Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Goldsmith <iangoldsmith1969 AT yahoo.co.uk>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Date: lunedì 22 luglio 2002 14.05
Subject: RE: Raqiyah


>Good afternoon Gentlemen.
>
>It would seem the theory being proposed here is as
>unstable perhaps as the waters in question, depending
>of course on your stand point.
>
>> As I've said, the waters above and the waters
>> below are straight from the tradition of the
>> Enuma Elish:
>
>Couldn't have been the other way 'round then. Or are
>you going to state the old 'where's the evidence'
>defence again.

The tradition of the Enuma Elish does not mean from the
Enuma Elish but from the same tradition. Is there a
problem with this??

>> They may have been written 1000 years or more before
>> the material we are considering.
>
>Because a people don't seem to have committed their
>stories to writing in some form, doesn't mean that the
>written evidence of a similar story is the older.

The first creation account is a literary account. The
earlier creation account starts in chapter 2.

>Orally transmitted material doesn't neccesarily need
>to be committed to 'stone' as it were, until it is in
>danger of being lost as the oral tradition wanes etc.

We have no evidence for an oral tradition but we do
have evidence of a literary tradition to which Gen 1
belongs.

>> Do you mean that you find the notion that the
>> cosmos was created out of water realistic?
>> That the earth was a collection of dry from
>> wet? That daylight was created before the sun?
>> And that it all happened in six days?
>
>If were asigning to God the ability to create matter
>out of nothing, isn't it rather a small thing for him
>to be able to re-arrange the atomic structure of an
>element to make it what he wishes?

Who says that God created anything out of nothing?
The text doesn't say this.

>Of course if we were to suggest that the laws of
>science as we know them could be flexible in the hands
>of someone greater than ourselves, we open up the
>possibility of an omnipotent God. We wouldn't want
>that now would we?

We are not dealing with the text but your theological
commitments. All we were discussing ultimately was
the consistency of rqy`.

>Everyone has an opinion on the verses we read. Some
>are based on the little we see and know, some based on
>faith. Perhaps we'd better stick the text itself,
>conclusions are a very private thing for the
>individual. Bashing those opinions about is a little
>rude, even when I do it!

I don't think an injection of theological commitments
is going to change much.

I am all for dealing with the text itself. Can we do
that?


Cheers,


Ian