[b-hebrew] Gen 1 & Gen 2
enkidu at bigpond.net.au
Thu Nov 1 01:02:23 EDT 2007
> It's anomalous to you, not to the ancients. You have made the
> assumption that TWLDWT always refers to generations, so to say that it
> refers to something other than generations is anomalous and doesn't
> make sense.
> Does it matter much what the object brought forth is, when the action,
> namely bringing forth, is the same? You are looking at the form—in
> connection with text—not the action.
You seem to have some insight into what is anomalous or not to "the
ancients" which has no evidential basis (except perhaps that you heard
something mentioned in lectures). My claim that your reading is
anomalous is based on the fact that there are no examples in ancient
literature that I'm aware of (or that you're able to cite) and that
there are examples of authorial attributions which do not resemble the
תולדות expression found in Genesis.
I'm not claiming that תולדות cannot refer to anything except
"generations." I'm arguing against your claim that it has a very
specific alternate meaning. As I said, your reading may seem obvious
to you, but there's no evidence to support its viability nor the claim
that it would be obvious to "the ancients."
>> Then how do you explain the use in Genesis 6:9 and 25:19?
What needs explaining?
> ... What that also suggests is that Genesis 2:5–5:2 was written by
> Adam, Genesiss 5:3–10:1 were written by people who actually
> observed the flood, and so forth.
And presumably Gen 1:1-2:3 was written by "the heavens and the earth"?
> Incidentally, I did not invent this understanding, I merely learned
> about it from lectures.
I believe you can also read about it in D. J. Wiseman, "Archaeology
and Scripture," Bulletin of Westminster Theological Seminary 8.4
(1969). I've also heard it propounded by proponents of "creation
science," but all that does not prove it nor do these overcome the
problems associated with the view.
More information about the b-hebrew