Genesis Chapter 1

[ThirtyThree]

I have taken the liberty of looking deeper into Genesis Chapter 1. Everything in red is direct translations from the original Hebrew. Everything in blue is my understanding.

~

Day 1

Gen 1:1- In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It also can and in context refer to the universe. "Uni-verse" (one word). The creation of the universe, the cosmos, the chaos which was before then later was brought to order by "word" which was law to govern it.

Gen 1:2- And the earth (land) was (without form) Nothing, emptiness, confusion, (that which is wasted) or (the wastes) (to lay waste) (and void) emptiness, void, waste.; and (darkness) was upon the face of (the deep) Primeval ocean, abyss. And the (Spirit of God) breath moved upon the face of (the waters) primeval ocean.

And the land did not yet exist. All was confusion (chaos). It was also void, as in it was empty.

Gen 1:3- And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:3- And God (said) spoke, (Let there be) to make exist (light: and there was light.

And God spoke the light into existence. This goes along with the concept of "uni-verse" or "one word".

Gen 1:4- And God (saw) inspected, considered the light, that (it was good) agreeable: and God (divided) separated the light (from) Between (the darkness) darkness, also referencing *Hades* or that "sheol" place.

And God inspected the light and it was agreeable to God. Then God separated light from Sheol/Hades, which was within the depths.

See? There is that "Sheol" place which is under the skin (crust) of the land.

Gen 1:5 -And God (called) cry out, to name the light (Day) to mean "heat of day" or hot, and the darkness he called (Night) protective shadow, gloom And the evening and the morning were the first day. (meaning "the end of day one" or a means to separate by space of time.)

And God named the light heat and the darkness as the protective shadow (or gloom).

This is interesting and actually correlates with current knowledge of how the Earth was formed. If "heat" was created in day one, that means the "land" (Earth) melted. If any are familiar with the theory of how the Earth was formed, the whole mass of it had to melt in order to form the layers. The heavy elements sunk into the core and the lighter elements rose to the surface, the lightest ones forming the crust and then cooling.

As to what the "protective shadow/gloom" is, I do not know.

Day 2

Gen 1:6 -And God said, Let there be a (firmament) expanse, visible arch of the sky, *secondary root word meaning* "to stretch over, to beat, to overlay of thin sheets of metal." in the (midst) in the middle, to mean divided, to mean to bisect or sever, referring to center of the waters, (and let it divide) separate, distinguish the (waters) from (the waters) primeval ocean (chaos).

And God said let there be the visible arch of the sky, which is as thin sheets of metal overlaying the sky. This will divide the chaos above (canopy) from chaos below (primeval ocean/abyss).

Gen 1:7 -And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were (under) below the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God made the visible expanse of the sky and divided the chaos below the sky from the chaos above it.

Gen 1:8-And God called the (firmament) that weird thin metal like thin sheet of visible arch of sky (Heaven) sky. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God named the firmament sky.

Day 3

Gen 1:9- And God said, Let the waters under the (heaven) sky (be gathered together) to bind together (perhaps by twisting), also to wait unto (one) single (place) location, and let the (dry) dry ground (land appear) be perceived: and it was so.

And God said let the chaos under the sky be bound together (perhaps by twisting) in one location and let the dry ground appear.

Gen 1:10 -And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he (Seas) oceans : and God saw that it was good.

And God called the dry land Earth and made the oceans.

Gen 1:11 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth (grass) vegitation, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And God told the land to bring forth vegetation.

Gen 1:12 -And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And the land obeyed God's command.

Gen 11 is a command to the Earth and Gen 12 is the response of the Earth. The Earth reacted to the command of "bring forth grass/seed/fruit/tress/vegitation".

Gen 1:13 -And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Day 4

Gen 1:14 -And God said, Let there be (lights) luminaries in the firmament of the (heaven) sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for (signs) beacon, signal, omens, warnings,remembrances, and for (seasons) apprently does not mean summer, fall, winter, spring, but of celebrations, appointed meetings, a set time, for meetings, and (for days) time division, and (years) for the purpose of division of time:

And God made the constellations and other planets, and they were for signs, omens, warnings, remembrances. They were also for celebrations and meetings. These were for the purpose of time division in the early world, to separate days from years and so on.

Gen 1:15 -And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

The stars do not really give too much light on the land but they do provide a means of telling time. They also were a means of discernment (signs) in early astrology.

