The Gap Theory

[shernren]

Well like I told shernren, I take the bible to be literal and I at least thought that all gappers did also. So when the Bible says Adam lived for 130 years before he and Eve had a son and that after that he lived just 800 years after that I take that to mean that Adam age when he died was 930 years. And in fact Gen. 5:5 specifically says Adam lived a total of 930 years so that is what I believe.

I would agree. If the genealogies don't represent actual and accurate history, I don't see why Genesis 1 has to.

 

[GenemZ]

[/font]
You may have missed the part about my having studied hebrew under a brilliant semiticist in Boston.

I used to know Professor Stan Ashby... who taught Ancient Languages at Harvard. All I am saying he would not disagree with as far as I know. Matter of fact, he was the one who caused my keen interest in this area.

As far as yourlink, I took a look at it, and I'm afraid I have no desire to go buying things..

Try here, first: http://www.rbthieme.org/Financial%20Policy.htm

Then, here: http://www.rbthieme.org/Recordings.htm

As I have stated elsewhere, and in a paper recently presented here at Oxford, there was only a single type of "creation" done in the ancient world. The idea of creation ex nihilo did not exist:

That is not true. Ex nihilio has been traditional rabbinical thinking for God's creation.

there had to be something there. In Egypt, for example, you have nut, the personification of the sea. Compare this to the "ruach elohim, hovering over the waters."

He was not simply hovering. It was a Hebrew word that meant, "as a hen hovers over her eggs as to keep them warmed." In essence, the Holy Spirit had just melted an ice pack that had covered the earth. No light = no heat.

In the east semitic myth, you have Tiamat, the sea, who is split in half by Marduk to create the sky and earth: notice in the Bible, God divides the earth and sea.

Satan knows what happened. So do demons. False religions get their inspiration from the evil spirit world. Half truths do emerge. So?

As I have said before, you have not provided evidence for your interpretation. I mean, at least quote a lexicon or something. I've quoted BDB which is the standard lexicon. That's hardly just spouting off my own opinion.

I see. You see me as spouting off my own opinion. I can not bring Professor Stan Ashby back to life. And, the pastor I recommended to you in that link? Professor Stan Ashby recommended him to me when I was inquiring about messages he gave about the Creation account. You have an endorsement from a once Professor of Ancient Languages - Harvard, about R. B. Thieme. I would simply check out the new links I provided and do your own verifying.

I used to have access to two different libraries on two Bible College campuses when I used to verify what I now speak of. I do not state things that are simply my opinion. I have witnessed to it many times that "bara" in Genesis 1:1, was speaking of ex nihilio (out from nothing) creation. And, I also realize that some equate "asah" with "bara' Because they misunderstand...

Exodus 20:11 niv
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

In Genesis 1? God did not say, "let there be water."

Why?

It was simply already there! Why? It came from the last creation, and water flooding the entire planet was used in its final judgement.

God (asah) made 'the earth' (what we now call land) by separating the water from the land. He made the ground to walk on. He "made" (asah) from what was already created (bara), the land and the seas. What the land and seas were made up of God had already "bara" - created in the beginning!

Likewise... God could not have "yatsar" - formed the body of the man from the dust of the earth, unless the earth was already created (bara).


Now think with me, please....

If the material world always existed? That would be the case if the heavens and earth in the beginning were not created "ex nililo." Correct?

And if the heavens (universe) and earth (planet) was not created 'out from nothing?'

Then the material world would have to be Eternal in nature.

And, if that were the case? Nothing would age! For it is eternal in nature.

Therefore? The Heavens and earth had to be created "ex nihilo." Its either that? Or matter is eternal.

Do you believe matter is eternal?

God is Eternal. God is Spirit. God does not age. God always was, and always will be. Matter? Not the case.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[justified]

All I am saying he would not disagree with as far as I know. Matter of fact, he was the one who caused my keen interest in this area.

I'm afraid the possible disagreement of a professor second hand is not enough for me. Especially since I do not know of his work. I'd prefer it if we stuck to what we know, rather than what we might know.

That is not true. Ex nihilio has been traditional rabbinical thinking for God's creation.

Rabbinical interpretation is not necessarily ancient. As far as the period when the creation narratives were written, ex nihilo, to the best of my knowledge, was not an idea anyone subscribed to. It was too abstract; ex nihilo, I would guess, required a bit of Greek thought to work.

He was not simply hovering. It was a Hebrew word that meant, "as a hen hovers over her eggs as to keep them warmed." In essence, the Holy Spirit had just melted an ice pack that had covered the earth. No light = no heat.

