The 24 hour "evening and mornings" ??? (Peter)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Sat Sep 2 09:14:32 EDT 2000


At 00.49 02/09/00 +0100, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> At 14.50 01/09/00 +0100, Peter Kirk wrote:
>> >Yes, because the only argument you have offered...
>>
>> I think you've missed at least four others, Peter.
>
>PK: OK, there were some others. 

Thanks for admitting the fact after indicating to the contrary.

>I won't waste time dealing with them again.

Actually you have never dealt with them, so the "again" is inappropriate.

>Just to say that Michael's arguments are quite easily dealt with by saying
>that any number of repetitions of one sense of a phrase are no proof (in a
>limited corpus) that another instance has the same meaning. 

One should say here that Michael has simply provided the evidence from the
text and anything else (not based on the text) is unfounded conjecture.

>And in the
>Daniel verse cited the evenings and mornings are 12 hours each not 24.

You understand correctly that Daniel is referring not to 2300 days but to
1150 evenings and 1150 mornings, but it is irrelevant, Peter. It's not
strange to see a period of 24 hours made up of a morning and an evening.
The writer of Gen1 worked with the idea that these were integral parts of
the day, though I think he had in mind by `rb the arrival of evening and
bqr the arrival of day. I didn't introduce the idea of Dan here and I don't
think it's particularly helpful, but it is not contrary.

><snip>
>
>> >...depends on an interpretation
>> >of kl ymy xyyk which conflicts with that given in standard Hebrew
>grammars,
>>
>> You have made this so far *unsupported* claim several times. I think you
>> should back it up or stop repeating yourself uselessly.
>
>PK: I'm away from my grammar books at the moment. Perhaps someone else can
>cite Gesenius, Muraoka, Waltke & O'Connor, or someone like that.

Perhaps when you get to your books you should comment, not before.

>> So far all you have done is to use an analogy (about hot dogs) to attempt
>> to support this claim: <<By exactly the same argument, KOL YEMEY XAYYEYKA
>> in Gen 3:17 does not mean "every day of your life", it means "the whole of
>> your life".>> You've got no further.
>>
>> Why didn't the author simply write kl xyyk?
>
>PK: Ask him/her, or another native speaker of Biblical Hebrew ;-)

As you feel you can't answer here, you obviously nullify your quibbling.

>> >and you have offered no evidence to support your non-standard
>> >understanding of the Hebrew language.
>>
>> This is a new unsupported claim. Peter, you seem to be talking nonsense.
>
>PK: No, it's the same claim which has support though I have not actually
>cited it, 

The other one plays Jingle Bells.

>plus your rejection of that understanding. As I don't want to
>suggest that you are being malicious, I have to conclude with Dave that you
>simply do not know Hebrew well enough to take part in this sort of
>discussion.

As you tend to conclude too many things without enough evidence, I'll just
say that you've said enough here.

>> Please try to follow the basic rule of not attacking someone without at
>> least evidence to support your statements. What you have done recently is
>> what is normally defined as flaming.
>
>PK: I have made no personal attacks. If what I have done is "flaming" by
>your definition, then so is what you have done.


I usually supply evidence for my statements, Peter.


Ian





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list