Avoiding questions

[Angrboda]

No spin just scriptural context, and we have to look a little deeper into the Hebrew. If you REALLY REALLY want a proper exegesis this is study (or one like it I can find my orginal work/notes) is what my orginal arguement was built on: http://www.wordexplain.com/Word_Study_tohu_wa_bohu.html

"C. F. Keil (Keil and Delitzsch), in his commentary on Genesis 1:2, states that the etymology for both tohu and bohu has been lost."

And there the trail runs cold. So you have no exemplars of bohu(w) used as an adjective rather than a noun. (And to be sure, two of the exemplars are the same phrase, so much as the gospels, you only have two exemplars, not three (separated in time, I might point out; another crucial hermeneutic detail). The immense hermeneutic difficulties this poses are likely beyond your depth, but it basically means you can't pull blood from this stone. If bohu(w) is historically understood as a noun, nothing in this "word study" overturns that basic result. [TEGH is referencing a similar 'yoking' of terms argument in another thread, regarding malakoi and arsenokoitai. Such arguments are ultimately far from persuasive, as are many arguments based on our present understanding of tropes and forms in ANE literature; in a word, from an epistemological standpoint, you simply cannot get there from here: there is much in ancient literature that we will never have a definitive understanding of, as the necessary understandings and evidences are simply lost to time. This is not a problem if you are dealing with a text such as the bible simply as a historical document, but it has massive and troubling implications for theology; ultimately, it results in people doing what you and this word study are doing: putting more into the text than was originally there to begin with.])

I will confess to being mildly amused to read that the instances of bohu(w) were highlighted in cyanide, though. That was charming.