Summations Only

Hi PD,

purpledawn writes: Genesis 1:1, the storyteller is talking to his people and telling them their beginnings.

So in Genesis 1:1 according to you ארץ means people, or their beginnings.

What does ארץ mean the other 986 times it is used in the Old Testament?

Where do you find the definition of ארץ that states it means the beginnings of the people?

What does שמים in Genesis 1:1 mean?

What does צם in Genesis 11:5 and the other 2142 time it was used mean?

What does משפחה in Genesis 10:5 and the other 300 times it was used mean?

What does גוי in Genesis 10:5 and the other 557 times it was used mean?

purpledawn writes: quote: What did the Hebrew word ארץ refer too in Genesis 1:2? There was no arable land. There was no place to stand. There was nothing visible but water. There was no inhabited earth, the abode of men an animals. Therefore there was no country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a track of land, territory, or region. That only leaves two of your definitions. The earth as a whole. The earth as opposed to the heavens.

The above definitions of Υην as well as ארץ is the ones you gave.

I asked you which one of the definitions fit what is found in Genesis 1:2.

You totally change the subject and tell me:

quote:

---

The Genesis 1 creation story is not a journal. The storyteller is speaking to his audience and telling them about the past. In Genesis 1:2, the storyteller is still speaking of the land the people knew. Hard to picture more than they know.

---

But there was no dry land for them to relate too in Genesis 1:2.

So I will ask you once again. Which of the definitions that you gave describe what is described in Genesis 1:2?

purpledawn writes: The storyteller tells you himself. Since the yabbashah is called erets.

Yes the dry land was called Earth.

What was it called before it appeared out of the water when the water was gathered to one place?

That would have been wet land the only difference being it was covered with water.

purpledawn writes: Erets is only talking about dry land,

Where do you get that definition of ארץ ?

purpledawn writes: The earth as a whole, still refers to the dry land as a whole; not the planet.

You are saying that whole refers only to a part.

Where do you get that definition of whole?

My dictionary defines whole as Containing all components.

Therefore 'the whole earth' would refer to the water the dry land, the wet land, the crust, mantel and core. All of those things compose the whole Earth. Whether the 7 billionth person on Earth that was born on halloween knows the facts about the Earth or not.

God Bless,

Hi Doc,

doctrbill writes: There are two schools of thought regarding the first chapter of Genesis.

Correction I have a third.

doctrbill writes: One group says it is like a journal: a day by day record

That can't be true. A journal is a day by day record that is kept by an observer. Who was the observer that kept the journal?

doctrbill writes: You will note that Earth appears on the third day, and the heavens on the fourth day.

Your interpertation or conclusions is flawed.

The heavens and Earth existed in Genesis 1:1.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

---

Now if you would like to come up with a date for the beginning we could determine if your assertions are true or false.

The events you are talking about when our atmosphere was formed and dry land appeared was around 6,000 years ago. But that was not the beginning as the heavens and the Earth existed in Genesis 1:2. The Earth being covered with water.

The history (generations) of the heavens and the Earth that existed in Genesis 1:1 begins in Genesis 2:4 as that is the history of the day God created the Earth and the heavens.

The Hebrew word ביום which has the definite article means a specific day and is translated "the day".

That day had to be prior to Genesis 1:2 as the heavens and the Earth existed at that time and the Earth was covered with water, and the evening of day had come as darkness was over the face of the waters that covered the Earth.

Had the writer been refering to the 7 days of Moses as 'the day' the Lord God created the Earth and the heavens he would have used the Hebrew word לימים as that is the plural form for days.

doctrbill writes: Another group says that verses one and two are an introduction to the story,

Mankind can say anything he/she desires to say. That does not make it true or a fact.

Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement with a subject, a verb of completed action, with the results of that action.

Genesis 1:1 tells us when: In the beginning.
Genesis 1:1 tells us who: God.
Genesis 1:1 tells us what (God did) created.
Genesis 1:1 tells us the result of what God did. The heavens and Earth existed.

Therefore it can not be an introduction to a story.

It is the story.

Whatever follows Genesis 1:1 is to speak to Genesis 1:1, the problem is that the first verse that speaks to Genesis 1:1 is Genesis 2:4 which states it is the history (generations) of 'the day' the Lord God created the Earth and the heavens.

Why doesn't Genesis 2:4 follow Genesis 1:1?

