Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold Jenkerson" <jenks AT gilanet.com>]

Sometime in the past month there was question about the Hebrew word lev/levv
as referring to the mind.  I wanted to response at that time, but involved
in moving.

Here is my take on the subject.  The Hebrew lev is an inclusive concept of
the inward man (soul).  All that takes place in that inner person is
contained in that one Hebrew word.  However, the Greek vocabulary has the
capability of definning the precise area of the Hebrew word and will
translate the Hebrew word by "mind, conscience, heart, and will."  I realize
that I typed out the English words, but it is easy enough to look up the
corresponding Greek words that are being translated into English.

This Greek pattern in the Old Testament is carried over into the New
Testament.  A personality anthropology can be developed from the Hebrew and
Greek texts that is consistent throughout the Scriptures.

Also, the Greek word for faith is a conceptual idea that corresponds to the
biblical personality anthropology as found in the Scriptures.

The basis for this personality anthropology is in the Hebrew text.  And the
context where the word lev/levv is found will determine the Greek word used
to translate the particular area that is focused upon in the inclusive
Hebrew word.

Sorry I am running late.

Harold Jenkerson
Datil, New Mexico
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: b-hebrew Digest, Vol 40, Issue 24


> Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Genesis 1:2 -  And the earth was without form,
>       (Sopiva AT aol.com)
>    2. Holmstedt's download page (M bauer)
>    3. Re: The Explicative use of wayyiqtol (To John Cook ): some
>       clarifying questions (moon AT sogang.ac.kr)
>    4. Re: Curds (sujata)
>    5. Re: Genesis 1:2 -  And the earth was without form, (Steve Miller)
>    6. Re: Genesis 1:2 -  And the earth was without form, (Yigal Levin)
>    7. Re: Genesis 1:2 -  And the earth was without form, (Dave Washburn)
>    8. Re: Curds (Karl Randolph)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:23:46 EDT
> From: Sopiva AT aol.com
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 -  And the earth was without form,
> To: peter AT qaya.org, smille10 AT sbcglobal.net
> Cc: bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <382.17432fb.317bc0a2 AT aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> New lurker on the list.
>
> Simple thought: God created Adam as an adult. He didn't have to crawl
first,
> he didn't have baby teeth, etc. I always just thought that God created the
> mountains, trees, etc. as "adults" ... already fully formed with layers
and
> rings. God could have made them any "age" He desired.
>
> Maybe I'm out to lunch, but that's okay. I'll lurk while I eat lunch. : )
>
> Rita Dennison
> Frankenmuth, Michigan, USA
>
> In a message dated 4/21/2006 5:16:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
peter AT qaya.org
> writes:
> OK. So if I find you a tree ring which is C14 dated to soon after your
> date for the flood and which is clearly (even allowing for some possible
> multiple rings per year) from when the tree was several hundred years
> old, would you accept that as evidence that that tree had been growing
> since before the flood?
>
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: M bauer <tnaswg AT yahoo.com>
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Holmstedt's download page
> To: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20060422211809.75239.qmail AT web60020.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Gentle Hebraiste:
>
>   Please note the articles mentioned, are they on this page?
>
>   Regards,
>
>   Marc Bauer
>   MT USA
>
> Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
>   On 4/21/06, Ian Young wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Two questions relating to the relative pronoun ASHER.
> >
> > 1. At the 2004 SBL in San Antonio I atttended an excellent paper by
> > Robert (I think) Holmstedt on the topic. Can anyone telll me if
> > Holmstedt has published anything on this topic?
>
> Dear Ian Young,
>
> Robert Holmstedt's cv is at:
> http://www.utoronto.ca/nmc/faculty/holmstedtcv.html
>
> This lists the following presentation:
> 2004. "The Diachronics of ??????." Paper presented at the Annual meeting
of SBL.
> San Antonio, Nov. 21.
>
> Also, his 2002 M.A. dissertation is:
> "The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis."
> It can be accessed at:
> http://individual.utoronto.ca/holmstedt/HolmstedtDissertation.pdf
>
> Also, note the following comments from the list archives:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2005-February/022380.html
> Ken Penner wrote:
> > ... I thought I'd mention Robert Holmstedt's paper at SBL San
> > Antonio on the diachronics of ?????????? )$R. He did discuss the
> > usage of ?????????? )$R vis-? -vis ???? $ in Late Biblical Hebrew, but
> > I'm not sure I recall his conclusions exactly. I do have a note
> > that Huehnergard had a forthcoming article "On the Etymology
> > of the Hebrew Relative ???? $."
