Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<cmeadows3 AT verizon.net>]

Greetings,

Thanks for all the posts so far.  I have been told by some (who are trying to 
harmonize the Bible and an old earth) that this COULD mean FOR six days.  To 
me it would seem that the best reading would likely be "IN" - but it 
theoretically could be "FOR" since no preposition is used.

I am just curious to see what some of you with more expertise than I think 
about it.  

And by the way I'm a HE.  ;)

Thanks,
Charles Meadows
Marshall University
> 
> From: "C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>
> Date: 2005/02/18 Fri PM 12:16:35 CST
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Re:  Ex 20:11 extent of time
> 
> 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 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>