who really created the Heavens and the Earth?

DamianWarS · Jan 21, 2018

the KJV says in Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." but what happens when we remove our abstract english language and go back to the what the literal words say.... "in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land". Yes, God did not "create" he fattened or filled up that which was already there. The text itself tells us "the earth was without form, and void" then God spoke into being light, the first day.

So on the first day earth pre-existed formless and void and we can infer from the text that the heavens too pre-existed also formless and void. The firmament was created the second day but there was no stars, sun or moon as this was all created on day 4. Day 4 the heavens were "filled up".

So where did the formless earth and heaven come from? As Theists our answer clearly is God but the creation account doesn't find this to be important enough information.

dreadnought · Jan 21, 2018

DamianWarS said:
the KJV says in Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." but what happens when we remove our abstract english language and go back to the what the literal words say.... "in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land". Yes, God did not "create" he fattened or filled up that which was already there. The text itself tells us "the earth was without form, and void" then God spoke into being light, the first day.

So on the first day earth pre-existed formless and void and we can infer from the text that the heavens too pre-existed also formless and void. The firmament was created the second day but there was no stars, sun or moon as this was all created on day 4. Day 4 the heavens were "filled up".

So where did the formless earth and heaven come from? As Theists our answer clearly is God but the creation account doesn't find this to be important enough information.

I've never known a Bible to say anything but, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," so I can only conclude that God created the heavens and the earth.

rockytopva · Jan 21, 2018

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

Space and mass - Nothing else

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. - Genesis 1:2

Space and mass - Nothing else
Waters - The Galactic Center of the Milky Way is obscured by dark clouds. As this center can be observed with infrared light I can only assume this as H2O water. If it were dust particles could it be seen with infrared? God may have included dust particles in his definition of waters.

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

As m = E/c2 so the mass dissociates into energy and light flowing out as plasma from a point of origins forming into what elements the Father willed it to.

*** I believe that 15 billion years transpired between Genesis 1:3-4***

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. - Genesis 1:4

Keep in mind that the first day has not occurred yet. By dividing the light from the darkness the earth is put in orbit around the sun, dividing the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:5

Now we are ready for the first day and the seven day creation story... 15 billion years from the time that God said, "Let there be light!" Now for Genesis 1:6-8

1. The big bang when God said, "Let there be light!" ...And 15 billion years later...
2. Creation Day One - God puts the earth in orbit, creating light and darkness on Earth
3. Creation Day Two - God separates land mass from the waters
4. Creation Day Three - God creates plant life
5. Creation Day Four - God clears the atmosphere - Giving way for the lights to shine through.
6. Creation Day Five - God creates sea life
7. Creation Day Six - God creates animal life
8. Creation Day Seven - God rests

mark kennedy · Jan 21, 2018

DamianWarS said:
the KJV says in Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." but what happens when we remove our abstract english language and go back to the what the literal words say.... "in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land". Yes, God did not "create" he fattened or filled up that which was already there. The text itself tells us "the earth was without form, and void" then God spoke into being light, the first day.

So on the first day earth pre-existed formless and void and we can infer from the text that the heavens too pre-existed also formless and void. The firmament was created the second day but there was no stars, sun or moon as this was all created on day 4. Day 4 the heavens were "filled up".

So where did the formless earth and heaven come from? As Theists our answer clearly is God but the creation account doesn't find this to be important enough information.

Gen. 1:1 is written in absolute terms, God created the universe, 'heavens and the earth'. Some time subsequent the earth was formless and void, God makes the earth suitable for life over the first three days. I've always liked the account in Job:

When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
“Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors; (Job 38:7-10)

Apparently, the angles celebrated God's work during creation week. This sounds like the separation of the land and the water.

DamianWarS · Jan 21, 2018

dreadnought said:
I've never known a Bible to say anything but, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," so I can only conclude that God created the heavens and the earth.

1 Samuel 2:29 NASB
Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at My offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me, by making yourselves fat with the choicest of every offering of My people Israel?’

"making fat" this is the same word used in Genesis 1:1 translated as "create" Hebrew is a very concrete language, the root and concrete meaning of this word is about fattening we simply abstractly translated this word into "create" but the text in its original context says that God "fattened" the heavens and the earth.

