basic reading of genesis 1:1

no, it seems to be a random assortment, within an allotment of pages per search/view/etc. with some creative searching, i was able read the contents of the other pages... which explains how i was able to quote those pages. with a few typos, of course, as you can't copy the text. they're trying to sell books or something.the interesting point is not that i was searching within the book, but that i was searching everywhere, and this book happened to come up any time you search for the specific grammatical concepts we've been talking about. with the relevant sections readable. which tells that if you'd even bothered to google these topics, you could have found answers. research biblical hebrew. and other languages. try and understand how they actually work beyond the most simple mechanics they teach to 5 year olds. here's a hint -- you'll get a much better picture from using the language yourself. perhaps, but i would have to see the PNT. i think it would be more worthwhile to examine those assumptions. but this, of course, has been done before. yes, it is. there is no other source. i know you'd like to imagine that a bunch of rogue 21st century scholars just make up stuff and pretend it says something about the bible, but that's just not the case. rather, they look at the bible, and try to tell how its grammar functions. like i said. research other languages. specifically, dead ones. okay. perhaps this should be another PNT. you should actually make your argument there, and use some evidence to back it up. because all i can see in this thread is you rambling on about how you would have done, in spite of the academic descriptions of how it was actually done. because it functions as a complex preposition. and it does so in nearly every other grammatically similar occurrence in the text. had the author not wanted it do so, he would have used a different word. no. roots are roots. most (perhaps all) qal 3ps verbs look like their roots, yes. but they are not the only verbal forms that can look like the root as well -- vowels removed. ah, yes. so it would. luckily, it does. notice the spelling in genesis 2:4: bet-hey-bet-resh-alef-mem. what's the extra hey in there for? if it were a definite article, it would be contracted into the bet (as already discussed), but i'm not really sure verbs can have definite articles. perhaps infinitives can, i dunno. i'd have to look that one up. okay. what about when a noun precedes an infinitive? interesting. so you think BDB makes stuff up. sort of. but not exactly. notice the example i used above, "in the midst of". "midst" is perfectly capable of being a noun, in principle. but it's generally meaningless without something to modify. and you need to take a biblical hebrew class that was taught after 1960. and a modern hebrew class, too, if you want to compare. no, i don't. i make no assumptions about their education. though i will concede that i presume they spoke their language better than i do. and that they likely did so intuitively, as people who speak languages usually do. they didn't go flipping through textbooks, because it wasn't some kind of code to them. it was what they spoke on a day-to-day basis.you, on the other hand, are assuming that they followed a rigid set of simple rules that are the equivalent of a gradeschool education in grammar. verb, subject, object. verb, subject, object. ho hum. no, i do not. i just don't think language is nearly as simple as you make it out to be. using language as a native speaker, and describing language are two entirely different pursuits. it might take a trained mechanic to describe how precisely my car functions, but you better believe that i drive it to work every morning. the fact that its machinery and processes are complex enough that it would take me many years to explore every variation of every car design doesn't mean that i can't gain the utility, and operate some small portion of that machinery.so while i might take a harvard PHD to describe all the facets of biblical hebrew grammar, that doesn't mean that the authors of the bible didn't use some portion of that grammar. as i've pointed out, this is much more so the case with english -- its introductory syntax books are TWICE the length, and i doubt i could tell every way in which an infinitive works in english. in fact, while researching for this thread earlier, i discovered several new ways infinitives are used without prepositions in english. ways that i would be surprised if i hadn't used in this very thread. formal descriptions of usage, and just using words according to those usages are two entirely different matters that take two entirely different levels of education.you'll also note that while i intuitively understood genesis 1:1 a particular way, finding the appropriate description for that grammatical function has been tricky. you would have similar difficulty in any language you learn, as opposed to picking tidbits out of textbooks. this is why i have suggested you try your methodology on english. you will be surprised to find that you can't describe accurately half of the grammatical functions you use on a regular basis.

---

אָרַח

yes. and bits along the way, like the DSS, that confirm that the vast majority of it was copied extremely well. the LXX even backs this up, too. the question is, why should we value the LXX over the MT? nonsense. eh, not so much. uh huh. interesting. remember when you asked how to know if you were wrong? well, here's a way. how exactly do they have a noun in construct, when it's followed by a verb?

​

perhaps you should look up the verb that follows it. pg 793.

​

Since ברא is a temporal plural verb with a bet prefix translated when they were created, the statement "These are the birthings of the heaven and the earth when they were created." This is a complete independent sentence so there is nothing preceeding יום to modify it.

​

yes. יום starts a new story.

​

arachnophilia writes:

​

interesting. tell me, why do you think that "in the day" implies simultaneous action?

