Earthling
David Henson
Boy, everyone want to get to the light, don't they? It is interesting.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genesis 1:1
- Thread starter Earthling
- Start date
Boy, everyone want to get to the light, don't they? It is interesting.
Earthling
David Henson
Genesis 1:2 The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling
band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.
The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)
band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.
The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That verse alone is not cogent to any universal concept of the disposition of the soul.
Earthling
David Henson
Oh, it isn't? Who says? What about Judges 16:30, Psalms 78:50 and Isaiah 53:12?
nPeace
Veteran Member
I could give you, not what I think, but what is used.
Strong's Bible:
Genesis 1:3, 16
Click the verse number for the link.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The rule of good exegesis says.
Earthling
David Henson
Interesting. The Bible says the soul is mortal. It dies. Matthew 10:28, Acts Of The Apostles 3:23
Earthling
David Henson
That doesn't make much sense to me. Strongs never does. Though, that could be just me. It may be in line with what I have but they put it in another way which makes no sense to me. They do at least have the words right.
nPeace
Veteran Member
What source do you recommend? I could take a look, but I don't find it hard to use Strong's.
Earthling
David Henson
The New World Translation Reference Bible. I don't know if they have it online, but you could also check out the Watchtower Library. Honestly, I don't trust anything else. Too much pagan influence.
nPeace
Veteran Member
So don't they use a source for their research? What's their source?
Also why would you trust an organization. Aren't there many of those around?
rosends
Well-Known Member
The problem here is that you have two words which are from the same root but which are different in form because they don't mean the same thing.
Light and luminary in English -- the light itself is ohr (verse 3), in Hebrew אוֹר
In verse 16, you have "that which provides light" using the mem prefix, ma'or (מָּאוֹר). Though in English you can use the same word "light: for both (I turned on the light and it provided light), the two iterations are not synonyms.
The two verses use two different words (from the same root) because they are talking about two different things. In fact, if you want to look at a translation which doesn't say "light" in verse 16, try this.
Another form of the same root is in verse 17 (l'ha'ir -- to shed light). One could write :he lit the lamp to light the room. Here "light" would be a verb -- just because one uses the same English letter-form doesn't mean that the Hebrew words are synonyms.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Can you provide me with a source for that?
There is a Hebrew word "bor" meaning "hole" but I'd love to see it as a verb.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Cherry picking isn’t helping your cause.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yes. My professor of Hebrew/First Testament at seminary. Also a good friend of mine who is a Hebrew text scholar. Both published.
Bara Ba`Que?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Hence what I said.
One is the source of light, and one is the light from the source.
So in Genesis 1:3, the light from the source is visible. Therefore the source - the sun - exists.
In verse 14, the source becomes visible.
This is also made clear from the difference in the usage of the words haw-yaw in verse 3 - Let there be, and the word aw-saw' in verse 16 - made... as in, God made the sun visible.
So as was said before, the sun existed in verse one.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Why couldn't your god have written it clearly? Or issued a footnote when it was obvious that ordinary man hadn't a clue what was being talked about?
rosends
Well-Known Member
A textual source. I am fine with Hebrew.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I’m not personally aware of a textual source. The information was given to me in lecture.