basic reading of genesis 1:1

idiomatically, yes. literally, "in the day of". but "when" sounds nicer in english. err, no. when you're translating, you start with the source language, not the destination language. check you textbooks harder. i'll give you a big hint: you might want to consider my second question in Message 179, above. then you fail the thread, as multiple examples have been given to you. some of them repeatedly. one of them, from two of your sources. the syntax is common. uh huh. ראש השנה is what kind of pair of nouns? no, it is not. fortunately, the only one in this thread trying to read hebrew like an english-speaker is you: i think your obsession with moses is not a healthy approach to examining the actual contents of the bible. you make a lot of assumptions about the personage of the author, and draw your interpretations from there. this is a foolish approach to translating a text -- rather, you should look at the text and translate it. in this case, the word inadequately rendered "firmament", רָקִיעַ, comes from the verb רָקַע, which literally means "to spread out" or "beat flat". of the 11 times it's used in the bible, 4 times refer to literal metalworking, 1 time comparing creation to literal metalworking, twice meaning the pounding action itself, and once meaning "disperse". none of them refer to tents.however, isaiah, who did not live in a tent, was more than happy to describe the heavens thusly:

quote:

---

הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל-חוּג הָאָרֶץ, וְיֹשְׁבֶיהָ כַּחֲגָבִים; הַנּוֹטֶה כַדֹּק שָׁמַיִם, וַיִּמְתָּחֵם כָּאֹהֶל לָשָׁבֶת

​

-- Isaiah 40:22

---

note that he uses a different word to describe the spreading of a tent. curious.

---

אָרַח

Hi arach, In Biblical Hebrew when verbs have inseprable prefixes beit, kaf, lamed, or stand alone prepositions they are infinitives either in construct or absolute.Verbs that are not infinitives are either perfect, completed action or imperfect, present or continuing action.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."

of course, these are not the only two options. as shown to you many times throughout this thread (and by your own sources), infinitives do not need prefixes. do i need to cite messages again?but clearly, yes. verbs with certain prefixes and suffixes are infinitives. and clearly, verbs that are not infinitives are something other than infinitives. but it does not follow from these two statements that all verbs without prefixes are something other than infinitives.

---

אָרַח

Hi arach, What difference does it make, they are not the word under discussion? Well Jesus quoted Moses as the author of the Torah so I will take His word over any assertion you might make or want to make. Are you claiming infalability for the text we have today?I don't even do that.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."

your example. not mine. not relevant to the thread. please answer the above questions in Message 179. are you claiming the text is unreliable, and that you can just make shit up whenever it suits your ideology?

---

אָרַח

No, I did not believe it the first time or the fifth time.Why don't you give me something I can find in a text book. According to my verb chart for Infinitive construct and absolute if they do not have a prefix, midfix, or suffix they are not Infinitive construct or absolute.Like I have said you keep trying to make Ancient Hebrew into English.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, That is not what my text book says nor is it what the one you referenced on the internet says. Which example of page 603 is translated with a 'when' as you translate Genesis 1:1?I must be blind I can't find one. Then find one. Yes I see the difference. Temporal infinitive constructs can be found in a text book. Your temporal noun modifiers of verbs can't be found in a text book. It is really odd then that everytime I find a noun with a beit or a kaf they have been translated with the temporal 'when'.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 have given you a textbook. multiple times. here it is again. notice that on page 605, there's a special section dealing with the prepositional prefixes, and that this section is not the whole chapter. rather, a significant percentage of the examples throughout the rest of the chapter lack a prefix.i have given you many such examples. several from your own sources. you choose to disagree with not only with rashi and orlinsky (and me, and kbertsche), but also nearly every biblical translator out there, including your lauded brown, driver, and briggs. then your chart is wrong. get a real textbook. like the one above. or several other easily available on the internet. or in your local bookstore. you will not find one that states that non-finite verbs must have a preposition prefix of some kind. rather, you will many filled with counterexamples. the only commonalities i've proposed between english and biblical hebrew is that both should make sense. you are trying to sift meaning through a lexical filter, because you can't understand the grammar, and puzzle out an english translation that is not very graceful and loses most, if not all, of the sense that the original hebrew made. this is not effective.now, i've proposed analogies to english, with the presumption that english makes sense to you. i realize that you're not dawn bertot, and probably can make sense out of english. which is why i've ask you to try to impose your translation methodology on a language that already makes sense to you, and see what happens.the idea is not that this will reveal something about hebrew. it's that's it will reveal something about your translation methodology. what i'd like you to do, really, is forget english entirely, and just read the hebrew. without trying to translate it -- or pass it through your lexical filter. i'd like for the grammar to be intuitive, not for you to ignore it entirely in favour of what your lexicon says the function should be.understand?

