My test for him is: "Does he now accept my definition for 'bore'?"
TILL
I do not accept your claim that bore did not mean the literal giving of
birth in Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59. The reason why I do not accept it
was explained and explained and explained in my Jochebed postings, and
ignored and ignored and ignored by Matthew. That reason is based on a
fundamental hermeneutic principle that says the words of a text should be
interpreted literally unless there are compelling reasons to assign
figurative meaning. Now here is a question for Matthew. What is your
compelling reason for saying that "bore" (yalad) was not used in its
strictest sense in Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59?
Well, here is another question for him too. Is it not true that you reject
the primary meaning of the word "bore" (yalad) in the above passages only
because that meaning would result in a serious chronological discrepancy in
the biblical text?
Now you won't forget to answer those questions will you?
MATTHEW
For those of you who forget, here is a some more information on "bore,"
including some more information concerning it and "begat."
"Bore" and "begat" are from the Hebrew word "yalad" (Strong number 3205).
Here is the strong's deinition for it:
"a primitive root; to bear young; causatively, to beget; medically, to act
as midwife; specifically, to show lineage"
Sometimes, this definition is simply stated as being to "bring forth" as in
delivery of a child. Therefore, "bore" means to bring forth in a feminine way,
and based on "bore," begat means to bring forth in a masculine sense.
TILL
Since "bore" (yalad) has the primarily meaning "to bear young," you have the
obligation to cite some contextual reason in Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59
for not assigning the primary definition to this word. When are you going
to do this?
Since Matthew seems to have had a change of attitude about nonbiblical
sources, maybe he is now willing to consider what Josephus said about the
parentage of Moses: A man by the name of Amram is introduced in
*Antiquities,* Book 2, Chapter 9, Section 3, and this was said about this
Amram and his wife in Section 4: "When the vision had informed him of these
things [the birth of a son who would deliver the Hebrew nation from the
distress it was in], Amram awaked and told it to JOCHEBED, who was his wife.
And now the fear increased upon them on account of the prediction in Amram's
dream; for they were under concern, not only for the child, but on account
of the great happiness that was to come to him also" (v:217). The narrative
continues with an account of the child's birth, his concealment in an ark of
bulrushes, and his rescue by pharaoh's daughter. Later in Section 6:229,
Josephus said, "For Abraham was his [Moses'] ancestor of the SEVENTH
generation. For Moses was the SON of Amram, who was the SON of Caath
[Kohath], whose FATHER, Levi, was the SON of Jacob, who was the SON of
Isaac, who was the SON of Abraham."
Now surely Matthew won't be silly enough to deny that the Bible teaches that
Isaac was the literal son of Abraham, that Jacob was the literal son of
Isaac, and that Levi was the literal son of Jacob. The Bible is too
explicit about these relationships for Matthew to deny them, so it is rather
obvious that Josephus was using the word "son" in its strictest sense in
this passage. And he said that Moses was the SON of Amram. He also said
that Moses was an ancestor of the 7th generation from Abraham, so all of
this indicates that Josephus obviously understood the Exodus 6 genealogy to
be a literal father-son genealogy with NO skipped generations.
I have already cited this information and other information from Philo
Judaeus and the Testimony of the 12 Patriarchs to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that early Jewish writers thought that Moses was the Son of
Amram, Amram the SON of Kohath, Kohath the SON of Levi, etc. And Matthew
has completely ignored it except to say that he refuses to consider
extrabiblical sources, but now that he seems to have had a change of heart
and is throwing extrabiblical sources at us right and left, he may be
willing to consider this information. If so, I'd like for him to explain
why Kenneth Matthews' commentary should be entitled to more consideration
than what early Jewish writers thought. Let's not forget that Matthew has
also indicated in his Isaiah 45:7 posting that Jews are in a better position
than us to know what their scriptures meant. Let's see if he sticks to that.
MATTHEW
Now here is another piece of the evidence: Genesis 46:16-18 which reads:
16 And the sons of Gad: Ziphion and Haggi, Shuni and Ezbon, Eri and Arodi
and Areli.
17 And the sons of Asher: Imnah and Ishvah and Ishvi and Beriah and their
sister Serah. And the sons of Beriah: Heber and Malchiel.
