Subject: Fw: Hebrew wording of Day 4

From: "Jim Mendelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:34:52 -0800

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.

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:41:29 -7

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.

> > 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.

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:41:29 -7

Dave Washburn

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 13:03:30 -0500

Greetings all!

I am a student at Asbury Theological Seminary and have been reading the 
list for a while to see where Textual Criticism is and where it is 
headed.  Having recently completed a study of the Pentateuch, and having 
read Sailhamer, I thought I would respond to Jim and Dave's posts.  
Please note, I am not a Hebrew scholar, and I do not know Hebrew, so the 
opinions I express are not original (to an even greater extent than 
Dave's disclaimer!).  I intend to provide background information on 
Sailhamer's arguement.  Much is left out here for the sake of space.  I 
found the book to be thought provoking and challenging.  I to am 
interested in what other's have to say about his hypothesis.  

Sailhamer is arguing that the Genesis 1 account of creation is a 
preparation of the (Promised) Land for the people of Israel.  Since the 
Pentateuch is the story of the nation of Israel, these creation naratives 
are dealing with the creation of the nation, and not of the world in 
general.  The "heavens and the earth" in Gen 1:1 is a merism refering to 
the "universe" or "cosmos", which includes the sun, moon and stars.

Day 2 was a division of the waters into the waters on the earth and 
clouds.  He bases this on his translation of RAIQA in Genesis 1 as 
refering to clouds (as does Prov 8:28, Ps 104:3).  To quote, " On the 
second day God prepared the sky with clouds to provide rain for the land. 
 The rain would prepare the land for producing vegetation on the next 
day."  Again, he is focusing on the preparation of the Land for the his 
people.

Comparing the syntax of verse 6, he argues they are similar but "don't 
have the same meaning", as Dave has done.  He translates WAYA to "to set 
aright", "to fix", "to set in order".  The emphasis he is showing is  "to 
separate the night from the day".  He assumes the lights to be already in 
place (noting the lack of the article with 'or here in 14) and the action 
on this day is to organize them (my words).  He notes the difference 
between the syntax of verse 6 (HYH alone) and of verse 14 (HYH and 
infinitive)

So to answer Dave's conclusion, Sailhamer does assume the expanse in the 
second day does exist, and that it was separated for a specific purpose 
(to prepare the land).

Patrick Gardella 
[email-masked]

FYI, "Genesis Unbound" is published by Multnomah Books (Sisters, Oregon: 
1996) ISBN 0-88070-868-9

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 12:13:30 -7

> second day does exist, and that it was separated for a specific purpose 

That makes more sense.  Thanks for clearing that up.  I'm still not 
convinced, but this does make his view more consistent.

Dave Washburn