Understanding Genesis 1&2 "The Beginning."

Roy,

Every knows this is my favorite rule to cite. It’s from the section on trolling in the rules. On this forum, the Bible is not considered a scientific reference, so no long explanations of that are required. Challenges for someone to do so are considered trolling. There are many references in the world, including probably a church near you, that can tell you about this. It’s not our job, and any further requests to do that will result in your account being blocked.

Only God, the Supreme Intelligence of Creation, the Creator who CANNOT Lie would get these things scientifically correct, even today.
Then why are you standing there pretending you understand God?

Just because we can assume “God” does not lie, you sure do lie, or are you without sin Roy?

Where do you draw your authority to speak on behalf of God?

After all, you have injected an awful lot of words into the text of Genesis, why should we trust your interpretation?

 

Roy you have shared your story, okay. What’s wrong is thinking you’ve got a universal truth on your hands.

I can accept your story within reason - the concepts, the characters, the unfolding storyline are all within your Mindscape, as opposed to products of our material world of Physical Reality - then what you believe makes more sense. We create the stories that help us the most.

 

 

Just to be super clear.

Tim’s snarkiness is acceptable because he’s asking

explain why there is nothing about the story that conflicts with our history, science, or reality.
Roy’s is not, because he’s saying,
you could NOT even come-up with an intelligent rebuttal to refute (Bible verses)

and

stop projecting your own weaknesses and predicament on me.

Okay, so I figure I better ask first. Can I respond to this? The poster is blocked, for, from what I understand, quoting scripture. If I responded to it I would have to do the same. I’m still unsure about whether that sort of thing is tolerated. I didn’t notice anything about doing that in the rules or I would have passed on participating in the forum. Anyway, I thought I would check first.

Really? I wasn’t clear? I did not block him for quoting scripture.

Look at Roy’s last post. It’s one long insult.

@Lausten Okay. The post where you said “On this forum, the Bible is not considered a scientific reference, so no long explanations of that are required. Challenges for someone to do so are considered trolling” threw me off. I guess I’ll try to keep my explanations as brief as possible.

Roy are you a Jew or a Christian?

If you are Christian, how do you feel qualified to comment on The Old Testament?

Allow me to present a Jew who will authoritatively speak on the meaning of the OT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC-nz71kmWE&t=31s

You may want to adopt a more humble attitude about your knowledge of the bible.

 

The post where you said “On this forum, the Bible is not considered a scientific reference, so no long explanations of that are required. Challenges for someone to do so are considered trolling” threw me off. I guess I’ll try to keep my explanations as brief as possible.
Sorry that wasn't clear. No one is required to MAKE a long explanation about why the Bible is NOT a scientific reference. Roy was demanding that people respond to him and insulting them for not answering his challenges. That's trolling in any book, and especially if your challenge is to refute the Bible. He did it almost every post, so he was blocked.

As I suspect you have seen, people have come here and made very long explanations of the science of the Bible, the truth of some obscure archaeology, the truth of their own personal theory, the truth of ghosts, ESP, and on and on. All of that is allowed. What’s not allowed is to call people “deluded” or narrow minded because they don’t accept your theory. You are skirting that by the way. I hope you realize it.

FYI, Dave. I always find it interesting when someone survives all the information about pagan rituals and Lewis Black jokes, and still believes in God. My wife picked up a Spong book at a church conference and I read it in about 3 days. It completely broke down myths in the Bible. I was pretty an atheist when I finished it. It explained problems with the seminaries. It explained how the correct history of how the Bible was assembled is known by preachers, but not taught or preached. I met him at a book signing and he said maybe I should quit the church. But, here’s the thing, the guy still believes in a “living Christ”. He explained it at the back of the book, but it makes no sense to me.

 

I’m new here. I want to respond to the post. Roy has been blocked and so isn’t here to defend himself. I’m going to respond to his post with that in mind.

