was not.The second word the verb bara' could have been put in the infinitive construct by the author adding one of the following ב, ל, כ, but was not. After further study I have come to the conclusion that Rashi is stating that reshith is in the construct because it does not appear any place in the OT that it is not in the construct.The problem is a verb can not put a noun in construct without being changed into a noun which would have only required the author to prefix bara' with a mem מ which turns a verb into a noun.You can read Rashi's commentary Here.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."

i do. i suggest actually looking at the "bare link" i gave you above. so, down on page 603, there's this:

quote:

---

"The most important use of the infinitive construct," as Ernst Jenni notes, "is its use after prepositions in place of a subordinate clause (with conjunction and finite verb)."

---

does that sound familiar? it should. so let's look at the examples that follow it.

quote:

---

עַד-בּוֹא אֲדֹנָיו, אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ

​

-- Genesis 39:16

---

note several things:

1. your concordance actually lists this one as an infinitive.
2. it takes the same exact vowels as the root.
3. it has no prefix.
4. it is directly preceeded by a preposition that signifies a temporal relationship.
5. it follows the same exact structure as genesis 1:1, preposition, infinitive construct, subject, direct object.

happy? no, probably not. this is accidentally correct. genesis 1:1 does indeed apply to the rest of the chapter. it is possible to read it "mechanically" and not as a dependent clause, and still get that sense. i happen think that orlinsky's reading is the smoothest i've read yet. the KJV is kludgy and awful by comparison. on the contrary, as i've pointed out several times above, the fact that originals were written with niqud means that rashi's view is quite likely to be a correct interpretation of the intentions of the author. it is very possible that the masoretes simply added the wrong niqud, because they thought it should mean something else. since rashi's view only requires changing niqud, and not breaking the rest of the obvious grammar, it's by far the most parsimonious interpretation. *headdesk*no, ICANT. no. just, no. he doesn't say "the first letter", he says "the first vowel". as in, the point on the first letter. and yes, biblical hebrew was written with vowels. ancient and paleo-hebrew were not. the original texts would not have been, but the bible, as we have it today, was. the masoretic text is the definition of "biblical hebrew". okay. and an infinitive is what now? you might notice that we have actually discussed this particular example in the posts just above yours. it's being used very much like you would an adjective. so, instead of "first of fruits" it's just "first fruits". yes, and we would have done that one of two ways:

1. בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
2. כי-החל אלהים לברא את השמים ואת הארץ

why one over the other? frankly, poetry. it just reads better. ברא sounds like בראשית. it could have, yes. but not when it's arranged like that. it would have be worded more like #2 above. the difference, in literal english, is between

1. "in the beginning of god creating the skies and the ground" and
2. "when god began to create the skies and the ground"

#2 happens to sound much better in english, #1 better in hebrew. that would not be correct. there are clearly exceptions, as discussed above. rather, it's that those are by far the exception, and that the standard usage means "the beginning of" something. or a ל. or a כ. or a ב. or nothing at all. or, a temporal signifier, like בראשית.Edited by arachnophilia, : typos etcEdited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

Yes; the site Hebrew4Christians has details and examples. As they show, the word "king" ("melek") already has short vowels ("seghols") in the absolute and can't be shortened further, so the construct form with vowels is completely identical to the absolute. But the first vowel in the MT isn't quite right for this. I have explained this earlier and Arach has supported it with a quote. I would again recommend the Word Biblical Commentary, which has an excellent extended discussion of the grammatical issues in Gen 1:1. Yes, but there was also an oral tradition which included the vowels. The reason the Masoretes added the written vowels is that Hebrew was starting to lose its oral tradition. Not necessarily. Often the correct reading can only be determined from context. It is true that a prefix is often added to infinitives. But this is simply because we often use infiinitives in the construction such as "to do x." The prefix it is technically not part of the infinitive. Infinitives can be used without the prefix. True. Again, it does not need a prefix to be an infinitive. Especially to be an infinitive construct, which means that the vowels are shortened and the word pronounced more quickly.This grammatical issue is very easy to illustrate and resolve. Just take a look at Gen 5:1. Here we see a noun with the prepositional prefix "bi" ("in"), followed by a form of the verb "bara," followed by "Elohim", just as in Gen 1:1. But here the voweling in the MT has "bara" as an infinitive construct ("bero"). And note that this infinitive construct has no prepositional prefix. The text transliterates as "beyom bero' 'Elohim," which literally means "in the day of the creating of God," or more smoothly, "in the day that God created." This is exactly the way that Rashi wants to read Gen 1:1. His reading of Gen 1:1 requires no change to the consonants, but it does require a change to the MT vowels.Again, just to be clear, I disagree with Rashi's reading for the reasons I've already given earlier (and which are outlined in more detail in Word Biblical Commentary). But Rashi's reading is still tenable if one changes the vowels of the MT.Edited by kbertsche, : clarification

Hi kbertsche, Is king in the construct because of the vowels?ORIs it in the construct because it is followed by a noun?When two nouns are side by side the first is in the construct.It is simple to determine which noun is in the construct and no vowels are necessary to determine which is which.The Hebrew text did not have vowels until 1000 years ago. It existed for about 2500 years without vowels. So if you had been a translator when the LXX was done how would you have translated it? They had no MT vowels.Those translators were a lot closer to the original than we are and they translated it "In the beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth".They also used a disjunctive conjunction between verse 1 and 2.
This disjunctive conjunction is noted by the MT but ignored in any such discussion as we are having. Because it separates verse 1 and verse 2. If you are saying we can only get the correct reading by what is actually written without commentary by others I would agree. When the infinitive is used without the prefix it remains in the absolute. When the prefix is used it is in the construct. No it does not need a prefix to be an infinitive absolute. But it needs a prefix to be an infinitive construct.You say it needs vowel pointing that have only been around for 1000 years. The author that wrote Genesis 5:1 had the means to make bara an infinitive construct and did not do so.So the Masoretes come along and add vowel points that puts it in the infinitive construct.Do I take what the author wrote or the modified text of the Masoretes?I will stick with the original. The original says beyom bara Elohim which translates in the day created God. Pointing to the day that man was created in the image and likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.Yowm is a noun that is followed by a verb in Genesis 5:1 just like re'shiyth is a noun followed by a verb in Genesis 1:1. Neither of those nouns are followed by a noun and therefore cannot be in the construct. Neither verb is in the infinitive construct as they do not have a prefix placing them in the construct.You say but the MT vowel pointing places the verb in the construct. The problem with that is those vowels did not exist for the first 2500 years the existence of the text.When I studied Hebrew in the 60's we studied the text as written in Paleo and modern Hebrew without vowel pointings. We did not study the MT text.Conclusion:The noun re'shiyth in Genesis 1:1 could have been placed in the construct by a following noun by the author but was not.The verb bara' could have been placed in the infinitive construct by a prefix by the author but was not.The noun yowm in Genesis 5:1 could have been placed in the construct by a following noun by the author but was not.The verb bara' could have been placed in the infinitive construct by a prefix by the author but was not.Since the author did not choose to make these texts a construct they are not in the construct.It makes no difference what I think or what you or arachnophilia or the Masoretes think, what matters is what the author wrote.Our opinions are just our opinions they do not change what the author wrote.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."