Hi arach, How do you propose I get all that shit out of my computer?I did not copy those from anywhere. I got tired of you throwing your cow patties and bought a computer program that will tell me anything I need to know about a verb. All I have to do is type it in, and retrieve the information. I typed in בָּרְאָם and I gave you the results. But it is present it just do not have the prefixes. It is the Piel infinitive noun.My program is modern Biblical Hebrew so the vowels tells what it is without the prefixes. I don't have a problem with prepositions acting on verbs. I don't have a problem with prepositions acting on nouns.I do have a problem when you tell me that a prefix on a noun places the following verb in the infinitive construct.BTW I am still waiting for your example and a statement to back up your assertion that the beit prefix on a noun turns the following verb into a infinitive construct.In Ancient Hebrew I can't find a preposition but I can find prefixes. If you say so but they did mark their additions most of the time with brackets that is more than you do. As well as finite verbs, subjects and objects of verbs, explanation of the main verb, a purpose/result, and even your favorite a temporal. בראשית is a noun with a prefix informing the reader when the subject of the verb carried out the action of the verb producing the direct objects.
So the verb has no prefix of anykind. Both of these verbs בקרב איביך and באיביך? have an insereparable prefix.I will go out on a limb and say they mean different things because they are two different verbs.Everything here is not modified by a prefix בברא and בראשית ברא . בברא This verb is modified by a prefix. בראשית This noun is modified by a prefix. ברא This verb is not modified by anything. We did in class. But we were studying Ancient Hebrew.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."

...and then copy it?you used a source. it doesn't seem like a good one. and it still doesn't mean that you know anything. okay. so it doesn't seem like a good source if it gives inconsistent results. okay, so the prefixes aren't relevant? um, the vowels also tell you stuff in biblical hebrew. it's actually a lot less common to use vowels in modern hebrew. seriously, like, nobody uses them. oh, ok. so you have a problem with complex prepositions. of course you are. and you will continue to wait for one, because what you said is a complete strawman. it is not the prefix, but the fact that word is in construct -- it's a preposition. the prefix may or may not be included. that's because you don't know anything. i gave you a textbook with a whole chapter on prepositions. some are prefixes and some are not. and some are complex, and originate from nouns. i don't think you understand the first thing about translation. yes. all of which are also nouns. yes, and פני is also a noun. לפני is a noun with a prefix. it informs the reader where (or when) the subject of the verb carried out the action of the verb, producing the direct objects.it's sort of funny how that's what a preposition does. doesn't matter. as covered multiple times, infinitive constructs do not need prefixes. especially not when there is another preposition that serves the same function. those are nouns. not, like, in the infinitive sense. they're just nouns. not verbs at all. not in any sense. never. those are nouns, and they are the same nouns. the examples are morphologically identical, except that איב is a noun (with a possessive suffix) and ברא is a verb. incorrect. both verbs are modified by a preposition. one is inseparable, the other independent. dear god, where did you attend school?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

Hi acrah, From the information I have found about the Essene's they were probably still using both. They were a stuborn lot.But yes the Paleo-Hebrew which grew out of Ancient Hebrew in the 1400's BC lost favor in the 5th century BC.But Ancient Hebrew probably dates to around 2125 BC in Abraham's youth or further back.This is the writing that the Torah would have been written in some 3500 years ago. And I am to believe that there has been no changes since the Torah was written. I think not.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, which is why they lived out in the desert, instead of in jerusalem. no. "ancient" or biblical hebrew is a language. paleo-hebrew is a writing system. the biblical hebrew of the torah was probably written in paleo-hebrew. of course there have. but that's not an excuse to pretend it says whatever you'd like.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

Hi arach, That would be easy.What I have asked you to do is impossible. Yes, inseprable prepositions and independent prepositions directly in front of verbs create infinitives.No, all examples that were said to be complex prepositions were prepositions on or infront of verbs with nothing between.
If there is such a thing in Ancient Hebrew as a complex preposition if it was directly in front of, or attached too a verb it would create and infinitive.I have not seen an example or a statement to the effect that the preposition on a noun turned the noun into a preposition nor have I seen evidence that a noun with a prefix turns the following verb into an infinitive construct. All you have to do is find in a text book with the statement that a prefix on a noun in Ancient Biblical Hebrew turned the following verb into an infinitive construct. That should be simple if it exists.What is the Hebrew word for 'in'?

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים
"in the day of the making of yahweh elohim"
-- genesis 2:4b

---

You have the noun 'day' with the prefix 'in' followed by the verb 'make' followed by the noun 'Lord' followed by the noun 'God'."In the day the Lord God made." Where did the object of the verb get off too? From a man who talks about grammar and context.If you will notice your source added a 'that'.

