Creation

i'd suggest looking to rashi; he almost certainly knows hebrew since he wrote in hebrew. the P account is written in a pseudo-historical style (mostly grouped that way because the rest of P is largely concerned with history). the J account is not a history at all.this isn't based on how modern writers would write histories; it's based on comparisons to ancient historians. and it's a question of genre and style, not contents or accuracy. P almost certainly intends to talk about the same god as J, and that is yahweh, the god of abraham/isaac/jacob. but P and J characterize that god very differently. P doesn't actually use the name "yahweh" (where J does), but that doesn't matter. there isn't a good reason to think that he would mean some different god (or multiple gods; the verbs are almost all singular).that there are two different stories, though, should be uncontroversial. as i covered above, grammatically, the first verse of genesis reads, "when god began to create the heaven and the earth..." and does not allow for any such gap. if you trust other sources, fine. i cited sources, including jewish commentary from the middle ages. this is not some weird argument i'm making up; this is the standard jewish translation. that whole business is entirely un-biblical.

I don't have any interest in learning Hebrew. I'm going to trust the Christian theologians. If they think Rashi is authoritative I'm sure he'll be referred to.I am just now beginning to consider Gap Theory because some worthy Christian theologians believe in it. I doubt I'm going to agree with it in the end, or much of it, but it's an interesting read.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Spoken like a true Bible-commentary-literalist.

Hi arach Give me the specific suffix in your link that turns the first noun in Genesis 1:1 to a construct.I will get to the rest of the message later, going to church now.God Bless,

I'm replying to myself; I wanted to add the Word Biblical Commentary discussion of the second option above. This is Rashi's view, which Arach holds. Word gives a nice summary of the pros and cons of this view. (FYI, this volume of the Word Biblical Commentary was by Gordon Wenham.)

quote:

---

#2 was first propounded by Rashi, though there are hints in rabbinic texts that it may have been known earlier (Schfer, 162—66). More recent defenders include Bauer, Bayer, Herrmann, Humbert, Lane, Loretz, Skinner, and Speiser, as well as RSV mg., NEB, NAB, and TEV.

​

This interpretation begins with the observation that the first word ‏בראשׁית‎ literally, in beginning, does not have the definite article. It may therefore be construed as a construct and the whole clause may then be translated, In the beginning of God’s creation of heaven and earth. In this type of construction the verb is usually in the infinitive (‏בְּרֹא‎ ) whereas here it is perfect (‏בָּרָא he created). However, this is not without parallel; cf. Hos 1:2 (F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea, AB24 [Garden City: Doubleday, 1980] 153.)

​

In support of this being the right interpretation of v 1 the following arguments are also cited. First, ראשׁית beginning rarely, if ever, has the absolute sense: it means formerly, firstly, not first of all. Second, Gen 2:4b, usually regarded as the start of the second account of creation, begins, literally, in the day of the making by the LORD God of heaven and earth. Third, Enuma elish and the Atrahasis epic both begin with a similar dependent temporal clause. However, the majority of recent writers reject this interpretation for the following reasons:

​

First and fundamental is the observation that the absence of the article in ‏בראשׁית‎ does not imply that it is in the construct state. Temporal phrases often lack the article (e.g., Isa 46:10; 40:21; 41:4, 26; Gen 3:22; 6:3, 4; Mic 5:1; Hab 1:12). Nor can it be shown that ‏ראשׁית‎ may not have an absolute sense. It may well have an absolute sense in Isa 46:10, and the analogous expression ‏מראשׁ‎ in Prov 8:23 certainly refers to the beginning of all creation. The context of ‏בראשׁית standing at the start of the account of world history makes an absolute sense highly appropriate here. The parallel with Gen 2:4b disappears, if, as argued below, the next section of Genesis begins with 2:4a, not 4b. As for the alleged parallels with Mesopotamian sources, most of those who acknowledge such dependence point out that better parallels with extrabiblical material may be found in Gen 1:2—3 than in 1:1. The first verse is the work of the editor of the chapter; his indebtedness to earlier tradition first becomes apparent in v 2.

​

On these grounds most modern commentators agree that v 1 is an independent main clause to be translated In the beginning God created . . . ...

---

Edited by kbertsche, : Shortened quote

Hi arach What makes the verb in Genesis 1:1 an infinitive? OK The verb בְּרֹא is kal perfect 3ps. No suffix. Why? But Rashi requires the use of Masoret vowel pointing system to be able to make it construct.There was only consonantal vowels in Biblical Hebrew. But an ית suffix does not exist on the link there.Unless you are referring to the irregular construct of house ית־ as it has a maqqef which still requires a noun to be attached to the maqqef.God Bless,

Hi arach Why?God Bless,

Hi arach Wrong. The phrase "These are the generations of" appears in the Bible 17 time and all 17 times it precedes the list of the generations. So why are you trying to put it after your version of the generations?