DamianWarS · Jan 21, 2018

mark kennedy said:
Gen. 1:1 is written in absolute terms, God created the universe, 'heavens and the earth'. Some time subsequent the earth was formless and void, God makes the earth suitable for life over the first three days. I've always liked the account in Job:

When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
“Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors; (Job 38:7-10)

Apparently, the angles celebrated God's work during creation week. This sounds like the separation of the land and the water.

Hebrew is a very concrete language unlike English which is a very abstract language. Although English translations favour "create" the concrete and original context is that God "fattened" the heavens and the earth. This doesn't make sense to our western ears so we interpret the account as an act of creation but the text must be interpreted through an abstract lense to say this.

mark kennedy · Jan 22, 2018

DamianWarS said:
Hebrew is a very concrete language unlike English which is a very abstract language. Although English translations favour "create" the concrete and original context is that God "fattened" the heavens and the earth. This doesn't make sense to our western ears so we interpret the account as an act of creation but the text must be interpreted through an abstract lense to say this.

The KJV only translates it 'fatten' once.

create (42x), creator (3x), choose (2x), make (2x), cut down (2x), dispatch (1x), done (1x), make fat (1x).

The form of the word translated 'creation' (H1254 בָּרָא bara'), in Genesis is the Qal. It means to 'shape, fashion, create' always with God as subject. The form your thinking of is the Hiphil form which means to make fat.

The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2), the term 'created' ('bara' H1254), a very precise term used only of God.

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary)

It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). That repetition is called a parallelism, used to emphasis a key point, in this case it indicates that the creation of Adam and Eve is at the heart of the emphasis.

Sanoy · Jan 22, 2018

I agree with you that Genesis is not a story about creation but about the preparation of all things for mankind. We learn about who created all this stuff elsewhere in the Bible.

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesall things were created through him and for him.

Piet Strydom · Jan 22, 2018

DamianWarS said:
"making fat" this is the same word used in Genesis 1:1 translated as "create" Hebrew is a very concrete

Not true,
You are confused about "making plump", and Making (create)

Versus Create

If you use the root of make Fat, and Create you will obviously have the same root.
It is logical.

Piet Strydom · Jan 22, 2018

Sorry, your argument is invalid.

mark kennedy · Jan 22, 2018

Piet Strydom said:
Not true,
You are confused about "making plump", and Making (create)
If you use the root of make Fat, and Create you will obviously have the same root.
It is logical.

Oh it has the same unused primitive root, but the form for 'created' is different from the one for 'fatten'. All five instances in Gen. 1 are the Qal form which always means created, and only used of God.

DamianWarS · Jan 22, 2018

Piet Strydom said:
Not true,
You are confused about "making plump", and Making (create)
View attachment 218742
Versus Create
View attachment 218743
If you use the root of make Fat, and Create you will obviously have the same root.
It is logical.

the root meaning is not "making". Hiphil turns the word into a causation action so "making" is a hiphil modifier.

להבריאכם
infinitive
hiphil
root word
2nd person
you-fat-cause-to

fat is the root word

mark kennedy · Jan 22, 2018

DamianWarS said:
the root meaning is not "making". Hiphil turns the word into a causation action so "making" is a hiphil modifier.

להבריאכם
infinitive
hiphil
root word
2nd person
you-fat-cause-to

fat is the root word

The root means to cut, one of the forms indicate to make fat.

(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject).

of heaven and earth.
of individual man.
of new conditions and circumstances.
of transformations

(Niphal) to be created

of heaven and earth
of birth
of something new
of miracles

(Piel)

to cut down
to cut out
to be fat

(Hiphil)

to make yourselves fat

(Outline of Biblical Usage)

mark kennedy · Jan 22, 2018

Piet Strydom said:
Not true,
You are confused about "making plump", and Making (create)

If you use the root of make Fat, and Create you will obviously have the same root.
It is logical.

The primitive form, which is what I think he is talking about, isn't used in the Old Testament. There is one form translated that way but the root word means to 'cut', the idea being to craft.

DamianWarS · Jan 22, 2018

mark kennedy said:
The root means to cut, one of the forms indicate to make fat.

