basic reading of genesis 1:1

it's a noun. please stop looking things up in lexicons. you can't even do it correctly. people who can read never have these difficulties. you know very well that "god" is not plural. look harder. it's no longer worth it to repeat myself so often. try harder. there are two whole chapters in that book on infinitives. surely you can glean something from those chapters, including their multitude of examples that lack prefixes, or even prepositions of any kind. you learned a rule, sure, but that rules is not an accurate reflection of every usage, and does not exclude other usages. ... i think you should seriously consider the possibility that you're simply wrong. see the bit you've quoted. ... of semantics.yes, i just accused you of semantics in an argument about grammar. of

​

I can't find the page that makes such a statement. That means you haven't presented one yet.

​

I do know that a preposition directly infront of or on a noun turns the noun into a prepositional phrase.

​

That is found on page 68 of an introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Bruce K. Waltke.

​

...

​

---

אָרַח

Hi arach, With the vowel pointings that I searched it came up ms3 pual verb and actually past tense.מַיֵּם is listed as Piel infinitive tense infinitive noun.מַיֵּם is also listed as sm Piel imperfect tense.מֻיֵּם is listed as sm3 Pual past tense.מִיֵּם is listed as sm3 Piel past tense.So as you can see they are in the process of changing the Biblical Hebrew again.You can find the program Here. You can download it and use it for 7 days before it will expire without purchasing it.It has past, present, future, infinitive, and imperfect tense.As far as my lexicons go:BDB has it a noun, dual. waters
GHCLOT noun, singular. water
CHALOT noun, singular. water I know that אלוה is a noun masculine singular.I know אלהים is a plural noun masculine.Maybe one day we can argue why this form translated God is plural. Are you getting tired of making assertions without producing the page that states a prefix on a noun makes it a preposition? Well I can't find an infinitive example that does not have some type of prefix or suffix.It is your burden to present one, as it is your assertion, so please do. I don't understand that comment, could you translate? I have. That is the reason in the first post concerning what they said, I said I would need to know what they meant by const. and abs.. I looked again and I still do not understand how I can remove ל from לפני and get פנה.When I remove the ל from לפני I get פני I don't understand that comment, could you translate? There is no noun following יום to put it in the construct which would justify the 'of'.

​

So where do you get the 'of' from?

​

arachnophilia writes:

​

...

​

I don't understand that comment, could you translate?

​

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, There are fragraments of the LXX from the 2nd century BC and the 1st century BC. There are two almost complete copies of the LXX from the 4th century AD. The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. There is also the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century.The oldest MT text abailable is 950 AD. It seems they destroyed all old text's when they had copied them. Which leaves nothing to compare those available too.There are also much of the OT in the DSS that are available for study.The LXX was vilified as a louzy translation until the DSS surfaced and then it was proven that the LXX was a reliable translation.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."

that should be your first clue something's very wrong. yeah, no. it looks like it's giving stardard vowel pointings to any three letter root, and thus making up words. i'm not aware of any usage of מים as a verb -- it's one of the earliest "exception" dual nouns you learn in hebrew. this is not something that anyone who knows the slightest bit of hebrew ever messes up -- and yet you insist on it. but then again, for the kinds of errors you routinely make, this isn't particularly a surprise.you are welcome, of course, to provide an example of any sentence that uses מים as a verb, in biblical or modern hebrew. no, you have a crap source. you evidently can't tell the difference between a crap source and a good source, if you're using this nonsense over waltke, or BDB, or anything else, really. you do understand that i actually laughed audibly when i saw that? i wouldn't dream of paying for that crap. which, for biblical hebrew at least, makes it wrong. these sources happen to be correct. the distinction between "dual" and "singular" are moot, of course, as dual nouns are nouns that look plural but act singular. i have argued it already. in fact, as i mentioned above, "dual nouns are nouns that look plural but act singular." when you have a dual noun, and it's the subject of a clause, it's easy to tell if it's singular: the verb takes singular conjugations. for instance, in genesis 1:1, ברא אלהים, is a singular verb, and a dual noun. the noun acts in the singular, as is translated "god" instead of "gods". there are of course other contextual hints. a person who reads hebrew has no issues with this stuff. no. i'm getting tired of you asking for the same information over and over again because you've failed to understand it. there are two whole chapters in that book on infinitives. i have presented several examples from those chapters in this thread already. i cannot do more than hand you the textbook and copy examples from it. you're just going to have to try harder. it means i don't actually need to say anything, because your argument is nonsense and contradictory. yes. i suggest you look it up. here's a hint: i've given you a textbook already. i don't understand it either. perhaps you should be more careful with spelling next time. and, um, find a better source. yes, you do. or rather, you should. infinitives are nouns.

​

So where do you get the 'of' from?

​

context.

​

---

אָרַח

oh, okay, so you can look things up at wikipedia. great. yes, it's all a giant jewish conspiracy. you're welcome to start a thread on why you feel the LXX is or is not a good translation in comparison to other sources.there are some key differences between the MT and the LXX that the DSS has backed up, yes. but these are by far the exception. mostly, the same things -- and it's important to remember that for particular concerns like this one, that the LXX is a translation. it might inform how the text was read when the text was translated, but it doesn't particularly supersede the implications of the source language, even if the particular document of the source isn't wonderful.you're welcome to make an argument from greek in this thread if you would like, but i do not expect to be wowed given your grasp of hebrew. and english.