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְכֶם

​

"in the day of your eating"

​

-- genesis 2:17, genesis 3:5

---

You have the noun 'day' with the prefix 'in' followed by the verb 'you eat'"in the day you eat".

quote:

---

בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים

​

"in the day of the creating of god"

​

-- genesis 5:1

---

You have a noun 'day' with the prefix 'in' followed by the verb 'created' followed by the subject of the verb God."in the day God created".

quote:

---

לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת יְהוָה
"before the destroying of yahweh"
-- genesis 13:10

---

You have the preposition 'before' followed by verb 'destroyed' followed by the subject of the verb 'God'."before God destroyed".

quote:

---

אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ

​

"after his begetting"

​

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

---

Here you have 'after' a preposition with 'he' which = 'after he' then you have a pronominal suffix meaning begot."after he begot" Why did you quote a source and then not mention their translation? I have no idea what you are trying to support with these examples except you don't know how to translate. You can't even read your source.Nevertheless there is no example there of a noun having a ב on it modifying the verb following that noun. But how could something exist in the state it was in if it had not been previously created?The heavens and the earth already existed in Genesis 1:2. It had to exist or there was an absence of anything there. The only thing I have said about the maqqef is that when it is there the two words become one as they are inseperable.
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, And Ancient Hebrew was not a writing system. Then what was it? The one that existed before Paleo Hebrew. Well you are the only one changing it to say whatever you like.I am competely satisfied to take the text without vowels and apply prefixes and suffixes and use the meanings of each of them and let that be what the text says.Inventing no infinitive constructs or absolutes, no prepositions, no tenses, just using exactly what there was to the writing system of 3500 years ago. You know the one that had the ox head for the alef.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, just obscure enough that it's more likely to be covered in research papers instead of textbooks. but, no, it's really that you can't seem to combine two known quantities and arrive at a conclusion. you know that: but you can't seem to apply this to complex prepositions. why not? yes. i selected examples that matched the form. and you'll note that all of those examples also contain infintive verbs. i've already linked you a textbook that describes this, and provides several examples. you'll note also that the examples i chose include the specific nouns they used. it doesn't always, but it sure helps if that noun is a complex preposition. what is it that you're having a hard time understanding here? you've been given the textbook, and several examples. that's not the argument. not at all. and i keep saying this. the prefix has nothing to do with it. rather, the fact that it's a preposition. and i gave you a texbook, way back 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.

---

i suggest that you actually read it this time, try to think about what it means, try to understand it, and stop posting the same old nonsense that's been answered a thousand times already. check your lexicon. the verb is an infinitive. listen. this is just dumb and pedantic. you know very well that what i gave you a mechanical translation, the kind you are so fond of. the source i linked you to, and every other translation, renders things differently in english. we're not talking about what form sounds nicest in english; we're talking about how it actually reads in hebrew. as i've explained to you many times previously, hebrew infinitives are often rendered as finite verbs in english simply because "making of yahweh" as above sounds like it was yahweh being made, not yahweh doing the making. check your lexicon, the verb is an infinitive. see above. check your lexicon, the verb is an infinitive. and see above. check your lexicon, the verb is an infinitive. and see above. check your lexicon, the verb is an infinitive. and see above. because, as i said above, we're not talking about the smoothest english translation. we're talking about what it says in hebrew. i provided you with a mechanical translation, the kind you seem to enjoy, that accurate reflects the hebrew grammar. this doesn't always render so well in english. after all your insistence that hebrew isn't english, you still don't seem to understand the difference yourself. funny. throughout this entire thread, you haven't shown one example demonstrating that you have even the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. you make argument after argument objecting to english analogies because "hebrew isn't english", and then make a whole argument here from an english translation? of course that fact alone should be enough to demonstrate that you don't know how to translate anything, nevermind read, but your posting history in this thread has been one gigantic facepalm after another. consistently interchanging letters? arguing for painfully nonsensical readings/translations? coming up with suggestions that grade schoolers would laugh at? your inability to get your head out of your lexicon, and then failing to even check said lexicon? all this nonsense, and then tell me i don't know how to translate? incorrect. those are all complex prepositions, followed by infinitives. exist in the state of nonexistence? i don't understand your question. yes, and as i keep posting,

the maqef was added by the masoretes

just like vowels. it's totally irrelevant even when it's there, but you can't selectively ignore the vowels because they were added only 1,000 years ago by the masoretes, and then try to make a point based on something else added only 1,000 years ago by the masoretes. that's self-contradictory.

