Dick,
I took the 4 references from /The New BDBG Hebrew and English Lexicon/
(Hendrickson, 1979), p. 135. Strong's 1254. The translation given is "1.
/cut down/ ... 2. /cut out/ ..." I think you need to look at the letters
in the Hebrew text--/br'/.
There is an extension of a basic principle used very generally. In one
context it reads something like: "You call it eisegesis. I call it
exegesis, and I'm right." This is a special case of what I consider the
most common premise encountered in human argumentation.
Dave
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:08:08 -0400 "Dick Fischer"
<dickfischer@verizon.net> writes:
Hi Dave, you wrote:
I heard Walton say that /bara'/ originally indicated arrangement rather
than origination. Seems to me that the general usage fits the latter
sense. See especially Isaiah 54:16; 65:18; Ezekiel 21:19; Amos 4:13.
Either we have a homonym or the term is not always used of God. See
Joshua 17:15, 18; Ezekiel 21:24; 23:47.
Your point is lost on me. I don’t see bara in any of the second set of
passages you cite. If you know of any instance where bara is used by
other than God please quote the entire verse.
To get "had made" in Genesis 1:14ff, the usual claim, fights with the
normal Hebrew narrative forms. I consider it eisegesis.
Sneaking a peek at nature not allowed? I consider eisegesis to be
bending Scripture to conform to your own private interpretations.
Comparing archaic text favorably with facts of life sounds legitimate to
me. But then I tend to give Bible writers more credit then seems to be
the norm on this list.
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 19 19:43:12 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 19 2006 - 19:43:12 EDT