Political Crossfire Forums

uzi · Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 998

Secondary Oak wrote: 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.

Look up gerund. The gerund has characteristics of both a verb and a noun.

psholtz? John? What do you say?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22861

uzi wrote: Secondary Oak wrote: 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.

Look up gerund. The gerund has characteristics of both a verb and a noun.

psholtz? John? What do you say?

What are you lumping me in there with psholts's questions?

uzi · Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 998

John wrote: uzi wrote: Secondary Oak wrote: 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.

Look up gerund. The gerund has characteristics of both a verb and a noun.

psholtz? John? What do you say?

What are you lumping me in there with psholts's questions?

I'm not lumping you in with anyone. I'm just asking for your input on a question concerning English grammar which Oak brought up.

I hate grammar and I was never any good at it, but it seems to me that you can definitely say: "God's creating heaven and earth".
I think it's called gerund.

And I have to say I don't like that translation psholtz. What's wrong with the way Duchifas translated it? (i.e.:"At first, God created the heaven and the earth")

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22861

uzi wrote: John wrote: uzi wrote: Secondary Oak wrote: 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.

Look up gerund. The gerund has characteristics of both a verb and a noun.

psholtz? John? What do you say?

What are you lumping me in there with psholts's questions?

I'm not lumping you in with anyone. I'm just asking for your input on a question concerning English grammar which Oak brought up.

I hate grammar and I was never any good at it, but it seems to me that you can definitely say: "God's creating heaven and earth".
I think it's called gerund.

And I have to say I don't like that translation psholtz. What's wrong with the way Duchifas translated it? (i.e.:"At first, God created the heaven and the earth")

I think Duchifas trranslated it correctly.

The NASB agree with Duchifas too..

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

uzi · Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 998

'First'
'Beginning'

See the difference?

Does God have a beginning? Did God suddenly pop into existence?
If he is eternal then there can be no beginning.

BTW I liked what you posted in answer to psholtz concerning God and Satan, I believe there were some Jewish interpretations in there. Way to go. About Pharaoh and Moses I mean. Good stuff.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22861

uzi wrote: 'First'
'Beginning'

See the difference?

Does God have a beginning? Did God suddenly pop into existence?
If he is eternal then there can be no beginning.

BTW I liked what you posted in answer to psholtz concerning God and Satan, I believe there were some Jewish interpretations in there. Way to go. About Pharaoh and Moses I mean. Good stuff.

No, God doesn't have a beginning, but the universe did. Isn't that verse talking about, the universe?

BTW...thanks. :-D

uzi · Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 998

John wrote: uzi wrote: 'First'
'Beginning'

See the difference?

Does God have a beginning? Did God suddenly pop into existence?
If he is eternal then there can be no beginning.

BTW I liked what you posted in answer to psholtz concerning God and Satan, I believe there were some Jewish interpretations in there. Way to go. About Pharaoh and Moses I mean. Good stuff.

No, God doesn't have a beginning, but the universe did. Isn't that verse talking about, the universe?

It's nice that you say that God has no beginning, but we're trying to translate the text, at least that's what psholtz asked us to do, and the word '****' doesn't mean 'in the beginning'. And I'm not exactly sure that the verse is about the universe, it's about the creation. But, whatever, I guess we basically agree on the meaning, the only problem is that the translation is wrong. If we say that the words aren't important we can just change the Hebrew version any time we want, no?

Kind of like the word 'kill' which for some reason is used in the Ten Commandments in some translations. The word 'murder' is the correct translation, you can go and interpret it to mean anything you want, still if we want to be accurate we have to use the word 'murder'. Now people can argue on what is meant by 'murder' but at least then we will all be arguing about the same word.

Also (no longer in reply to John) I'm not sure I agree with some of what people said about 'Elokim' meaning 'gods' literally, or even half literally. I think if 'Elim' was what was meant, it would have been used instead of 'Elokim'.
If there are places where 'Elokim' is meant to mean 'gods' then I would like to see it and it would certainly be interesting, but you will remember that Hebrew has no capital letters, so I think the best translation would be:
El=god
Elim=gods
Elokim=God

But I would have to read up on that. I'm sure that people have a good explanation for the etymology of that word.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22861

Quote: It's nice that you say that God has no beginning, but we're trying to translate the text, at least that's what psholtz asked us to do, and the word '****' doesn't mean 'in the beginning'. And I'm not exactly sure that the verse is about the universe, it's about the creation. But, whatever, I guess we basically agree on the meaning, the only problem is that the translation is wrong. If we say that the words aren't important we can just change the Hebrew version any time we want, no?

