Hebrew Cosmology

[solarwave]

Hey guys,

I wonder what you those who take Genesis 1 literally think of this?

These understandings of the universe make much more sense if taking Genesis 1 to be literal history. The problem is that the universe isn't like this.

I used to wonder what day two of Genesis 1 ment and these understandings of the universe seem to do it very well. So before day one there was just water, day one light was made, whatever the light was (the light of heaven?), day 2 waters were parted from waters to us as area to live in. Day 3 the ground to stand on was made and then Day 4 the small sun, moon and stars.

This seems like quite impressive proof to me that Genesis 1 is not history.

Solarwave

 

[juvenissun]

Hey guys,

I wonder what you those who take Genesis 1 literally think of this?

These understandings of the universe make much more sense if taking Genesis 1 to be literal history. The problem is that the universe isn't like this.

I used to wonder what day two of Genesis 1 ment and these understandings of the universe seem to do it very well. So before day one there was just water, day one light was made, whatever the light was (the light of heaven?), day 2 waters were parted from waters to us as area to live in. Day 3 the ground to stand on was made and then Day 4 the small sun, moon and stars.

This seems like quite impressive proof to me that Genesis 1 is not history.

Solarwave

We are looking at the same sketch. But we see different content.
The universe IS like this.

 

[solarwave]

The earth is flat with hell literally under the earth, the sky has a physical dome above it (man hasn't gone to space then?) and there is water surrounding the sky of the earth. Then quite literally above that is God.

You believe the above is true?

 

[juvenissun]

The earth is flat with hell literally under the earth, the sky has a physical dome above it (man hasn't gone to space then?) and there is water surrounding the sky of the earth. Then quite literally above that is God.

You believe the above is true?

With some interpretations, yes, they are all true.
If you like to, we may talk about the interpretations.

 

[solarwave]

With some interpretations, yes, they are all true.
If you like to, we may talk about the interpretations.

Are you a YEC, because if so arn't you generally against interpretation?

I mean what I said was the literal understanding of the universe, so if you interpret it, that is just the same as what TE would like to do with the creation storys.

That is my main point, but I'm happy to talk about the interpretation if you want.

 

[theFijian]

With some interpretations, yes, they are all true.
If you like to, we may talk about the interpretations.

New ironometer here please!

 

[miamited]

Hi Solarwave,

You do realize, I'm sure, that the first plate is an artwork done by a Michael Paukner. From all I could tell, he isn't Jewish. What you are doing is exactly what evolutionists generally do. You are passing a picture, done by some modern day artist, and claiming that it is the reality of how Jews understood the universe. No, my friend, Mr. Paulkner, has read enough Scripture to be dangerous and has sat down on his art table and conceived this rendering of what the Jews 'must' think the creation looks like based on 'his' interpretation of the Genesis account.

Much like the evolutionists who pass off the drawing of an ape over 5 or 6 frames going from a true ape and beginning to walk upright until he becomes a true man. All of that is just someone's conception of what 'they' think the evolutionary sequence 'would' look like if it were true.

You have been deceived, my friend. Be careful.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[solarwave]

Hi Solarwave,

You do realize, I'm sure, that the first plate is an artwork done by a Michael Paukner. From all I could tell, he isn't Jewish. What you are doing is exactly what evolutionists generally do. You are passing a picture, done by some modern day artist, and claiming that it is the reality of how Jews understood the universe. No, my friend, Mr. Paulkner, has read enough Scripture to be dangerous and has sat down on his art table and conceived this rendering of what the Jews 'must' think the creation looks like based on 'his' interpretation of the Genesis account.

I accept that I havn't looked into this fully so I may be wrong, but still it does seem to be what Genesis describes. How do you explain what Day 2 means?

 

[miamited]

Hi Solar,

I sent you an IM with the other artwork. The moderators pulled it, as well they should have.

I explain every day of the creation exactly as God's word explains it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[miamited]

As to the 2nd day of creation. God separated the waters of the clouds - clouds are nothing more than condensated water - from the expansive ocean which would shortly be gathered to allow dry land to appear.

The picture that most YEC's have of the beginning is that for the moment of the initial creation the earth was covered with water and that water had directly above it a mist. Kind of what you see when the temperatures are just right and we have a thick fog. I would think that in your neck of the woods you would be very used to that kind of weather phenomena. Water, water everywhere and a thick blanket of fog. Then God separated the fog and caused it to rise higher in the atmosphere to the level of clouds and between the sea of water on the earth and the mist of water above, He called the expanse, 'sky'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you a YEC, because if so arn't you generally against interpretation?

I mean what I said was the literal understanding of the universe, so if you interpret it, that is just the same as what TE would like to do with the creation storys.

That is my main point, but I'm happy to talk about the interpretation if you want.

Try to look up any word in a dictionary. If it has more than one meaning, which one is literal and which one is "interpretation"? If the first one is literal, are the others metaphors?

So, in order to make interpretation meaningful, you need to define "interpretation" FIRST.

Again, with proper interpretations, everything shown in the figure is true.

 

[juvenissun]

I accept that I havn't looked into this fully so I may be wrong, but still it does seem to be what Genesis describes. How do you explain what Day 2 means?

The specifics would depend on what you refer to. But in principle, it says:

God separates a uniform system into a heterogeneous system.

 

[solarwave]

Try to look up any word in a dictionary. If it has more than one meaning, which one is literal and which one is "interpretation"? If the first one is literal, are the others metaphors?

So, in order to make interpretation meaningful, you need to define "interpretation" FIRST.

Again, with proper interpretations, everything shown in the figure is true.

The specifics would depend on what you refer to. But in principle, it says:

God separates a uniform system into a heterogeneous system.

