Biblical Hebrew Forum

["JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk>]

HH: Most scholars apparently do not think that is the best rendering, 
since major published translations of the Bible do not have "had 
become." It is incongruous with the context which describes things "at 
the beginning." There is no former state to refer to.

JCR: But of course there was a former state. There was no 
heavens or earth prior to their being created. Elohim 
created them [perfective aspect] and as a result they 
became [perfective aspect] formless and waste. I am 
unaware of any natural usage of the English 'was' that 
carries a perfective aspect. English translation of 
this verse has been largely influenced by LXX which 
makes use of the aorist which does correspond completely 
to English usage of 'was' as aorist has a perfective 
aspect while English 'was' doesn't. English 'was' 
describes temporary past states and is by definition 
imperfective in aspect in all its uses.

HH: "Was" also works fine here:

NIV Gen. 4:21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who
play the harp and flute.

NRSV: Gen. 4:21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all
those who play the lyre and pipe.

KJV: Gen. 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of
all such as handle the harp and organ.

JCR: Again, 'Jubal *was* the father...' doesn't make
any sense. Doesn't that imply that he no longer was at
the time of writing. Perfective 'Jubal had
become/became/came to be/ended up the father...' doesn't
have these problems.