basic reading of genesis 1:1

Hi arach, Isn't house an adjective or an adverb as written? But it does not fit the termanology of a temporal infinitive construct. That is reserved to be when, the 'when; is used as you want to us in Genesis 1:1. My text book gives only the beit and the kaf inseperable prefix as ones to be in the temporal infinitive construct.Isn't 'to' directional and 'when' time which is temporal?But you still don't have the construction in Genesis 1:1 and 5:1 that you do in those examples.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."

no. irrelevant. we are not actually discussing temporal infinitive constructs. the temporal quality comes from another word that signifies temporal relationships, and not the infinitive. not necessarily. yes. you do.

---

אָרַח

Hi arach, Which verb in your examples does not have a preposition connected with a maqqef?Where is the preposition on ברב in Genesis 1:1 and 5:1?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."

in Message 157, i wrote:

quote:

---

...you then spent the next several posts debating the little dash. the example directly below it, of course, does not include the maqef:

​

quote:

---

עַד אֲשֶׁר-אָבֹא אֶל-אֲדֹנִי

​

-- Genesis 33:14

---

---

the word before it puts it in a construct.

---

אָרַח

Hi arach, Well no that is not correct.Moses wrote according to what he had learned in the house of Pharoah being raised as the son of his daughter.He also learned from his mother.Now some 3500 years after he wrote the Torah we are trying to figure out what he wrote in Hebrew according to the rules of our language.We don't have a book describing how Moses wrote handed down from his days on earth.We do know the Ancient Hebrew is composed of around 1100 words which are modified by prefixes and suffixes creating new words. We have applied our termanology to what has been discovered. Giving our meanings to the words Moses used. And applying the rules we choose to apply to his writings.You may be a mind reader and can read Moses mind even though he has been dead a long time.I can not read his mind or think his thoughts. All I can do is take what he wrote down and try to understand what he said.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."

Hi arach, Show me a Biblical Hebrew text book that says a prefixed word before a following verb puts the verb in the infinitive construct.I have three that says the beit and kaf put a verb in the temporal infinitive construct.Your bare link that you presented adds the lamed to the beit and kaf on page 607.I can find no one but you that makes this assertion.You gave your examples and said they were the same construction, well they are not because those examples have preposition immediately in front of them and even connected with the maqqef. But if they were not connected they would still be in the construct as they are stand alone prepositions (prefixes). The lamed, beit and kaf are inseparable prepositions and must be attached to the verb to place it in the infinitive construct, according to my text books and the one you linked.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."

yes, it is.the bible is the source for biblical hebrew. that's why it's called "biblical hebrew". this is wrong for a number of reasons:

1. authorship of the torah is off-topic here. i do not care who you think wrote the torah, and using that ideology as the motivation for an argument if ill-founded. we are discussing what was written, not your biases about how moses was apparently an idiot.
2. even assuming the mosaic authorship of the torah, moses would have learned egyptian in the house of pharaoh. we're looking at a hebrew document, as it was written. not your assumptions about the author did or did not know.

no. the rules of biblical hebrew are derived from the bible. not english. we know that the authors of the bible understood those rules because we are merely looking at the rules they obeyed. there is no other standard. you might do well to actually study an ancient language, instead of making stuff up. it does not take a mind reader to be able read words on a page. rather, although you profess to not be able to read minds, you are more than happy to assert what you believe about what the authors of the bible did or did not know about grammar, irrespective of the grammar they actually used.this is mind-bogglingly foolish.

---

אָרַח

it does not have to prefixed. rather, the noun itself is enough. especially when they are nouns that are typically found in constructs, and lack specific meaning without modifying something else. day of what? beginning of what? *sigh* okay. let's look at another example, shall we?

quote:

---

בִּתְחִלַּת שִׁבְתָּם שָׁם

​

-- 2 Kings 17:25

---

note the following:

1. prepositional prefix
2. noun
3. infinitive construct
4. pronominal suffix (subject/possesive)
5. object
6. the whole thing is a dependent clause

as explained to you numerous times by myself and kbertsche, the maqef is not relevant. yes. בראשית and ביום etc serve the same function. they are essentially prepositions. no, ICANT. read it more closely. notice all the examples that lack a prefix.