So what is it you are saying you believe? Sorry, I'm just unsure because you seem to be being to vague for me to see what point you are trying to make.

 

[solarwave]

As to the 2nd day of creation. God separated the waters of the clouds - clouds are nothing more than condensated water - from the expansive ocean which would shortly be gathered to allow dry land to appear.

The picture that most YEC's have of the beginning is that for the moment of the initial creation the earth was covered with water and that water had directly above it a mist. Kind of what you see when the temperatures are just right and we have a thick fog. I would think that in your neck of the woods you would be very used to that kind of weather phenomena. Water, water everywhere and a thick blanket of fog. Then God separated the fog and caused it to rise higher in the atmosphere to the level of clouds and between the sea of water on the earth and the mist of water above, He called the expanse, 'sky'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

It doesn't seem the wording of the second day agrees with what you have described in my opinion, but I don't want to press the issue because I know you are quite happy with your beliefs.

 

[Greg1234]

Hey guys,

I wonder what you those who take Genesis 1 literally think of this?

Scientific evidence refutes Darwinism.

These understandings of the universe make much more sense if taking Genesis 1 to be literal history.

The interpretation of Genesis is creation

I used to wonder what day two of Genesis 1 ment and these understandings of the universe seem to do it very well.

The Firmament, Third Heaven, and Structure of Things Biblical

 

[solarwave]

Scientific evidence refutes Darwinism.

Well I'm not going to try to argue this, I am not well read on the subject yet.

The Firmament, Third Heaven, and Structure of Things Biblical

I'm sorry but I have to totally disagree with the link because I don't think it is based on understanding the verses correctly (it makes them say things they were probably never intended to) and it doesn't really agree with a scientific understanding of cosmology and of some theologians view of 'where' heaven is.

The link seems to say heaven is 'above' earth. But what is above when the earth is a sphere? Also the fact that it is water that separates us from God seems more like a belief of a culture which thinks water is one of the fundemental elements of the world, but in modern times it just seems quite arbitrary that oxygen bonded to two hydrogen atoms and seems to be based on an ancient understanding of the world.

Also it seems strange to think heaven is in the universe, just very far away. Does this mean hell is actually in the center of the earth and if so why earth?

 

[juvenissun]

So what is it you are saying you believe? Sorry, I'm just unsure because you seem to be being to vague for me to see what point you are trying to make.

I gave my response at a comparable level to the clearness of your post/question.

I said: the sketched figures delivered a true situation.
You wanted an interpretation of verse 2. And I gave you one. Why don't you give comment on that?

 

[solarwave]

I gave my response at a comparable level to the clearness of your post/question.

I said: the sketched figures delivered a true situation.
You wanted an interpretation of verse 2. And I gave you one. Why don't you give comment on that?

Well if I was unclear then sorry and I'll explain better if you want just as I'm asking you to.

What interpretation are you refering to? I looked back and I wasn't sure what you ment.

How do the pictures i showed express a true situation?

They paint a picture of a universe in which 'The earth is flat with hell literally under the earth, the sky has a physical dome above it (man hasn't gone to space then?) and there is water surrounding the sky of the earth. Then quite literally above that is God.' And this is a literal physical understanding of the universe, a physical on, not metaphorical. Sure it can be interpreted metaphorical and that is the point I make all the time to YCE but they disagree.

 

[marktheblake]

This seems like quite impressive proof to me that Genesis 1 is not history.

The original author wrote this in Hebrew for Hebrew, so if you are really trying to wrap your head around all this stuff you are going to also need to think like a Hebrew.

Unfortunately like everyone else, you are reading it like a Greek, not a Hebrew.

We like the greeks, think using 'form' whereas the Hebrew thinks using 'function'. This is hard to explain succinctly so i shall hand over to someone who can explain better;

Appearance vs. Functional Description

Greek thought describes objects in relation to its appearance. Hebrew thought describes objects in relation to its function.
A deer and an oak are two very different objects and we would never describe them in the same way with our Greek form of descriptions. The Hebrew word for both of these objects is

(ayil) because the functional description of these two objects are identical to the ancient Hebrews, therefore, the same Hebrew word is used for both. The Hebraic definition of

is "a strong leader".

Read the rest of this section here
Hebrew Thought and How It Differs From Greek (Western) Thought

So in light of your enhanced understanding now, you can consider what is the function for all of the nouns in the verses you are interpreting.

 

[solarwave]

The original author wrote this in Hebrew for Hebrew, so if you are really trying to wrap your head around all this stuff you are going to also need to think like a Hebrew.

Unfortunately like everyone else, you are reading it like a Greek, not a Hebrew.

We like the greeks, think using 'form' whereas the Hebrew thinks using 'function'. This is hard to explain succinctly so i shall hand over to someone who can explain better;

Read the rest of this section here
Hebrew Thought and How It Differs From Greek (Western) Thought

So in light of your enhanced understanding now, you can consider what is the function for all of the nouns in the verses you are interpreting.

Thanks for that, I read the link, thought I will have to read more about it before it becomes a way I can easily interpret things since its so different.

I don't think this proves that the point I am making is wrong though, which is that the literal words used in Genesis 1 do not represent literal history in our thought.

So I'll try to interpret Genesis one like this and tell me what you think:

So in the beginning God created a holy place and the place where humans would live.

Day 1: God lets us see the light (goodness?)

Day 2: In my understanding water in hebrew represents chaos, so God saves us from chaos

Day 3: God God gives us a firm foundation (ground) and provides for us (plants/fruit)

Day 4: God guides us (Light of the Sun and navigation by stars)

Day 5: Im unsure how to interpret this

Day 6: God conforms us to His image.

To be honest I would interpret Genesis 1 close to this without what I just learnt so I am probably showing bias because I can't think hebrew yet.

How would you understand it?