HH: I apologize, then, but it seemed a good comment to me because people were pushing other, worse ideas. This comment generally seems to represent the proper interpretation of the verb in the verse. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule given about the verb with a following lamed preposition, but the norm has some value for analyzing the verb in Gen 1:2. The initial disjunctive wav in Gen 1:2 with the fronted noun suggests a circumstantial clause, as someone else has mentioned. Circumstantial clauses give background information, another fact favoring a copulative force for the verb.Harold, this is the very same quote that was brought up earlier by Schmuel,Can the word "was" in the verse "Now the earth was unformed and void" be translatedHH: That's a good comment.
"became"?
This is one response from a Hebrew Scholar:
When the word hayah refers to a change in state, then it takes a le-before the noun;
here we have no le- so this is a report of a state that was, not that became something
from something else. At this stage in the Creation story, we are just getting the
first reports on the initial state of chaos (an early mix of time/space/energy/matter),
which only later "became" something else more ordered.
and your reply was the opposite. Without controversy, when le- prefixes
haya, it means "to become", but this "scholar" is saying that haya ONLY
means "became" when prefixed by le-. Without controversy, as you already
illustrated, haya also can mean "became" without having the le- prefix.
Examples are numerous, just search for "become" or "became" in the OT, and
it usually is a translation of haya without a le- prefix. i.e. Gen 3:22;
32:10; 2:10.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.