• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seven Days

David Henson

Banned
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
720
The Hebrew verb for “created” in Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect state, signifying completion. The creation was finished at this point. This is important when considering the verses that follow. The heavens had been created at this point, including the sun and moon and stars. The Hebrew verb has two states; the perfect state, which indicates completed action, and the imperfect state which indicates action in progress, incompleteness. In Genesis 1:1, "created" in the Hebrew was the perfect state indicating completeness. The act of creating the heavens and the earth were complete.

In 1:3, though the KJV doesn’t indicate the imperfect state of action in progress, when God says let there be light he actually proceeded to say let there be light, and light gradually came to be. A much more accurate translation, by J.W. Watts reads: “Afterward God proceeded to say, ‘Let there be light’; and gradually light came into existence,” Benjamin Willis Newton’s translation does likewise; brackets his: “And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future].” The imperfect state is crucial to a fuller understanding of the first chapter of Genesis because it occurs 40 times.

Later verses indicate that though the light was gradually increasing after the first “day,” the source of that light wasn’t discernable until the fourth. This has caused a great deal of confusion with science minded skeptics. The sun had been created in verse 1, the light had penetrated the dust and debris by the first creative “day” but the source was not yet visible.

The Hebrew word for light used in verse 2 is ohr, which means the light given from the source rather than the source itself. Ohr is light diffused. Genesis 1:2 says it was dark upon the watery deep. Apparently there was a band of water vapor, gasses and dust that prevented the light from the sun from shinning upon the earth for some undetermined period of time. Keep in mind that the Hebrew word yohm translated day is not a literal 24 hour period.

On the first creative “day” light (Hebrew ohr, meaning light in a general sense, rather than the source itself) from the luminaries was visible on earth. Then, (1:14) on the fourth day the luminaries themselves (Hebrew maohr, meaning the source of light) were visible. The light on the first day had been diffused light, probably because of debris in the atmosphere from creation.

A brief aside: A comparison with science and the Bible. Moses wrote that the division of day and night were products of the luminaries in the sixteenth Century B.C.E. but up until the fifth it was thought that light was a bright vapor and darkness was a black vapor, the latter of which ascended from the ground.

At Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew word asah, meaning “make” is used. Earlier, in verse 1 the Hebrew word bara, meaning “create” was used. At Genesis 1:1, before the first creative “day,” the heavens, which would include the luminaries, had been created and now on the fourth creative “day” the luminaries are being made in the sense that a bed is made. Not that it is manufactured but that it is, already having been manufactured, now prepared in a way for use. Genesis 1:14-18 is talking about God preparing the already existing luminaries in the sense that he was appointing them in their way for use. The dust and debris now dissipated, the source of light is now discernible so as to distinguish seasons, among other obvious benefits.



Uh . . . if you ask me that is pretty impressive for a primitive bunch of goat-herders who didn't know what was going on.
 
*Phew*!!! Thank goodness.... I thought this thread was gonna be like that video from The Ring.
 
What was impressive? That they came up with a "just so" story for very apparent things they could observe?
 
What was impressive? That they came up with a "just so" story for very apparent things they could observe?

They were actually a great deal ahead of "science" in their day. Not that they fully understood what it was all about, they just reported it a great deal more accurately. The Bible over all was, regarding the earth, about a thousand years ahead of science. Literally.
 
And the point of this extensive post is . . . ? Well, presumably it's yet another iteration of the assertion that the creation story of Genesis 1 was actually scientific.

One giveaway that you have little real knowledge of Genesis is your reference to Moses writing Genesis 1. Even assuming he was a real person, an issue very much in doubt, he clearly did not write any of the Torah.

By the Way, I don't know of any scholars today who relegate the authors of the J, E, P or D documents, the Court History, or any of the other books of the Bible to the level of "ignorant goat-herders." The Iron Age civilization that produced the Bible was the recipient of culture from Egypt, Mesopotamia and the previous Bronze Age civilization of Ugarit. As such, the culture had a considerable amount of literary sophistication.
 
*Phew*!!! Thank goodness.... I thought this thread was gonna be like that video from The Ring.
ROTFL!

--------------

I want to understand this.

I'm assuming you want to know God for your own reasons. I'm also assuming you want to be sure you know the right god, in the right ways, so you can have eternal life, etc and so forth. You want to make sure you stay on the correct path throughout your life in whatever that means to you (i.e. passing trials and tests, or trying to lessen your sin, or understand truth more, or be a defender of the faith, etc and stuff).

