Punisher1984
New member
ShadowMaid said:
Tell me: what's so "dull" about it. I personally find it rather invigorating because it puts the individual in the driver's seat instead of acorpeal entities and abstract concepts.
Stars Made on 1st Day not 4th?
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Tell me: what's so "dull" about it. I personally find it rather invigorating because it puts the individual in the driver's seat instead of acorpeal entities and abstract concepts.
Roberterasmus
New member
Bob b.
This passage (verses 14 through 19 - the activity on day four) is the important statement regarding “signs”, “seasons”, “days” and “years”. It is not a statement about the creation of these “lights”; that was done in verse 1 of the chapter (here I agree with Logos_x and his statements above, but I love your understanding of the “stretching out” of the heavens, which activity occurred (IMHO) in verse 1 and subsequently). I realize you want to "see" creation on each of the successive days (verses 3 through 31), but the word “create” (regarding the physical substances) is just not there in those verses. All that was created physically was done so in verse 1 (Soul life and Spirit are another issue).
Many have taken in hand to observe the verbs in 14-19 and don’t couch them in conceptual (“creational”) terms and the Hebrew bears that out. For instance, in verse 16 “and God made (asah)” – the Hebrew being much more fluid in its meaning than an exact synonym for bara (create) even though in other Biblical contexts (poetry for instance) they are juxtaposed. A simple walk through the BDB (everybody walks through the BDB) will show that even in the KJV the word is translated not only “do” or “make”, but “offer”, “commit”, “perform” and various others (many others, BTW). One that suits this context (since the physical universe was already in existence in verse 1) is “appoint” or “put in order” (see other Leprecons if you want). Hence the verse could (I believe should) have been translated, “And God appointed two great lights…” The question remains "appointed" (made) for WHAT? I'll engage this later; after I see your responses.
Now. this may seem strange to those not familiar with the full range of creation contexts in the Bible (all of which should come into play when discussing the Genesis record), but when compared to Job, Isaiah and Psalms and other passages that speak to the issues of the beginnings there is a lot to be said for the preparation of the already-existing-but-kinda-messed-up-planet for man rather than its “creation” in the six (6) days. See Quasar1011's comments about the atmosphere (I don’t buy the toxicity issue, but his term "clearing" speaks to Job 38's account of the earth's "swaddling band" of clouds and then Genesis' dissipation of the darkness over the 24hr days), yet you have a problem with time here. It seems that you are caught up in the six (6) days as "creation week" (as the YEC's claim). What keeps you from calling them, for lack of a better term "reformation week"? I'm not a gap theorist, rather one who sees a Young Biosphere/ Old Stellar Heavens (guess that would be a YBOSH).
Have you ever read Gorman Gray’s book Age of the Universe? He posits a new biosphere model that keeps man in the 4000 year range, but has an ancient physical Earth and Stellar Universe. It’s quite a piece of work though not very readable. Are you not a Walt Brown enthusiast? What would he say about this?
Bob
This passage (verses 14 through 19 - the activity on day four) is the important statement regarding “signs”, “seasons”, “days” and “years”. It is not a statement about the creation of these “lights”; that was done in verse 1 of the chapter (here I agree with Logos_x and his statements above, but I love your understanding of the “stretching out” of the heavens, which activity occurred (IMHO) in verse 1 and subsequently). I realize you want to "see" creation on each of the successive days (verses 3 through 31), but the word “create” (regarding the physical substances) is just not there in those verses. All that was created physically was done so in verse 1 (Soul life and Spirit are another issue).
Many have taken in hand to observe the verbs in 14-19 and don’t couch them in conceptual (“creational”) terms and the Hebrew bears that out. For instance, in verse 16 “and God made (asah)” – the Hebrew being much more fluid in its meaning than an exact synonym for bara (create) even though in other Biblical contexts (poetry for instance) they are juxtaposed. A simple walk through the BDB (everybody walks through the BDB) will show that even in the KJV the word is translated not only “do” or “make”, but “offer”, “commit”, “perform” and various others (many others, BTW). One that suits this context (since the physical universe was already in existence in verse 1) is “appoint” or “put in order” (see other Leprecons if you want). Hence the verse could (I believe should) have been translated, “And God appointed two great lights…” The question remains "appointed" (made) for WHAT? I'll engage this later; after I see your responses.