(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject).

of heaven and earth.

of individual man.

of new conditions and circumstances.

of transformations

(Niphal) to be created

of heaven and earth

of birth

of something new

of miracles

(Piel)

to cut down

to cut out

to be fat

(Hiphil)

to make yourselves fat

(Outline of Biblical Usage)

all hebrew words have a 2 character parent roots which then form 3 character child roots from that more words are made from the child root. Each meaning is shaped by its root. The word translated as "created" is a child root itself ברא (H1254) and it is from the parent root בר (H1250). The parent root is H1250 and it means grain. This parent root forms a bunch of child roots like H0084 which mean "feather" or as a verb (hiphil) it means to fly or to move the feathers (wings). How does "feather" relate it's parent root? It is "The fowl, fed on grain, becomes strong for the long flight" (AHL). This also relates to the words H0046 and H0047 which mean mighty or strong and it relates to the concept of the strength behind flight.

H1254 is the word in question and it means as a verb "fatten" as in "Grain is fed to the livestock making them fat or full." (AHL) and this is the word used in Gen 1:1. the fact that it is Qal makes no difference and if anything it should be represented in its simplest form possible. It is translated as "create" because English is a very abstract language and we prefer abstracts. To say "God fattened the heavens and earth" is too awkward and odd so it is interpreted to fit our abstract mindset but the word carries a concrete meaning and as it relates to the creation account it is "the filling of the earth in Genesis 1 with the sun, moon, plants and animals." (AHL)

The Genesis accounts starts with day 1-3 separating and making order but empty vessels days 3-6 are about filling all these things up. Day 1 is about forming the sky and 4 is about filling the sky. (this works with day 2 and day 5, day 3 and day 6, check them out for yourself). Even if you don't accept this I still fail to see the words "let there be the unformed void earth" The creation account contrasts chaos with order, emptiness with fullness, darkness with light and essentially evil being overpowered by good. Most important, God is established as the one who creates order, who make light over power darkness and who fills up everything with that which is good. God however is not established as the creator of the voids, the malformed chaos and the darkness.

mark kennedy · Jan 22, 2018

DamianWarS said:
all hebrew words have a 2 character parent roots which then form 3 character child roots from that more words are made from the child root. Each meaning is shaped by its root. The word translated as "created" is a child root itself ברא (H1254) and it is from the parent root בר (H1250). The parent root is H1250 and it means grain. This parent root forms a bunch of child roots like H0084 which mean "feather" or as a verb (hiphil) it means to fly or to move the feathers (wings). How does "feather" relate it's parent root? It is "The fowl, fed on grain, becomes strong for the long flight" (AHL). This also relates to the words H0046 and H0047 which mean mighty or strong and it relates to the concept of the strength behind flight.

H1254 is the word in question and it means as a verb "fatten" as in "Grain is fed to the livestock making them fat or full." (AHL) and this is the word used in Gen 1:1. the fact that it is Qal makes no difference and if anything it should be represented in its simplest form possible. It is translated as "create" because English is a very abstract language and we prefer abstracts. To say "God fattened the heavens and earth" is too awkward and odd so it is interpreted to fit our abstract mindset but the word carries a concrete meaning and as it relates to the creation account it is "the filling of the earth in Genesis 1 with the sun, moon, plants and animals." (AHL)

All very interesting, thanks for that.

The Genesis accounts starts with day 1-3 separating and making order but empty vessels days 3-6 are about filling all these things up. Day 1 is about forming the sky and 4 is about filling the sky. (this works with day 2 and day 5, day 3 and day 6, check them out for yourself). Even if you don't accept this I still fail to see the words "let there be the unformed void earth" The creation account contrasts chaos with order, emptiness with fullness, darkness with light and essentially evil being overpowered by good. Most important, God is established as the one who creates order, who make light over power darkness and who fills up everything with that which is good. God however is not established as the creator of the voids, the malformed chaos and the darkness.

I have no problem with you previous discussion, it seems rather insightful. However, God did create the heavens and the earth and subsequently the earth was formless and void. Mars is formless and void, Venus is formless and void. That's not disorderly, the work of creation was another level and order of creation God decided on according to the purpose of his perfect will. We have no reason to think that whatever God does has to be perfect, in fact, we know it's not:

Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. "Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. "But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end. (Psalm 102:25-28)

There will be a new heavens and a new earth, God never said creation was perfect, just that it was very good. For whatever reason, God chose earth to do the work of creation and whether or not that creation endures, it's not going to be perfect until the end of the age. The time will come when we don't need the sun because God will be our light. The created universe will wear out like a garment but God does not change.

