Biblical Hebrew Forum

["YODAN" <yodanco AT yodanco.com>]

I don't feel that there was straying by Karl or myself into theology when
trying to explain how certain wording is used in the Torah.  Obviously, when
there is an issue about understanding a word, interpretations are
unavoidable...  unless the discussion is purely about the grammar, which was
not the intent in this case (the question was not about the grammar but
about the meaning).  What's within the scope of acceptable in any given list
is sometimes a matter of interpretation and walking on a fine line.  

 

I do want to make the point that assuming that Adam was immortal prior to
eating the fruit (and explaining the phrase in question based on this
assumption) is as much of a "theological area" as saying that perhaps he was
actually mortal to start with.  Whether or not it makes a difference in
understanding the word in question can be debated (it may not), but it's
important to understand that just because many (the majority?) people have a
certain belief (in this case, the belief that Adam was immortal before
eating the fruit and that eating the fruit caused his mortality), and use
this to explain the word, even though there is no proof in the text, is no
more valid that saying he was mortal all along. In fact, both part of
certain theologies. Neither possibility has direct proof. Both are used to
offer explanations of a certain phrase. So it's important that the same
standards are used for all beliefs when they are used to explain the
language. 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peter AT qaya.org] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:23 AM
To: YODAN
Cc: 'K Randolph'; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen. 2:16-17 :: idiom or clumsy lie

 

On 30/11/2006 04:14, YODAN wrote:

> ...

> 

> Or are some explanations/arguments/interpretations (especially those that

> are not in line with certain doctrines) not "Kosher" on this list because

> they don't fit someone's beliefs?  I don't quite understand this.  This
(and

> some offensive emails I received privately) make me wonder what kind of a

> list this is supposed to be. 

> 

>   

Yodan, you are free to state your opinions on this matter, and Karl is 

free to state his, provided they stay within the list guidelines. If you 

and Karl disagree and have a lively discussion, that is good because it 

is the purpose of the list. I don't see either of you trying to shut the 

other up, and I hope you won't. But also please don't stray too far from 

the text into theology.

 

As for offensive private e-mails, I hope that whoever is responsible 

will stop them. I guess the perpetrators could be reported to the 

moderators and warned that they might be banned from the list.

 

My own take on this is the same as Yonah's and that of many modern 

translations, that BYWM simply means "when" and is not referring to a 24 

hour period.

 

-- 

Peter Kirk

E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org

Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/

Website: http://www.qaya.org/