​

I just can't see him speaking in the morning to create one mankind and then in the evening to create another mankind.

​

I can see him speaking all all humans he created coming into existence at one time.

​

okay. so, nothing in the text, then?

​

arachnophilia writes:

​

okay. so you agree that the "creation" of genesis 1:1 describes the events to come in the chapter

​

No.

​

okay. so there's two creations, one in genesis 1:1, and one afterwards beginning in genesis 1:3? i thought you said you didn't insert the gap here. please clarify.

​

In Genesis 1:1 the Heavens and the Earth came into existence I call that T=10^-43 secs.

​

Everything that existed at that time exists today.

​

Genesis 1:2 describes a series of events that took place in time past.

​

Genesis 2:4-25 took place at an earlier time in the past.

​

i'm sorry, but that just makes no sense whatsoever. go back and read genesis 1-4, read what you wrote, and think it over. how is 1:1 "in the beginning" in the absolute sense you argue so hard for if there was an "earlier time"? why does 1:1 come after 1:2?

​

It was a light period that ended when the darkness in Genesis 1:2 began to exist. It ended with the morning of the second day and was called day one by God. That means there was no day before that day.

​

there was no light before light was created. are you even reading the text at all? none of this makes any sense. the story is the story of creation, not "assume everything in verse 1, proceed to ignore everything afterwards".

​

Why don't we discuss this in a thread as I suggested?

​

it's your crazy idea. you make the PNT. i'll participate.

​

Start counting with the evening an the morning being the first day and see how many 24 hour periods you can get in the rest of the story prior to Genesis 2:4.

​

i count 7. no surprises there.

​

שֵׁת is transliterated Sheth and translated Sheth 2 times in the Torah. It is also translated Seth 7 times. Seth = compensation but is never translated as such.

​

yech. pick a transliteration and stick to it. i'm happy with "shet" if you prefer. in any case:

​

quote:

---

וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת: כִּי שָׁת-לִי אֱלֹהִים, זֶרַע אַחֵר

​

-- Genesis 4:25

---

​

only the vowels are different. and we all know how you feel about those.

​

אָדָם transliteration adam = red.
Translated Adam 9 times.
Translated man 408 times.
Translated person 8 times.
Translated hypocrite 1 time.

​

Do you see the difference?

​

yes, context matters. case in point, you might want to look things up before you copy them out of your concordance. the phrase being translated as "hypocrite" is אָדָם חָנֵף. literally, "flattering person". it's not really adam being translated "hypocrite" but rather chanef.

​

arachnophilia writes:

​

assumption of two separate adams.

​

I don't assume two separate creation stories most scholars agree that there is two creation stories.

​

...not actually what i said.

​

If there is two stories there is two men.

​

doesn't follow. there are two stories about abraham lying about his "sister" sarah. were there two abrahams? or are they two different stories about the same person? there is a book of samuel, and a book of chronicles. both talk about king david. how many kings name david were there? there are four gospels of jesus. there must have been four jesuses, correct?

​

---

אָרַח

okay. it comes up in searches. you can look this stuff up. like i said, research other languages, specifically dead ones. see if you can find how we know words mean in a language nobody has used for several thousand years. i'll give you a hint: it has something to do with context, and piecing together meaning based on words' relationships to one another. any thread on the documentary hypothesis, for instance. in Message 189, i linked you to an article that details the 20 or so times it's used in genesis alone, 13 in which it functions as referring to a specific day, and 7 in which is takes a looser temporal context. not coincidentally, the vowels are different between these two cases. but i know you don't care about that. i don't know what you mean. you can make an infinitive in any tense. it is in genesis 5:1, according to BDB and just about everyone else. except you. i believe that pointing out that you correctly predicted the form it should take, but didn't bother to see if it actually took that form, is a much better argument about your stupidity and/or ignorance. i'm not out to insult you -- if you're correct, i'll be happy to say so. i believe that is fair game. no. correct. but the pronominal suffix (either the object or the subject) of the infinitive can be. so they make stuff up. ...so they make stuff up. it was. did you not read my post? try this sentence:

quote:

---

How can you be so sure we are right when we do not have a dictionary of the original words and we do not have the original words to examine?

---

please explain independent vs subordinate clauses, the effect of the preposition, and where "be" and "do" exist in time relative to one another.

that's ok, hope your son is okay. biblical hebrew doesn't have temporal tenses, right. you'll have to forgive me, i was referring to verb stems in the colloquial "tense". it should read, more properly, "you can make an infinitive in any stem." no, that's nonsense. the masoretes put those vowels on it because it was read as an infinitive due to grammatical context. they didn't pull the vowels out of thin air just to annoy you. even without the vowels, there quite a few contextual reasons to read it as an infinitive. again, BDB disagrees. in english. and because i suspect that you do not really comprehend the difference between using grammar, and being able to explain the rules in textbook-level detail.