>
> I guess that article is now published in:
> "Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and
> Historical Perspectives" ed. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz
> http://www.eisenbrauns.com/wconnect/wc.dll?ebGate~EIS~~I~FASBIBLIC
> http://www.magnespress.co.il/website_en/index.asp?category=173&id=2634
>
> The program contents are at:
> http://www.as.huji.ac.il/biblicalprog%20.html
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> http://toldot.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
> t(NA)swg = The Guide I use for Working The Steps. Obscure but never
obsolete.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:52:11 +0900 (KST)
> From: <moon AT sogang.ac.kr>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Explicative use of wayyiqtol (To John Cook
> ): some clarifying questions
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <4326676.1145746331441.JavaMail.root@mail>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> John, thanks for the kind answers. Let me ask some clarifying questions.
>
>
> [Cook]
> a) I do not claim to have completely explicated the verb in Num 1:48. If
it were easily solved we would not be discussing it, and we can multiply
many more interesting examples such as it. I do think that the verb makes
reference to a subnarrative in which God commands Moses not to number the
Levites and he doesn't. The difficulty is, arguably, that we only have one
action of a narrative, whereas most would define a narrative as a sequence
of actions. Unfortunately, the next action in the subnarrative would
logically be a negative one---Moses did not number them. The solution is not
perfect, admittedly, but it is satisfactory I think.
>
>
> => I assume that Num 1:48 is an isolated WAYYIQTOL. If we want to talk
about a subnarrative,
> therefore,  we should talk about an one-event subnarrative. "The next
action in the subnarrative --
> Moses did not number them" exists only implicitly, right?
>
> Also, could you please tell me some instances where X+QATAL is explained
by a subnarrative consisting of more than one WAYYIQTOLs.  I am not talking
about instances where X+QATAL establishes a setting for a subnarrative
consisting of more than one WAYYIQTOLs.
>
> [Cook]
> b) I can't really respond well to your second point because I don't agree
with your premise. You are presuming X-QATAL serves various purposes (a la
Niccacci it would seem) and then wondering why my explanation does not fit
your presumption. It is simply because I don't buy into Niccacci's discourse
approach to the BH verbal system.
>
> => OK. But we can accept the phenomenon that X+QATAL is either connected
to the previous sequence or  starts a new sequence by establishing a new
setting. Also, it seems that in the former case,  X is  a fronted topic or a
fronted focus. When X is a brand-new entity, X+QATAL is typically used to
establish a new setting for a new sequence.  I said that WLABAN NATAN
> does not to fit in the context of  Gen 29:23-25a, 28-30a, because
> the context does not provide any motivation to make LABAN a fronted topic
or a fronted focus,
> nor  WLABAN NATAN would establish a new setting for the following
sequence.
>
> I think you know instances where X + QATAL is used even if the two
contexts mentioned
> above do not apply? Could you tell me some?
>
> [Cook]
> c) I'm glad you find Hatav's system satisfying. I admire much in her
discussion. However, her treatment of WAYYIQTOL is a "tighter jacket" than
mine (to use your phrase). Not only does Hatav (1997) claim that WAYYIQTOL
always introduces a new R-time (i.e., is temporally successive), but she
claims that QATAL does not. In addition, although not explicit about this,
she seems to follow her teacher Reinhart (1984) who assumes that temporal
succession and foregrounding are mutually implicating, which would mean that
Hatav and Reinhart claim that WAYYIQTOL is both temporally successive and
foregrounding in every instance.
>
> => Hatav could have been clearer on this point. But the semantic value she
seems to attach to
> WAYYIQTOL is that it always introduces a new R-time rather than using an
pre-established
> one. It is "sequential" ONLY in the sense that it introduces a new R-time.
Usually,
> the new R-time is after the previous event, but it does not need to.
Temporal successtion and
> foregrounding are only "pragmatic" derivatives of this R-time introducing
behavior. In this sense
> Hatav's scheme is "less tight" a jacket than yours which explicitly
attaches a "pragmatic"
> value of foregrounding to  WAYYIQTOL. I hope I am clearer.
>
> [Cook]
> I have a long-overdue forthcoming article in JANES responding to Joosten's
earlier JANES article in this regard.
