It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SarMegahhikkitha
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: SarMegahhikkitha
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
I'm not writing for your benefit, I'm writing for the benefit of others who don't know better, since I know you have no intention of actually reading what I write. If you think the example with "lighten" and "brighten" is absurd, then congratulations, you've just called your own claim absurd. Both claims are: a plural ending that had ceased to be productive in the author's time can be applied randomly. In my case, it's the /n/ plural being applied to "light", in your case, it's the dual plural being applied to "shem" (after THE DUAL CEASED TO BE PRODUCTIVE BY THE TIME OF BIBLICAL HEBREW). That means Moses couldn't just add "-ayim" to words randomly; only a limited number of words retained their ancient dual forms in his time. "Shem" is not one of them. Showing me other words that retained dual forms does not address my claim. Showing me that "shem" is masculine does not address my claim; so are avot, shulhanot, yeraqot, and halonot, yet do they all have dual forms? Gender had nothing to do with the reason "oxen" and "children" retained their /n/ plurals.
The only thing you can do to counter my claim is prove the usage of the dual form of "shem" in Biblical/Mishnaic Hebrew or prove that the dual form continued to be a productive category in Biblical Hebrew.
Oh dear. You keep rambling on claiming verbs can be plural in English, there never were, there sure aren't such a thing now, and I honestly doubt there will ever be plural verbs in any language. Read what you write for heaven's sake. It's like saying the genitive -s suffix in English is or once was (historical anachronism) the plural -s suffix. You are WRONG. And as for there not being any dual nouns in Biblical Hebrew. Hah bloody hah. Like I have shown there is one in the first verse of Genesis.
There are several nouns in Biblical Hebrew that takes the dual form. The nouns /mayim/ (waters/floods) and /shemayim/ (heavens, skies, alt. names) are two such. And here you have 28 occurences of /enayim/ dual of /ayin/ means (pair of) eye(s):
==> biblehub.com...
I could list a bunch of others, but I don't like to feed trolls, so shu! Your opinion may have been made popular, but there should be no doubt that hehe, the Hebrew biblical texts contain quite a few examples of the dual form.
Strong's Hebrew:
H3767 /kera/ «legs», has dual
H3610 /kilayim/ «kinds», is dual (of H3608 /kele/ «seperation»)
H7620 /shabua/ «weeks», has dual
H3608 /kele/ «prison», has dual
These are four more nouns taking the dual form. So again: You are utterly dead wrong! Your assertion may be popular at the moment, but the fallacy is so obvious. There are plenty examples of dual forms of nouns in the bible.
>The fallacy is so obvious
Yeah, it's called "straw man". It's when someone clearly states their arguments (i.e. "/n/ pluralization like 'oxen' and 'children' can't be applied randomly to /s/ plurals like 'lights' to form 'lighten', just like dual plurals in Biblical Hebrew only existed for a limited subset of nouns and can't be applied randomly") and you go off on a tangent pretending they said something else entirely. I very clearly wrote "a limited number of words retained their ancient dual forms in Moses' time" and you went on to disprove something I never claimed, that the dual form doesn't exist. I have very clearly claimed, again and again, that it CEASED TO BE PRODUCTIVE (i.e. could no longer be applied randomly).
This would really blow your mind if you had basic reading ability: Dual plurals in Biblical Hebrew were so much an artifact of ancient Hebrew, that for many nouns the dual form is simply their standard plural form, and doesn't connote 2, and the Bible has undeniable examples of this.
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66
And it was a Void. Look up void.
And the earth was without form, and void;
1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.
1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66
And it was a Void. Look up void.
No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:
And the earth was without form, and void;
void: www.thefreedictionary.com...
1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.
1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66
And it was a Void. Look up void.
No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:
And the earth was without form, and void;
void: www.thefreedictionary.com...
1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.
1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.
Look up void. It means nothningness. It's an adjective. Describing the formless matter that was the Eretz. Eretz means land, not planet. In this contrext, the land had no soil and was unfit for agriculture.
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66
And it was a Void. Look up void.
No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:
And the earth was without form, and void;
void: www.thefreedictionary.com...
1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.
1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.
Look up void. It means nothningness. It's an adjective. Describing the formless matter that was the Eretz. Eretz means land, not planet. In this contrext, the land had no soil and was unfit for agriculture.
Yes, and it also means a empty Space and vacuum. It fits a lot better.
I chose to think that i am right and you are wrong.
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66
And it was a Void. Look up void.
No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:
And the earth was without form, and void;
void: www.thefreedictionary.com...
1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.
1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.
Look up void. It means nothningness. It's an adjective. Describing the formless matter that was the Eretz. Eretz means land, not planet. In this contrext, the land had no soil and was unfit for agriculture.
Yes, and it also means a empty Space and vacuum. It fits a lot better.
I chose to think that i am right and you are wrong.
Void used in Genesis 1:2 is an adjective, not a noun, so it can't mean vacuum as you say. Formless and void means that the land (eretz) was fruitless and unfit for food production. A wasteland.
Text What did God create when he said: Let there be light?
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66
And it was a Void. Look up void.
No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:
And the earth was without form, and void;
void: www.thefreedictionary.com...
1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.
1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.
Look up void. It means nothningness. It's an adjective. Describing the formless matter that was the Eretz. Eretz means land, not planet. In this contrext, the land had no soil and was unfit for agriculture.
Yes, and it also means a empty Space and vacuum. It fits a lot better.
I chose to think that i am right and you are wrong.
Void used in Genesis 1:2 is an adjective, not a noun, so it can't mean vacuum as you say. Formless and void means that the land (eretz) was fruitless and unfit for food production. A wasteland.
What did God create when he said: Let there be light?
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Seede
KJV is Satan's translation:
==> KJV: And I stood upon the sand of the sea
==> ESV: The dragon stood on the shore of the sea.
KJV is te Bible of Satan
There should be no doubt about it.
The creator God rested on the seventh day as stated in Genesis Chapter 2 verse 2.
Lord God is the imposter who took credit for Gods creation. And then implemeted his own in Chapter two and so forth.
Lord God even goes as far as to state that he "made" the Earth and the Heavens. The order this is stated in is not even alined With Genesisi Chapter 1: In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.
- Why would God the creator,.....create more then one heaven?
The once who think that the City, New Jerusalem is some sort of heaven should think twice about that, by Reading what is stated in Revelations Chapter 22. verse 2. You should be able to understand that the Bride. New Jerusalem is actually Lord Gods Garden of Eden.
- Lord God planted a garden eastwards in Eden. There he put the tree of life. Now what is located in the streets of New Jerusalem? Read Revelation Chapter 22 verse 2.
- An other Clue is that Lord God created the beast...the serpent. Where is the serpent still located? Yeah, it is still located in the garden of Eden. The serpent was never cast out by Lord God.
- There are more Clues in Revelations that the City, New Jerusalem is Lord Gods heaven (hell). The verse in Reevelation Chapter 22. verse 4. Actually hints you to what is mentioned in Revelations 13, verse 16. If this dosent bring up some serious thought i dont know how.....