---

אָרַח

a language. do you really not understand the difference? not after the example i gave you? writing systems and languages are different things. there's a reason people who are actually educated in biblical hebrew say "biblical" hebrew instead of "ancient" hebrew. because it's too easy to confuse "ancient" hebrew and paleo-hebrew, since the words mean roughly the same thing in other contexts. biblical hebrew is the language the hebrew bible was written in. paleo-hebrew is the writing system the biblical hebrew of the hebrew bible was likely written in. no. try again. and i'm not. i'd rather understand the grammatical relationships between the words, and not just assume i can someone extra meaning from a random assortment of words looked up in a lexicon. that, you see, leads to CD-ROMs and time machines. language, and that language had grammar, including the features you just denied. that would be a writing system. perhaps you'd better look up these words. you don't seem to understand what they mean and how they are different.and, in any case, that writing system would be proto-sinaitic. which would not be the writing system the bible used.

---

אָרַח

Hi arach, I was informed it does not exist.Now if you believe it does produce the evidence. All the examples you referenced in the online textbook were sinple verbs modified by a inseperable or independent perposition immediately preceeding the verb.They were not on nouns of preceeding nouns that made a following verb an infinitive construct. Yes everyone contained an infinitive construct verb. Maybe that was because they either had a inseperable preposition on them or they had a independent preposition immediately in front of them.That is what constitutes an infinitive construct, or absolute. You have presented no such example.You have not presented a example of a noun with a prefix creating an infinitive construct.But you said above: How can you have it both ways? Yep I can access the textbook.But no there is no example of a noun being a complex preposition.Nouns are nouns. Prepositions are prepositions. But that is the argument.You say the ב
prefix on ראשית
preceeding ברא turns ברא into a infinitive construct.There is no rule in a textbook to that effect.There is no example in a textbook to that effect.All we have supporting your assertion is your argument from your continued lack of knowledge of what constitutes an infinitive construct, absolute. Lets look at the text.1. ﬠד is a preposition.2. ברא
a verb.
This verb immediately preceeded by a preposition creates a infinitive construct.3. אדניו a noun.4. אל a preposition.5. ביתו a verb.This verb preceeded immediately by a preposition creates a infinitive construct.There is no word between the preposition and the verb.You have presented no evidence here are anywhere else that the prefix ב
on ראשית turns turns the verb ברא into an infinitive construct. You did not answer the question.The question is, what is the Ancient Hebrew word for 'in'? No you did not give a mechanical translation.This is a mechanical translation of Genesis 2:4: Well my Hebrew program says to have a infinitive construct or absolute you would have to have a לaffixed to the verb.So what kind of an infinitive are you talking about? Well no you did not present a mechanical translation:Here is a mechanical translation of: SourceSo where is the one on a noun that creates an infinitive construct, absolute of the verb that follows the noun? What existed without form and void? I don't care anything about the maqqef as it did not exist in Ancient Biblical Hebrew, just as the vowels.But Modern Biblical Hebrew does use it to connect two words emphasizing the relationship between the preposition and the word attached too.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, Language: It seems that this definition says language is the spoken, written, or gestured. Just call me lazy if you will go back and read earlier posts you will see I refered to it as Ancient Biblical Hebrew.Are you saying there was no written word prior to the advent of paleo-hebrew?That is false as there is written Semitic language dating back to at least 3800 BC.The tower of Babel event is said to have taken place around 2200 BC at which time we would have had one language spoken an written.The language spoken and written was said to have been confused and people had to leave off the building of the tower as they could not communicate with each other. Those who could understand each other separated themselves from the others and settled down to getting on with life.Since Shem, Ham, and Japheth were brothers all these different people were actually kinfolks.But now they all had to modify their language written and spoken for the different groups of people.It is no wonder all the languages spoken and written was similar in form as they all came from one mother tongue.Much of the Bible was written in some form of paleo-hebrew but the Torah which was written some 500 years before it existed would have been written in a Semitic language which is called Ancient Hebrew. Paleo-Hebrew is called middle Hebrew and present is called Modern. And since you don't have a textbook from 1500 BC you have no way of knowing exactly what that grammatical relationship is.You only have what so called scholars have said it the grammar was.The Ancient Biblical Hebrew had prefixes and suffixes. They used word order to convey meaning.Now you and other believe they were so sophisticated that they had prepositions, infinitive constructs, absolutes, and a host of other things that there is no way they could have had.It is just our inept way of trying to figure out what they were saying. I really don't believe they were smart enough to know what a preposition or infinitive construct was.But yes they had grammar. They placed words in specific order to convey meaning.They put prefixes on words to convey meaning.They put suffixes on words to convey meaning as well as to create new words from root words.So yes they had grammar. Yes it was a written language but it was also a spoken language as each letter represented a specific sound. Actually that would be a Semitic language which was written and spoken by the descendents of Shem.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."

