Re: Mediterranean flood
George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:35:07 -0400
PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
.......................
> <<George: .......................
> 2) In Exodus, the east wind brings the locusts & so in a sense isn't a
> separate
> event.........................
>
> I think your second suggestion is much more likely, namely that the psalmist
> did not have any interest in the east wind. But, this could also be said
> about the psalmist in 33:9. He did not have any interest in anything that
> may have intervened between God's speaking and the creation which followed.
> This does not mean that the resulting creation which followed the action of
> God's speaking had to occur "with nothing intervening." A simple lack of
> interest leaves open the possibility that something unmentioned did
> intervene. Also although admittedly not conclusive, I see nothing
> unreasonable about appealing to Ex 10:13 to show that in fact something
> probably did intervene in the grammatically parallel case of Psalm 105:34.
I agree that my second argument is more significant than the first, but I
didn't quite say that the psalmist "did not have any interest in the east wind." My
point was that the east wind brought the locusts, & therefore might not be seen as a
separate and intervening event. I think (but am certainly open to correction) that it
would be proper to use the waw consecutive construction to say both "The clock struck
and he arrived" and "The clock struck and the train arrived and he was on it" to
describe the same overall event.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/