Before the Flood.

[AV1611VET]

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.

I'm starting to get sick of all this Hebrew talk, but I have to ask: How many sons did Ham have in this verse --- four or five?

And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Mizraim was the father of the Egyptians, and his name is plural.

 

[Assyrian]

That would be the Dual of the Nile...

 

[AV1611VET]

[delete]

 

[theFijian]

WOW --- what a deep and profound answer. Aren't we so blessed to have so much people with so much knowledge here?

pssst! I think it's called having a sense of humour!

 

[AV1611VET]

pssst! I think it's called having a sense of humour!

Oh --- sry --- nevermind ---

 

[Assyrian]

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.

Genesius seems to think shamaim is plural and that it was the vowel ending of the unused singular that left it looking plural. Do you know any more on this? Reading between the lines there was some debate on the origin of the word in Gensius' time.

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.

Do verbs distinguish between dual and plural? If so is there anything in
Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made.
Psalm 50:6 The heavens declare his righteousness.
or
Psalm 68:8 the earth quaked, the heavens poured down rain.

Have you done much Hebrew? Because I just dabble in the subject.

 

[Assyrian]

pssst! I think it's called having a sense of humour!

"think"

 

[juvenissun]

I think juvie still holds the record on that one.

Ha ha ... Good for you to remember that. I did say something like A, then turned around and say -A.

But there was a reason. Just like all apparent radiometric ages, there are reasons, so you could not say for sure that they are contradictory.

-----

Back to the issue: I do not trust any version of Bible translation particularly on some key words that may have science implication. When in doubt, I always go back to check the assumed original text. So, heavens or heaven in NIV is not really an issue.

 

[AV1611VET]

Back to the issue: I do not trust any version of Bible translation particularly on some key words that may have science implication. When in doubt, I always go back to check the assumed original text. So, heavens or heaven in NIV is not really an issue.

Now that's real smart. When you see a word in the Bible that is singular, then later plural, you go back to the "assumed original text", where the word is uniplural, for the answer?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

First I am going out of town so I gotta run real fast.

@ AV, sorry for all the Hebrew stuff

In Genesis 10:6, you are correct, it is being used as a name. Therefore, even though it is in the dual it is obviously one person.

Again, Egypt (the nation) is in the dual but it is thought of in singular terms (one nation). One theory as to why this is is what Assyrian points out, the two Niles. Another is that it is dual because of Upper and Lower Egypt.

Genesius seems to think shamaim is plural and that it was the vowel ending of the unused singular that left it looking plural. Do you know any more on this? Reading between the lines there was some debate on the origin of the word in Gensius' time.

No, I have not head this. I could look into it, but again, I am going on vacation so I cannot right now.

I have always heard that it was the dual. What might be confusing is that the dual form looks very similar to the masculine plural form.

Do verbs distinguish between dual and plural?

No.

If so is there anything in
Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made.
Psalm 50:6 The heavens declare his righteousness.
or
Psalm 68:8 the earth quaked, the heavens poured down rain.

Again, no time right now. sorry.

Have you done much Hebrew? Because I just dabble in the subject.

Yes. I am by no means fluent, but I have studied it formally. I will be going off to graduate school next year to pursue it more.

 

[Assyrian]

Would it work at adjectives? The only one I can see is
Isaiah 65:17 For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.
How about pronouns?
Jer 10:11 So you shall say to them, The gods who have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens.

Have fun wherever you are going.

 

[juvenissun]

This is how I see Gen 1:1

The "earth" is the universe we are in now.
The heaven is other universes.

So, heaven or heavens, is just a different expression and there is no need to argue about it.

 

[Assyrian]

So in Gen 1:1 'earth' means 'heavens' and 'heavens' means 'other heavens'?

 

[juvenissun]

So in Gen 1:1 'earth' means 'heavens' and 'heavens' means 'other heavens'?

No, no. Read what I said: "earth" means "our universe", which is NOT heaven.

In fact, use earth to represent our universe is a very good theological idea, and is not a bad idea of science (because God says it, it MUST be an excellent idea).

-----

Heavens refer to other universes. One of the heavens is the Heaven we are going. Another one would be the Hell. (You may call it fantasy, if you like. But it makes sense to me). This is the way I can understand heavens, so far.

 

[Assyrian]

No, I don't think it was God who said it, IIRC it was Terral.

So, what does 'the heavens' in the rest of Genesis mean?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, what does 'the heavens' in the rest of Genesis mean?

Assyrian, just out of curiosity, what does it matter what he thinks it is? After all, if Genesis 1 is just an allegory, then "heaven" could mean a factory, and Adam is representative of a factory worker, or "heaven" could mean a store, and Adam be representative of capitalism, etc.

 

[gluadys]

Assyrian, just out of curiosity, what does it matter what he thinks it is? After all, if Genesis 1 is just an allegory, then "heaven" could mean a factory, and Adam is representative of a factory worker, or "heaven" could mean a store, and Adam be representative of capitalism, etc.

No, serious allegory does not allow a symbol to mean whatever pops into your head. There's a logic to allegory that constrains the interpretation.

The idea that allegory can be all things to all people is a common error of those who think only empiricism -- and therefore literalism--validates truth.

Allegory is not the free-wheeling anything goes type of interpretation you are insinuating. There is a discipline to it. Part of this discipline is learning to distinguish sign from symbol. You are assuming allegory is filled with signs, when allegory actually uses symbols.



The phrase "just an allegory" is telling. You assume that an allegory cannot convey any substantive truth, yet Jesus' parables were mostly allegories.

Also, although "allegory" is used broadly to refer to a wide variety of non-literal meanings, it does have a narrower technical meaning as well. Technically, neither of the Genesis creation stories is an allegory.

 

[Mallon]

Allegory is not the free-wheeling anything goes type of interpretation you are insinuating. There is a discipline to it. Part of this discipline is learning to distinguish sign from symbol. You are assuming allegory is filled with signs, when allegory actually uses symbols.

What??? Are you actually saying that in Jesus' parable of the sower, the seeds don't represent pumpkin pies and the different soils don't represent the four Galilean moons of Jupiter?!?!? You mean to say that parables and metaphors and allegories cannot simply be interpreted willy-nilly as I have been in the habit of doing since Sunday School???
I guess I'm going to have to pull up my socks and start treating these literary devices with some intellectual integrity and respect!

 

[AV1611VET]

The phrase "just an allegory" is telling. You assume that an allegory cannot convey any substantive truth, yet Jesus' parables were mostly allegories.

Jesus' parables were true stories of actual events that He witnessed Himself.

 

[juvenissun]

No, I don't think it was God who said it, IIRC it was Terral.

So, what does 'the heavens' in the rest of Genesis mean?

It means "everything not in this universe".