Genesis 2

[gnostic]

Very well, then let me rephrase (since this is becoming an argument of semantics). You're making an assumption that "days" refers to each planetary rotation.

Earth's rotation with the sun as reference point to where the sun shines it light on the Earth surface, then yes, planetary rotation played a large part in daylight and evening for us Earthlings.

In Genesis 1:3-5, it make no reference to Earth's rotation and the Sun. The Genesis assume daylight came out of nowhere. That's what make the Bible NOT A SCIENCE or ASTRONOMY TEXTBOOK.

Genesis 1:3 & 4 assume the light providing daylight, but not the sun, demonstrate the author's ignorance. And if you believe God wrote (and I must stress "IF") the Genesis, or that God provide the detail to Moses (said to be the author of Genesis), then God himself is ignorant of simple astronomy.

Where do you think DAYLIGHT comes from? From God? Or from the Sun?

You're missing my point. The word DAY refers to many different things, not just each cycle from dusk till dawn. I believe that the "day" in which Adam was said to die after eating of the fruit, was not meant as one of these cycles, but one of the other definitions of the word day.

No, you're missing the point.

Genesis 1:3-4 clearly was referring to LIGHT with DAY, hence this is talking about DAYLIGHT. It also referred DARKNESS as NIGHT, and the cycle of evening and morning as a whole or complete DAY, hence 1:5 "the first day".

This is not talking about a week, or a year, or one-thousand years, just ONE day.

As to Genesis 2:17, it only say DAY, not one year or 930 years, and that he would die on THAT DAY, should he eat the forbidden fruit. You are over-complicating the verse to mean AGE, when YOM clearly referred to DAY.

Death, according to Genesis 2:17 would either happen immediately or death would be imminent (meaning sometimes THAT DAY).

When Eve spoke to the serpent, she clearly state that they would die should they eat or touch the fruit, but they didn't die.

When God made Adam, and later Eve, they were made MORTAL. The only difference between not eating the fruit and eating them, is that they would either live a life-and-die free from suffering, or they would live a life filled with suffering.

Genesis 3 showed that they didn't die for eating the fruit, but they would suffer toil and pain, for disobeying god.

The whole "world day" and the interpretation that "day" means "age" argument are nothing more than speculation.

I may be agnostic, but it would seem that I understand the story of Adam and Eve better than you. You seemed to over-complicate the story with flawed assumptions.

 

[gnostic]

Genesis 1 does NOT say that the Sun, moon and stars didn't exist until the 4th day. That is a misinterpretation of the text. The sun, moon and stars existed on day 1. And that's why light existed on day one!

Genesis 1:3-5 make no mention of sun, moon and stars until the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-19). Genesis literally say "God made two great lights", hence God created the Sun and Moon:

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

This verse also say that God created the stars.

Then it say it place all these lights - greater lights and lesser lights - in the sky to mark the seasons.

Why are you blindly overlooking this verse?

The author, whether it be god or human, is utterly ignorant where astronomy is concerned. Clearly, the Genesis is a book of theology and not a book of astronomy.

 

[Pegg]

Genesis 1:3-5 make no mention of sun, moon and stars until the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-19). Genesis literally say "God made two great lights", hence God created the Sun and Moon:



This verse also say that God created the stars.

Then it say it place all these lights - greater lights and lesser lights - in the sky to mark the seasons.

Why are you blindly overlooking this verse?

The author, whether it be god or human, is utterly ignorant where astronomy is concerned. Clearly, the Genesis is a book of theology and not a book of astronomy.

this is one of the most widely misunderstood verses in the bible. But im sure if you looked at the meaning of the hebrew words, you'd see that the verse doesnt say God 'made' them as in created them at that point.

The hebrew words change in that verse to a word meaning a 'source' of light


“‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16

on the first day at Genesis 1:3 the expression “Let light come to be” uses the Hebrew word ’ohr', meaning light in a general sense.

But on the fourth day the word changes to 'ma·’ohr′, which means the source of the light. So Vs 14-16 is speaking of an existing light source...the same light source created in the beginning. The only difference now is that the actual sources of light (ie the luminaries themselves) can be clearly seen in the sky whereas prior to this, only the light from the luminaries could be seen. Add to this the word for 'make'(wai·ya′ʽas - imperfect state noun meaning an uncompleted progressive action) is different to the word for 'create' (ba·raʼ′ - perfect state noun meaning a completed action)

So God didnt actually 'create' them at that point.... but he did give them, or make them to have purpose and meaning at that time.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

this is one of the most widely misunderstood verses in the bible. But im sure if you looked at the meaning of the hebrew words, you'd see that the verse doesnt say God 'made' them as in created them at that point.