---

אָרַח

Hi arach, I don't have to read about them on wikipedia. I have the documents on my computer. I don't know if you would call it a conspiracy. I just know they did not preserve the old copies and the oldest there is is 950 AD. Not enough time.Gesenius Hebrew Grammar 2nd English Edition uses it a lot.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 there are people who are pushing that agenda and they believe they are correct. I don't know if מים is used as a verb. I was just pointing out that there are people with some far out ideas.
You are basing much of your understanding of Biblical Hebrew by what you read that someone said in 1990.On page 189 in "An Introduction To Biblical Hebrew Syntax" by Waltke it says:

quote:

---

...and the complex preposition, made up of a preposition + a noun...

---

This statement does not appear in Gesenius Hebrew Grammar 2nd English Edition.If you can find a textbook that agrees with Waltke please present it. This crap you are referring to will become fact in the future.
If you disagree go back and read the textbooks of the 1500's and see how much they have changed getting us to today. You don't have to pay for it if someone is discarding it and gives it to you . So if someone adds tenses to Biblical Hebrew they are wrong.
An introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Waltke on page 347 says:

quote:

---

Biblical Hebrew has no tenses in the strict sense.

---

On page 580 it says:

quote:

---

The Semitic languages generally distinguish two categories of non-finite verb forms, the infinitive, which designates the action or situation of the verb and the participle which refers to the actor or patient of the verb.

---

So they have added two types of verbs to cover things covered by the Hebrew perfect and imperfect verb. To be fair with Waltke he did not invent the infinitive and participle verbs in Biblical Hebrew. He was just repeating what he had learned that was supposed to be fact.Perfect is completed action. Most refer to this as past but that is not always the case.
Imperfect is incomplete action. Action that is ongoing. Dual and singular are two different things. Dual is used when talking about things that come in pairs, such as eyes, hands, feet, etc. So they don't just look plural they are more than one and less than three. Are you saying you can't read Hebrew because you have an issue with this stuff?BDB אלהים noun, masculine plural.Is BDB all of a sudden wrong? Somebody said, "if you can't explain something where someone else can understand it you do not know the subject yourself".
But it is not that I do not understand what is said. It is that you have not tried to present what it says. If there are only two types of verbs in the Hebrew language, what is there to look for?If there is only perfect and imperfect verbs in Biblical Hebrew then there are no infinitives other than those that has been invented to make Biblical Hebrew read smooth in English.There is the statement on page 189 by Waltke that a preposition + noun = complex preposition.You take that statement to mean that any time a noun has a prefix attached to it the noun automatically becomes a preposition.
There is very little support for such a statement. Yes you did, one that was written in 1990. I don't think Brown, Driver or Briggs had an opportunity to read that book and form their opinions.BTW on page 220 Waltke says:

quote:

---

By complex prepositions we mean the combinations of various prepositions and nouns or adverbs to constitute new entities often with meanings not predictable from the parts.

---

On page 221 he also says:

quote:

---

Some nouns show a frozen union with a preposition. These complex constructions function syntactically as prepositions, that is, THEY LINK AN AD-VERBAL NOUN TO THE VERB and specify the nature of its relationship to the governed noun.

---

I do understand how I can look for the root of לפני and find as the root פנה.. Are you saying a preposition and a Prepositional phrase are the same thing? First you have to create an infinitive out of the verb to turn it into a noun. You have no means of doing that. In other words say it says what you want it to say.God Bless,

