Biblical Hebrew Forum

["JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk>]

Karl wrote
The linguistic and traditional understanding of Genesis 1:1 is that God
created the primeval realm of water, that before that creation, there was
total nothingness (as far as the physical universe is concerned). This whole
argument claiming that there was pre-existing matter is an attempt to
shoehorn Babylonian and other ANE myths into Genesis.
END QUOTE

JCR:
I think I probably agree with the shoehorning bit. But 
my understanding was an earth covered with water and 
the heavens were created not just a 'watery realm'.

Karl wrote:
Further, your claim that "Tahom" is an allusion to Babylonian myth could
just as well be understood that the Babylonian myth was an allusion to a
Hebrew original, one that was not written on pottery, clay, stone or other
durable materials, but was written just the same.
END QUOTE

JCR:
I didn't make any such claim. I just linked to an article 
I had found and quoted the relevant bit to see what 
people thought about the validity of the change in 
vowel pointing. Personally, I think the whole thing 
shows the ridiculous lengths that some will go to in 
order to do the shoehorning thing you mentioned earlier 
but I wanted to hear if there was any good reason to 
believe a change in vowel pointing was in order before 
writing the whole thing off.

At first, I thought there was no link whatsoever between 
the two stories but have been interested to hear from 
Yitzhak that tiamat and tehom are allegedly cognates. 
However, I am not too convinced that the reference to 
tehom in Genesis 1 refers to Tiamat as the context 
doesn't seem to support such a translation.

It's starting to seem like the whole thing has started 
from the tiamat/tehom thing and then developed as a 
theory from there. Maybe there is some truth in your 
suggestion that Babylonian myths have built upon an 
older creation story. I don't know. I still see the 
two stories as so different in nature that I even doubt 
that tiamat and tehom are cognates at all. They only
seem to have an initial 't' in common.

The notion that Yah is commanding the earth also seems
irreconcilable with bible truth as Proverbs 8 seems to
make it clear exactly who Yah was talking to.

Also the fact that the verb bara is only used with Yah
as its subject makes it difficult for me to believe
that bara can merely mean mould/shape/form as people
are clearly capable of these actions. Whatever bara
means it must be something that only Yah can do.

Does the Marduk/Tiamat myth make use of a similar verb?

James C. Read
UK like the whole thing has started
from the tiamat/tehom thing and then developed as a
theory from there. Maybe there is some truth in your
sugges