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."

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

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."

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

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."

Hi arach, You keep making that assertion.Produce the evidence that states a noun with a beit prefix places the following verb in the infinitive construct. In other words take your precious online textbook and find that statement and an example.Then by all means produce your translation. So it would be redundant which makes it nonsensical.Not as nonsensical of your assertion that the beit prefix turns the noun into a preposition.I am still waiting for the textbook example and statement to back up your assertion. I agree it should be there but it does your interpertation no good as the LXX and Masoretes have it as a disjunctive conjunction which declares Genesis 1:1 a declarative statement. Well I am waiting for you to produce a text book that has an example of what you claim in Genesis 1:1 as well as the statement that the beit on a noun causes the following verb to become an infinitive construct. בברא is a verb with an inseperable preposition which makes the verb a temporal infinitive construct. ביום־ברא Here we have a noun with a beit prefix followed by a verb. ביום ברא Here we have a noun with a beit prefix followed by a verb.I know you will disagree but all you have to do is produce a statement in a textbook that says a noun with a beit prefix becomes a preposition that places the following verb in the infinitive construct along with an example. Not really because to get the proper definition you have to use the rules of Hebrew grammer.Now I admit to using Ancient Hebrew Grammer.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."

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".

indeed. well after the end of the OT period, which ended approximately 200 years before. because aramaic script wasn't used until the influx of the aramaic language. which happened at the end of the OT period. okay, so you agree that paleo-hebrew was the script until just before the DSS? nothing, and i have no idea why you brought it up. we're talking about the language, not the writing system. those are two different things that you seem to continually conflate. let me give you an example of the difference:

quote:

---

Language may refer either to the specifically human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, or to a specific instance of such a system of complex communication. The scientific study of language in any of its senses is called linguistics.

​

Language - Wikipedia

---

quote:

---

Le langage est un ensemble de signes (vocaux, gestuel, graphiques, tactiles, olfactifs, etc.) dot d'une smantique, et le plus souvent d'une syntaxe (mais ce n'est pas systmatique[1]). Plus couramment, le langage est un moyen de communication.

​

Langage Wikipdia

---

these two use the same writing system, but are in different languages. similarly, you can have one language that uses two (or three) different writing systems, such as japanese. i'd give you an example there, but i suspect that you'd understand japanese even less than hebrew.in any case, the point here is that biblical hebrew is the language, and it was written in both paleo-hebrew scripts and aramaic scripts (and now, even in modern hebrew and shorthand scripts). none of this affects the language, just how it was written down.

---

אָרַח

this is sort of like asking me to prove, from a textbook, that 2+2=4. you know that prepositions acting on verbs create infinitives. you know that some nouns with prepositional prefixes become complex prepositions. why can you not see that complex prepositions acting on verbs create infinitives?the best i can do, really, is to continue to provide you examples. however, it should be noted that you continually disagree with your lexicon about what is and what is not an infinitive. but here goes.

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים
"in the day of the making of yahweh elohim"

​

-- genesis 2:4b

---

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְכֶם
"in the day of your eating"

​

-- genesis 2:17, genesis 3:5

---

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים
"in the day of the creating of god"

​

-- genesis 5:1

---

quote:

---

לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת יְהוָה
"before the destroying of yahweh"

​

-- genesis 13:10

---

quote:

---

אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ
"after his begetting"

​

-- genesis 5:7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 30, also through 11, and every other genealogy

---

etc. notice that these are not all ב examples. it's the preposition that does it, not the prefix, which may or may not be needed on the preposition. they have it as a disjunctive because it modifies the noun ארץ, instead of a verb. but i don't see how the rest of that follows: "when god began creating the heavens and the earth, but the earth was empty..." reads just fine to me. it's a description of the state the earth was in at the beginning of creation. i know there's a lot of argument here, and that's for another thread. but it doesn't mean that 1:1 is a declarative statement, not when all the rest of the grammatical context indicates that it's subordinate. it's just that 1:2 is subordinate as well. making the independent clause 1:3. well, according to you, 1) is an infinitive. according to every lexicon ever, 3) is an infinitive. i'm not aware of any examples of 2), but i figured i'd throw it in since you keep making distinctions based on an irrelevant maqef.

---

אָרַח