Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

To me, what fits the Hebrew and the context is "had become" which is
almost equivalent to "was", but not "then became".

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn Blank [mailto:glennblank AT earthlink.net]
> Sent: 03 April 2002 17:04
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: RE: TOHUW WA BOHUW, Gen & Jer. (hyth)
> 
> 
> >From: "Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
> >Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:51:28 +0100
> 
> >The X-QATAL construction implies not consecutiveness
> >but a previous state: "The earth had been TOHU..." The verb form is
not
> >enough to settle this issue decisively, but it is enough to suggest
that
> >as the more probable interpretation.
> 
> Hello, Peter, Lawrence, et al.
> 
> When I have seen the proposal Lawrence suggests discussed before, the
> argument
> seemed to hinge on whether hyth in gen 1.2 is to be interpreted as
> "became" or "was."   Is this an issue, and how would it compare with
the
> copula not being explicit in jer 4.23?  And on what basis could it be
> decided whether the copula in gen 1.2 conveys process or state?  The
> arguments always
> seemed inconclusive to me.
> 
> glenn blank
> Pensacola FL
> 
> ----------
> >From: Lawrence May <lgmay AT mindspring.com>
> >Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:11:33 -0700
> >
> >I believe Genesis 1:2 should be compared with Jeremiah 4:23.  These
> verses
> use both the
> >words 'tohuw wa bohuw.'  Jeremiah used it to describe the Southern
> Kingdom
> after its
> >destruction by the Chaldeans and Israel's enemies. I believe Genesis
1:2
> describes the
> >Earth after the rebellion of  Lucifer and his followers. What
linguistic
> analysis is
> >there that would deny this interpretation?
>