Genesis 1:1
Offline In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1
In the beginning comes from the Hebrew Bere shith, the word Genesis comes from the Greek Septuagint meaning "birth; origin." Science agrees that the universe had a sudden beginning and must ponder the cause of such an effect.
Bible scholars agree that the creation mentioned in verse 1 is separate from the “days” or periods of creation mentioned in verse 3. This means that the universe and planet earth existed an indefinite period of time before the days of creation began. The Bible doesn’t specify the age of the heavens and earth. All of this means that no matter what science estimates as the age of the universe and planet earth, there is no contradiction here with science and the Bible.
Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow - “The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
Ancient writings from Babylon and Egypt reveal gods who were given birth after the universe was already created. They have nothing to say of the universe being created, as the Bible does.
Of significance here is the use of the Hebrew word Elohim, God. It is the plural form denoting majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287) Trinitarians often use the plurality in support of the trinity, but a form of Elohim is used with the singular verb at Judges 16:23 in application to Dagon meaning Elohim is a plural showing majesty rather than a numerical application to three gods in one.
The Hebrew verb for “created” here 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Are you new at Theist / Atheist debate and discussion? 'Cause from my perspective its all about gettning nowhere fast.
[Looks around . . . nods]
Lol, yeah. Just like this discussion you've started.
Its about the language, you see? The create in Genesis, according to the Hebrew, was in the perfect state. It was complete. Later a different Hebrew term is used which is in the imperfect state indicating action in progress. The imperfect state is used over 40 times in the creation acount. Very important.
Okay, how does this apply to your naked assertion that Genesis 1 just describes God tweaking a universe that he already created?
Formless? Means landless. A formless planet is a water planet.
Really? Why doesn't the Bible just say that's what it means so you don't have to pull it out of your ***. Let me guess, you're going to assert that in the original language, it unambiguously referred to a planet covered in water?
The Earth is a terrestrial planet; it can only be "landless" to the extent that the entire surface is covered in water. So, this is some arbitrary moment in the Earth's history when it was covered in water?
Darkness implies difused light at an early stage which we get to later.
Lol, so now the term "darkness" is actually referring to diffusion of photons? You have any evidence?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
Offline We bump not swords but shields.
Yeah, Mell, you're so confrontational. Stop bumping people. 
- Login to post comments
Offline Butterbattle,
The case of Genesis 1:1 is easy. It says, in English, that God created the heavens and Earth.
The Hebrew verb has two states, the perfect and the imperfect state. The perfect state, like the case of bara indicates completed action. Created, in Genesis 1:1, is a completed action.
James Washington Watts, in his A Distinctive Translation of Genesis, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1963), pp. 129, 130: “The fundamental characteristic of all imperfects is incompleteness . . . . The incompleteness of these imperfects, when they are in the indicative mood, appears either in a progressive form or a frequentative form. The context is relied upon to indicate one or the other, for the structure of the verb is the same in both cases. “If the context indicates a single act or state, the force is progressive. The action is pictured in the process of development. In such case the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey its full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘proceed’ or an adverb like ‘gradually’ is needed if the translator sees an occasion for bringing out the full force. When a narrative is unfolding rapidly and the sequence of events is more important than the vivid portrayal of progress in some particular event, the translator may depend solely upon conjunctive adverbs like ‘afterward’ to indicate both sequence and progress. Progress in this case is not brought out fully. There is merely movement from one action or state to another without definite portrayal of progress within the second. The use of this limited translation means that the translator sees no special reason for bringing out the idea of progress more fully at that point. The account in English would become tedious if he did. On the other hand, if the translator sees that the account is enriched by bringing out the full force of the verb, he is at liberty to do so. “If the context indicates more than one occurrence of the act or state, the force is frequentative. Again the primary idea of the verb in English is not sufficient to convey the full meaning. The addition of an auxiliary like ‘continued’ or an adverb like ‘frequently’ is needed to reveal the full meaning of repetition or customary occurrence.”
- Login to post comments
Offline Butterbattle,
The case of Genesis 1:1 is easy. It says, in English, that God created the heavens and Earth.
Okay, sorry. I suppose this part of it makes sense at least. I'm getting way too eager to criticize and pick this stuff apart.
First, God made the Earth and the heavens, which is the sky. It's quite strange to separate the created things into just the Earth and sky since the Earth is just one tiny planet in the universe and the sky is just what we see from the surface of the Earth, but it doesn't explicitly make an error, and I suppose if Christianity were true, then it'd be meaningful to emphasize the Earth.
On to verse 2.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
Offline - Login to post comments
Offline mellestad wrote:If religion is a lack if interest then...I guess?
