Tue Oct 29 00:48:32 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Oct 29 00:48:32 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id AAA02425; Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:47:16 -0500
Message-Id: <199610290545.WAA13043@wave.sheridan.wy.us>
Comments: Authenticated sender is 
From: "Dave Washburn" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:41:29 -7
Subject: Re: Fw: Hebrew wording of Day 4
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1990

Hmm...well, let's compare the wording with another day, like the 
second.  The fourth day, v.14, begins "And God said, let there be..." 
"Let there be" is YHY, the same term used in v.3 "Let there be light" 
and in v.6, "Let there be an expanse."  The expanse is "to divide," 
LeHABDIL; this same term is used for the "lights" on the fourth day.  
The creation of the expanse continues with WAYA(A$, "and He made"; 
the same term continues the creation of the sun and moon in v.16.  
V.7 adds "And it was so," a phrase missing in the 4th day but 
essentially meaningless wrt Sailhamer's suggestion.  Both 
descriptions end with "And God saw that it was good."

Conclusion: if the 4th day means, not that these items were created 
that day but that they already existed and were appointed for 
specific purposes, then we have to conclude the same about the 
expanse on the second day.  IOW, Sailhamer is wrong.

>  TCers--I just recieved this from a Genesis listserv, and would like to get
> your
> help on the wording in Genesis 1.  Any help?  Thanks and God bless,
>                         
>                                                                       Jim
>  
> > I just listened to a tape called "Genesis Unbound" by a Dr. John
> Sailhamer,
> > who is a Hebrew scholar who claims that the Hebrew wording of Day 4 of
> the
> > Genesis account seems to indicate that the sun, moon, and stars were
> > appointed to be lights to govern the seasons, and that the English
> > translation skews it to mean that these bodies were created on that day.
> > Does anyone know Hebrew well enough to verify or refute this claim? He
> also
> > holds to a modified gap, where Genesis 1:1 refers to an ancient creation.
> > This interpretation would make the age of the universe irrelevant to
> belief
> > in the inerrancy of scriptures.  
> 
> 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
I've never had an original thought in my life,
so this opinion must be someone else's fault.

Back