Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_R_Kirk AT hotmail.com>]

Joe, to correct your facts, the rebhia (at least in the BHS text in
front of me) is on the first word of verse 2, not the last word of verse
2 which, like the last word of every verse, is accented with silluq.
This implies a slight pause after (not before) that first word,
W:HF)FREC "and/but the earth". Perhaps we could think of translating
"And/but as for the earth, it was..." though this is probably too strong
in English. I wish I could, but I can't, comment further on the
implications of this.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
  
-----Original Message-----
From: VALEDICTION [mailto:info AT valediction.com] 
Sent: 22 November 2002 08:53
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: [b-hebrew] Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
Importance: High

I've heard arguments on both sides of the fence regarding possible gap
in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
 
The two most compelling points I've heard on the pro-Gap Theory side
report the following:
 
(1)  The Jewish scholars who wrote the Massoretic Text, incorporated
"indicators" to guide the reader to correct punctuation.  One such mark
is called "Rebhia," which is classified as a "disjunctive accent"
intended to notify the reader to pause before proceeding to the next
verse because there is a break in the text.  The initial waw which
introduces verse 2 should be rendered "but" rather than "and", a
dis-junctive rather than a con-junctive, because the last word of verse
1 is separated from verse 2 by means of the disjunctive accent Rebhia,
which implies that we are to let our thoughts dwell upon it before
passing on to verse 2.
 
(2)  The word "was" in verse 2 can also be translated as "became",
implying that between the first two verses of Genesis 1, some sort
of catastrophe must have occurred, causing the earth to fall into the
formless and void state of which the latter part of verse 2 makes
mention.
 
Frankly, I'm not looking to know who's right or who's wrong in this
debate of the Gap Theory, because doing so would cause us fall terribly
off-topic... but I would simply like to know if either of the two points
listed above can be validated in the original language.  I am trying to
explore this subject with an open mind.  Is there room to accurately
come to such conclusions, or are these linguistical nuances completely
unfounded?
 
Your scholarly expertise and input is greatly appreciated!
 
Joe Glean --junior member--
---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.