try again. please consult any of the textbooks listed in this thread, including the one you "quoted" from in Message 214, which says of nearly the same verbal form in genesis 5:2,

quote:

---

הִבָּרְאָם is listed by modern Hebrew as Past P3M suffix, Piel infinitive noun. (emphasis mine)

---

wrong. there is. but that's not relevant. that would be "temporal", "infinitive", "construct chain". sorry if i was unclear. grammars, lol. alone, no, it doesn't. certainly, it depends on how it's functioning in the grammatical context. if it begins a subordinate clause, and it's followed by a verb, that verb is generally an infinitive. the alternative is as a stand-alone temporal signifier, analogous to your "traditional" reading of genesis, where "day" is taken as an absolute. that is to say, "in the day08-20-2022 5:56 PM, god created..." the same way you read "in the beginning, god created..."but this is clearly not what the sentence means. reading ability. and because your other option is above. (note: for those reading that do care about vowels, the option above would require different vowels, but neither ICANT nor myself seem to care about vowels.) ahem. where do you get the "that" from? you cannot complain that i used a preposition to signify construct relationship when your alternative uses a preposition to signify the construct relationship. proof read your sources more closely next time: they do not agree with you. correct. יום is not in construct with אלהים, but rather with ברא. however, as i'm sure you're aware, biblical hebrew is not english, and takes a different word order. had i translated it hyper-literally, it would read, "in the day of creating of god adam, in the image of god he made him."however, in english, placing two nouns (the subject of the subordinate clause, and the object) together is nonsensical, and "creating of god" makes it sound like god is the object of creation and not the subject. i moved it around preserve english word order as every translation does. V-S-O makes perfect sense in biblical hebrew, but english requires S-V-O.this simple bit of grammar is actually a sticking point for self-professed internet bible scholars, who will then proceed to wonder "what created god?" as if god was the object of the sentence. knowing grammar helps. yes, i have. i have already explained about complex prepositions in Message 197,

quote:

---

here's another hint: i've already given you another textbook. one that is a thousand pages of thorough syntax analysis. it has a whole chapter on prepositions. note, at the top of page 189,

​

quote:

---

... and the complex prepositions, made up of a preposion + a noun (e.g.: ביד 'by, through' and בתוך 'in the midst of'; 11.3.1).

---

​

and in 11.3.1 (page 221),

​

quote:

---

Some nouns show a frozen union with a preposition. These complex constructions function syntactically as prepositions, that is, they link an ad-verbial noun to the verb and specify the nature of its relationship to the governed noun. For example, לפני 'before' can be local (cf. Gen 18:22), temporal (cf. Amos 1:1), referential (cf. Gen 7:1), or comparative (cf. 1 Sam 1:16)

---

---

and how prepositions can make a verb an infinitive construct in Message 73

quote:

---

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

​

quote:

---

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

---

​

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

​

quote:

---

עַד-בּוֹא אֲדֹנָיו, אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ

​

-- Genesis 39:16

---

​

note several things:

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

happy? no, probably not.

---

further, in Message 189, i posted an article from a creationist website, which included this bit:

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

---

i have also re-posted these things many, many times. why you refuse to listen to any of them, and even refuse to listen to your own chosen sources, i don't know. no. it's a temporal noun, with a ב prefix, that happens to make a complex preposition. whole construct chain is sort of analogous to a temporal infinitive, but it is not the same form. yes, you can get away with this translation because english (amusing like hebrew in this case) frequently implies subordinating conjunctions/prepositions. that doesn't mean that it is grammatically the best description of the grammatical structure of the verse. however, they mean the same thing. "in the day that god created" and "in the day god created" and "in the day of god creating" all technically have the same meaning in every respect. the important difference is that "of" is not really grammatically correct in english, even though it most properly reflects the grammatical relationships in the hebrew. "that" is better phrasing in english, and so your translation chooses "that" over "of". ...no. that would be fine. because it is. you're making up rules, and have no idea what you're talking about. i'm going to have to add this to my list of "incredibly dumb things ICANT has said in this thread". you've come up with some doozies, but i suspect that this one takes the cake.you might want to start by looking up consonants, ad-jab/phonetic languages, and, um, i dunno, (biblical) hebrew.