Much of this has to be taken in context and the context of the earth in the wake of the original creation doesn't have to be perfect. God wasn't finished yet, just like when he said it's not good that the man should be alone. Adam was only alone because God wasn't finished yet.

Grace and peace,
Mark

miamited · Jan 22, 2018

Hi guys,

I'm always amazed by the basis of most new age religions. It is, those who create such things, something that has been misunderstood for some 4,000 years. Moses wrote the account of Genesis, and for some 4,000 years there has not been a single Jew, who would be the people among us to have the most knowledge of the Hebrew language, to make the claim that the first words in the creation account don't intend to mean 'God created'.

What do you think, as regards this idea of word meaning and definition? 4,000 years of history or last weeks Hebrew word study?

Of course, such people won't even use the whole counsel of the Scriptures, but rather just try to tear apart one small remnant. If one uses the entire counsel of the Scriptures regarding this point, then one must also explain why some 1,500 years later the finger of God Himself wrote on two stone tablets: For in six days, I God, created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Then again in Exodus 31:17, God says that He created the heavens and the earth in six days.

So, yes, we can pull one word out of the full 700,000 or so words that comprise the Scriptures. We can dissect that singular word and measure and weigh it against a thesaurus that was created in the last few hundred years and point to a singular instance, or maybe two, where the word was translated with a different meaning. We can look up in all recorded written history and find the few places where a word that has been translated a certain way for some 4,000 years was, for whatever reason, translated as another word. We can make the case that because 'blue' describes a feeling, that it cannot possibly mean to describe a color. We can do all that.

But such kicking against the goads brings to my mind Paul's admonition to Timothy. A time is coming, he told him, that men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, he continued, they will surround themselves by many witnesses and testimonies to tell them what their itching ears want to hear.

Sounds to me like the perfect description of a person who would take the first words of the Scriptures and some 4,000 years after they were written and having been translated into dozens of various translations with one accord. Declare that their personal study of the Hebrew language has given them a 'Eureka!' moment. That we have misunderstood God's word for some 4,000 years now. All the wise sages got it wrong. The dutiful and obedient Scribes of Israel have always been wrong. I now know the truth!!!!!

But, such wisdom allows men to fit God's word into the modern world of understanding. Despite the fact that the Scriptures are clear to tell us that the world has no understanding.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

DamianWarS · Jan 23, 2018

miamited said:
Hi guys,

I'm always amazed by the basis of most new age religions. It is, those who create such things, something that has been misunderstood for some 4,000 years. Moses wrote the account of Genesis, and for some 4,000 years there has not been a single Jew, who would be the people among us to have the most knowledge of the Hebrew language, to make the claim that the first words in the creation account don't intend to mean 'God created'.

What do you think, as regards this idea of word meaning and definition? 4,000 years of history or last weeks Hebrew word study?

Of course, such people won't even use the whole counsel of the Scriptures, but rather just try to tear apart one small remnant. If one uses the entire counsel of the Scriptures regarding this point, then one must also explain why some 1,500 years later the finger of God Himself wrote on two stone tablets: For in six days, I God, created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Then again in Exodus 31:17, God says that He created the heavens and the earth in six days.

So, yes, we can pull one word out of the full 700,000 or so words that comprise the Scriptures. We can dissect that singular word and measure and weigh it against a thesaurus that was created in the last few hundred years and point to a singular instance, or maybe two, where the word was translated with a different meaning. We can look up in all recorded written history and find the few places where a word that has been translated a certain way for some 4,000 years was, for whatever reason, translated as another word. We can make the case that because 'blue' describes a feeling, that it cannot possibly mean to describe a color. We can do all that.

But such kicking against the goads brings to my mind Paul's admonition to Timothy. A time is coming, he told him, that men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, he continued, they will surround themselves by many witnesses and testimonies to tell them what their itching ears want to hear.

