another Q about the hebrew language

[Emjesown]

Hello

I know that in greek kainos means new as in brand new
I know that chamash ( spellng?)means re-newes as in the moon re-news every month, but what does NEW mean in hebrew as in hebrews 8 and jeremia 31: 31?

ty

EMJE

[Rose of Shushan]

Emje, the word chadash means new and the word chadesh means renew/renewed.
They are different words and bible scholars recognize this since we have two different strong entries H2318 which is renew /chadesh and H2319 which is new /chadash.

H2318
חדשׁ
châdash
Total KJV Occurrences: 10
renew, 3
1Sa_11:14, Psa_51:10, Lam_5:21
repair, 3
2Ch_24:4, 2Ch_24:12, Isa_61:4
renewed, 2
2Ch_15:8, Psa_103:5
renewest, 2
Job_10:17, Psa_104:30




H2318
חדשׁ
châdash
khaw-dash'
A primitive root; to be new; causatively to rebuild: - renew, repair.

LXX related word(s)
G643 epi skeuazo
G340 ana kainizo



And now the word for new,chadash

H2319
חדשׁ
châdâsh
Total KJV Occurrences: 53
new, 52
Exo_1:8, Lev_23:16, Lev_26:10, Num_28:26, Deu_20:5, Deu_22:8, Deu_24:5, Deu_32:17, Jos_9:13, Jdg_5:8, Jdg_15:13, Jdg_16:11-12 (2), 1Sa_6:7, 2Sa_6:3 (2), 2Sa_21:16, 1Ki_11:29-30 (2), 2Ki_2:20, 1Ch_13:7, 2Ch_20:5, Job_32:19, Psa_40:3 (2), Psa_98:1 (2), Psa_144:9, Psa_149:1, Ecc_1:9-10 (2), Son_7:13, Isa_41:15, Isa_42:9-10 (2), Isa_43:19, Isa_48:6, Isa_62:2, Isa_65:17 (2), Isa_66:22 (2), Jer_26:10, Jer_31:22, Jer_31:31, Jer_36:10, Lam_3:23, Eze_11:19, Eze_18:31 (2), Eze_36:26 (2)
fresh, 1
Job_29:20


H2319
חדשׁ
châdâsh
khaw-dawsh'
From H2318; new: - fresh, new thing.

LXX related word(s)
G2087 heteros
G2537 kainos
G3501 neos
G4372 prosphatos
G4373 prosphatos


Hope this helps

[Emjesown]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


I have a Q about these verses.

Hayah is to become right.
So it really sais became without form.

How did it became without form, does n t God created it all "good"?

EMJE

[Rose of Shushan]

Hi Emje,
The verb haytah in the context of the genesis 1:2 verse has always been translated as " was" in most English texts as well as in the oldest greek manuscripts(LXX). .In recent years it seems to be proponents of the Gap Theory of Creation that have changed ,as it were, the translation to "became".The actual change began with Scolfield who created a bible with notes for evangelical Christians. In his notes he attempted to reconcile beliefs in a long-age theory of the history of the world with the account in Genesis. Scofield annotated the Genesis 1:2 verse to the effect that the word translated was in that verse can also mean became.
However, the meaning of a word is usually determined to a large part by the context and there is nothing in the verse that would warrant haytah being translated as became.
As one example. If we take a look at Genesis 29:17

17 And Leah's eyes were weak; but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.

We see the same verb in the same situation.There is just no justification for making the translation of haytah there be become, other than to make it fit a supposed creation theory. .

[Backpacker]

(02-10-2009 10:04 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Hi Emje,
The verb haytah in the context of the genesis 1:2 verse has always been translated as " was" in most English texts as well as in the oldest greek manuscripts(LXX). .In recent years it seems to be proponents of the Gap Theory of Creation that have changed ,as it were, the translation to "became".The actual change began with Scolfield who created a bible with notes for evangelical Christians. In his notes he attempted to reconcile beliefs in a long-age theory of the history of the world with the account in Genesis. Scofield annotated the Genesis 1:2 verse to the effect that the word translated was in that verse can also mean became.
However, the meaning of a word is usually determined to a large part by the context and there is nothing in the verse that would warrant haytah being translated as became.
As one example. If we take a look at Genesis 29:17

17 And Leah's eyes were weak; but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.

We see the same verb in the same situation.There is just no justification for making the translation of haytah there be become, other than to make it fit a supposed creation theory. .