Now. this may seem strange to those not familiar with the full range of creation contexts in the Bible (all of which should come into play when discussing the Genesis record), but when compared to Job, Isaiah and Psalms and other passages that speak to the issues of the beginnings there is a lot to be said for the preparation of the already-existing-but-kinda-messed-up-planet for man rather than its “creation” in the six (6) days. See Quasar1011's comments about the atmosphere (I don’t buy the toxicity issue, but his term "clearing" speaks to Job 38's account of the earth's "swaddling band" of clouds and then Genesis' dissipation of the darkness over the 24hr days), yet you have a problem with time here. It seems that you are caught up in the six (6) days as "creation week" (as the YEC's claim). What keeps you from calling them, for lack of a better term "reformation week"? I'm not a gap theorist, rather one who sees a Young Biosphere/ Old Stellar Heavens (guess that would be a YBOSH).
Have you ever read Gorman Gray’s book Age of the Universe? He posits a new biosphere model that keeps man in the 4000 year range, but has an ancient physical Earth and Stellar Universe. It’s quite a piece of work though not very readable. Are you not a Walt Brown enthusiast? What would he say about this?
Bob
Thank you for your valuable comments.
I have no problem with a certain amount of reformation during creation week, in fact this is essentially what I was suggesting with regard to the Sun and the Moon.
But what I was really hoping for was to get some comment from people here on the narrow point of my posting regarding the interpretation of kokab as "He made the stars also", concidering that this single Hebrew word appears in the middle of a discourse that is focused on the Sun and the Moon.
Specifically, do you think that the word could actually be referring to the Sun, which as we moderns know today is actually a star?
Chandler
New member
The stars were created "in the beginning" along with the rest of the "heavens" before the six days began. Genesis doesn't say that they were "created" on the fourth day. It says that they were "made". God "made" them serve as illuminators at night evidently by removing anything blocking the starlight (gas, dust or other debris). When God said "let there be light" it could have begun a gradual process that was not complete until the fourth day.
I think Quasar1011 says much the same thing in post 18.
I agree that these are possibilities we should not overlook, but on the other hand it seems to me strange that the single Hebrew word that means star should appear in the middle of a narrative that is talking about the Sun and the Moon. Perhaps it is simply referring to the Sun.
BTW, I sent a copy of my opening posting on this thread to Walt Brown and got a reply back telling me to first read the new material on this general subject at:
www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ17.html#wp2031549.
They seem to also be not completely certain of everything in this general area, but the material they do have is quite fascinating nevertheless.
1. "Kochavim" is plural. It means stars. Bob, you can speculate as much as you want, but that is teh plain meaning of teh text.
2. The term "Bara", which you translate as "create" appears in the first verse in Genesis, and also in the creation of the "Taninim" (verse 21) and the creation of man., verse 27. I do not think that the idea that only "Bara" means "create" really holds water. God repeatedly commands that things exist - and they exist. Is that not creation? I think that you are narrowing down the meaning of "Made" too much as well, as a means of fitting the text to your ideas.
In short, I think that you are misreading the Hebrew text, besides commiting the crime of turning an ancient holy text into your idea of Scientific American.
2. The term "Bara", which you translate as "create" appears in the first verse in Genesis, and also in the creation of the "Taninim" (verse 21) and the creation of man., verse 27. I do not think that the idea that only "Bara" means "create" really holds water. God repeatedly commands that things exist - and they exist. Is that not creation? I think that you are narrowing down the meaning of "Made" too much as well, as a means of fitting the text to your ideas.
In short, I think that you are misreading the Hebrew text, besides commiting the crime of turning an ancient holy text into your idea of Scientific American.
Great comment re Scientific American. But you waste your breath. bob b and many here see Genesis as just that.
It is entirely possible that I am misreading the text, but I believe that it is also possible that the KJV translators did also.
And I don't consider it a crime to believe that the Bible is accurate in what it says.
BTW, thanks for pointing out the plurality, I was searching for the exact Hebrew text used and you saved me the trouble, even though this definitely weakens my case.
Last edited:
Yes, bob b, you are correct it is not a crime. Just silly to take Genesis as science.
I don't consider Genesis "science" because most scientists consider science to be limited to "natural" explanations, but I do consider Genesis, as well as the rest of the Bible, to be a conveyance of truth.
If you consider the Bible to be a conveyance of silliness that is your problem, not mine.
Nonsense coming from you. You certainly use Genesis as a scientific basis for understanding the world. I have seen enough of your posts to appreciate that. Be honest for a change.
Quasar1011
New member
I take it then that you didn't read my post that clearly, as my last sentence was, "The science agrees with the Bible here, except perhaps for the element of timing." Also, my understanding of the account of "day one" included the spinning of the Earth to help define it. The Earth spins once in 24 hours, not millions of years.
