I see time as a secondary, incidental factor here,
then why is it the overriding structure, instead of simply a breif mention, like "oh, by the way, this happened when time started," like chapter 2 has?
though ch 1 introduced cosmic time,
please stop making stuff up. just stick to the text.
while relevent humanity time is introduced in the calendar.
the two most basic divisions of which are introduced by genesis 1. curious.
Ch 1 is about CREATIONISM, and percieved as such by the current negation of this premise by non-creationalists.
no. this is an entirely anachronistic thought. "creationism" wasn't invented until more than a thousand years after the text was written. in 600 bc judah, that god created the world was simply a no-brainer. of
course god created the world. who else would have? it was
simply accepted. the position that there need not be a god, and thus the religious opposition to it, don't come about until... well, i don't know when exactly, but certainly after the enlightenment.
There is no sun creation; this occured in v1. Its blatant.
no, it occurs in verse 16. just like verse 16 says. god made the sun.
please explain to me why you think the sun was created and
then made, and what you think the "blatant" difference is, and how something can exist before it is made? because the only thing blatant here is the fact that you are ignoring the obvious meaning of verse 16 for an extremely contrived reading of verse 1, which actually says nothing like what you think it does.
Any confusion here is clarified with the intoruction of luminosity later in ch 1 itself,
uh, no. first god creates light. then god creates heaven. then god creates earth. then god creates the sun, moon, and stars and places them in heaven.
that's what the chapter says. it cannot be any more plain.
making a dual reading potential superfluous.
you are the one requiring a "dual reading." you say first everything is created in verse 1... and then everything is created again in the rest of the chapter. it's far, far simpler to recognize that
verse one refers to the rest of the chapter.
None of the other stars were created on the 4th day either.
again, the text says they were. you're not fighting with me; you're fighting with the text. you are plainly contradicting what it says.
The plural is about plentitude
i'm not sure what you think that means.
hebrew containing tenses and adverbs not seen elsewhere
uh, no, that's plainly not the case. biblical hebrew actually LACKS tenses,
period. verbs do have a few forms, but far, far fewer than most other (western) languages. as for adverbs, as they are grammatically identical to adjectives, i think it's fairly safe to say hebrew is rather lacking there, too.
(chfly: Gd in plural/plentitude)
"ELOHIM" IS NOT PLURAL WHEN APPLIED TO YAHWEH. not once in the bible, ever. never ever. yahweh is a singular god, and when
elohim refers to him, it is grammatically singular, because it's
used with singular verbs.
you evidently know
nothing about hebrew grammar.
This is a retrospective verse, relating to v1
no. verse 1 is evidently an introductory verse. and even if the rest of the chapter then explains verse 1 -- you still have to actually pay attention to the explanation. you cannot say it all happens in the same instant, when the chapter
clearly describes it sequentially over the course of
six days.
The word 'bara' only appears here, not in the 4th day.
irrelevent. synonyms are used explaining how things were created. please do not attempt to make distinctions between words when you know nothing about the language.
Such things as galaxies, black holes and comets also need no separate mention, and come under v1.
such things are irrelevent, because they were unknown to the authors. and the authors are not attempting to list and explain everything in creation -- it was taken for granted that god created everything. they wrote to explain the division of time. why our week is 6+1 days, and why creation took those six days.
Your reading would constitute a suerfluous repitition of the sun's creation, while disregarding the entire passage and references to the luminosity factor contained therein.
no, that's
your reading. as anyone with the most modest degree of reading comprehension should be able to tell, the sun does not exist until day four. similarly, earth does not exists until day three, and heaven does not exist until day two. light does not exist until day one. things happen
when the text says they happen, not before -- verse 1 simply serves as an introduction that describes
the rest of the chapter. it says that "in the beginning god created heaven" -- that's on day two -- "and earth" -- that's on day three. "in the beginning" then must constitute at least days two and three.
this is the simplest and most logical reading of the text. none of this stuff about reading a whole universe into the first verse, and ignoring the rest of the chapter. and actually, as i pointed out above, the verse should probably be rendered in english as "when god began creating heaven and earth..." which renders your whole argument totally moot.
V1 is not a story but a statement: if the heavens (galaxies) are declared as created - why would the sun not be included therein
"heavens" does not mean "galaxies." the text
also provides a definition for that word: a solid object that separates the waters above from the waters below (creating an air-pocket). the word itself is
derived from the word for "water." heaven is created
on day two and not before.
verse 1 is talking about
day two.
but again, you're not arguing with me; you're arguing with the text. the text says that the sun was created on day four. i'm sorry you have a problem with that.
note: it mentions even the earth, indicating the entire universe?
no, it mentions "ground" or "land." "earth" is a typical rendering, but it literally means "land" as in an area. in modern hebrew, it means "country." ever hear of the israeli newspaper ha-aretz? same word. it doesn't mean "universe."
in fact, there isn't even a word in biblical hebrew that means "universe." i know, i looked. the modern word for it means "eternity" in biblical hebrew.
