The Literal Genesis Account of Creation

Hi, the response was not aimed at anyone in particular, as much as it was in reference to the topic. The evidence does favor uninhabited in contrast to the current English renditions.The KJV of the Genesis creation account does not do justice to the original scriptures. Much of the arguments circling this discussion can be directly attributed to biblical translation issues.

Look up the word for God in the Genesis accounts:
Is is Elohiym (only with marks I'm not gonna even attempt to put in : ), but is pronounced Elohiem for us non linguists.
It means Mighty ones. Now why on earth would the word for God be plural?
I'll give a hint:Exo 3:4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."Act 7:30 "Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush.Are the books contradictory, or is it somehow truth still?Since I'm posting now, I'll give my answer to the above two posed questions.God Manifestation. God worked through some "Mighty Ones" (likely angels), to get what he wanted accomplished.Something to understand about translation is that LORD, is Yahweh, and God is often Elohiem, so they generally can refer to different things.
So in the Genesis account, God gave the authority and power to the angels to create things, and worked through them (gave them his power) to create the world.
Compare this with:
Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."Why would God say make man in 'our' image? Isn't God one?
Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.However, if the creation were done through the angels, it makes more sense. It explains things like why people didn't always recognized angels when they saw them.Just to throw this out there for consideration.

If there was no land visible because it was covered with water would that not mean it was formless.There was no land anywhere only water.God said:There was nothing showing but water.
God gathered the water together in one place.
Dry land appeared in one place.
Geology : Plate Tectonics prove this statement.God called the dry land earth but that was not refering to the planet earth only the dry land.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."

Over the years, I always considered 'us' to be a discussion between Jesus and God. However, I would not be at all surprised if it was an announcement made before all of the angels at an appointed time. Since there is reference of appointed assemblies before God. Edited by pbee, : typoEdited by pbee, : No reason given.

Hi pbee,You keep refering to limiting the scope of the discussion. That was done so we would not be going off in all directions and to just see wht he KJV says.We are only 9 posts away from closing so why don't you start a thread and state what translations you want to use and and what you want to discuss. In what way did they get it wrong?You can explain it to us in the new thread.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."

There has NEVER been a time on Earth when it was totally covered by water. In fact, water was a fairly latecomer to the Earth, millions and millions of years after land. Nonsense. A totally false statement. Land, dry land was all of the Earth long before any water could even exist on Earth.Stop just spouting nonsense.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

A fresh start would be a welcome change in view of the topic. I have taken a personal interest(over the years) in the literary discrepancies of the English biblical translations. It could also provide us with the opportunity to present frameworks to support the various interpretations of the Creation Account.

Man didn't live hundreds of years he only lived. The only 2 that is mentioned as dying was murdered.At the time I am describing in Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:26 There was no sun or moon as we know it. There was only light. There was no time as you and I know it. If you take time to read the words in the account you will not find any mention of age of anyone as you do in the generations found in Genesis 5:1 which says it goes with the man that was created in the likeness of God. This verse claims to be the generations of the man created in Genesis 1:26. 27. This verse claims to be the generations of the heavens and the earth created in Genesis 1:1.The generations spoken of here conclude at Genesis 4:26.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."

Then you are asserting that the planet earth existed long before Genesis 1:2 which says is was formless and void.If so I agree.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."

In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.Elohim is a plural word.Elohim said let us make man in our image.We are in the likeness of God. We have a flesh body, a mind, and a spirit.There is God the Father. There is God the Son. There is God the Holy Spirit.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."

Ringo it has been educational if you did try my patience at times but you did cause me to study a lot as usual.And believe it or not you can give an answer sometimes like: Message 95Message 112To Sum up:Genesis 5:1 is the generations of the man in Genesis 1:26, 27.Genesis 5:1 is not the same time as Genesis 1:1.The man in Genesis 5:1 does not belong in the day of Genesis 1:1.Genesis 2:4 does claim to be in the same day as Genesis 1:1.That would prove my point that the man in Genesis 2:7 would belong in Genesis 1:1.This proves that there was a creation in Genesis 1:1, and at a later date a re-creation in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3.According to the Literal Genesis Account of Creation in the first 5 chapters of Genesis in KJV Bible.It has been truly educational and I want each of you to know I respect your views even though I think some of them are, oh well.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."

This passage obviously requires others to be present in the conversation. The question is then - who are they?I am not sure how familar you are with Divine Council studies but this is what this verse is about.Plainly put there are other real gods that exist but they were created by YHWH who alone is the Creator, some of these gods rebelled and others did not - hence Gen. 6 episode.As far as YHWH being the God of the Hebrews your right once again - famnous in DC studies is Deut. 32:8-9. This mistranlastion of "children of Israel" for DSS "sons of God" when Israel did not even exist at the time Moses is refering to is actually why we have a problem understanding this subject. God gave up the other nations to these gods and took Jacob for Himself - this was in order to bring to pass his purpose, plan, and promises given Abraham - culminating in the person and work of Jesus Christ.By the way the characterization of YHWH in the bible does not change over time to assuume so would mean you have some other characterization by the Hebrews reguarding YHWH's ontology or character. Just because the bible recognizes other lesser gods does not speak less of YHWH - He is unique in that He alone is Creator worthy of worship. By the way this is not Monolatrism nor Henotheism.There is alot to deal with on this subject but basically some scribes were trying to protect monothesim by obfuscating other lesser gods. Of course there were many other verses (Psalms 82)as well as older manuscripts (DSS)that show what the text is saying. This has developed a fasle dichotomy that if your a monotheist you can not believe in any other real gods. Some call this strict momothesism. This was a problem when christians were using texts to prove the diety of Christ.This of course exasperated the problem with the Israelites who did not believe in Jesus as Messiah.There is too much to write about and explain but if someone wants more info I will try to post it. There are many works mostly scholarly, although there is a recent Phd. dissertation on the subject maybe with permission I can post it.Keep the Faith

ICANT saidThat would prove my point that the man in Genesis 2:7 would belong in Genesis 1:1.This proves that there was a creation in Genesis 1:1, and at a later date a re-creation in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3.This does not prove jack!!!The only Gap is the one in your theory.Gen. 1:1 Is the first statment in the prologue. By the way there is no man mentioned in this verse.Gen. 1:2 This is the result - formless and void.Gen. 1:3-31 This is what God did to make it have form and be filled. By the way verses 26-27 are dealing with Mankind - male and female. Also Gen.5:1-2.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.

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? I'm not certain now, are you saying that there was no land anywhere at all (in which case formless would be an accurate word), or there IS land somewhere (in which case formless isn't the right word). And as Jar said this does not match what science says. Claiming that the bible means it was covered with water after the creation was finished is irrelevent, if it says that it was covered with water at any time at all this is going against science. Hence why people arguing for Noahs flood as a literal event that covered the entire planet tend to have such a hard time on this site. Yes, I know. That was exactly my point. It definitely is not refering to the concept of a planet here. Nowhere do I actually see the concept of a planet referred to at all. It seems in the beginning there was water (which isn't explicitly created), and from that water everything else was produced (including the Earth).

No, I am saying that the Genesis creation myths are factually wrong.How many times must I repeat that?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion