Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form,

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form,
  • Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:15:04 +0200


Yigal Levin:
The idea that the laws of nature were somehow different before the Flood is
a well-known way of dealing with the "discrepancies" between a literal
reading of Genesis and "natural history". In fact, such claims are made in
the Talmud. They are not, however, based upon the biblical text. Gen. 8
does NOT claim that there were no seasons before the Flood, only that the
seasons would continue henceforth uninterrupted.

Dave Washburn:
But if that's the case, why mention them at all? It seems extraneous. The
only reason I can see for bringing it up is because these people didn't
really know what they were and God was telling them to be prepared for
seasonal changes.


Because the Flood itself was an interuption of the natural seasons. The rain began on the 17th of the second month (Iyyar - April-May), a time of year at which any rain would have been unusual. To Noah and co., the world had been turned on its head. God promissed them that this would never happen again.


Yigal:
Gen. 9 does NOT claim that
there were no rainbows before the Flood, only that from that point, we
should consider the rainbow to be a sign of the covenant between God and
humanity.

Dave:
Granted, though the language of "setting" it in the sky does kind of hint that
there hadn't been one before.

Yigal:
The "mist" (if that is indeed what "ed" means) mentioned in Gen.
2 reffers to the primeveal state of the Garden of Eden, NOT to the whole
period up to the Flood.

Dave:
Actually, it does say there was no rain but rather the mist (or whatever it
was), and nothing between then and chapter 6 says otherwise, so unless you
have some textual evidence of a change from that to rain, it's reasonable to
conclude that it did in fact continue that way until the Flood. I see no
basis in the text for your conclusion about this.

I think that the Garden is certainly "special", so that nothing that was true there can be used as a preccedent for the rest of the book.



And as far as eating meat - Gen. does not say that
people did not eat meat before the Flood, only that God now regulated how
meat is to be eaten.

Dave:
Once again, I think you're pulling this in out of left field. 2:16 says the
man was to eat plants, and nothing between there and chapter 9 contradicts
that principle. Verse 3 says "Every moving thing that lives shall be food
for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." (RSV)
This suggests that eating meat is a new thing: just as I had already given
you plants to eat, now I give you meat, as well. And the only way this is
"regulated" there is, don't eat meat with the blood in it. Not much in the
way of regulation. The clear implication is that eating meat is a novel
idea.

Bear in mind that I'm not a "young-earth" creationist. But I'm afraid your
objections above don't stand up to scrutiny of the text before us.

Yigal Levin





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page