The text itself distinguishes it: first declaring the introduction of light per se; then explaining its focusing as luminosity when it is directed upon earth. This is the same mode when light was later also seperated from darkness: it does mean light was created at this point, but that it was already created before and pre-existent of the separation phase.
read it again.
quote:
Genesis 1:3
—, ; -
v'y'amar elohim, "yehey 'or!" v'yehey 'or.
and god said, "be light!" and there was light.
the verse is
literally god telling light to exist. the word used means
exist. it is the same word that forms the grammatical basis of god's own name. how can you propose to claim that light existed before god commands it do so? it is after this point that light is separated from darkness.
The same applies with light. Both were created, and later on directed with a specific application.
you are requiring that light is created in verse 1, not verse 3 where god creates light. please stop making stuff up, stick to the text.
When and by whom? The textual narratives of a continuous story is not an isue - it is sustained grammatically.
1:1-2:4a is (the lengthiest addition) in the "P" document, likely written post-exile. the most likely candidate for an author, or for having directed the redactors at least, is the prophet ezra.
2:4b-4:26 is in the "J" document, written between 900 and 600 BC in the kingdom of judah. the author is unknown.
as for substantiate grammatically, nothing could be further from the truth. they use completely different styles and modes of storytelling, cover completely different scales, and even
refer to god differently. that they are two independent stories is by far the academic consensus on the matter, and
if you were to actually read them carefully it would be plain to see why. it's about as simple a point as "matthew and luke are by different authors."
This is verifiably incorrect. Day 1 begins not with the introduction of light or the stars, but with Adam's birthday, and in the context of adam outside of ch 1: when he is described as a human being upon earth. The Hebrew calendar is the world's most precise one, and it can be calculated to show the 6 cosmic days are not included therein.
well, then please substantiate your information, because i must have mistaken information about judaism. but i strongly suspect you are simply making stuff up again. because in all the torah i have studied, i have never once heard anyone discuss "cosmic days" or any such garbage. i've heard a few midrashim that the "days" are figurative, but that is a point i strongly disagree with on a strictly textual basis -- and by and large all the tradition i've heard points to a literal week, 5767 years ago.
First of many is indicated in 'first'; one signifies no other firsts.
"first" means "first." and you ignore the dozen or so translations i posted that actually render it this way, and my points about hebrew stylistics. instead, you just go on reciting this made-up stuff of yours, creating a false distinction between "first" and the definition of "first."
Its not about me - the text makes this distinction, which you are not factoring in.
no! the text
does not make any such distinction. it simply
counts in the most numerically consistent way possible. you do not understand the language -- but this isn't even much more of a point
in english. the hebrew explains the word choice better. but it's still a stretch
in english. you are
making stuff up.
"one" is the
first number.
The 'day one', instead of 'first day' is not my extra input, but in the texts. Its not a typo or a superfluous entry.
and the two
are interchangable in this context. did you not see all of those texts? including the very highly-regarded KJV?
I think in the end, correct comprehension of a text is pivotal (the word).
then perhaps you should try harder at it, think about it some more until you understand it. it's really not very difficult. just read it like you would
any other text and stop trying to force too much pre-conceived meaning on verses.
Your error is you have given no meaning to the first verse: it actually and really does say the universe was created in that verse;
no, it says that heaven and earth were created
in the beginning. not in that verse,
in the beginning. since days two and three contain the information about how heaven was created and how earth was created, "the beginning"
must apply to those two days.
and anyways, the verse more properly says "when god began creating heaven and earth..." why should it say that, when both are acceptable grammatically for the hebrew? because
of course god created heaven and earth in the beginning. that's the definition of "beginning." the other way is less of a "well duh" point, and serves as a better introduction.
look. i'm speaking past you. it's obvious that i am. you're struggling with the english, and i'm trying to explain hebrew grammar to you. it's not going to happen. let me just break it down to you like this:
your error is that you have
only given meaning to first (and most painfully obvious) verse, at the cost of every other verse's meaning. me? i'm just reading the words on the page. no more, no less.
Your reading would give two creations of the sun, or mentioned twice for no reason.
uh, no, again, that's
your reading.
look, if everything (including the sun) is created in the first instant in verse 1... why does god then create the sun four days later?
and the term 'created' is pivotal here.
actually, it's not. the only people i have ever seen attempt to make points about this
do not speak hebrew. think about that for a second. those who do might recognize that
bara is only used for really special things, but that the distinction is one of
importance not one of whether or not something already exists.
if god makes something, it didn't exist before god made it. if god forms something, it didn't exist before god formed it. the
materials might have, but it itself did not.
Think of a builder building a house - then explaining the inclusion of water and electricity applicable to that particular house - it does not mean the house was created when its electricity was installed?
down here, electricty (and plumbing) are
part of building a house.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typos
™ Version 4.2