Before the Flood.

[Mallon]

Self-contradiction in 7 hours, this guy deserves an award.

I think juvie still holds the record on that one.

 

[shernren]

I think juvie still holds the record on that one.

For admirable effort then?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I wonder how the writers of Hebrew text got it so wrong, they use the same word in both verses.
בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃ Gen 1:1
ויכלו השׁמים והארץ וכל־צבאם׃ Gen 2:1

The word here for heaven is hashamaim which is in the dual form. Hebrew has an extra grammatical number. Where English has singular and plural, Hebrew has those two and what is called dual which is two of whatever the object is. So for instance, the word for eyes would be in the dual because there are two of them (unless they were trying to refer to just one eye or all of our many eyes).

Now, that does not mean that they necessariy thought of Heaven in two parts because some words just naturaly occur in the dual such as mitzraim meaning Egypt. It occurs in the dual even though it is refering to one kindgom.

Therefore, a literal translation of hashamaim would be 'the heavens' (it includes the definite article) but a proper understanding of it could just as easily be 'the heaven'.

Years --- definitely years.

Ok, very good. I still think that they are symbolic numbers but at least we agree on the actual translation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The word here for heaven is hashamaim which is in the dual form.

Well then, this is my point, BTF.

The Septuagint has both words translated HEAVEN - (according to Shernren).

The NIV has both words translated HEAVENS.

The KJV has the first word translated HEAVEN, and the second word translated HEAVENS.

I contend that the KJV is right, and the other two are wrong.

 

[Assyrian]

The KJV is simply inconsistent in the way it translates ha'shamaim. No harm in that really, until you start looking for special significance in the KJV's inconsistent rendering, or think that translating Gen 1:1 heavens is somehow adding to scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

The KJV is simply inconsistent in the way it translates ha'shamaim. No harm in that really, until you start looking for special significance in the KJV's inconsistent rendering, or think that translating Gen 1:1 heavens is somehow adding to scripture.

So your point, Assyrian, is that on Day One, God created all three heavens? Is that what you want me to believe?

No, thanks --- you're the one who hasn't a clue as to what God did in Genesis One --- not even a good guess. And because of that, you have to accept what science feeds you in terms of what happened in the first six days of the universe, you have to turn your back on the concept of original sin, and you have to deny all sorts of [even] basic doctrine. You even have to embrace God's enemy (death) as an integral part of God's original plan.

I don't --- and I feel sorry for you guys --- I really do.

ETA: By the way, Assyrian, I just noticed you don't have your version of the Bible mentioned in your profile. Of course, that's none of my business.

 

[AV1611VET]

Assyrian --- in your opinion --- which of the three pairs is the correct one?

PAIR A = English Revised Version

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

PAIR B = New International Version

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

PAIR C = King James Version

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

[theFijian]

So your point, Assyrian, is that on Day One, God created all three heavens? Is that what you want me to believe?

No, thanks --- you're the one who hasn't a clue as to what God did in Genesis One --- not even a good guess. And because of that, you have to accept what science feeds you in terms of what happened in the first six days of the universe, you have to turn your back on the concept of original sin, and you have to deny all sorts of [even] basic doctrine. You even have to embrace God's enemy (death) as an integral part of God's original plan.

I don't --- and I feel sorry for you guys --- I really do.

As noted elsewhere, when you are shown to be in error you resort to hubris to make up for your shortcomings and in this case even false accusations! Save your sympathy for yourself!

 

[theFijian]

Well then, this is my point, BTF.

The Septuagint has both words translated HEAVEN - (according to Shernren).

The NIV has both words translated HEAVENS.

The KJV has the first word translated HEAVEN, and the second word translated HEAVENS.

I contend that the KJV is right, and the other two are wrong.

Eh? You're not seriously suggesting the KJV is right and the Septuagint is wrong!

 

[AV1611VET]

Eh? You're not seriously suggesting the KJV is right and the Septuagint is wrong!

Don't get me started on the Septuagint, Fijian, or this thread will double in size.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian --- in your opinion --- which of the three pairs is the correct one?