Not me. Rather, I wonder how plants supposedly survived on land, millions of years
before there were insects to pollenate them. :think:
Roberterasmus
New member
Bob b.
The Hebrew merely says, at the end of verse 16, "and the stars" (there is no "also" (a la KJV and others) and the LXX follows in the translation exactly). There seems no way to this Hebraist that the Sun is intended, but rather the emphasis in the context (verses 14-19) relates to the writer's conclusion with his own eyes (i.e. - from the surface of the planet) that the sun, moon and stars were "appointed" for the purposes that are delineated.
Chandler, your comments are cogent and line up with the Biblical evidence as I see it.
Chair,
The Hebrew verb for "made" in verse 16 is not a "narrow" verb by any means. You seem to be familiar with the text. Look at the lexicons and come back to me. Indeed, we at times will try to "fit" things to ideas, but hopefully the ideas regarding the Beginnings of things were common among the prophets and they don't disagree on major points. Logic dictates some of this stuff , but Scientific America would not be interested in cosmology per se, eh? They are more into the "Do it Yourself Quatum Erasers" and stuff on that level.
I'm guessing you are aware of the ANE cosmologies and their similarities to that of the Hebrew text?? Are you interested in cosmologies or in skewering the Biblical record?
The Hebrew merely says, at the end of verse 16, "and the stars" (there is no "also" (a la KJV and others) and the LXX follows in the translation exactly). There seems no way to this Hebraist that the Sun is intended, but rather the emphasis in the context (verses 14-19) relates to the writer's conclusion with his own eyes (i.e. - from the surface of the planet) that the sun, moon and stars were "appointed" for the purposes that are delineated.
Chandler, your comments are cogent and line up with the Biblical evidence as I see it.
Chair,
The Hebrew verb for "made" in verse 16 is not a "narrow" verb by any means. You seem to be familiar with the text. Look at the lexicons and come back to me. Indeed, we at times will try to "fit" things to ideas, but hopefully the ideas regarding the Beginnings of things were common among the prophets and they don't disagree on major points. Logic dictates some of this stuff , but Scientific America would not be interested in cosmology per se, eh? They are more into the "Do it Yourself Quatum Erasers" and stuff on that level.
I'm guessing you are aware of the ANE cosmologies and their similarities to that of the Hebrew text?? Are you interested in cosmologies or in skewering the Biblical record?
I don't quite follow you.
1. I don't use lexicons. I read Hebrew.
2. "Asa" is not a 'narrow' verb. I did't mean to imply that it was.
3. I had to do a web search to find out what you meant by ANE. There are some major differences between the Hebrew Bible and other cosmologies of the time, specifically in the idea of a single creator, as opposed to various natural forces being gods and creators. This would seem to be the main message - who created, not how.
4. For the record, I am not interested in cosmologies in general. I am certainly not interested in "skewering the Biblical Record" - whatever gave you that idea? I have been pointing out to our friend here that trying to make the text match modern ideas of the cosmos is a waste of time at best, and unfair to the text as well.
Roberterasmus
New member
Chair,
I apologize for the ANE….not trying to be aloof. As for your comments; what didn’t you follow? Now that I’ve read your “profile” I see that you are Jewish and the comment about “reading” Hebrew is understood, however, Biblical Hebrew, as you well understand, is understood by us goyim with the help of Leprechauns. So I’ll rely on them if you don’t mind. I studied Hebrew in grad school, but certainly don’t (possibly) have the grasp of context that you do. Bear with my impediment.
Cosmologies in the Ancient Near East, IMHO, took their lead from the ancient Hebrews and not vice versa. This is not the thread to go through the reasoning that backs up my statement, but suffice to say I have a healthy, if not overbearing respect for the Massoretic text. While I also disagree with Bob b in many points (I’m an OEC (Old Earth Creationist) whereas he’s a NEC (New Earth Creationist)), we agree that the text can speak to us jamokes in the 21st Century in explicit ways. They inform us not of a “modern” idea of the beginnings, but rather one that is fixed in the prophets minds and splashed on the pages of Scripture. We’re ferreting out the flux, as it were. Of course you’ll have to endure the Christian prophets along the way, but to me there is a lot of information (not only in Genesis) that needs to be considered. I’m an engineer by trade and I don’t see the Scientific America ideas in Scripture, but I do see some pretty significant explanations in the simple, straightforward statements by the writers in the Bible. Yes, I’m not looking for contradictions, but rather symbiosis. My bad….it’s my lot in life to think that there is a seamless mindset in looking at the foundations of the heavens and the earth.
