Genesis 1:1

[Dawid]

Greetings Dawid,

Yes, it is easy to be wrong in translating words, and my first instinct for (`eith) on this thread was wrong. But leaving a word out guarantees one to be wrong. For me, it just seems better to try, even to get it wrong along the way, than to not try at all. For 400 years, who has even tried?

You say, "It's the marker of the direct object, so there's no way to translate it in English." How can you be so sure of that? Because others have said so?

Because it only exists in a few contexts in English. Were I to say "look at that dog," "at" operates in almost the same context as "eith," however, it is actually more closely associated with "look." "look at" is a unit and "that dog" is a unit. Verb, indirect object. That's all. No marker in between. Instead, English uses syntax to indicate the object of the verb, hence why we have rules about clear and unclear antecedents.
I say that it is untranslatable because there is no evidence of an object marker in English, there is nothing that can be demonstrated to be an object marker, and because the rules of English point to syntax being used instead of an object marker. This should be quite clear and simple.
I think it is more important to be clear than to translate every single word with a word or phrase. If we have a word for every word, but lose the sense of the passage as a result, what good have we done in translating? We might as well put the Hebrew Bible before our readers, as it will make just as much sense to them.
Would it help if I said that "eith" should be translated syntactically rather than with words? Without "eith" we might be able to translate this "in the beginning he created God, the heavens, and the earth." So the way we translate "eith" is by making "God" the subject and "the heavens and the earth" the direct objects. So, in a sense, we have translated "eith" but with word order rather than actual words.