---

אָרַח

splitting hairs, are we?fine, if you'd like to make a distinction. who do you suspect knows more about biblical hebrew: the guys who wrote a hundred pages in an introductory course's textbook, or the guys who published an exhaustive lexicon totaling over a thousand pages?you're fine to question sources -- it's just amusing that every one that you dredge up disagrees with you. perhaps you should question your textbooks. yes, but the order you put them in matters a whole lot too. listen. you've already proven time and time again that you can't read hebrew, but only look words up in a lexicon. must we beat this dead horse? there are, yes. and there are many cogent reasons -- listed repeatedly in this thread -- to disagree with it. accuracy is not a democracy. number of scholars is not relevant; only correctness of the points raised. as i discussed with kbertsche earlier, all of the grammar points towards a construct chain, except for the vowel pointing on ברא. even then, the vowel points on בראשית disagree, and point to a construct. this tells me two things:

1. the construct chain is the most sensible reading, as the only drawback are vowels added to the text a thousand years or more after the fact, and
2. even then, the masoretes seem to have tried to support both readings.

that means it was probably read both ways at the time. i have. several times. for instance, in the post directly above this one. you're simply not reading it, and for some reason, no coherent theory of grammar is forming in your head. all you seem to be able to do is look at the word isolated from all others and without vowels, and find it in a lexicon, and piece together a "translation" that pays no credence to grammatical context or usage. you are literally one step removed from finding time machines and cd-roms in the bible -- the peggers used precisely the same technique, only they took it a single step further, and also ignored everything but the roots. yes, and if the scholars of olde only know hebrew as well as you, i find that alone a reason to question their translations. this is not so much a disagreement as it is pure and unadulterated ignorance of the language, to a truly laughable extent. i suggest you endeavor to actually learn something about the language. perhaps take another class, and bring this kind of point up to your professor or rabbi or pastor. and watch their responses. case in point: "to be" would be להיות. yes, part of that's a prefix. but it's a whole lot closer to "a word for to be" than we have in english, which requires a whole separate prepositional word. if you have a problem with rendering basic stuff like this in english, i suggest learning hebrew and actually reading it in hebrew.

---

אָרַח

according to you, they were writting childish nonsense. but that's neither here nor there. yes, the torah is (mostly) prose. however, something you frequently miss in translation, and something i'm sure you don't appreciate, is the poetic quality of the torah. the authors chose the words they used for specific reasons, and part of those reason seems to have been how they sounded.as i pointed out in Message 73,

quote:

---

The second word the verb bara' could have been converted by the author into a noun puting the first word in the construct but was not.

​

yes, and we would have done that one of two ways:

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

why one over the other? frankly, poetry. it just reads better. ברא sounds like בראשית.

---

---

אָרַח

yes, gesenius's lexicon, iirc. infinitives are nouns. please take the authorship issues to the appropriate thread. i made it just for you -- authorship is not relevant in this thread, i do not want to get into the discussion of who wrote the torah -- we are only discussing the words on the page.in any case, i think you'll find that egyptian has little to do with the hebrew writing system. however, you will find that there is a high degree of relation between the paleo-hebrew script and phonetic cuneiform: and between proto-sinaitic and the more modern aramaic script used by the masoretes and modern hebrew: egyptian hieroglyphics, on the other hand, look like this: note that while there were phonetic associations, there are clearly not of the same pictorial derivations. for example, notice that it's not an ox, or ox's head. proto-sinaitic (and cuneiform, btw) however shares the same pictorial origins. this makes sense given that the people writing hebrew lived in close contact with the akkadians/sumerians/babylonians, and the other canaanite nation-states.further, the language also shares many commonalities, including cognates and frequently similar grammar. like i said above, you might want to actually look this stuff up. do some research, or take a class in the subject, instead of just blindly making assumptions based on religious doctrine. i really have no intention of commenting one way or the other on your religious beliefs in this thread, and they are wholly off-topic. however, if the facts of the matter -- and a proper reading of the text -- contradict those beliefs, then it should be noted that this is not a problem with the facts or the proper reading. it is a problem with your (off-topic) beliefs that we're not discussing. this discussion is limited to only to what's on the page, and does not include your baseless and evidently wrong assumptions about where that content comes from.it's just about how to read. whereas egyptian uses entirely different symbols. in the same way that chinese is similar to what i learned in kindergarten, yes. there are pictures... and that's really about it. your bible too, genius.

