Gen. 1:27

In Gen. 1:27, the first "created" is imperfect in Hebrew and the second "created" is perfect. My question is, why is the imperfect verb translated "created" (past tense) if it is imperfect? Is there a grammatical reason? Nearly all English Bibles translate as "created", but I'm thinking it is for reasons other than strict translation.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Fred Chapman

imperfect — The prefixed conjugation in Hebrew. The prefixed conjugation denotes the imperfective aspect of the verb. That is, it views the action of the verb from the "inside" or from the perspective of the action’s unfolding. This imperfective aspect can speak of (depending on context) habitual actions, actions in progress, or even completed actions that have unfolding, ongoing results. The term "imperfective" does not refer to tense, though. Biblical Hebrew does not have tense like English or Greek (time of action is conveyed by context). "Imperfective" refers to the kind of action being described, not the time of the action. An action can be viewed in process in the past ("was walking"), the present ("is walking"), or even the future ("will be walking"). When the context dictates, the prefixed conjugation also conveys the indicative mood, the mood of reality. This conjugation is often referred to as the yiqtol conjugation.
Heiser, Michael S. Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Logos Bible Software, 2005; 2005.

perfect — The suffixed conjugation in Hebrew. The suffixed conjugation denotes the perfective aspect of the verb. That is, it views the action of the verb from an "outer" perspective, the perspective of seeing or thinking of the action of the verb as a whole and complete, without respect to the time of the action. The perfect conjugation conveys the totality of an action without dividing up its chronological processes. The Hebrew Perfect, then, is not a tense, a grammatical term that speaks of the time of the verb’s action (past, present, future, etc.). Biblical Hebrew does not have tense like English or Greek (time of action is conveyed by context). Perfective aspect refers to a kind of action, not the time of the action. An action in Hebrew may be viewed or conceived as entire even if that action has not yet taken place. When the context dictates, the suffix conjugation also conveys the indicative mood, the mood of reality. This conjugation is often referred to as the qatal conjugation.

Heiser, Michael S. Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Logos Bible Software, 2005; 2005.

1:27 "God created" There is a threefold use (Qal IMPERFECT followed by two Qal PERFECTS) of the term bara (BDB 127) in this verse, which functions as a summary statement as well as an emphasis on God’s creation of humanity as male and female. This is printed as poetry in NRSV, NJB and acknowledged so in NIV footnote. The term bara is only used in the OT for God’s creating.

Utley, Robert James Dr. Vol. Vol. 1A, How It All Began: Genesis 1-11. Study Guide Commentary Series. Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International, 2001.

Matthew C Jones

Nearly all English Bibles translate as "created", but I'm thinking it is for reasons other than strict translation.

I will happily abstain from the theological implications of what it means to be translated one way or the other.

I will point out that some Bible students hold the text to be of divine authorship and the original is written that way by God for a purpose. While other Bible students hold that the text is nothing more than a fabrication of men. If the later is the case, it is probably a "boo-boo." If the former is the case, the Author probably said what He meant & meant what He said.

As for why English translators change what the original said; Don't go there. I got in hot water for questioning their motives. [;)]

If I can ever figure out the difference in meaning between the terms "Bible student" and "Bible Scholar" I will probably get along fine in this world.

Soapbox closed for the day.[:#]

MJ. Smith

To supplement what Fred said, note the use of the imperfect in English does not have a one-to-one relationship with the use of the imperfect in Hebrew. From Wikipedia:

"The imperfect, often inaccurately called the imperfect tense in the classical grammars of several Indo-European languages, denotes a grammatical combination of past tense and imperfective aspect, and so may be more precisely called past imperfective. In English, the term refers a form of the verb that combines past tense
with similar aspects, such as incomplete, continuous, habitual, or
coincident with another action."

Unfortunately, I don't know how to create a morphological search that would tell be how often a Hebrew imperfect is translated as an English simple past ... but that would certainly be a fun feature. (hint, hint) [:D]

Your question doesn't appear to be addressed by the commentaries in my library.

Niko

Wayyiqtol / consecutive imperfect is not the same as regular imperfect.

David Paul

For clarity's sake, I understand that there is not an equivalence between Hebrew perfect and English past.

The purpose of what I said was that Hebrew imperfect, as far as I know, DOESN'T translate as English past...and yet in this verse it is so translated in nearly every English version. As ST hinted at, the implications of this issue, if they go in the direction it seems to be moving, are massively profound from a theological perspective.

Niko may be able to provide the explanation I am seeking that settles things where they currently reside, but saying only

Wayyiqtol / consecutive imperfect is not the same as regular imperfect.

doesn't really provide a satisfactory explanation. Maybe Vincent can weigh in on this?

Btw, Fred, I appreciate your quote from Utley. It at least speaks to the existence of this issue, though it doesn't really address its meaning and implications.

Ruminator

"Created" is a bogus word. Nothing is "created", only "made" or "formed" (in scripture). In philosophy, yes, but in scripture no.

