|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: basic reading of genesis 1:1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Jon writes: Sorry, but all the evidence indicates that children learn their parents' language with roughly the same amount of difficulty and in roughly the same amount of time, whether it's English or Quechua. ... as a second language. sorry, i should have specified.
Well, this is a different issue; you're getting into artificially modified language, which, like anything intentionally invented by humans, can vary in complexity and difficulty to learn, cf. making a wheel versus building a computer. 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.
I haven't followed much of your debate, but in what way is understanding the difference between using grammar and describing grammar relevant to the argument? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
for instances, editions from the 1600's tend to us "f" 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: Where did you find that printed with fs? That is very much not accurate. The letter used is the long-s, and looks like ſ, not f. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
jar writes: You have actually read the Bible haven't you? 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: to a modern translation (the abominable NIV chosen here):
quote: right? now compare old english:
quote: to modern english:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Jon writes: Where did you find that printed with fs? That is very much not accurate. The letter used is the long-s, and looks like ſ, not f. i typed it, and was too lazy to find the appropriate character. i'll go back and change it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
... as a second language. sorry, i should have specified. Well that entirely depends on the similarities to the L1 and the intelligence of the learner.
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. Very well. I won't doubt you on your knowledge of Hebrew.
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. I guess complexity isn't even the issue here, it is just whether or not the descriptions scholars give of Biblical Hebrew grammar are accurate or not (regardless of how 'complex' that makes Biblical Hebrew). I don't know anything about Biblical Hebrew, but for now I'd trust your judgement that those descriptions are accurate. If Biblical Hebrew clearly has a grammatical category that ICANT is claiming didn't exist, then he's just full of shit.
basically, "utter nonsense" is a pretty good description here. Well I thought so myself... but meese will be meese, as they say. Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Jon writes: Very well. I won't doubt you on your knowledge of Hebrew. 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.
I guess complexity isn't even the issue here, it is just whether or not the descriptions scholars give of Biblical Hebrew grammar are accurate or not (regardless of how 'complex' that makes Biblical Hebrew). 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".
I don't know anything about Biblical Hebrew, but for now I'd trust your judgement that those descriptions are accurate. If Biblical Hebrew clearly has a grammatical category that ICANT is claiming didn't exist, then he's just full of shit. 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: quote: quote: quote: quote: etc. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given. Edited by arachnophilia, : quotetacular
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
he doesn't think they knew about things like infinitives and subordinate clauses Well, while it may be theoretically possible to have a language without infinitives or subordinate clausesthough that would requite increased complexity elsewhere, one merely needs to look at the Biblical Hebrew to determine whether or not it possesses these grammatical features in trying to discern whether the authors knew of these things. Overall, the more poetic authors tend to be rather knowledgeable in linguistic matters, much more so than ICANT has shown himself to be for sure. Jon Edited by Jon, : clarity Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Jon writes: Well, while it may be theoretically possible to have a language without infinitives or subordinate clausesthough that would requite increased complexity elsewhere, one merely needs to look at the Biblical Hebrew to determine whether or not it possesses these grammatical features in trying to discern whether the authors knew of these things. Overall, the more poetic authors tend to be rather knowledgeable in linguistic matters, much more so than ICANT has shown himself to be for sure. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes: it has a pronominal suffix 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.
arachnophilia writes: . note the temporal-infinitive construct chain 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.
arachnophilia writes: "in the day of god creating man..." 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".
arachnophilia writes: no, that would be fine. According to the vowel pointing it can not be a temporal infinitive construct. So how can it be fine.
arachnophilia writes: i promise you they had vowels, 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes: 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. 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.
arachnophilia writes: he also seems to generally lack the ability to do anything other than look at words individually. which kind of hampers reading ability. 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 ראשa 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 השמיםa 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Jon,
Jon writes: Overall, the more poetic authors tend to be rather knowledgeable in linguistic matters, much more so than ICANT has shown himself to be for sure. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: It can't be a pronominal suffix as it is a temporal infinitive construct, according to the construction. 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: A pronominal suffix would mean that it is imperfect Kal sm3 Past tense. wrong.
There is no past tense in Ancient Biblical Hebrew. Maybe in modern Hebrew there is a past tense. there is. but that's not relevant.
arachnophilia writes: . note the temporal-infinitive construct chain No I don't see one. that would be "temporal", "infinitive", "construct chain". sorry if i was unclear. grammars, lol.
ביום does not make a temporal-infinitive construct chain. 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.
arachnophilia writes: "in the day of god creating man..." Where do you get the 'of' from? 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.)
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; 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.
אלהים does not follow ביום to put it into the construct. 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.
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. yes, i have. i have already explained about complex prepositions in Message 197,
quote: and how prepositions can make a verb an infinitive construct in Message 73 quote: further, in Message 189, i posted an article from a creationist website, which included this bit:
quote: 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.
I know you say it is a temporal preposition but in fact it is is a noun with a beit prefix. 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.
;ביום ברא אלהים This does not translate "In the day of God creating" It translates "In the day God created". 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".
arachnophilia writes: no, that would be fine. According to the vowel pointing it can not be a temporal infinitive construct. ...no. that would be fine.
So how can it be fine. because it is. you're making up rules, and have no idea what you're talking about.
arachnophilia writes: i promise you they had vowels, The Torah did not even use the consonants to help with the vocal. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: 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. 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.
Words do make statements, without them it would be hard to communicate. yes, but the order you put them in matters a whole lot too.
Here is the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 in order recorded: 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?
Now I know you disagree with that translation. But there are hundreds of scholars that have translated it that way. there are, yes. and there are many cogent reasons -- listed repeatedly in this thread -- to disagree with it.
You have presented two that translate it differently. There are some who have adopted their translation in some later translations. 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:
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. 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.
Now you can make fun of my word translation but when I finish I have the same translation that is called the standard translation. yes, and if the scholars of olde only know hebrew as well as you, i find that alone a reason to question their translations.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. if you have a problem with rendering basic stuff like this in english, i suggest learning hebrew and actually reading it in hebrew.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: But the author of the Torah was not writing poetry. 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi arach,
arachnophilia writes: 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? Wasn't their work based on an existing work?
arachnophilia writes: 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 But there is no two nouns together to create a construct chain.
arachnophilia writes: this is not so much a disagreement as it is pure and unadulterated ignorance of the language, 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.
arachnophilia writes: case in point: "to be" would be להיות. Which my modern Hebrew program agrees with. The verb that infinitive noun comes from is היה which in Ancient Hebrew is 'exist'.
arachnophilia writes: if you have a problem with rendering basic stuff like this in english, i suggest learning hebrew and actually reading it in hebrew. 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."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024