iangoldsmith1969 at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Jul 22 09:51:37 EDT 2002
> Isn't BH supposed to address the linguistic
> aspect? Since language, of
> course, is cultural we are dealing with Bronze
> Age, Iron I and Iron II
> Let's get real. Genesis was probably composed >
around the 9th or 8th
> BCE when it was believed that a solid vault from >
which the "heavenly
> shone was stretched over an earth held up on
> foundations. Raqiya is an
> 8th century BCE word, not a 21st century one.
I'll 'get real' when you can produce definite proof of
the assumption that you're making. When you can remove
the 'probably' from your sweeping statements, I may be
more inclined to take them more seriously.
So where do you get your definitions from of the words
that we read in the Bible? Words like the one in
question. These words may have been in use hundreds or
thousands years before anyone gave a fixed definition
to them, and even then the last fifty years have
produce evidence of English words changing in their
meaning, what chance have you of assigning a concrete
definition to one thousands of years old.
Words change. They flex like plastic, meaning one
thing to one generation one to the next. 'Heavens' to
day for instance, can mean a multitude of things to a
multitude of different people (may even include
'turtles' to some) and its definition gets even more
blurry if we go back one or two hundred years!
If a word can change so much in a space of even an
hundred years, how are can you make such a definite
statement about a word that may have been in use for
hundreds+. It's just not possible. So how about a
little humility guys. Try adding, 'could be', 'might
be' or 'is possibly'. It's a lot less irritating.
As for the giant turtle, I believe Mr. Pratchet has
some more credible views on this subject!
Dibrah Torah kilshone bnei-adam
'The Torah spoke in the language of ordinary men.'
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
More information about the b-hebrew