Is that what the Hebrew word means? Where are you getting this stuff? It is only used three times in the OT; once in Gen 1:2; once Dt. 32:11 of an eagle as you wrote, and once to describe a drunken man's bones trembling in Jer. 23:9. Secondly, it's the ruach elohim not the "holy spirit." thirdly, what has anything to do with an ice pack?

It was simply already there!

Yes, we can agree that there was already water. But,

Why?

Is what we cannot agree upon because

It came from the last creation, and water flooding the entire planet was used in its final judgement.

This has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Now think with me, please....

You're a funny guy, you know that?

If the material world always existed? That would be the case if the heavens and earth in the beginning were not created "ex nililo." Correct?

Sort of. If "matter" always existed, then sure. It wouldn't require a "material world."

And if the heavens (universe) and earth (planet) was not created 'out from nothing?' Then the material world would have to be Eternal in nature.

First off, "heavens" is the firmament in Gen 1 -- that is, the sky. Secondly, the earth is the "ground." Thirdly, the narrative only refers to origins of the world in which those ancients lived. The idea of "where did the chaos waters come from?" did not concern them. But it does not mean that the chaos waters were necessarily eternal in nature. That's a syllogism.

And, if that were the case? Nothing would age! For it is eternal in nature.

See where syllogisms get you? What necessitates that this be the case? Your logic is faulty.

Since you're being so difficult about your pseudolingustics, I'll be back eventually with a usage list of the two creative words.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Hi genez this post is mostly written for you concerning what you have replied back to me.

I would agree. If the genealogies don't represent actual and accurate history, I don't see why Genesis 1 has to.

I have a standard rule I go by and that is that I view everything in the Bible as literal unless it is proven otherwise. I don't first see something as being symbolic until it is proven literal. What I have found in my readings and studies is that most of the Bible is speaking literal while there are some parts that are not. Reading the parables that Jesus spoke is a good illustration of what shouldn't be taken as literal. The Genesis account of creation I do believe should be taken literal.

I can allow myself to consider that some men were left out of the genealogies and that the result would be a longer time of 6,000 years from then until now but to believe that Adam and Eve lived longer than what the Bible specifically states I see no evidence for.

The first several verses in chapter 5 starts out with the day Adam was created, when Adam and Eve were married, how long Adam lived before him and Eve had a son, and how long Adam lived afterwords. There's nothing in those passages that say anything about the fall and how long Adam lived before or after the fall.


Gen. 5:5, And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died
I take that as being literal, that all the days of Adam were 930 years. If I was to see this as the number of years Adam lived after the fall I would have to read that in the passage. It would have to say something like, "all the days of Adam after the fall were 930 years" but there simply is no reference to the fall at all in any of the passages.

In fact, if I am to allow myself to consider what you are saying there would have to be a reference of the fall between the 2nd and 3rd verses but there is none. The 2nd verse states "in the day they were created". The 3rd verse then simply states "And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness"
So I see no evidence for Adam and Eve living for thousands of years before the fall. The Bible puts Adam's age at 930 years from the day he was created up to when he died.

 

[shernren]

I have a standard rule I go by and that is that I view everything in the Bible as literal unless it is proven otherwise. I don't first see something as being symbolic until it is proven literal. What I have found in my readings and studies is that most of the Bible is speaking literal while there are some parts that are not. Reading the parables that Jesus spoke is a good illustration of what shouldn't be taken as literal. The Genesis account of creation I do believe should be taken literal.

I can allow myself to consider that some men were left out of the genealogies and that the result would be a longer time of 6,000 years from then until now but to believe that Adam and Eve lived longer than what the Bible specifically states I see no evidence for.

So, nothing is symbolic until proven literal. Wow.

But that was probably a typo right? In any case ... something I don't get is why YECs feel that they can loosen the noose, so to speak, by postulating additional intermediates between the members of the Genesis genealogies. Firstly, there's no way mere emendation will change the age of the earth from, say, 6,000 years to even 100,000 years, far less 4.5 billion years. Secondly, if one is to postulate supernatural appearance of age, then an actual age of 6,000 is as fine as any to have.

Thirdly, by taking that position YECs are opening themselves to a little of the same criticism they heap on others. After all, the genealogies are quoted in both Matthew (which specifically says "fourteen generations" three times, IIRC, which is immediately falsified by the presence of intermediates) and Luke, and also by Jude calling Enoch the seventh from Adam. So how?

 

[nephilimiyr]

So, nothing is symbolic until proven literal. Wow.

But that was probably a typo right?

No that wasn't a joke or a typo. LOL, I knew this was going to be misunderstood. Look, when I say "proven" I don't really mean it as that it has to be debated back and forth or that someone has to stubbornly deny until all proof is given. I use the term very loosely.

