Note how Rodahi also used "gods" as plural. There is evidence of polytheism in early Genesis. For example, in Genesis 1:26

"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..."

Note God did not say Let ME make man in MY image. Chapter 1 of Genesis used the word Elohim, which is a plural form of Gods. One God, Baal, was male, and the other God, Ashtoreth, was female. There is evidence that a number of worshiped Baal and Ashtoreth rather than Yahweh. Sol Abrams has a very thorough treatment of this subject at http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...1/1poly94.html

TrueThinker was correct in pointing out the idiom "the heavens and the earth".

Gen. 1:1 cannot refer to Gods in the plural as Rodahi and JamesK think. If they were more familiar with the Hebrew, they would discover that thought the word used to represent God is in the plural form (not unlike the word used for water which is also in the plural form), it is nonetheless singular in sense. How do I know this? I know this because the verb, created (bara) that precedes elohim (God) is 3rd person singular. The literal translation is: "In the beginning created God..."

Please learn Hebrew before telling people what the words mean.

I have addressed this issue several times here, but I don't imagine this myth will ever completely go away.

Ish

Ish,

I have read that on the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-16) the words used for God making the sun, moon and stars are in the "historic tense". The writer said that this is really saying that God had already made these items. Can you confirm/deny or clarify this please.

I wonder if our good friend "devnet" is willing to comment on Hebrew grammar -- I've checked the online Hebrew grammar at http://www.foundationstone.com.au/ and there was no sign of a special "historic" past tense or pluperfect tense ("I had done") for something that happens before some past event. But that grammar was a bit on the elementary side, and I don't recall seeing how it recommended translating English pluperfect constructions ("Before I found w.f.c.a, I had had no idea about Hebrew grammar").

Also, the Young's Literal Translation version shows no sign of a pluperfect construction anywhere in Genesis 1; there is no reference to anything that "had been created".

Finally, I think that the fact that an issue like this comes up at all suggests that the Bible is NOT dictated by some omnipotent being who wanted to be understood, because such a being would be careful to use only the most unambiguous language and would give a careful guide to possibly-ambiguous constructions.

Ish, while it is true that when it was meant to say Yahweh alone, the writers used "Elohim" without the article ha (the) as well as the singular verb bara, this is not the case in all places of Genesis. In Exodus 12:12, the writers refer to the gods of Egypt, elohim is used with the article ha (ha-elohim, meaning "the gods"). Genesis 35:7 is similar. The Hebrew text states ha-elohim, meaning the gods were revealed (niglu) to Jacob. This verb form is plural.

There are numerous examples all over the Bible of Hebrew polytheism. A few examples:

Exodus 15:11 "Who is like unto you, O Yahweh, among the Gods (elohim)?"

Psalm 95:3 "Yahweh is a great god (El) and a great King above all gods (elohim)"

Psalm 86:8 "There is none like you among the gods (Elohim), O Yahweh"

Exodus 22:28 "Thou shalt not revile the gods (ha-elohim), nor curse the ruler of thy people"

And how about Chemosh being the god of the Ammonites just as Yahweh was the god of the Israelites (Judges 11:24)?

So, the fact that the early Hebrews were polytheistic still stands, and there is evidence of it in the Bible.

[This message has been edited by JamesKrieger (edited June 13, 2001).]

TrueThinker

TT: The body of water is just that- a body of water. At the time God is preparing the Earth for life, it is covered with a lot of water. Why did the author use the "deep"? Maybe for poetic license, maybe because God hadn't named it yet- He separates it in two and then names the parts.

JA: Poetic License? Oh puuleese!
God separates the body of water into two bodies of water then he separates one of the two into the dry land and the sea?
Can dry land come out of water?

How could the earth be formless and yet it is covered with water? If it is covered with water, ten water could not let it reveal its formlessness - would it? Water cannot be "jagged" - and waves look smooth from space.

JA: Look at how you responded to my question below:
JA: Gen 1:9 says "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so" (I am using KJV)
This means, that God created the seas and oceans etc on the third day. Do you agree that God created the seas and oceans etc on the third day of creation? (this needs to be clear from your side - because I get the impression that you are implying that by Gen 1:1 "everything" was already in place). And why do you include the word "usually" - are you unsure?

TT: Well the third day just describes the land rising above sea level and formation vegetation. It's not specifically speaking of the creation of seas. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. If land rising is what made oceans and seas, I guess that could be it too. I see it as just describing land rising above sea level. Everything is already in place because verse one already told you that. You shouldn't assume anything else.

I say "usually" to explain why I believe that is what the author is referring to. I am not unsure.

JA: "I guess it just depends on how you look at it" What?!! Are you saying the sentence is ambiguous?

"If land rising is what made oceans and seas, I guess that could be it too. I see it as just describing land rising above sea level. "

There is no "IF" sir! You dont guess! This is not a guessing game!
When the land rises above sea level - what happens to the reamining water? Doesnt it collect in large and small pools? What do we call the large bodies of water on earth?
Weak responses like "I guess" means that you are chickening aout and are afraid to make a bold statement.