quote:

---

כוּשׁ יָלַד אֶת־נִמְרֹד הוּא הֵחֵל לִֽהְיֹות גִּבֹּר בָּאָֽרֶץ

​

-- Genesis 10:8

---

you should be aware, btw, that i tend to check this stuff before i make random assertions. i'm quite aware of the differences between biblical and modern hebrew (more-so than you i would wager). so perhaps when you see something suspicious, where you think i'm conflating the two, maybe you should pull out your lexicon and see. again, as i wrote in Message 155, titled "worldviews are off-topic",

quote:

---

that is, except to say that worldviews plays no part in my analysis.

​

Just as your reasoning is wrong as it is influenced by your worldview.

​

uh, no. you might want to try that again. if there is anyone on this board that you can accuse of reading their own particular worldview into the bible, it certainly ain't me, as i have absolutely zero interest in making it match my worldview. i care about what it says, and not how i can justify those statements against something external.

​

and this is probably the prime example. my worldview is informed by a few years of study in the sciences, including biology, geology, and paleontology. i happen to know that the planet is roughly 4.5 billion years old. i thoroughly understand and accept the theory of evolution, and the geologic timescale.

​

yet you might notice that i am actually defending a young earth creationist position when it comes to the creation stories of genesis. and i will defend them textually -- genesis 1 is clearly the etiology of the week, and must be literal in its timescale. that is, 6 days, approximately 6K years ago.

​

so, you might want to rethink the claim that my worldview is affecting my reading of the text, as the two are completely opposite. in fact, as i have stated many times in these debates over the years, i really couldn't care whether the text is accurate, and having to defend its supposed accuracy is compromising what the text says -- it is using your worldview to inform (or pervert) your reading of the text.

​

you will likely find a similar discussion if you follow the OP back to it's originating thread. the proposed gap "theory" is an idea invented as one way to reconcile an old earth and the recent creation story. as i've stated, i have zero interest in doing this. i'm only interested in what the text says. if the position were supportable from the text, i would be okay with it.

---

you didn't reply to this message, of course.

---

אָרַח

i can't even begin to describe the facepalm here. pictures of picard just don't do it justice.where should i begin in addressing this level of nonsense?should i post pictures with words underneath?i can't even make a sensible-but-wrong-sounding approximation of his argument, with which to begin a rebuttal. what exactly is he on about? this is really getting very tiresome.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

i'm not expert on egyptology, but iirc, the phonetic system was a secondary development from the pictographic system, sort of similar to the development of phonetic cuneiform. well, because he thinks moses wrote the torah, and moses was educated in egypt, so naturally it follows that the torah was written in hieroglyphics.

---

אָרַח

yes, i'm well aware that you do not appreciate the bible. yes, actually, i am. as i wrote in Message 242,

quote:

---

you should be aware, btw, that i tend to check this stuff before i make random assertions. ... so perhaps when you see something suspicious, ... maybe you should pull out your lexicon and see.

