|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Literal Genesis Account of Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6028 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
[qa]The land would not be formless if it was covered with water, it would have exactly the same form that it has if it's not covered with water. Formless implies without form (like a potters clay). Is formless the correct translation?[/qs]
The reference to a formless piece of clay is a great illustration to demonstrate how the term applies to the state of the earth of that period. - After the potter has *formed the clay, it now has shape(or form). Prior to being formed, the clay was formless(void of characteristics). I'm not sure if this is the best rendition of Hebraic Genesis, describing the earth as 'deserted and empty'. However, we really have to take into consideration that the KJV translation was originally transcribed in the early 1600's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Gen. 2:4 Is a parenthetical giving specifics about the day - Day 6. Verse 7 is talking about man - male and then how God created the female. In fact all of Ch.2 is day six. Then since Genesis 2:4 is the generations of the heaven and the earth in the day the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, you are saying that the heaven and the earth was not created until the 6th day. If the heaven and the earth was not created until the 6th day then where did God put all those animals, fowl, grasses, and trees? Food for thought. Enjoy "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
shiloh,
You need to fix this post Message 298 The way you have it it looks as if everything was said by me. Thanks, ICANT If he don't get it fixed before close adminPD would you correct it for me. Thanks, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shiloh Junior Member (Idle past 6116 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
ICANT you are seriously lacking understanding.
Read the details: The first part of 2:4 is a restatement as to introduce the point that it will start from day six - hence the phrase "... before any plant ... and any herb of the field had grown" nor was there any "man to till the ground." Your observations of the text lack severly. You do realize the the entire book deals with 10 histories - each of which the focus tightens. This why when the next history is introduced it will often restate something by way of introduction. A parenthetical will often fill in the details of somthing that was generally stated earlier - that is day 6 and the creation of mankind (male and female) I can not believe you actualy think I thought the heavens and the earth were not created until the sixth day - I hope you were being sarcastic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
I can not believe you actualy think I thought the heavens and the earth were not created until the sixth day - I hope you were being sarcastic. No I was not being sarcastic. Either the heaven and the earth did not exist until day six according to Genesis 2:4 or Genesis 2:4 is not covering day six.
[qs]Gene 2:4 (KJV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, [b]in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,[/qs] This plainly says: The day the earth and heaven was created.It does not say in the day God created man in His likeness, which was day six. And that is a fact shiloh. Enjoy "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You still miss the point.
The first half of Genesis 2:4 is the ending summary of the younger tale that begins at Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 through the first half of Genesis 2:4 is one story. Another story starts at the second half of Genesis 2:4. The tale that begins at the second half of genesis 2:4 is the older tale. It is a compilation of several myths that likely began as an oral tradition. The story that begins at Genesis 1:1 and runs through the first half of Genesis 2:4 is the newer, younger tale. It was written by different people with different traditions many hundreds if not thousands of years after the older tale that starts at the second half of Genesis 2:4. Other than both tales being creation myths, there is NOTHING common between them. Just as Genesis 1:1 is the introduction, the first half of Genesis 2:4 is the summation of the story. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Is is Elohiym (only with marks I'm not gonna even attempt to put in : ) that's —. alef-lamed-hey-yud-mem(sofit, from right to left. alef is "silent" (sort of), but the dots underneath tell us to make an "eh" sound. the dot to left of the lamed makes an "oh" sound, though sometimes you will see next to vav (which then makes the "oh" sound). the dot under the hey and the yud next to it tells us to make an "ee" sound. so that's "eh-lo-heem."
It means Mighty ones. no, it means "god" or "gods" depending on the grammatical context. it can be used, symbolically, to desribe human leaders as well.
Now why on earth would the word for God be plural? it's not. this is my biggest pet peeve. and this should annoy ICANT as well, and anyone else who knows any hebrew. sometimes nouns will appear to be a certain number or gender, but actually operate as "exceptions" to the rules. in which case, the verb always dictates the number and gender of the subject. the two are grammatically linked. let's take a look at the first sentance of genesis:
quote: please note that the verb in the sentance, bara, is singular, masculine, and either present or past tense (the verse can be rendered this way, or the way you're used to both are grammatically the same). if elohim were plural, it would say:
quote: unfortunately, this isn't a good example of the grammatical rule, as bara is also one of the unusual verbs, by sheer coincidence. the in general, the rule is (noun)-im (verb)-im; (noun)-ot (verb)-ot. when subject is plural, the endings match. if they don't match, like this, it tell us this is a special case, and we infer plurality (in this case, but it's usually gender) from the verb. this word just happens to have singular and plural cases that are identical. the appearance of plurality could indicate a linguistic history. cognates in other languages describe (a singular) council of gods. singular in name, plural in number. the hebrew god, however, is decidedly singular in number. however, the "council" idea pops up in books like job.
