Rolf Furuli is still having some trouble sending and receiving posts. I send this through on his behalf:
GEORGE ATHAS Dean of Research, Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au) Sydney, Australia ========= Dear listmembers, I would like to express some thoughts regarding the supposed solidity of the RQ(, and I will return to the etymological fallacy and related issues, that is, to lexical semantics. It was not the RQ( that lifted the waters, but it was God, and is portrayed as a part his acts in creation. I see no reason why the lifting of the waters should imply that the RQ( was solid. The ancients knew that clouds existed above their heads, and that rain came down. The fact that waters existed above did not lead to the conclusion that something solid held the clouds in space. I would like to discuss the prepositions used in connection with RQ(. In Genesis 1:7 we find prepositions that clearly have the meaning "below" and "above." In 1:15, 16, 17 we find the preposition B, which can have the local meaning "in." (We find this meaning in several Bible translations.). I 1:20 we (L-PNY, and how shal we understand this? In Genesis 1:2 and 6:1, (L-PNY evidently has the meaning "upon"; in 1:29 we find the meaning "upon" or "on the face of." So where did the birds fly? Below a solid firmament. No, the preposition TXT is not used, as it is in Ezekiel 1:23, where we have a symbolic representation of God's throne. The NIV and JPS renders the expression in Genesis 1:20 as "across the expanse," and in my view, this is a good choice. Which prepositions are used is in no way conclusive. But the natural conclusion simply is that RQ( is the atmosphere; the luminaries are viewed as lights "in" the atmosphere, and the birds fly "across" the atmosphere. A basic linguistic conclusion is that we must have a diachronic view of lexical semantics. Word meaning and the referenses of a word changes through time. Therefore, it is a fallacy to use the oldest meaning of a word to understand its reference in a particular context. This means that etymological arguments are weak indeed. It is also a fallacy to use similar roots in cognate languages the establish the meaning or reference of a Hebrew word in a particular contexts. A good example is the root )MR. In Hebrew the meaning is "say," in Akkadian AMARU has the meaning "see," and in Ethiopic AMMARA has the mening "show; indicate; tell." The diachronic change in word meaning is much greater when we compare cognate languages than when we look at Hebrew texts with different ages. It is also a fallacy to use Pseudepigraphic writings or writings from different nations to find the meaning or reference of a Hebrew word, used in a particular context. The views of the authors of such writi ngs need not be the same as the views of the writers of Genesis. So, I return to Barrs dictum: The meaning and reference of a word can only be found in the synchronic uses of it, that is, how the word is used in a particular short time. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