---

אָרַח

sure they do. they might not be used in the bible, of course. but that doesn't mean that you cannot make an infinitive out of those stems. i have. many times. you have chosen to ignore it, because you don't seem to believe in grammatical context -- only what your books tells you each individual word means. clearly, that has a to- prefix. no. i'm telling you that you probably do not comprehend all the grammatical rules you use on a daily basis. there is difference between being able to write a grammar textbook, and being able to write. i was asking you about the specific cases you used, and the temporal relationship between your verbs. because you don't see how grammar can be more complicated to explain than it is to use. you seem to think that because you can't explain biblical hebrew grammar very well, the authors must not have been using it.

---

אָרַח

no. yes, they can. i don't see how that's relevant, however. okay. and as i'm rather surprised that i didn't drive home in Message 178,

quote:

---

we are not discussing temporal infinitive constructs. we are discussing verbs that are put into infinitives because they follow temporal nouns or temporal prepositions.

---

i want to talk hebrew. but there seems to some kind of disconnect here: you seem to think that biblical hebrew is a language no more complicated than we would teach our kindergartners, that being able to use grammar and being able to laboriously describe grammar are the same things, and that this whole business is some kind of conspiracy by 20th century academics, the masoretes, me, and every hebrew speaking person. i think the alternative explanation is far more simple, and thus much more likely to be true:you just don't know what the heck you're talking about.so i'm starting with one of these points: the difference between using grammar and being able to explain the rules and all their exceptions. good. that's a start. it may not be the most complicated language ever invented, but in terms of at least modern spoken languages, it's the hardest to learn. i believe mandarin chinese comes in at a close second (and generally wins when you take the written language into account).now, for step two, we're going to determine what percentage of that complicated language you actually know. we're going to determine this two ways: looking at what sort of grammar you actually use, and then asking you to explain it. no, this is not the case. it might do you well to actually study biblical hebrew -- though you're going to be hard-pressed to find a way to learn it without turning to modern scholars. but please, feel free to find a class. be sure to relate to your professor that you, as a lay-person unfamiliar with the language, think he's making it all up, and everyone who spoke hebrew 3,000 years ago really spoke like a child. yeah, no. being able to read hebrew, though, is certainly a start. even paul probably had a better handle on it than you do.

---

אָרַח

i have assumed -- presumably correctly, as demonstrated by this post -- that you have access to a concordance. there are several freely available online. instead of doing a scattershot approach, we have instead been discussing salient examples. i will continue that approach: the examples that aren't relevant aren't relevant. this, of course, is the example under discussion. the nest several follow the same basic verb form and vowel pointing, though of course, are used in a different grammatical context. i suggest searching this thread. for instance, in Message 148, i write:

quote:

---

But the author of Genesis did use בהבראם an infinitive construct in Genesis 2:4 so he was very capable of using them.

​

*sigh*

​

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.

---

it is not a "plural ending", but rather, a pronominal suffix. it is the object of the infinitive. err, no. without vowel pointings it could just as easily be either. you have to look at the grammatical context: it's a subordinate clause. an infinitive, in hebrew, is the only reading that makes any sense whatsoever. note, however, that this is most easily translated into english as a perfect verb. i figured i'd put that out there before you go running off again on the "you're making it english" tangent. in any case, you should also really get off the conspiracy nonsense. it' getting very tiresome. again, translated best into english as a perfect verb. the literal hebrew says something to the extent of, "in the day of god creating man..." which tends to render better as "when god created man..." english and hebrew do not work the same way, and i have never argued that they do. much to the dismay of your strawmen. rather, i will continue to explain the best i can in translation why some things work they way they do. no, that would be fine. this is a good sign that you should learn some hebrew, and not simply trust your textbooks. in an case, בְּיוֹם, הִבָּרְאָם is clearly a temporal clause, and the verb is rather clearly an infinitive. surpise, i know. but if one is, the other should be too. uh, no. you mean "in english". it translates into english as a simple perfect verb: "created", as in "(when) they were created". however, the hebrew says, literally, "in the day of when their creating". which is ugly, but hebrew isn't english. it renders more nicely as "when they were created". yes, because the two are in construct. ...or infinitives. any of those tenses could be used with any stem. ancient didn't have vowel points. i promise you they had vowels, as language is generally very hard to speak without vowels. the vowel points or niqud (or niqudot) were devised as a way to record the pronunciation, so that inexperienced readers would know your things should be pronounced. they were not some conspiracy designed to make your reading of the text inconvenient -- they simply told how the text was already being read. these vowel points do not shape the verbs: the usage of the verb shapes which vowels are recorded.

