Revelation 8:9

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 13 15:32:52 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] EILHFEN, Rev. 8:5 — “aoristic”? Since it’s sea-life, I would say that something smells rather fishy. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Webb <webb at selftest.net>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:22:18 PMSubject: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA YUCAS, KAITO TRITON TWN PLOIWN DIEFQARSHSANI can’t resist seeing TA ECONTA YUCAS as being a gloss on the previousphrase, indicating that he means the air breathing creatures such as whales,seals, sea lions, sea birds, dolphins, turtles and so on. It’s hard to seehow a fish or other gill-breathing creature has a YUCH in the biblicalcontext. Any comments on this phraseology?Webb Mealy— home page: http://ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] EILHFEN, Rev. 8:5 — “aoristic”?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Webb webb at selftest.net
Mon Nov 13 15:22:18 EST 2006

 

[] EILHFEN, Rev. 8:5 — “aoristic”? [] Rev. 8:9–what died? KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA YUCAS, KAITO TRITON TWN PLOIWN DIEFQARSHSAN I can’t resist seeing TA ECONTA YUCAS as being a gloss on the previousphrase, indicating that he means the air breathing creatures such as whales,seals, sea lions, sea birds, dolphins, turtles and so on. It’s hard to seehow a fish or other gill-breathing creature has a YUCH in the biblicalcontext. Any comments on this phraseology? Webb Mealy

 

