Stars Made on 1st Day not 4th?

[bob b]

My idea that God expanded the universe on the 1st day of creation, including making all the stars and galaxies, seemed to suffer from the problem that all English translations say that the stars were made on the 4th day.

I have been studying this passage intently to see if it might be possible that the single Hebrew word, kôkâb, translated as "he made the stars also" could be a mistranslation.

The reason I have suspected this is that this word appears in the middle of the passage which is describing the creation of the Sun and the Moon, hence throwing in a comment about creating the stars seems out of place.

It became apparent to me that the Sun and Moon were first created, and then after they were created they were placed into their positions, in other words a two-stage process. But then it occured to me that there was a third stage: they began to shine or give off light.

So I believe the process was as follows: 1) they were created, 2) they began to give off light, 3) they were placed into their positions.

Genesis 1:14 And God said,

(Objective) Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

(Stage 1)16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:

(We note that in stage 1 that the word translated as "to rule" might possibly be translated instead as "the ruler of"

(Stage 2) he made the stars also.

(Here the Hebrew word means "blazing" and hence is generally translated as star, but could possibly also be referring to an illumination action affecting the Sun/Moon)

(Stage 3) 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day

(The Hebrew word translated "to rule" here is a DIFFERENT Hebrew word from that of the previous verse and in my opinion should be translated "to rule" in this usage).

----

Comments please.

 

[logos_x]

My idea that God expanded the universe on the 1st day of creation, including making all the stars and galaxies, seemed to suffer from the problem that all English translations say that the stars were made on the 4th day.

I have been studying this passage intently to see if it might be possible that the single Hebrew word, kôkâb, translated as "he made the stars also" could be a mistranslation.

The reason I have suspected this is that this word appears in the middle of the passage which is describing the creation of the Sun and the Moon, hence throwing in a comment about creating the stars seems out of place.

It became apparent to me that the Sun and Moon were first created, and then after they were created they were placed into their positions, in other words a two-stage process. But then it occured to me that there was a third stage: they began to shine or give off light.

So I believe the process was as follows: 1) they were created, 2) they began to give off light, 3) they were placed into their positions.

Genesis 1:14 And God said,

(Objective) Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

(Stage 1)16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:

(We note that in stage 1 that the word translated as "to rule" might possibly be translated instead as "the ruler of"

(Stage 2) he made the stars also.

(Here the Hebrew word means "blazing" and hence is generally translated as star, but could possibly also be referring to an illumination action affecting the Sun/Moon)

(Stage 3) 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day

(The Hebrew word translated "to rule" here is a DIFFERENT Hebrew word from that of the previous verse and in my opinion should be translated "to rule" in this usage).

----

Comments please.

Bob

You might have heard this before, and I don't know how you personally view this...but, I'm going to float this by you and see what you think

The problem you point out is one many have looked at and resolve in various ways...and this is the one I find to be possible as a solution to this seeming puzzle.

The first verse of Genesis talks about the beginning of the Universe and the Earth.

It sounds like a complete description of a completed work...God created all there is.

The second verse focuses on the Earth itself...saying the Earth was "without form and void"

The Hebrew words here are interesting; "without form" is, according to Strong's:

tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

And the word translated as "void" is:

bôhû
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.

This is a discription of the Earth, alone, after it was created originally...as though something happened that ruined what was previously created, that a cataclysm had occured that wiped away the surface of this planet...and what God did after that is what is described in the ensueing narrative...making Earth habitable for life, culminating in the creation of mankind.

God then moves upon a devestated world, making the climate, the days a certain length, the means whereby we measure time, and all the species of lifeforms.

I view it as bringing order to the world...not necessarily when He did it or how.

Thoughts?

 

[logos_x]

I guess another way of saying it is that God "set the clock" on the fourth "day"...the earth's spin rate, it's distance from the sun, the moon's orbital path and rate of travel around the earth, the Earth's rate of travel around the Sun...and the solar system in relation to other star sytems....all of which work together to make Earth the place it is, and by which our seasons and climate are driven, and through which we determine time.

 

[chair]

My idea that God expanded the universe on the 1st day of creation, including making all the stars and galaxies, seemed to suffer from the problem that all English translations say that the stars were made on the 4th day.

I have been studying this passage intently to see if it might be possible that the single Hebrew word, kôkâb, translated as "he made the stars also" could be a mistranslation.

The reason I have suspected this is that this word appears in the middle of the passage which is describing the creation of the Sun and the Moon, hence throwing in a comment about creating the stars seems out of place.

