Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dave wrote:

>God forbid I should agree with Ian

I think people will turn a blind eye, Dave.

elsewhere you wrote to Michael:
>You still need to deal with the fact that the sun and moon, which 
>are responsible for producing evening and morning, aren't created 
>until the fourth day, which argues strongly that evening and 
>morning aren't literal at all at least on the first three days.

This does not follow, Dave. The writer uses the same terminology both
before and after the creation of the rulers of the day and night. (In fact
the very first action was the creation of day and night.) The structure of
the passage is essentially very regular, with the use of day, morning and
evening in each case. When on the fourth day the sun and moon were created,
they were created to rule over the day and the night -- as they did in the
writer's time (and ours). Does anything imply a change of length of the
time period? Is there anything in the passage to make you think that the
writer had anything other than an ordinary day in mind when he used his
terms day, night, evening and morning? I think you are accusing the writer
of arbitrary use of his terminology when there is nothing *in the text* to
indicate such arbitrariness.

Michael later wrote:
>>Evening and Morning existed before the sun and moon were created.  

to which Dave responded:
>How?  That's the whole question.

Actually, no it isn't. It is your question and there is nothing in the text
to suggest that the writer ever even considered such a question. Obviously
he accepted in some way that you could have day and night without sun or
moon. It's your problem that you can't and that has nothing to do with our
writer.

Your arguments, Dave, have consistently required the other person to
provide evidence for what they are saying before you, who for some reason
choose to read the text other than literally, show any evidence for such a
non-literal reading. The writer gives four terms which under normal
circumstance in such a conjunction of terminology should force the reader
to understand those terms conventionally. Why don't you understand them all
thus?


Ian