[] EILHFEN, Rev. 8:5 — “aoristic”?[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Nov 13 15:57:52 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Rev. 8:9–what died? Dear Webb,Sorry that I posted to your personal address, too.> KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA YUCAS, KAI> TO TRITON TWN PLOIWN DIEFQARSHSAN> > > > I can’t resist seeing TA ECONTA YUCAS as being a gloss on the previous> phrase, indicating that he means the air breathing creatures such as whales,> seals, sea lions, sea birds, dolphins, turtles and so on. It’s hard to see> how a fish or other gill-breathing creature has a YUCH in the biblical> context. > > > > Any comments on this phraseology?> HH: It may be narrowing down the implication of the term KTISMA. Theword can just mean “created thing.”Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Nov 13 16:20:24 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Rev. 8:9–what died? I think Harold has hit the nail on the head; the sense of KTISMA here is simple “creature.” I don’t think at all that sea-creatures in particular are meant here but rather that this is a swallowing up of living creatures by flood waters.On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> Dear Webb,> > Sorry that I posted to your personal address, too.> >> KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA >> YUCAS, KAI>> TO TRITON TWN PLOIWN DIEFQARSHSAN>> >> >> >> I can’t resist seeing TA ECONTA YUCAS as being a gloss on the >> previous>> phrase, indicating that he means the air breathing creatures such >> as whales,>> seals, sea lions, sea birds, dolphins, turtles and so on. It’s >> hard to see>> how a fish or other gill-breathing creature has a YUCH in the >> biblical>> context.>> >> >> >> Any comments on this phraseology?>> > > HH: It may be narrowing down the implication of> the term KTISMA. The> word can just mean “created thing.”> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> —> home page: http://ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Webb webb at selftest.net
Mon Nov 13 17:21:24 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Rev. 8:9–what died? Carl,That’s a fascinating interpretation of this verse, and one that differsdramatically from the ones that I recall hearing. Are you saying that Johnis picturing something like giant waves killing a third of the creatures wholive on dry land? “And a third of living creatures drowned in the sea”?Given that John is a second-language Greek speaker, is it impossible thathe’s trying, rather clumsily, to talk about all the sea creatures that hadYUCAS, namely the air-breathers?Webb Mealyp.s. I sent this to you off-list by mistake. I leave it to you to post yourreply or some other reply on-list if you wish.—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl W. ConradSent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:20 PMTo: Harold HolmyardCc: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?I think Harold has hit the nail on the head; the sense of KTISMA here is simple “creature.” I don’t think at all that sea-creatures in particular are meant here but rather that this is a swallowing up of living creatures by flood waters.On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> Dear Webb,> > Sorry that I posted to your personal address, too.> >> KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA >> YUCAS, KAI>> TO TRITON TWN PLOIWN DIEFQARSHSAN>> >> >> >> I can’t resist seeing TA ECONTA YUCAS as being a gloss on the >> previous>> phrase, indicating that he means the air breathing creatures such >> as whales,>> seals, sea lions, sea birds, dolphins, turtles and so on. It’s >> hard to see>> how a fish or other gill-breathing creature has a YUCH in the >> biblical>> context.>> >> >> >> Any comments on this phraseology?>> > > HH: It may be narrowing down the implication of> the term KTISMA. The> word can just mean “created thing.”> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> —> home page: http://ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/— home page: http://ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Nov 13 19:31:36 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Rev. 8:9–what died? Here’s the substance of my off-list response to Webb:To tell the truth, I don’t really know. It rather looks like a tidal wave to me — a tsunami — rather like the one that hit the Indian Ocean a couple years ago. I would make no definitive claims about this — I know that George thinks highly of this author’s Greek; I wouldn’t say out and out that it’s not written by a native Greek- speaker, but it’s certainly written by a writer who hasn’t learned his Greek in a school. At any rate, the impression I get from the text in qustion is of a tidal wave that sweeps ashore and swallows up a vaat number of living creatures (human and non-human) and that also destroys great numbers of vessels afloat upon the sea. This may be all wet — pure guesswork based upon a way of reading the Greek text. I’m even reminded of the scene of devastation in the final chapter of Moby Dick — or of Aeschylus’ description of the vista at sunrise after the storm swallowing up the Greek fleet returning from the sack of Troy (Agamemnon 653-660):EN NUKTI DUSCUMANTAI D’ WRWREI KAKA.NAUS GAR PROS ALLHLHiSI QRHiKIAI PNOAIHREIKON; hOI DE KEROTUPOUMENAI BIAiCEIMWNI TUFW SUN ZALHi T’ OMBROKTUPWiWiCONT’ AFANTOI, POIMENOS KAKOU STROBWi.EPEI D’ ANHLQE LAMPRON hHLIOU FAOS,hORWMEN ANQOUN PELAGOS AIGAION NEKROISANDRWN ACAIWN NAUTIKOIS T’ EREIPIOIS.” … and when the gleaming sun’s light rose,we spy the Aegean sea full-flowering with corpsesof men of Greece and with the splinterings of ships.”One big question here is how we construe EN THi QALASSHi; my inclination is to understand it with APEQANEN, not with TWN KTISMATWN. Of course this author doesn’t observe standard grammar with any regularity in any case, but in “standard” grammar I would expect TWN EN THi QALASSHi if that prepositional phrase were intended to be limiting the creatures referred to as TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN.Insofar as I’ve thought about the matter, that’s what I think.On Nov 13, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Webb wrote:> Carl,> > That’s a fascinating interpretation of this verse, and one that > differs> dramatically from the ones that I recall hearing. Are you saying > that John> is picturing something like giant waves killing a third of the > creatures who> live on dry land? “And a third of living creatures drowned in the > sea”?