Jonathan Bailey jonathan.bailey at
Sun Nov 28 14:36:26 EST 1999

Peter, you make the comment below in your post that Toldot signifies the beginning of 
an accounting. Have you seen P.J. Wiseman's research (from his book "New 
Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis") in which he describes the Toldot passages 
as ENDS of accounts, where Toldot signifies a sort of a colophon, which were 
commonly placed at the end of Akkadian and Sumerian documents? I have just 
ordered the Huehnergard Akkadian Grammar and plan on beginning a forray into 
Assyriology sometime in the next few months so that I can eventually make informed 
decisions about such matters. As it is, I don't read Akkadian and have only a few 
scattered texts in translation here at the house.

But since it seems like you have already looked into the Toldot issue, I was wondering 
what your thoughts on the matter are, or if you could point me in the direction of some 
easily attainable information on the subject. Why do you think they are beginnings of 
accounts? Whose accounts are they? I take it by what I have seen from you so far 
that you believe that the writing of the Torah in some way involves Moses. Could it 
have been that Moses was patching together older, Babylonian accounts? If you are 
more liberal, could it be that the JEPD crew was using older, Babylonian accounts? 
Or would it be more likely to you that Moses was just using Toldot as a sort of chapter 
heading phrase? Or on the liberal side of the house, what interest could the JEPD 
priests/scholars/politicians have in the phrase?

Jonathan Bailey
MA Kandidat
Hochschule für Jüdische Studien

---------- Original Message ----------

>I'll keep out of the mudslinging. Is everyone reacting like this 
>because of indigestion from turkey reheated too many times? But I will 
>try to answer your points about the actual meaning of the Hebrew. See 
>comments below starting "PK:".

>Peter Kirk

>______________________________ Reply Separator 
>Subject: Re[3]: New Subscriber
>Author:  <michaelwm at> at Internet
>Date:    27/11/1999 19:06



>Why is the word REPLENISH used in Genesis 1:28 when YHVH speaks to the 
>people created on the sixth day; those allowed to eat of any tree?  Check it 
>in the Hebrew.  Some work for dissectors.

>PK: I fear that you have been led astray by KJV here, or perhaps the 
>word "replenish" had a different meaning 400 years ago. The Hebrew 
>word here [UWMIL:)UW] simply means "fill" and conveys no implication 
>of refilling something that had been full and had then become empty. I 
>suggest that you use a reliable modern translation if you are not able 
>to use the Hebrew text directly.

>Who is "thy seed" in Genesis 3:15, when YHVH is speaking to Satan?

>PK: Note that in Hebrew the addressee is not Satan, not even some 
>special "serpent", but an ordinary snake [NFXF$]. Surely the seed of 
>Eve and the seed of the snake are simply all future generations of 
>humanity and all future generations of snakes. I have not noticed even 
>today a general friendly relationship between humanity and snakes, the 
>latter still bite the heels of former and the former still smash the 
>heads of the latter. This is I think the primary meaning of this 
>passage. There may be other typological meanings, but they go beyond 
>this Hebrew text.

>Who are the Kenites as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:55; tacked onto the end 
>of the listing of the tribe of Judah and what does their name mean?  Again, 
>work for dissectors of Hebrew.

>PK: Perhaps the name means "descendants of Cain", but then the name 
>"Qayin" simply means "get", as in Genesis 4:1, and so it would hardly 
>be remarkable if the name was reused. But if the Kenites were 
>descendants of Cain, they must have survived the flood, despite 
>Genesis 7:21-23. Is that what you teach? Anyway, this is irrelevant to 
>your main thesis.

>What does the word <Strong's 8435 Hebrew> (to-led-ah) mean?  Check it's 
>every use in all of the Hebrew Scriptures and kindly explain why people 
>argue it to be used as a recapitulation of the creation of the sixth day 
>people when in fact it is not a recapitulation at all and serves to prove 
>that THE Adam, with the article and particle, was made on the eighth day, 
>after YHVH rested and found He had no man to till the soil.  More work for 

>PK: So what happened to the men and women whom He created on the sixth 
>day? Was His blessing (Genesis 1:28) so weak that they could not even 
>survive two days? These chapters are hard to reconcile, but I don't 
>think this is a path towards a meaningful reconciliation. Anyway, not 
>long ago I did check all occurrences of TOL:DOT (always in the 
>plural!) and found that they all introduce an account of the person 
>named and his descendants. Only in Genesis 2:4 is the account not of a 
>person but of "the heavens and the earth", and presumably also 
>includes the human descendants of "the heavens and the earth" who are 
>Adam, Eve and their family as described in the following chapters. So 
>the word does not mean a recapitulation, it means the start of a new 

>Just a friendly exercise in Hebrew both for those seeking truth and those 
>snooty with worldy wisdom but blinded by oneupmanship in the "scholarly 

>Think on these things.  They are fundamental in truly UNDERSTANDING the 
>Biblical Hebrew.  I would assume that a Ginsu knife would be all that one 
>needs to merely dissect it.  Oh, and perhaps bandaids.

>PK: Dissection, or at least analysis, is the first step to 
>understanding. There is more to finding out why someone died than 
>cutting up their body, but without making those cuts there is no way 
>of finding out the state of their internal organs. So let's not be 
>afraid to start with some dissection rather than assuming we know the 
>answers before looking at the evidence.



>You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: jonathan.bailey at
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
>To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew at

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list