Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

Ian, I wonder whether your refusal to deal with the evidence of R'$YT
without B- is that you already know that your argument would be
destroyed by the example MR'$YT which Moon offered and which you have
failed to deal with? So you arbitrarily restrict the evidence which you
accept to rule out this example. But the point remains that R'$YT can be
used in the absolute without further qualification, as Moon has
demonstrated and you have not attempted to refute, and B- can be added
to any noun, so it is impossible to argued that BR'$YT cannot be
unqualified.

I don't see the relvance of Enuma Elish to the question of understanding
the Hebrew text. Once we decide what the Hebrew means, it is then an
interesting question of comparative religions to compare the texts. But
it is simply illegitimate to presuppose at the stage of exegesis that
texts from very different cultures say the same thing.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
> Sent: 23 March 2002 06:19
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: Is R)$YT even a "time" word?
> 
> >The reason why I drop the beth is because it was the preposition plus
a
> time
> >noun that you used when you developed this whole rationale for the
> >proposition that compound (or, as you kept saying, complex) clauses
can
> >modify BR)$YT.  One example is your response to me on 6 March: "I
think
> >nearly all the examples I've already given of inseparable preposition
and
> >time noun forming a composite preposition such as bywm, b`t and btxlt
> each
> >have the same structure but I don't think you would want to call them
> >independent clauses."  The fact that your proposition is based on
> parallels
> >to the forms found from "inseparable pronouns and time noun" is
evident
> >throughout the early messages, and *this structure* is what you
started
> >referring to by the shorthand "time phrase".  It was not the
syntactic
> >purpose for the structure to which you appealed.  Therefore, if R)$YT
> does
> >not qualify as a time noun, your logic of the past several weeks
falls
> >short.  No stretch.  Just your stated logic at the beginning of the
> thread.
> 
> What happened, Paul, is the realisation that there is something
> specific to the group of b-noun I have listed which unites them,
> making them time phrases. It doesn't have too much to do with
> the simple meaning of one of the parts of the phrase. I don't
> think you would really want to argue that the reference bywm was
> strictly about a "day" anymore, but a conventional way of
> referring to a point in time. The phrase has a life of its own.
> Remember, when I started this thread, I was trying to work out
> what was going on with the data.
> 
> What emerged from the data is that there are a group of b-nouns
> which have a temporal reference which can be related to clauses
> and in at least two examples of bywm with multiple clauses.
> 
> Once I had a relatively coherent approach to the data, that's
> when you decided to change the meanings of the phrases to suit
> yourself. This one's a duration; that one's the start of a
> series. That's where you started stretching, Paul.
> 
> Your complaint about r'$yt not qualifying as a time noun is also
> probably not accurate in the context of mmlkt cdqyh. Looking at
> the significance of a word in vacuo has little value. However, I
> am talking of br'$yt, because that is the manifestation we are
> trying to analyse. It may be a little like using "behind" and
> "below" and deciding that "hind" and "low" are different types
> of adjective (and they are), yet the combined words provide
> locative prepositions. Going by parts is less reliable than
> going by usage in context.
> 
> You haven't commented about whether you think br'$yt () will
> answer the question "when?" If it can, then you shouldn't be
> arguing. I think it can, just as the others I have used can.
> 
> As I have said, however, my argument is not solely based on the
> b-noun parallels, but also on the literary stucture of Gen 1,
> which no-one will face, and the comparison with other creation
> accounts, specifically from the Enuma Elish. Each points
> *separately* to the same conclusion: creation starts with "Let
> there be light."
> 
> 
> Ian
>