Well we did not have verses and chapters until recently and anywhere along the line some copyist could have decided the order the words was copied in.

The problem is no one along the line changed the words in Genesis 2:4 nor the story that follows it, describing what happened that day.

doctrbill writes: and that the body of the story begins with God creating light.

Where does the text say God ברא light?

doctrbill writes: This makes more sense to me and it completely eliminates the mental gymnasitics required of the other interpretation.

Sure it does as it fits your worldview, and it does not make any difference what the test says.

God Bless,

ICANT writes: Now if you would like to come up with a date for the beginning we could determine if your assertions are true or false. ... when our atmosphere was formed and dry land appeared was around 6,000 years ago. But that was not the beginning ...

I take it you are imagining a water-covered globe which has no atmosphere. And why, exactly, would you imagine that such a thing is possible?
Methinks thou knowest nothing of chemistry.

And what would be the point of having a water covered globe hanging out for thirteen billiion years with nothing useful to do and then suddenly, a second ago in geologic time: it develops an atmosphere?

The history (generations) of the heavens and the Earth that existed in Genesis 1:1 begins in Genesis 2:4 as that is the history of the day God created the Earth and the heavens.

1). "generations" which is given for the Hebrew toldah which the Jews translated to Greek as geneseos is better translated "origins."

2). The "history" revealed in chapter two is different from the "history" revealed in chapter one.

ICANT writes: Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement with a subject, a verb of completed action, with the results of that action. Genesis 1:1 tells us when: In the beginning. Genesis 1:1 tells us who: God. Genesis 1:1 tells us what (God did) created. Genesis 1:1 tells us the result of what God did. The heavens and Earth existed. Therefore it can not be an introduction to a story. It is the story.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. If something is stated as a complete sentence then it cannot be an introduction to the paragraphs which follow?

Whatever follows Genesis 1:1 is to speak to Genesis 1:1, the problem is that the first verse that speaks to Genesis 1:1 is Genesis 2:4 which states it is the history (generations) of 'the day' the Lord God created the Earth and the heavens. Why doesn't Genesis 2:4 follow Genesis 1:1? Well we did not have verses and chapters until recently and anywhere along the line some copyist could have decided the order the words was copied in.

So there was a conspiracy to make Genesis sound as if God created everything in seven days, six thousand years ago -- that the Bible has been made purposely misleading -- that the creator of the universe has been unable to protect his holy word from wicked men who would pervert it?

The problem is no one along the line changed the words in Genesis 2:4 nor the story that follows it, describing what happened that day.

Not very clever, those conspirators, eh?

Where does the text say God áøà light?

Since you are so fond of Hebrew and cannot seem to grasp the concepts of English literature, then perhaps we should continue this conversation in Hebrew Only. Yes?

doctrbill writes: This makes more sense to me and it completely eliminates the mental gymnasitics required of the other interpretation. I CAN'T writes: Sure it does as it fits your worldview, and it does not make any difference what the test says.

Neither account fits my worldview.

For me, this is an exercise in reading comprehension. I am here for the joy of sharing knowledge.

Why are you here?

I think that you are wrong when you say that the earth just appeared on the 3rd day. The Bible doesn't say that. Actually it says that the earth was there on the first day. it was just "without form and void." Genesis 1:2 2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Then on the third day God formed it. It went from being without form, to with form.

Edited by Juan Jose xx, : No reason given.

Hi Bill,

doctrbill writes: I take it you are imagining a water-covered globe which has no atmosphere. And why, exactly, would you imagine that such a thing is possible?

I am not imagining anything.

The text says:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

---

This says face of the waters.

This is the same waters that is gathered to one place and dry land appeared in Genesis 1:9

So yes the Earth existed in Genesis 1:2 covered by water with an unbreathable atmosphere.

doctrbill writes: And what would be the point of having a water covered globe hanging out for thirteen billiion years with nothing useful to do and then suddenly, a second ago in geologic time: it develops an atmosphere?

Who said anything about the globe hanging out for thirteen billion years with nothing useful to do?

I believe the Earth has always existed in some form just not necessarly as it is today. There is a little rule about matter/energy can not be created or destroyed.

Genesis 1:1 tell us the heavens and the Earth was created in the beginning which no one has ever been able to tell me when the beginning was.

The history (generations of the day the Earth and the heavens was created is recorded in Genesis 2:4 - 4:24.

doctrbill writes: 1). "generations" which is given for the Hebrew toldah which the Jews translated to Greek as geneseos is better translated "origins."