> Given that John is a second-language Greek speaker, is it > impossible that> he’s trying, rather clumsily, to talk about all the sea creatures > that had> YUCAS, namely the air-breathers?> > Webb Mealy> p.s. I sent this to you off-list by mistake. I leave it to you to > post your> reply or some other reply on-list if you wish.> > —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl W. Conrad> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:20 PM> To: Harold Holmyard> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?> > I think Harold has hit the nail on the head; the sense of KTISMA here> is simple “creature.” I don’t think at all that sea-creatures in> particular are meant here but rather that this is a swallowing up of> living creatures by flood waters.> > On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> >> Dear Webb,>> >> Sorry that I posted to your personal address, too.>> >>> KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA>>> YUCAS, KAI>>> TO TRITON TWN PLOIWN DIEFQARSHSAN>>> >>> >>> >>> I can’t resist seeing TA ECONTA YUCAS as being a gloss on the>>> previous>>> phrase, indicating that he means the air breathing creatures such>>> as whales,>>> seals, sea lions, sea birds, dolphins, turtles and so on. It’s>>> hard to see>>> how a fish or other gill-breathing creature has a YUCH in the>>> biblical>>> context.>>> >>> >>> >>> Any comments on this phraseology?>>> >> >> HH: It may be narrowing down the implication of>> the term KTISMA. The>> word can just mean “created thing.”>> >> Yours,>> Harold Holmyard>> —>> home page: http://ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> > > —> home page: http://ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > —> home page: http://ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Nov 13 19:46:05 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Rev. 8:9–what died? On Nov 13, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> One big question here is how we construe EN THi QALASSHi; my> inclination is to understand it with APEQANEN, not with TWN> KTISMATWN. Of course this author doesn’t observe standard grammar> with any regularity in any case, but in “standard” grammar I would> expect TWN EN THi QALASSHi if that prepositional phrase were intended> to be limiting the creatures referred to as TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN.On Nov 13, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Webb wrote:> Webb: Isn’t that exactly what we have? APEQANEN TO TRITWN TWN > KTISMATWN TWN EN THi> QALASSHi (Rev. 8:8)> > Does that make you change your mind? Or have I misunderstood > something?Yes, I see it is there when I look at NA27/UBS4 — that TWN wasn’t in the text cited in the original message (see below). That should indeed make a difference. But on the other hand, it’s followed by TA ECONTA YUCAS — which may be appositional to TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN but looks like another of this author’s anakolouta (should be TWN ECONTWN YUCAS). The phrasing is surpassing curious.> > Insofar as I’ve thought about the matter, that’s what I think.> > On Nov 13, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Webb wrote:> >> Carl,>> >> That’s a fascinating interpretation of this verse, and one that>> differs>> dramatically from the ones that I recall hearing. Are you saying>> that John>> is picturing something like giant waves killing a third of the>> creatures who>> live on dry land? “And a third of living creatures drowned in the>> sea”?>> Given that John is a second-language Greek speaker, is it>> impossible that>> he’s trying, rather clumsily, to talk about all the sea creatures>> that had>> YUCAS, namely the air-breathers?>> >> Webb Mealy>> p.s. I sent this to you off-list by mistake. I leave it to you to>> post your>> reply or some other reply on-list if you wish.>> >> —–Original Message—–>> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org>> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl W. >> Conrad>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:20 PM>> To: Harold Holmyard>> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org>> Subject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?>> >> I think Harold has hit the nail on the head; the sense of KTISMA here>> is simple “creature.” I don’t think at all that sea-creatures in>> particular are meant here but rather that this is a swallowing up of>> living creatures by flood waters.>> >> On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:>> >>> Dear Webb,>>> >>> Sorry that I posted to your personal address, too.>>> >>>> KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA>>>> YUCAS, KAI>>>> TO TRITON TWN PLOIWN DIEFQARSHSAN>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I can’t resist seeing TA ECONTA YUCAS as being a gloss on the>>>> previous>>>> phrase, indicating that he means the air breathing creatures such>>>> as whales,>>>> seals, sea lions, sea birds, dolphins, turtles and so on. It’s>>>> hard to see>>>> how a fish or other gill-breathing creature has a YUCH in the>>>> biblical>>>> context.>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Any comments on this phraseology?>>>> >>> >>> HH: It may be narrowing down the implication of>>> the term KTISMA. The>>> word can just mean “created thing.”>>> >>> Yours,>>> Harold Holmyard>>> —>>> home page: http://ibiblio.org/>>> mailing list>>> at lists.ibiblio.org>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> Carl W. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243>> cwconrad2 at mac.com>> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>> >> >> —>> home page: http://ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> —>> home page: http://ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> > > —> home page: http://ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 13 20:21:35 EST 2006