I think that the “how” of Creation is just as important as the “who”, though the Who is quite evident. The “how” just takes a little longer. The only “unfair” thing about searching for a true Hebraic understanding of the beginnings of the cosmos is that some of us lack the resources to get behind the text and see the meanings of words and the etymology in the correct light. Maybe you can help…maybe you can’t.
Bob
I apologize for the ANE….not trying to be aloof. As for your comments; what didn’t you follow? Now that I’ve read your “profile” I see that you are Jewish and the comment about “reading” Hebrew is understood, however, Biblical Hebrew, as you well understand, is understood by us goyim with the help of Leprechauns. So I’ll rely on them if you don’t mind. I studied Hebrew in grad school, but certainly don’t (possibly) have the grasp of context that you do. Bear with my impediment.
Cosmologies in the Ancient Near East, IMHO, took their lead from the ancient Hebrews and not vice versa. This is not the thread to go through the reasoning that backs up my statement, but suffice to say I have a healthy, if not overbearing respect for the Massoretic text. While I also disagree with Bob b in many points (I’m an OEC (Old Earth Creationist) whereas he’s a NEC (New Earth Creationist)), we agree that the text can speak to us jamokes in the 21st Century in explicit ways. They inform us not of a “modern” idea of the beginnings, but rather one that is fixed in the prophets minds and splashed on the pages of Scripture. We’re ferreting out the flux, as it were. Of course you’ll have to endure the Christian prophets along the way, but to me there is a lot of information (not only in Genesis) that needs to be considered. I’m an engineer by trade and I don’t see the Scientific America ideas in Scripture, but I do see some pretty significant explanations in the simple, straightforward statements by the writers in the Bible. Yes, I’m not looking for contradictions, but rather symbiosis. My bad….it’s my lot in life to think that there is a seamless mindset in looking at the foundations of the heavens and the earth.
I think that the “how” of Creation is just as important as the “who”, though the Who is quite evident. The “how” just takes a little longer. The only “unfair” thing about searching for a true Hebraic understanding of the beginnings of the cosmos is that some of us lack the resources to get behind the text and see the meanings of words and the etymology in the correct light. Maybe you can help…maybe you can’t.
Bob
Modern Hebrew is not the same as Biblical. Actually, modern Hebrwe is based, to the best of my knowledge, on Mishnaic Hebrew. Still, I have been reading Biblical Hebrew for quite some time as well. It is sometimes not clear, or obscure to us moderns, and in those cases it is bestto admit that we are not sure of teh meaning rather than force it to mean what we want.
The idea that the ancient Hebrews took the lead in creation myths and the like is common among fundementalists (Jewish ones as well), but I don't think there is any real evidence of that. Don't some of ANE creation stories pre-date the Bible? Also, the ancient Hebrews were part of the Near East, and when they began to exist as a separate group is not completely clear.
Odd, that I, as a Hebrew, have no problem in admitiing that we weren't the first to come up with everything, that my Holy Book is not scientifically accurate (was never meant to be, in my opinion), or that the book is not inerrant - while many Christians cannot admit these things. They are afraid that it will undermine their beliefs, I guess.
I find that there is a awful tendency among some Christians to "skewer" the Hebrew Bible to make it match theri own ideologies. The "Serpent" in the garden of eden is a great example. Everybody 'knows' that the 'Serpent' is Satan, though the actual text doesn't say anything of the sort. If "Nahash" had been translated as "snake" - an everyday, normal animal, rather than the mysterious 'serpent', it woudl have been more difficult to twist the text.
Anyhow, I will help understand texts where I can, but bear in mind that you and I do not share the same goals.
Roberterasmus
New member
Chair, of course some of the written records from the ANE predate our latest Massoretic text. That's not the issue of course; rather it is the actual story line itself. I could direct you to some good pieces on the "chicken or the egg" type theories, but it seems like you are not that interested.
Of course us fundamental believer types would think that our Scriptures hold the only true story. Waddidyathink?
As for the separation of groups in the ANE, you of all people should have a clue on when this occurred, but again, for you, what does that matter?
I don't see anything unscientific in the Hebrew (or Christian) Bible, but of course you expected that out of me. There is the fact that a very old creation allows me to sync science in a little easier than a YEC, eh?
Nachash is an interesting Hebrew word. Do a search on what EW Bullinger said about the dude. It's quite uplifting. Don't agree with the English arguement that you made, but the Hebrew is definitely a gold mine of information. Christians, BTW, have texts that say the snake was Satan, but again, you probably don't care.
