Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:44 PM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Hi Karl.
>
> I do mean the compliment. Learning occurs best when there is good debating,
> so I appreciate your interaction (and, I hope, vice versa).


Yes, I appreciate a good debate, as it sharpens my knowledge as well. In
fact, that’s the reason I joined B-Hebrew.

>
>
> The biblical concept of the past is quite similar to other ancient Near
> Eastern views of the past.


Is it? Or is our understanding of the Biblical concept of the past colored
by our expectations?


> Mesopotamian sagas also have dates, including individual kings who ruled
> for thousands of years. You could theoretically do the math and derive a
> chronology based upon those documents, too. Why prefer one over the other? I
> imagine you'd see one as fictional, right?
>

The Biblical dates extend from the creation to the time of Cyrus of Persia,
with the caveat of possible copyist errors. From my understanding (correct
me if I’m wrong) the Mesopotamian sagas’ dates do not extend beyond the
sagas themselves

>
> Also, your interpretation of /raqia(/ is overly stringent. The spread
> (excuse the pun) of the word and comparison with cognates (within Hebrew and
> other Semitic languages) strongly indicates the notion of something that is
> 'stretched out'. The very concept implies something physical - not 'space'.
> I'd suggest translating the noun as 'panel', or something similar.
>

True, it is usually used to refer to a particular physical object, but it is
also used to refer to the earth spreading out over the seas e.g. Isaiah
42:5, Psalm 136:6 and even to clouds Job 37:18. So its use to refer to the
atmosphere or beyond as an expanse fits within its semantic range.

>
> I guess we'll agree to disagree?
>

No problem.

>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>

Karl W. Randolph.