 

[] 2 Samuel 6:20 Septuagint [] Rev. 8:9–what died? KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN TWN EN THi QALASSHi TA EXONTA YUXAS KAI TO TRITON TWN PLOIWN DIEFQARHSANAny way you look at it this is non-standard. TO TRITON is nom n sg while TA EXONTA is nom n pl while TWN KTISMATWN is gen n pl. It would appear that it takes its number from TWN KTISMATWN and its case from TO TRITON. It probably should be TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN TWN EN THi QALASSHi TWN EXONTWN YUXAS georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:46:05 PMSubject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?On Nov 13, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> One big question here is how we construe EN THi QALASSHi; my> inclination is to understand it with APEQANEN, not with TWN> KTISMATWN. Of course this author doesn’t observe standard grammar> with any regularity in any case, but in “standard” grammar I would> expect TWN EN THi QALASSHi if that prepositional phrase were intended> to be limiting the creatures referred to as TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN.On Nov 13, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Webb wrote:> Webb: Isn’t that exactly what we have? APEQANEN TO TRITWN TWN > KTISMATWN TWN EN THi> QALASSHi (Rev. 8:8)> > Does that make you change your mind? Or have I misunderstood > something?Yes, I see it is there when I look at NA27/UBS4 — that TWN wasn’t in the text cited in the original message (see below). That should indeed make a difference. But on the other hand, it’s followed by TA ECONTA YUCAS — which may be appositional to TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN but looks like another of this author’s anakolouta (should be TWN ECONTWN YUCAS). The phrasing is surpassing curious.> > Insofar as I’ve thought about the matter, that’s what I think.> > On Nov 13, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Webb wrote:> >> Carl,>> >> That’s a fascinating interpretation of this verse, and one that>> differs>> dramatically from the ones that I recall hearing. Are you saying>> that John>> is picturing something like giant waves killing a third of the>> creatures who>> live on dry land? “And a third of living creatures drowned in the>> sea”?>> Given that John is a second-language Greek speaker, is it>> impossible that>> he’s trying, rather clumsily, to talk about all the sea creatures>> that had>> YUCAS, namely the air-breathers?>> >> Webb Mealy>> p.s. I sent this to you off-list by mistake. I leave it to you to>> post your>> reply or some other reply on-list if you wish.>> >> —–Original Message—–>> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org>> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl W. >> Conrad>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:20 PM>> To: Harold Holmyard>> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org>> Subject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?>> >> I think Harold has hit the nail on the head; the sense of KTISMA here>> is simple “creature.” I don’t think at all that sea-creatures in>> particular are meant here but rather that this is a swallowing up of>> living creatures by flood waters.>> >> On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:>> >>> Dear Webb,>>> >>> Sorry that I posted to your personal address, too.>>> >>>> KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA>>>> YUCAS, KAI>>>> TO TRITON TWN PLOIWN DIEFQARSHSAN>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I can’t resist seeing TA ECONTA YUCAS as being a gloss on the>>>> previous>>>> phrase, indicating that he means the air breathing creatures such>>>> as whales,>>>> seals, sea lions, sea birds, dolphins, turtles and so on. It’s>>>> hard to see>>>> how a fish or other gill-breathing creature has a YUCH in the>>>> biblical>>>> context.>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Any comments on this phraseology?>>>> >>> >>> HH: It may be narrowing down the implication of>>> the term KTISMA. The>>> word can just mean “created thing.”>>> >>> Yours,>>> Harold Holmyard>>> —>>> home page: http://ibiblio.org/>>> mailing list>>> at lists.ibiblio.org>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> Carl W. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)>> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243>> cwconrad2 at mac.com>> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>> >> >> —>> home page: http://ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> —>> home page: http://ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> > > —> home page: http://ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/— home page: http://ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] 2 Samuel 6:20 Septuagint[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Tue Nov 14 01:35:32 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Rev. 8:9–what died? Dear Webb,I always remind myself that sometimes we, as human beings created in theimage of God, will try to describe something that is truly beyond the limitsof our own language. I think that is what is happening here. True, one-thirdof all creatures of the land, sea and air will be destroyed.BTW, It will become increasingly harder for John to describe the things hesees due to the limitations of the language. Example, you try to describe alocust with armor plating as John did. It looks more like a Apache/CobraHelicopter, but that is pure speculation. All we can go with is John’sdescription and end it there.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 2:21 PMSubject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?> Carl,> > That’s a fascinating interpretation of this verse, and one that differs> dramatically from the ones that I recall hearing. Are you saying that John> is picturing something like giant waves killing a third of the creatureswho> live on dry land? “And a third of living creatures drowned in the sea”?> Given that John is a second-language Greek speaker, is it impossible that> he’s trying, rather clumsily, to talk about all the sea creatures that had> YUCAS, namely the air-breathers?> > Webb Mealy> p.s. I sent this to you off-list by mistake. I leave it to you to postyour> reply or some other reply on-list if you wish.> > —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl W. Conrad> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:20 PM> To: Harold Holmyard> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?> > I think Harold has hit the nail on the head; the sense of KTISMA here> is simple “creature.” I don’t think at all that sea-creatures in> particular are meant here but rather that this is a swallowing up of> living creatures by flood waters.> > On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> > > Dear Webb,> >> > Sorry that I posted to your personal address, too.> >> >> KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA> >> YUCAS, KAI> >> TO TRITON TWN PLOIWN DIEFQARSHSAN> >>> >>> >>> >> I can’t resist seeing TA ECONTA YUCAS as being a gloss on the> >> previous> >> phrase, indicating that he means the air breathing creatures such> >> as whales,> >> seals, sea lions, sea birds, dolphins, turtles and so on. It’s> >> hard to see> >> how a fish or other gill-breathing creature has a YUCH in the> >> biblical> >> context.> >>> >>> >>> >> Any comments on this phraseology?> >>> >> > HH: It may be narrowing down the implication of> > the term KTISMA. The> > word can just mean “created thing.”> >> > Yours,> > Harold Holmyard> > —> > home page: http://ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> > > —> home page: http://ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > —> home page: http://ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesyof Com-Pair Services!> > > > — > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.4/532 – Release Date: 11/13/063:08 PM> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Nov 14 02:45:56 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Rev. 8:9–what died? It would be helpful to add a bit of context:KAI EGENETO TO TRITON THS QALASSHS hAIMA, KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN TWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA YUCAS, KAI TO TRITON TWN PLOIWNDIEFQARHSANWhen one third of the sea was turned into blood, it is natural to assume that all the livingcreatures in that third part of the sea would die. I would understand an implied TOUT’ ESTIN beforeTA ECONTA YUCAS, the things having life/soul. It relates to the creatures – TA KTISMATA – but in aloose sense. I see no reason to restrict the application to the air-breathing animals in the sea,but rather all living beings.That a third of the ships were destroyed must be caused by some other implied disturbance in thewater that would destroy the ships rather than the marine life.It may be of interest to compare with Rev 16:3:KAI hO DEUTEROS EXECEEN THN FIALHN AUTOU EIS THN QALASSAN, KAI EGENETO hAIMA hWS NEKROU, KAI PASAYUCH ZWHS APEQANEN, TA EN THi QALASSHi.And the second (angel) poured out (the contents) of his bowl into the sea, and it became blood likeof a dead (person), and every “soul” of life died, the things (living beings) in the sea.To complete the sense of TA we could either supply the general word “thing” or in this context wecould suggest ZWiA – a word that is particularly common in Rev (6 out of 8 occurrences in the NT arein Rev.) It refers back to PASA YUCH ZWHS, but it does not agree with it in gender.Iver Larsen