There is NOT a single planet existed BEFORE the first Day, Gen 1:1-5
I don't agree. The ancient Hebrew has two states. Perfect indicating completion and imperfect indicating action in progress. The Hebrew bara (created) in Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect state indicating that in that verse the heavens and earth were complete. The earth, sun, moon, stars - the universe had been created at that time in the narrative. That's how Genesis begins.

What follows is progress in action. The imperfect state is used some 40 times throughout the remainder of the chapter. So, in the creative days God is preparing the already created earth and physical heavens for habitation. The Hebrew term asah is used. Asah can mean make (Genesis 1:16), or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8). In English this is similar to a bed being manufactured (created) once and then made each morning.

What existed was earth/ground without form and void (Dust), which was used to make Adam’s firmament on the 2nd Day Gen 1:6-8 and Adam’s Earth on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:10
What existed was a water planet without productive land. There was darkness over the watery deep. God's spirit moved over the water. (Genesis 1:2)

The KJV uses the inaccurate firmament at Genesis 1:6 with a marginal note giving the more accurate expansion. There was some confusion translating the Hebrew raqia (meaning spreading out) due to the Septuagint translating it as stereoma which means “firm and solid structure” followed by the Latin Vulgate using the term firmamentum. This because it was thought at that time there was a metallic dome surrounding the earth.

Water was lifted from the surface to the heavens which provided a protective canopy over the earth and revealed the productive land. This water was later used in the flood of Noah’s day. (Genesis 1:7, 10; 2 Peter 3:5-6)

Gen 1:1-2 In the beginning God Created the heaven (Hebrew – Air) and the Earth (Hebrew -Ground). And the Earth (Ground) was without form, (Dust) and void; and darkness (Death) was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This is just odd. The Hebrew word for heaven is shamayim and means high or lofty. The Hebrew word for air is weruach. The Hebrew word for earth is erets and can refer to the planet (Genesis 1:2), or land, country and territory (Genesis 10:10), as well as ground (Genesis 1:26) depending on the context. Dust is most often translated from the Hebrew word aphar. Darkness is choshek, death is maveth but I suppose that doesn't matter because Roy seems to be using these terms in some metaphoric sense which I don't understand. Except for ground they aren't really applicable in the context. Air, possibly. There's air in the sky but what significance that has here seems at best arbitrary and at worst misleading.
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The Greek term tous aionas (Latin saecula, Hebrew haohlamim, used at Hebrews 11:13 means "order of things" or "system of things." Most translations use the terms world, universe or ages. The Greek aion is used in plural form. In context, chapter 11 is referring to the men of old times, The patriarchal epoch. The things recorded in the Hebrew scripture. So some translations use age, while another way to understand it is aion corresponds to the Greek kosmos, from which the English cosmos and cosmetics comes. The word literally means arrangement, adornment, beauty, or ornament. The word appears 187 times in the Greek scripture and the KJV translates it as world except at 1 Peter 3:3 where it translates it as adorning. The meaning is derived from something that is well arranged, beautiful. The similarity of aion and kosmos is the reason many translations use the words world or universe. To me, the context of Hebrews 11:3 would suggest that the ages are well arranged by God is as much as his purpose for man is well laid out. It's about salvation not the creation of the universe. An understandable misconception given the use of the word world and good reason to research the original language.

It certainly isn’t connected in any way with any speculation Albert Einstein may have presented regarding energy etc.

The emergence of Light was when YHWH, the Son of God, came forth or begotten from the invisible Spirit of God into the physical world when He commanded and spoke the first Word in the beginning and said… Let there be light; and there was light. (Gen 1:3) before anything is made that was made…. before the world was.
YHWH, the Son of God?! The tetragrammaton in no way represents anyone other than Jehovah.

At Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew word ohr (light) is used. It means light in a general sense as opposed to the source of the light. The account is still being given in the imperfect progressive state. God is arranging the already created. The light is a diffused light which gradually grows in intensity. Job 38:4,9 refers to a swaddling band, most likely a cloud of debris gradually dissipating surrounding the newly created earth. Later, in Genesis 1:14 the Hebrew word maohr is used. This means the source of light. So on the fourth day the source of the light, the sun, is visible.

