Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

 Re: [b-hebrew] skies in plural? (Rolf's response 2)



Dear Jerry,

The methodological problem with your post is your insistence of "it 
(RQ(/RQY() can only have one meaning," exactly as George insistence that 
"this is what the text says." Language does not work like this, and 
particularly when we are dealing with a dead language without living 
informants, we should be cautious. How many words in Classical Hebrew that 
have only ONE meaning and ONE reference can you mention? Please give me a 
list of such words.

That the verb RQ( can refer to the act of hammering metal is clear (Exodus 
39:3; Isaiah 40:19). But the verb can also refer to other actions: In Isaiah 
42:5 RQ( parallels BR) (to create).  The first is used with reference to the 
earth and its produce and the second to the heavens. Of what does the object 
of RQ( consist? It consists of 1) the earth, and 2) its produce (offspring). 
I would like to ask about "the earth." Does it only include the crust on 
which we tread, or is the space where the birds fly included as well? Isaiah 
saw the heavens with shining stars and the earth below,  and his point is 
that all this is made (BR( and RQ( ) by YHWH. When open space can be included 
in the object of RQ(, the RQY( of Genesis 1 needs  not be solid.

I find your application of Job 37:18 strange. In the chapter, God is 
lecturing Job, and he refers to several things in the nature: the tempest (v. 
9), ice (v. 10) clouds with moisture (11), cluds and rain (v. 13), clouds and 
ligtnings (v. 15 ), clouds (v. 16), the south wind (v. 17).  Different words 
for "clouds" are used, and there is no indicattion in the text that these the 
clouds are seen as something solid. The core meaning of XZQ in v 18 is 
"strong," and the particle K indicate that the $XQ does not literally become 
a solid molten mirror. But they become "strong like" a molten mirror. The 
wonders of God is described, and the reference may be to the wonderful colors 
at sunrise or sunset when the clouds reflect the rays of the sun. Then the 
cluds can be said to be strong like a molten mirror. So, the argument 
remains: The verb RQ( is here applied to something (dust/clouds) that cannot 
be touched, that is not solid.

You completely misunderstood my application of Ezekiel 1. I did not compare 
the wings of the living creatures with the wings of birds.  My point was that 
living (material) creatures with wings are described. Above them we have a 
literal solid RQY(, and above this vault we see the literal throne of God, 
and on the threone we see a literal man like glowing metal and like the 
rainbow. The setting is litarally described, but it is a vision and every 
detail is symbolic— God is not a man, and his throne does not literally rest 
upon a solid vault. My point was the use of prepositions for "above" and 
"below."  I did not "downplay" anything," and I have no "weird" reference to 
it anywhere in my post.

My principal objection to both  George and you, is your  claim that RQ( and 
RQY( can have only one reference. The is and example of the application of 
lexical semantics at its worst!


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway





Søndag 9. September 2012 22:53 CEST skrev Jerry Shepherd 
<jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>:


  Hi Rolf,



  I’m sure George will have his own reply, but I’d like to chime in on this
  as well. Initially, let me observe that it doesn’t really help your case
  when the verses you list in support of your position say the exact opposite
  of what you summarize them as saying.



  Rq( as a verb occurs 12x in the Hebrew Bible. With 5 of those occurrences,
  Exod 39:3; Num 17:3, 4; Isa 40:19; and Jer 10:9, there is no debate at all
  as to what is being denoted by the verb: a process of hammering, beating,
  and stamping out metal. That leaves 7 passages.



  2 Sam 22:43 refers to trampling out an at least semi-solid substance, the
  mire or clay of the streets.



  Job 37:18, as you noted, refers to how Yahweh spreads out the clouds or
  the dust. But the verse goes on to say that the result is that the
  clouds/dust become “hard as a mirror of cast bronze.” As I said, it does
  not help your case when your proof texts are more in line with your
  opponents’ position than with yours. The rq( is a process of making
  something solid.



  In Ps 136:6, Yahweh spreads out the earth, a solid substance, something
  that can be walked on.



  In Isa 42:5, again Yahweh spreads out the earth, a solid substance.



  In Isa 44:24, again Yahweh spreads out the earth, a solid substance.



  In Ezek 6:11, Ezekiel is told to stamp his feet (presumably on the ground,
  a solid substance).



  In Ezek 25:6, the Ammonites are rebuked for having stamped their feet (on
  the ground) with malice against the Israelites.



  So, we have 12 occurrences, none of which have to do with spreading out
  some ethereal, airy, gaseous substance. Rq( refers to hammering, stamping,
  beating out.



  The noun rqy( occurs 15x. 9 of those occurrences are in Gen 1 (not just
  the3x you mentioned). Since these are the ones in question, I’ll look at
  the other occurrences first.



  Nothing can really be told one way or the other from the occurrences in Ps
  19:2; 150:1; and Dan 12:3. But when you say “the parallels suggest a
  non-solid state,” you are begging the question.



  For the occurrences in Ezekiel (1:22-26), on the one hand, you try to
  downplay the occurrences as being used in “visions where literal things of
  three dimensions are used in a symbolic way to describe heavenly things.” On
  the other hand, you try to appeal to it later in some weird way to compare
  the wings of the living creatures with the wings of the birds. But there
  is no comparison. As we can easily tell from other ANE texts and artwork,
  the wings of the living creatures are holding up the rqy(. They are
  sky-bearers. And the throne of Yahweh is resting on the rqy(. The rqy(
  in Ezek 1 is a solid substance.



  Of course, the occurrences in Gen 1 (vv. 6, 7 (3x), 8, 14, 15, 17, 20) are
  the ones that are under dispute in this discussion. If the occurrences of
  the verb rq( and the noun rQy( are given their full weight, we should
  expect that the the rqy( in Gen 1 is, indeed, a solid substance. When you
  add to this that this is reflective of the cosmosgraphy of the ancient
  world (as well-demonstrated as it is, e.g., in the volume recommended to
  you by Martin Shield), then I think George’s case is pretty well taken –
  “That’s what the text says.”


  Blessings,
  Jerry Shepherd
  Taylor Seminary
  Edmonton, Alberta
  jshepherd53 AT gmail.com