---

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

yes, ICANT. it's all a big evil atheist/jewish/academic conspiracy. take your pick. no, you made yet another big old goof. you didn't say, "look at what these crazy people say!" you posted it to bolster your argument. it's wrong. you're basing yours on (faulty) assumptions and stuff you've made up. i think basing it on actual research is a much better standpoint. ... i don't care. no, it's crap. crap is universal.textbooks from the 1500's are different because we know more things today. in 1500, nobody had been to the moon. nobody had discovered dinosaurs. photography didn't exist. most people thought the earth was the center of the universe. older ≠ right. in fact, the more we progress, the more likely we are to get things right. it's most certainly not whatever bullshit someone puts out just gets accepted and becomes the new "truth" leading us away from the real truth. okay, so i made a mistake above. when i said that the tenses should have been your first hint? that should have been your second. the fact that someone discarded it should have been your first hint. no. you still don't understand grammar at all, do you? have you ever taken an english grammar course? like, in elementary school? it might be helpful to actually understand what these terms mean.perfect and imperfect are aspects. in english, we can have perfect or imperfect verbs in any tense -- biblical hebrew doesn't have proper tenses, and uses imperfect roughly like future tense and perfect roughly like past or present tense.finite and infinitive are forms. in english, only finite verbs can have tenses. in biblical hebrew, it's irrelevant because there aren't proper tenses. perfect and imperfect are the two aspects of the finite verb form.on top of that, there are several stems (something like "moods") that hebrew verbs can take: qal, nifal, piel, hifil, etc. these stems describe all verbs, finite or infinitive.so in biblical hebrew, tense is made up of form, aspect, and stem. though listing both form and aspect is generally redundant: if it's finite, you just list the aspect, if it's non-finite, you just say "infinitive" as it can't have an aspect. okay, so having looked it up, apparently your text that lists מים, שמים and אלהים as dual is in fact mistaken. they are singular, but morphologically dual.however, it is also incorrect that dual nouns always refer to pairs -- just things that are typically (or conceptually) paired. the can, in fact, be found with other numbers, and the text give several examples. no, i'm saying you can't. no, there are places in the bible where it's plural. it lists quite a few of them in points 1 and 2. but notice that this entry continues for like two pages? points 3 and 4 are all singular. it helps to read the whole thing. or at least skim it. or check to see if it's there. don't just go with the first entry -- ignoring usage leads to time machines and cd-roms. i have, you're just a crank. the truth of the matter is that you can't always realistically explain something so that every idiot can understand it. some things take research, and knowledge, and just generally not being a crank. your failure to understand, at this point, is your failure to understand, not my failure to explain. you've been given outside sources, textbooks, etc. it's not just me that can't explain it to you -- it's anyone, including the people who write professionally and academically on the subject. the people who are the very best at explaining this stuff. that means nobody can explain it to you, and that makes you a crank. no, notice i gave some specific examples? ...yes. i do too: you went one too far. you skipped right over the noun, and went right to verb it might possibly be derived from. this is precisely the same practice the peggs used to find time machines and cd-roms.

---

אָרַח

sooooo.... conspiracy then?look, scribes existed because papyrus and vellum didn't last too well. yes, if carefully preserved, they can last a long time. but touched by human beings? they deteriorate. there are always complete fluke miracles like the DSS preserved over 2,000 years, but they are by far the exception. most of the oldest texts we have are in stone.they're not junking the old texts because they say things they didn't want you to know. indeed, if anything, the DSS mostly backs up the masoretic text. it's not 100% like the MT or the LXX. quite wasting my time here, repeating the same old nonsense. go start another thread about the topic you want to discuss. a text on hebrew grammar might well use the LXX, yes. but not as hebrew grammar. instead, as evidence of how that grammar was read and then translated into another language. which is what the LXX is good for -- it's a record of people of a certain read the text and thought it should be written in another language. it also, perhaps, may indicate a few places that have changed for whatever reason -- mostly scribal (copyist) errors.but as i said, stop beating around the bush. you are more than welcome to make an argument from greek in this thread.

---

אָרַח

People and posters, evolutionists and atheists have little if no reading comprehension as they always try to change what is written by compromising it and changing it into their belief system or fantasy or unscientific theory.Creationin24HourDaysCreation took place in 7 creative days of 24 hours each.Hours is a designed time that fits into the designed revolution of the designed Earth, as well as the designed revolution of the Moon around us, and our designed time frame of revolving around the Sun. Time is by Design and can be absolutely proven to be so. Speed, Time and Distance is all by Design and nothing is at random or by chance as the unscientific and non mathmatical evolutionists and atheists would have us believe.The plants were created before the Sun was created, they would not last eons or ages or billions of years withoput the Suns rays, 24 hours Yes.Mystery solved and confirmed..Gensis 1 is true and correct and gives the proper timeframes and the real CREATOR.

This is my first post on this forum.I just wanted to state what I believe is happening in Genesis 1:1.The KJV is my preferred translation as it uses the singular 'Heaven' instead of plural 'Heavens'.In other words, in the beginning God created only ONE of the Three Heavens .Because only one of the Three Heavens were created at that point, our Universe didn't even exist yet.Thus, Earth was 'without form and void' because one can't have an Earth without a Universe to put it in.Another way of explaining what Earth was like at that point was that Earth only existed in the form of the Bottomless Pit.I believe the Bible calls this Bottomless Pit 'Waters'... as in the Abyss.The Heaven that was created is what the Bible calls the 'Sea of Glass'.Thus, the way I interpret Genesis 1:1 is something like this... "In the beginning, God created the Sea of Glass and the Abyss."The rest of the Creation Account is all about God creating the other two Heavens and eventually Planet Earth.Edited by Base12, : No reason given.

The Sea of Glass is the 'Waters Above' and the Bottomless Pit (Abyss) is the 'Waters Below'.These were not 'Oceans and Clouds' as is commonly taught, but rather Dimensional Barriers.The Sea of Glass separates our 3D Universe from Higher Dimensions.Conversely, the Abyss separates our 3D Universe from Lower Dimensions or the 'Underworld'.After God created the Sea of Glass and the Abyss, he separated them in order to create a 3D 'Firmament' between them... Genesis 1:6
" And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."The Firmament is what we call Outer Space. It is NOT Earth's Atmosphere.Here is an illustration of what I am proposing... Edited by Base12, : No reason given.Edited by Base12, : No reason given.Edited by Base12, : No reason given.Edited by Base12, : No reason given.