Adamu

Thanks, glad to have turned the corner.

And so there's more...

"the evening and the morning," as I understand it, is an idiomatic expression common in semitic languages and thus, more often nonliteral.

I'm still not convinced the creative days were meant as 24hrs.

Three points?
Keeping score?
Is that how discussions in literary criticism go?

1. the usual meaning of "yom" is a 24hr period, yes; the days of creation differ.
2. "the evening and the morning" is an idiomatic expression, not necessarily denoting a 24hr period.
3. the observance of a special "day" simply incorporated older ideas meant to mirror and reaffirm YHWH's creative acts & rest, which ultimately led to the creation of Isreal - a weekly affirmation of the state of God.

More assertion?
So the redactors of Genesis weren't appealing to a particular audience / God?
Where is the work which disproves or even counters S Langdon's Sumerian & Babylonian Psalms, wherein he states "the origin and meaning of the Hebrew Sabbath are clear;" pointing to mesopotamia?
Where is the work which counters Sayce's discussion of the Sumerian Sa-Bat being "heart rest" as found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, that shows this word and concept to be mere conjecture?

I need to see the work showing this, the published papers, or at least references to and citations of.

Yes, the Akkadian shapattu was not only a day of rest on the seventh, but was also linked to astronomical observances (though I think they more like 7th, 14th, 19, 21st 28th), as you note.

Indeed I have viewed Mattfeld's page but my thoughts are my own, derived from the work of many scholars, not a mere few.

The acts of creation take place over 6 tablets in the enuma elish.
On the seventh we read exaltations to Marduk and how the gods could rest as Mankind had been created to toil in their stead. The parallel seems clear, as is the one found in the Atra Hasis text, the Gilgamesh flood story, or, as Mattfeld termed it, the Shurrupak flood.

I disagree.

I think the Hebrew audience would've understood the concept of "ages" and the use of "yom" to describe them in recounting the events of creation.
Then again, by the time the authors were at work, the story may have already been corrupt and so the Hebrews were to believe in such a powerful God as one who created all that is in a mere 6 24hr periods.

Well, as I said, I'm no expert but many scholars accept the Enuma Elish as primary source material for Genesis, which in my mind, leaves open the question about the use of "day" as potentially meaning "age."

As will I.
I daresay I am.

Nothing is wrong with ancients believing God created the world and all else in six natural days, I just don't think they did.

I asked that question because the OP describes a "Fundie" who adheres strictly to a 24hr day, just as you do.

Simile here, literal there, eh?

Oh I don't know... looks like the same stories with different details.
Funny thing is, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all trace roots to a common patriarch , Abraham, from mesopotamia.

Oh yeah, right.
Literal there, simile here.

spin

There needs to be some reason for you to claim that WYHY (RB WYHY BQR, "and there was evening and there was morning", is idiomatic. What reason do you have?

Once you have some reason -- and there is no reason from the Hebrew bible to think it is -- you then need to say what you think it might mean. As it is it would seem that you have nothing at all up your sleeve. This is par for the course: you've got no reason to believe that YWM meant anything in Gen 1 other than what it usually means.

Convincing is not an issue. I'd like to see some reason for you to think it wasn't and so far you've given nothing.

It was a reality check.

Assertion without basis.

Assertion without basis.

Assertion without basis.

Yup. You're being consistent.

I have already pointed out that the Mesopotamian shapattu referred to the fifteenth day of the month for religious reasons. The Hebrew sabbath is a cognate for shapattu so they are related historico-linguistically. That doesn't get us any closer in your claims.

In a communication with Mattfeld, Bob Whiting of U.Helsinki clarified that the early conjecture regarding Sa-Bat was unfounded (here, search for Whiting).

So if the scribes had used smaller tablets would you make something of it taking place over seven tablets?? This is not a serious argument.

It would be nice for a little substance to back up this disagreement.

Assertion without basis.

As the Enuma Elish doesn't deal with a framework of days it is inconsequential.

And your thinking is based on what evidence exactly?

Similes are nicely indicated grammatically, as in the English "your mind is like a steel trap!" It directly points you to partake in the comparison. It's the same in Hebrew and nothing out of the ordinary. If you'd like to claim that YWM in Gen 1 is not literal, all you have to do is provide evidence from the passage that allows you to do so. Similes are easy because they are marked in the language as such.

You can indicate a literary influence going from earlier to later. It doesn't work vice versa. Newer doesn't influence older. Now, while there may be an influence with regard to days between the Enuma Elish and Genesis, but you still have to show the influence.

Uh-huh.

Yep. All you have to do is work with the language. As well as knock off basing your argument on total lack of data.


spin