God Manifestation. God worked through some "Mighty Ones" (likely angels), to get what he wanted accomplished. elohim is most definitally god. it means "god." it's attached as the title following god's name, yahweh. though the group that shows up in job as god's council has the word as part of their name, benai elohim, "children of god(s)." it is this group that mates with human women (genesis 6) to produce "mighty ones" of old, the nefalim, or "fallen."
Why would God say make man in 'our' image? Isn't God one? this is, in fact, one of the few instances in the bible where god does actually speak in plural. another can be found at the end of genesis 3, "behold the man as become as one of us." these are actually plural in the hebrew, too. i won't go into that today, but the reference there is the same word someone would use to describe "from my people." the simplest reading is either that there are other things like god (ie: the children of god, or maybe other gods), or that god simply speaks this way. for the gen 3 reference, that may be simply how the language works idiomatically. but for this one, god could have easily said "in my image, after my likeness." in fact the difference is between and . which, btw, is an easy scribal error to make, as you can see. though, to happen twice... frankly, i don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Let us take a closer look at how the key Hebrew words of concern can be translated since often each Hebrew word has many uses depending upon the context. please note the section i have chosen to emphasize. your point is entirely correct, but possibly misapplied. i have to check back a bit further to see what point you are arguing in favor of, but context is key.
We will look at selected extractions of the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance there's an adage here. "appealing to strong's is the sign of a weak argument." or, in some cases, utter insanity. i have personally held debates here with at least two people believed they could use strong's concordance to "decode" the bible, and find moses's cd-rom collection. i kid you not. cd-roms. really. finding an entrance in strongs where it says a word can be used a few different ways, where it does not describe the different usages, and thinking that you can apply any of the uses of your choosing to any instance of the same root word is a fatal error, and a product of grossly oversimplifying the language. prefixes matter. suffixes matter. grammatical context matters. literary context matters. strongs (and any dictionary associated with it) does not cover these things. to it, , , and ‘ are all the same root word, and thus covered under the same entry. so we have a literal day, a figurative "day" meaning "years," and an idiomatic "point in time," all under the same word. do you see those in your definitions? that's where they come from. the usages are not the same.
The Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green, as an aside, interlinear hebrew really annoys me. i don't know why, i just can't read either. i vastly prefer side-by-side, but that's so much more uncommon.
Note that there can be two uses of the word, as a literal day, or as a figurative day for a period of time to be defined by associated words. now, i hinted at this above, as you'll note. i am frankly getting rather tired of continually explaining this little bit here, and i've already given a lecture of my other pet peeve, the "elohim is plural!" argument, so i'll hold off for tonight.
As early as Genesis 2:4 we see yowm in the singular with an attached infinitive used to indicate an extended period of time. "infinitive" would be the wrong word. it's a bet-prefix, which normally (literally) means "in." however, as stated a few times by multiple people (including me) this is an idiomatic usage, and does not mean any length of time. not longer, not shorter. just means "at this point in time." it more easily rendered "when." as in "when god created earth and heaven..."
How about evening ('ereb #6153) and morning (boqer #1242), can they be associated with a long time period? They appear in this order only a limited number of times in the Scriptures. most importantly, genesis is setting up what the two terms mean. their definitions are provided by the text itself, and the reasoning behind their order is heavily implied. genesis 1 sets up the demarcation of time.
In this case evening and morning are associated with a "vision" that definitely covers many years. about 6, actually. the number of "evenings and mornings" is given by the text.
even though some translations do us "evenings and mornings". this is probably by emendation, as the verse is clearly talking about more than one evening, and more than one morning, as it refers back to an earlier verse, verse 14, which gives a number of days (2300). though frankly, i don't really understand that verse. i mean, just look at this:
quote: it's highly figurative language. but look, there's no "and" with boqer. why not? and they're not plural, like they should be, with the numbers following them. maybe this is a separate usage, because the grammar is just... bizarre. to me at least. maybe somebody who knows a little more hebrew can explain it? this isn't a chapter of daniel that's in aramaic, either.
8:26 "And the appearance of the evening and of the morning, that is told, is true; and thou, hide thou the vision, for it is after many days." "for" or "to many days" is — ‘, l'yamim rabim. the "many" is rabim. probably another reason this verse is read (and translated) as talking about many evenings and mornings.
whoah whoah whoah, those are different words from different sources! one is a common hebrew word, and one is a proper noun probably imported from another language. context should tell us the difference. you can't switch them, and more than i can switch "morning" and "mourning" and english.
Through out history there have always been a small minority of linguists who have maintained that Hebrew was the mother language from which all languages originated. Needless to say they have been ignored by the secular linguists and also most Christians. ...hebrew doesn't even use it's own alef-bet. though the one it borrows did strongly influence phoenician, which influenced greek, which influenced latin, which is the alphabet that most western languages today use. but, uh, i don't see how kanji came from aramaic.