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Webb webb at selftest.net
Tue Nov 14 13:25:15 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Rev. 8:9–what died? Thanks, Iver–the second passage, 16:3, is 100% relevant. What I need toknow now is, were fish considered in first-century Jewish thinking to be”living souls”, cf. PASA YUCH ZWHS (Rev. 16:3), as human beings and otherair-breathing animals are (cf. Gen. 1:30 LXX, cf. Gen. 2:7 LXX)? I have astrong feeling that Jews wouldn’t have seen fish and insects and crustaceansand mollusks and worms and so on as belonging in that category. But I can’tremember where I learned that. Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Iver LarsenSent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:46 PMTo: Subject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?It would be helpful to add a bit of context:KAI EGENETO TO TRITON THS QALASSHS hAIMA, KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN TWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA YUCAS,KAI TO TRITON TWN PLOIWNDIEFQARHSANWhen one third of the sea was turned into blood, it is natural to assumethat all the livingcreatures in that third part of the sea would die. I would understand animplied TOUT’ ESTIN beforeTA ECONTA YUCAS, the things having life/soul. It relates to the creatures -TA KTISMATA – but in aloose sense. I see no reason to restrict the application to theair-breathing animals in the sea,but rather all living beings.That a third of the ships were destroyed must be caused by some otherimplied disturbance in thewater that would destroy the ships rather than the marine life.It may be of interest to compare with Rev 16:3:KAI hO DEUTEROS EXECEEN THN FIALHN AUTOU EIS THN QALASSAN, KAI EGENETO hAIMAhWS NEKROU, KAI PASAYUCH ZWHS APEQANEN, TA EN THi QALASSHi.And the second (angel) poured out (the contents) of his bowl into the sea,and it became blood likeof a dead (person), and every “soul” of life died, the things (livingbeings) in the sea.To complete the sense of TA we could either supply the general word “thing”or in this context wecould suggest ZWiA – a word that is particularly common in Rev (6 out of 8occurrences in the NT arein Rev.) It refers back to PASA YUCH ZWHS, but it does not agree with it ingender.Iver Larsen— home page: http://ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Henry T. Carmichael carmih at bigfoot.com
Tue Nov 14 17:35:36 EST 2006

 

[] I’m going to give a message to my two witnesses. Rev.11:3 [] I’m going to give a message to my two witnesses. Rev.11:3 >Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:45:56 +0100>From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>>Subject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?>To: ” ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>>Message-ID: <003301c707c1$0af8ab60$0b51083e at IverAcer>>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=”iso-8859-1″;>reply-type=original> >It would be helpful to add a bit of context:> >KAI EGENETO TO TRITON THS QALASSHS hAIMA,> KAI APEQANEN TO TRITON TWN KTISMATWN TWN EN THi QALASSHi, TA ECONTA YUCAS, KAI TO TRITON TWN PLOIWN>DIEFQARHSAN> >When one third of the sea was turned into blood, it is natural to assume that all the living>creatures in that third part of the sea would die. I would understand an implied TOUT’ ESTIN before>TA ECONTA YUCAS, the things having life/soul. It relates to the creatures – TA KTISMATA – but in a>loose sense. I see no reason to restrict the application to the air-breathing animals in the sea,>but rather all living beings.>That a third of the ships were destroyed must be caused by some other implied disturbance in the>water that would destroy the ships rather than the marine life.> >It may be of interest to compare with Rev 16:3:> >KAI hO DEUTEROS EXECEEN THN FIALHN AUTOU EIS THN QALASSAN, KAI EGENETO hAIMA hWS NEKROU, KAI PASA>YUCH ZWHS APEQANEN, TA EN THi QALASSHi.> >And the second (angel) poured out (the contents) of his bowl into the sea, and it became blood like>of a dead (person), and every “soul” of life died, the things (living beings) in the sea.> >To complete the sense of TA we could either supply the general word “thing” or in this context we>could suggest ZWiA – a word that is particularly common in Rev (6 out of 8 occurrences in the NT are>in Rev.) It refers back to PASA YUCH ZWHS, but it does not agree with it in gender.> >Iver LarsenI looked in Richmond Lattimore’s translation, and he has the following:”…a third of the sea was turned to blood, and there died a third of the creatures of the sea,those which were alive, and a third of the boats were destroyed.”That favors Iver’s suggestion that it refers to all living beings.Henry Carmichael

 

[] I’m going to give a message to my two witnesses. Rev.11:3[] I’m going to give a message to my two witnesses. Rev.11:3

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Nov 15 02:17:42 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Rev. 8:9–what died? > Thanks, Iver–the second passage, 16:3, is 100% relevant. What I need to> know now is, were fish considered in first-century Jewish thinking to be> “living souls”, cf. PASA YUCH ZWHS (Rev. 16:3), as human beings and other> air-breathing animals are (cf. Gen. 1:30 LXX, cf. Gen. 2:7 LXX)? I have a> strong feeling that Jews wouldn’t have seen fish and insects and crustaceans> and mollusks and worms and so on as belonging in that category. But I can’t> remember where I learned that.> > Webb MealyYes, as far as I can see “fish” would be included in the very broad category of “living beings”, at least for a Jew familiar with the Greek text of the creation story. The most relevant place to look would be when God created the marine life in Gen 1:20. Here God caused TA hUDATA to swarm with YUCWN ZWSWN. The same words are used in the following verse. I assume the reason for using the generic “living beings” rather than the specific “fish” is that God created all marine life, not just the fish. Notice that the specific word for fish is not mentioned until verse 26. If “fish” had not been included among the “living beings” in the water, they should have been listed separately in Gen 1:20-21.Iver Larsen

