Political Crossfire Forums

[psholtz]

In the original Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 reads (somewhat famously):

**** bara Elohim et hashmayim ve'et ha'aretz

Translated (literally) into English, as: In the beginning, the gods created heaven and earth.

The use of the definite article "et" makes it clear that verb "bara" (to create) is acting upon the objects "shmayaim" (Heaven) and "eretz" (Earth), and it is the "gods" (the Elohim) who are doing the creating here.

Now, suppose we remove the definite article "et" from this sentence, rendering it as:

**** bara Elohim hashmayim veha'aretz

.. or, something like that. My question is this: first of all, does such a sentence make any grammatical sense in Hebrew? and secondly, could such a sentence (or something similar to it) be translated into English as: In the beginning, heaven and earth created the gods.

In other words, is it possible to reverse the object of the verb "bara" by removing the definite article "et"?

[Secondary Oak]

So many errors...

psholtz wrote: In the original Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 reads (somewhat famously):

**** bara Elohim et hashmayim ve'et ha'aretz

Translated (literally) into English, as: In the beginning, the gods created heaven and earth.
Nope.
The literal translation is
"At first, God created the heaven and the earth".

"At first" and not "in the beginning", because the term is "****", taken from the word "rishon" (first). "In the beginning" would have been translated from "ba'hatkhaka".
Furthermore, it's "be'****" and not "ba'****" - meaning that the use of the "the" word is even more incorrect.

You wrote "the gods" - which is incorrect, there is no "the" there. In addition, the word itself "gods" is indeed plural, but is being used extensively throughout the OT to describe a single god. The verb "bara" - created - is in its singular form. It's like you would write "they goes" instead of "they go" or "he goes".
However, since you're talking about a literal translation, then I suppose the sentence "at first, gods created the heaven and the earth" is also correct - just remember the "created" is in its singular form.

As for "bara", it's not exactly "created", but I couldn't find a more suitable verb in English so let's leave that for the moment.

And it's not "heaven and earth", it's "the heaven and the earth".

Alright, next section...

Quote: The use of the definite article "et" makes it clear that verb "bara" (to create) is acting upon the objects "shmayaim" (Heaven) and "eretz" (Earth), and it is the "gods" (the Elohim) who are doing the creating here.

Now, suppose we remove the definite article "et" from this sentence, rendering it as:

**** bara Elohim hashmayim veha'aretz

.. or, something like that. My question is this: first of all, does such a sentence make any grammatical sense in Hebrew? and secondly, could such a sentence (or something similar to it) be translated into English as: In the beginning, heaven and earth created the gods. In other words, is it possible to reverse the object of the verb "bara" by removing the definite article "et"?
"Et" is never mandatory in Hebrew, it's only optional. Ben Gurion was famous in refusing to use this word. Removing "et" from any Hebrew sentence can never change the meaning, as far as I know.

As for your second question - no, of course it can't. Not if you translate it literally.
Notice the verb is "bara" - an active verb meaning to create - and not "nivra", the passive form meaning to be created.

[Duchifas]

Secondary Oak wrote:
The literal translation is
"At first, God created the heaven and the earth".

"At first" and not "in the beginning", because the term is "****", taken from the word "rishon" (first). "In the beginning" would have been translated from "ba'hatkhaka".
Furthermore, it's "be'****" and not "ba'****" - meaning that the use of the "the" word is even more incorrect.

It is also related to the word rosh - head. At the head of everything (i.e., first and foremost). Not that most obvious translation, of course, but the hint is there.

Quote: As for "bara", it's not exactly "created", but I couldn't find a more suitable verb in English so let's leave that for the moment.

You couldn't find it because there isn't one. :) There is no concept in English to match (as far as I know, I may be wrong). In Torah, bara is use to describe creation of something out of nothing (which only G-d can do). The concept is called yesh meain. Other words like asah, yatzar (formed), also mean created, but only refer to creation of something from something else - yesh me'yesh.

