Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 11.30 30/08/00 +0100, Peter Kirk wrote:
>To adapt Michael's words: The problem, IMHO, is that folks want to find a
>way to "work into the text" the literal 24 hour days 

No-one is "work"ing this "into the text". We normally think of a day (which
can be measured from morning to morning as the author does) refers to what
we "moderns" indicate with the precision of 24 hours. Some people however
have decided that they can redefine words (that have a normal meaning which
can be found in the vast bulk of the text) for non-transparent reasons.

>necessary to coordinate
>modern day pseudo-scientific "creationist" theories with what the Biblical
>author may have intended to communicate. This "creationist" theory has a
>rather short history, but it is out of step with one perfectly good
>interpretation of the linguistics of the passage.
>
>I am quite happy to leave this discussion at "we can't be sure whether the
>author intended 24 hour periods or not". But I cannot accept that the
>passage absolutely requires 24 hour periods.

We can't be sure whether the author intended women with breasts and vagina
or not when he referred to a female in 1:27. But I would think that the
author, while not specifically thinking of these attributes, would not
consider me wrong in concluding that they are entailed in his reference to
(human) female.




Ian