Actually there is another reason why some translations have "become" instead of "was." Normal English syntax is subject then verb then object (as in "John read a book" where John is the subject, read is the verb, and book is the object). But in normal Hebrew syntax it is verb-subject -object (as in "read John book"). There are some cases in the Hebrew where the syntax is subject-verb-object and most Hebrew scholars [ie: Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, page 235] recognize this as the pluperfect (also called "past perfect") tense of the verb. An example of this can be found Genesis 31:25. The Hebrew literally reads:

and overtook (verb) Laban (subject) Jacob (object)
and Jacob (subject) pitched (verb) his tent (object)

Notice that in the first line the syntax is verb-subject-object, the normal order and should be translated as "and Laban overtook Jacob." But in the second line the order is subject-verb-object and for this reason this phrase is translated in most translations (including the KJV) in the pluperfect - and Jacob HAD pitched his tent.

In Genesis 1:2 the order is subject-verb-object, the pluperfect tense. Since "the earth had was without form" does not make any sense in English, some translators choose "the earth had become without form."

I'm not saying I exactly agree with this translation, but it is an attempt to remain faithful to the Hebrew pluperfect tense.

In Gen 29:17 the verb hayah only appears once. The Hebrew texts says (literally); and eyes Leah weak and Rachel was (haytah) beautiful figure and beautiful appearance.

Jacob

[sheep wrecked]

(12-29-2010 02:03 AM)Backpacker Wrote:  

(02-10-2009 10:04 AM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:  Hi Emje,
The verb haytah in the context of the genesis 1:2 verse has always been translated as " was" in most English texts as well as in the oldest greek manuscripts(LXX). .In recent years it seems to be proponents of the Gap Theory of Creation that have changed ,as it were, the translation to "became".The actual change began with Scolfield who created a bible with notes for evangelical Christians. In his notes he attempted to reconcile beliefs in a long-age theory of the history of the world with the account in Genesis. Scofield annotated the Genesis 1:2 verse to the effect that the word translated was in that verse can also mean became.
However, the meaning of a word is usually determined to a large part by the context and there is nothing in the verse that would warrant haytah being translated as became.
As one example. If we take a look at Genesis 29:17

17 And Leah's eyes were weak; but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.

We see the same verb in the same situation.There is just no justification for making the translation of haytah there be become, other than to make it fit a supposed creation theory. .

Actually there is another reason why some translations have "become" instead of "was." Normal English syntax is subject then verb then object (as in "John read a book" where John is the subject, read is the verb, and book is the object). But in normal Hebrew syntax it is verb-subject -object (as in "read John book"). There are some cases in the Hebrew where the syntax is subject-verb-object and most Hebrew scholars [ie: Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, page 235] recognize this as the pluperfect (also called "past perfect") tense of the verb. An example of this can be found Genesis 31:25. The Hebrew literally reads:

and overtook (verb) Laban (subject) Jacob (object)
and Jacob (subject) pitched (verb) his tent (object)

Notice that in the first line the syntax is verb-subject-object, the normal order and should be translated as "and Laban overtook Jacob." But in the second line the order is subject-verb-object and for this reason this phrase is translated in most translations (including the KJV) in the pluperfect - and Jacob HAD pitched his tent.

In Genesis 1:2 the order is subject-verb-object, the pluperfect tense. Since "the earth had was without form" does not make any sense in English, some translators choose "the earth had become without form."

I'm not saying I exactly agree with this translation, but it is an attempt to remain faithful to the Hebrew pluperfect tense.