I agree with you, but think about it. "At first" and "in the beginning" mean the same thing in this context. But when speaking in English saying "at first" is some-what confusing and grammatically incorrect. If one sticks to a rule of trying to translate English to Hebrew with an exact word for word translation you're going to end up defeating the purpose and have a bad translation. Kind of like if I did a literal translation from the English phrase "I'm hungry" to the Spanish one "Tango hambre" which literally translates to "I have hunger" and when translated literally to Spanish from the English would be "Soy el hambre" or "I am the hunger".

uzi · Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 998

John wrote: Quote: It's nice that you say that God has no beginning, but we're trying to translate the text, at least that's what psholtz asked us to do, and the word '****' doesn't mean 'in the beginning'. And I'm not exactly sure that the verse is about the universe, it's about the creation. But, whatever, I guess we basically agree on the meaning, the only problem is that the translation is wrong. If we say that the words aren't important we can just change the Hebrew version any time we want, no?

I agree with you, but think about it. "At first" and "in the beginning" mean the same thing in this context. But when speaking in English saying "at first" is some-what confusing and grammatically incorrect. If one sticks to a rule of trying to translate English to Hebrew with an exact word for word translation you're going to end up defeating the purpose and have a bad translation. Kind of like if I did a literal translation from the English phrase "I'm hungry" to the Spanish one "Tango hambre" which literally translates to "I have hunger" and when translated literally to Spanish from the English would be "Soy el hambre" or "I am the hunger".

So I would say: First, God created the heaven and the earth...

Forget 'at first'.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

uzi wrote: John wrote: Quote: It's nice that you say that God has no beginning, but we're trying to translate the text, at least that's what psholtz asked us to do, and the word '****' doesn't mean 'in the beginning'. And I'm not exactly sure that the verse is about the universe, it's about the creation. But, whatever, I guess we basically agree on the meaning, the only problem is that the translation is wrong. If we say that the words aren't important we can just change the Hebrew version any time we want, no?

I agree with you, but think about it. "At first" and "in the beginning" mean the same thing in this context. But when speaking in English saying "at first" is some-what confusing and grammatically incorrect. If one sticks to a rule of trying to translate English to Hebrew with an exact word for word translation you're going to end up defeating the purpose and have a bad translation. Kind of like if I did a literal translation from the English phrase "I'm hungry" to the Spanish one "Tango hambre" which literally translates to "I have hunger" and when translated literally to Spanish from the English would be "Soy el hambre" or "I am the hunger".

So I would say: First, God created the heaven and the earth...

Forget 'at first'.
Yeah, but with "beresheith" you still have that preposition "be-", which basically translates as "in", doesn't it?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22861

uzi wrote: John wrote: Quote: It's nice that you say that God has no beginning, but we're trying to translate the text, at least that's what psholtz asked us to do, and the word '****' doesn't mean 'in the beginning'. And I'm not exactly sure that the verse is about the universe, it's about the creation. But, whatever, I guess we basically agree on the meaning, the only problem is that the translation is wrong. If we say that the words aren't important we can just change the Hebrew version any time we want, no?

I agree with you, but think about it. "At first" and "in the beginning" mean the same thing in this context. But when speaking in English saying "at first" is some-what confusing and grammatically incorrect. If one sticks to a rule of trying to translate English to Hebrew with an exact word for word translation you're going to end up defeating the purpose and have a bad translation. Kind of like if I did a literal translation from the English phrase "I'm hungry" to the Spanish one "Tango hambre" which literally translates to "I have hunger" and when translated literally to Spanish from the English would be "Soy el hambre" or "I am the hunger".

So I would say: First, God created the heaven and the earth...

Forget 'at first'.

Doesn't "first" have to happen in the beginning?

I really don't get the argument here.

In English, by saying “in the beginning” it’s just specifying that it was the first first.

uzi · Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 998

John wrote: uzi wrote: John wrote: Quote: It's nice that you say that God has no beginning, but we're trying to translate the text, at least that's what psholtz asked us to do, and the word '****' doesn't mean 'in the beginning'. And I'm not exactly sure that the verse is about the universe, it's about the creation. But, whatever, I guess we basically agree on the meaning, the only problem is that the translation is wrong. If we say that the words aren't important we can just change the Hebrew version any time we want, no?

I agree with you, but think about it. "At first" and "in the beginning" mean the same thing in this context. But when speaking in English saying "at first" is some-what confusing and grammatically incorrect. If one sticks to a rule of trying to translate English to Hebrew with an exact word for word translation you're going to end up defeating the purpose and have a bad translation. Kind of like if I did a literal translation from the English phrase "I'm hungry" to the Spanish one "Tango hambre" which literally translates to "I have hunger" and when translated literally to Spanish from the English would be "Soy el hambre" or "I am the hunger".

So I would say: First, God created the heaven and the earth...

Forget 'at first'.

Doesn't "first" have to happen in the beginning?

I really don't get the argument here.

In English, by saying “in the beginning” it’s just specifying that it was the first first.