>
> => Could I read a pre-print of this paper?
>
> Best wishes on your continued investigation of this intriguing matters.
>
> => Thanks.
>
> Sincerely Moon  Jung
> Professor
> Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
>
>
> ___________________
> John A. Cook
> Editor, Eisenbrauns
> 574-269-2011 ext. 240
>
>
>
> > ------------------------------ 
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:04:57 +0900 (KST)
> > From: <moon AT sogang.ac.kr>
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Explicative use of wayyiqtol (To John
> > Cook)
> > To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > Message-ID: <18606414.1145592297189.JavaMail.root@mail>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> >
> > Dear John,
> >
> > many thanks for your answers to my post. I read your JSS article, and I
enjoyed it very much.
> >
> > It makes a lot of sense that temporal succession is not explicitly
marked in most
> > languages, and what is marked is DEPARTURE from the default temporal
succession.
> > Your paper made this fact quite clear.
> >
> > But it is not easy for me to understand your new claim that WAYYIQTOL is
a verb form for
> > "foreground" information in the narrative. I sort of feel that your
proposal is also "over-committed"
> > claiming more about WAYYIQTOL than it bears, like the claim that
WAYYIQTOL
> > inherently marks temporal succession.
> >
> >
> > Let's consider examples you mentioned, Num 1.48. Genesis 29:23-25a,
28-30a.
> >
> > (1) Num 1.48
> >
> > 46 And all those who were numbered were 603,550. 47However, the Levites
according to the tribe of their father were not numbered (X+QATAL) among
them. 48Yhwh (had) directed (WAYYIQTOL) Moses saying, "Only the tribe of
Levi you must not number (i.e., include in the census) . . . " >
> > 49-53: "Continuation of commands"
> > 54: Thus the children of Israel did (WAYYIQTOL); according to all that
the LORD commanded Moses, so they did (X+QATAL)
> >
> > You said:
> >
> > the event of God's directive to Moses not to count the Levites is then
expressed by WAYYIQTOL because it is the one salient event within the
subnarrative explaining why the Levites were not counted in the census.
> >
> > Here, v 48 is NOT a one salient within the SUBNARRATIVE explaining why
the Levites were not
> > counted in the census. There is no subnarrative here, but only one
WAYYIQTOL standing
> > alone. vv 49-53 is simply the quotation of God's saying. v 54 is a
summary of the chapter 1,
> > and does not go with v 48. This example is different from Josh 24:32,
24:33, where
> > a single stand-alone WAYYIQTOL occurs next to X+QATAL, but
> > the WAYYIQTOL states something which FLOWS OUT OF THE CONTEXT set up by
X+QATAL.
> >
> > Here in Num 1:48, the single stand-alone WAYYIQTOL does NOT flow out of
the
> > context set up by v 47. It simply states something which FLOWS INTO the
statement in
> > v. 47 by X+QATAL, which adds a sort of background/complementary
information
> > to the narrative of census in Num 1:46. Logically speaking, WAYYIQTOL in
v. 48
> > describes background to the QATAL statement in v. 47.
> > Anyway, you would know what's my problem:-)
> >
> >
> > (2) Genesis 29:23-25a, 28-30a
> >
> > You said:
> >
> > I think the WAYYIQTOL forms in these instances mark the giving of the
maidservants as highly salient to the narrative---particularly poignantly
expressed by being placed in the middle of the report of the consummation of
each marriage.
> >
> > You also said in the article:
> >
> > In each of these excerpts the use of WAYYIQTOL to report Laban's gift of
a maidservant
> > seems out of place: we may justifiably expect a back-ground construction
using QATAL,
> > such as WLABAN NATAN.
> >
> > ---------------- 
> >
> > I find it hard to understand this second comment. X+QATAL may belong to
the previous
> >
> > narrative sequence or starts a new narrative sequence by providing the
setting for the
> >
> > narrative. But in the context of Gen 29:23-25a, 28-30a, WLABAN NATAN
does not fit
> >
> > in either role. In the former case, X typically refers to the entity
which the reader
> >
> > would be interested to know about, given what the speaker said so far.
