Hi arach, It can't be a pronominal suffix as it is a temporal infinitive construct, according to the construction.A pronominal suffix would mean that it is imperfect Kal sm3 Past tense.There is no past tense in Ancient Biblical Hebrew. Maybe in modern Hebrew there is a past tense. .No I don't see one. ביום does not make a temporal-infinitive construct chain.In fact I can't find a temporal-infinitive construct chain mentioned anywhere. You got a reference. Where do you get the 'of' from? זה ספר תולדת אדם ביום ברא אלהים אדם בדמות אלהים עשה אתו׃Translation This is the book (scroll, history) of the generations of man. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; אלהים does not follow ביום to put it into the construct. ביום does not make ברא an infinitive construct.I know you say it does but you haven't presented any evidence to support that assertion.I know you say it is a temporal preposition but in fact it is is a noun with a beit prefix. ;ביום ברא אלהים This does not translate "In the day of God creating"It translates "In the day God created". According to the vowel pointing it can not be a temporal infinitive construct.So how can it be fine. The Torah did not even use the consonants to help with the vocal.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 one place where I have disagreed with one of my text books.I did question BDB and still do, as it disagrees with my textbooks. Words do make statements, without them it would be hard to communicate.Here is the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 in order recorded:The first word is בראשית a feminine singular noun with a sufix to the root word ראש
a masculine noun creating a new word. With the prefix ב which means 'in the'.Translation, "In the beginning"The second word is ברא a root word verb in the Qal perfect ^3ps. Biblical Hebrew does not have tenses. It has perfect which is completed action and imperfect which is ongoing action.Translation, "created".The third word is אלהים masculine plural noun. This is the subject of the verb.Translation, "God".The fourth word is את a sign of the direct object and is not translated in English.The fifth word is השמים
a masculine noun with a plural suffix. This is the direct object which is the result of the action of the verb that is performed by the subject of the verb.Translated, "the Heavens".The sixth word is ואת the sign of the direct object and is not translated in English, with the conjunction vav prefix.Translation, "and".The seventh word is האדץ a feminine noun. This is the direct object which is the result of the action of the verb that is performed by the subject of the verb.Translation, "the Earth".There can be no construct noun in that sentence as no nouns are side by side.There is no prefix on the verb to change it from perfect to imperfect nor is there a prefix which is required to make it a temporal infinitive construct.Therefore there is no construct in Genesis 1:1.The translation of these Hebrew words into readable English would be:"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."Now I know you disagree with that translation. But there are hundreds of scholars that have translated it that way.You have presented two that translate it differently. There are some who have adopted their translation in some later translations.My problem is I can't find anything in a textbook that supports your translation and you have not presented a textbook that supports your assertions.Now you can make fun of my word translation but when I finish I have the same translation that is called the standard translation.Where you and I disagree is that I believe the Torah was written in a simple language. The author had prefixes and suffixes to make any word from the base words of the language. The author used verbs to denote completed action and ongoing action. The author used placement of names, places, and things, in a form that required an 'of' between the two words if he needed it.The author had no word for 'to be', he did have a prefix for to, in, on, with, before, infront of, until, unto, after, behind, beside, near,
toward, into upon, on, above, about between under, instead of, from, out of, within, in the midst, like, as, place, battle, by, etc.The author had a word for exist (our to be) and make (our do) the problem occurs when we try to express either in English, as it does with many other words the author used.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 Jon, But the author of the Torah was not writing poetry.And yes when David wrote about 500 years later the language had evolved.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, Wasn't their work based on an existing work? But there is no two nouns together to create a construct chain. If Moses wrote the Torah as the Jews claim and the text claims and Jesus testified too he would have been educated in the house of Pharoah. At that time the language in Egypt was phonetic Egyptian hieroglyphs, which the slaves that were in Egypt at that time had adopted a lot of and incorporated into their own language. The difference was they used only one consonants instead of the two the Egyptians used.Aleph was the picture of an ox's head.
Beit was the layout of a tent.All the letters were represented by parts of the human body, animals or tools. Each letter had specific meanings.So the language was similar to what pre-schoolers study today. Pictures with words under them. Which my modern Hebrew program agrees with.The verb that infinitive noun comes from is היה which in Ancient Hebrew is 'exist'. I don't have a problem you just have a problem with what I present as it does not suit your worldview.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, I don't find much in Leviticus, Numbers and Deutronomy to get excited about. This is still under discussion.But are you sure about # 2? So bara sounds like bare'shiyth. They sure don't rhyme.And as you have pointed out several times what the text is what really matters.To me it doesn't really make any difference if it makes sense in English or not.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 Jon, Why would I not be here?I simply mentioned the Egyptian hieroglyphs because the people in Egyptian slavery had used some of their system in their system. arach posted a picture with the Ancient Hebrew of that day which has the alef as the head of an ox.You can find a chart Here.You have the Ancient pictures and their meaning and this is the system that would have been used to write the Torah.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, Why? It is either a Piel infinitive noun or a Kal infinitive noun, as written.P3M is the type of suffix and masculine. Correct, I was looking at Kal infinitive noun and wrote the information for a pronominal suffix, that was right under it. It is very relevant as Ancient Hebrew verbs were either perfect which was completed action and imperfect which was ongoing action.There were no tenses, period. Well the beit on a noun does not affect the verb to make it temporal. So readability trumps the text. 