Dear Ted, Something strange is happening at the ibiblio.org. at the moment. My posts do not go through, and the same is true for others. Moreover, I do not get all the posts that are sent to the list. If you have access, please send my attached post to the list.
Best regards, Rolf Furuli Dear Ted, There are several interesting observations in your post. I would like to look more closely at the term "metaphor." One definition of this term is: "A metaphor is a word which is used to show the resemblance between things of some similar character. Metaphor compares two things so that one thing is called as the other thing without the use of words like or as which are used for comparison in the case of simile." Your example of metaphors from Deuteronomy is excellent, and it fits the definition above—one thing is called as the other one. But what about the "foundations" in Psalm 104:5 (NIV): "He set the earth on its foundations (MKWN); it can never be moved."? Is this a metaphor? We can compare these words with Psalm 89:15 (NIV): "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne." From the last quote we learn that the word MKWN needs not refer to something that is solid, but still it is used in the sense of a support of something. Therefore, I am inclined to take MKWN in a literal sense in Psalm 104:5. In no way would I say that the writer of this Psalm held the modern view of our solar system. Nevertheless, our earth can be said to have a MKWN, because gravity keeps it in its orbit. So, Psalm 104:5 needs not refer to literal pillars or to a solid foundation, but it simply may show that the earth stands in a fixed position by the power of God. From this point of view MKWN is not a metaphor. In a similar vay I would argue about RQY( in Genesis 1:6-8. When it is said that the heavens will become brass, the one thing (the sky) is called like the other one (brass). Thus, "brass" is a metaphor. But I do not see the same in the use of RQYA, because this word need not always refer to something that is solid. I see no reason to conclude that the writer does not describe what happened during each "day" in a literal way. He tells that the RQY( was formed, and that there was water below and above this RQY(. Later the writer tells that the water above the RQY( fell down in the days of Noah. Again the writer uses a literal language—one thing is not called the other thing. When we entertain a clear distinction between literal language, metaphor, and simile, we may avoid several problems. For example, we have the word YWM that is used several times. This word is used with three different temporal references in Genesis 1 and 2, and a literal understanding of the word needs not require that we believe that each day lasted 24 hours. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