---

אָרַח

Hi kbertsche, In a way, because I don't know their definition of an infinitive and it's uses.They did not say it was an infinitive construct.When they did use their abreviation of construct, cstr. they did not place infinitive before it. Neither did they place infinitive before their abrevation for absolute, abs..That gives me red flags. I was going from my notes where we studied Genesis 5:1 in Greek class. I will try to find information you can access when I have time. What marks 'bara as an infinitive construct?There is no beit, kaf, or lamed attached to it to make it a temporal infinitive construct.There is no stand alone preposition in front of 'bara to place it in the construct.The only thing you have is the vowel markings that was added 1000 years ago.How can day be temporal when it is refering to a specific day which happened to be a light period in which God created mankind. The beit is placed on 'bara to specify the time period in which mankind was created, thus required translation is 'in' or 'on'.Why is it a dependent clause and what is it dependent upon?Especially since the KJV translators did not end the thought until the end of verse 2.Thus would it read:"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."My reading reads like this:On the day that God created mankind, in the likeness of God made he mankind; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name mankind, in the day when they were created.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."

Sorry, but this is an extremely lame cop-out on your part. At a minimum, "infinitive" means "not finite." You have insisted that ברא in Gen 5:1 is a finite verb, a third-person-singular Qal perfect form. A verb cannot be both finite and not finite at the same time. You directly disagree with BDB. Irrelevant. They said that it was an "Inf." which means "not finite." While this is true for the Qal of ברא, it's not true in general. Note that under the Piel of ברא they list an "Inf. abs." form. But I don't see the abbreviations "cstr." or "abs." standing alone under the BDB entry for ברא. And I don't think they should be there, as this word is a verb. Am I missing something?A noun can be either in the "absolute" or the "construct" form. Thus you will see the abbreviations "cstr." or "abs." standing alone in BDB under nouns, and under adjectives (which can function as nouns). This is appropriate. It probably should; it indicates that you have forgotten your biblical Hebrew grammar. Yes, the only "marker" of this is the MT vowel pointings. If you ignore them, you have two translation options, as I explained.Note that my quote above started with an "if." This is the first translation option. the second option is that this is a finite verb, as i explained. Huh?? "Temporal" means "time-related." If it is "refering to a specific day," as you claim, then by definition it is "temporal." I explained this. It is a dependent clause because it does not contain a finite verb. So it cannot stand as a sentence on its own. It must be dependent on another clause which does contain a finite verb. In this case, the clause which follows it.I think you need to review what is meant by "independent and dependent clauses." Exactly. The KJV translators took this as a dependent clause, making it depend on the clause which follows it. Yes; notice how the first clause is dependent on the second. But this is completely inconsistent with what you claimed earlier, that the ברא here is a finite verb! Rather, you have translated the clause as if it were an infinitive construct which is what you are arguing against!There are only 4 words in this clause. Taking your contention that ברא is a finite verb, here is the literal meaning of the Hebrew words:
"on-day created God man"
The most straightforward way to translate this would be: "On a day, God created man."Grammatical questions for you:
1) You have inserted the relative word "that" in the clause. Where does this come from? I see no grammatical justification for it, so long as you take ברא to be a finite verb. What is the "marker" that tells you to insert the word "that?"
2) If ברא is truly a finite verb, as you say, then the clause is a complete sentence and should be translated as an independent clause. So why do you translate it as a dependent clause? (Reminder: "independent and dependent clauses.")Edited by kbertsche, : expanded description of BDB entries