Religion is a strict adherance to belief. Disbelief is a belief, not to mention a world view.
mellestad wrote:I've never thought the Bible said the world is six thousand years old, I've only thought that certain theists use calculations involving genealogy in the Bible to assume that age.I honestly try not to tell theists what the Bible says, because for most theists the interpretation of the Bible is subjective to whatever they already believe. When I do use the Bible, I try to use it at the level of the theist I'm talking to. If a fundamentalist protestant wants to argue young earth theory and yak about anti-evolution stuff, I'll use the Bible like they use it. If someone wants to debate the Hebrew meaning of wind...I'll let someone who cares mess with it.
The Bible isn't central to my world-view or atheism either way, however it *is* central to the world-view and theism of many people who post here, which is why it comes up so often. You yourself know you don't agree with most of the theists about Biblical interpretation.
To take this to *your* specific case, if you want to debate the existence of a water canopy I wouldn't even use the Bible, because it isn't relevant besides being the source of a silly idea. I can't prove or disprove canopy theory using the Bible because it has no objective standing to a claim of that kind, I have to use something more objective.
I think that what you are expressing is simply what you and I have in common and both well know. You can't debate science with people who have very little interest or knowledge on the subject and you can't do the same with the Bible. We bump not swords but shields.
Wake me up when the Bible can do anything useful then. Until that point I'll stick with the system of thought that enables my life to exist in the first place.
You are correct though, our difference is in the basic assumption. You think the only arbiter of objective truth is your unique religion, and I think the only arbiter of objective truth is logic and reason, often most effectively expressed through the application of the scientific method.
Pragmatically I'm not sure how you can defend your belief in light of what your method is able to discern and discover compared to mine, but I don't know if you will accept any method of falsification for your own beliefs so the point is largely moot unless you're willing to examine your foundational principles.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
So your view is that it was already perfectly created and the other verses are simply descriptive of what he created?
Shame he had to break it in the Garden of Eden, huh?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No, in verse 1 the heavens and earth were created, later, during the "days" or periods of creation he would make them or appoint them as in making them suitable for habitation. Think of it like a bed. A bed is created or manufactured and later the bed is made in another sense. To make a bed in the later sense is different than the former. This will become more clear in later posts on Genesis.
When did the sun and moon become habitable? They have their own verses describing their creation.
A bed doesn't need sheets, pillows and other accoutrements to be slept on. Your analogy doesn't work too well.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
There is onr great question I have since you are citing Genises 1:1 ; could I move you along slightly to Genises 1:3 -4. "God said let there be light, and there was, to devide the darkness from the day. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Since the Sun and moon do not show up untill the fourth day, where did this light come from and where did it go to?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
You are kind of jumping ahead of me. Concentrating on Genesis 1:1, the creation there is complete. The heavens and Earth were complete. That includes the sun. The luminaries were there before the first creative day.
Ah, Davids back. Did you give it a good shake?
=
Going from Genises 1:1 all the way to Genises 1:4 is not that big a jump. If you sir hold a theistic belief based on what is written in the bible, that belief has to include all the bible with all its contridictions. Otherwise you are what we ( and meny theists) call a cafateria christian.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Did you notice that I answered your question? Lets say that my plan is to consider a verse a day. Genesis 1:4 would naturally follow. Give me three days.
Thank you, Ian.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Not when you can't get past the problems in v.1.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
As far as I can tell, there are no problems that haven't been addressed. Have I missed something?
Your insistence that the sun, moon, stars and earth were created before they were created according to the story is a good start. Do the words mean only what you think they should mean or something?
It's quite a leap to jump from "the universe had a beginning" to "God was its beginning", isn't it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hey David, welcome back!
One time my three year old daughter said there were little tiny things in her room. I take this to mean she has a miraculous understanding of germ theory, atomic theory and fully grasps the implications of quantum theory in regards to a multiverse.
I win! I'll let you know if she confirms any other Truth in her deceptively simple comments about what we eat for dinner tonight. Yesterday she said she wanted some water and I started a paper on fluid dynamics (I'll see you at the Nobel Prize ceremony!).
---------------
In case my sarcasm was too thick there, this type of conversation isn't any more fruitful than Biblical numerology or talking to someone who believes Nostradamus really predicted the future. The entire idea is predicated on taking something you already 'know' and scanning modern science to find things that can be co-opted to serve your assumptions.
For example, I can 'know' that my daughter is a uber savant and a prophetess. Anything she says can be twisted into re-enforcing that 'knowledge'. (Edit, she totally is, by the way.)
If this stuff was real it wouldn't work in that bass-ackwards way, instead you'd have scientists looking at the Bible and using it to make predictions about reality that are then tested and proved. I can't think of a single, credible cosmological argument that has a Bible passage as a hypothesis.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Ah, now I see . . . a typical threat to scientific interpretation. Lets leave it at that.