Gen 1:16 -And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day (the sun), and the lesser light to rule the night (moon): he (made the stars also) the "stars" curiously translates to, the brothers, youth, progeny, personification of God's omniscience. Which comes from the root to mean (to burn, scorch) and also refers to "builder" and TOWN.

And God made the sun and the moon. He also made the... stars? Wait, no. The stars were already made, those luminaries (planets stars). So, what are these stars? Either Genesis 1:14 is speaking of only the planets (for ancient astrological purpose), or... Genesis 1:16 is speaking of the Malakim, the "Angels". This would make a lot more sense, considering the translation of "stars".

It defines these "stars" as the brothers, youth, progeny, personification of God's omniscience (that which glorifies God). These are defined as "burning", and also at another root, refers to them as "town". There is simply too much coincidence to ignore all of these meanings. Also, consider the Nazarene referred to as "Morning STAR", and even Lucifer likewise "Day Star" (reference to Venus).

This sounds like the Malakim. It also would reference back to the idea of the Malakim being created of "fire" or "fiery/burning light".

Gen 1:17 -And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, sun moon created, and those give light in the day and in the night.

Gen 1:18- 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.

Gen 1:19 -And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Day 5

Gen 1:20 -And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:21- And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:22 -And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:23 -And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Air creatures and water creatures were made.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Day 6

Gen 1:24 -And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God commanded (spoke) in gen 24, and the result happened in Gen 25.

The creation of the land creatures including insects and so on.

Gen 1:26 -And God said, Let us make (man) Adam in our (image) likeness, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

If you notice, Genesis 1:26 is the first instance where OUR is used. If you also notice, Genesis 1:16 is where I have come to conclude the Malakim were created. The sudden use of OUR in Genesis 1:26 seems to confirm that the Malakim came into existence on Day 4.

Also, OUR image is curious in another way in that Adam was created in the image of... just God? What about if the Malakim were ALSO created in the image of God? That would then make sense if Adam was created in the likeness of (God/Malakim) as the Malakin were likewise created in the likeness of God.

The Malakim which would be judged by man in the later chapters of the New Testament would then be the Malakim who fell and not the Malakim which did not fall. The Malakim which fell, lost their glory (their station) and therefore could be judged by man (once man has been glorified). In other words, glorified man would judge the FALLEN Malakim, not the glorified Malakim.

Gen 1:27- So God (created) form by cutting, cut out man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female (created) to cut, to carve out, to form by cutting he them.

So God formed by cutting out Adam from God's own likeness. He then cut out the next, which was woman.

Wait? Where did that our go? What this is saying is God specifically cut out Adam from his likeness. Which is different from where he said to the Malakim, "Let us create man in our likeness". Again, Genesis 1:26 is the proclamation to the Malakim and Genesis 1:27 is the action itself.

Gen 1:28 -And God (blessed) act of adoration them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and (replenish) consecrate, fill, the earth, and (subdue) trample with the feet, to tread down, to subjugate it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

And God adored man and told them to breed, so they would fill the land. He also told them to trample the land, tread it down, subdue, subjugate it. He then gave man dominion over all the creatures.

Gen 1:29- And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

And Go told man the purpose of the plants was for nourishment. Man did not eat animals and neither did the other creatures. Everything ate plants.

Gen 1:30 -And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Again, creatures did not eat each other.

Gen 1:31 -And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Day 7

God rested.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

I have taken the liberty of looking deeper into Genesis Chapter 1. Everything in red is direct translations from the original Hebrew. Everything in blue is my understanding.

~

Day 1

Gen 1:1- In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It also can and in context refer to the universe. "Uni-verse" (one word). The creation of the universe, the cosmos, the chaos which was before then later was brought to order by "word" which was law to govern it.
.

Perhaps M'lady you could discern a more accurate understanding if you were first reading it in Hebrew, and not in your perception of the translation .... of course this may also require you to
understand the culture of the people .....
Then perhaps as there are no punctuation marks one could discover whole new meaning if one
re-translated more accurately .... for instance you miss out on the names/titles/ or descriptors
used to describe the creator ... perhaps whole new meaning if you place a comma before "created He"

 

[ThirtyThree]

Perhaps M'lady you could discern a more accurate understanding if you were first reading it in Hebrew, and not in your perception of the translation .... of course this may also require you to
understand the culture of the people .....
Then perhaps as there are no punctuation marks one could discover whole new meaning if one
re-translated more accurately .... for instance you miss out on the names/titles/ or descriptors
used to describe the creator ... perhaps whole new meaning if you place a comma before "created He"

Can you do this instead? I presented my understanding. If you have another, present it for me. I do not have a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew to the level some who are fluent do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/jewish/Chapter-1.htm
http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-1.htm

 

[ThirtyThree]

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/jewish/Chapter-1.htm
http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-1.htm

Thank you!

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Hindu creator avoided all these problems just by saying "Eko'ham bahusyama" (I am one, let me be many). But then faced quite many problems. He created four sages (Sanat Kumaras) and asked them to multiply. They said 'no'. They would engage in austerities. Then he created Sage Narada. He too reused and said that he would engage only in his praise. At last he created the first human (variously in various editions of eons), Daksha Prajapati. And from Daksha's half portion created his first consort, Prasuti.

"According to the Puranas, Daksha had 89 daughters from his wife Prasuti and another 116 from his wife Panchajani (Virini). .. According to Padma Purana, when Daksha felt the number of women are still not sufficient, he decided to have 60 more daughters."

"The names of these 24 daughters are Sraddha (faith), Srilakshmi (prosperity), Dhriti (steadiness), Tushti (resignation), Pushti (thriving), Medha (intelligence), Kriya (action, devotion), Buddhika (intellect), Lajja (modesty), Vapu (body), Santi (expiation), Siddhika (perfection), Kirtti (fame), Khyati (celebrity), Sati (truth), Sambhuti (fitness), Smriti (memory), Priti (affection), Kshama (forgiveness), Sannati (humility), Anasuya (lit. without jealousy), Urjja (energy), Swaha (offering), and Swadha (oblation)."

"Of these, the 13 married to Dharma are: Sraddha, Srilakshmi, Dhriti, Tushti, Pushti, Medha, Kriya, Buddhi, Lajja, Vapu, Santi, Siddhi, Kirtti." (These are the qualities o Dharma)

"The 27 daughters married to Moon are Kṛttikā (the Pleiades), Rohinī, Mrigashīrsha (Orion), Ārdrā, Punarvasu, purvabhadrapada, Pushya, Asleshā, Maghā, Svāti (Arcturus), Chitrā (Spica), Purvaphalguni, Hasta, Rādhas, Vishākhā, Anurādhā, Jyeshthā, Mūla, Purvashādha, Uttarashadha, Sravana, Uttarphalguni, Satabhisha, Uttarbhadrapada, Revati (Piscium), Ashwini (Aries), Bharani. These 27 wife of Moon are 27 Nakshatras (the constellations) which are on the moon's orbit." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daksha#Daughters_of_Daksha

And God created sages to marry the daughters of Daksha. One of his daughters, Sati, was married to Shiva. Have fun with Indian mythology.

 

[Intojoy]

Genesis 1:1 offers some refutations of human theologies. First, it
refutes atheism, because Genesis postulates the existence of God,
postulates a personal God, and teaches that the universe is neither the
result of a big bang nor the result of matter eternally existing. The
universe was created by God. Second, it is a refutation of agnosticism,
because agnosticism teaches that one cannot know whether there is or is not a God. Nevertheless, God has revealed Himself in what He has
done. Third, it refutes pantheism, because God is also transcendent to
what He creates. Fourth, it refutes polytheism, because only one God
created all things. Fifth, it is a refutation of materialism, because there
is a clear distinction between God and His material universe. It clearly
teaches that matter had a beginning; it is not eternal. Sixth, it also
refutes naturalism, because nature itself has origins. Seventh, it refutes
dualism, because God was all alone when He created. Eighth, it
refutes humanism, because it is God and not man who was the
ultimate reality. Finally, it refutes evolutionism, because God is viewed
as the instantaneous creator of all things. (See table 5 for a summary of
the Refutations of Genesis 1:1.)