18 These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to his daughter Leah; and
she bore to Jacob these sixteen persons.
(NAS)
Here we see that Zilpah is shown as having "bore" these 16 children to
Jacob, but she was only the direct mother of two: Gad and Asher. In other
words, "bore" can be used for the direct mother, but also for other
descendants of a woman as well.
TILL
I have also ripped this to pieces, Matthew, through a detailed study of the
word "bore" (yahlah) in the OT as it was used with reference to childbirth.
I showed that in every case except the one you have cited above the word was
always used in its strictest sense to mean women giving literal birth to
their offspring. Then I analyzed the text in Genesis 46 to show that there
are obvious contextual reasons to understand that "bore" (yahlah) was not
used here to mean that Zilpah had given literal birth to all of these
people. That contextual evidence is that the writer stated that Ziphion.
Haggai, Shuni, etc. were the sons of Gad, whom Zilpah had given birth to
(Gen. 30:10) and that Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, etc. were the sons of Asher and
that Serah was their sister. Zilpah did literally give birth to Asher (Gen.
30:12), so if these people listed were Asher's children, then the writer
obviously meant for us to understand that he was not using "bore" (yahlah)
in its strictest sense.
This, Matthew, is what you call contextual evidence that gives compelling
reasons not to interpret language literally. Now what I want you to do is
cite contextual evidence in Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59 that gives readers
any reason at all to understand that Jochebed did not literally bear Aaron
and Moses. So the problem for you is (1) there is no compelling reason not
to understand "bore" in these verses in its strictest sense, and (2) early
Jewish writers obviously understood that biblical writers thought that
Jochebed and Amram were the literal parents of Moses and Aaron. All of this
spells big trouble for your position, Matthew. It is evidence that you
ignored and ignored and ignored, but now that you have resurrected the issue
in a vain attempt to shore up your ridiculous interpretation of Genesis 11,
you have an obligation to face the music and try to respond to this information.
MATTHEW
You can also look up "yalad" in "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament"
by Harris, Archer, and Waltke, p. 379, on the use of "yalad" in its various
forms where the following comment was made:
"The word does not necessarily point to the generation immediatiately
following. In Hebrew thought, an individual by the act of giving birth to a
child becomes a parent or ancestor of all who will be descended from this
child."
TILL
I'm sorry, Matthew, but this is an extrabiblical source, so I am going to
wait until you respond to my extrabiblical sources before I comment on this.
MATTHEW
It almost looks like I wrote it, but I did not; look it up.
TILL
Yes, and that is exactly why you are so excited about it, but as I said in
an earlier posting, anyone can find books that agrees with his position.
Your task is to defend what Harris, Archer, and Waltke said. I might also
say that the passages that I have quoted from Josephus, Philo Judaeus,
Testimony of the 12 Patriarchs, and Jubilees almost look as if I wrote them,
but I didn't. Look them up.
MATTHEW
Certainly, I have other sources for this meaning, some of which I will
include in the Biblically dating the flood thread. Other than Till, all the
many sources that I have which speak to this rather specific application of
"yalad" indicate that it can include skip generations.
TILL
It can, but you have to give contextual evidence that this was what the
writers meant. Where is the contextual evidence in Exodus 6 and Genesis 11
that the writers were skipping generations? When are you going to give it
to us? When are you going to explain to us why early Jewish writers so
badly misinterpreted these genealogies? You have your work cut out for you,
Matthew, and just when you needed to take some time off.
MATTHEW
In the Biblicall dating the floor thread, Till seems to be admitting that
"begat" can include skipping generations. As such, I am asking in this
thread if he agrees that "bore" can be used this way as well.
TILL
My comments above answer your questions.
MATTHEW
Now while I believe that the "bore" having this possible meaning necessary
overthrows Till's alleged Jochebed "contradiction, I am not asking him yet
to admit that. I am only asking that he admit the obvious that "bore" does
mean what I have suggested all along.
TILL
Why should I admit that when you adamantly refuse to post any contextual
evidence to support your position that the word "bore" in Exodus 6 and
Numbers 26 means what you claim it does?
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.