Hi arach, You keep saying that, am I supposed to take you as an authority on Biblical Hebrew?Since you said in Message 112: And you have presented your version of a temporal infinitive construct which you claim 'bara is one in Genesis 1:1.Yet when I ask you to present one you tell me to look on page 603 in a text book you had linked to on the net.When I show you those are not temporal according to the text book they came out of you grab another example out of the air.Why not go to page 608 and get a text book example.Or better yet find in a text book where it says a prefix on a noun in front of a verb puts the verb in the infinitive construct. I know you believe that, as you preach it all the time.I have not asked for your opinion.I have asked for a text book example, or statement to the fact that a noun with a prefix puts the following verb in the infinitive construct.Maybe you could find where בראשית is said to be a stand alone preposition rather than a noun with a prefix.I have given you examples from the Bible two times that you have not even acknowledged of temporal infinitive construct verbs.Here they are again.In Message 142 I gave several temporal infinitive constructs. In Genesis 2:4 the verb is preceeded by a noun why did the author place the beit on the verb?In Genesis 17:24 the verb is preceeded by a noun why did the author place the beit on the verb?In Genesis 17:25 the verb is preceeded by a noun why did the author place the beit on the verb?In Genesis 19:29 the last verb is preceeded by a noun why did the author place the beit on the verb?In Genesis 19:33 the 2 verbs in the temporal construct I presented is preceeded by a verb in the infinitive construct with a different function.In Genesis 19:35 the same situation with the younger daughter as we had with the oldest daughter in verse 33.All the above has the beit.Genesis 19:17 the kaf. is used. A form of exist preceeds this verb.Why would the author use these prefixes to create a temporal infinitive construct on these verbs and not use them of the verbs in Genesis 1:1 and 5:1 that you want to be an temporal infinitive construct.Would you think it was because he did not intend for the text to be taken as a temporal phrase? Would you please point out the temporal infinitive construct example on page 608 that does not have a prefix?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 think you are confusing yourself by your insistence on using the misleading phrase "temporal infinitive construct.""Infinitive construct" is a grammatical form. "Temporal" is a grammatical function. You blur this important distinction by your continued use of the phrase "temporal infinitive construct."You would be more clear if you called these "infinitive construct forms with a temporal function."The temporal function can be indicated in a number of ways: by a prefix, by a prepositional phrase, or by other contextual cues. The prefix is only one way to indicate this. It is often highlighted in textbooks, since it is so different from English. But your textbook doesn't say that this is the only way to indicate temporality, does it?

no. you are supposed to actually look it up. i did not. those are your words. rather, here is what i have said:

quote:

---

no, the temporal meaning is inferred from the bet prefix attached to a word that relates to time.

​

-- me, in Message 54, emphasis in original

---

quote:

---

it is directly preceeded by a preposition that signifies a temporal relationship. ... or a ל. or a כ. or a ב. or nothing at all. or, a temporal signifier, like בראשית.

​

-- me, in Message 73, emphasis in original

---

quote:

---

it is exactly the same as genesis 1:1. it's a temporally-significant noun, with a preposition attached, followed by a verb, followed by a subject and direct object. ... on the contrary. they do not need a prefix, and they are infinitives precisely because they are preceded by a temporal noun and preposition that are meaningless on their own. "day" might be fine on its own, but "in the day" of what? "beginning" might be fine on its own, but "in the beginning" of what? the preposition is really the key -- beginning a sentence with a preposition opens a dependent clause.

​

-- me, in Message 76, emphasis in original

---

quote:

---

ICANT writes:

​

In the texts you gave there is one temporal infinitive construct. In Genesis 2:4

​

the first five examples he gave are all in identical form.

​

quote:

---

• Gen 2:4, בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים
  in the day of the making of God = "when God made"
  (here asah changes form)
  ​
• Gen 2:17, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ
  in the day of the eating of you = "when you eat"
  ​
• Gen 3:5, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְכֶם
  in the day of the eating of you (pl) = "when you (pl) eat"
  ​
• Gen 5:1, בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים
  (already discussed)
  ​
• Gen 5:2, בְּיוֹם, הִבָּרְאָם
  in the day of the being created of them = "when they were created"
  (bara here is in the nifil stem, denoting passive)

​

-- kbersche, in Message 77, cleaned up a bit.

---

​

the only difference is that the first one as a complete absolute, whereas the others have simple suffixes that do the same job.

​

they are all constructs. and they are all temporal. please try harder.

​

-- me, in Message 92 (entire post)

---

quote:

---

okay, you've lost me. please explain what difference you are imagining, exactly? here's a comparison, for those that like proper formatting, spelling, and actually reading the hebrew.

​

quote:

---

תְּחִלַּת דִּבֶּר-יְהוָה
techelit deber yahweh...
(mechanically) in the beginning of speaking of yahweh...
(idiomatically) when yahweh began speaking ...

​

-- Hosea 1:2

---

​

and

​

quote:

---

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים
bereshit bara elohim
(mechanically) in the beginning of the creating of god...
(idiomatically) when god began creating...

​

-- Genesis 1:1

---

​

note, both תחלה and ראש are nouns. both take a ת suffix. both are followed directly by an infinitive construct, and then by the absolute in the construct chain. the difference? hosea 1:2 lacks the ב prefix, that definitely indicates the temporal nature of the construct.