The hebrew words change in that verse to a word meaning a 'source' of light


“‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.’ And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.”—Genesis 1:14-16

on the first day at Genesis 1:3 the expression “Let light come to be” uses the Hebrew word ’ohr', meaning light in a general sense.

But on the fourth day the word changes to 'ma·’ohr′, which means the source of the light. So Vs 14-16 is speaking of an existing light source...the same light source created in the beginning. The only difference now is that the actual sources of light (ie the luminaries themselves) can be clearly seen in the sky whereas prior to this, only the light from the luminaries could be seen. Add to this the word for 'make'(wai·ya′ʽas - imperfect state noun meaning an uncompleted progressive action) is different to the word for 'create' (ba·raʼ′ - perfect state noun meaning a completed action)

So God didnt actually 'create' them at that point.... but he did give them, or make them to have purpose and meaning at that time.

Except only one Luminar was created.

The moon reflect the suns light.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
It wasn't time to create the sun in GOD's order of creating. That came later in the sustaining of a source for a continuing light. God is the "light " of the world.

That sounds even worse than Genesis 1:3-5.

Your interpretation is actually contradicting Genesis 1:3-5, did you know that?

If god is the Light, then why would god even bothering creating the light in the first place, by saying "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3), when he is already the source of the light for this world.

If god is light, then there would be no need for light to be created by god. It is contradictory; it's oxymoron. And if there is light because of god, then there would be no darkness, night or evening (Genesis 1:4-5) on Earth.

You are writing as well quoting verses from the bible, and yet you don't understand what you're reading and what you're writing because you're just making up as you go, but what you're writing looking only irrational.

Hi Gnostic, I almost missed your post since it was buried before my last post.
No! There is no contradiction unless your assumption is that "our" sun is the only source of light in the universe.
Where-ever GOD goes in the universe HE made, HE is the light thereof.

On the third day, GOD made the dry ground and all the vegetation one sees. Therefore, on the fourth day, the light that would be needed daily to sustain them was made---the sun and heavenly host.

The "irrationality" is only by those who refuse to believe the Scriptural account and all that is associated in that "BOOK".
Remember--- In "outer space" there is only darkness.

 

[sincerly]

An error.
Chapter Two is not a retelling of Chapter One.
(in all fairness I've seen a modern rewrite that makes that literal claim)

I don't read the Genesis account in that manner.
Chapter Two is an isolated event.
Chapter One is Man as a species.

Hi Thief,Yes, Chapter two gives more details of mankind and their functions in the newly made earth.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi Thief,Yes, Chapter two gives more details of mankind and their functions in the newly made earth.

No Chapter 2 only talks about 2 individuals.

So how did Adam and Eve's actions doom everyone else who was created in Chapter 1.

 

[captainbryce]

Earth's rotation with the sun as reference point to where the sun shines it light on the Earth surface, then yes, planetary rotation played a large part in daylight and evening for us Earthlings.

My point is, you're proceeding from a false assumption. That's not necessarily what "days" refer to in this context. Your original comment was this: "I think you are confusing the days as in of indefinite period (hence age, era or epoch) in English, and I might be wrong, but the Hebrew word יוֹם doesn't mean "age" at all; I don't think as many meaning as they do in English." Your argument is faulty due to the fact that in Hebrew, the word has more than the one meaning you have assigned to it.

In Genesis 1:3-5, it make no reference to Earth's rotation and the Sun.

Of course it does!

Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day

How else could light be separated from darkness? We know the answer to that because you cannot have "day" AND "night" without the rotation of the earth and a sun. The fact that we had both here on earth at that time PROVES that the sun already existed, because the light had to be coming from a central point. That's how day is separated from night today, and there is no logical reason to believe that it was any different when God first established the separation of day and night.

The Genesis assume daylight came out of nowhere.

No, that's what YOU assume! But that's not what the text says. The only logical interpretation based on what we know about light, darkness, the sun and the earth, is that God established the rotation of the Earth on the first day. This is where we get the separation of day and night!