Sounds to me like the perfect description of a person who would take the first words of the Scriptures and some 4,000 years after they were written and having been translated into dozens of various translations with one accord. Declare that their personal study of the Hebrew language has given them a 'Eureka!' moment. That we have misunderstood God's word for some 4,000 years now. All the wise sages got it wrong. The dutiful and obedient Scribes of Israel have always been wrong. I now know the truth!!!!!

But, such wisdom allows men to fit God's word into the modern world of understanding. Despite the fact that the Scriptures are clear to tell us that the world has no understanding.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I think you misunderstand me. Ancient Hebrew is an extremely concrete language and they form abstracts through concrete words. Words are both noun and verb it just depends how they are used so when we take a very abstract word like "create" it has no concrete reference; rather it stands alone as an abstract. This is not so with Hebrew and even if the translated word "create" is justified the Hebrew word used does not follow our western abstract thinking and it still reads as a concrete which is closer to saying "fatten" than "create".

The word "fatten" has a concrete reference which is fat and the image is clear with something that is empty which then is filled up, very easy to understand and very concrete. This may very well represent the abstract "create" it however still is "fatten". This is how an ancient Hebrew would approach the word and they would have a hard time understanding "create" because it has no concrete reference to it. You cite a bunch of references to strengthen your point but none of these change the concrete language of Hebrew or how an ancient Hebrew would approach these words. All it does it show that you think in abstracts "create" is simply not a ancient hebrew concept.

Who created the heavens and the earth? Certainly it was God but "create" here is an abstract term and I don't see the creation account really emphasising this. The biblical creation account bears some similarities to other creation myths such as the Egyptian creation myth where at the beginning there is chaos and several gods give birth to other gods who all contribute to what we know as the world; it's not the gods that are similar but rather the steps of creation that unfold starting with chaos. In the biblical creation account it starts the same but it is God who separates the sky, waters and land and is God who fills them up with stars, sea creatures and living land animals and this is the point, that God is the force behind it all. There is no pantheon of gods, or wars between gods or bodily fluids from them that spin off into other created elements.

The biblical creation account to me seems to be de-paganizing these myths and most important pointing to God as the force behind it all. If Moses is the writer and the audience are the post-exodus Hebrews then they had a lot of theological misgivings that needed fixing. I really don't think the creation account answers the question of who created the formless pre-existent "stuff" because that just wasn't a question as "nothing" was too abstract of a concept and ancient thinking needed a concrete reference point. To an ancient Hebrew mindset in the beginning there was some sort of primeval chaotic state that God forms into what we know. Creation from Ex Nihilo is a modern Jewish/Christian view but it just doesn't fit well in an ancients mind nor in the language used in the creation account.

This is simply how the concrete understanding of the text reads and it doesn't need to reflect how it actually happened. I'm not suggesting a literal interpretation from this understanding or that someone else is responsible for the creation but rather that the biblical creation account simply doesn't address these topics as well defined as we would like them to. But these also weren't questions that needed answering to an ancient Hebrew.

mark kennedy · Jan 24, 2018

DamianWarS said:
I think you misunderstand me. Ancient Hebrew is an extremely concrete language and they form abstracts through concrete words. Words are both noun and verb it just depends how they are used so when we take a very abstract word like "create" it has no concrete reference; rather it stands alone as an abstract. This is not so with Hebrew and even if the translated word "create" is justified the Hebrew word used does not follow our western abstract thinking and it still reads as a concrete which is closer to saying "fatten" than "create".

The word "fatten" has a concrete reference which is fat and the image is clear with something that is empty which then is filled up, very easy to understand and very concrete. This may very well represent the abstract "create" it however still is "fatten". This is how an ancient Hebrew would approach the word and they would have a hard time understanding "create" because it has no concrete reference to it. You cite a bunch of references to strengthen your point but none of these change the concrete language of Hebrew or how an ancient Hebrew would approach these words. All it does it show that you think in abstracts "create" is simply not a ancient hebrew concept.

