Genesis One

[Justatruthseeker]

So let's look at hayah in the QAL perfect and see if "was" is the better translation or "became" is.

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she became the mother of all living."

or as some translations now put it.

"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living."

She was not then the mother of all living, but she would become the mother of all living. It is not static, it is not a state of being, but of moving from one state to the next. She is not now the mother of all living, but will become the mother of all living.

Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

"And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel became a keeper of sheep, but Cain became a tiller of the ground."

Gen 4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

"And his brother's name was Jubal: he became the father of all such as handle the harp and organ."

There are 25 versus in Genesis that use the QAL perfect tense. In every single one of them "became" is a better fit than the word "was".

Gen 1:2 And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness came to be upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

[TCassidy]

"The Perfect conjugation is used to express a completed action or state of being whether in the past, present or future."

Basics of Biblical Hebrew א © Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt.

-----

hâyâh - Qal Perfect

1a3) to be

1a3a) to exist, be in existence

1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)

1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)

Brown Driver & Briggs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"The Perfect conjugation is used to express a completed action or state of being whether in the past, present or future."

Basics of Biblical Hebrew א © Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt.

-----

hâyâh - Qal Perfect

1a3) to be

1a3a) to exist, be in existence

1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)

1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)

Brown Driver & Briggs.

Exactly - completed action.... It "became" desolate and waste.

Not that it existed in a state of desolation and waste from a past state of desolation and waste..... and not that it was to be so in the future.....

A completed action - a state of one existence to the other. It was not always in this state, it "became" to be in this state. It did not go from being formless and void to being formless and void. it went from being complete and flourishing with life to being desolate and waste.

https://hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Ten/Qal_Strong/qal_strong.html

 

[Aman777]

So we have the three-fold cord of etymology, philology, and shareability to strongly suggest to us that "day" in Genesis 1 means a literal, 24 hour cycle of darkness/light.

Not so, since we are still living in the present 6th Day/Age of creation at Genesis 1:27. Today is the Day of Salvation and it will NOT end until Jesus returns to fulfill the prophecy of Genesis 1:28-31 UNLESS you can explain that the events listed there are in the past, rather than the future. Amen?

 

[TCassidy]

Exactly - completed action.... It "became" desolate and waste.

It "was." Completed action.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It "was." Completed action.

No, "was" implies past state. It "was" formless and void.

Not a completed action, but a static state of being. It "became" formless and void, would show a completed action.

Now you are welcome to attempt to show the completed action was "becoming" formless and void from a state of non-existence if you like. I would entertain such an argument, although the first verse would call such an interpretation into question....

 

[TCassidy]

Not a completed action

The perfect form is the verb tense used to indicate a completed, or "perfected," action or condition.

Grammar Handbook

 

[Aman777]

Now you are welcome to attempt to show the completed action was "becoming" formless and void from a state of non-existence if you like. I would entertain such an argument, although the first verse would call such an interpretation into question....

Here's the verses with my views in black.

Gen 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven (air) and the earth. (ground) Gen 1:2 And the earth (ground) was without form, and void; (empty) and darkness (death) was upon the face of the deep. (water) And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

God the Trinity created air, dust and water but darkness/death was upon everything created apart from Himself. How could He have a perfect Heaven IF the matter to build it was contaminated with death? The answer is in the next verse which shows the physical emergence of Jesus from within the invisible Spirit of the Trinity. Amen?

 

[TCassidy]

IF the matter to build it was contaminated with death?

It wasn't. You have no hermeneutical nor exegetical reason to equate "darkness" with "death." וחשׁך means "dark" or "night." In this case the context demands it be understood to mean "absence of light."

In verse 1 we see the merism "heaven and earth," the two extremes, being used as a synecdoche to indicate the entire universe.

Then we see the circumstantial clause in verse 2. And the earth was unformed (תהו) and unfilled (בהו), there was no light, and this lack of light was everywhere in the abyss (תהום) (the seemingly bottomless chasm of the spacial universe), and the Spirit of God was present and transcendental of the abyss.

Then in verse 3 we see the beginning of the narrative describing how God first made light, as opposed to the lack of light in verse 2, then formed the unformed of verse 2 and filled the unfilled of verse 2 in the rest of the narrative to follow.

It is actually quite simple when you just read what it says rather than forcing all sorts of speculative presuppositions into the text.

 

[Aman777]

It wasn't. You have no hermeneutical nor exegetical reason to equate "darkness" with "death." וחשׁך means "dark" or "night." In this case the context demands it be understood to mean "absence of light."

Anything apart from God is subject to death. Mar 10:18 Your view is the same as Hebrew theologians of 3k years ago and ONLY the Christians of the last days have the "increased knowledge" to understand Genesis. Daniel 12:4

In verse 1 we see the merism "heaven and earth," the two extremes, being used as a synecdoche to indicate the entire universe.

Everything which exists is made of air, dust (ground without form) and water. Your view does NOT agree with the Truth of Science.

Then we see the circumstantial clause in verse 2. And the earth was unformed (תהו) and unfilled (בהו), there was no light, and this lack of light was everywhere in the abyss (תהום) (the seemingly bottomless chasm of the spacial universe), and the Spirit of God was present and transcendental of the abyss.