*from Ariel's Commentary Book of Genesis

 

[metis]

Genesis 1:1 offers some refutations of human theologies. First, it
refutes atheism, because Genesis postulates the existence of God,
postulates a personal God, and teaches that the universe is neither the
result of a big bang nor the result of matter eternally existing. The
universe was created by God. Second, it is a refutation of agnosticism,
because agnosticism teaches that one cannot know whether there is or is not a God. Nevertheless, God has revealed Himself in what He has
done. Third, it refutes pantheism, because God is also transcendent to
what He creates. Fourth, it refutes polytheism, because only one God
created all things. Fifth, it is a refutation of materialism, because there
is a clear distinction between God and His material universe. It clearly
teaches that matter had a beginning; it is not eternal. Sixth, it also
refutes naturalism, because nature itself has origins. Seventh, it refutes
dualism, because God was all alone when He created. Eighth, it
refutes humanism, because it is God and not man who was the
ultimate reality. Finally, it refutes evolutionism, because God is viewed
as the instantaneous creator of all things. (See table 5 for a summary of
the Refutations of Genesis 1:1.)

*from Ariel's Commentary Book of Genesis

That's if one takes the creation narratives in a literalistic manner.

 

[Intojoy]

That's if one takes the creation narratives in a literalistic manner.

Correct.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Genesis 1:1 offers some refutations of human theologies. First, it
refutes atheism, because Genesis postulates the existence of God,
postulates a personal God, and teaches that the universe is neither the
result of a big bang nor the result of matter eternally existing. The
universe was created by God. Second, it is a refutation of agnosticism,
because agnosticism teaches that one cannot know whether there is or is not a God. Nevertheless, God has revealed Himself in what He has
done. Third, it refutes pantheism, because God is also transcendent to
what He creates. Fourth, it refutes polytheism, because only one God
created all things. Fifth, it is a refutation of materialism, because there
is a clear distinction between God and His material universe. It clearly
teaches that matter had a beginning; it is not eternal. Sixth, it also
refutes naturalism, because nature itself has origins. Seventh, it refutes
dualism, because God was all alone when He created. Eighth, it
refutes humanism, because it is God and not man who was the
ultimate reality. Finally, it refutes evolutionism, because God is viewed
as the instantaneous creator of all things. (See table 5 for a summary of
the Refutations of Genesis 1:1.)

*from Ariel's Commentary Book of Genesis

The Genesis account does not entirely refute evolution. The theory/fact of common ancestor is not disproved by Genesis either. What Genesis does refute is macro evolution and a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Even if not taken literally, the idea "cold blooded" creatures like dinosaurs evolving into "warm blooded" creatures like chickens (through natural selection) disturbs me on a deep level. I can not manage to believe it. While I am an evolutionist to a degree, I question evolution and tend to lean towards creationism. Then, I can not even buy into the idea humans evolved from common primates, much less the idea complex life forms evolved out of a primordial ooze which somehow ended up here due to a comet smashing into the Earth.

Then, regardless of my issues with the theory of evolution, evolution does not refute an intelligent designer.

 

[metis]

Then, regardless of my issues with the theory of evolution, evolution does not refute an intelligent designer.

Exactly-- it neither posits nor denies theistic creation. A while back I saw a poll whereas most Christian theologians did not have a problem accepting the basic ToE as long as it was understood that God created all. I don't recall the stat, but it was well above those that claimed that the two were incompatible.

BTW, I grew up in one of those churches whereas we were taught not to believe in "evilution"-- and then I went on, got a graduate degree in anthropology, and taught the subject for 30 years.

 

[Intojoy]

Genesis is not a textbook on science. However, anywhere the book touches on science, it is absolutely correct and accurate. Genesis has never been shown to be in conflict with known scientific truths. That is a simple fact. The Book of Genesis has never been shown to be in conflict or in contradiction with any known scientific fact. If there is a conflict, it is only between Genesis and certain scientific theories, such as evolution. Nevertheless, they are just that, theories.

 

[metis]

Genesis is not a textbook on science. However, anywhere the book touches on science, it is absolutely correct and accurate. Genesis has never been shown to be in conflict with known scientific truths. That is a simple fact. The Book of Genesis has never been shown to be in conflict or in contradiction with any known scientific fact. If there is a conflict, it is only between Genesis and certain scientific theories, such as evolution. Nevertheless, they are just that, theories.

You obviously do not know what the word "theory" means in the scientific use of the term: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation".

Secondly, as I mentioned before, it all boils down to how one may interpret the creation accounts, which actually do not exactly match (1:1 v 2:4).