​

so, please, explain exactly what it is that you see that is different, as the two are grammatically identical. well, except for the vowels, anyways. but we all know how you feel about those.

​

...

​

genesis 2:4 is a verse written in flopped parallel. even (especially) if you disregard the documentary theory, which splits the two halves as bookends to either chapter, it's clear to see that one half is meant to directly mimic the other. so, where 2:4a writes,

​

quote:

---

אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם

---

​

genesis 2:4b writes,

​

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם

---

​

see how they go in basically reverse order? verb last, then verb very early? subjects early, subjects last? that's almost certainly intentional. if one is temporal, and an infinitive construct, the other should be too.

​

-- me, in Message 94

---

quote:

---

ICANT writes:

​

Are you saying that if you put the beit or the kaph on the verb bara' it would not put the verb bara' in the temporal infinitive construct?

​

no, that is not what i am saying. please read what i wrote again, and more carefully this time. i am saying that it does not necessarily need a ב (or any other prefix) to be a (temporal) infinitive construct, and indeed, if i had one, the preposition would render the sentence as nonsense. rather, the prefix on the construct noun in front of it is entirely sufficient. and even that is unnecessary, as your hosea example shows. the grammatical context matters -- you can't just say, "this rule should apply" and go sticking extra letters on all over the place. imag[in]e if we randomly inserted prepositions into english sentences everywhere we saw a verb acting as a noun. ...

​

A simple explanation of how ברא could be a temporal infinitive construct.

​

of course. it's preceded by a preposition signifying temporal location.

​

-- me, in Message 98

---

quote:

---

notice how the first part, בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, is a subordinate clause. notice that בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים is exactly the same kind of preposition-temporal-noun, infinitive, absolute construct as genesis 1:1. notice it also has a direct object. an infinitive is the only option that makes any sense in the construct chain.

​

i suggest you get your head out of the lexicon, and actually learn from grammar. you cannot learn to read, or learn syntax, from a lexicon.

​

-- me, in Message 122

---

quote:

---

no, ICANT. you really, actually have to look at the verse and read it. you can't just pull one specific usage out of it's grammatical context, and expect it to apply universally. so, let's look at the genesis 2:4, shall we?

​

quote:

---

אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם

---

​

this is the first half of the verse. notice that this is not taking the place of a subordinate clause. the infinitive construct has two peculiarities:

1. it has a prepositional prefix, ב, attached to it, that indicates the temporal sense. as we've seen repeatedly in genesis 5:1, this is not not needed when the temporal sense is handled by something else, such as עד, ביום, or even בראשית
2. it has a pronominal suffix, ם, attached to it, that means "their". as detailed in Message 95, and Message 126 and onward, this is acting as the absolute. it is not needed in genesis 1:1, because the absolute there is not a pronoun, but אלהים

further, as i explained in Message 94, genesis 2:4 is written in flopped parallel. here is the other half of the verse:

​

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם

---

​

note the temporal-infinitive construct chain, being used as a subordinate clause. if it works for one half, it should work for the other.

​

-- me, in Message 148

---

quote:

---

the prefix is not needed. period. the bet preposition only relays the temporal sense. a separate word that also relays a temporal sense (or [h]as a bet prefix) is quite sufficient to relay a temporal sense of the verb. you have to look at the grammatical context.

​

-- me, in Message 153

---

quote:

---

There is no temporal infinitive construct in this example.

​

that's correct. those are very specific kind of construction -- here, the temporal sense is relayed by the preposition, as i have said repeatedly above. not by the prefix. the important point is that the form directly matches what we see in genesis 1:1 (and 5:1), a preposition signifying temporal relationships, an infinitive construct, and an absolute noun.

​

-- me, in Message 163

---

quote:

---

we are not actually discussing temporal infinitive constructs. the temporal quality comes from another word that signifies temporal relationships, and not the infinitive.

