Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ishnian" <ishinan AT comcast.net>]

  Dear George,

  I agree that the focus should be on literary and linguistic issues. But I 
do not understand your first point. You yourself and several others have 
argued that the account in Genesis 1 and 2 is mythological and is of the same 
nature as all the other cosmological accounts in ANE. Comparisons with Enuma 
Elish and other accounts have been made. One list member wrote that the 
account in Genesis 1 started with chaos—the mythological catchword. Did I 
violate the rules of b-hebrew when I argued that the account did not start 
with chaos, and that what is said in Genesis 1:1-2 accords with modern 
science? Is a reference to scientific findings (the laws of thermodynamics) 
not allowed, whereas references to ancient findings and documents are 
allowed?  My arguments are just as much a discussion of Hebrew "literature" 
as comparisons with Enuma Elish. When I claim that the account in Genesis 1 
and 2 accords with what have been found in the crust of the earth, and t 
herefore need not be interpreted in a mythological way, this is a statement 
about the literary nature of the account, just as much as comparisons with 
mythological accounts. I have not understood the rules of b-hebrew in a way 
that all kinds of arguments in favor of mythology are allowed, but arguments 
in favor of of the opposite, that accounts in the Tanakh are 
non-mythological,  are not allowed.

  I would like to stress that I do not believe in or defend creationism. And 
I have neither time not interest in a discussion of the creation account in 
the light of modern science. My motive for joining this discussion, was a 
wrong use of lexical semantics on the list. It was  argued that RQY( ONLY 
could refer to a solid vault, that is, its reference is mythological, and 
this is simply not true. I think it is a service to the listmembers when 
someone raises his voice and argues that there are alternatives to the 
mythological understanding of specific parts of the Tanakh, particularly when 
this is done by the help of linguistic and historical arguments.


  Best regards,

  Rolf Furuli
  Stavern
  Norway

  Torsdag 6. September 2012 11:09 CEST skrev George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:


    Remember, let's keep discussion confined to the literature. Whether 
Genesis accords or does not accord with modern science is NOT the issue to be 
discussed in this forum (as interesting a question as it is). Let's keep 
ourselves to the literary and linguistic issues, please.


    GEORGE ATHAS
    Dean of Research,
    Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
    Sydney, Australia