---

אָרַח

again, we are not talking about temporal infinitives, but temporal clauses that contain infinitives. some of those are temporal infinitives. some of them are multiple words. but clearly, a word that relates to time conveys a temporal sense. this is not even common sense. it's tautological. it's by definition. none. we are not necessarily looking at constructions that can be translated "when", though those are obviously a sub-set of what we are looking at.oh, and speaking of which, you never answered my question in Message 179,

quote:

---

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.

---

i'll give you a hint. i already know what it says, and it's an appropriate response to this question. we've pointed out several. you reject them all, even the ones i've pulled from your sources: BDB and some crackpot webpage you plagiarized. *yawn*

quote:

---

Genesis 5:1—2

​

זֶה סֵפֶר, תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם: בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בְּרָאָם; וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמָם אָדָם, בְּיוֹם, הִבָּרְאָם

​

This is the book of the Genealogy of Adam when God created him. In the likeness of God he made him. Male and female he created them and blessed them, and he called their name Adam, when he created them.

​

These two verses have particular bearing on the proper interpretation of Genesis 2:4. Both times that בְּיוֹם (b^əym) occurs in Genesis 5:1—2, it has the same grammatical structure as in Genesis 2:4. בְּיוֹם precedes an infinitive construct without an intervening preposition. In 5:1, the infinitive construct is the verb ברא (br’, "to create") in the qal. ברא only occurs in the infinitive construct six times in the Old Testament: four times in the niphal, once in the hiphil, and here in the qal. Four times (Gen. 5:1, 5:2; Ezek.28:13, 15) the infinitive construct of ברא is preceded by a separate prepositional phrase that acts like the preposition attached to the infinitive construct. Three times it is the prepositional phrase בְּיוֹם. (b^əym) while Ezekiel 28:15 uses מִיּוֹם ((miyym) "when"). In each of these instances, the grammatical collocation functions to denote "when" not "in/from the day."

​

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_119-122.pdf

---

these sources aren't especially hard to come by. it's pretty much the standard academic view. that would be pretty odd, yes. is that sarcasm? i hope that's sarcasm. because the other option is stupidity.for instance, nouns can be places. ב + place name is a pretty common way to indicate something's location. for instance, the hebrew title of the book of numbers, במדבר, or "in the desert".clearly, the kind of noun matters. if the noun has something to do with time, it's going to indicate when something happened. if the noun has something to do with place, it's going to indicate where.

---

אָרַח

Hi arach, You keep reminding me we are talking about Genesis 1:1 which you translate as a temporal infinitive construct.So yes we are talking about temporal infinitive constructs. In English it does.From what I was taught and find in my text books and the one you linked too on the internet a temporal infinitive construct has a beit, kaf, lamed, or stand alone prefix attached or not with a maqqef. Correct and you could have answered the question without the mumbo jumbo. Yes I did you just didn't like the answer.I have no idea what they called an infinitive as they did not place it in front of the cstr. and abs. that was in front of a verb.So I don't know which one it was. I could take a guess but why should I do that.

quote:

---

ראשית n. f.
beginning, first. abs. Dt 33 ²¹ + , cstr. Gn 10¹⁰

---

This is the first time they use abs. and cstr.Now since you won't believe me I took a picture and will put it as my avatar. This is the 1906 BDB. You have not given me one example from a text book that has a noun with a beit prefix before a noun that is an infinitive construct. Yes that was sarcasam you were supposed point out my ignorance and ask if I meant a verb.Everytime I find a verb that has a beit prefix it is translated with 'when' because it puts the verb in the temporal infinitive construct. The beit on a noun is translated "in, on, with, by, etc. w/the '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."

Hi kbertsche, No it is there I just can't find where I filed it in this old brain but I am refreshing it hour by hour. Yes and any time a beit is placed on a noun it is translated in, on, with, by, etc. and 'the' is implied.So it should be translated in the day or on the day. Not when. You are correct.But what if I changed it just a little bit to read:On the day 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 they were created. That is the first time I have ever translated it that way. The one above is my normal way of translating it.I have argued that this means this is the history of the mankind created in Genesis 1:27 not the man that was formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 and the woman made from his rib in 2:22. Those are separate events with a huge span between them.Here is the mechanical revised translation of Genesis 5:1, 2. SourceLet me give it a go without looking it up.Dependent clause, incomplete thought.Independent clause, complete 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."