where. correct. no, you might want to look again. in Message 270, i gave you the following example:

quote:

---

לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת יְהוָה
"before the destroying of yahweh"

​

-- genesis 13:10

---

what part of speech is פני? that's right. it's a noun. specifically, it's a noun that's given as a example of complex prepositions in the textbook. and look at verb. what kind of verb is it? that's right. it's an infinitive. yes. they all had independent prepositions. and all of those independent prepositions were complex. if you acknowledge this point, then what's your problem? yes, i did, in Message 197, i provided the following textbook quotes. examples follow in the textbook:

quote:

---

then look harder. 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)

---

---

those are all very much nouns that are turned into prepositions. granted, none of there examples are affecting verbs, but you already know that independent prepositions can turn a verb into an infinitive. further, i provided several examples above. as i keep saying, this is not the argument. i don't know why you think it is, even after my continual insistence that it's not. perhaps you should learn to read and comprehend english before you move on to hebrew. the argument is that infinitive constructs sometimes follow complex prepositions. i provided you several examples of this in Message 270, most which had prefixes, and one of which did not. not even in the section on complex prepositions?

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).

---

or

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)

---

perhaps you had better learn to read english before you tackle hebrew. except when nouns are prepositions. i have given you several. repeatedly. that you do not know acknowledge what the textbook says, and that you do not accept examples, is not my fault. it is yours, for not understanding. perhaps when you pull your head out of your lexicon, your software, of your textbook, and actually process some information and learn something, you can tell me what knowledge i lack. until then, i will just continue to laugh at you. as will anyone else reading this thread, who notices your utterly amazing ignorance. look up the other uses of ראשית in the bible (hint: they've been given to you in this thread). think about how it functions in those uses. look up what a preposition is and does. generally, a ב prefix. no, as explained to you many times before, your "mechanical translation" is complete and utter bullshit. it's biased, and ugly, and doesn't accurately reflect the hebrew. no, check your lexicon. here's a link to one. click on the little bit that says "tense" next to "אכל 'akal". here'w what it says:

quote:

---

Stem: Qal
Aspect: Infinitive

---

that translation is complete and utter nonsense. and it's been explained to you before why. i stand by my translation -- it's roughly the same way that any hebrew scholar would render the text mechanically. further, it's obvious from this that you can't actually read the hebrew, or you would know why your mechanical translation is nonsense.further, you translation actually does render two of those verbs as infinitives. curious, about that. why doesn't it render it the other ones as infinitives, too, when your lexicon will clearly tell you that they are? because it's inconsistent, that's why. the first four examples i gave you are all nouns. look it up in your lexicon. what kind of existence is formless and void?

finally!

"modern biblical hebrew" is an oxymoron. it's either modern, or biblical. strictly speaking, biblical hebrew includes vowels, cantilation marks, and punction (including maqef), and spaces. you are using "biblical hebrew" to mean some abstract concept of how you think the bible was originally written, and seemingly making it up as you go along because you don't understand what was added later and what was not. where biblical hebrew, proper, was written:

quote:

---

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

---

the bible was actually written as follows:

quote:

---

בראשיתבראאלהיםאתהשמיםואתה” 8;רץ

---

which, of course, is significantly harder to read. but from that should be increasingly apparent the function of those final letters you so frequently mess up, and why they insert vav's all over the place.

---

אָרַח

yes, languages can be written -- in a writing system.

quote:

---

A writing system is a symbolic system used to represent elements or statements expressible in language.

​

Writing system - Wikipedia

---

quote:

---

All writing systems require:

• at least one set of defined base elements or symbols, individually termed characters and collectively called a script;
• at least one set of rules and conventions (orthography) understood and shared by a community, which arbitrarily assigns meaning to the base elements (graphemes), their ordering and relations to one another;
• at least one language (generally spoken) whose constructions are represented and able to be recalled by the interpretation of these elements and rules;
• some physical means of distinctly representing the symbols by application to a permanent or semi-permanent medium, so they may be interpreted (usually visually, but tactile systems have also been devised).

​

Writing system - Wikipedia

---

get that? a writing system is the means by which one writes a language. it is not the language itself. this is a relatively elementary linguistic concept. i'm startled to think that you somehow studied any language (including english!) without understanding this concept. especially considering that the english (or actually, latin) writing system is pretty standard for many other languages. no. where did you get that idea? yes. as i detailed above, in Message 253,

quote:

---

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).