---

אָרַח

whooooboy do you need to read some high school essays. you might discover that, for instance, english is apparently a language dominated by simple subject-passive verb-adjective and subject active verb-object sentences, and other forms are quite rare indeed. you would really be surprised with what gets out of high school.however, when you select one of our most highly-praised authors in the english language, and compare... well. maybe the shakespeare scholars are all making it up, and he really wrote like someone who nearly dropped out of high school.yes, this is a valid comparison. the bible is the seminal and highest praised work of biblical hebrew. it is a collection that contains some of the most poetic works of literary genius in the language -- and you think a kindergartner could have written it. and frankly, that's pretty fucking insulting to the authors of the bible.really, as someone who professes to read, study, and adore the bible, you should be ashamed of making such a comparison. ...have you read the KJV bible, and compared to a more recent bible? i think you'll find that the more recent bibles are a good deal more simplistic in their language. as i suggested above, compare shakespeare to, well, anything. this is, indeed, an apt analogy -- the 1611 KJV would have been translated and penned by shakespeare's contemporaries. some have even suggested that shakespeare himself is responsible for the wording of the psalms.on the other hand, english on the whole has gotten more complicated. this is due in large part to a modern and post-modern multi-cultural world, where english is the lingua franca (to abuse a phrase). it's spoken in many countries as a second language, and here in america, we have and have had a great many immigrants from a great many places. this means that new words and phrases and grammatical rules are added the language, and it quickly evolves.but, as i keep pointing out, hebrew is not english. biblical hebrew essentially died with the bible. it wasn't used by an actual population from about the end of the old testament period (~500 BC), until 1948, except by rabbis (like rashi). nobody spoke it, and it wasn't anywhere close to the lingua franca: greek was. the group that still used the language was insular and exclusive. when it came back into realistic usage by a real population, a group of scholars sat down and simplified the rules, and made decisions about words and phrases would and wouldn't be in the language. this panel still regulates the language -- this is actually pretty common in languages other than english.so hebrew really wasn't subject to evolutionary factors that english has been. they only time period in which the language did evolve in a multicultural way was actually during the biblical period, thanks to influence from the surrounding nations. and so biblical hebrew is actually more complex than modern hebrew. i have given you examples above (ie: pronominal suffixes). we can even tell earlier works from the later works because the grammatical style gets a good deal more complex. the truly sad part about this is that the torah is one of the simpler works.

---

אָרַח

MOOOOOOOOOOSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is the hardest to learn. this is mostly because we don't really have good consistent rules about things -- because we borrow so much from other languages. to be fair, i don't either. nor do most adults. or, as you point out, most farmers reliant on machines. the nature of technology is that it scaffolds knowledge. we're all standing on the shoulders of giants, etc.i'm not sure that this is a fair comparison to language, however. especially regarding children. i work with children, and i remember being a child. and for the most part, i find them brighter than adults give them credit for. however, the difference between using and explaining grammar is probably most apparent in children. you'll find that most elementary school grammar textbooks spend many chapters explaining certain concepts, and the students spend months learning certain concepts, most of which they undoubtedly already use.for instance, here is a grade one (age six or so) grammar excercise: note that it uses "naming word" instead of "noun". now, do we think that age six, children use nouns? of course they do. they might not know what they're called. they might not understand what makes one noun a subject and another an object -- we haven't even gotten to objects yet. but i promise you that they use them.ICANT doesn't seem to comprehend this disparity.

---

אָרַח

in comparison to later biblical works. not in comparison to elementary school. the KJV is the KJV is the KJV. the KJV printed in 1611 is identical to the KJV you can find free on in the internet today in terms of translation (language, grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc). the only thing that differs, of course, is the typesetting and spelling.for instances, editions from the 1600's tend to us "ſ" in place of "s" except for the second "s" in pair, or the end of a word. and there are a few extra "e"s here and there. this is quite common for manuscripts of the era -- shakespeare's plays are all printed the same in their quarto/folio editions.so, where the 1611 editions say,

quote:

---

IN the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was with-out forme, and voyd, and darke-neſſe ^was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God ſaid, Let there be light: and there was light.

---

whereas the newer printings say:

quote:

---

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

---

yup, both are english. both are modern english. one uses antiquated spelling. ho. hum.Edited by arachnophilia, : unintentionally typoed to the correct spelling.Edited by arachnophilia, : ſ for f, for jon.

