Is R)$YT even a "time" word?
dwashbur at nyx.net
Mon Mar 25 11:03:13 EST 2002
> >> >I have never bought the whole Tiamat/Tehom parallel
> >> >and all that. In any such situation, one can look at the similarities
> >> >and assume they are derived from each other,
> >> We are not necessarily deriving one from the other.
> >> The important information we get is the missing
> >> details in Genesis when we look at the Enuma Elish.
> >The notion that Enuma Elish supplies "missing details in Genesis" is
> >another assumption that I don't buy.
> Do you understand what Genesis 1:2 is about from the
> text itself?
> Can you tell me why tehom is mentioned
> in the text?
It means "deep" and is connected with the water in the same verse.
> Can you tell from the text why the wind
> is present?
I don't translate it "wind." This is only one possible rendering, and I
consider it less likely than some others.
> A cursory reading of the Enuma Elisha
> answers all these questions. If you allow that the
> two accounts are related, one needs to face how they
> are related:
I haven't said that I allow this. "Related" can mean a lot of things.
> when one version is apparently cryptic
> and the other is not, it is common to elucidate the
> one with the other.
But the one is not necessarily "cryptic." You're welcome to consider
it cryptic, but that doesn't make it so.
> >To show this, a definitive and
> >demonstrable connection between the two in terms of where they
> >came from, how they developed, how they diverged and how
> >particular details came to be included or excluded from one or the
> >other, must be shown.
> This sounds like you want something you'd never ask
> for the gospels. You can't show a definitive and
> demonstrable connection between them, yet I'd bet
> you are to some degree a supporter of something like
> a two document theory or analogous approach.
Where on earth did this come from? I haven't mentioned the
gospels or anything else. You dragged this in from left field, friend.
But just for the sake of tying up loose ends, you'd lose that bet.
> >We can't simply assume that one has
> >"missing details" and the other doesn't.
> We need to read the stories to see what they say. If
> you understand Gen 1:2 perfectly without any help
> then I think you have more knowledge on the verse
> than most other people.
It depends on your definition of "most other people."
Presuppositions are everything in this kind of arena.
> >Again, when a statement
> >like this is made in the context of what we know regarding the two
> >stories, it is pure speculation, nothing more.
> This just means that you don't agree with the
> connextion I make through the common material, a
> connection which seem to me to be far beyond
> speculation. Speculation is to say that br'$yt
> means "in the beginning of time", ie import
Nice knight-jump, i.e. changing the subject in mid-stream. I already
explained why said "connextion" [sic] must remain in the realm of
speculation, and I won't waste bandwidth by repeating myself.
> >You're welcome to
> >assume this sort of connection, but I don't think you'll ever be able to
> >provide definitive evidence for it. So speculate away, just don't
> >expect the speculation to be taken as anything more than that.
> You want evidence that you can't provide for many
> of the accepted positions in normative Christianity.
Once again, you're dragging Christianity in out of the ether. It has
nothing to do with the topic, and as such constitutes little more than
a smokescreen. I won't be drawn into it.
> You want too much, and probably cannot face your
> own criteria.
Whatever, Ian. I made my point without dragging unrelated topics in
and trying to dodge by changing the subject, so I now return to my
regularly-scheduled weed burning in the yard and installing new
carpet in the house. Which is to say, that's all I have to say on this
This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know what to do
More information about the b-hebrew