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Webb webb at selftest.net
Wed Nov 15 14:08:44 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Gramcord and Converting to Transliteration Dear Iver,The Genesis 1:20 passage is certainly relevant to the question–thank you.It raises more questions.I note that in the LXX, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of fish at all,in connection to YUCH ZWHS. Reptiles (hERPETOI) are mentioned as having YUCHZWHS, as are sea monsters, i.e. presumably whales (KHTOI), but where are thefish??KAI EIPEN hO QEOS EXAGAGETW TA HUDATA hERPETA YUCWN ZWSWN KAI PETEINAPETOMENA EPI THS GHS KATA TO STEREWMA TOU OURANOU KAI EGENETO hOUTWS KAI EPOIHSEN hO QEOS TA KHTH TA MEGALA KAI PASAN YUCHN ZWiWN hERPETWN hAEXHGAGEN TA UDATA KATA GENH AUTWN KAI PAN PETEINON PTERWTON KATA GENOS KAIEIDEN hO QEOS hOTI KALA KAI HULOGHSEN AUTA O QEO LEGWN AUXANESQE KAI PLHQUNESQE KAI PLHRWSATE TAhUDATA EN TAIS QALASSAIS KAI TA PETEINA PLHQUNESQWSAN EPI THS GHSI’m inclined towards it, but I still don’t feel totally confident thatnon-air-breathers are in view in Rev. 8:9. Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Iver LarsenSent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:18 PMTo: Subject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?> Thanks, Iver–the second passage, 16:3, is 100% relevant. What I need to> know now is, were fish considered in first-century Jewish thinking to be> “living souls”, cf. PASA YUCH ZWHS (Rev. 16:3), as human beings and other> air-breathing animals are (cf. Gen. 1:30 LXX, cf. Gen. 2:7 LXX)? I have a> strong feeling that Jews wouldnt have seen fish and insects andcrustaceans> and mollusks and worms and so on as belonging in that category. But I cant> remember where I learned that.> > Webb MealyYes, as far as I can see “fish” would be included in the very broad categoryof “living beings”, at least for a Jew familiar with the Greek text of the creation story. The mostrelevant place to look would be when God created the marine life in Gen 1:20. Here God caused TAhUDATA to swarm with YUCWN ZWSWN. The same words are used in the following verse. I assume the reasonfor using the generic “living beings” rather than the specific “fish” is that God created allmarine life, not just the fish. Notice that the specific word for fish is not mentioned until verse26. If “fish” had not been included among the “living beings” in the water, they should have beenlisted separately in Gen 1:20-21.Iver Larsen — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Gramcord and Converting to Transliteration

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 15 17:20:58 EST 2006

 

[] Revised Robinson at SBL [] Fw: [PAPY] A New K-12 on-line resource We do have a problem with Gen 1.20. In the Hebrew text there is no mention of reptilians. It simply says “Let the waters swarm with living creatures.” The verb “to swarm” and its cognate noun (Both the noun and verb appear here) in Hebrew don’t necessarily signify reptiles yet in a number of cases it has been translated in the LXX as hERPETON. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Webb <webb at selftest.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:08:44 PMSubject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?Dear Iver,The Genesis 1:20 passage is certainly relevant to the question–thank you.It raises more questions.I note that in the LXX, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of fish at all,in connection to YUCH ZWHS. Reptiles (hERPETOI) are mentioned as having YUCHZWHS, as are sea monsters, i.e. presumably whales (KHTOI), but where are thefish??KAI EIPEN hO QEOS EXAGAGETW TA HUDATA hERPETA YUCWN ZWSWN KAI PETEINAPETOMENA EPI THS GHS KATA TO STEREWMA TOU OURANOU KAI EGENETO hOUTWS KAI EPOIHSEN hO QEOS TA KHTH TA MEGALA KAI PASAN YUCHN ZWiWN hERPETWN hAEXHGAGEN TA UDATA KATA GENH AUTWN KAI PAN PETEINON PTERWTON KATA GENOS KAIEIDEN hO QEOS hOTI KALA KAI HULOGHSEN AUTA O QEO LEGWN AUXANESQE KAI PLHQUNESQE KAI PLHRWSATE TAhUDATA EN TAIS QALASSAIS KAI TA PETEINA PLHQUNESQWSAN EPI THS GHSI’m inclined towards it, but I still don’t feel totally confident thatnon-air-breathers are in view in Rev. 8:9. Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Iver LarsenSent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:18 PMTo: Subject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?> Thanks, Iver–the second passage, 16:3, is 100% relevant. What I need to> know now is, were fish considered in first-century Jewish thinking to be> “living souls”, cf. PASA YUCH ZWHS (Rev. 16:3), as human beings and other> air-breathing animals are (cf. Gen. 1:30 LXX, cf. Gen. 2:7 LXX)? I have a> strong feeling that Jews wouldnt have seen fish and insects andcrustaceans> and mollusks and worms and so on as belonging in that category. But I cant> remember where I learned that.> > Webb MealyYes, as far as I can see “fish” would be included in the very broad categoryof “living beings”, at least for a Jew familiar with the Greek text of the creation story. The mostrelevant place to look would be when God created the marine life in Gen 1:20. Here God caused TAhUDATA to swarm with YUCWN ZWSWN. The same words are used in the following verse. I assume the reasonfor using the generic “living beings” rather than the specific “fish” is that God created allmarine life, not just the fish. Notice that the specific word for fish is not mentioned until verse26. If “fish” had not been included among the “living beings” in the water, they should have beenlisted separately in Gen 1:20-21.Iver Larsen — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Revised Robinson at SBL[] Fw: [PAPY] A New K-12 on-line resource

