SmashingIdols

This is pretty much the explanation I have now gotten - I thought the book of genesis was a bit confused about creation. Somebody straightened me out. Now if I can just make my brain work right again ;-) It was told me that I was not thinking correctly before, about Genesis being a bit incorrect. Now I have got it:

Genesis 1;1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This could have been billions of years before God started to prepare the earth in 6 creative days (periods)for man's habitation.

Genesis 1:3 "Let light come to be". God had already created the stars, and our sun in verse 1, so something else was meant. Prior to these six "days" of creative activity "the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep" (Genesis 1:2)Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth, preventing light from reaching its surface.

When God said on Day 1,"Let light come to be," diffused light evidently penetrated the cloud layers even though the sources of that light could not yet be discerned from the earth's surface. It seems that this was a gradual process. God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the eath was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness.

Previously, on the first "day," the expression "Let light come to be" was used. The Hebrew word there used for "light" is ´ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth "day," the Hebrew word changes to ma·´ohr´, which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first "day" diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth "day," things evidently changed.

It was also told that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·ra´´, meaning "create," is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb `a·sah´, meaning "make," is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars were included in "the heavens" mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to "make" these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth's surface and the expanse above it. So, When it was said, "God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth," this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse.

The entire explanation hinges upon this newly created cloud belt - something I have never heard before.

beastmaster

It's such a fine line between clever and stupid, isn't it? </Spinal Tap>

This apologetic has been kicking around for some years. Unfortunately, it has no support textually. The references to a hard firmament separating the waters of the earth and heavens tends to negate any such inference of a soft cloud cover. If the entire sky was filled with liquid water on Day 2, where were the clouds?

Moreover, the cloud cover reading is not the natural reading of the plain text. Indeed, Genesis 1 was never understood to have anything to do with clouds. If the sun were made on day 1 but was not visible to the earth until day 4, why didn't the author just say so? Why did the author fail to mention any such clouds and say instead that the sun was "made" on the fourth day?

Doctor X

SmashingIdols:

Actually, you have been told wrong. The verb is actually "cut" as in "separate the heavens from the earth."

My reference is not with me . . . I have posted it somewhere before . . . but it comes from Claus Westermann's work--Amazon does not list the correct edition.

Also, the deity does not "create" the heavens and the earth--they exist prior to his actions. The "divine wind" blows along the "waters of the deep." As with most creation myths this is actually a "reordering myth."

This also misses the whole "Two Sources" involved in the myth--J and P.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln. . . .

--J.D.

Radcliffe Emerson

It's just another attempt to reconcile things in the bible that make no sense or have no scientific or historical support, IMO.

Weltall

Of course, the Kabbalists have their own translation of Genesis 1:1 that goes something along the lines of "With Beginning, Infinity created God". Just goes to show that you can do anything you like to the text. Although the translation in the Sefer ha-Zohar sounds cooler.

Doctor X

Has anyone asked the cult that has the Elohim be space aliens?

I mean . . . if you cannot trust the exegesis of space aliens. . . .

--J.D.