Firmament (Hebrew worldview)
Dan.Wagner at datastream.net
Thu Jan 18 18:16:48 EST 2001
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 at mclink.it]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 09:46
> >But the examples i give are more clear and more parallel to Ezk. 1.
> Actually, no you haven't. I had the aim of reproducing the
> form as found in
> Ezek. 1, though as you pointed out some of the examples I
> gave didn't fulfil
> that aim. However, I have given one parallel (Gen22:9) which
> reproduces the
> form found in Ezek. 1, you have given none.
I gave several examples (in the section you just snipped), *ALL* of which
were *PRECISELY* parallel in syntax & vocab to Ezk. 1:26, while you gave
only 1 (ONE) that was syntactically parallel (as i acknowledged) and *none*
of your others were. Again, my examples were Isa. 6:2, 14:13, Jer. 52:32,
Dan. 12:6-7 (and you can read the archive if you don't believe me), and here
is the syntax for all of them, identical also to the verse in Ezek. 1:
_MIN_ prep. + _MA(AL_ + LAMED-prep. + OBJECT [=> higher elevation]
My suggestion is that you go back to Ezek. 1:26 and look at the text and the
examples i've been giving for yourself. There is nothing here to debate
concerning who is giving parallel examples to the verse. Facts stand as
facts regardless of how they are interpreted. I interpret this construction
as "higher elevation" (as does BDB) and would prefer to see a preceding
_(AL_ on the object if the text intends "resting upon" (which you want to
see with LAMED). My reason for this is the common usage, especially in a
visionary context like Isaiah 6, Daniel 12, or Ezekiel 1, or in something so
similar as Isa. 14:13 regarding a throne above the stars.
>>Again, the "windows of heaven" is imagery--not for rain--but for a
>>supernatural event, either good or bad, of anything from God.
>Point assumed, not shown.
Look again at all 3 extant examples. You should see, in linguistic terms,
that rain is only an incidental component of the phrase "opening the windows
of heaven" in only one clear context, while the generic component in *all*
contexts is a supernatural sending forth of something by God. If you want to
claim i assume and don't show this, we're unlikely to make much progress.
But such things are really only an aside, so for the rest--some of which
involves more subjective interpretation and presupposition--you have
successfully convinced me that it's impossible to convince you on the basis
of the text alone. Our presuppositions are determinative, and i can't find a
way to show you that yours don't work well with the evidence. As one scholar
told me, you "don't have a leg to stand on" in regards to the OT evidence.
I could deal with those many new issues you brought up too, as there are all
kinds of problems with your views, but i make these posts at work away from
my library, in-between or during calls doing computer tech support, and it
would take a few months to cover all those! So if you are determined to get
the last word in, it's yours! I can only challenge you to study the answers
that have been given many times before by other scholars on such matters as
the unity of the OT text, Daniel, etc.
It's really quite impossible to understand the text as it was *intended* by
its writers apart from a willingness to come to it from the same perspective
by which it is stated to have been intended, namely, as inspired by God. I
can also suggest to you that many have and do experience the truth of the OT
text's message in such a way so that to deny its unified origin in God is
equivalent to denying that one was born to his parents. Prophets like
Jeremiah certainly had such a conviction, and he was well-aware of the
problem of false prophets. Surely you don't think Jeremiah was a false
prophet and deceiver?
More information about the b-hebrew