Excursus: The Length of the Seventh Day
(Discussion logs)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greektheology/message/10194
From: “rogueactivex” < >
Date: Wed Oct 30, 2002 12:09 am
Subject: Re: Gen. 2:3.
…But here is Furuli’s thoughts on the issue (He sent
me an email):
Dear Hal,
There are two kinds of verbs, those expressing action and those
expressing state. If you look up a Hebrew grammar, you will find
that Hebrew perfect used with a stative verb, may have an ingressive
meaning (what is stressed is the entrance into the state and the
continuance of it). For instance, the verb malak (“to reign as king”)
expressed by a perfect can mean “he started to reign” (and continued
to be in the state of reigning.). The verb you mention is stative,
and that may be the reason why the NWT renders it as it does.
Your brother
Rolf
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greektheology/message/10135
The NWT renders Gen 2:3: “And God proceeded to bless
the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he
has been resting from all his work that God has
created for the purpose of making.”
The Hebrew SHAVATH is perfect state. But the NWT
elsewhere consistently renders Hebrew perfects as
complete and imperfect states as ongoing or continuous
acts. For example, Gen 2:2 in the NWT reads:
“and he [God] proceeded to rest on the seventh day
from all the work that he had made.”
Now, if you study the footnotes for Gen 2:2-3 and the
appendix for the imperfect and perfect states in the
NWT, I believe it will help you to see why Gen 2:3 is
rendered “he has been resting.”
Brenton’s LXX has hOTI EN AUTHN KATEPAUSEN APO PANTWN
TWN ERGWN AUTOU. KATEPAUSEN is aor ind act 3rd sg.
This is of interest in view of the fact that the
aorist tense generally delineates action as a whole:
“Since the aorist tense simply denotes occurrence
without reference to initiation, progress, completion,
or any such thing, it is usually translated from the
indicative mood into English by a past tense” (Greek
Enchiridion, W.G. MacDonald, page 9).
This is also what the qal perfect highlights (i.e.,
undefined action). The same morphological form,
KATEPAUSEN, appears in Heb 4:4. Therefore, it is
possible that Gen 2:3 may simply describe an action in
its entirety, leaving its temporal reference somewhat
undefined.
As regards the qal stem, it is normally divided into
two classes: “verbs that represent action (fientive)
and verbs that describe a state of being (stative)”
(The Complete Word Study: Old Testament, page 2282).
Some sources that I have consulted say that there is
no “passive counterpart” to the qal stem. Others
debate this point. At any rate, the qal perfect in Gen
2:3 seems to describe “simple, perfective action
viewed as a whole” (ibid., 2283).
Perhaps this information will be of some help to you.
Yb,
Edgar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jehovahbible/message/1420
Anyway, the fact is that Hebrew verbs can be tricky, and not always
easily translated by English verbs, since the ancient Hebrews
concieved of time a bit differently than we do today in the Western
world.
For example, the form *shavat* signals what may generally be
called “completed action,” but can be translated as:
he rested
he has rested
he rests (as describing a state of being, or even)
he would have rested. (See _Biblical Hebrew_ by Kittell, Hoffer, &
Wright, Yale University Press, 1989, pages 56 and 57)
Further, note what the college textbook _Biblical Hebrew Syntax_ by
Waltke and O’Connor (Eisenbrauns, 1990) says about the perfect state
of the Hebrew verb:
“Two negative points about perfectivity are important. First,
perfectivity does not pertain to the duration of the situation. The
situation represented by the perfective form may last a moment or
years....Second, the perfective does not emphasize the completedness
of a situation.
“By perfect we mean a past, present, or future state related to a
preceding situation or a past situation relevant to a continuing
later state....Traditionally, the perfect has been characterized as a
tense. In fact, however, it represesnts a state flowing from an
earlier situation, and it therefore seems better to think of it as a
nuance that may be related to aspect....Hebrew also uses its
perfective form for a present situation in which a speaker resolves
on a future action (hence, ‘perfective of resolve’).” -- pages 480-485
Thus, the Hebrew perfect “state” (some moderns prefer “aspect”) is
not all that simplistic, or cut-and-dry. And thus, the NWT rendering
of *shavat* as “he has been resting” (footnote: “he does rest
(desist)”) in the context of God’s creative rest day is within the
parameters of possible translations of the Hebrew word.
Why the reference to Hebrews 4:3-11? Because as Christians, we
believe that the inspired apostles can provide legitimate commentary
on the meaning or fulfillment of the earlier Scriptures.
Solomon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greektheology/message/13015
Gen 2:4 uses the Hebrew word toledah which means “history” to
describe the time of creating the heavens and earth. Toledah never means
a short period. This verse also uses the term “day” to describe all six
creative days, agreeing with the interpretation that each day was simply
meant to denote a period of time with no indication of how long they were.
Last, but not least, is the obvious continuance of the seventh
“day.” Every day but the seventh was ended with the refrain “There was
an evening and morning a xx day.” This obvious omission could only lead
to the conclusion that the seventh day did not end back then. On top of
this we have the verbal statements in 2:2 & 3, correctly rendered by the
NWT as, “he proceeded to rest” and “he has been resting.”
This understanding of the seventh day and the NWT translation is soundly
confirmed by other statements in Scripture concerning the seventh day.
The psalmist David, some 400 years later, at Psalm 95:8-11 speaks of
entering into God’s rest in his day (Cf. Heb.3:11).
Four thousand years later Paul showed that God’s “day of rest” was
still continuing (Heb 4:3-11).
Jesus himself strongly indicated that the seventh day of creation
continued down to his day (Jn.5:16-19). His argument appears to be that
his works on the Mosaic Sabbath are lawful because they correspond to
the Father’s activities on the continuing creation Sabbath.
Ron Rhoades
Main article
11/3/04