The most famous
> >
> > example would be WLABAN NATAN Gen 1:5ab: God called (WAYYIQTOL) the
light day, and the darkness God called (X + QATAL) night. Having said that
God called the light day, the speaker expects that the reader would be
interested to know the answer to the
> >
> > question "what about the DARKNESS?". So she goes on saying "The DARKNESS
> >
> > God called night". But in the context of Gen 29:23-25a, 28-30a, the
reader would not
> >
> > raise an implicit question "what about LABAN?", so WLABAN NATAN does not
fit.
> >
> >
> >
> > In the second case, X + QATAL provides a setting for the following
narrative sequence.
> >
> > In the context of Gen 29:23-25a, 28-30a, there is no way that WLABAN
NATAN ,
> >
> > provides a setting for the following narrative. So, WLABAN NATAN does
not fit in the
> >
> > context of Gen 29:23-25a, 28-30a, at all. So, the use of WAYYIQTOL in
this context is NOT
> >
> > marked.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Having raised some questions about your proposal, I would like to
mention Galia Hatav's
> >
> > proposal. In her book "The Semantics of Aspect and
> > Modality" (1977) and Journal of Linguistics 2004 article, she claims
that a WAYYITOL clause always introduces a NEW reference time which contains
the event time of the clause. Though
> > this New R-time introduced by WAYYITOL typically refers to the time
"just after" the
> > previous event, it does not have to. The new R-time can refer to
sometime back in the
> > narrative. Hatav posits less about the semantics of WAYYITOL than you.
She does not say
> > that by introducing a new R-time, WAYYITOL marks foreground information,
although >
> > there is such tendency.
> >
> >
> >
> > Her proposal for R-time introducing feature of WAYYITOL comes as a pair
with non-R-time introducing feature of QATAL.
> >
> >
> > According to Hatav, QATAL does not introduce a New R-time, but needs /
refers to
> > an already established R-time, typically the current R-time for the
previous sentence.
> >
> > Hatav calls QATAL "parasite" verb for that reason. Another parasite verb
is QOTEL
> >
> > (progressive "tense").
> >
> >
> >
> > But, as you also mentioned, there are cases when QATAL introduces a New
R-time
> >
> > moving the narrative/direct discourse forward. EG: Gen 4:18, Gen 24:46,
two QATALs in Gen 40:10 (gone up hath its blossom, its clusters have ripened
grapes;)
> >
> >
> >
> > Every sentence needs the referencde time to anchor
> >
> > the claim of the sentence to the time line. Without the reference time,
> >
> > it is impossible to interpret sentences fully. So, both WAYYIQTOL and
QATAL
> >
> > need the reference time. HATAV distinquishes two ways of getting the
> >
> > reference time. One is to "build" a new reference time relative to the
previously
> >
> > built ones. This is the way of WAYYIQTOL. The other is to anchor to a
previously
> >
> > established reference time. This is the way of QATAL. I think this
distinction is
> >
> > important and contributes to the way the narrative is organized.
> >
> >
> >
> > But, Hatav's theory is based on the assumption that QATAL is quite
> >
> > similar to the English perfect "tense", which indeed does not introduce
> >
> > a new R-time, but can say several things in parallel about the given
> >
> > reference time. I do not think Hatav explained satisfactorily the
> >
> > counter-examples where QATAL introduces a new R-time.
> >
> >
> >
> > In sum, I think that Hatav's proposal is on the right track more than
> >
> > yours. The notion of foregroundness is too tight a jachet although
> >
> > less tight than the notion of temporal succession. (But I do not
> >
> > exclude the possibility that I like Hatav's proposal because I am
> >
> > familiar to the paradigms and the notions that she uses, e.g. the
reference time, the possible words, the file card semantics, discourse
representation structures.)
> >
> >
> >
> > I would modify Hatav's hypothesis as follows:
> >
> >
> >
> > (1) WAYYIQTOL's R-time building behavior: the same as Hatav
> >
> > (2) QATAL:
> >
> > (1) X+QATAL is often used, when X is the topic inferrable from the
previous
> >
> > discourse about which the reader is expected to know. So, QATAL should
> >
> > have some features that cooperate with this topcalization behavior of
> >
> > X+QATAL. X + QATAL can talk about various aspects of the "current"
> >
> > situation. These various aspects do not
> >
> > need to be background information. For example, in Gen 1:5ab, the v
> >
> > 1:5a and 1:5b are parallel, and so both are foreground in this context.
> >
> > I find it difficulto to take Niccacci's translation,
> >
> > "God the called the light day, while he called
> >
> > the night darkness", which intends to convey that "while he
> >
> > called the night darkness" is background, complementary information.