So if you look at the hebrew in Gen 1:26 and 1:27 and elsewhere, you will find some interesting stuff. G-d says lets create (naase) man, and then it says G-d created (vayivra) man. Funky stuff is going on, that is not quite apparent in the English (with regard to evolution, if you like). Most English translations make the distinction between make and create -- but what does that help?

[psholtz]

Secondary Oak wrote: As for your second question - no, of course it can't. Not if you translate it literally.
Notice the verb is "bara" - an active verb meaning to create - and not "nivra", the passive form meaning to be created.
Thanks for the detailed commentary. You brought up some interesting points that I wasn't aware of, like the meaning of the verb "bara", etc.. However, that's not what I'm driving at.. what I'm driving at is that (a) the "accurate" translation (at least in Genesis, perhaps not in other parts of the Torah) might perhaps remain "gods" (plural), rather than the singular God, and (b) the significance of a potential flip-flop in the order of the sentence clauses.

My reason for stating this, or at least for asking questions about it, is that I recently stumbled across the Creation Myth from Greek mythology.. Shall I tell you what the opening sentence is (in so many words)? Curiously, it bears an eerie similarity to the Creation Myth in Genesis, except that the subject of the verb "bara" has been flip-flopped..

In the Greek myth, Creation proceeds as follows:

In the beginning, Heaven and Earth created the gods.

.. or, perhaps more accurately, In the beginning, Heaven and Earth created the Titans.

If you keep going, and look at the first 6 Titans who were created, you'll notice an absolutely uncanny resemblence to what the "Elohim" alleged did during the first 6 Days of Creation... food for thought(!) :-D

[Secondary Oak]

psholtz wrote: My reason for stating this, or at least for asking questions about it, is that I recently stumbled across the Creation Myth from Greek mythology.. Shall I tell you what the opening sentence is (in so many words)? Curiously, it bears an eerie similarity to the Creation Myth in Genesis, except that the subject of the verb "bara" has been flip-flopped..
I wouldn't consider any similarities "eerie". Those cultures were well-aware of each other, it's not that unlikely they will share some myths.

[psholtz]

Secondary Oak wrote: The verb "bara" - created - is in its singular form. It's like you would write "they goes" instead of "they go" or "he goes".
However, since you're talking about a literal translation, then I suppose the sentence "at first, gods created the heaven and the earth" is also correct - just remember the "created" is in its singular form.
How about the other verbs used in Genesis 1:1, wrt the Elohim? Are they singular also?

The verbs like vayomer and vayar and vayikra and so forth..

[Secondary Oak]

psholtz wrote: Secondary Oak wrote: The verb "bara" - created - is in its singular form. It's like you would write "they goes" instead of "they go" or "he goes".
However, since you're talking about a literal translation, then I suppose the sentence "at first, gods created the heaven and the earth" is also correct - just remember the "created" is in its singular form.
How about the other verbs used in Genesis 1:1, wrt the Elohim? Are they singular also?

The verbs like vayomer and vayar and vayikra and so forth..
Yep. In fact, I don't think there's any place in the Tanakh where those are plural, but I might be wrong, it's a big book.

[Free Thinkr]

Secondary Oak wrote: "At first" and not "in the beginning", because the term is "****"...
Not to be confused with "bear s**t," which can be found in the woods.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Carry on...

[Secondary Oak]

Free Thinkr wrote: Secondary Oak wrote: "At first" and not "in the beginning", because the term is "****"...
Not to be confused with "bear s**t," which can be found in the woods.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Carry on...
This is minor, you could find many entertaining phonetic similarities between languages.

Another interesting anecdote:
The English word "she" translates to Hebrew as "he", English "he" translates to Hebrew as "who" and English "who" translates as "me" :)

[Free Thinkr]

Secondary Oak wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Secondary Oak wrote: "At first" and not "in the beginning", because the term is "****"...
Not to be confused with "bear s**t," which can be found in the woods.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Carry on...
This is minor, you could find many entertaining phonetic similarities between languages.
Not sure if you know, but "does a bear s**t in the woods?" is a commonly-used phrase here in the states (to imply a question is obvious).

