Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Michael,
> Dave,
>       The sun and moon are simply God's time pieces.

So what?  Assuming this statement is correct, which is
questionable, before these "timepieces" there would have been no
such discerning of time, so I don't see what this adds to the
discussion.

Evening and
> Morning existed before the sun and moon were created.

How?  That's the whole question.  Simply saying it is so isn't
enough.

Evening and
> morning exist if it is cloudy in our present day.  You may argue that the
> sun and moon are despite the clouds in the way, but you are not
> understanding the phenominality (is that a word?) of the text.

I don't see how one follows from the other.  Of course cloudy days
have evening and morning, because these phenomena are caused
by the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun and moon, which
is exactly my point.  As concerns the text, whether we speak of
earth's rotation or of heavenly orbs rising and setting, the
phenomena of evening and morning still owe their existence to the
presence of those orbs, however limited their visibility may be at
times.  I have no idea what you mean by "phenominality (is that a
word?) of the text."  Literal evening and morning without at least a
sun is an absurdity.

The text
> describes things as one would view it from earth.

Oh, of course.  So even without the sun, an observer on earth
would be able to discern evening and morning by recourse
to...what?  You're just digging a hole for yourself here.  Once again,
trying to insist on a literal "evening and morning" without the sun as
a reference point would be utterly absurd, especially to an observer
on earth.

I fail to see how
> one should take evening and morning any other way than literal.  How would
> you *translate* evening and morning?  This would indicate how you
> understand the terms.

That's easy.  "Pause, move on to the next step."

Would you translate them "evening and morning" with
> a little aside "hey that's what I said, but I really mean it
> differently"?  If it isn't literal (as both of the terms are used
> *everywhere* else), what is it?

The mnemonic structure of the passage has already been
observed, and your reductio ad absurdum did not refute it.  I would
also point to the clear poetically-inspired structure of the passage.
There is no need to try and force literalness on these terms, and in
fact there are many good reasons not to when we look at the text
in its historic, linguistic and formal context.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Éist le glór Dé."