PAIR A = English Revised VersionPAIR B = New International VersionPAIR C = King James Version

Like I said thy are all proper translations except the AV is a bit sloppy. I prefer the NIV's heavens to the RVs heaven it is more literal and alerts people to the fact there is more than one heaven. Unfortunately when people think of heaven, all too often the automatic idea is fluffy clouds with angels and harps, the RV is too easily read that way. But then the NIV goes and spoils it translating verse 8 God called the expanse "sky." It is the same word shemaim just without the the.

What I like is the NCV
In the beginning God created the sky and the earth...

Even better would be
In the beginning God created the skies and the land...

Less of a temptation to try to read it as a technical manual and more of the flavour of a story told in hushed silence round a bronze age campfire. Look at the sky blazing with stars and the land spread out around us. God made all that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said thy are all proper translations except the AV is a bit sloppy.

Okay, this is obviously a dodge, Assyrian, and I'll take a hint and drop it. All three cannot be correct, but it's a moot point now.

What I like is the NCV
In the beginning God created the sky and the earth...

That's just wrong on so many levels. Evidently the KJV vindicates this heresy about the sky being a solid dome, and, by the way, the sky wasn't created until Day Two.

Even better would be
In the beginning God created the skies and the land...

Again, the sky wasn't created until Day Two, and the land wasn't created until Day Three.

Less of a temptation to try to read it as a technical manual and more of the flavour of a story told in hushed silence round a bronze age campfire.

Here we go with this Bronze-Age stuff again.

Look at the sky blazing with stars and the land spread out around us. God made all that.

Ya --- and I know what order and on what day too.

 

[Assyrian]

Okay, this is obviously a dodge, Assyrian, and I'll take a hint and drop it.

Interesting debate tactic AV, accuse people of dodging and then drop the argument yourself

All three cannot be correct, but it's a moot point now.

Actually they can. Your problem is, there isn't a one for one, direct correspondence between different languages. The dual meaning of shemaim has no equivalent in English, since there is no perfect equivalent, you can get a number of different, valid translations.

Matt 1:22 (AV) Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isaiah 7:14 (AV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Be with child and bring forth, or conceive and bear?
Is his name Emmanuel or Immanuel?

Matt 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, 18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Jer 31:15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
Jeremy?
Is it: In Rama was there a voice heard, or A voice was heard in Ramah?
Weeping, or bitter weeping?
Would not be comforted, or refused to be comforted for her children?
Are not, or were not?

Your question about which translation of ha'shemaim is right assumes there is only one correct translation. You own AV shows you can have different translations of the same passage.

That's just wrong on so many levels. Evidently the KJV vindicates this heresy about the sky being a solid dome, and, by the way, the sky wasn't created until second day.Again, the sky wasn't created until Day Two, and the land wasn't created until Day Three.

No he made a dome on 'day two' and called it 'heavens' or 'skies', the same as he made dry ground on third day and called it 'earth' or 'land'. So we have God creating the heavens and the earth in Gen 1:1 and then 8 or 10 verses later, we have God forming the things he calls heaven and earth.

It is just as valid to translate it:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heavens...
Gen 1:10 God called the dry ground Earth...
or
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the skies and the land...
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse 'Skies'...
Gen 1:10 God called the dry ground 'Land'...

Here we go with this Bronze-Age stuff again.

Right sorry, you think Gen 1 was written by Adam. Stone Age then.

Ya --- and I know what order and on what day too.

That's nice. Let me know when you figure out the order in Gen 2.

 

[theFijian]

Don't get me started on the Septuagint, Fijian, or this thread will double in size.

Strangely evasive. Nevertheless when it comes to Gen 1&2 you hold the KJV in more authority than the Septuagint, I wonder when your fellow Creationists will hold you to account for your KJV-only errors.

 

[AV1611VET]

Strangely evasive. Nevertheless when it comes to Gen 1&2 you hold the KJV in more authority than the Septuagint...

That's right --- but let's put this into perspective: When it comes to Genesis 1 - Revelation 22, I hold the KJV in more authority than anything.

 

[Mallon]

That's right --- but let's put this into perspective: When it comes to Genesis 1 - Revelation 22, I hold the KJV in more authority than anything.Forget my fellow Creationists, start a thread yourself, if you like being embarrassed.

Why do you always seek to embarrass, "pwn", and "eat for breakfast" your Christian brothers and sisters, AV? What do you make of passages like 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Timothy 2:14?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you always seek to embarrass, "pwn", and "eat for breakfast" your Christian brothers and sisters, AV?