Not at all. If I say that the first word you ever uttered was 'mama', would you infer that it was in the beginning of your life, or even that it was the beginning of your ability to utter sound? Not at all. It was your first word, no more no less (and let's not get into an argument on whether 'mama' is really a word o.k.). I would argue that it is not even exactly the same as saying in the beginning of your ability to say words, you said 'mama'... It's close, but it's not the same as saying your first word was 'mama'. The first anything, is not necessarily the same as the beginning. I'm sure you already possessed the ability to say words long before you uttered your first word, so it really has nothing to do with the beginning of anything.

If 'first' and 'beginning' were the same then we wouldn't be having this argument.

psholtz, the word 'sky' in Hebrew is literally 'there-water' (SHAMAYIM), would you like us to translate the bible THAT literally? As in:
'in-first' God created the 'there-water' and the earth...

Perhaps it should even be: in-the-state-of-being-the-head God created...

I would understand a translation of BEMITZRAYIM to "in Egypt", (it means literally "in Egypt" and it maintains the same meaning when translated) that makes sense, but (BE)+(ROSH)+(IT) would be funny as in-the-state-of-being-head. Or even less drasticly: In-first.

When translating from English do you translate the affixes separately from the roots? Like say, happiness? She felt such happy-ness... TRANSLATION: She felt so happy as a state or noun...
No, you look for a word with a similar meaning. I agree that in some languages you would need several words to convey the meaning of a single word, no argument there.

Look, I see why people decided on 'in the beginning', I just don't think it's accurate. Though I should say I merely agree with those who say it is not accurate since I certainly didn't come up with this.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22861

Quote: Not at all. If I say that the first word you ever uttered was 'mama', would you infer that it was in the beginning of your life, or even that it was the beginning of your ability to utter sound? Not at all. It was your first word, no more no less (and let's not get into an argument on whether 'mama' is really a word o.k.). I would argue that it is not even exactly the same as saying in the beginning of your ability to say words, you said 'mama'... It's close, but it's not the same as saying your first word was 'mama'. The first anything, is not necessarily the same as the beginning. I'm sure you already possessed the ability to say words long before you uttered your first word, so it really has nothing to do with the beginning of anything.

Well maybe you need to write the Jewish Publication Society, and ask them why they chose to use the same wording for thier translation.

1:1 IN THE beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen001.htm

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22861

Now the real question is what is THIS "" doing in the middle of that sentence???

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

John wrote: Quote: Not at all. If I say that the first word you ever uttered was 'mama', would you infer that it was in the beginning of your life, or even that it was the beginning of your ability to utter sound? Not at all. It was your first word, no more no less (and let's not get into an argument on whether 'mama' is really a word o.k.). I would argue that it is not even exactly the same as saying in the beginning of your ability to say words, you said 'mama'... It's close, but it's not the same as saying your first word was 'mama'. The first anything, is not necessarily the same as the beginning. I'm sure you already possessed the ability to say words long before you uttered your first word, so it really has nothing to do with the beginning of anything.

Well maybe you need to write the Jewish Publication Society, and ask them why they chose to use the same wording for thier translation.

1:1 IN THE beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen001.htm
The point is, when it's translated the way it is in my Chumash, the manner in which "time" is rendered (in the act of Creation) is substantially different than it is in your traditional English/King James-style translations.

Read again:

In the beginning of G-d'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 -- G-d said, "Let there be light" and there was light...

This is, in fact, quite different than your standard English translation.. It makes verse 1:2 a "parathentical", inbetween the "action" that is occurring in 1:1 ("in the beginning") and 1:3 (the creation of "light").. It's interesting, b/c G-d doesn't really get around to creating the firmament (Heaven) until Day 2, and He doesn't get around to creating dry land underneath the firmament (Earth) until Day 3. The traditional English rendering would that Heaven and Earth were created on Day 1.. this rendering implies that what happened on Day 1 was the "beginning" of the "process" of "creating Heaven and Earth" (and that Heaven and Earth were created, respectively, on Days 2 and 3).

It's interesting, imho..

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

John wrote: Now the real question is what is THIS "" doing in the middle of that sentence???
I imagine you're going to say something like "alef is the first letter, tau is the last letter, and therefore 'et' signifies the Whole of Creation"..

Although, I believe we already settled the question of the "et" on this thread. Per my understanding, it's a purely optional participle in the Hebrew language. Someone correct me if I'm wrong..

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Quote: Perhaps it should even be: in-the-state-of-being-the-head God created...

Oh! :)

As I said above, it is impossible to transport hebrew into english without losing a whole lot of meaning. Rosh, rishon, **** all these subtle meanings are there in that one word.

Quote: Well maybe you need to write the Jewish Publication Society, and ask them why they chose to use the same wording for thier translation.

So that people can actually read whatever they can read in English. ;)Remember, Jews have never been literalists. In the beginning is close enough.......but not as close as the original Hebrew.