...Clay, you misunderstand me. I was certainly not indulging in cosmological speculation. And it was not me who called into question the standard English translation. Although this is in fact proper scholarly technique - there are plenty of theological edifices built on questionable English and other translations which need to be reexamined.
It is one thing to suggest the dubious "for six days" as a rendering of
$$t-ymyM, it is another thing to proceed to cosmological speculation on the
basis of that dubious rendering. It was this second move that I was
objecting to.
The is a standard pulpit technique. You call into question a standard
English translation. You suggest a dubious alternative. Then you construct
an even more dubious exegetical and hermeneutical edifice on the dubious
translation alternative. This is all vapor (fog). Only the first move has
anything to do with Hebrew and the first move as C admits isn't a sound one.
So why proceed to the second move?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.