 

@Roy

Genesis 19:8

See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man by lying with him. Please, let me bring them to you and you may do to them as you wish. Only do nothing to these men for this is the reason they have come under my roof.

So, according to the Bible rape is ok ?

Leviticus 25:44-45

And as for your male and female slaves, whom you may have- From the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover, you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property.

So, according to the bible slavery is ok ?

Great Moral Book ?

Also Jehovah thought genocide was a handy tool, for having his chosen people wipe out sinners. That doesn’t jive with the still small voice inside of me. (my so called moral compass)

@TimB

Also Jehovah thought genocide was a handy tool, for having his chosen people wipe out sinners. That doesn’t jive with the still small voice inside of me. (my so called moral compass)
Wow. You really don't have a clue about how it works, do you? I could actually show you but it wouldn't make any difference because of the ideological possession.

I thought you were kidding when said you were going to start pointing out people are wrong, but here we are. I always like to learn a new term, but my search shows Jordan Peterson’s name all of this “ideological possession”, so I’m not sure it’s worth pursuing. It seems similar to “politically correct”, a way to abuse being correct by saying it is somehow damaging to do so. You can make those kinds of claims all you want, but that’s all they are, claims. You made it with no evidence and explanation. From what I’m seeing of it, you would have to make massive assumptions about what I know or don’t know and think or don’t think to back up your claim.

Day 1– YHWH ... came forth into the physical world to defeat the darkness which was upon everything God had created ...
For what it's worth, I would dispute this point. Most non-fundamentalist biblical scholars render Genesis 1:1-3a as containing an if-when relationship. Typical of this approach is the translation found in the New Revised Standard:
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
According to this understanding of the initial verses of Genesis, god tamed the deep, dark, formless-void but didn't create it. According to these scholars, God's initial creative act in Genesis is not found until verse 3, "Let there be light."

Note: Arguing for the traditional rendering, “In the beginning” on the basis that the Hebrew verb “created” expresses a completed past
action is a straw man argument. See for example, Robert D. Holmstedt - The Restrictive Syntax of Genesis i 1

I’m not sure how it appears on your screen, elphidium, but you are responding to a user who has been blocked. Besides being un-engaging and not using evidence, he became abusive. That is not the purpose of this forum.

Thanks for your comments, maybe you’ll get some fresh responses to this.

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
To whom did he make the request "Let there be light"? And who or what granted the request?

Thanks @lausten! I’m a newbie on the forum. My mistake.

@write4u asks: 'To whom did he make the request “Let there be light”'?
According to the text, it was more of a command than a request. The story portrays elohim as speaking the light into existence. The power of divine pronouncement was a common motif in ancient near eastern texts.

Did the author envision elohim addressing an audience? Probably not. On the other hand, who is the “us” elohim was speaking to when he said – “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” [Gen. 1:26]?

The power of divine pronouncement was a common motif in ancient near eastern texts.
I never thought it that way Write4. Thanks for that.

“divine pronouncement” may have been common, but the idea of a god who starts with nothing was pretty unique. Usually there was “chaos”, or there were a bunch of gods and one rises above them. The question is about the origin story, and you are answering that gods do miracles. I don’t think that addresses it. If the Jewish God is indeed the master of all things, that leaves you with a big plot hole that Genesis didn’t solve.

@lausten writes:

… the idea of a god who starts with nothing was pretty unique.

I agree but would go even further. The idea is not just unique but nonexistent.

There is no story in Genesis chapter 1 about a god who creates from “nothing.” There may be passages in the hebrew bible which support or hint at “creation ex nihlio,” but they are not found in the Genesis creation accounts. Non-fundamentalist bible scholars have long held that this story mythically recounts how elohim imposed order and restraint upon a pre-existing watery chaos. In this understanding of the hebrew text, elohim’s first creative act comes in verse 3 with - “Let there be light.”