I recently came across someone writing on his own website on a wide variety of biblical subjects, and have found a great many of the ideas he writes on to be highly questionable. One of the ideas He puts forward is that God did not create ex nihilo or "out of nothing," but rather ex deo or "out of Himself."
He explains this as being God converting His "spiritual substance" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) into the created universe, and while I see multiple problems with this idea on a number of grounds, my biggest problem is with what caused him to come to this conclusion. He derived this epiphany from reading a mechanical translation of scripture called the Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear (CHES) which is found in the interlinear on the website scripture4all.org.
This sublinear text uses the strategy of finding a single English word or phrase to represent every occurrence of a given Hebrew word in the OT, with no regard for context. So, for instance, the translation of Genesis 1:3 is given as:
"and He is saying Elohim, He shall become light, and He is becoming light."
A far cry from:
"and God said, 'let there be light,' and there was light."
I know this a problem of mishandling the sublinear text as if it were meant to be read verbatim as a viable literal translation into English. You can see how reading this rendering as if it were meant to be read this way in English, would lead to the confused idea of God creating from His own substance or "becoming His creation." Never mind that light is not matter at all, but a state of matter!
My question is, how could the Hebrew verb "hayah"/to be/exist in its jussive 3rd person singular masculine form i.e. "yehi" be the correct usage with what I understand to be a feminine noun "ohr"/light as its subject? I thought that gender needed to be in agreement between verb and subject. Is the jussive a special case where gender agreement is unnecessary?
The sublinear text of this mechanical translation seems to treat Elohim as the subject of the Hebrew verb "Yehi" as if Elohim is "becoming" light rather than light "becoming" existent.