While it is often difficult for the amateur to recognize the origin of English words from the Hebrew mother tongue because the two languages seem to be so different. lots of words in english come from hebrew. lots of idiomatic expressions in english come from hebrew, too. because of the bible. more interesting, perhaps, is that lots of words in hebrew come from english. my favourite is perhaps —, pela-fon. because it rhymes with — telefon, has the same concept, and incorporates the word for "miracle." and it's the word people use for their cell phones, despite the official word they came up with, that nobody actually remembers.
Therefore, the translation of yowm in the Genesis 1 passages to aeon is also a good choice. no, it absolutely is not. genesis 1 is about the definition of a week. why is a week 7 days? why do we rest on shabat? what is an evening? what is a morning? why do we have a sun? why do we have a moon? genesis 1 is the model for time. it's about time. messing up the length of a day fundamentally undermines the purpose of the text. this is not an "it's literal because i say so, trust me" argument. this is a "you have to actually read the text and understand its function" argument. it's not so much about the creation of earth and heaven. we know that happened, that's a given. the hebrew authors were more interested in other stuff, like the origins of customs. especially the customs that made them different from everyone else. this chapter gives it meaning. i fail to find any good reason to read the text any other way. and i do not believe people who say they read it another way prompted by something other than a prior knowledge in an old earth. that "the text is wrong" is not a good reason to simply pretend it says something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Genesis 1:1 through the first half of Genesis 2:4 is one story.
Gene 2:4 (KJV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,[/qs] You say this half of the verse goes with Gen. 1:1-Genesis 2:3. Why is this the only instance where all the things of the generations come before the statement "These are the generations of..? Why is the generations given in Genesis 5:1 the generations of the man created on day 6, if they have already been given. Then, where would the generations of the man formed from the dust of the earth be? And you accuse me of slicing and dicing. What difference does it make to you what it says? If it is only a myth you should be able to objectively look at what is written and come to an honest conclusion. The aim of the thread: The Literal Genesis Account of Creation in the KJV Bible. No more, No less. Enjoy "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth most likely existed long before the first Genesis day, ...not quite. it either indicates that the earth and heaven were created "in the beginning" which serves as an introduction to the story, or, should more properly rendered (similar to the n-jps) "when god began creating the heavens and the earth, and the earth was unformed..." each is an entirely acceptable reading of the hebrew. i actually prefer the second, because it matches the beginning of the second account in english, "when god created earth and heaven..." and (i think) more properly reflects the implications of the grammar.
However, it does describe what earth’s condition was just before that first day began. 'Now, the earth proved to be formless and waste actually, "unformed" would be the best word. the same words are used to describe desolation, and reflect the sense of emptiness, or more properly, nothingless/obliteration. translating a little more idiomatically, it would say "the earth did not exist." some times connotations don't translate well. water, on the other hand, did, as water is the primordial element in ancient near eastern alchemy. land is created by moving the waters apart (horizontally). heaven is created by moving the waters apart (veritcally).
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Thus the heavens with their celestial bodies, well, wait a second. heaven is created on monday. earth is created on tuesday. so, if "the beginning" is refering to those two events, it must be refering to the entire creation week, right? because those "celestial bodies" are created on wednessday. they did not exist instantly at verse 1, before sunday, any more than anything else did. if "heaven and earth" truly implies everything else, AND happens instantly upon verse 1... there's no need for the rest of the chapter that actually describes all that stuff. you cannot have it both ways, and circle back like that. it just doesn't work.
So how it can be that God made the luminaries on the fourth creative day when light”evidently from these same luminaries” the moon does not produce light. the stars produce light, but are out at night. the only light you're concerned about is from the sun. and the sun, it says, was created on wednessday. what made it daytime on sunday, monday, and tuesday you ask? good question. but it's not one that you will find by changing the text around, as the text clearly indicates that LIGHT, and a period of light called "day" were created on sunday. so evidently there was light, but no sun. i'm sure this is blatant logical problem for you, knowing that our sun produces all our light. but when god puts the sun in the sky, he doesn't say "to provide light." he says "to mark time." the sun marks the day time. the light, evidently, in the ancient hebrew world view, comes from somewhere else. file that one away with "solid dome in the sky, surrounded by water" and "flat earth." we use the text to tell us what they thougth about the world. we don't use what we know about the world 2600 science-filled years later to decipher the text.