I believe that if the context clearly shows that the words written are symbolic then what is written has been proven to me to be symbolic.

Here's an illustration
Revelation 13:1, And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
Clearly this is symbolic. It doesn't take me alot of time to read this and see that it is symbolic. For one thing, there is no known animal that has 10 horns or 7 heads. Therefore the verse itself proves that it is symbolic. Secondly further on in the chapter it says that this animal will rule with authority while people will worship it. Kind of hard to believe that an animal will be able to acomplish all of this don't you think? Therefore the story given in chapter 13 of Revelations has been proven symbolic by simple reasoning and without anyone haveing to argue with you or debate you.

I think you've taken what I said as meaning that until an animal with 10 horns and 7 heads is proven to not exist by some kind of physical evidence that only then can the statement be considered symbolic or else remain literal. That's not what I meant at all.

Now look at Matthew 2:1, This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
Now if I took the stance that everything in the Bible was symbolic until proven literal what demand of proof would I be asking from them who take this statement as being literal?

For one, the context of the verse is claiming a statement of fact, it's giving a history. Because of the genealogies already given in chapter 1 we see that there really was a person named Joseph and since we see a second and different genealogy by a different author in the Gospel of Luke that can only be speaking of his mother Mary we come to know that there's also a real Mary. The only thing in the verse that seems to be unreasonable is that the woman, Mary, was with child through the Holy Spirit before she was wed with this Joseph guy. Ok now we have our first hint of a possible use of symbolism. But wait, many other passages in the Bible proclaim God as being all powerful and mighty, that there is nothing He can't do. So at least for the moment I can continue on believeing this story to be a literal story. There's nothing within the passage that proves it to be symbolism.

So there you have it. I go about reading the Bible as if it was literal until evidence shows me that it is symbolic. The evidence is in the Bible itself.

 

[GenemZ]

You're a funny guy, you know that?


Sort of. If "matter" always existed, then sure. It wouldn't require a "material world."

No... mattter can exist in a raw state. Without having a particular form or function. Like wet cement can be made to become many different types of functional structures. But> If matter always existed? God would have done like he had with Adam's body.... "Yatsar" Formed and molded it. "Asah" Made it into something other than its raw state. But, we do not find that in the Hebrew. .....

First off, "heavens" is the firmament in Gen 1 -- that is, the sky. Secondly, the earth is the "ground." Thirdly, the narrative only refers to origins of the world in which those ancients lived. The idea of "where did the chaos waters come from?" did not concern them. But it does not mean that the chaos waters were necessarily eternal in nature.

Heavens is in the plural..... The sky is only heaven. Heavens, includes the sky.

Genesis 15:5 niv
"He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

Psalm 8:3 niv
"When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place. "

Now? Are the stars in the sky? Or, the universe? God created more than one heaven (sky) in Genesis 1:1.

That's a syllogism.

See where syllogisms get you? What necessitates that this be the case? Your logic is faulty.

No one's logic is 100% fault-free. So, its only logical to say what you just did.

Since you're being so difficult about your pseudolingustics, I'll be back eventually with a usage list of the two creative words.

According to your brand of teachers interpretation, that is. Have fun!

For God to have not created the Heavens and Earth, out from nothing? You make the material world ETERNAL. Matter is not eternal, sir. It did not always exist. If it were eternal, we could not measure the age of this earth. Having always existed, it would have no beginning. Logic, my friend. Logic!

Grace and GeneZ

 

[justified]

Now? Are the stars in the sky? Or, the universe? God created more than one heaven (sky) in Genesis 1:1.

You want the biblical answer or the scientific answer? I'm aware of the dual-plural nature of heaven, but I'm also aware it was translated differently by the LXX and in the NT, often in the singular despite the fact that the NT uses the plural of the greek quite often. It's a confusing topic, and you have oversimplified it.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Proverbs 4:7, Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

 

[GenemZ]

[/font]
You want the biblical answer or the scientific answer? I'm aware of the dual-plural nature of heaven, but I'm also aware it was translated differently by the LXX and in the NT, often in the singular despite the fact that the NT uses the plural of the greek quite often. It's a confusing topic, and you have oversimplified it.

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. NASB

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ASV

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Darby

And, there are more....

Got to run for work.....

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[justified]

Gen. 1.1 LXX: εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην (tr: en the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth).

Besides, according to Gen. 1:7-8 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day there is a problem with your theory.