It became apparent to me that the Sun and Moon were first created, and then after they were created they were placed into their positions, in other words a two-stage process. But then it occured to me that there was a third stage: they began to shine or give off light.

So I believe the process was as follows: 1) they were created, 2) they began to give off light, 3) they were placed into their positions.

Genesis 1:14 And God said,

(Objective) Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

(Stage 1)16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:

(We note that in stage 1 that the word translated as "to rule" might possibly be translated instead as "the ruler of"

(Stage 2) he made the stars also.

(Here the Hebrew word means "blazing" and hence is generally translated as star, but could possibly also be referring to an illumination action affecting the Sun/Moon)

(Stage 3) 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day

(The Hebrew word translated "to rule" here is a DIFFERENT Hebrew word from that of the previous verse and in my opinion should be translated "to rule" in this usage).

----

Comments please.

Bob,

I am not sure where to start. "Learn Hebrew" seems like the best comment, but I know that that is a difficult thing to do.

So:

The word for "rule" is used differently in the different verses, but it is the same word. Hebrew verbs are constructed according to their use (tense, person), and can sometimes be turned into a noun -"to rule" into "ruler", but they are based on the same verb.

The Hebrew word for "Star" is "Kochav", plural "Kochavim". It does not mean "blazing". "Kochavim" is used elsewhere is Genesis to mean stars as well (Abraham's seed will be like the stars in the heavens, for example). The stars are mentioned in the begining of Genesis as almost an aside, after the major lights in the sky (Sun and Moon).

I think that you are making a huge mistake in trying to figure out the details of the creation and make them match the facts that we know today about the stars and so on. Genesis is not a physics text, nor is it a cookbook ("how to create a universe"). The whole point is WHO created. The details, like the fact that the moon is considered a greater light than the stars, are not scientifically accurate and not important.

I suspect that you will probably not accept my last comment. But maybe pay attention to my first one. If you are serious about studying teh Bible, learn Hebrew. It is not impossible.

Chair

 

[Glenda]

If you are serious about studying teh Bible, learn Hebrew. It is not impossible.

Chair

Have you got any helpful links or advice on what books to buy where please?
Thanks
Glenda

 

[chair]

Have you got any helpful links or advice on what books to buy where please?
Thanks
Glenda

This is a tough one. I have known Hebrew for over 40 years, and am not quite sure where you should start.

First of all note that modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are not quite the same. If you know modern Hebrew you will be able to read most of the Bible OK, but it will be difficult to follow sometimes.

Also, Hebrew is usually written without teh vowels, which is a complication. As an aside, note that in orderto read the Torah, you must depend on the oral tradition on how it is to be read (that is, the Massoretic tradition of the vowels and punctuation).

I did a quick search on learning Hebrew, and came up with a few sites (one of which offers Korean, which I may study).

So here goes:
http://www.hebrewonline.com/default.asp
http://www.jewishsoftware.com/defau...ategory&id=1&gclid=CKqa4e7p54sCFQRCZwodeH3KSQ
http://www.unforgettablelanguages.com/frames_a16.html
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/

This site (Australian) is free, and may be a place to start, just to see how it goes:
http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/FrameSupport/whoShouldUseItFrame.html

I can't really recommend any of these. I have never tried them, so you will have to figure out what is best for you. I woudl try the ones that offer a free trial first in any case.

In Israel they have a special crash course in Hebrew for immigrants, called an "Ulpan", which seems to work.

Let me know if you really dive into this. I will be interested in hearing how it works out.

Chair

 

[DoogieTalons]

Bob B, does it not matter that the Moon is not and has never been a light ? That our understanding on that and a great many other things has also moved on.

Genesis was written when it was believed the moon was a light and the day time sky was made of water.

These arguments are a bit daft really when the fundamental understandings of the Universe have moved on, and will continue to.

The creationist trying so hard to make the bible match the facts even at the expense of reason and truth makes me sad.

 

[bob b]

Bob,

I am not sure where to start. "Learn Hebrew" seems like the best comment, but I know that that is a difficult thing to do.

So:

The word for "rule" is used differently in the different verses, but it is the same word. Hebrew verbs are constructed according to their use (tense, person), and can sometimes be turned into a noun -"to rule" into "ruler", but they are based on the same verb.

The Hebrew word for "Star" is "Kochav", plural "Kochavim". It does not mean "blazing". "Kochavim" is used elsewhere is Genesis to mean stars as well (Abraham's seed will be like the stars in the heavens, for example). The stars are mentioned in the begining of Genesis as almost an aside, after the major lights in the sky (Sun and Moon).

