In a footnote Archer add?/"Properly speaking, this verb hayah never has the meaning of static being like the copular verb 'to be.'-Its basic notion Is that of becoming or emerging as such and such, or of coming Into being . . . Sometimes a distinction Is attempted along the following lines: hayah means 'become' only when it Is followed by the preposition lei otherwise there Is no explicit Idea of becoming. But this distinction will not stand up under analysis. In Gen[esis] 3:20 the proper rendering Is: And Adam called the name of his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all living.' No le follows the verb In this case. So also in Gen[esls] 4:20: 'Jabal became the
Is the earth only 6,000 years old? Many assume that is what the Bible says, but the original wording of Genesis 1 allows for a much earlier creation.
father of tent dwellers.' Therefore there can be no grammatical objection raised to translating Gen[esis] 1:2: And the earth became a wasteness and desolation'" (Ibid.).
Some scholars also argue against translating hayah "became" Instead of "was" In Genesis 1:2 because they assume this Interpretation came about only recently, after scientists ^ determined the earth to be very old. Thus they ° consider this explanation a desperate attempt € to reconcile the Genesis account with modern s o geology. The explanation that there existed an €
Was this article helpful?