That's what make the Bible NOT A SCIENCE or ASTRONOMY TEXTBOOK.

It doesn't have to be. One need only apply logic and a VERY basic understanding of science and astronomy to it, in order to understand the methods that God used in his acts of creation.

Genesis 1:3 & 4 assume the light providing daylight, but not the sun, demonstrate the author's ignorance.

Again, a text cannot assume anything. People assume based on what they either know or don't know about the text and/or authors. Assuming that people thousands of years ago didn't understand that the sun was the source of "daylight" only demonstrates YOUR ignorance! And that's exactly what one must assume in order to believe that they intended light to be separated from darkness from a light source OTHER than the sun.

And if you believe God wrote (and I must stress "IF") the Genesis, or that God provide the detail to Moses (said to be the author of Genesis), then God himself is ignorant of simple astronomy.

No my friend, it is YOU who is ignorant of what the author is saying. You are the one making assumptions about the text that disregard logic; not Moses and not God.

Where do you think DAYLIGHT comes from? From God? Or from the Sun?

It comes from the sun, and that's why you are making my point for me. Moses ALSO would have known that daylight comes from the sun because he had these things called EYES. So why would you assume that he intended "daylight" to imply another source of light? Your argument isn't consistent with logic.

No, you're missing the point.

Okay, you say tomato, I say tomato. But at the end of the day, the person who can point out the futility of the other persons "logic" is the one who is on point. So let's just examine who's point has any merit shall we? :yes:

Genesis 1:3-4 clearly was referring to LIGHT with DAY, hence this is talking about DAYLIGHT. It also referred DARKNESS as NIGHT, and the cycle of evening and morning as a whole or complete DAY, hence 1:5 "the first day".

Okay, now here's the part you obviously don't understand. First of all, the FIRST usage of the word day in the bible (from the word yom) does NOT mean a 24 hour day, or a full rotation of the earth, or whatever semantic terminology you want to use to cover the weakness of how you choose to define it. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Guess what, in this verse day means a period of time AT MOST 12 hours. It does not refer to the entire cycle because he contrasts that term with "night" (which represents the other half of the cycle). So that's one example where day doesn't mean a full 24 hour day (which is what you are arguing the word always means in Genesis). The following sentence: And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. obviously describes a DIFFERENT kind of day because it is not light from evening to morning. Secondly, if you go to Genesis 2:4, it says: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. Unfortunately for your case, the word day here ALSO does not refer to a 24 hour cycle, it refers to the entire 6 creation days, focusing specifically on day 6. So that's at least TWO examples of the word yom NOT referring to a 24 hour cycle.

This is not talking about a week, or a year, or one-thousand years, just ONE day.

You don't seem to understand that yom can refer to any of those periods of time. You must first establish what yom is intended to imply in this context, and you cannot do that by telling me what ONE definition of the word means.

As to Genesis 2:17, it only say DAY, not one year or 930 years,

I'm aware of that. Apparently you aren't aware of the fact that the Hebrew word translated as day can refer to ALL of those things.

and that he would die on THAT DAY, should he eat the forbidden fruit. You are over-complicating the verse to mean AGE, when YOM clearly referred to DAY.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not "over-complicating" anything, you are oversimplifying what the term yom applies to. It doesn't just mean ONE thing. It has many possible meanings and is in fact used in different ways throughout the scriptures.

Death, according to Genesis 2:17 would either happen immediately or death would be imminent (meaning sometimes THAT DAY).

Negative. That is only if you apply the ONE definition to the word yom that you are insisting upon. As I've already shown, it has multiple definitions. So you cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that they would die immediately or imminently without more context.

When Eve spoke to the serpent, she clearly state that they would die should they eat or touch the fruit, but they didn't die.

Yes, they did. They are in fact BOTH dead! The fact that they didn't die within 24 hours is irrelevant. You must first establish that THIS is the definition of the word day that was implied in that scripture, and so far you haven't done that.

When God made Adam, and later Eve, they were made MORTAL. The only difference between not eating the fruit and eating them, is that they would either live a life-and-die free from suffering, or they would live a life filled with suffering.