---

of course, this was about modern vs. biblical hebrew. but it applies generally, too. i don't just randomly say stuff -- i go check to make sure i'm right. in this case, i happen to know that this is a perfectly acceptable phrasing because i modeled it directly on something already in the bible. this was done simply by looking for something that generally is translated with my desired reading, and checking the forms. in this case, the first example searching for "when" and "began" in the KJV gives me:

quote:

---

כִּֽי־הֵחֵל הָֽאָדָם לָרֹב עַל־פְּנֵי הָֽאֲדָמָה

​

-- Genesis 6:1

---

now, the verb form i gave you might have been incorrect. but as far as i'm aware, a qal infinitive (as לָרֹב is in the example verse) form of ברא would take exactly the same consonants, as every other qal infinitive form of ברא i'm aware of in the bible does. but there aren't any with a ל prefix that i'm aware of, so i can't really be sure. poetry doesn't have to rhyme. in fact, poetry in hebrew rarely rhymes. however, if you analyze the psalms, you will find that they do use words that sound similar (have similar consonants/roots), and typically use repetition strongly. granted, as you are obsessed with making the text gibberish. i'm quite content to understand the hebrew grammar. you seem to be locked into mechanically translating one word at a time in order to understand the text.

---

אָרַח

no, they didn't. the paleo-hebrew script is strongly derived from the other ad-jab alef-bets of the area, which in turn are strongly derived from sumerian phonetic cuneiform. the modern hebrew alef-bet (with which the DSS and MT are both written) is strongly derived from aramaic, which is in turn strongly derived from the other canaanite ad-jabs (in turn from cuneiform). egypt plays zero role that i'm aware of. but feel free to start a new thread discussing this topic. it is not on topic here. the origin of the symbols is not any more relevant to the torah than it is to the words we're writing now.you see, the latin alphabet we use is strongly derived from greek, which is strongly derived from the phonetic canaanite ad-jabs. in fact, it's easier to see the derivation from ox-head to "A" than it is from ox-head to alef.

---

אָרַח

because what you said was idiotic at best, and contradicted by your own post. ...and this is the part that contradicts it. it's a pronominal suffix. we've covered this, get over it. ...you might want to look up the word "relevant". modern hebrew isn't relevant to a discussion of biblical hebrew, and raising points about biblical hebrew doesn't make modern hebrew suddenly relevant. yes, there were. the combination of stem (eg: "qal") and aspect (eg: "perfect") is called a "tense". yes, and no. on this particular kind of noun, it makes the noun a complex preposition, which in turn acts much like a regular preposition (such as a prefix) on the verb. no, "reading ability". not "readability". it's not that the text is able to be read, but that i am able to read the text. and you, as evidenced further by this little gaff, are not able to read very closely. i guess those KJV translators didn't know what they were doing either. funny how nobody knows how to translate the bible except you, who thinks everyone wrote like elementary schoolers. it is a verb and a noun. the two are not mutually exclusive -- it's an infinitive, and infinitives happen to serve both parts of speech. we've been over this. and over this. and over this. every source any of us has quoted agrees that it's an infinitive in genesis 5:1 and 5:2. what is your problem here? amusing. ...modifies the noun so that it's a preposition. prepositions, by definition, modify the word that follows it. why do you have so many problems following basic reasoning? uh huh. in Message 197 i gave you the textbook page describing complex prepositions, and quoted section 11.3.1 (page 221). if you look at section 11.3.2, literally the next paragraph down, it's called "complex prepositions as adverbials". it describes complex prepositions functioning as adverbs -- that is, modifying verbs. interestingly, it includes several such examples.you know, it would really do you well to actually check and see if the textbook i gave you covers things before you complain that it doesn't. evidently not, as you somehow think the rules magically excludes complex prepositions. that's nice.

THAT MAQEF WAS ADDED BY THE MASORETES.

yes, and instead of using a simple prepositional prefix, they used a complex preposition. they weren't trying to say "when god created" but "when god began to create". there is a difference, and that difference requires a complex preposition. this is the same difference as between "in thine enemies" and "in the midst of thine enemies". oh god, i am so very tempted to add that one to my signature.no, it indicates that christians probably support this idea, even the lunatic fringe ones. okay. so i will continue to repost everywhere i have already given you exactly what you ask for. you might want to look again at Message 38, Message 54, Message 76, Message 122, Message 141, etc. it's worth noting that online concordances/lexicons, brown driver briggs, crazy creationist sources i cited, and even crazy creationist sources you plagiarized all agree that it's an infinitive.it's pretty much the standard example. ...you might wanna look up the word "temporal". nope. there are both definite and indefinite uses. the article i linked above covers the difference. not in any decent textbook, you didn't. you do understand that you can't speak with only consonantal sounds, correct? you're welcome to try. and modern hebrew too, unless you're ashkenazi.