Quote: Another interesting anecdote:
The English word "she" translates to Hebrew as "he", English "he" translates to Hebrew as "who" and English "who" translates as "me" :)
Neat! I find etymology to be fascinating in general; linguistic evolution is nearly as interesting as biological evolution!

[Secondary Oak]

Free Thinkr wrote: Not sure if you know, but "does a bear s**t in the woods?" is a commonly-used phrase here in the states (to imply a question is obvious).
I was only aware of "does the pope s**t in the woods"... from GTA:SA.

[Free Thinkr]

Secondary Oak wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Not sure if you know, but "does a bear s**t in the woods?" is a commonly-used phrase here in the states (to imply a question is obvious).
I was only aware of "does the pope s**t in the woods"... from GTA:SA.
:)

A humorous transposing of "is the Pope Catholic?" and "does a bear s**t in the woods?" Then there's Tupac Shakur's "Do a bear s**t in the woods and wipe his ass with a rabbit.?" :wink:

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: Secondary Oak wrote: As for your second question - no, of course it can't. Not if you translate it literally.
Notice the verb is "bara" - an active verb meaning to create - and not "nivra", the passive form meaning to be created.
Thanks for the detailed commentary. You brought up some interesting points that I wasn't aware of, like the meaning of the verb "bara", etc.. However, that's not what I'm driving at.. what I'm driving at is that (a) the "accurate" translation (at least in Genesis, perhaps not in other parts of the Torah) might perhaps remain "gods" (plural), rather than the singular God, and (b) the significance of a potential flip-flop in the order of the sentence clauses.

My reason for stating this, or at least for asking questions about it, is that I recently stumbled across the Creation Myth from Greek mythology.. Shall I tell you what the opening sentence is (in so many words)? Curiously, it bears an eerie similarity to the Creation Myth in Genesis, except that the subject of the verb "bara" has been flip-flopped..

In the Greek myth, Creation proceeds as follows:

In the beginning, Heaven and Earth created the gods.

.. or, perhaps more accurately, In the beginning, Heaven and Earth created the Titans.

If you keep going, and look at the first 6 Titans who were created, you'll notice an absolutely uncanny resemblence to what the "Elohim" alleged did during the first 6 Days of Creation... food for thought(!) :-D

Well, this ain't the first nor the last thing the Greeks messed up. :lol:

[uzi]

Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: Secondary Oak wrote: As for your second question - no, of course it can't. Not if you translate it literally.
Notice the verb is "bara" - an active verb meaning to create - and not "nivra", the passive form meaning to be created.
Thanks for the detailed commentary. You brought up some interesting points that I wasn't aware of, like the meaning of the verb "bara", etc.. However, that's not what I'm driving at.. what I'm driving at is that (a) the "accurate" translation (at least in Genesis, perhaps not in other parts of the Torah) might perhaps remain "gods" (plural), rather than the singular God, and (b) the significance of a potential flip-flop in the order of the sentence clauses.

My reason for stating this, or at least for asking questions about it, is that I recently stumbled across the Creation Myth from Greek mythology.. Shall I tell you what the opening sentence is (in so many words)? Curiously, it bears an eerie similarity to the Creation Myth in Genesis, except that the subject of the verb "bara" has been flip-flopped..

In the Greek myth, Creation proceeds as follows:

In the beginning, Heaven and Earth created the gods.

.. or, perhaps more accurately, In the beginning, Heaven and Earth created the Titans.

If you keep going, and look at the first 6 Titans who were created, you'll notice an absolutely uncanny resemblence to what the "Elohim" alleged did during the first 6 Days of Creation... food for thought(!) :-D

Well, this ain't the first nor the last thing the Greeks messed up. :lol:

You know psholtz, if you managed to get the translation straight, and stopped flipping words around, and found similarities more convincing than the coincidental 6 days and 6 titans thing, you might actually have yourself a theory. :lol:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to get the basics right before coming up with all sorts of strange theories. You know, start by checking all the facts you can and then when a picture emerges start formulating your theory.