> >
> >
> >
> > (2) QATAL introduces a new R-time or uses a pre-established one.
> >
> >
> >
> > If QATAL does not introduce a new R-time, it indeeds is capable to
cooperate
> >
> > with topicalization behavior of X+QATAL.
> >
> > Because it does not move the narrative forward, it can talk about
various aspects
> >
> > of the current situation. But, even when the R-time moves foward
> >
> > according to the knowledge of the world, the speaker can organize
> >
> > a subsequence (WAYYIQTOL + X+QATAL) which enters
> >
> > into the narrative as a unit.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------- 
> >
> > I know that QATAL's indeterminate behavior with respect to R-time
building is quite>
> >
> > strange. But if it can explain phenomenon well, we can posit such a
hypothesis.
> >
> > That is the very procedure of doing science, as far as I know.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely
> >
> > Moon-Ryul Jung
> >
> > Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: sujata <shevaroys AT yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Curds
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20060422225637.45953.qmail AT web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Do all references to curds in the bible use the same hebrew word? What is
the curds of the bible? Is it yoghurt or something else.
> Thanks
>   sujata
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:58:45 -0400
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 -  And the earth was without form,
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <001901c66671$1289dbc0$210110ac@emachine>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Kirk Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:05 AM
> >
> > On 20/04/2006 07:36, Steve Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > ... I think C14 dating is accurate up until Noah's flood, but not
before
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> > OK. So if I find you a tree ring which is C14 dated to soon after your
> > date for the flood and which is clearly (even allowing for some possible
> > multiple rings per year) from when the tree was several hundred years
> > old, would you accept that as evidence that that tree had been growing
> > since before the flood?
> >
> Thanks, Peter, for the great question. I would consider that tree ring by
> itself to be very weak evidence that the tree had survived the flood:
> 1) If there is only one such specimen, it could be an anomaly.
> 2) If there are 3 such specimens from different locations, then to me it
> means, more likely, that C14 dating stops being accurate some time before
> the flood. We know C14 dating is accurate to 500 BC. It seems reasonable
> that the underlying assumption behind it holds up until the time of the
> flood, but maybe not. Maybe C14 formation rate was changing gradually the
> whole time while man's life expectancy was changing: from 900 yrs before
the
> flood, to 400 yrs for the 1st generation after the flood, down to 70 years
> at least by the time of Moses.
> 3) If the tree ring had no rings in the center, then I would take that as
> strong evidence that the tree had survived the flood, because there were
no
> seasons before the flood. Apparently the olive tree, whose branch the dove
> brought back to Noah, survived.
> 4) The reason I am sure that all the radioactive dating methods
assumptions
> fail before the flood is because the Bible tells us that the earth's
> atmosphere changed after the flood. i.e.
> a. no rainbows before flood, but after.
> b. no seasons before flood, but after.
> c. man not allowed to eat meat before flood, but after. (necessitated by
> winter)
> d. before flood, a mist watered the earth. After flood, rain.
> e. man's life span was rather constant 900 years before flood. Went down
> rapidly after flood.
>
> Are there any such tree rings dated to ~ B.C. 2350?
>
> -Steve Miller,
> Detroit
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:11:00 +0200
> From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 -  And the earth was without form,
> To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <002601c6669c$b1985680$4a8d1bac@xp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
> reply-type=original
>
> Dear Steve and Peter,
>
> 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. 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.
> 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. 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.
>
> Yigal Levin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
> >> > ... I think C14 dating is accurate up until Noah's flood, but not
> >> > before
> >> > that.
> >> >
> >>
> >> OK. So if I find you a tree ring which is C14 dated to soon after your
> >> date for the flood and which is clearly (even allowing for some
possible
> >> multiple rings per year) from when the tree was several hundred years
> >> old, would you accept that as evidence that that tree had been growing
> >> since before the flood?
> >>
> > Thanks, Peter, for the great question. I would consider that tree ring
by
> > itself to be very weak evidence that the tree had survived the flood:
> > 1) If there is only one such specimen, it could be an anomaly.
> > 2) If there are 3 such specimens from different locations, then to me it
> > means, more likely, that C14 dating stops being accurate some time
before
> > the flood. We know C14 dating is accurate to 500 BC. It seems reasonable
> > that the underlying assumption behind it holds up until the time of the
> > flood, but maybe not. Maybe C14 formation rate was changing gradually
the
> > whole time while man's life expectancy was changing: from 900 yrs before
> > the
> > flood, to 400 yrs for the 1st generation after the flood, down to 70
years
> > at least by the time of Moses.