Hi Faith So what do you do with the generations of the heaven and the earth in the day the heavens and the earth began to exist? Why do you say part of God's Word is irrelevant? Genesis 2:7 says he was formed from the dust of the ground. But Genesis 2:4 says that was accomplished the same day God created the heavens and the earth. Then take my statements in the message you was replying too and take it verse by verse and explain how I am mis-interperting what the Bible says. Explain what each of the following says:Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.When you get through explaning what these verses say answer the following questions.When was the heavens and the earth created.
Where do you find the history (generations ) of the heavens and the earth?
When was the man in Genesis 2:7 formed from the dust of the ground?God Bless,

Hi arach In other words it suites your worldview that you keep arguing. Why not just ignore all of them as they did not exist in the original text and solve all the problems.God Bless,

Hi Faith, The other rabbi's of his did not accept his translation. It is a nice study but it did not happen for the heavens and the earth was completed in 6 light periods and 6 dark periods.God Bless,

it's a non-standard suffix. as i believe i covered above (as did rashi), the absolute form is ראשונה.

quote:

---

When a feminine singular noun is in the construct state, it may or may not undergo vowel changes, but if the word ends in a Hey, it changes to Tav.

---

this one is slightly unusual in that it also adds a yud. however, the tav if the important part -- it's the construct suffix. the fact that it follows a construct noun. check it again. here's a link that lists that verb conjugation: Genesis 5 (KJV) - This [is] the book ofclick on the little bit that says "parse" next to the stem. note that it says,

quote:

---

Stem: Qal
Aspect: Infinitive

---

not also the lack of a suffix. this is an infinitive construct, and those sometimes have all the same consonants. he does not; rather he points out that ראשית always appears in the construct state. the vowel don't actually matter, and the editorial note that chabad adds (chabad being the easiest place to find rashi online), says:

quote:

---

This verse calls for a midrashic interpretation because according to its simple interpretation, the vowelization of the word בָּרָא, should be different, as Rashi explains further

---

so his explanation is actually in contrast to the vowels, for at least part of it. he does try to read it both ways, though. the maqef is irrelevant; those are also added later. for the same reason you'd read it as an infinitive in gen 5:1; the other reading doesn't make sense, given that word that precedes it acts as a complex preposition. sure, we could read, "in the day, comma, god created man." but in what day? like, when the sun was shining? that's clearly not what it means. it's a subordinate clause, "in the day of yahweh making man," he did something else, "he made man in his image". and this is for a noun without a clear construct suffix. יום can be read perfectly fine as an absolute.also note that here the vowel points agree. this is the translation used in modern scholarly editions, and the newer JPS tanakh, and for the reasons i've been spelling out in this thread. the verse was likely added by a redactor anyways; it's possible it was meant to precede gen 2's story. no, not really. i don't happen to think any of this particularly represents the real world, so believe me when i say, it wouldn't really matter to me if it did fit your view. i wouldn't really care. but, it doesn't. so. yeah.no, my argument is not based on my worldview in the slightest. it's based on hebrew grammar, and reading meaning from the text rather than into the text. i have no particular agenda, theology, or ideology i'm looking to impose on the text; i just want to explore what the text actually says and means, and how it came together in its present state.if that supports your view, fine. if it makes your view untenable, that's fine too. i'm only going where the text supports, free of any ideological commitments. yes; that is precisely what i'm arguing we should do in this case.Edited by arachnophilia, : tag fail

it's not really a matter of whether or not rashi is "authoritative"; it's only a matter of whether he's right. and he is. look at all the uses of ראשית in the bible, and nearly all of them (except for a few idiomatic uses) are in the construct state. the problem is, you're approaching the text with a preconceived idea. you're not doing exegesis, you're doing eisegesis. your theologians are not biblical scholars, they are apologists, aiming to defend a certain ideology using the bible. not attempting to ascertain what the authors of the bible thought or believed.that's fine for faith, i suppose. the expression in literature is that the author is dead. literature exists in the minds of the readers, and if they read it to mean something else that matters to them in a different context, that's not wrong either. in a traditional framework like catholicism, we would even say that the scriptures exist as part of that framework rather than the basis for it. scripture is based on tradition, not vice versa.but for a sola scriptura, protestant christian? you should probably go with what the bible says, and not what people are trying to shape it into to defend their theologies. and that's the thing; you're going to have to take these peoples' words for it. it's not that you know enough about the subject to say, "okay, these people are right, these people are wrong." you have to pick a side, not really knowing enough to justify it, on the faith that your chosen side isn't mistaken, biased, ignorant, or lying.so how do you chose a side, except by picking the one that confirms what you already believe?how can you really determine the truth here, if you're not willing to study the topic yourself?

the translation i gave you is the official translation of the jewish publication society. it's about as authoritative as you can get, as far as jewish translations.

[ Hide content of mostly duplicate post. See next message. --Admin ] Edited by Admin, : Fix quoting.Edited by Admin, : Hid content of duplicate post.