[F'losrix]

Question - and I admit that I may be totally off base here, since I cannot claim to understand anything about the language originally used in writing Genesis:

In American English, a body encompassing several individuals acting as a collective whole takes the singular form of the verb. We say that "Congress is considering a bill to enact some law", not "Congress are", presumably because we think of the Congress as a singular whole, not as the individuals that comprise it. If we want to refer to the individuals, we have to say something like "the members of Congress are" in order to associate a plural noun with the plural form of the verb used.

Would it be completely mistaken to question whether the use of the singular form of the verb (created) in Genesis coupled with a plural form of the noun (gods) could be a similar use? A plural entity acting as a singular whole?

[cap'n queasy]

Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: Secondary Oak wrote: As for your second question - no, of course it can't. Not if you translate it literally.
Notice the verb is "bara" - an active verb meaning to create - and not "nivra", the passive form meaning to be created.
Thanks for the detailed commentary. You brought up some interesting points that I wasn't aware of, like the meaning of the verb "bara", etc.. However, that's not what I'm driving at.. what I'm driving at is that (a) the "accurate" translation (at least in Genesis, perhaps not in other parts of the Torah) might perhaps remain "gods" (plural), rather than the singular God, and (b) the significance of a potential flip-flop in the order of the sentence clauses.

My reason for stating this, or at least for asking questions about it, is that I recently stumbled across the Creation Myth from Greek mythology.. Shall I tell you what the opening sentence is (in so many words)? Curiously, it bears an eerie similarity to the Creation Myth in Genesis, except that the subject of the verb "bara" has been flip-flopped..

In the Greek myth, Creation proceeds as follows:

In the beginning, Heaven and Earth created the gods.

.. or, perhaps more accurately, In the beginning, Heaven and Earth created the Titans.

If you keep going, and look at the first 6 Titans who were created, you'll notice an absolutely uncanny resemblence to what the "Elohim" alleged did during the first 6 Days of Creation... food for thought(!) :-D

Well, this ain't the first nor the last thing the Greeks messed up. :lol:

To me, the Titans seem more like the Nephilim than anything else.

[psholtz]

In my Stone Edition Chumash, this is how the first several verses of Genesis are translated into English:

In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth -- when the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep, and the Divine Prescence hovered upon the surface of the waters -- God said, "Let there be light" and there was light...

Two questions:

(1) Do the Hebrew-speakers agree that this is a good translation?
(2) Do you think the "creating" (in verse 1:1) is a good way to translate "bara"? (i.e., to say, in effect, "in the beginning of God's process of creating..", rather than to say "in the beginning, God created ..")

[cap'n queasy]

If I am not mistaken it means to create from nothing.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: If I am not mistaken it means to create from nothing.
Yes, that is my understanding of the verb "bara".. "creatio ex nihilo" in Latin, I suppose.. however, I'm more interested the translation (as printed in my Chumash) that translates "bara Elohim" more as "God's creating" rather than "God created"

[Secondary Oak]

psholtz wrote: In my Stone Edition Chumash, this is how the first several verses of Genesis are translated into English:

In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth -- when the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep, and the Divine Prescence hovered upon the surface of the waters -- God said, "Let there be light" and there was light...

Two questions:

(1) Do the Hebrew-speakers agree that this is a good translation?
(2) Do you think the "creating" (in verse 1:1) is a good way to translate "bara"? (i.e., to say, in effect, "in the beginning of God's process of creating..", rather than to say "in the beginning, God created ..")
Before I comment on the translation itself, the sentence doesn't seem to be grammatically correct in English. You say "God's creating" - that is, you refer to a verb as a noun (clearly seen by the possessive "'s" before it). In that case, you're supposed to use the verbal noun - "creation", not "creating"; the sentence should be "in the beginning of God's creation of the...". But my knowledge of English is extremely limited, correct me if I'm wrong.