We know that some Hebrew words in Genesis 1:1 are in contraction. Could anyone give me the non-contraction form of the verse (i.e. all the Hebrew words are fully spelled out)? Thanks.
If you are referring to the pointing/vowels then the interlinear view should give you what you want:
Could anyone give me the non-contraction form of the verse (i.e. all the Hebrew words are fully spelled out)?
LHI => Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible (LHI) can show Hebrew Manuscript with Lemma(s)
LHDB => Lexham Discourse Bible (8 vols.) also can show Hebrew Manuscript with Lemma(s)
Keep Smiling [:)]
What was answered is not what I want. Sorry. There are 2 websites mentioned about the contraction in Genesis 1:1, as
(1) Mark Hines in his site palmoni.net/gematria.htm says about Genesis 1:1, as: “30. Because of contractions in Hebrew (similar to the English isn't), the vocabulary of Gen. 1:1 is larger than the seven words of the verse. The nine-word vocabulary of Gen. 1:1 has a numeric value of 2275 (7 × 325).”
(2) John Elias in his site “First Verse Code.” sites.google.com/site/themathematicalstandard/first-verse-code says about Genesis 1:1, as: “The letters of the verse spelled out in full is a larger Triangle. Letters = 78”
Therefore, I would like to have the fully spelled out verse. Thanks.
Hi Theo,
I'm afraid you will not get what you want. The other commenters have shown you how to see exactly what is there in the Hebrew text.
1. MJ showed how to display the vowels. English contractions such as the example you noted (isn't) tend to miss out vowels. The Hebrew text was originally consonantal so I guess you could say the text was 'contracted' from that perspective.
2. KS4J showed how to display the lemmas, which in this case is the Hebrew nouns separated from their prefixes which in English translate as 'in', 'the,' 'and.' This would have indicated any contractions in the prefixes.
There are no 'contractions' in the prefixes. In certain circumstances a Hebrew preposition translated 'with' contracts, losing one of its consonants and attaching to the following word but that preopsition is not present here. This verse does not contain any contractions. Mark Hines' movement from 7 words to 9 words is reached by separating the prefixes from the nouns and eliminating the 2 duplicate words in the verse (notice there are 11 separate 'words' in the versions displaying the lemmas above). His use of the English word 'isn't' to explain what he means by contraction is very misleading. Though I know nothing about him, from this page seems to me that he is neither a student of Hebrew grammar nor of English grammar.
Finally, 'by-path meadow' comes to mind when I looked at those websites. They will not help you to grow in grace or in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Colin.
Thanks for the comment. But I think Mark Hines’ intention is to give a rough illustration of what contraction means (note he said “similar to”). He does not detail vowels, consonants, or other things. Thus, we cannot say his English grammar is bad.
I have gone through a lot of Hebrew and grammars (5 years of graduate semitics.) I'm not familiar with the term "contractions" as it applies to Hebrew, and there is not, in my view, a Hebrew equivalent of "isn't."
I looked at one of the sites (I don't put any stock at all in gematria myself), but is this referring to plene and defective spelling? That is, you could theoretically write elohim as 'lhym, 'lwhym, 'lwhm, 'lwhym, the latter being the "fullest" spelling and 'lhm being the most "defective."
Theo, I think both sites you are referring to are dangerous for your growth in Christ as this way of reading the Hebrew text is not practised in the Hebrew Bible itself (intertextually) nor can I find an illustration of this way of reading in the New Testament.
Hans
Well, you have to admit, it's interesting. And the idea is found thru-out much of written religious texts, to demonstrate a divine source. People associated math, angles, etc with the gods. Certainly the stars (gods). Plus, if you were a copyist, and your word count was off you were in serious trouble. Word counts were tools. And indeed in the NT, the justification for 4 gospels .... well, gee, the number 4 of course. 4-square. Sound familiar? Name that early church leader.
1. MJ showed how to display the vowels. English contractions such as the example you noted (isn't) tend to miss out vowels. The Hebrew text was originally consonantal so I guess you could say the text was 'contracted' from that perspective. 2. KS4J showed how to display the lemmas, which in this case is the Hebrew nouns separated from their prefixes which in English translate as 'in', 'the,' 'and.' This would have indicated any contractions in the prefixes.
Searching a collection of Hebrew grammar resources for contraction included results in => Basics of Biblical Hebrew (3 vols.) that mentions vowel contraction (Chapter 5) and definite article disappearing when combined with preposition (Chapter 6). Searching Hebrew grammar collection for gematria found a description about numerical values assigned to letters.
Search results for contraction are sorted by Count. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English Edition had 106 results in 50 articles (most in my library).
Ben gives a wonderful saying:
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.- G.K. Chesterton [emphasis mine]
About gematria, Howard Marshall uses it (Marshall, Travis and Paul, Revelation, 340–341). But the firmest evidence comes from the low probability in matches (coincidence) mentioned in those “dangerous” websites (also see www.whatabeginning.com/book.pdf). This low probability in matches comes near certainty, or at least much reliable than the usual non-gematria exegesis.
I don’t mean that they have no mistakes. Neither do I negate the usual non-gematria exegesis. But, especially when these sites are mainly for proving God’s existence and the reliability of our Bible to the unbelievers, not mainly for interpreting the content of the Bible, and there is so low probability, why should we call them "dangerous"?
Being an interpreter and preacher of the Bible, I always remind myself that I should be careful in judging others and that I will be before the judging Lord one day.
Let me give an example of low probability. In http://www.whatabeginning.com/book.pdf Vernon Jenkins, MSc uses gematria and his specialty of mathematical calculation to show the wonderful INTERNAL construction of each verse of Gen 1:1 (creation); Gen 8:14 (re-creation); John 1:1 (creation); and Rev 21:1 (new creation), plus Jesus Christ’s name. And then he combines all those data together as EXTERNAL inter-combination, resulting in perfect mathematical harmony. This is low probability, for—
(1) The process traverses OT and NT.(2) It spans very long time, BC and AD.(3) It straddles Greek and Hebrew languages, which are vastly different stocks.(4) Unlike in Chinese language each word is constant no matter in which sentence, this is not that simple in Hebrew and Greek.(5) Hebrew gematria happened long after God inspired the aforementioned OT verses, and thus excluding pre-contriving.
How do i search by gematria patterns into Logos ? I mean how do i search for and specific hebrew word of phrase related to a certain number ? Thanks
I have gone through a lot of Hebrew and grammars (5 years of graduate semitics.) I'm not familiar with the term "contractions" as it applies to Hebrew, and there is not, in my view, a Hebrew equivalent of "isn't." I looked at one of the sites (I don't put any stock at all in gematria myself), but is this referring to plene and defective spelling? That is, you could theoretically write elohim as 'lhym, 'lwhym, 'lwhm, 'lwhym, the latter being the "fullest" spelling and 'lhm being the most "defective."
In any language I've studied there are usually multiple ways of saying something - some longer, some shorter. Genesis 1:1 could have been written differently. The argument here seems to be that if the verse had been written differently, you could then apply numerical values and potentially draw certain conclusions. For me, the issue that hangs me up is the first step - if the verse had been written differently.