In Gen 29:17 the verb hayah only appears once. The Hebrew texts says (literally); and eyes Leah weak and Rachel was (haytah) beautiful figure and beautiful appearance.

Jacob

Hi Jacob - thanx for the information. However; I am not quite following you. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, page 235 does not discuss the pluperfect tense. Perhaps you are referencing the wrong the page? Does Gesenius specifically discuss Gen 1:2 and if so, do you know the page? I would like to read it in context. Thanx!

As Hebrew is contextually translated, it makes perfect sense that Gen 1:2 reads "and the earth was without form". Based on verse one, we know God created the earth, verse two says the earth was without form, without formations and separations - it was "wasteland". It existed as field of water, unformed by mountains, continents and earth from sky - it was without form.

KJV
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The KJV scholars that translated were well known scholars. I think if you would ask a Hebrew speaking Israeli/Jew you would find them in agreement with "was".

From two different Jewish websites [Mechon-Mamre & Chabad.org] with the Hebrew and English translation, side by side:

Quote:Gen 1:2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

Quote:Judaica Press

Gen 1:2 Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165

So my question is, who are the "some translators" who use "become" instead of "was"? I went through my entire list of versions and translations [about 75] and the only one that does not use "was" is the ISR [this "translation" is spurious and "translated" by a non-Hebrew scholar].

ISR
Gen 1:2 And the earth came to be1 formless and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim was moving on the face of the waters. Footnote: 1Or the earth became.

[Backpacker]

(12-29-2010 05:13 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  Hi Jacob - thanx for the information. However; I am not quite following you. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, page 235 does not discuss the pluperfect tense. Perhaps you are referencing the wrong the page? Does Gesenius specifically discuss Gen 1:2 and if so, do you know the page? I would like to read it in context. Thanx!

As Hebrew is contextually translated, it makes perfect sense that Gen 1:2 reads "and the earth was without form". Based on verse one, we know God created the earth, verse two says the earth was without form, without formations and separations - it was "wasteland". It existed as field of water, unformed by mountains, continents and earth from sky - it was without form.

KJV
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The KJV scholars that translated were well known scholars. I think if you would ask a Hebrew speaking Israeli/Jew you would find them in agreement with "was".

From two different Jewish websites [Mechon-Mamre & Chabad.org] with the Hebrew and English translation, side by side:

Quote:Gen 1:2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

Quote:Judaica Press

Gen 1:2 Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165

So my question is, who are the "some translators" who use "become" instead of "was"? I went through my entire list of versions and translations [about 75] and the only one that does not use "was" is the ISR [this "translation" is spurious and "translated" by a non-Hebrew scholar].

ISR
Gen 1:2 And the earth came to be1 formless and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim was moving on the face of the waters. Footnote: 1Or the earth became.

Gesenius does not specifically use Gen 1:2 as an example, it uses other examples in the text to show that when the subject precedes the verb it is the pluperfect. Also note that I am not defending the translation "became empty," instead I am just providing a logical grammatical explanation for why they do it. I did ask a native Israeli about this verse and they agreed that it was a valid translation based on the pluperfect usage. I like the Chabad translation, and personally I agree with their translation of this verse. As for the Mechon Mamre site the English is the JPS which even Jews admit is a reworking of the KJV .

I did have the page number wrong, my bad . This an 1874 edition of Gesenius Hebrew Grammar.

For the pluperfect, e.g. Gen 2:2 מלאכתו אשר עשה his work which he had done. (page 274)

For those relative tenses, in which the past is the principle idea... as in Is 1:9 כסדם היינו לעמרה דמימו as Sodom were we, to Gomorrah were we like; - for the pluperfect Subjunctive, Is 1:9 לולי הותיר if he had not left, Num 14:2 לו מתנו if we had died! (page 275)

I am not really sure if any accepted translation uses "became," but I have heard many people use it in their discussions. Again, I am not saying I agree with it, just that there is a grammatical reason for it.