​

-- me, in Message 167

---

note that i rarely, if ever refer to actual temporal infinitives but clearly state a number of times that the temporal quality is handled by the noun that relates to time. yes, because it is analogous to the case we're actually looking at, not whatever thing you imagine i'm arguing. which is again analogous to the case we're actually looking at. this should be a hint, here. i'm not interested in discussing your crazed imaginations of what my argument means, but rather actual examples that relate to the syntax of genesis 1:1, which happens to be the topic. because we are not discussing temporal infinitive constructs. we are discussing verbs that are but into infinitives because they follow temporal nouns or temporal prepositions. do you see the difference? indeed, as i wrote above,

quote:

---

the prefix is not needed. period. the bet preposition only relays the temporal sense. a separate word that also relays a temporal sense ... is quite sufficient to relay a temporal sense of the verb. you have to look at the grammatical context.

​

-- me, in Message 153, emphasis added, clause removed for clarity

---

please see Message 1. or, better yet, address the example in Message 173, the message you replied to.

quote:

---

let's look at another example, shall we?

​

quote:

---

בִּתְחִלַּת שִׁבְתָּם שָׁם

​

-- 2 Kings 17:25

---

​

note the following:

1. prepositional prefix
2. noun
3. infinitive construct
4. pronominal suffix (subject/possesive)
5. object
6. the whole thing is a dependent clause

​

-- me, in Message 173

---

again, please see Message 1. the word is meaningless on its own. beginning of what? had the author meant an abstract beginning -- an absolute beginning -- he would have used ראשון. this is also covered in Message 1. because we are not looking at temporal infintives. how can i make this any more clear? because the nouns are not in construct with the infinitive verb. rather, the nouns are the objects of the sentence, and the temporal infinitive construct takes the place of a subordinate clause. you have to look at the grammatical context. ditto. ditto. ditto on the first one listed. the second is preceded by another verb. no further explanation needed. ditto. because they do not simply mean "when" and "when" alone.

---

אָרַח

it's some kind of an infinitive. now, let's look at the grammatical context:

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם

​

-- Genesis 5:1

---

ok, so you have two choices:

1. absolute
2. construct

which do you suppose it is? indeed. as kbertsche said, "It probably should; it indicates that you have forgotten your biblical Hebrew grammar."absolutes and constructs are properties of nouns. infinitives often have them, of course, because infinitives function as nouns. now, i have linked you to a source that details the difference. but, just for shits and giggles, wanna tell me what it lists for ראשית?

1. absolute
2. construct
3. some combination thereof

if you chose #3, please also fill in the blank with the specifics.Edited by arachnophilia, : clarity

---

אָרַח

Hi kberstche, Yes I know that.But arach and Rashi want to use 'when' in Genesis 1:1 and arach wants to use it in 2:4 and 5:1.I was taught and my text book says the 'when' is the temporal infinitive construct. They give no other examples as temporal infinitive construct. For them to be in the temporal infinitive construct examples have a beit or kaf prefix. Just like the examples I have given three times. The link that arach gave gives lamed with examples and mentions beit and kaf but no examples (which could have been on the next 3 pages which is missing) as a prefix for the temporal infinitive construct. My text book says that the lamed is used to express purpose/result. Such as 'to seek'.I also have a chart that includes prefixes and suffixes for verbs when they are in the infinitive construct and absolute. They give no example of a 'when' clause without a beit or kaf prefix.There are many types of infinitive constructs and absolutes given. Such as being explanatory, purpose, result, subject of another verb, and the object of another verb.I find no way to make a verb a noun without a prefix and or suffixes.Yet arach wants to make a noun out of the verb 'bara in Genesis 1:1 simply because the first word which is a noun usually appears in the construct form in the Bible, but the root word is a verb that a noun was created from.A good example is the first word in the Bible, ראשית.Here is a quote form Judaism 101:

quote:

---

For example, the first word of the Torah, "bereishit," is usually translated as "in the beginning." The root is Reish-Alef-Shin, which means "head" or "first." (See Hebrew Alphabet to learn the letters). It is the same root as the "Rosh" in "Rosh Hashanah" (first of the year, i.e., Jewish New Year). We add the prefix Beit, a preposition meaning "in," "on," and a number of other things. The word "the" is implied.

---

SourceAs I have said several times I think we complicate the Ancient Hebrew far beyond what it is by trying to make it fit our rules for English. It is not an English language.Let me throw a bone to you to chew on for consideration.Moses lived most of his life in a tent. So what word do you think he would have used in his writing for the covering of the Earth that was translated firmament?Do you think he would have described it as a hammered out dome or a streached out sheet, or canvas to hold back the water? This is just food for thought.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."