Is R)$YT even a "time" word?

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Mar 25 15:04:20 EST 2002


>> Do you understand what Genesis 1:2 is about from the 
>> text itself? 
>
>Yes.
>
>> Can you tell me why tehom is mentioned 
>> in the text? 
>
>It means "deep" and is connected with the water in the same verse.

That's just reconstructive guesswork. It is a 
proper noun, as it is never used with an article. 

If it were simply "deep" why does it have pny?

What is the connection between thw and thwm?

(What is the connection between thmwt and bhmwt?

What is the connection between bhmwt and bhw?

For anyone interested there are two late Hebrew 
texts 4Ezra and 2Baruch which both talk of two 
beasts, Leviathan and Behemoth being created, 
one being sent into the deep [Leviathan] and the 
other being sent into the desert. Leviathan is 
the sea monster Lotan slain by Baal another 
incarnation of the same creation story as Marduk 
and Tiamat. The deep is related to thw where 
Leviathan/tehom is sent as the desert is related 
to bhw where bhmwt was sent.)

>> 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.

Why "less likely"? "Less likely" than what? And why?

>> 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.

You have sidestepped my questions above with answers 
that say nothing that commit you to any stance on 
the text. So, you can be doubtful and hold unstated 
positions, but unless you are clear, your comments 
have little weight.

If the text is not cryptic, why not elucidate it to 
show your point?

>> >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.

The criterion you seem to be asking is not one I think 
you adhere to yourself.

>> >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 
>> meaning.
>
>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 don't say anything other than "I don't agree, 
so there." So don't waste bandwidth saying it again. 
It would be good to have something substantive from 
you on what you say.

Without being pedantic, Dave, you can see what was 
meant we are not dealing with scholarly journals and 
trashing people. You can see the correct spelling 
below the word. Get real.

>> >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 say. Your plea for "evidence" when the parallels 
are nice and clear, seem to be simply palming off data.

>> 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 
>subject.

Thanks, Dave.


Ian





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list