TT: The light is the sun - as I said the heavens already exist. The Bible doesn't say the universe is dark, it says the earth is dark. Apparently something is blocking the way and preventing the light of the sun from reaching its surface. As of day 1, the light of the sun (and moon) can be seen, but not the sources of light themselves. Why? I'll explain later.

JA: The Universe is awash with light but only the earth is dark? well, well, well. From my experience, irrespective of how heavy the cloud cover or mist is, the suns rays have always lighted the earth that I live in. So long as its daytime. Was it some dark, huge bird that was holding the suns rays at bay - or a specially designed dark mist?
I asked "...Why does the author(s) keep referring to first day, second day, third day, fourth day... What's the purpose of all this if its not meant to give an idea of chronology?
"

TT: "...there was probably something preventing the sources of light from being seen- and the clouds contributed to this prevention...when it is very cloudy are you still able to see the sun or can you just sometimes see its light? A better way for me to put it is that on day 4 it went from very cloudy to partly cloudy and sometimes clear. Make sense?

JA: No, doesnt make sense. I do not have to see the sun itself to experience "light".
Again, so long as its daytime, irrespective of cloud cover or mist, I can "see" because of the suns light.
TT - you contrive too much for yourself.

TT: The days in Genesis are used to establish chronology. It seems that from days 1-4, He is just setting up the earth He has already created for life. It's not until day 5 that he actually creates again. In fact it's not until verse 20, that the Henrew for creating brand new, bara is used again.

JA: I have noted the difference in the choice of words. "Let there be" means that the creation has already taken place and what "Let there be" achieves is just shuffling the creation around.
"Created" means creating from scratch. Right?
"Made" - in Gen 1:26 means what?

JA: The spirit of God that was "hovering" How big was it?
I was of the idea that since God is omnipresent - he doesnt hover - he is everywhere.
Just wondering.

Andrew
Its a shame isnt it, that a man can choose "To specialise in NT studies", be unable to answer a question about the first verse of the first chapter in the bible and yet still claim to be agood christian.

The Bible is the "word of God" man! How can you claim to be a man of God if you do not even know how he came to create "man" and the "earth"?

NT studies? whaddya study? the lineage of Jesus and the Revelation of John? Very interesting.

So when you guys gather to study NT(sounds now like Windows NT) dont you think the OT is important too? Or you ignore it because it embarrases the bloody hell out of the christian church?

I just think its a shame. Whatever you choose to study though, is your choice.
Enjoy your NT studies.

Tercel
You said "...Frankly, I don't know how this should be interpreted. Surely I'm allowed to say "I don't know"? When dealing with such an unclear passage, especially when also trying to read it in light of science, I think "I don't know" is more than justified."

If you dont Know, you shut up. Dont waste anybody's time here.

Truethinker
First,in your first response to my questions, you said :

"Actually verse 3 does not say God created light. Rather he calls the light he has already created to shine on the earth, since darkness enshrouds it."

Then later you said:

"The Bible doesn't say the universe is dark, it says the earth is dark. Apparently something is blocking the way and preventing the light of the sun from reaching its surface."

So is darkness enshrouding the earth - or is something else is "enshrouding" the earth?

Make up your mind

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
Most likely, the original Hebrew text went like this: "When the gods began to create the sky and the land--the land being unformed and vacant, with darkness over the surface of the deep [water] and a wind from the gods sweeping over the water..."

The writer presumed the pre-existence of water, so the gods created only the sky and land. This is consistent with the most ancient semitic creation mythology which predates the Hebrew version.

rodahi




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

true thinker: You are not paying attention. Ha'shammayim we ha'erets is a combination in Hebrew that refers to the whole of creation, not the sky and land. It's like the difference between freethinker and free thinker- when combined the word has a different meaning. The common error people make is trying to say that it speaks of the sky and land. Not so.

1. I rarely take the word of someone whose sole objective is to prove that the JC Bible was inspired by some god. It was not. It was inspired and written by human beings, just as all ancient literature was.
2. You are not paying attention. Read the last sentence of my original posting and address that, not Hebrew idiom.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
TrueThinker was correct in pointing out the idiom "the heavens and the earth".

Gen. 1:1 cannot refer to Gods in the plural as Rodahi and JamesK think. If they were more familiar with the Hebrew, they would discover that thought the word used to represent God is in the plural form (not unlike the word used for water which is also in the plural form), it is nonetheless singular in sense. How do I know this? I know this because the verb, created (bara) that precedes elohim (God) is 3rd person singular. The literal translation is: "In the beginning created God..."

There is evidence that the ancient Hebrew writers were influenced by older creation epics. If Ish would read something besides Christian propaganda, he would know this.

Ish: Please learn Hebrew before telling people what the words mean.

Ish should read some history before telling people what he thinks he knows.

Ish: I have addressed this issue several times here, but I don't imagine this myth will ever completely go away.

Ish is correct. The notion that Genesis contains ancient creation myths is here to stay.

rodahi