Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Re: Ex 20:11 extent of time

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: "C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Re: Ex 20:11 extent of time
  • Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:24:11 +0000

On 18/02/2005 18:16, C. Stirling Bartholomew wrote:

...


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?


Clay, you misunderstand me. I was certainly not indulging in cosmological speculation. And it was not me who called into question the standard English translation. Although this is in fact proper scholarly technique - there are plenty of theological edifices built on questionable English and other translations which need to be reexamined.

In fact I was examining in a bit more detail C's dubious hypothesis that the phrase means "for six days" rather than "in six days", i.e. that the end of the six day period does not imply the completion of the creation process. What could this mean? That the creation was left unfinished? Unlikely. That God repeatedly (any number of times from 2 upward, in principle even to billions) worked six days on, one day off? Well, I can imagine Israelites having that concept, with the number of times unknown. But it does conflict with Genesis 1. So no one can say that I am trying to reconcile the Bible with any cosmology, only to point out that this one passage just might be less definite on the issue than it appears to be at first sight and from English translations. On the other hand, I agree with C that the traditional understanding is more likely.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 14/02/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page