bereshit

Peter Kirk Peter_Kirk at sil.org
Fri Mar 15 11:19:55 EST 2002


Lawrence, I have been arguing that verse 1 is a self-contained sentence,
against Ian who seems convinced that it isn't but hasn't produced any
convincing evidence, just what you might find in a field where a bull
had been. (It's all in the bulls and the bears, Ian! ;-) )

That doesn't mean that I accept your theory about a recreation or any
temporal break between verses 1 and 2. In fact I would prefer to suggest
that verse 1 is a summary of the whole of chapter 1, which is then given
in more detail in vv.2ff. But it is hard to prove this.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence May [mailto:lgmay at mindspring.com]
> Sent: 15 March 2002 00:26
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: bereshit
> 
> Doesn't "bereshit" sound like what you would find in the woods after
the
> bear comes out?
> 
> My question is about Genesis 1:1. Are the seven Hebrew words  a
complete
> statement or any there any reason to continue to verse two.  That is
is
> verse
> one a complete statement and verse 2 and following speak of a
restoration
> that was necessary because of the rebellion of  Lucifer/Satan.
> 




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list