If you replace "created" (which suggests instant fiat) with "made" you can simply use the imperfect: "the god was forming man into a statue of himself.."

He was clearly *sculpting*. He bent his knee (god is a manlike deity who lives in the sky), not uttering commands from the sky.

The "original languages" rarely resolve problems, they just seem to introduce new ones (in the hands of most).

Josh

"Created" is a bogus word. Nothing is "created", only "made" or "formed" (in scripture). In philosophy, yes, but in scripture no.

If you replace "created" (which suggests instant fiat) with "made" you can simply use the imperfect: "the god was forming man into a statue of himself.."

He was clearly *sculpting*. He bent his knee (god is a manlike deity who lives in the sky), not uttering commands from the sky.

The "original languages" rarely resolve problems, they just seem to introduce new ones (in the hands of most).

I have always had a philosophical issue with the idea of fiat creation. Please point out where my thinking is flawed. In my mind, true "absolute nothingness" and "non-existence" are the same thing. However, since God is omnipresent and eternal - there has always been existence. Therefore, non-existence (or absolute nothingness) is a non-reality. There has never been "nothing". How can God create from nothing if there is no such thing as nothing?

David Paul

"Created" is a bogus word. Nothing is "created", only "made" or "formed" (in scripture). In philosophy, yes, but in scripture no.

If you replace "created" (which suggests instant fiat) with "made" you can simply use the imperfect: "the god was forming man into a statue of himself.."

He was clearly *sculpting*. He bent his knee (god is a manlike deity who lives in the sky), not uttering commands from the sky.

The "original languages" rarely resolve problems, they just seem to introduce new ones (in the hands of most).

There has never been "nothing". How can God create from nothing if there is no such thing as nothing?

I like your thinking! Question the status quo...it is ALWAYS wrong.

MJ. Smith

There has never been "nothing". How can God create from nothing if there is no such thing as nothing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

The wikipedia article gives you the 3 major alternatives:

creatio ex nihilo
creatio ex deo
creatio ex materia

You will see your particular logic path is not uncommon.

Ruminator

The scriptural term, though (if we accept "Peter" as scripture) is a different term altogether:

Matthew C Jones

disclaimer: I offer very little from scripture to support this post. I am offering it as a philosophical statement. I do not recommend basing one's theology on philosophy.

Please point out where my thinking is flawed. In my mind,

Not only is that outside of the purpose of the forum [:D], it is impossible "in your mind" If you can not comprehend it, you can not entertain even the possibility, much less the feasibility. I won't try the impossible.

However, since God is omnipresent and eternal - there has always been existence. Therefore, non-existence (or absolute nothingness) is a non-reality.

You are now talking about the attributes of God. There is a big disconnect between stating the attributes of the artist and the attributes of the artwork. God frequently uses physical props to accomplish his works but is in no way limited by the laws of Physics that you and I are under.

One of my favorites is Moses versus Pharaoh's magicians. Moses casts down the "rod of God" (a prop) and it turns into a serpent (a miracle outside the laws of nature.) Quite impressive! But the magicians can apparently reproduce (at least in appearance) this "miracle." The trump card is played when God's serpent swallows up the magicians serpents, and they are no more. Show is over, Moses takes up the rod of God and leaves. The magicians are standing around without their magic sticks. Their's have gone into the "nothingness" that truly exists, outside of our existence. I can sit and wonder how the magicians pulled off the miracle of changing their sticks into serpents, or I can marvel and rejoice that my God is sovereign over all. It isn't difficult to comprehend that kind of a god creating something out of nothing.

Silver Hawk

disclaimer: I offer very little from scripture to support this post. I am offering it as a philosophical statement. I do not recommend basing one's theology on philosophy.

Please point out where my thinking is flawed. In my mind,

Not only is that outside of the purpose of the forum , it is impossible "in your mind" If you can not comprehend it, you can not entertain even the possibility, much less the feasibility. I won't try the impossible.

However, since God is omnipresent and eternal - there has always been existence. Therefore, non-existence (or absolute nothingness) is a non-reality.
You are now talking about the attributes of God. There is a big disconnect between stating the attributes of the artist and the attributes of the artwork. God frequently uses physical props to accomplish his works but is in no way limited by the laws of Physics that you and I are under.
One of my favorites is Moses versus Pharaoh's magicians. Moses casts down the "rod of God" (a prop) and it turns into a serpent (a miracle outside the laws of nature.) Quite impressive! But the magicians can apparently reproduce (at least in appearance) this "miracle." The trump card is played when God's serpent swallows up the magicians serpents, and they are no more. Show is over, Moses takes up the rod of God and leaves. The magicians are standing around without their magic sticks. Their's have gone into the "nothingness" that truly exists, outside of our existence. I can sit and wonder how the magicians pulled off the miracle of changing their sticks into serpents, or I can marvel and rejoice that my God is sovereign over all. It isn't difficult to comprehend that kind of a god creating something out of nothing.

Cool, I get it now. All we have to do is dub our rant a philosophical statement, then it is no longer outside the guidelines. Outstanding !