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Bert de Haan b_dehaan at sympatico.ca
Wed Nov 15 18:19:06 EST 2006

 

[] Fw: [PAPY] A New K-12 on-line resource [] Rev. 8:9–what died? On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:25:15 -0800 “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>wrote:”…..What I need to know now is, were fish considered in first-century Jewish thinking to be”living souls”, cf. PASA YUCH ZWHS (Rev. 16:3), as human beings and otherair-breathing animals are (cf. Gen. 1:30 LXX, cf. Gen. 2:7 LXX)? I have astrong feeling that Jews wouldn’t have seen fish and insects and crustaceansand mollusks and worms and so on as belonging in that category. But I can’tremember where I learned that. “(BdH) After comparing the YUCH enties in Cunliffe (Homeric) and Middle Liddell I get the impression that YUCH meant “life” before it meant “breath.”Cunliffe is quite a detailed lexicon but breath is not mentioned at all under YUCH (athough YUCW is listed as “to breath, blow) but in Middle Liddell it is the first thing listed.Maybe that indicates that ECONTA YUCAS primarily means ‘having life’ more so than ‘having breath.’I think this is relevant but maybe the time span between Homer and the NT is to great to be useful in comparing.Bert de Haan.

 

[] Fw: [PAPY] A New K-12 on-line resource[] Rev. 8:9–what died?

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Webb webb at selftest.net
Wed Nov 15 19:08:37 EST 2006

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? [] Rev 11:3 Thanks, Bert. That’s useful.The issue I’m stuck on in relation to Rev. 8:9 is not so much what the Greekword ECWN YUCHN might mean to non-Jews at some time or another (althoughthat is potentially interesting and important), but what Jews such as Johnwould naturally have meant when they used it in relation to non-human life. A friend read to me from an orthodox Jewish commentary on Genesis thismorning, and one of the medieval commentators like Nachmanides was sayingthat “the swarming things” (as in Gen. 1:20, “let the sea swarm with livingcreatures”) were taken as things that move close to the ground–typicallyreptiles and moles and so on. If the LXX translators use hERPETOS becausethat is their understanding of the verse, then that raises anew the questionof whether any of the language in Gen. 1 refers to fish at all IN THE MINDOF JEWISH INTERPETERS OF THE HEBREW TANACH. Lev. 11:10 seems to make a cleardistinction between the “swarming things” in the waters and fish. I have anemail out to a scholar of Judaism in the Hellenistic period about this. Speaking of fish, this whole train of thought may turn out to be a redherring, but I want to rule out the possibility that Rev. 8:9 has mammalianand other air-breathing life (such as turtles and frogs) exclusively inmind.Webb Mealy—–Original Message—–From: Bert de Haan [mailto:b_dehaan at sympatico.ca] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:19 PMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgCc: webb at selftest.netSubject: Re: [] Rev. 8:9–what died?On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:25:15 -0800 “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>wrote:”…..What I need to know now is, were fish considered in first-century Jewish thinking to be”living souls”, cf. PASA YUCH ZWHS (Rev. 16:3), as human beings and otherair-breathing animals are (cf. Gen. 1:30 LXX, cf. Gen. 2:7 LXX)? I have astrong feeling that Jews wouldn’t have seen fish and insects and crustaceansand mollusks and worms and so on as belonging in that category. But I can’tremember where I learned that. “(BdH) After comparing the YUCH enties in Cunliffe (Homeric) and Middle Liddell I get the impression that YUCH meant “life” before it meant “breath.”Cunliffe is quite a detailed lexicon but breath is not mentioned at all under YUCH (athough YUCW is listed as “to breath, blow) but in Middle Liddell it is the first thing listed.Maybe that indicates that ECONTA YUCAS primarily means ‘having life’ more sothan ‘having breath.’I think this is relevant but maybe the time span between Homer and the NT isto great to be useful in comparing.Bert de Haan.

