Dear George,
I agree that the focus should be on literary and linguistic issues. But I do
not understand your first point. You yourself and several others have argued
that the account in Genesis 1 and 2 is mythological and is of the same nature
as all the other cosmological accounts in ANE. Comparisons with Enuma Elish and
other accounts have been made. One list member wrote that the account in
Genesis 1 started with chaos—the mythological catchword. Did I violate the
rules of b-hebrew when I argued that the account did not start with chaos, and
that what is said in Genesis 1:1-2 accords with modern science? Is a reference
to scientific findings (the laws of thermodynamics) not allowed, whereas
references to ancient findings and documents are allowed? My arguments are
just as much a discussion of Hebrew "literature" as comparisons with Enuma
Elish. When I claim that the account in Genesis 1 and 2 accords with what have
been found in the crust of the earth, and t herefore need not be interpreted in
a mythological way, this is a statement about the literary nature of the
account, just as much as comparisons with mythological accounts. I have not
understood the rules of b-hebrew in a way that all kinds of arguments in favor
of mythology are allowed, but arguments in favor of of the opposite, that
accounts in the Tanakh are non-mythological, are not allowed.
I would like to stress that I do not believe in or defend creationism. And I
have neither time not interest in a discussion of the creation account in the
light of modern science. My motive for joining this discussion, was a wrong use
of lexical semantics on the list. It was argued that RQY( ONLY could refer to
a solid vault, that is, its reference is mythological, and this is simply not
true. I think it is a service to the listmembers when someone raises his voice
and argues that there are alternatives to the mythological understanding of
specific parts of the Tanakh, particularly when this is done by the help of
linguistic and historical arguments.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Torsdag 6. September 2012 11:09 CEST skrev George Athas
<[email protected]>:
Remember, let's keep discussion confined to the literature. Whether Genesis
accords or does not accord with modern science is NOT the issue to be discussed
in this forum (as interesting a question as it is). Let's keep ourselves to the
literary and linguistic issues, please.
GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