Talk about "adding to" what is actually written. It's easier to say that the invisible Spirit saw darkness/death for the first time and immediately corrected it by bringing Jesus into the physical world. Jesus IS the Light of the First Day/Age. He will build the perfect physical Heaven and fill it with perfect people in just 6 of His Days or periods of Labor (Yowm) and He will save God's children from Hell.

Then in verse 3 we see the beginning of the narrative describing how God first made light, as opposed to the lack of light in verse 2, then formed the unformed of verse 2 and filled the unfilled of verse 2 in the rest of the narrative to follow.

Gobbledegoop. Physical light requires energy and only Jesus can give the fire of life to beings made from the contaminated ground without form.

It is actually quite simple when you just read what it says rather than forcing all sorts of speculative presuppositions into the text.

Someone should tell the Holy Spirit since the Author of Scripture tells us that an un-spiritual person cannot understand. 1Co 2:14 This means that a "plain reading" without study is useless. Amen?

 

[TCassidy]

I'm sorry but every one of your responses was a non-sequitur. They have nothing to do with what I posted (which was scripture). And your statement that Genesis 1:3 is "Gobbledegoop" removes any possible common ground for additional discussion.

Have a nice life.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

We just had this discussion of interpretation in another thread. So which interpretation of evolution is true and which is false? Or will you attempt double-talk and avoidance there too?

Like I said, there's only one Theory of Evolution, then we have creationist misinterpretations being bandied about everywhere, which shouldn't be a surprise since the bible is able to be interpreted any which way you'd like, and is, even by its supporters... but we'll have to go with your interpretation of your bible because firstly, I don't accept it to be any word of any deity through sheer lack of supporting evidence, and that it can be interpreted a thousand different ways depending on how one feels, and secondly, that it can be interpreted in a thousand different ways is simply huge circumstantial evidence against an all-knowing deity creator of the universe being a clear communicator that cares about having a relationship with me.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm sorry but every one of your responses was a non-sequitur. They have nothing to do with what I posted (which was scripture). And your statement that Genesis 1:3 is "Gobbledegoop" removes any possible common ground for additional discussion.

Have a nice life.

Don't get frustrated by Aman777, TC. That's the job of the Evol Evolutionists. Our burden is to try to refute his nonsense without breaking the very sensible forum rules relating to mutual respect and dignified language. But it is always encouraging to get confirmation we are not the only ones to take issue with his positions.

 

[TCassidy]

Like I said, there's only one Theory of Evolution

Well, actually, there are at least 4 and as many as 6.

#1 Polyphylogenetic Theory.

#2 Classical Darwinism Theory.

#3 Mutation theory of De Vries.

#4 Neo-Darwinism Theory.

 

[Aman777]

Don't get frustrated by Aman777, TC. That's the job of the Evol Evolutionists. Our burden is to try to refute his nonsense without breaking the very sensible forum rules relating to mutual respect and dignified language. But it is always encouraging to get confirmation we are not the only ones to take issue with his positions.

That's right TC. Run away and hide from what Genesis actually says instead of what ancient religionists say it says. In hiding from God's Truth you have laid down with Evols, like Ophi. You will not escape without fleas. Amen?

 

[TCassidy]

That's right TC. Run away and hide from what Genesis actually says instead of what ancient religionists say it says. In hiding from God's Truth you have laid down with Evols, like Ophi. You will not escape without fleas. Amen?

I haven't run away from anything. I presented an exegetical exposition of Genesis 1:1-3. You have provided no hermeneutical nor exegetical exposition of the verses to support your fantasy.

Provide such an exposition and I will gladly discuss it with you. But when you make an unsupported assertion and call what the text actually says "Gobbledegoop" we have no basis for discussion.

The ball is in your court.

 

[Aman777]

I haven't run away from anything. I presented an exegetical exposition of Genesis 1:1-3. You have provided no hermeneutical nor exegetical exposition of the verses to support your fantasy.

Provide such an exposition and I will gladly discuss it with you. But when you make an unsupported assertion and call what the text actually says "Gobbledegoop" we have no basis for discussion.

The ball is in your court.

Thanks. Can you identify how many "Heavens" were made in the beginning?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The perfect form is the verb tense used to indicate a completed, or "perfected," action or condition.

Grammar Handbook

And an existing state of being formless and void is nether a completed or perfected action or condition.
It "was" formless and void does not point to a completed action of any kind, it describes a present or past state. It "became" formless and void on the other hand points to a completed action.

You can keep repeating the mantra, but it won't change the fact that only "became" points to a completed action.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thanks. Can you identify how many "Heavens" were made in the beginning?

Typically the number three is used The heavens where the birds fly, the heavens where the stars, moon, planets, etc exist, and the heavenly abode of God and the angels.

Although in Hebrew the word is shamayim, it is in a plural form, meaning “heights,” “elevations.

 

[Aman777]

Typically the number three is used The heavens where the birds fly, the heavens where the stars, moon, planets, etc exist, and the heavenly abode of God and the angels.

Bzzzzt. Not Scriptural since One Heaven was made on the 2nd Day Genesis 1:8 and the otherS were made on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4

The first Heaven was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:6
The present 2nd Heaven will be burned. ll Peter 3:10
The 3rd Heaven is the object of the Creation and where God is and where all Christians will live with Jesus forever. ll Cor 12:2 Amen?