no. i am not. and neither is rashi, or orlinsky. rather, they are translating it as a (temporal) subordinate clause. now, certainly one kind of temporal subordinate clause is a temporal infinitive construct. your examples, for instance, have included at least one. but when a separate word takes the place of the prepositional prefix, and a separate word takes the place of the pronominal suffix, it is then probably inappropriate to call the whole shebang a "temporal infinitive construct" as it doesn't strictly match the form anymore. rather, it is a "temporal construct chain that contains an infinitive".i know that you are strangely incapable of seeing the subtle difference here. but please just give it a shot, for me. perhaps you should look up what the word "temporal" means. in english. yes, and sometimes a prepositional noun can serve precisely the same function as a prepositional prefix (attached, or not). there is a quote from any argument about something else (genesis 2:4) that references this, above, in Message 189, the message you just replied to. you seem to have left it unaddressed. because if you can't even do that without a lexicon, why should i (or anyone else) think you know anything about biblical hebrew? it doesn't take a scholar to look something up in a book. but knowing a thing or two, and extrapolating an answer from understand the principles, is an entirely different matter.but here's a hint. remember that text book link i gave you? it has some other chapters in it too. one of them -- the one before the one on constructs -- is on infinitive absolutes. it contains a simple cheat on how to tell the difference. do you suppose it's odd that they list the first construct and the first absolute, but neither is the first time the word appears in the bible? uh huh. page, what, 912 or so? keep reading. since i know you won't, and this will be largely lost on those who don't google everything vaguely curious, and probably lost on you, too... here's the bit i'm looking for: BDB translates it in construct with a temporal infinitive. which i don't think is exactly right -- but it is your strawman of my position. this is your favoured source. they then waffle, and state that it develops into an absolute reading. clearly, since they didn't include this as their first example of either a construct or an absolute usage, they must think there's some room for interpretation here.and they use the word "when". yes, i did. a notable place is in Message 54, where i reveal that the example i had been using came from the same source you plagiarized. it can also be found in BDB, your other go-to source. yes. that doesn't mean that that's the only way to talk about temporal relationships. it's useful when the phrase is the object of the finite verb, but not so much when it isn't. sure, if the noun is a place. time is not a place.

---

אָרַח

you might want to read the linked article in Message 189 above. keep in mind that this is on a creationist website. it is not exactly biased against the word of god -- though you will find that the secular, academic literature says the same things. what do you propose the timeline is? if god made man on day six, let's say, at sundown, when did they become similar to god? when were they blessed? when were they made male and female? was it just some time that day, but these were all separate events? or did they all occur simultaneously, as the bet on an infinitive construct would indicate for the infinitive and finite verbs? the stupid, it burns. we've already gone over exactly what's wrong with this translation: it ignores usage and grammatical context. it simplifies the lexicon to one particular (and arbitrary) meaning for each word, and then replaces them with inappropriate usages at will. as shown above, this can lead to time machines and 386's in your bible. it's irresponsible, and frankly, just plain stupid.here is what a real translation looks like:

quote:

---

This is the record of Adam's line.--When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; male and female He created them. And when they were created, He blessed them and called them Man.

​

-- Genesis 5:1,2, nJPS: Orlinsky 1962. (unavailable online, sorry)

---

---

אָרַח

Hi arach, I read the article and have knowlede of the arguments put forth from all sides. But that is the reason I studied Greek and Hebrew so I would not have to depend on their perception and announcments.I prefer what my text book says concerning what the bet does on the noun. Well it wasn't at sundown because evening had not come yet.So it was during the light period of day six.When God created (caused mankind to begin to exist) mankind male and female He did so simultaneously, during which they received the likeness of God. A body, spirit, and mind. Notice He created them and that is plural so the number is not limited to two people, but could have been.After they began to exist the next verse said God blessed them and gave them some instructions. Including telling them that they could eat from every tree on the face of the earth.After that discourse the evening came and the following morning completing the sixth day.That is the reason I have argued with you that the mankind in Genesis 1:27 and the man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 are not the same. It may be good for your purposes but it is not accurate, as it does not state what the text implies.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, You could have fooled me. Sorry I can't find that in my textbooks. I did not say I did not know what our rules would require me to say. I did say I did not know what they intended as I do not know what they view as an Infinitive, whether it is cstr. or abs. as they did not use infinitive in front of either when placed on a verb. I am looking for a book that might clear that up at a later date. I would assume because that is the first time the word was used as cstr. or abs.. That is their usual method. Page 912. Genesis 1:1 according to BDB.They translated בראשית as
"In the beginning" so they translated בראשית as a noun with a bet prefix.They translated ברא
as a Qal 3ps. verb "created" meaning completed action.They then arbitrarily inserted a temporal as if the verb was written בברא with a temporal prefix placing the verb in the infinitive construct.The problem is there is no reason according to the text to insert 'when'.So removing their arbitrarily inserted when you have the standard translation of Genesis 1:1.

quote:

---

In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.

---

Well I don't think that site is a textbook.Besides my information came from my 59 and 66 textbooks which he/she could have used also, along with adding his/her own bias.So no you have not presented a textbook example. I find no exceptions in my textbooks or the one you linked. I find no exceptions in my textbooks I will search the one you referenced to see if I can find one there.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : put prefix in wrong place had to change.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."