Biblical Hebrew Forum

["C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>]

On 2/18/05 8:42 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:

>>> Presumably if C's "for six days" alternative actually means anything
>>> different from "in six days" ...
>>>    
>>> 
>> 
>> This is an argument from an English text ...
>> 
>>  
>> 
> No, it was an attempt to understand C's posting. He or she was trying to
> distinguish two possible meanings of the Hebrew phrase by means of
> English near equivalents.

OK, I agree with you.

On 2/17/05 5:05 PM, "cmeadows3 AT verizon.net" <cmeadows3 AT verizon.net> wrote:

> Considering Exodus 20:11 - the phrase translated "IN six days".  I think the
> text reads just "six days".  I have heard some claim that it could also be
> rendered "for six days".  This seems to be unlikely.

It is one thing to suggest the dubious "for six days" as a rendering of
$$t-ymyM, it is another thing to proceed to cosmological speculation on the
basis of that dubious rendering. It was this second move that I was
objecting to. 

The is a standard pulpit technique. You call into question a standard
English translation. You suggest a dubious alternative. Then you construct
an even more dubious exegetical and hermeneutical edifice on the dubious
translation alternative. This is all vapor (fog). Only the first move has
anything to do with Hebrew and the first move as C admits isn't a sound one.
So why proceed to the second move?


greetings,
Clay Bartholomew