To reiterate. According to Genesis 1:1, and the perfect state of the Hebrew word translted there as create, the heavens, including the luminaries, were complete. Later we will see that the imperfect state is used in regards to the matter which SHOULD, but won't clear up the confussion.
Hey, Mel, thanks! Good to see you - proverbially.
We will see what we will see.
Yes, you should quit threatening that the Bible is a scientific interpretation of anything.
The stars were created before the light they generate was created? Really? Can you have luminaries without light?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'll await the inrush of ground breaking scientific papers with titles corresponding to Bible verses.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Patience, grasshopper.
I look forward to this version of "What God really meant was..."
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
We're discussing one verse at a time? It's going to take forever to get anywhere.
More evidence beyond wishful thinking and grasping at the straws of an unjustified claim based on the the weasel words, "Bible scholars agree," please.
Can we move on to 1:2 now?
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
What does formless mean? How can a planet be formless? What does empty mean? What does "darkness was over the surface of the deep" mean? These are all ambiguous and scientifically inept statements. I suppose the Spirit of God avoids the force of gravity with his godly magic?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Nice spin. Have you considered a career in politics? So god created the universe and then put it on a shelf for an indefinite period before sitting down and finishing it in six days. My Grandma used to do the same thing when she was knitting.
Because when they were creating those religions one priest said to the other, "C'mon, even those idiots won't believe the gods created the universe" Who knew he was wrong?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
One doesn't have to look at it that way. I wouldn't ask Atheists Etc. to do that. All you have to do is look at what it says, paying closer attention to the original languages and then see where it gets fucked up from there. If it is my presentation or interpretation or whatever thats fucked tell me why.
Are you new at Theist / Atheist debate and discussion? 'Cause from my perspective its all about gettning nowhere fast.
[Looks around . . . nods]
Its about the language, you see? The create in Genesis, according to the Hebrew, was in the perfect state. It was complete. Later a different Hebrew term is used which is in the imperfect state indicating action in progress. The imperfect state is used over 40 times in the creation acount. Very important.
Formless? Means landless. A formless planet is a water planet. Darkness implies difused light at an early stage which we get to later.
Hold on just a second. So, planets form land first, water second. In fact, the whole process of going from matter, to conglomerate, to planetoid, to cooled planet, to getting surface features, liquid water, atmosphere, etc, etc. is all somewhat specific. Are you trying to make the Genesis story match reality, or are you just going over the language in detail for personal edification?
I want to know how argumentative I should be.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Be as argumentative as you need be, buddy. What I am trying to do is inform you all in greater detail about what the Bible says. I sense that, considering the usual ignorant babble y'all spew regarding the subject on a daily basis, you need that special attention.
As for reality; well that is any ones guess and aside from the challenge of educating in light of the aforementioned blatant ignorance I get no kicks out of this.
Ok, cool.
If you aren't trying to apply the verses to reality I don't really have an interest, so I'll leave the bickering to people like you and PaulJohn.
I only perk up when someone says, "The world is so, because the Bible says such-and-such." If that statement doesn't match objective reality then I bicker. Well...unless I'm really super bored I guess, then I might bicker about word meanings.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
How . . . religious of you, Mel. Where is the fun in that? Surely you didn't expect me to come here and cozy up to your sense of reality, did you?
'Ows this, then? The world isn't only six thousand years old because the Bible doesn't say it is. Doesn't make any more sense, does it? You see? The problem is that you probably think it does say that. And you are wrong. That is the reality of it.
Like Bob Dylan once said. "The truth is a plain picture!"
If religion is a lack if interest then...I guess?
I've never thought the Bible said the world is six thousand years old, I've only thought that certain theists use calculations involving genealogy in the Bible to assume that age.
I honestly try not to tell theists what the Bible says, because for most theists the interpretation of the Bible is subjective to whatever they already believe. When I do use the Bible, I try to use it at the level of the theist I'm talking to. If a fundamentalist protestant wants to argue young earth theory and yak about anti-evolution stuff, I'll use the Bible like they use it. If someone wants to debate the Hebrew meaning of wind...I'll let someone who cares mess with it.
The Bible isn't central to my world-view or atheism either way, however it *is* central to the world-view and theism of many people who post here, which is why it comes up so often. You yourself know you don't agree with most of the theists about Biblical interpretation.
To take this to *your* specific case, if you want to debate the existence of a water canopy I wouldn't even use the Bible, because it isn't relevant besides being the source of a silly idea. I can't prove or disprove canopy theory using the Bible because it has no objective standing to a claim of that kind, I have to use something more objective.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Religion is a strict adherance to belief. Disbelief is a belief, not to mention a world view.
I think that what you are expressing is simply what you and I have in common and both well know. You can't debate science with people who have very little interest or knowledge on the subject and you can't do the same with the Bible. We bump not swords but shields.