'that' does not belong I was looking at a KJV rendering when I typed the verse. But ברא. is a verb not a noun. You did not explain anything.You quoted from a textbook and called that explaining. And that is supposed to be...If you had read a little further it gave the prefixes beit, kaf and lamed as prefixes that when placed on a noun modified the noun.It does not say anything about it modifying the verb or anything else that follows it. They are called inseparable prefixes.Give me an example from the textbook that shows a noun with a beit prefix modifying a verb immediately following it. I am well aware of how prepositions can make a verb an infinitive construct.I just can't find where a preposition that is placed to modify a noun can modify the verb following the noun. And they are talking about a verb that is prefixed with a preposition as their examples show. There is one small difference.The preposition is attached to the verb by a maqqef.There is no preposition on the verb in Genesis 1:1, if there was it would be an infinitive construct. If the prefix was a beit it would be a temporal infinitive construct requiring 'when' in the translation. And because it came from a creationist website that makes it true, I think not. You can continue to post and repost but until you present from a text book where the beit on a noun puts the verb following it in the infinitive construct you will not get anywhere.In the day is not temporal it is a specific day. Day is temporal. Because it could mean any day.Day with the beit prefix becomes a definite day and can not be temporal.So with the beit you have a definite noun, not a temporal one. Well I did not make up any rules I simply looked it up. I know I can that is what the text says. Then find a vowel in the Ancient Hebrew you have on your chart. I did look it up and they did not have to use them as the alef and ayin was pronounced in Ancient Hebrew.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 Jon, The Bible was not written in Modern Israeli Hebrew.In fact Biblical Hebrew had no vowels until 1000 years ago.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, No it was written in Ancient Hebrew.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 mean it can't be a finite verb with a lamed prefix as stated on page 600 of An introduction to biblical Hebrew syntax By Bruce K. Waltke, Michael Patrick O'Connor?Or a verbal complement, supplying a verb to "complete the main finite verb? Page 606 The Jews say the alef in Ancient Hebrew was an ox's head I don't know if it was or not but it sure looks like the head of an animal that resembles an ox.I am not convinced you always look it up and understand it when you do look it up. I have now.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, But the Ancient Biblical Hebrew written some 1500 BC was written in Ancient Hebrew. The paleo-Hebrew script dates to 1000 BC. Well excuse me, I thought an alef was represented by our A which if you turn upside down it is not far from an ox-head.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, Your number 1 is not an temporal infinitive construct, which is required to translate it as you do.Your number 2 I don't really understand.Translation word for word.Like me, preposition I prefer Whencehe did, verb infinitiveof God, nouncreating verb infinitivethe Heavens and the Earth.All you had to change in number 1 was place a beit on the verb 'bara to get: When in the beginning of God creating the Heavens and the Earth. Remove the conjunction 'and' verse 2 would read: the earth existed without form, and void, and darkness upon the face of the deep.That would have been simple for the author provided that was what he intended to convey to us. He did not so he meant it to say what it says. "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth".That is what YEC'S want it to say.A simple beit on 'bara would make Genesis 1:1 a temporal dependent clause. Not really. I just approach it from the standpoint of if I don't know what the words mean I can't translate anything. So I find the definitions first. Then I examine the words as written then I try to put the definitions into English in the way it makes the most sense. Does it have to make perfect sense? No.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, Well since it is so idiotic I decided to give all infinitives of 'bara for you. Now if you will notice the last two are identical to the vowel markings on בָּרְאָם in Genesis 5:2.The form in Genesis 5:2 is an infinitive noun either Piel or Kal.The only difference in any of them is the vowel markings that is a little over 1000 years old. You keep making that assertion.Give me the text book that backs it up with an example. Well they added a lot of words that was not in the original text and most of them they put in brackets but many they did not. They did that in order to make smoother reading in English. It is a verb unless it has the form given above for the Piel and Kal infinitive noun. The beit makes it temporal, which is required for your translation. Now there are other prefixes that can make it into a noun, but that would not help your translation. I do check and read information presented and then I check to see what they are saying.The first example given from Genesis 18:22 לפני is a noun with a ל prefix which effects nothing but the noun. Whoop de do.The second example is in Amos 1:1. the same word is used as a temporal and effects nothing but the noun it resides on.The third example is Genesis 7:1 used as referential but does not effect anything but the noun it resides on.The fourth example is 1 Samuel 1:16 it is used as comparative. The prefix effects nothing but the noun it resides on.Then they added a ם which changed the noun to from before.They then gave two more examples of a prefix on a different noun which changed the noun only.They gave no example that you demand in Genesis 1:1 of the beit on the noun changing the following verb into anything must less an infinitive construct.Now if you can find an example that the beit on a noun changes the following verb into an infinitive construct present it as I am not looking any further. I actually know what a complex preposition is, as I have just explained above.

THAT MAQEF WAS ADDED BY THE MASORETES.

Maybe they did that because there was no noun between them. Psalm 110:2
בקרב is a noun with a beit prefix translation "in the midst" איבך is a pronominal suffix. It was not made a pronominal suffix because of the beit on the noun. Please do. You should know by now I question everything and everybody including myself. Sure you can the Ancient Hebrews did. But that is not saying it is easy. That is why the Torah was to be read once a year, instead of more often.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, An introduction to Hebrew syntax page 606. An introduction to Hebrew syntax page 600. Why did you leave "rarely" off your quote, "takes the place of" not "is".?That means sometimes it does but not very often.I guess you didn't look at the one on 606 and just lumped it in with you quote mine.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, The DSS date from 150 BC. And you base that assumption on... Why wouldn't they? It had not been extinct very long.But what does that have to do with the original Torah being written in Ancient Hebrew?

---

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