Okay. Assuming the above is true, how can you ever be content to rely on anything other than direct revelation from god himself, period? No books. No voices. No studying.

If I want to know what my neighbor thinks, I'll go ask him. Afterall, I believe he exists.

At what point did you say to yourself, "This makes sense. The bible is the truth, the guidebook for understanding god from non-god, faith from non-faith, etc." I DO NOT understand how someone who reads the bible and uses it to summarize and categorize god and everything else, doesn't see that the fatal flaw in their thinking (assuming god exists) is talked about explicitly in the bible itself :) The pharisees didn't understand what God was all about. The apostles even missed the big picture. And many of the "faithful" didn't need a bible.

You do understand the True Scottsman Fallacy, I'm sure. Right? So what do you think is the ace in your hole that keeps you from this fallacy? Because as I see it, anything short of a direct relationship with a living god will always leave doubt. Maybe you're trusting your mind too much, maybe you're misinterpreting, maybe you're missing something else, etc and so forth.

I do understand "faith". Faith means not relying on evidence, and hoping for something you cannot prove. So if you claim you are believing in the bible because it boils down to "faith" ... then okay. You've chosen to place your faith in a book. But it's not god. It's the bible, then god. The bible has become your mediator. Not Jesus ... the very one the bible talks about as being your mediator, yes? And if you are claiming to walk by faith, not sight, then why go through the trouble of trying to "prove" the validity of any part of it to another person? It's faith! It's not based on evidence. If you're relying on evidence, how can you be walking by faith?

Do you see my points? I have asked MANY strong bible-grippers these questions, and everyone of them claim, "the bible is not my god." And yet, I dont know how they can claim this, when they use it to define god ... a god they claim exists, but can offer no evidence to support this claim apart from the bible, or voices, etc and so forth?

Can you shed light on this?
 
Last edited:
Uh . . . if you ask me that is pretty impressive for a primitive bunch of goat-herders who didn't know what was going on.
What's impressive about what they actually said? The fact that a bunch of 20th century writers have retranslated the really stupid sounding bits of the bible to make it sound like primitive goat-herders said something completely different doesn't change what the primitive goat-herders actually wrote.

If they wanted to say something that we now recognize as scientifically accurate, they could have written it that way in the first place.

But no, it's just like post-diction. We can squeeze our new knowledge back into those old words by reinterpreting, or even in retranslating. "What they meant to say was......(insert something they didn't say)"
 
It just occurred to me that the attempt to shoehorn a scientific explanation for Genesis 1 is a form of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
 
Two quick questions:

How old is the universe?

Is Noah's Flood allegory or an actual historical event?
 
They were actually a great deal ahead of "science" in their day. Not that they fully understood what it was all about, they just reported it a great deal more accurately. The Bible over all was, regarding the earth, about a thousand years ahead of science. Literally.


Sorry I've re-read your opening post and I don't see anywhere that anything approaching a modern understanding of how the universe and the earth came into being is mentioned. Quite seriously can you just list the actual biblical verses that you think provide the currently accepted/consensus scientific view of the creation of the universe and the earth?

(By the way the English translation I tend to use is "Commentary on the Torah" by Richard Elliott Friedman.)
 
It just occurred to me that the attempt to shoehorn a scientific explanation for Genesis 1 is a form of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
Only backwards - paint a target on a wall, then take a handful of bullets, walk right up to the wall, and pound the bullets into the wall with a hammer.

The self-inflicted wounds are a bonus.
 
Don't stars get darker as they get older?

Besides, if the Hebrews really did see God as gradually creating light, it's probably because they likened it to a sunrise.
 
Keep in mind that the Hebrew word yohm translated day is not a literal 24 hour period.
This is blatantly untrue.

Genesis 1:5

Vayikra Elohim la-or yom velachoshech kara laylah vayehi-erev vayehi-voker yom echad.


God named the light 'Day,' and the darkness He named 'Night.' It was evening and it was morning, one day.

They could hardly have been more explicit that they were talking about a literal day. One evening, one morning (which is still how the Jewish day is made up).

The rest of your post is just a distortion of the text to fit a distortion of science; it's completely worthless.
 
Two quick questions:

How old is the universe?

Is Noah's Flood allegory or an actual historical event?

The Bible doesn't specify the age of the universe, so any estimation of science isn't actually in disagreement.

Actual historical.
 

Back
Top Bottom