I'll admit --- to my shame --- that after I clicked off CF and was doing other things, that Fijian's denominational icon suddenly popped into my head, and I felt badly about the tenor of my post. I need to stop arguing with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Therefore, Fijian, I apologize --- let's be [at the least] friends ---

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Well then, this is my point, BTF.

I know, I was agreeing with you.

However, I think that Assyrians point should be well noted...

The KJV is simply inconsistent in the way it translates ha'shamaim. No harm in that really, until you start looking for special significance in the KJV's inconsistent rendering, or think that translating Gen 1:1 heavens is somehow adding to scripture.

'heaven' and 'heavens' are both literal translations of hashamaim. And they are both perfectly acceptable. The KJV is no better than the NIV is for instance, and the NIV is no better than the KJV. They just have different philosophies of translation.

PAIR A = English Revised Version Originally Posted by Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Originally Posted by Genesis 2:1

And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
​

​

PAIR B = New International Version Originally Posted by Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Originally Posted by Genesis 2:1

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
​

​

PAIR C = King James Version Originally Posted by Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Originally Posted by Genesis 2:1

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
​

​

All of these are perfectly fine translations. Because the word is in Dual but sometimes has the singular meaning, all of these are perfectly good ways of translating it.

I prefer the NIV's heavens to the RVs heaven it is more literal and alerts people to the fact there is more than one heaven.

But again, sometimes the dual should be thought of as singular. This word is not in the plural form. It is altogether different. It doesn't necessarily mean that they thought that there was more than one heaven, and they certainly did not think there was more than two.

Unfortunately when people think of heaven, all too often the automatic idea is fluffy clouds with angels and harps, the RV is too easily read that way.

But this isn't a problem in the translation, this is a problem with the Rembrantian Rennasaince understanding of heaven.

Less of a temptation to try to read it as a technical manual and more of the flavour of a story told in hushed silence round a bronze age campfire. Look at the sky blazing with stars and the land spread out around us. God made all that.

This does capture the essence of how the story was looked at.

Okay, this is obviously a dodge, Assyrian, and I'll take a hint and drop it. All three cannot be correct, but it's a moot point now.

Actually, they can all three be correct. I guess the most literal grammatical way of translating hashamaim is "the two heavens" but that is problematic because it assumes that they believed that there were two of them when in actuallity just because it is grammatically dual it isn't necessarily actually dual. It is similar to how in some languages objects are assigned a grammatical gender even though they don't acttually have gender.

Actually they can. Your problem is, there isn't a one for one, direct correspondence between different languages. The dual meaning of shemaim has no equivalent in English, since there is no perfect equivalent, you can get a number of different, valid translations.

Precisely.

That's right --- but let's put this into perspective: When it comes to Genesis 1 - Revelation 22, I hold the KJV in more authority than anything.

Even more than the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

 

[theFijian]

I'll admit --- to my shame --- that after I clicked off CF and was doing other things, that Fijian's denominational icon suddenly popped into my head, and I felt badly about the tenor of my post. I need to stop arguing with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Therefore, Fijian, I apologize --- let's be [at the least] friends ---

Yes lets, i'm not the only person you should probably apologise to however. I searced for threads on KJV-onlyism but couldn't find any. If I were to start one it would belong in Unorthodox Theology.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I just thought of another example that might help to explain some of this.

My main point was that hashamaim is in the gramatical construction of the dual number. This means that grammatically it should be (sort of) plural in that it should be understood as being comprised of 2 heavens. However, just because it is grammatically in the dual doesn't mean that it has to be considered more than singular (like my example of Egypt).

Another example of this is the word elohim with means gods. Technically this word is plural (the plural form of el) and therefore should always be translated as 'gods'. However we know from other grammatical constructions (like the fact that the number of the verb that is matched with it often is singular) and from theology expressed within the text that the plural word elohim should sometimes be considered to carry the weight of teh singular and therefore be translated God.

Just like the plural form of el isn't always plural in understanding, dual forms aren't always dual in understanding. Unfortunately, for the dual form we cannot turn to other grammatical occurances in order to figure it out quite as easily. This is because hashamaim is rarely (if ever) the subject of a verb so we don't know what number of verb the author assigns to hashamaim. As such both translations are perfectly valid.