> > 3) If the tree ring had no rings in the center, then I would take that
as
> > strong evidence that the tree had survived the flood, because there were
> > no
> > seasons before the flood. Apparently the olive tree, whose branch the
dove
> > brought back to Noah, survived.
> > 4) The reason I am sure that all the radioactive dating methods
> > assumptions
> > fail before the flood is because the Bible tells us that the earth's
> > atmosphere changed after the flood. i.e.
> > a. no rainbows before flood, but after.
> > b. no seasons before flood, but after.
> > c. man not allowed to eat meat before flood, but after. (necessitated by
> > winter)
> > d. before flood, a mist watered the earth. After flood, rain.
> > e. man's life span was rather constant 900 years before flood. Went down
> > rapidly after flood.
> >
> > Are there any such tree rings dated to ~ B.C. 2350?
> >
> > -Steve Miller,
> > Detroit
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:48:19 -0600
> From: Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 -  And the earth was without form,
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <200604230748.19293.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Sunday 23 April 2006 00:11, Yigal Levin wrote:
> > Dear Steve and Peter,
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Granted, though the language of "setting" it in the sky does kind of hint
that
> there hadn't been one before.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>
> >
> > >> > ... I think C14 dating is accurate up until Noah's flood, but not
> > >> > before
> > >> > that.
> > >>
> > >> OK. So if I find you a tree ring which is C14 dated to soon after
your
> > >> date for the flood and which is clearly (even allowing for some
possible
> > >> multiple rings per year) from when the tree was several hundred years
> > >> old, would you accept that as evidence that that tree had been
growing
> > >> since before the flood?
> > >
> > > Thanks, Peter, for the great question. I would consider that tree ring
by
> > > itself to be very weak evidence that the tree had survived the flood:
> > > 1) If there is only one such specimen, it could be an anomaly.
> > > 2) If there are 3 such specimens from different locations, then to me
it
> > > means, more likely, that C14 dating stops being accurate some time
before
> > > the flood. We know C14 dating is accurate to 500 BC. It seems
reasonable
> > > that the underlying assumption behind it holds up until the time of
the
> > > flood, but maybe not. Maybe C14 formation rate was changing gradually
the
> > > whole time while man's life expectancy was changing: from 900 yrs
before
> > > the
> > > flood, to 400 yrs for the 1st generation after the flood, down to 70
> > > years at least by the time of Moses.
> > > 3) If the tree ring had no rings in the center, then I would take that
as
> > > strong evidence that the tree had survived the flood, because there
were
> > > no
> > > seasons before the flood. Apparently the olive tree, whose branch the
> > > dove brought back to Noah, survived.
> > > 4) The reason I am sure that all the radioactive dating methods
> > > assumptions
> > > fail before the flood is because the Bible tells us that the earth's
> > > atmosphere changed after the flood. i.e.
> > > a. no rainbows before flood, but after.
> > > b. no seasons before flood, but after.
> > > c. man not allowed to eat meat before flood, but after. (necessitated
by
> > > winter)
> > > d. before flood, a mist watered the earth. After flood, rain.
> > > e. man's life span was rather constant 900 years before flood. Went
down
> > > rapidly after flood.
> > >
> > > Are there any such tree rings dated to ~ B.C. 2350?
> > >
> > > -Steve Miller,
> > > Detroit
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> -- 
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> Fame is fleeing, as good old Whatsisname used to say.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:29:28 -0500
> From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Curds
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20060423142928.AF4D98402F AT ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Sujata:
>
> As one who has read only the Hebrew text for the
> last several years, I don't know where "curds" is used.
>
> However, there are books that give the English words,
> then a list of all the Greek and Hebrew words that were
> so translated into English. I believe the Strong's
> concordance is one of them. They would be able to
> answer your question for you.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: sujata <shevaroys AT yahoo.com>
> >
> > Do all references to curds in the bible use the same hebrew word?
> > What is the curds of the bible? Is it yoghurt or something else.
> > Thanks
> >    sujata
>
> -- 
> ___________________________________________________
> Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> End of b-hebrew Digest, Vol 40, Issue 24
> ****************************************
>