The Hebrew word תולדות means:

) descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies
       a) account of men and their descendants
            1) genealogical list of one's descendants
            2) one's contemporaries
            3) course of history (of creation etc)
       b) begetting or account of heaven (metaph)

Where in those definitions do you find origins?

The Hebrew word for origin is באר.

For something to exist it must be created or formed from something that already exists.

The Hebrew word for make, form is עשע.

doctrbill writes: 2). The "history" revealed in chapter two is different from the "history" revealed in chapter one.

Why wouldn't they be different.

They are about events that took place billions of years apart.

Can you find the age of Cain or any of his descendents?

Can you find were Cain or anyone other than Able or the young man Lamech killed died?

There is no information on those events recorded anywhere.

doctrbill writes: Let me see if I understand you correctly. If something is stated as a complete sentence then it cannot be an introduction to the paragraphs which follow?

I am declaring that a declarative statement is a statement of fact which requires no further explanation to be a fact. It does not require answer or action from reader. It does not ask a question, give a command, or make a request.

Therefore the declarative statement of the fact God created the heavens and the Earth is completed action as the Hebrew verb requires as it is perfect tense.

doctrbill writes: So there was a conspiracy to make Genesis sound as if God created everything in seven days, six thousand years ago

The only things created during the seven days you are talking about was what was translated whales in Genesis 1:21 and mankind in Genesis 1:27 nothing else was created during that time period, as it already existed but had become empty and uninhabitable.

doctrbill writes: that the creator of the universe has been unable to protect his holy word from wicked men who would pervert it?

No, He has protected His Word. Mankind is just making it harder and harder to find a Bible that has the truth in it.

doctrbill writes: Not very clever, those conspirators, eh?

I don't think there was conspirators.

I think they actually thought they were correcting what an earlier copyist had messed up. Even today those who translate the old text is doing the same thing. They are very sincere in what they are doing but are just sincerealy wrong.

Then there are those who are of their father the devil that prevert the Word of God just because they can and don't want anyone to have the truth of God's Word.

doctrbill writes: Since you are so fond of Hebrew and cannot seem to grasp the concepts of English literature, then perhaps we should continue this conversation in Hebrew Only. Yes?

You can use as much Hebrew as you like.

Just give me the text that says God באר created light.

A little hint it does not as God is light.

doctrbill writes: For me, this is an exercise in reading comprehension. I am here for the joy of sharing knowledge.

Good, then share the text that says God created light.

doctrbill writes: Why are you here?

I am here to broaden my knowledge of many things.

God Bless,

Juan Jose xx writes: I think that you are wrong when you say that the earth just appeared on the 3rd day. The Bible doesn't say that.

quote:

---

God said ... let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth ... (Genesis 1:9, 10)

---

Actually it says that the earth was there on the first day. it was just "without form and void." ... Then on the third day God formed it. It went from being without form, to with form.

That is not what it says though, is it Juan? And while we are on the subject: What does it mean to be "formless and void"?

Does it mean "invisible"? And if earth is invisible , then how do we know it is there?

And what does it mean that God called the dry land Earth? If he called the land Earth, then what did he call the water?

Hi Bill,

doctrbill writes: That is not what it says though, is it Juan?

Genesis 1:1 says the heavens and the Earth existed.
Genesis 1:2 says the Earth existed but had become an empty waste.
Isaiah in 45:18 says God did not create the Earth תהו same word translated without form in Genesis 1:2

quote:

---

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

---

So God created the Earth to be inhabited. The Earth was created in Genesis 1:1 and therefore was inhabitabable, and was to be inhabited.

I propose it was inhabited by the first life form which God formed from the dust of the ground and breathed into that form the breath of life and he became a living being.

God planted a Garden.

It was also inhabited by a lot of creatures that God formed from the ground as well as fowls to fly in the air.

God formed a woman out of the rib of the man.

doctrbill writes: Does it mean "invisible"? And if earth is invisible , then how do we know it is there?

The Hebrew word תהו does not mean invisible, in Genesis 1:2.

doctrbill writes: And what does it mean that God called the dry land Earth?

It means God called the dry ground Earth.

It does not mean the wet ground was not a part of the Earth.

It did not mean that the water was not a part of the Earth.

doctrbill writes: If he called the land Earth, then what did he call the water?

