Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3
  • Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 05:30:37 +0200


>Ian, you may believe that it is a "fact that the creation took place
>over six days", like "Creation Scientists".

Straw man. We are dealing with texts. You know that.
The text is clear *in what it says*, Peter, ie that
the cosmos was created in six days. You just choose
to believe in creatio ex nihilo, despite what the
text says.

>But I really think that you
>should give some justification for making such assertions which are far
>from self-evident, even as the perspective of the author of Genesis 1.

How does each day begin, Peter?

Is it not true that every creative day (excluding the
first for the moment) starts with the same specific
formula? Do you find the same formula on day one? Do
you find the material before that formula in any way
analogous with materials found on other days?

You've had a long time to fabricate something to
circumvent the clear literary structure of the
passage. All I can see is that you turn a blind eye
to it, as you have always done.

>As far as I can see, the text as we have it clearly states that certain
>creative events took place before God said "Let there be light",

All you've shown is that there is one case in
which r'$yt acts as an absolute in the OT/HB, then
you assume br'$yt in Gen 1:1 must be absolute,
against the ancient Jewish tradition.

>according to the normal understanding of the WAYYIQTOL verb here (at the
>start of v.3) which is to indicate sequence after some preceding event.

That's why Numbers and 1 Samuel commence with
wayyiqtols, right?

Each day starts with a wayyiqtol (the same).
Why should day one start any differently given
the formal nature of the passage?

>This analysis may be debatable, but it is not a self-evident "fact" that
>it is false.

What is self-evident is the physical structure of the
creation account.

Day 1, v3 wy'mr 'lhym yhy 'wr
Day 2, v6 wy'mr 'lhym yhy rqy`
Day 3, v9 wy'mr 'lhym yqww hmym
Day 4, v14 wy'mr 'lhym yhy m'rt
Day 5, v20 wy'mr 'lhym y$rcw hmym $rc
Day 6, v24 wy'mr 'lhym twc' h'rc np$ hyh

The only difference between the first and the rest is
the fact that the rest are preceded with an indication
of the end of the previous day.

To be more specific about the content of the passage,
each of the first three days is strictly related to
the following three. Many times I've shown this:

Formation Population
1 light/dark 4 sun/moon (& stars)
2 water/sky 5 fish/birds
3 land 6 animals & humans

Again a formal structure this time in content is clear.
Wanting to make the first day reach back to v1 totally
destroys this structure, as the material in vv1-2 is
unrelated to anything on the fourth day.

Again, $mym is specifically created and named on day
two, as is 'rc on day three. So what was actually
created in your analysis in v1? Umm, the raw materials
perhaps and not the heavens and the earth? (Perhaps
the text should say that, instead what it says.)

It all makes your analysis overtly unacceptable. This
is why you ignore the text as a whole.

The only thing that's missing for you, Peter, is: "and
there was evening and there was morning, day zero" to
understand when day one starts.

Ian






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page