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: Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky <hermeneutics AT kulikovskyonline.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3
  • Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 01:01:53 +0200


On 05:30 AM 16/08/2002 +0200, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>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.

According to my understanding which I have already explained and justified, the text states that the universe was created ex nihilo over 6 days.

>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.

The fact is that day 1 IS different. It begins at verse 1 according to the grammar of the Hebrew, which describes an initial creative act and it employs a cardinal while the other days use an ordinal.

>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 Jewish tradition ie. the MT it is accentuated as an absolute. This is also reflected in the LXX.

>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?

Check a good Hebrew grammar and you will note that most Hebrew narrative begins with a perfect but is followed by a string of waw-consec imperfects. However, the grammars also note that on occasion the perfect is dropped and the narrative begins simply with the waw-consec imperfect.

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

Because it's day one.

>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

But a close analysis shows that these supposed parallels are artificial. See my paper "A Critique of the Literary Framework View of the Days of Creation" CRSQ 37/4 (March 2001) 237-244. Available on-line at:
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Framework.pdf

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.

That's because this structure is artificial and imposed on the text.


cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky
Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web site:
http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page