God called the water that He commanded to gather to one place Sea. The translators used their knowledge that we have more than one sea to translate ימים as seas when it is a masculine singular verb form from the Hebrew word ים which is a masculine singular noun.

God Bless,

I Can't writes: I am here to broaden my knowledge of many things.

And yet you don't seem to be learning.

the Earth existed in Genesis 1:2 covered by water with an unbreathable atmosphere

That is an unscriptural assertion, and surprising for someone who is a stickler for the exact wording of "the Word."

the Earth has always existed

And yet you say it was created.

Earth was created in the beginning

As I was saying ...

matter/energy can not be created or destroyed.

I think you are confused.

Where in those definitions do you find origins?

Everywhere.

They are about events that took place billions of years apart.

Actually, it is as you have said:

There is no information on those events recorded anywhere.

Exactly.

I don't think there was conspirators.

Sure you do. You have called them:

those who are of their father the devil that prevert the Word of God just because they can and don't want anyone to have the truth of God's Word.

That is the very definition of conspiracy.

doctrbill writes: the creator of the universe has been unable to protect his holy word from wicked men who would pervert it? I Can't writes: No, He has protected His Word. Mankind is just making it harder and harder to find a Bible that has the truth in it.

And you have the "true" Bible?

I am here to broaden my knowledge

I sincerely doubt that.

I think that Juan has a point that the verse refers to the whole world, in some sense (obviously not a spherical planet, but the world as it was thought of in those times). At this point in the text, no dry ground exists, the world is simply the lifeless and desolate primordial ocean, which in Middle Eastern thought is equated with chaos and disorder. This is what the verse seems to refer to.

quote:

---

So in Genesis 1:1 according to you ארץ means people, or their beginnings.

---

Not what I said.

In Message 193, you asked what part of the world was Genesis 1 talking about. The storyteller is telling them about their land. He is not telling them about the planet.

Please use the transliterated words, I don't read Hebrew. It also makes it easier for visitors to understand.

quote:

---

But there was no dry land for them to relate too in Genesis 1:2.

---

Sure there is. They were standing or sitting on it. They were listening to a story of the past. The dry land around them was a mess way back when. The meaning is land.

Actually what you quoted were the meanings for the Greek word ge.

quote:

---

What was it called before it appeared out of the water when the water was gathered to one place?

---

Before God said the dry land was called land (erets) the word used to refer to land was erets (land).

quote:

---

Therefore 'the whole earth' would refer to the water the dry land, the wet land, the crust, mantel and core. All of those things compose the whole Earth. Whether the 7 billionth person on Earth that was born on halloween knows the facts about the Earth or not.

---

Not in the Bible. The writer makes it clear it refers to dry land.

Show evidence that it refers to the planet. Show evidence that the audience understood the entire sphere. Show me when the Jews knew there was more than the countries around them.

Hi Bill,

doctrbill writes: And yet you don't seem to be learning.

You mean because I don't agree with you or a lot of the other garbage that is peddled here.

I do a lot of reading and research and do gain a lot of knowledge whether you think so or not.

doctrbill writes: That is an unscriptural assertion, and surprising for someone who is a stickler for the exact wording of "the Word."

What is unscriptural.

quote:

---

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

---

And the earth was...that means it existed.
There was no dry land as the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters not the face of the dry land which did not exist until verse 9 as it was covered with water making it wet land.
Since there was nobody alive there I assume the air was not breathable and if I listen to Percy it was liquid, all the way up to he did not say where but it had to be divided with a firmament which is our atmosphere.

So do you care to explain why you think it is unscriptural?

doctrbill writes: the Earth has always existed And yet you say it was created. Earth was created in the beginning As I was saying ...

If you are going to quote me then quote what I said not chopping it off. Quote the entire declarative statement.

Concerning the Earth always existing I said:

quote:

---

I believe the Earth has always existed in some form just not necessarly as it is today.

---

Concerning the Earth was created in the beginning I said:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:1 tell us the heavens and the Earth was created in the beginning which no one has ever been able to tell me when the beginning was.

---

doctrbill writes: matter/energy can not be created or destroyed. I think you are confused.

quote:

---

The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of a closed system (in the sense of a completely isolated system) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change (hence, its quantity is "conserved"). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.

---

Source

doctrbill writes: Where in those definitions do you find origins? Everywhere.

Since I can't find one reference to origin could you please present just one.

doctrbill writes: those who are of their father the devil that prevert the Word of God just because they can and don't want anyone to have the truth of God's Word. That is the very definition of conspiracy.