Again, that is not established anywhere in scripture. In fact, it is contradicted by the fact that Genesis 3:22 specifically mentions the fact that they tree of life is what gives them immortality. They must not be allowed to eat of it "and live forever". That's what the text says! So yes, while they were made mortal, as long as they ate from the tree of life, they would be immortal! When they sinned, they were cut off from the tree, thus ensuring their death!

Genesis 3 showed that they didn't die for eating the fruit, but they would suffer toil and pain, for disobeying god.

It also showed that they would die (in verse 22). And there is a plethora of passages from the New Testament that reaffirms this. :yes:

The whole "world day" and the interpretation that "day" means "age" argument are nothing more than speculation.

No, it's not speculation. It's actually a fact according to the Hebrew dictionary! Here, learn something: Word Study Yom

I may be agnostic, but it would seem that I understand the story of Adam and Eve better than you. You seemed to over-complicate the story with flawed assumptions.

Oh, the irony! :biglaugh:

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Gnostic, and those "any astronomer and Earth scientist" you are referring to would, also, say there is no Creator GOD and the narrative of the Creation as written in the Bible is incorrect.

That is a very ignorant generalization. There are many astronomers and scientists out there who do in fact believe in God and the bible.

Hi CaptainB, I wasn't "generalizing", but referring to "those" who Gnostic had in mind. Yes, Thank GOD! There are many who do Believe.

Originally Posted by sincerly
The "How can" is answered by GOD in Gen.1:3, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Just as GOD had created the "heaven and the earth". "HE spoke and it stood fast".

That is NOT a logical explanation. Yes God spoke the light into existence, but this light still had to have a source. If the source was NOT the sun, then what was it? Where was it coming from?

Concerning the new heavens and new earth which GOD is to create along with the "new Jerusalem" Rev.21:22-23, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."

Originally Posted by sincerly
It wasn't time to create the sun in GOD's order of creating. That came later in the sustaining of a source for a continuing light. God is the "light " of the world.

No, actually the sun was created on the first day!

Gen.1:14-19 is the fourth day. "And God said, 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: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. "

 

[outhouse]

So a god didn't know about the moon not being a light, a god didn't know about reflection?

 

[nazz]

Why would they have been "forbidden" to eat from the Tree of Life if that's how they were expected to maintain immorality? They were expected to eat from the Tree of Life so that it might sustain them. When it was decided that they should NOT live forever, they were cut off from the tree. What part about that doesn't make sense to you?

The part I already pointed out to you. I don't like to repeat myself.

But that's not what the scripture says. That is you drawing a conclusion that doesn't fit what's written.

It's the plain reading of the text.

 

[nazz]

Genesis 1 does NOT say that the Sun, moon and stars didn't exist until the 4th day. That is a misinterpretation of the text. The sun, moon and stars existed on day 1. And that's why light existed on day one!

You're joking, right?

 

[captainbryce]

Genesis 1:3-5 make no mention of sun, moon and stars until the 4th day (Genesis 1:14-19). Genesis literally say "God made two great lights", hence God created the Sun and Moon:

I'm aware of what the text says, and yet that still does not establish that these heavenly bodies were created on the 4th day.

This verse also say that God created the stars.

Then it say it place all these lights - greater lights and lesser lights - in the sky to mark the seasons.

Why are you blindly overlooking this verse?

The author, whether it be god or human, is utterly ignorant where astronomy is concerned. Clearly, the Genesis is a book of theology and not a book of astronomy.

I'm not "overlooking" anything. The only person who is ignorant here is YOU. Let me show you what YOU are overlooking.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Guess what, the first verse, of the first book of the bible establishes that EVERYTHING in the universe was created "IN THE BEGINNING". The phrase "the heavens and the earth" would have been understood to mean the entire universe, that is all matter, energy, space and time were created in the beginning. That means, the sun, the moon, the stars, and everything else that occupies the heavens. The sun (which is in the heavens) existed before the first day, and light existed before the first day. We know that this light comes from the sun, because God was able to seperate it into day and night (establishing the rotation of the earth). It is only AFTER everything is created (in the beginning) does the Earth experience its first rotation.

Now, let's examine verses 14 through 15 in more detail. Because these two verses describe EVERYTHING that happens on the fourth day. And while we're at it, I want you to play a game of "where's waldo" and see if you can find the word "created" or "made" anywhere among those two verses. If you can't, then nothing was created or made on day 4.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.

