RE: Discontinuity Conference Report

From: Stephen J. Krogh (panterragroup@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 17:47:32 EDT

  • Next message: Vince D. Calhoun: "Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    > Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
    > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:45 PM
    > To: panterragroup@mindspring.com; PHSEELY@aol.com
    > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    > Subject: Re: Discontinuity Conference Report
    >
    >
    > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:17:50 -0500 "Stephen J. Krogh"
    > <panterragroup@mindspring.com> writes:
    > >
    > > Looking at the word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text, one
    > > finds this
    > > phraseology: “and was evening and was morning day Xth.” The NIV
    > > renders the
    > > time markers in this way: “And there was evening, and there was
    > > morning —
    > > the Xth day.” The word arrangement in both cases is a departure from
    > > the
    > > simple and ordinary. It creates ambiguity. If “day Xth” was intended
    > > as the
    > > noun compliment for the one evening and morning together, the
    > > linking verb
    > > should appear just once, in plural form (as the KJV renders it): And
    > > the
    > > evening and the morning were the Xth day.” We would expect the
    > > literal
    > > Hebrew to say, “and were evening and morning day Xth.” However, this
    > > is not
    > > the case. This syntactic ambiguity does not constitute a proof.
    > > However, it
    > > does at least suggest an indefinite period for each phase of the
    > > creation.
    > >
    > > Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
    > > The PanTerra Group
    > > http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com/
    > > ================================
    > >
    > Let's see: "It was evening. Then, after an age indefinitely long, it was
    > morning. This whole was day one." Why does this seem to me more like
    > eisegesis than exegesis? It certainly is a far simpler interpretation
    > than I indicated ;-}

    I don't see it as such. If this interpretation is what is actually meant,
    then the scripture is clearly wrong. At best, it is inconclusive and a very
    weak argument.

    Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
    The PanTerra Group
    http://panterragroup.home.mindspring.com/
    ================================



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 17:47:41 EDT