---

אָרַח

yes, but no. it's important to make the distinction between the written language and the spoken language. it's impossible, i think, to create a spoken language that doesn't use any vowel sounds. or at least, very unnatural. spoken biblical hebrew of course had vowels sounds.the problem is that ICANT is continually conflating the written language -- which did not have written vowels until about the 10th century AD -- with the spoken language. why this is so hard for him, i don't know. but don't fall for his trap.as you've already pointed out, (unless you're ashkenazi) alef and ayin have consonantal sounds associated with them: the glottal stop. they are consonants. it's customary to call them "vowels" (and hey, vav, and yud "semi-vowels") but technically, they're all consonants.they all, btw, imply vowel sounds based on context. reading without vowels isn't really too difficult.

---

אָרַח

grammatical context

also, you might want to read those closer. for instance, on page 600, the paragraph starts with "The infinitive construct is a true infinitive, a verb and a noun". the bit you're looking at says "takes the place of" not "is". reading comprehension fail. yes. the ox became the phoenician alef. this letter should look familiar. i'm not convinced you're reading this discussion.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

the DSS were written in the aramaic script. this script probably didn't exist until the end of the OT period (you know, when the books started to be written in aramaic). it stands to reason that the torah, therefore, was written in paleo-hebrew script originally. in fact, some of the DSS scrolls retain the name of god in paleo-hebrew. what you said was almost exactly what i said.

---

אָרַח

no, it's an infinitive construct being used in a temporal sense, because it's preceded by a complex preposition that expresses a temporal relationship. we've been over this. of course you don't. you can't read hebrew. hah. no. no, that's nonsense in any language.there is no prefix to modify ברא because בראשית is the preposition. the extra ב would be redundant, and be nonsensical. no, the vav is probably probably appropriate in verse 2, but not in verse 3. that's up for discussion -- after we get past verse 1. but that's not what it says. i don't care what the YEC's want it to say. they want the bible to say lots of stuff that it doesn't. okay. please identify the difference between the following three phrases:

1. בברא
2. ביום-ברא
3. ביום ברא

all three are a verb preceded by a preposition. why is one case different? yes, and you forgot a pretty important step.

hebrew grammar

you can't just stick the definitions together in a way that you think makes sense. that gives you CD-ROMs and time machines.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

largely because the source you copied that from is full of shit. you'll notice that they all have the same pronominal suffix. why do only some list it? why isn't the infinitive form used in genesis 2:4 present? which part are you having problems with? that prepositions act on verbs, or that prepositions are prepositions? okay. so they made stuff up? no, infinitives act as nouns. that's what they do. by definition. no, as explained many times above, it is not. the first word, בראשית is a preposition. it means "in the beginning of" something. the extra ב would be redundant, as there is already a preposition acting on the verb. no, see, i'm not convinced that you. first of all, your reading comprehension of what i'm saying is appalling bad. for instance, you just gave all the examples from the wrong section. the part you are responding to referred you to the next section down. still not convinced. doesn't matter. it's a later addition, just like the vowels, and not in the original text. therefor, it's irrelevant to your arguments. you misunderstand. what's the difference between בקרב איביך and באיביך? both are modified by prepositions, but they mean different things. just like בברא and בראשית ברא are both modified by prepositions, but they mean different things. the fact that one is prefix and one is a complex preposition doesn't make any difference. you really, actually think they spoke without using vowel sounds?as i said, i invite you to try.

---

אָרַח

generosity. but still, "takes the place of" doesn't mean "is".