Re: [b-hebrew] skies in plural? (Rolf's response 2)
Dear Jerry, The methodological problem with your post is your insistence of "it (RQ(/RQY() can only have one meaning," exactly as George insistence that "this is what the text says." Language does not work like this, and particularly when we are dealing with a dead language without living informants, we should be cautious. How many words in Classical Hebrew that have only ONE meaning and ONE reference can you mention? Please give me a list of such words. That the verb RQ( can refer to the act of hammering metal is clear (Exodus 39:3; Isaiah 40:19). But the verb can also refer to other actions: In Isaiah 42:5 RQ( parallels BR) (to create). The first is used with reference to the earth and its produce and the second to the heavens. Of what does the object of RQ( consist? It consists of 1) the earth, and 2) its produce (offspring). I would like to ask about "the earth." Does it only include the crust on which we tread, or is the space where the birds fly included as well? Isaiah saw the heavens with shining stars and the earth below, and his point is that all this is made (BR( and RQ( ) by YHWH. When open space can be included in the object of RQ(, the RQY( of Genesis 1 needs not be solid. I find your application of Job 37:18 strange. In the chapter, God is lecturing Job, and he refers to several things in the nature: the tempest (v. 9), ice (v. 10) clouds with moisture (11), cluds and rain (v. 13), clouds and ligtnings (v. 15 ), clouds (v. 16), the south wind (v. 17). Different words for "clouds" are used, and there is no indicattion in the text that these the clouds are seen as something solid. The core meaning of XZQ in v 18 is "strong," and the particle K indicate that the $XQ does not literally become a solid molten mirror. But they become "strong like" a molten mirror. The wonders of God is described, and the reference may be to the wonderful colors at sunrise or sunset when the clouds reflect the rays of the sun. Then the cluds can be said to be strong like a molten mirror. So, the argument remains: The verb RQ( is here applied to something (dust/clouds) that cannot be touched, that is not solid. You completely misunderstood my application of Ezekiel 1. I did not compare the wings of the living creatures with the wings of birds. My point was that living (material) creatures with wings are described. Above them we have a literal solid RQY(, and above this vault we see the literal throne of God, and on the threone we see a literal man like glowing metal and like the rainbow. The setting is litarally described, but it is a vision and every detail is symbolic— God is not a man, and his throne does not literally rest upon a solid vault. My point was the use of prepositions for "above" and "below." I did not "downplay" anything," and I have no "weird" reference to it anywhere in my post. My principal objection to both George and you, is your claim that RQ( and RQY( can have only one reference. The is and example of the application of lexical semantics at its worst! Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Søndag 9. September 2012 22:53 CEST skrev Jerry Shepherd <[email protected]>: Hi Rolf, I’m sure George will have his own reply, but I’d like to chime in on this as well. Initially, let me observe that it doesn’t really help your case when the verses you list in support of your position say the exact opposite of what you summarize them as saying. Rq( as a verb occurs 12x in the Hebrew Bible. With 5 of those occurrences, Exod 39:3; Num 17:3, 4; Isa 40:19; and Jer 10:9, there is no debate at all as to what is being denoted by the verb: a process of hammering, beating, and stamping out metal. That leaves 7 passages. 2 Sam 22:43 refers to trampling out an at least semi-solid substance, the mire or clay of the streets. Job 37:18, as you noted, refers to how Yahweh spreads out the clouds or the dust. But the verse goes on to say that the result is that the clouds/dust become “hard as a mirror of cast bronze.” As I said, it does not help your case when your proof texts are more in line with your opponents’ position than with yours. The rq( is a process of making something solid. In Ps 136:6, Yahweh spreads out the earth, a solid substance, something that can be walked on. In Isa 42:5, again Yahweh spreads out the earth, a solid substance. In Isa 44:24, again Yahweh spreads out the earth, a solid substance. In Ezek 6:11, Ezekiel is told to stamp his feet (presumably on the ground, a solid substance). In Ezek 25:6, the Ammonites are rebuked for having stamped their feet (on the ground) with malice against the Israelites. So, we have 12 occurrences, none of which have to do with spreading out some ethereal, airy, gaseous substance. Rq( refers to hammering, stamping, beating out. The noun rqy( occurs 15x. 9 of those occurrences are in Gen 1 (not just the3x you mentioned). Since these are the ones in question, I’ll look at the other occurrences first. Nothing can really be told one way or the other from the occurrences in Ps 19:2; 150:1; and Dan 12:3. But when you say “the parallels suggest a non-solid state,” you are begging the question. For the occurrences in Ezekiel (1:22-26), on the one hand, you try to downplay the occurrences as being used in “visions where literal things of three dimensions are used in a symbolic way to describe heavenly things.” On the other hand, you try to appeal to it later in some weird way to compare the wings of the living creatures with the wings of the birds. But there is no comparison. As we can easily tell from other ANE texts and artwork, the wings of the living creatures are holding up the rqy(. They are sky-bearers. And the throne of Yahweh is resting on the rqy(. The rqy( in Ezek 1 is a solid substance. Of course, the occurrences in Gen 1 (vv. 6, 7 (3x), 8, 14, 15, 17, 20) are the ones that are under dispute in this discussion. If the occurrences of the verb rq( and the noun rQy( are given their full weight, we should expect that the the rqy( in Gen 1 is, indeed, a solid substance. When you add to this that this is reflective of the cosmosgraphy of the ancient world (as well-demonstrated as it is, e.g., in the volume recommended to you by Martin Shield), then I think George’s case is pretty well taken – “That’s what the text says.” Blessings, Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected] _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