Who created the heavens and the earth? Certainly it was God but "create" here is an abstract term and I don't see the creation account really emphasising this. The biblical creation account bears some similarities to other creation myths such as the Egyptian creation myth where at the beginning there is chaos and several gods give birth to other gods who all contribute to what we know as the world; it's not the gods that are similar but rather the steps of creation that unfold starting with chaos. In the biblical creation account it starts the same but it is God who separates the sky, waters and land and is God who fills them up with stars, sea creatures and living land animals and this is the point, that God is the force behind it all. There is no pantheon of gods, or wars between gods or bodily fluids from them that spin off into other created elements.

The biblical creation account to me seems to be de-paganizing these myths and most important pointing to God as the force behind it all. If Moses is the writer and the audience are the post-exodus Hebrews then they had a lot of theological misgivings that needed fixing. I really don't think the creation account answers the question of who created the formless pre-existent "stuff" because that just wasn't a question as "nothing" was too abstract of a concept and ancient thinking needed a concrete reference point. To an ancient Hebrew mindset in the beginning there was some sort of primeval chaotic state that God forms into what we know. Creation from Ex Nihilo is a modern Jewish/Christian view but it just doesn't fit well in an ancients mind nor in the language used in the creation account.

This is simply how the concrete understanding of the text reads and it doesn't need to reflect how it actually happened. I'm not suggesting a literal interpretation from this understanding or that someone else is responsible for the creation but rather that the biblical creation account simply doesn't address these topics as well defined as we would like them to. But these also weren't questions that needed answering to an ancient Hebrew.

For a concrete meaning try an actual lexicon. Bara is translated 'created' for a reason, your being pedantic.

miamited · Jan 24, 2018

DamianWarS said:
I think you misunderstand me. Ancient Hebrew is an extremely concrete language and they form abstracts through concrete words. Words are both noun and verb it just depends how they are used so when we take a very abstract word like "create" it has no concrete reference; rather it stands alone as an abstract. This is not so with Hebrew and even if the translated word "create" is justified the Hebrew word used does not follow our western abstract thinking and it still reads as a concrete which is closer to saying "fatten" than "create".

The word "fatten" has a concrete reference which is fat and the image is clear with something that is empty which then is filled up, very easy to understand and very concrete. This may very well represent the abstract "create" it however still is "fatten". This is how an ancient Hebrew would approach the word and they would have a hard time understanding "create" because it has no concrete reference to it. You cite a bunch of references to strengthen your point but none of these change the concrete language of Hebrew or how an ancient Hebrew would approach these words. All it does it show that you think in abstracts "create" is simply not a ancient hebrew concept.

Who created the heavens and the earth? Certainly it was God but "create" here is an abstract term and I don't see the creation account really emphasising this. The biblical creation account bears some similarities to other creation myths such as the Egyptian creation myth where at the beginning there is chaos and several gods give birth to other gods who all contribute to what we know as the world; it's not the gods that are similar but rather the steps of creation that unfold starting with chaos. In the biblical creation account it starts the same but it is God who separates the sky, waters and land and is God who fills them up with stars, sea creatures and living land animals and this is the point, that God is the force behind it all. There is no pantheon of gods, or wars between gods or bodily fluids from them that spin off into other created elements.

The biblical creation account to me seems to be de-paganizing these myths and most important pointing to God as the force behind it all. If Moses is the writer and the audience are the post-exodus Hebrews then they had a lot of theological misgivings that needed fixing. I really don't think the creation account answers the question of who created the formless pre-existent "stuff" because that just wasn't a question as "nothing" was too abstract of a concept and ancient thinking needed a concrete reference point. To an ancient Hebrew mindset in the beginning there was some sort of primeval chaotic state that God forms into what we know. Creation from Ex Nihilo is a modern Jewish/Christian view but it just doesn't fit well in an ancients mind nor in the language used in the creation account.

This is simply how the concrete understanding of the text reads and it doesn't need to reflect how it actually happened. I'm not suggesting a literal interpretation from this understanding or that someone else is responsible for the creation but rather that the biblical creation account simply doesn't address these topics as well defined as we would like them to. But these also weren't questions that needed answering to an ancient Hebrew.

Hi DS,

Actually, I think I understood you quite well.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

who really created the Heavens and the Earth?

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Lip service isn't really service.

Love to pray! :)

Natura non facit saltum

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Natura non facit saltum

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Natura non facit saltum

Ted

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Natura non facit saltum

Ted

Similar threads