 

[] Rev. 8:9–what died?[] Rev 11:3

[] Rev. 8:9–what died? Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Nov 16 02:16:29 EST 2006

 

[] Gramcord and Converting to Transliteration [] KAI EN TAIS OURAIS AUTWN hH EXOUSIA AUTWN (Rev. 9:10) —– Original Message —– From: “Webb” <webb at selftest.net>> > I note that in the LXX, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of fish at all,> in connection to YUCH ZWHS. Reptiles (hERPETOI) are mentioned as having YUCH> ZWHS, as are sea monsters, i.e. presumably whales (KHTOI), but where are the> fish??> KAI EIPEN hO QEOS EXAGAGETW TA HUDATA hERPETA YUCWN ZWSWN KAI PETEINA> PETOMENA EPI THS GHS KATA TO STEREWMA TOU OURANOU KAI EGENETO hOUTWS> > KAI EPOIHSEN hO QEOS TA KHTH TA MEGALA KAI PASAN YUCHN ZWiWN hERPETWN hA> EXHGAGEN TA UDATA KATA GENH AUTWN KAI PAN PETEINON PTERWTON KATA GENOS KAI> EIDEN hO QEOS hOTI KALA> > KAI HULOGHSEN AUTA O QEO LEGWN AUXANESQE KAI PLHQUNESQE KAI PLHRWSATE TA> hUDATA EN TAIS QALASSAIS KAI TA PETEINA PLHQUNESQWSAN EPI THS GHSThe LXX translator of Genesis was a literalist, and therefore he would at times make a somewhat inaccurate translation by choosing a basic sense of a word even when another sense or a less rigid word-for-word translation would have been more accurate. The hERPETA skews the meaning of the Hebrew word, since in this context the word does not refer specifically to reptiles. Let me quote from the Theological Workbook of the OT:”sharas(verb) is used fourteen times, only in the Qal. …The verb ramas is to some extent synonymous and used interchangably, yet there is clearly a distinction: sharas views the same creatures as a teeming, swarming, prolific multitude, whereas ramas views them as a creeping, crawling, wriggling mass.The basic idea of the root can be clearly seen in three passages: Ex 8:3 [H 7:28]), Ps 105:30, and Ex 1:7. In the first two references the subject is the plague of frogs that came on Egypt: “The river shall teem (swarm) with frogs” (The KJV rendering “the river shall bring forth abundantly” is somewhat misleading.) In the third passage, the prolific nature of Israel’s growth is the subject: “The children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly (lit. “teemed” sharas) and multiplied, and the land was filled with them.” From the Egyptian perspective the land was teeming with Israelites just as though a swarm of insects had come on them. The idea of “teeming” is the point of the use of sharas in Gen 1:20-21 (cf. also Gen 8:17).sheres(noun). Teeming, swarming things. (RSV similar; ASV “creeping things.”) Used fifteen times, it maintains the same similarities to and distinctions from the noun remes as does the verb sharas to its counterpart ramas.In Lev 11, sheres is used 1) of sea creatures (“those things that teem in the sea,” v. 10), 2) of flying insects (verses 20-21, 23), 3) rodents and various types of reptiles (vv. 29, 31), and 4) generally of small creatures that “go on the belly,” “go on all fours” (i.e. insects that stand horizontally, as opposed to birds which stand upright on two legs; cf. v. 20), or “have many feet” (vv. 41-43).In Lev 11:46, sheres is used to broadly classify all the smaller land animals as opposed to birds and beasts (the larger animals). Sea creatures are here referred to as those that wriggle (ramas) in the water. More commonly, when land animals are grouped into these three broad categories, remes “crawling creatures” is used instead of sheres (cf. Gn 1:30; 7:8, 14). On the other hand all land animals are depicted as “crawling” (ramas) on the earth in Gen 7:21. Here sheres represents the third broad category of animals.Bibliography: Klotz, J. W., “Animals of the Bible,” in WBE.”So, both words can refer to insects, reptiles, fish and other sea creatures, but not the big sea creatures.The text would add either “in the water”, “on land” or “in the air” to clarify the intended reference.It is just a different way of dividing up the animals.The first Hebrew word is used in 1:20, and both are used in 1:21. 1:20 talks about “swarms of living creatures”, where the LXX has hERPETA YUCWN ZWSWN. I don’t know what a better Greek word for “swarm” might have been. In Gen 7:21, the same noun hERPETON was used to translate the Hebrew noun, but the verb was translated by KINEW. In Lev 11:10 the verb is translated by EREUGOMAI.Iver Larsen

 

[] Gramcord and Converting to Transliteration[] KAI EN TAIS OURAIS AUTWN hH EXOUSIA AUTWN (Rev. 9:10)