If that is what a conspiracy is then you can call it a conspiracy.

But I thought a conspiracy was two or more people agreeing in secret to do a wrongful, or subversive act.

doctrbill writes: I am here to broaden my knowledge I sincerely doubt that.

You are welcome to your opinion and I hope you will allow me to have my opinion that I am learning something every day.

God Bless,

Hi PD,

purpledawn writes: quote: So in Genesis 1:1 according to you ארץ means people, or their beginnings. Not what I said. In Message 193, you asked what part of the world was Genesis 1 talking about. The storyteller is telling them about their land. He is not telling them about the planet.

Not what I asked.

In Message 192 you said:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:1 isn't written to refer to the "earth as a whole". Show me an instance where erets is used to mean the earth as a whole as opposed to a part.

---

In Message 193 I said asking:

quote:

---

purpledawn writes: Genesis 1:1 isn't written to refer to the "earth as a whole". Show me an instance where erets is used to mean the earth as a whole as opposed to a part.

Then what part of the world was it talking about?

---

So if erets does not mean the earth as a whole in Genesis 1:1 what part of the earth does it refer too?

purpledawn writes: Sure there is. They were standing or sitting on it.

They may have been standing on dry land somewhere on Earth but they were not standing on dry land in Genesis 1:2 as there was none there.

purpledawn writes: Actually what you quoted were the meanings for the Greek word ge.

I used your definitions for ge as you would not like the primary definition of erets which is:

1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)

2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
From Gesenius's Lexicon

purpledawn writes: Not in the Bible. The writer makes it clear it refers to dry land.

Erets does not refer to dry land in Genesis 1:1 does it?

It refers to the definition of erets which is Earth.

Erets does not refer to dry land in Genesis 1:2 does it?
I forgot you said that refered to people which would have been covered in water.

It refers to the Earth that was covered with water.

In Genesis 1:10 the writer refers to the dry land as earth.

But the definition of erets is Earth as a whole as opposed to a part.

purpledawn writes: Show evidence that it refers to the planet.

How is that possible? You won't accept the Lexicon definition of erets or ge.

purpledawn writes: Show evidence that the audience understood the entire sphere.

What audience?

I am part of that audience and I understand it fine.

purpledawn writes: Show me when the Jews knew there was more than the countries around them.

Why did they have to know there was more than the countries around them for it to exist?

The person that did the writing did not have to know there was anything other than the places he had visited to be able to write the Torah.

All he had to do was write down the things he was told during the 40 days he spent with God in the mountain.

I don't know that God didn't play him a video of the creation up to the point where he was born in Egypt. The text does not say that He did or didn't. But it would have been no problem for God.

I know people that don't know any place other than the county they live in exists today. They have never been out of the county.

God Bless,

The point of this thread is that the "whole earth" meaning (implying planet) is a later addition.

ha’aretz in Genesis and the rest of the Hebrew Bible is the land that is promised to Abraham, Jacob, and the children of Israel: it is not planet earth. Any reading of ha’aretz as the “planet earth” (“The planet earth that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the planet earth to your offspring after you”) would be so tendentious, delusional, and idiotic that those three words would then come to describe the person(s) who offered such a translation.

quote:

---

They may have been standing on dry land somewhere on Earth but they were not standing on dry land in Genesis 1:2 as there was none there.

---

Long, long ago, before Starbucks ruled the world, coffee shops were real community spots with mismatched furniture, friendly faces and drinks that you could order without resorting to such phrases as "half-caf skinny with wings." Big Bear Cafe

In the above paragraph, we don't forget what Starbucks refers to just because the writer is referring to a time before Starbucks existed.

I have no doubt that the audience understood the story to refer to their land.

Greetings PD,

I thought you might find this graphic interesting.

It is part of a larger sample which documents decreasing use of the word earth in newer Bibles which suggests that translators are increasingly aware that it's use is ever more inappropriate.

Personally, I think it should be all but eliminated except in such places as it may be clearly understood as a poetic reference to soil.

Eh?

quote:

---

It is part of a larger sample which documents decreasing use of the word earth in newer Bibles which suggests that translators are increasingly aware that it's use is ever more inappropriate.

---

They may decrease in use, but I bet they won't want to give up Genesis. No one wants to think of it as just another creation story by a specific group. They'd rather leave it ambiguous.