> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:45 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; PHSEELY@aol.com
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Discontinuity Conference Report
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:17:50 -0500 "Stephen J. Krogh"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
Stephen J. Krogh, P.G.
The PanTerra Group
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 17:47:41 EDT