I think that you are making a huge mistake in trying to figure out the details of the creation and make them match the facts that we know today about the stars and so on. Genesis is not a physics text, nor is it a cookbook ("how to create a universe"). The whole point is WHO created. The details, like the fact that the moon is considered a greater light than the stars, are not scientifically accurate and not important.

I suspect that you will probably not accept my last comment. But maybe pay attention to my first one. If you are serious about studying teh Bible, learn Hebrew. It is not impossible.

Chair

Thank you for your comments.

You did not comment on the fact that the single Hebrew word translated as "star" appears in the middle of a passage talking about the Sun and the Moon. I would be interested in your comment on that.

And you are right that I have a different viewpoint about scripture. I agree that it is not a physics textbook, but on the other hand when a comment is made about the physical world, I do not consider that not being a physics textbook means that the comment is not accurate.

 

[bob b]

Bob B, does it not matter that the Moon is not and has never been a light ?

Since the translators seemed to ignore that the entire passage was talking about the Sun and the Moon, it seemed plausible to be that the single Hebrew word could have been concentrating on the visible phenomenon of illumination, whereas we moderns would naturally know that this was caused by the "ignition' of the thermonuclear reaction which caused the Sun to light up, and incidentally the Moon as well.

In other words the Bible verse is not intended to explain the physics of what happened, only its visible effects. Remember, the Bible is not a physics or scientific textbook: the text tells what happened, not how.

BTW, the Moon is a source of light. Last night my son insisted on finishing the landscaping he and my grandson were doing for my wife and me, and they were able to do this because the light of the Moon was bright enough to make this feasible.

 

[Punisher1984]

Just another creationist trying to make his holy book fit into a modern scientific context...

 

[chair]

Thank you for your comments.

You did not comment on the fact that the single Hebrew word translated as "star" appears in the middle of a passage talking about the Sun and the Moon. I would be interested in your comment on that.

And you are right that I have a different viewpoint about scripture. I agree that it is not a physics textbook, but on the other hand when a comment is made about the physical world, I do not consider that not being a physics textbook means that the comment is not accurate.

I agree that the moon, to a human on earth, is a source of light, much more so than the stars. The way that the stars are mentioned seems to be almost as an aside, as if they are unimportant, as they pretty much are to Earthlings.

I don't think that our modern ideas of "accuracy" can be applied directly to the Hebrew Bible.

 

[bob b]

I don't think that our modern ideas of "accuracy" can be applied directly to the Hebrew Bible.

Obviously I do.

BTW, the Sun is a star.

 

[chair]

BTW, the Sun is a star.

You wouldn't know it from reading the Bible.

 

[bob b]

You wouldn't know it from reading the Bible.

It seems to me that the Bible can be understood at more than one level, perhaps because it is aimed at different audiences, those of the time it was written and those who will follow after, like today.

Perhaps the placement of a word normally associated with stars was intended to provide a clue to our generation, which has only now realized that the Sun is a star.

 

[Punisher1984]

The Bible can mean just about anything depending on how one reads it, but this is probably the intent of the biblical canon: its makers wanted a holy text so vague that they can reinterpret it to back any position they took no matter how absurd it is.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

This is a tough one. I have known Hebrew for over 40 years, and am not quite sure where you should start.

First of all note that modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are not quite the same. If you know modern Hebrew you will be able to read most of the Bible OK, but it will be difficult to follow sometimes.

Also, Hebrew is usually written without teh vowels, which is a complication. As an aside, note that in orderto read the Torah, you must depend on the oral tradition on how it is to be read (that is, the Massoretic tradition of the vowels and punctuation).

I did a quick search on learning Hebrew, and came up with a few sites (one of which offers Korean, which I may study).

So here goes:
http://www.hebrewonline.com/default.asp
http://www.jewishsoftware.com/defau...ategory&id=1&gclid=CKqa4e7p54sCFQRCZwodeH3KSQ
http://www.unforgettablelanguages.com/frames_a16.html
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/

This site (Australian) is free, and may be a place to start, just to see how it goes:
http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/FrameSupport/whoShouldUseItFrame.html

I can't really recommend any of these. I have never tried them, so you will have to figure out what is best for you. I woudl try the ones that offer a free trial first in any case.

In Israel they have a special crash course in Hebrew for immigrants, called an "Ulpan", which seems to work.

Let me know if you really dive into this. I will be interested in hearing how it works out.

Chair

Actually. for the first time ever, I am interested in learning Hebrew and am having fun doing it because I bought the book "The Word" by Isaac Mozeson, a dictionary showing the Hebrew roots of English -and of all languages as branches from the 70 which were first confounded -from Adam's original one language- at Babel- but I then found out that he has a newer and much more complete one called The Origin of Speeches.
From the same source I purchased that book and CD dictionary one can get all kinds of fun sources that teach Hebrew as a science and one learns the ancient and modern, all together, from those sources.