---

אָרַח

... as a second language. sorry, i should have specified. yes, and in this case, biblical hebrew had a natural development, influenced by the surrounding cultures. modern hebrew only has biblical hebrew for input (officially, anyways) and has been intentionally simplified. ICANT seems to believe that the modern descriptions of biblical hebrew grammar are some kind of conspiracy by modern scholars, who are complicating the language, whereas the authors of the bible all wrote like they were in kindergarten. he thinks that because it takes a good grammar textbook 800 pages or so to fully explain (with examples) the grammar at an intermediate level, the clearly stupid and simple ancients must not have known any of this stuff.of course, similar textbooks on english are twice that length -- so ICANT must not be aware of how to use things such as infinitives or subordinate clauses. nevermind that he does use those grammatical devices, of course. they were just made up by academics.basically, "utter nonsense" is a pretty good description here.

---

אָרַח

i'm not convinced. perhaps he's using "KJV" to mean any english translation? i dunno.people have this perception that 17th century english is hard to read. for all intents and purposes, it's entirely modern. i mean, compare your KJV,

quote:

---

IN the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was with-out forme, and voyd, and darke-neſſe ^was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God ſaid, Let there be light: and there was light.

---

to a modern translation (the abominable NIV chosen here):

quote:

---

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

---

right? now compare old english:

quote:

---

Hwt! We Gardena in geardagum,
eodcyninga, rym gefrunon,
hu a elingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaena reatum,
monegum mgum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syan rest wear
feasceaft funden, he s frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weormyndum ah,
ot him ghwylc ara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. t ws god cyning!
m eafera ws fter cenned,
geong in geardum, one god sende
folce to frofre; fyrenearfe ongeat
e hie r drugon aldorlease
lange hwile. Him s liffrea,
wuldres wealdend, woroldare forgeaf;
Beowulf ws breme (bld wide sprang),
Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.

---

to modern english:

quote:

---

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!
To him an heir was afterward born,
a son in his halls, whom heaven sent
to favor the folk, feeling their woe
that erst they had lacked an earl for leader
so long a while; the Lord endowed him,
the Wielder of Wonder, with world's renown.
Famed was this Beowulf: far flew the boast of him,
son of Scyld, in the Scandian lands.

---

i'd give you biblical hebrew vs modern hebrew of the same text, but honestly, they're so close that nobody cares.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

i typed it, and was too lazy to find the appropriate character. i'll go back and change it...

oh, feel free to doubt me. i encourage it. i don't always know what i'm talking about. but, uh, at least i'm not as painfully behind as ICANT. no, it's complexity. he doesn't think they knew about things like infinitives and subordinate clauses, and anything that makes the sentence other than "verb, subject, object". this.i don't know everything, as i've said many times before. but i will go find a textbook and look stuff and try to think about it. as i mentioned many pages back, you'll find that my early posts in this thread contradict my recent posts -- i've since looked it up, and changed my mind.ICANT, on the other hand, will find a textbook to try to prove his point, and then proceed to disagree with it when it doesn't. he's done this, so far, with every chosen text, including his prized brown-driver-briggs lexicon from 1906. he also seems to generally lack the ability to do anything other than look at words individually. which kind of hampers reading ability.added by edit, quotes for fun.

quote:

---

Moses did not know anything about the method we have decided he was writing the text in.

​

-- ICANT, in Message 41

---

quote:

---

I was under the impression that preposition was an English word. English did not exist in Moses lifetime. So how would he have any knowledge of a preposition?

​

-- ICANT, in Message 115

---

quote:

---

Or they could have not known infinitives and construct and absolutes like they are taught today.

​

I am quite sure Moses did not know what an infinitive was as they used prefixes and suffixes to make different words out of the simple words.

​

We are the ones complicating the Ancient Hebrew with our undestanding of English, and applying our rules to a 3500 year old language.

​

-- ICANT, in Message 159

---

quote:

---

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.

​

-- ICANT, in Message 170

---

quote:

---

I think a lot more of them was missing from Moses texrbooks.

​

Am I supposed to believe that a man that wrote on clay tablets 3500 years ago had access to a language so complicated that it takes a 1000 page textbook to explain how it works.

​

That is beyond comprehension
Now I am not saying that the text with the MT vowels did not evolve to be a complicated language. But I doubt very seriously that it was that complicated when Moses wrote the Torah.

​

-- ICANT, in Message 200

---

etc.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.Edited by arachnophilia, : quotetacular

---

אָרַח

yes, i think i've maybe finally got him to agree that infinitives and prepositions aren't just made up by scholars who want biblical hebrew to be just like english.

---

אָרַח