Re: Gordon Wenham's statement (Genesis 1-15, p. 181), "All the
springs…suggesting water gushing forth uncontrollably from wells and springs
which draw from a great subterranean ocean ("the great deep")…"
Allen wrote,
<<Just one mans opinion.>>
You have the data backward. Wenham's interpretation represents the consensus
of biblical scholars. It is your interpretation which is just _one_ man's
opinion.
<<Hasels problem is that he first should identify what the Bible means by
"great deep" and "fountains." Once that is done, the meaning of Baqac is no
big thing. Hasel ignored or missed the Biblical context which identifies
"Mayan" with the reservoir basins at Nephtoah (Joshua 15:9). The break up
of a reservoir basin will result in water bursting forth from the reservoir.
In Genesis 7:11, it is the reservoirs of the great deep, the basins on the
crust holding the oceans which gets broken up. The oceans would surge
(burst forth) out of the broken-up ocean basins and flood the dry land.>>
Hasel did identify the meaning of "great deep." From both the Ugaritic
cognate and verses like Ezek 31:3, 4 where the Tehom (Deep) supplies the
water for the cedar tree to grow, he shows that the word in a context like
Gen 7:11 (where water from above is set in opposition to water from below)
refers to subterranean waters.
He did not spend time on the word "fountain" (m'yn) because it is so
obviously the word for a "spring" an 'yn with a mem prefixed to mean "the
place of a spring" or just "a spring" as the Hebrew lexicons define it. Your
definition (a basin full of water), on the other hand, is an idiosyncratic
definition which no one would have come up with unless they had a theory they
wanted to shoehorn into the biblical text. The fountain (m'yn) at Nephtoah
like every other fountain (m'yn) in the OT is a source of water. The fact
that at Nephtoah and elsewhere the water was collected into basins no more
turns the meaning of the word "fountain" into "basin" than the collection of
water in a wash basin turns the meaning of the word "spigot" into "basin."
The fountain is the source, not the basin. Thus, "a fountain (m'yn) from the
house of Jehovah goes out and waters the valley of Shittim." (Joel 3:18) You
have the source of the water subordinated to the collection of the water,
which is exactly backward.
<< It can just a easily be understood this way:
Prov. 3:19-20 NIV
A. By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, (the land)
B. by understanding he set the heavens in place; (the sky)
A'. by his knowledge the deeps were divided, (on the land)
B'. and the clouds let drop the dew. (in the
sky)>>
Then you agree with what I said: When the deeps are split open or broken up
(as most translations say), their waters come out "on the land." When the
"deep" or the "deeps" are mentioned in conjunction with dew (as in Prov 3),
they have reference to the sources of water for agriculture. Thus,
Deuteronomy 33:13 reads "And of Joseph he said, Blessed of Jehovah be his
land [agricultural blessing] For the precious things of heaven, for the
_dew_, and for the _deep_ that lies beneath." That is beneath the earth, as
Deuteronomy 5:8 says, "... in the water under the earth." And as Psa 136:6
says, He spread out the earth "upon the waters." The deeps refer to the
subterranean water which like the dew is a source of water for agriculture.
Proverbs 3:28 like Deut 33:13 is about that water for agriculture, which
cannot be the ocean circling the earth because no one in Israel got water for
agriculture from the ocean circling the earth.
<< This is a simplified version of part of the Creation Week.
A. Gen 1:9. "...let dry ground appear.", 10. "God called the dry ground
"land," "
B. Gen 1:6. "Let there be an expanse ...", 8. "God called the expanse
"sky." >>
Again, you have the data backward. In the creation week the water is divided
first, and then the dry land appears. In addition, the Deep in Gen 1 is
divided, which is not at all the same thing as splitting open the deeps in
Prov 3 to let the subterranean water pour out on the land. Dividing a pile
of wood into two piles is not at all the same thing as splitting the wood.
A'. Gen 1:9. "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place...",
10. "and the gathered waters he called "seas." "
B' Gen 2:6 but {streams} (a mist KJV) came up from the earth and watered
the whole surface of the ground" >>
Again you have the data backward. You have equated the gathering together of
the seas in Gen 1 with the splitting apart of the deeps in Prov 3. But,
"gathering together" and "splitting apart" are opposite to each other. You
have also equated the streams that came out on the earth in Gen 2 with the
dew from the clouds above in Prov 3. But, the clouds above and the earth
below are in opposite places.
You seem to have a penchant for interpreting data idiosyncratically and
exactly backward. Why is that? Is it because you put your theory before the
data? You wouldn't be asking by any chance, How can I make the scientific
data and the Word of God agree with me? You wouldn't be doing that would you?
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 09 2002 - 18:53:28 EST