Josh

One of my favorites is Moses versus Pharaoh's magicians. Moses casts down the "rod of God" (a prop) and it turns into a serpent (a miracle outside the laws of nature.) Quite impressive! But the magicians can apparently reproduce (at least in appearance) this "miracle." The trump card is played when God's serpent swallows up the magicians serpents, and they are no more. Show is over, Moses takes up the rod of God and leaves. The magicians are standing around without their magic sticks. Their's have gone into the "nothingness" that truly exists, outside of our existence. I can sit and wonder how the magicians pulled off the miracle of changing their sticks into serpents, or I can marvel and rejoice that my God is sovereign over all. It isn't difficult to comprehend that kind of a god creating something out of nothing.

You are clearly reading into the text. I do not see how this event proves that absolute nothingness (or non-existence) exists. In fact, the very statement: non-existence exists is nonsensical.

Nev Billett

The past tense "created" in His image carries with it the common belief that Adam was 'perfect' and 'fell' through disobedience because of mankind's so called free will.

"Creating" is a much better translation because it denotes God's purpose in the on going development of man into the full measure of the stature of Jesus Christ at the end of the ages, in complete subjection 1 Corinthians 15:22-28.

God cannot be righteous and impute guilt to another because of someone else's disobedience/sin. Man sinned by God's design because they were not given complete knowledge of good and evil so it was inevitable man would "miss the mark" , make mistakes/sin Romans 11:32 " For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so that He can have mercy on everyone ".

Do you think God couldn't have "created " man in His image at the outset , incapable of sinning as He is . Between man and God it is God alone who has free will . Only a fool would dispute that God has free will and He never sins/makes mistakes, because He is all knowing. Therefore to say God couldn't have made man incapable of sinning but had to give man free will or he would be a robot incapable of knowing true love is ludicrous because God has free will, is incapable of sinning and is Love.

God has designed man to progress through evil, suffering , tribulation and good to form them into His purified glorified purpose.

Ecclesiastes 1:13 " It is an experience of evil (ra) Elohim has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it ".

I don't want to write a novel detailing the above , so i suggest reading A P Adams ' the Spirit of the Word ' or You Tube channels The Total Victory of Christ or Tommy's Truth Talk where one can learn the true Gospel message and gain links to scholars/theologians who understand God's plan of the ages.

MJ. Smith

God cannot

Welcome to the forums. Did you notice that you have resurrected a thread from nine years ago ... and responded to a delightful forum user who has been dead for several years?

Please read the forum guidelines - these forums are about software and resources not theology and exegesis

Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.

Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.

Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.

Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.

Please do not use our forums to
sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products

promote or link to competitors

promote affiliate links or discounts

point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products

advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)

post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion.

Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question.

Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com. If a user is a repeat offender, we may temporarily suspend their account. If the offenses continue, we reserve the right to permanently ban the offender's account from the forums either by shadow banning it or blocking it entirely.

Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.

David Paul

I wish Vincent was still around.

Bill Coley

MJ, given the content of the forum guidelines to which you asked the poster Nev Billet to abide - specifically, its proscription against discussions of "biblical, theological, or other controversial subjects" - isn't most of this thread, including several of your own contributions to it, in violation of them? That is, isn't it about five pages of posts too late to advise posters, including yourself, not to discuss what you've been discussing?

Greg Dement

MJ, although I personally think you do a great job on this forum and balancing everything (at least in my opinion), you did come across unnecessarily harsh to a new member on their first post. Not at all endorsing their point of view or am I disputing that they stepped outside of forum guidelines regarding theology discussions.

- Is there an expiration date for an old thread? Isn’t it actually encouraged in the guidelines to search a topic before you start a new thread?

- Is there any way the new member could have known about the other member passing?

Seemed a little flagrant to respond the way you did. I apologize if I am misinterpretIns your tone but if you read it through the eyes of a new member on their first post and the “welcome to the forum” you may see how it came across.

David Paul

MJ, given the content of the forum guidelines to which you asked the poster Nev Billet to abide - specifically, its proscription against discussions of "biblical, theological, or other controversial subjects" - isn't most of this thread, including several of your own contributions to it, in violation of them? That is, isn't it about five pages of posts too late to advise posters, including yourself, not to discuss what you've been discussing?

In MJ's defense, this thread goes way back, and though I think there had been some pushback against theological discussions at the time, I don't think it had gelled into the current status quo quite yet. I don't see anything wrong about letting a newbie know that the ways of yesteryear are no longer the ways of today.

As far as Greg's comment is concerned, yeah, a newbie couldn't know SuperTramp was no longer with us. Again, I think she was just pointing out that reviving very old threads isn't necessarily the most productive way to engage a new (to the user) forum. I suspect that Nev did a search on a topic that popped this old thread into the results. Nev might well be a one-and-gone participant. It's probably for the best, because there are at least a couple of comments she made that seem dubious to me, and I was reaching for my bear gun. [A]