Let us recall that God ALREADY separated the day from the night on the first creation day, and that he already gave light on the earth "in the beginning" when he first said let their be light. That being the case, do you honestly think that the scripture here is meant to imply that he had to do all of this AGAIN, or that his previous efforts were ineffective? Clearly, verses 14 and 15 are not denoting acts of creation. They are meant to illustrate the fact that the lights (which already existed) can now be seen, from the perspective of an observer on the earth, for the first time! Genesis 1:2 establishes the frame of reference (point of view) for the rest of the story. It tells us that the spirit of God was hovering over the water. This means that this is the perspective from which we are to interpret the events that follow (an observer hovering over the face of the deep). Do either of these verses use the term "create" or "made"? No, and there is a reason for that. God says that he let the light be! They were already created (in the beginning), but they could not be seen until the fourth day. The reason they could not be seen is because the atmosphere was thick and cloudy and it obscured visibility of the sun, moon and stars. The light was there, but you wouldn't have been able to see the bodies that were producing the light until the 4th day. This is when God changes the atmosphere from opaque to transparent. NOTHING was created on this day, the lights were simply allowed to be.

Genesis 1:16
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.

The word "made" in this passage is in all three verb forms, indicating that it is "past tense". It refers to something which occurred at some point in the past (in order of creation). That's why it says "he also made the stars". He didn't make them on day 4, he made them in the past. Verse 16 explains WHAT God had made, and explains the purpose of what God made. It does not denote WHEN God made these things. It is an elaboration of the purpose and function of the lights that are discusses in the previous verses. How do we know this? Because it tells us WHY he made the lights (to govern the day and the night). But God had ALREADY established the light that governs the day in verses 3 through 5. Remember, God said let there be light, and separated the light to distinguish day and night. Therefore, verse 16 is a recounting of something that already happened in the past. Nothing NEW is created or made in verse 16. The only thing that happens on creation day four is that God allowed the lights to be seen.

Genesis 1:17
17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,

But remember, verse 3 already established that light was on the Earth on creation day one. Therefore verse 17 is also not denoting anything new. It is simply recounting what had previously occurred at some point in the past.

Genesis 1:18-19
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Once again, both of these things were already done in the past, indicating that these verses are also recounting something which had previously occurred, but nothing occurring for the first time. It's not enough to just know what the text says, one must also put it into context, and apply it CONSISTENTLY in order to render a proper interpretation.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Did GOD give life to Adam and Eve; or did the tree?

Isn't that all mythology written in allegory and metaphor to teach morals and theology?

Hi Outhouse, It may be to you. When I look out my window, I see soil, vegetation and animals which are real. Their source was an intelligent source and not just a "Big Bang Theory".

 

[nazz]

With your passion for hermeneutic gymnastics you must be exhausted by the end of the day!

 

[outhouse]

. Their source was an intelligent source and not just a "Big Bang Theory".

That is a theological guess with no credible evidence what so ever to back it up.

 

[outhouse]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Did GOD give life to Adam and Eve; or did the tree?



Hi Outhouse, It may be to you. When I look out my window, I see soil, vegetation and animals which are real. Their source was an intelligent source and not just a "Big Bang Theory".

When you look out your window, you see vegetation and animals that factually evolved.

And too date, there is no scientific trace of any deities hand guiding the process.

 

[outhouse]

Israelites did not exist until 1200 BC. That's 3200 years ago, per Israel Finklestein, Israels best archeologist/professor.

How did Israelites know what happened 200,000 years ago regarding homo sapiens origins?

Why did the bible describe a history that never took place, according to all of science and every credible historian?

How do you deal with facts? ignore or deny them? it doesn't sound like you accept knowledge through education.

 

[nazz]

When you look out your window, you see vegetation and animals that factually evolved.

what does "factually evolved" even mean? If you mean it is definitely a fact they evolved you are mistaken.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Thief,Yes, Chapter two gives more details of mankind and their functions in the newly made earth.

No Chapter 2 only talks about 2 individuals.

So how did Adam and Eve's actions doom everyone else who was created in Chapter 1.

Hi FM, Adam and Eve were "mankind" at that time---they were not fish, fowl, not beast.

Since they were "mankind" and no "off-spring" had been born, their punishment and the curse which accompanied the sentence affected all that they were given dominion over.