Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> Another problem with responding to Karl and James is arguments
> such as the following:
>
> > > Gen 49:25 The parallelism $mym/thwm immediately
> > > follows )l )byk/$dy, which is clearly a divine
> > >
> > ...not!
>
> I don't know where or how to start?  Shaday and )el )abika are
> definitely divine.  At least, I think so.  So how do I respond?
> "..is too!"?  This may be seen as an extreme case of arguing
> without specific evidence.

Karl:
Go back and read the text, in Hebrew. While the text is poetic in
format, $MYM and THWM are not in parallel with $DY and )L, rather the
sentence structure puts them in the object phrases of the verb, while
$DY and )L are the subject. Not parallel at all. If you want to
divinize heavens and depths, then to be consistent you need to
divinize breasts and womb, in the same verse.

JCR: I see a parallel but it has nothing to do with 
divinities. The parallel is between locations. The 
heavens above are paralleled with a woman's breasts 
which are also above. The depth below is paralleled
with a woman's 'womb' [cough]sanitised translation[/cough]
which is also below. It seems that men's anatomical
interests haven't changed much in the last 4,000 years
;-)

James C. Read
UK