---

i'm not sure how you can get "there was no written word prior to the advent of paleo-hebrew" from that statement. mythology is not relevant to this thread. no. you are so hopelessly confused i don't even know where to begin."ancient hebrew" isn't frequently used in academia. we use "paleo hebrew" to refer to the script, though this is sometimes confused with "ancient hebrew" because it's used to describe pre-biblical inscriptions. "biblical hebrew" describes the language of the bible -- because that's such a long period, running all the way from the authorship of the torah until the masoretes, scholars use terms to differentiate which period they're talking about. generally, those terms are associated with the specific writing. "modern hebrew" was created in 1948. okay. since you don't have a lexicon from 1500 BC, you have no way of knowing what the word mean, either. you only have what so-called scholars have said the words mean. "word order" is called "grammar" genius. or rather, part of grammar. this is dumb, and i'm not going to entertain this anymore. you don't know anything about biblical hebrew, and you've made that appallingly clear. instead, you assume that the authors of the bible were idiots, intellectual children, who wrote crudely and ineffectively. this is insulting to those authors, to the bible, and to anyone who appreciates the text. you haven't studied the grammar or the language, and yet you insist that functions of that grammar and language don't exist, when they clearly do. then you allege conspiracy -- that this is all some kind of elaborate scheme cooked up by academia to make the bible... what? sound better than it is?i find your paranoid delusions and lunatic ramblings insulting, blasphemous, and just downright ignorant. they aren't funny any more. please take your idiotic nonsense somewhere else. you're a crank, and this is getting old.perhaps you should start your own thread about why you believe moses was an idiot, and how modern scholars are all frauds.

---

אָרַח

Yup, and by that standard the spoken Biblical Hebrew and the written Biblical Hebrew are two different languages; which is whyas has already been pointed out to youpretending they are equivalent in every regard leads to crappy unsupported conclusions.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Hi arach, Not where but by whom. MY former professor of Hebrew. He said it did not exist unless someone had wrote one in the last 15 years. Well it is not a noun. It is not a verb and it is not a preposition. לפנים is a noun formed from the verb פנה לפני is a preposition 'before' from the root לפני I don't see where they are complex prepositions. על is a preposition 'by' בעד is a preposition through.I do not find ביד translated 'by' or 'through' in the Torah. This is the first example of a complex preposition on page 189.The noun יד is 'hand' ביד would be translated 'in the hand' It is found in the Torah 1 time, Leviticus 25:28 and is found in the OT another 20 times.The second example בתוך is a independent preposition.Some textbook. The first example on page 189 is not used in the Torah for by or through but it is used as a noun with a prefix translated 'in the hand'.
The second is a independent preposition.The example given on page 221 is the same as the second one on page 189. Yes I know independent and inseperable prepositions can turn a verb into an infinitive.I just don't see a noun with a prefix turning a following verb into a infinitive.There is no evidence to support such action. So now we move the goalposts.But I have just blown a hole in all your complex prepositions above. Not one that is used in the Torah.Unless they are refering to independent prepositions that have been created from nouns.Because they give themselvs as their roots. Look who is talking, someone who does not even know what an independent preposition is.You give a independent preposition as a complex preposition when:
לפני is a preposition 'before' from the root לפני A textbook that has more problems than Carter has got liver pills.
They are taking independent prepositions which have been independent prepositions for over 50 years and making them into complex prepositions.So no you have not nor will you ever present a noun with a beit on it turning the following verb into a infinitive construct. Well you are the one who keeps presenting evidence that turns out to not be evidence which you don't understand or ever checked out. So now we are going to argue because there are many cases where ראשית
is in the construct it has to be in the construct in Genesis 1:1.The problem with that is in all the other texts it has a noun immediately behind it putting it in the construct.In Genesis 1:1 it has a verb following it.Unless you can find a rule that states that a noun with a beit prefix turns the following verb into a infinitive construct you are up the creek without a paddle. So when in front of a noun it would normally be translated 'in the'.
Is that correct. Check above the discussion of these so called nouns. That is what I wanted you to tell me.The text says the earth was without form and void. We will get into a discussion of this if we ever get Genesis 1:1. Well a lot has changed since I studied Hebrew in the 60's. Yes seperating the words and adding verses and chapters helps.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 Jon, Well the Biblical Hebrew that is spoken today is only a thousand years old.The Bible was written in Ancient Biblical Hebrew that has not been spoken for 3000 years.So I guess you are right about them being different systems.And everyone today trying to apply today's Hebrew rules to the Ancient Biblical Hebrew is what causes the problems.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."