Is R)$YT even a "time" word?
mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Mar 25 13:28:41 EST 2002
>No, Ian, B- in BERESHIT is not analogous to be- in "behind", despite the
>purely accidental cross-linguistic similarity.
Perhaps the notion of analogy was a little to
difficult here. I am looking at the way
combinations take on extra meaning, not any
literal significance that behind might share
with br'$yt. Duh. Try again, Peter. You simply
cannot get significance by mathematically
adding up the value of the parts. That is just
>Ian, you wrote, "Your "interpretation" is pure eisegesis from the Greek
>philosophical influence in early Christianity." Well, actually most
>accept that LXX at least of the Pentateuch is pre-Christian.
You are not dealing with the LXX, you are
interpreting it through creatio ex nihilo.
What do you think of the verb form in
Greek being inceptive aorist?
>But my main
>reply is this: I would say that your "interpretation" is pure eisegesis
>from a different kind of Greek philosophical influence in medieval
>Judaism, compounded by eisegesis from Babylonian mythology.
This is tit-for-tat. Please think again.
You have this bad habit of forgeting that
arguments are made up of a number of
parts thinking if you forget one and try to
rubbish one that will be sufficient.
You have no grammatical support for your
understanding of the first part of the
account. I have shown that br'$yt is always
qualified and that each b-time phrase is
also qualified. You then pick on an example
which holds no relevance, because it is not
a b-time phrase, and try to argue that it is
The seven day structure shows when the creation
started, ie at the beginning of the first day,
ie when God first spoke. Each day starts with
God speaking. You forget this.
The Enuma Elish also indicates when the creation
started, ie when Tiamat/tehom was overcome.
There are three independent but interlocking
sources that show what the structure of the text
is. You have said, well, b-time phrases need not
be relevant. You say, ummm, I can't see any
relationship between Genesis and the Enuma Elish
while we have various elements of similarity.
I can only see your approach as a tendentious
refusal to look at fairly transparent relevant
data, tendentious because you support something
that just is not in the text, but in some
external belief system.
More information about the b-hebrew