Thirdly, Genesis has Earth being formed before the stars whereas we now know it was the other way around.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Thirdly, Genesis has Earth being formed before the stars whereas we now know it was the other way around.

To play Devils advocate for a moment and ideally not to sound like a flat Earther: Without NASA and other space exploration organizations, can you prove outer space exists?

Can you likewise prove without space exploration (objects in space, be they telescopes or what have you) that the stars were formed before the Earth?

Consider the above an intellectual exercise for its own sake.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Secondly, as I mentioned before, it all boils down to how one may interpret the creation accounts, which actually do not exactly match (1:1 v 2:4).
Thirdly, Genesis has Earth being formed before the stars whereas we now know it was the other way around.

Thirdly: The heavens ( which include stars 'outer space ' Isaiah 13:10) was created ' first ' before earth according to Genesis 1:1. Angelic life also first - Job 38:4-5; Job 38:6-7

Secondly: Please keep in mind there are two (2) creation accounts in Genesis. The 1st from Gen.1:1 to Gen.2:4 and the second account from Gen. 2:5 to 4:26
All of the creative days are summed up by the word ' day ' at Genesis 2:4.

Please also notice the difference between the word ' create ' and the word ' made '.
First, God created the first creative day and called the light: Day.
Then, please notice what God had the already created light do on day 4 but ' made ' the light to rule ( gave the light a job to do ) - Genesis 1:15-16; Genesis 1:17-18
Just as parents can create ( procreate ) a child, then they can also make the already existing child be ' made ' to sit in a chair, etc. ( do something )

 

[Thanda]

nor the result of matter eternally existing.

I disagree with this. Nothing in Genesis 1 can lead one to the conclusion that matter didn't always exist. The only thing that Genesis 1 claims is that the heavens and the earth (as we know them) did not exist until God created them.

 

[metis]

To play Devils advocate for a moment and ideally not to sound like a flat Earther: Without NASA and other space exploration organizations, can you prove outer space exists?

Can you likewise prove without space exploration (objects in space, be they telescopes or what have you) that the stars were formed before the Earth?

Consider the above an intellectual exercise for its own sake.

The evidence on this is so overwhelming that no serious student of cosmology doubts the basics of the BBT. There's lot of books written by cosmologists on the subject, and I can recommend a couple of them that I really found quite informative if you're interested, or you can even check Wikipedia on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

If you are going to use science for your position, then let me recommend you actually use science and not theology. The authors of Genesis would have no clue as to exactly how our universe would have begun, plus there's evidence to suggest that we may have taken a Babylonian narrative and reworked it to suit our own morals and values. A Babylonian tablet that is similar and yet different was found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis by roughly a 1000 years. All cultures do this, btw, and it's not a matter of lying or plagiarism but is a way of teaching "our" values versus "their" values.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Thirdly: The heavens ( which include stars 'outer space ' Isaiah 13:10) was created ' first ' before earth according to Genesis 1:1. Angelic life also first - Job 38:4-5; Job 38:6-7

Secondly: Please keep in mind there are two (2) creation accounts in Genesis. The 1st from Gen.1:1 to Gen.2:4 and the second account from Gen. 2:5 to 4:26
All of the creative days are summed up by the word ' day ' at Genesis 2:4.

Please also notice the difference between the word ' create ' and the word ' made '.
First, God created the first creative day and called the light: Day.
Then, please notice what God had the already created light do on day 4 but ' made ' the light to rule ( gave the light a job to do ) - Genesis 1:15-16; Genesis 1:17-18
Just as parents can create ( procreate ) a child, then they can also make the already existing child be ' made ' to sit in a chair, etc. ( do something )

Well said.

 

[ThirtyThree]

The evidence on this is so overwhelming that no serious student of cosmology doubts the basics of the BBT. There's lot of books written by cosmologists on the subject, and I can recommend a couple of them that I really found quite informative if you're interested, or you can even check Wikipedia on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

If you are going to use science for your position, then let me recommend you actually use science and not theology. The authors of Genesis would have no clue as to exactly how our universe would have begun, plus there's evidence to suggest that we may have taken a Babylonian narrative and reworked it to suit our own morals and values. A Babylonian tablet that is similar and yet different was found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis by roughly a 1000 years. All cultures do this, btw, and it's not a matter of lying or plagiarism but is a way of teaching "our" values versus "their" values.

In other words, you will not play the game with me. Unfortunate.