Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Michael Hildenbrand <hildenbr AT Haas.Berkeley.EDU>]

The problem, IMHO, is that folks want to find a way to "work into the
text" the eons of time necessary to coordinate modern day scientific
theories with what the Bible clearly communicates.  Thus the development
of the "day-age" theory, i.e. each day represents an "age" of time (or in
some cases a "revelatory time"), not a literal day.  This means that you
*can* wedge 5 billion years (or what ever) into the biblical text.  This
theory has a long history, but it is clearly out of step with the
linguistics of the passage.
Michael

 On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Raymond de Hoop wrote:

> Shalom,
> 
> What is the problem to accept that the narrator just was talking of a YOM
> in the sense he understood it, i.e. 24 hours? It does not imply that you
> have to *believe* it, it is just a way of telling things.
> 
> Umberto Eco wrote his novel *The Name of the Rose" because he discovered
> that "things we can not talk about, we have to tell" (against Witgenstein).
> This rule can also be applied to most of the biblical narratives, and
> certainly regarding the primeval stories. In this narrative of three
> chapters the narrator could express much more truth than Darwin in his
> *Origin of the Species*, though the latter might have done more justice to
> a *scientific truth*.
> 
> Raymond
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Dr Raymond de Hoop
> Boeiersingel 11
> NL-9745 CA Groningen
> The Netherlands
> Phone: (XX-31)-(0)50 553 01 15
> E-mail: rdehoop AT tref.nl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: hildenbr AT Haas.Berkeley.EDU
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 
>