[sheep wrecked]

(12-29-2010 07:48 PM)Backpacker Wrote:  Gesenius does not specifically use Gen 1:2 as an example, it uses other examples in the text to show that when the subject precedes the verb it is the pluperfect. Also note that I am not defending the translation "became empty," instead I am just providing a logical grammatical explanation for why they do it. I did ask a native Israeli about this verse and they agreed that it was a valid translation based on the pluperfect usage. I like the Chabad translation, and personally I agree with their translation of this verse. As for the Mechon Mamre site the English is the JPS which even Jews admit is a reworking of the KJV .

I did have the page number wrong, my bad . This an 1874 edition of Gesenius Hebrew Grammar.

For the pluperfect, e.g. Gen 2:2 מלאכתו אשר עשה his work which he had done. (page 274)

For those relative tenses, in which the past is the principle idea... as in Is 1:9 כסדם היינו לעמרה דמימו as Sodom were we, to Gomorrah were we like; - for the pluperfect Subjunctive, Is 1:9 לולי הותיר if he had not left, Num 14:2 לו מתנו if we had died! (page 275)

I am not really sure if any accepted translation uses "became," but I have heard many people use it in their discussions. Again, I am not saying I agree with it, just that there is a grammatical reason for it.

Forgive me for being argumentative, but I don't see why you brought Gesenius into the whole grammar issue, when he never suggested the Gen1:2 "became". I am not following the argument from that perspective, regardless of the pluperfect subjunctive.

As we agreed, Hebrew is translated contextually, not always grammatically according to the "rules". That is just one of the major problems Jeff Benner deals with as we experienced on this forum and paltalk. As a self taught "scholar", he wants to assign a perfect rendering to a single word to mean the exact same thing in each and every usage. That is just plain awful translating and not even reasonable or grammatical. It butchers the text, to be honest, and changes the intended meaning. Schofield used "became" to change the meaning of the text, based on his theological bent. It had nothing to do with "grammar". He was no Hebrew scholar either.

Maybe I am just too technical, but if there is a grammatical reason for it, then why does no one translate it that way? Do you see my dilemma?

[Backpacker]

(12-29-2010 08:15 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  Forgive me for being argumentative, but I don't see why you brought Gesenius into the whole grammar issue, when he never suggested the Gen1:2 "became". I am not following the argument from that perspective, regardless of the pluperfect subjunctive.

As we agreed, Hebrew is translated contextually, not always grammatically according to the "rules". That is just one of the major problems Jeff Benner deals with as we experienced on this forum and paltalk. As a self taught "scholar", he wants to assign a perfect rendering to a single word to mean the exact same thing in each and every usage. That is just plain awful translating and not even reasonable or grammatical. It butchers the text, to be honest, and changes the intended meaning. Schofield used "became" to change the meaning of the text, based on his theological bent. It had nothing to do with "grammar". He was no Hebrew scholar either.

Maybe I am just too technical, but if there is a grammatical reason for it, then why does no one translate it that way? Do you see my dilemma?

I don't think you are being argumentative at all, it appears you simply trying to understand my post, which I evidently have not conveyed adequately. I brought up Gesenius simply because he introduces the concept of the Pluperfect and he is universally recognized as one of the premier Hebraists by Jews and Christians. Let me explain the pluperfect this way.

If I want to convey past tense in English I say "John read a book." The syntax I use is subject-verb-object. If I want to convey the pluperfect (or past perfect) tense, I use the same syntax but add the word "had" - "John had read a book." In Biblical Hebrew the past tense is written as קרא יוחנן ספר (qara yochanan sepher / read john book). The syntax is verb-subject-object and would be translated into English as "John read a book". But if want to convey the pluperfect I change the syntax to יוחנן קרא ספר (yochanan qara sepher / john read book) and this would be translated as "John had read a book."

All that I was pointing out is that in Genesis 2:1 the syntax follows the pluperfect format subject-verb-object. That's it.

I agree that there are many out there, and I have run across a few of them myself, who translate the text according to what they want it to say. I am not familiar with Jeff Benner or Schofield's work so I can't have a comment on how they translate the text.