The record states what the already existing sun, moon, and stars now became in relation to the(planet) earth. no, it states that on wednessday, god made the sun. "made" being a synonym for "created." as in "it did not exist before."
sources of light (Hebrew, ma·’ohr”) more properly, "containers of light." it's used for candelabras and such. the fire itself would be simply "light."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
"Make" and "create" mean the same thing. See Message 1 (Thread Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed in Forum Bible Study). I have peeked through the referenced links but I didn't see any Hebrew references to the terms in the older documents, did I miss them? yes. see my post #25 in that thread, as well as my post #45 and onwards. the case is very strong that ‘ and are synonyms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Gene 2:4 (KJV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, You say this half of the verse goes with Gen. 1:1-Genesis 2:3. Yup.
Why is this the only instance where all the things of the generations come before the statement "These are the generations of..? Because it is the summary of what came before.
Why is the generations given in Genesis 5:1 the generations of the man created on day 6, if they have already been given. They aren't. There is no connections between the story in Genesis one and the earlier stories.
Then, where would the generations of the man formed from the dust of the earth be? You're mixing up stories again. In the tale found in Genesis 1 through the first half of Genesis 2:4, man is not made from dust but from an act of will?
quote: If it is only a myth you should be able to objectively look at what is written and come to an honest conclusion. I do. They are simply different myths, both factually wrong.
The aim of the thread: The Literal Genesis Account of Creation in the KJV Bible. No more, No less. Well, sorry but that is exactly what you have been getting from me. There is literally not one tale, but two or more, and they are all factually wrong. Sorry, that is the literal truth. Have you ever read the Bible? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Much of the arguments circling this discussion can be directly attributed to biblical translation issues. i'm not entirely positive people here can read the darned thing in english. which, granted, may be a point to justify this:
The KJV of the Genesis creation account does not do justice to the original scriptures. some people see the kjv has hard to approach or understand (similar to shakespeare, when taught in high school). i don't think it's really all that bad, but i never had a problem with shakespeare either. a little antiquated in the dialect, sure. but i'm really curious about why you would say it "does not do justice" to the original? i have found that, in most instances (save qere/kethiv debates), the kjv is by far the most scrutinizingly accurate literal translation i've ever read. all of the truly beguiling stuff that really doesn't make much sense is taken straight from the hebrew literally. the idioms and figurative language is all rendered literally. this could be seen as a weakness, as one would need to understand the hebrew linguistic context to understand what the text means in some cases. maybe "not doing justice" as in "it might confuse the average person." but this is sort of like saying that kenneth branaugh's (four hour!) version of "hamlet" doesn't do the original play justice. it's got every word of the play (most movies cover at best a third to a half), and has it all in the original dialect. it's as literal a representation of the play as possible. now, i don't find it boring, because i love the play. but your average movie viewer probably got bored, went to take a leak, and never came back. so the debate, i think, is really between "effective translation" and "excruciatingly faithful and sort of elitist." i don't really see anything wrong either one. though i can tell you, the "effective" idiomatic translations, like the n-jps, are far easier to read, and more "human" in their voices. in that respect, they do justice to the text by presenting a feel that might be lost in translation otherwise. certainly, in this thread, we have seen that sometimes context and connotation is obscured by language. i am not a kjv-lover. but i don't see any reason to knock it, either. translation is preference. which compromise suits you better. frankly, i got so frustrated with the whole thing that i just decided to learn a little hebrew myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shiloh Junior Member (Idle past 6116 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
LOL "the day" in 2:4 is a phrase for the period of time it took (6 days) mentioned earlier in Ch 1:2-2:3. There is no qualifications on the word day like "eveing and moring...second day..." as in ch. 1:2-2:3. In 2:4 it is introducing the subject of how God made mankind (male first female second on day 6), in the day He created the heavens and the earth...before any...had grown.
As for jar's point. The Hebrew is clear that 2:4 is the begining of a new section not the end of the first. Notice the phrase "This is the history of the heavens and the earth", this phrase and one s similar to it begin the other 9 histories in the Book of Genesis. Furthermore, the thought of verse 4 continues through the middle of verse 5 The reason nothing had grown was not because he did not create it yet but because as verse 5 say it had not rained nor WAS THERE A MAN TO TILL THE GROUND - THEME THEME THEME HINT HINT HINT. A few Examples of the other histories - 5:1; 10:1; 11:10; ect; ect. These are natural divisons in the book. I dont want to be mean but you are really dense on this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
happy_atheist Member (Idle past 4914 days) Posts: 326 Joined: |
actually, "unformed" would be the best word. the same words are used to describe desolation, and reflect the sense of emptiness, or more properly, nothingless/obliteration. translating a little more idiomatically, it would say "the earth did not exist." some times connotations don't translate well. water, on the other hand, did, as water is the primordial element in ancient near eastern alchemy. land is created by moving the waters apart (horizontally). heaven is created by moving the waters apart (veritcally). Wow, it seems I was sometwhat accurate with my reading of the first few verses of the KJV. I guess that goes to show (as you say later) that it isn't a bad translation at all. I certainly can't read Hebrew, but I struggled with French and German so maybe language isn't my thing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024