Crumbacher
Active Member
Sorry, but your information is incorrect. "Hayah" DOES NOT mean "became." Keil & Delitzsch, the greatest of Hebrew scholars, had this to say in their commentary on Genesis:
1:1 “IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth.” –Heaven and the earth have not existed from all eternity, but had a beginning; nor did they arise by emanation from an absolute substance, but were created by God. This sentence, which stands at the head of the records of revelation, is not a mere heading, nor a summary of the history of creation, but a declaration of the primeval act of God, by which the universe was called into being. That this verse is not a heading merely, is evident from the fact that the following account of the course of the creation commences with ו (and), which connects the different acts of creation with the fact expressed in v. 1, as the primary foundation upon which they rest. בּראשׁית (in the beginning) is used absolutely, like εν αρχη in John 1:1, and מראשׁית in Isa. 46:10. The following clause cannot be treated as subordinate, either by rendering it, “in the beginning when God created…, the earth was,” etc., or “in the beginning when God created…(but the earth was then a chaos, etc.), God said, Let there be light” (Ewald and Bunsen). The first is opposed to the grammar of the language, which would require v. 2 to commence with ותּהי הארץ; the second to the simplicity of style which pervades the whole chapter, and to which so involved a sentence would be intolerable, apart altogether from the fact that this construction is invented for the simple purpose of getting rid of the doctrine of a creatio ex nihilo, which is so repulsive to modern Pantheism. ראשׁית in itself is a relative notion, indicating the commencement of a series of things or events; but here the context gives it the meaning of the very first beginning, the commencement of the world, when time itself began. The statement, that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, not only precludes the idea of the eternity of the world a parte ante, but shows that the creation of the heaven and the earth was the actual beginning of all things. The verb בּרא, indeed, to judge from its use in Josh. 17:15, 18, where it occurs in the Piel (to hew out), means literally “to cut, or new,” but in Kal it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (v. 27, ch. 5:1, 2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Num. 16:30) or of that of grace (Ex. 34:10; Ps. 51:10, etc.). In this verse however, the existence of any primeval material is precluded by the object created: “the heaven and the earth.” This expression is frequently employed to denote the world, or universe, for which there was no single word in the Hebrew language; the universe consisting of a twofold whole, and the distinction between heaven and earth being essentially connected with the notion of the world, the fundamental condition of its historical development (vid., ch. 14:19, 22; Ex. 31:17). In the earthly creation this division is repeated in the distinction between spirit and nature; and in man, as the microcosm, in that between spirit and body. Through sin this distinction was changed into an actual opposition between heaven and earth, flesh and spirit; but with the complete removal of sin, this opposition will cease again, though the distinction between heaven and earth, spirit and body, will remain in such a way, however, that the earthly and corporeal will be completely pervaded by the heavenly and spiritual, the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth, and the earthly body being transfigured into a spiritual body (Rev. 21:1, 2; 1 Cor. 15:35f.). Hence, if in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, “there is nothing belonging to the composition of the universe, either in material or form, which had an existence out of God prior to this divine act in the beginning” (Delitzsch). This is also shown in the connection between our verse and the one which follows: “and the earth was without form and void,” not before, but when, or after God created it. From this it is evident that the void and formless state of the earth was not uncreated or without beginning. At the same time it is obvious from the creative acts which follow (vv. 3-18), that the heaven and earth, as God created them in the beginning, were not the well-ordered universe, but the world in its elementary form; just as Euripides applies the expression ουρανος και γαια to the undivided mass (μορφη μια), which was afterwards formed into heaven and earth.
1:2-5. The First Day. –Though treating of the creation of the heaven and the earth, the writer, both here and in what follows, describes with minuteness the original condition and progressive formation of the earth alone, and says nothing more respecting the heaven than is actually requisite in order to show its connection with the earth. He is writing for inhabitants of the earth, and for religious ends; not to gratify curiosity, but to strengthen faith in God, the Creator of the universe. What is said in v. 2 of the chaotic condition of the earth, is equally applicable to the heaven, “for the heaven proceeds from the same chaos as the earth.”
“And the earth was (not became) waste and void.” The alliterative nouns tohu vabohu, the etymology of which is lost, signify waste and empty (barren), but not laying waste and desolating. Whenever they are used together in other places (Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23), they are taken from this passage; but tohu alone is frequently employed as synonymous with אין, non-existence, and הבל, nothingness (Isa. 40:17, 23; 49:4). The coming was at first waste and desolate, a formless, lifeless mass, rudis indigestaque moles, υλη αμορφος (Wisdom 11:17) or χαος.
1:2-5. The First Day. –Though treating of the creation of the heaven and the earth, the writer, both here and in what follows, describes with minuteness the original condition and progressive formation of the earth alone, and says nothing more respecting the heaven than is actually requisite in order to show its connection with the earth. He is writing for inhabitants of the earth, and for religious ends; not to gratify curiosity, but to strengthen faith in God, the Creator of the universe. What is said in v. 2 of the chaotic condition of the earth, is equally applicable to the heaven, “for the heaven proceeds from the same chaos as the earth.”
“And the earth was (not became) waste and void.” The alliterative nouns tohu vabohu, the etymology of which is lost, signify waste and empty (barren), but not laying waste and desolating. Whenever they are used together in other places (Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23), they are taken from this passage; but tohu alone is frequently employed as synonymous with אין, non-existence, and הבל, nothingness (Isa. 40:17, 23; 49:4). The coming was at first waste and desolate, a formless, lifeless mass, rudis indigestaque moles, υλη αμορφος (Wisdom 11:17) or χαος.
The problem with what you apparently believe, is that you have death before sin. You have the dinosaurs dying out before Adam and Eve sinned. That is because you erroneously try to mix "science" (evolutionary dung) with the Bible. Dinosaurs have ALWAYS lived with man. Apart from the flood, the reason we don't see the larger ones any more is because we hunted them to extinction. Prior to the word "dinosaur" being created, paleontologists referred to the bones of these creatures as "dragons." The "myths" of dragons are based on truth. NOT the mythology that has usurped their place in recent decades, as has the mythology of the unicorn. Look up a book by Thomas Hawkins called The Book of the Great Sea Dragons. Every creature identified in there by name we know today as "dinosaurs," yet they are all called "dragons." This book was written before the term "dinosaur" was used and coined.
Here's a lesson for you: The 1611 KJV spoke of unicorns. People nowadays attempt to mock Christians for believing in unicorns because it's mentioned in the Bible. In the 1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language, if you look up the word "unicorn," you will see this definition: "An animal with one horn: the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros." If you look up the word "rhinoceros," you will see this definition: "A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. ... There is another species with two horns, the bicornis." Furthermore, so-called "scientists" who mock Christians regarding unicorns have discredited themselves as scientists because if they knew anything about science in the least, they would know that the SCIENTIFIC name for the single-horned rhinoceros is "unicornis." So, in roughly 100 years the definition for the word "unicorn" went from a real creature to a mythical creature, a creature most people will identify when asked what a unicorn is. The same has happened with dragons, and with the false teachings of Evolutionists, the facts and evidence concerning dragons around the world has been covered up. Most Americans are ignorant of the reality of the world outside their doors and believe nonsense the rest of the world laughs at them for. Watch a documentary called Dragons or Dinosaurs?, among others. Prior to the discovery of the first bones, history shows us EXACT images of what dinosaurs looked like. If they never saw them before because they died out "millions" of years earlier, then how were they able to sketch, carve, mold them into the EXACT likenesses we depict today?
You are attempting to force pseudo-science to agree with the Bible, when it does not. True science is based on the scientific method, which is hypothesis, testing, observation, conclusion. If you cannot test and observe it, it is NOT science. Those fools who speak of "going behind science" are talking about imagination. Imagination is NOT science, and science is NOT imagination. Contrary to the writing/vlogging of many fools who obviously have NO scientific background or education (like Richard Dawkins), science DOES try to prove/disprove things. Claiming that 90% or 99% (whichever it is) of the Earth's gold is in its core is NOT science. There is NO way you can test it or observe it. That's like saying there is NO gold in China. And there are NO "models" that could help them make such a statement with any kind of accuracy. Unfortunately, there is a LOT of crap taught in our schools as "science" that is NOT science. For example: water DOES NOT conduct electricity. Take a bottle of Aquafina, which is pure, and try to conduct electricity through it. It is the metals IN the water that conduct electricity--NOT the water itself.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