RE
Of course us fundamental believer types would think that our Scriptures hold the only true story. Waddidyathink?
As for the separation of groups in the ANE, you of all people should have a clue on when this occurred, but again, for you, what does that matter?
I don't see anything unscientific in the Hebrew (or Christian) Bible, but of course you expected that out of me. There is the fact that a very old creation allows me to sync science in a little easier than a YEC, eh?
Nachash is an interesting Hebrew word. Do a search on what EW Bullinger said about the dude. It's quite uplifting. Don't agree with the English arguement that you made, but the Hebrew is definitely a gold mine of information. Christians, BTW, have texts that say the snake was Satan, but again, you probably don't care.
RE
I will only comment on the "nachash" bit right now. I have run into this nachash = shining one = Satan bit before. It is possible that the root means "shining". I don't know. Nechoshet is copper or bronze in Hebrew (even in the Bible). And it is possible that snakes are called Nachashim because they are shiny.
But the fact that snakes are called "nachash" because they are shiny, and that that you think that Satan is shiny (probbaly from a misreading of Ezekiel), does not mean that snake = Satan. As you likely know, the same root in Hebrew can be sued to make different words - snake and copper for example. It doesn't mean that everything that is shiny is a snake, or copper, or Satan, or whatever. That is just silly.
The term Nachash is used elsewhere in the bible to mean plain old snake. See Jacob's blessing of Dan at the end of Genesis, for example. I don't think that Dan was being compared to Satan, or to a copper pot for that matter.
Roberterasmus
New member
Chair,
I realize that the discussion on Satan might be a bit far afield from the one we are having on Genesis 1:14-19, but I'll give you a link to the best article I've read on the nachash. I note with some chagrin that the PDF costs something now, but I have a Word doc of it if you're interested.
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/dcpdflisting.htm
Back to "modern ideas of the cosmos"; again, I don't think there is a contradiction between reality and the Scriptures and I don't think that the YEC's do justice to the texts about Creation that are strung out through the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. There are still serious problems with the time dilation theory and certainly starlight when it comes to dating things that are presently on the earth.
That being said, the venerable ruin/reconstruction theory (disparagingly called the Gap Theory) coupled with a young biosphere outlook (the six days were literally six days, just not "creation days") makes the Biblical AND scientific evidence work. No one tries to "make the text match" anything, yet misunderstandings (and stupidity!) have reigned since the early 60's and straw man argumentation between believing Christians obscure the truth.
Bob b.
Your statement, " I have no problem with a certain amount of reformation during creation week, in fact this is essentially what I was suggesting with regard to the Sun and the Moon," was intriguing, but I feel you don't really want to engage in a full-fledged discussion on origins, having made up your mind about a new earth. Might you be interested in the future?
re
I realize that the discussion on Satan might be a bit far afield from the one we are having on Genesis 1:14-19, but I'll give you a link to the best article I've read on the nachash. I note with some chagrin that the PDF costs something now, but I have a Word doc of it if you're interested.
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/dcpdflisting.htm
Back to "modern ideas of the cosmos"; again, I don't think there is a contradiction between reality and the Scriptures and I don't think that the YEC's do justice to the texts about Creation that are strung out through the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. There are still serious problems with the time dilation theory and certainly starlight when it comes to dating things that are presently on the earth.
That being said, the venerable ruin/reconstruction theory (disparagingly called the Gap Theory) coupled with a young biosphere outlook (the six days were literally six days, just not "creation days") makes the Biblical AND scientific evidence work. No one tries to "make the text match" anything, yet misunderstandings (and stupidity!) have reigned since the early 60's and straw man argumentation between believing Christians obscure the truth.
Bob b.
Your statement, " I have no problem with a certain amount of reformation during creation week, in fact this is essentially what I was suggesting with regard to the Sun and the Moon," was intriguing, but I feel you don't really want to engage in a full-fledged discussion on origins, having made up your mind about a new earth. Might you be interested in the future?
re
Well, I will not pay for the pdf, but if you have a version you can send me, send me a personal message and I'll give you an email address you can send it to. I doubt very much that you will convince me, or anybody else who really knows Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible. The whole bit is (in my opinion) utter nonsense, starting with the identity of the King of Tyre with Satan, and ending with twisting the meaning of teh very words of the Bible.
I will also make the following statement. I hope that it is completely clear:
I think that by trying to show that Genesis is literally correct according to modern Science you are doing a tremendous disservice to the Biblical text. You end up misinterpreting the text and ignoring the Biblical message.