 

[Jehu]

The Bible can mean just about anything depending on how one reads it, but this is probably the intent of the biblical canon: its makers wanted a holy text so vague that they can reinterpret it to back any position they took no matter how absurd it is.

That's one grand conspiracy theory. So who were these "makers" and what did they gain for all their effort in making a "vague" holy book?

Any writings can be interpreted many ways, much like the U.S. constitution... the authors of it never intended to write a vague or abstract document. But that's precisely what it has become over time, because different courts interpret it different ways. I think the Bible has been treated much the same way, the authors had one meaning in mind but due to translation and theology issues it appears much more vague than it really is.

 

[Quasar1011]

My idea that God expanded the universe on the 1st day of creation, including making all the stars and galaxies, seemed to suffer from the problem that all English translations say that the stars were made on the 4th day.

....Comments please.

I have always believed from the text of Genesis 1, that the Sun and Moon were made on day one. Why?

Genesis 1:5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

The Jews believe that the day begins at sundown, and citing this verse. It is obvious here that the Earth was already spinning. If it was spinning, half of it was facing the light source. So night and day were separated by the end of day one. Verse 4 says so:

"God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness."

Earth dwellers know what physical object separates the light from the darkness: the Sun (because the moon can also be seen in daylight at times). So it is obvious that the Sun, though not directly mentioned on day one, was already in existence.

Notice how closely day 4 parallels this:
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

But, since the light and darkness were already separated on day 1, what is being separated on day 4? Notice that the light(s) are now said to be "in the expanse of the sky". This did not exist one day 1.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


What we have here, then, is an account of the primordial atmosphere of Earth clearing! If the sun and moon were not visible until day 4, and the sky (atmosphere) did not exist until day 2, then this means the atmosphere was originally opaque- much like that on planet Venus today. By day 4 the atmosphere had become transparent enough to view the objects God had placed in the sky. This was in preparation for the arrival of man on day 6. Man would use the sun and moon to mark seasons and days and years, according to verse 14. The sun and moon did not need to be visible to an observer on Earth on day 1, because there was no observer to benefit from them.

By the way, geologists and meterologists will tell you that Earth's original atmosphere was likely formed chiefly from the outgassing of volcanoes. If this is true, the primordial atmosphere would have been opaque, and full of methane and other toxic gasses. The science agrees with the Bible here, except perhaps for the element of timing.

 

[bob b]

I have always believed from the text of Genesis 1, that the Sun and Moon were made on day one. Why?

Genesis 1:5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

The Jews believe that the day begins at sundown, and citing this verse. It is obvious here that the Earth was already spinning. If it was spinning, half of it was facing the light source. So night and day were separated by the end of day one. Verse 4 says so:

"God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness."

Earth dwellers know what physical object separates the light from the darkness: the Sun (because the moon can also be seen in daylight at times). So it is obvious that the Sun, though not directly mentioned on day one, was already in existence.

Notice how closely day 4 parallels this:
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

But, since the light and darkness were already separated on day 1, what is being separated on day 4? Notice that the light(s) are now said to be "in the expanse of the sky". This did not exist one day 1.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


What we have here, then, is an account of the primordial atmosphere of Earth clearing! If the sun and moon were not visible until day 4, and the sky (atmosphere) did not exist until day 2, then this means the atmosphere was originally opaque- much like that on planet Venus today. By day 4 the atmosphere had become transparent enough to view the objects God had placed in the sky. This was in preparation for the arrival of man on day 6. Man would use the sun and moon to mark seasons and days and years, according to verse 14. The sun and moon did not need to be visible to an observer on Earth on day 1, because there was no observer to benefit from them.

By the way, geologists and meterologists will tell you that Earth's original atmosphere was likely formed chiefly from the outgassing of volcanoes. If this is true, the primordial atmosphere would have been opaque, and full of methane and other toxic gasses. The science agrees with the Bible here, except perhaps for the element of timing.

I take it then that you think these time periods lasted millions of years?

I wonder how the plants survived that long in a noxious atmosphere?

 

[Punisher1984]

That's one grand conspiracy theory. So who were these "makers" and what did they gain for all their effort in making a "vague" holy book?

The makers of the modern biblical canon would be the Nicean counsil bishops of 325 C.E., but the authors of the various books that compose the modern canon had their own theological agendas to drive home (this is evidenced by the blatant contraditions within the canonized books).