The firmament is identified as שמים, "heavens," (a dual, not a plural, word) and this firmament has waters above and below. Therefore, the stars cannot be part of the heavens, because they are a long way above the clouds, aren't they? You should not equate "universe" with "heavens" since the waters are not above the universe: the universe has no "above," anyways.

 

[GenemZ]

Gen. 1.1 LXX: εν αρχη εποιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην (tr: en the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth).

Besides, according to Gen. 1:7-8 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day there is a problem with your theory.

The firmament is identified as שמים, "heavens," (a dual, not a plural, word) and this firmament has waters above and below. Therefore, the stars cannot be part of the heavens, because they are a long way above the clouds, aren't they? You should not equate "universe" with "heavens" since the waters are not above the universe: the universe has no "above," anyways.

You forget? God made the sun, moon, and stars to bear light in Genesis 1. Was he only speaking of the atmosphere (sky) immediately above the earth?

The Jews had the concept of multiple heavens! Not one. Here is one example of the thinking of the Jews.

2 Corinthians 12:2 niv
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows."

That is why you will see Heavens, and Heaven..... and the context will reveal which one when spoken in the singular.

In the following God spoke of heavens, (our atmosphere, and what's above it) then mentions what is above our atmosphere (heaven).

Isaiah 40:26 niv
"Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

I do not know why you are fighting this so hard. But, it seems you have been victomized by those assigned in this life to disprove what I believe and what the Scriptures teach plainly.

There are certain men out there who have written in their hearts...

"If its Biblical truth... do all to disprove it no matter what it takes. The more confusion you can produce, the better."

I (and others here) have witnessed to this many times, in many ways. It is major part in the "good fight" all believers have been called to engage in.

But, sometimes is just gets outright annoying. Like a buzzing mosquito trying to find an open spot to suck some blood out of you, leaving behind an irritant.

Just the same. We are all at different places in our walks. That is why we must not judge the person, but only the content of his error of the moment. Yet, there are some cosmic types who's whole objective in this life is to invent new ways to introduce confusion. But, on the other side, there are those who confuse those who have accepted falsehood, by clarifying what they failed to understand. No free lunch on this one.

Heavens to Betsy! When will this end? GeneZ

pssssst! its "heaven" to Betsy!

............. no! its heavens!

 

[justified]

You forget? God made the sun, moon, and stars to bear light in Genesis 1. Was he only speaking of the atmosphere (sky) immediately above the earth?

No, I do not forget. I'm forcing you to create a cogent argument.

The Jews had the concept of multiple heavens! Not one. Here is one example of the thinking of the Jews.

2 Corinthians 12:2 niv
"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows."

That is why you will see Heavens, and Heaven..... and the context will reveal which one when spoken in the singular.

Then how come the JEWS who translated the Old Testament consistently translated the Hebrew dual form with the Greek singular form?

Listen buddy, there are four or five points above that you still haven't answered because you went off on the heavens thing; the heavens are not at all crucial to your argument above, so I'd suggest you get back to it.

We both know that the ancient cosmology was of multiple heavens: by the time of the New Testament, you have seven heavens (read II Enoch, esp.). But what I am trying to get you to see is the "literalness" of this; God calls the firmament the [dual]heaven in Genesis 1; he says there are waters below and above. The waters below are the seas; what are the waters above? Tell me, what waters are above the stars and sun and moon? Our rain has to come from somewhere.

I do not know why you are fighting this so hard. But, it seems you have been victomized by those assigned in this life to disprove what I believe and what the Scriptures teach plainly.

I have not been victimized by anyone. I'm fighting you to force you to write something that makes sense. I talk every day to people who are correct in what they believe, but they have absolutely no semblence of order when they try to explain it. If you're going to sit there and tell me how it is, you must be willing to make a cogent argument that takes into account more than simply your own reading of the scriptures.

Scriptures must be objectively read. This is why when you write,

In the following God spoke of heavens, (our atmosphere, and what's above it) then mentions what is above our atmosphere (heaven).

And talk about Isaiah 40, I can't just acquiesce and say it is fine. The word "heavens" does not even occur. The Hebrew phrase is שאו-מרום עיניכם וראו מי-ברא אלה translated literally, "Seek your eyes on high and see who created these" (you can compare the translations of most more literal bibles if you prefer). The NIV's is prettier, and makes things more clear, but the word "heavens" is not there.

I (and others here) have witnessed to this many times, in many ways. It is major part in the "good fight" all believers have been called to engage in.

But, sometimes is just gets outright annoying. Like a buzzing mosquito trying to find an open spot to suck some blood out of you, leaving behind an irritant.

I refuse to engage you in a game of slurrs. I don't think you've got my number, so you might as well relax.

 

[GenemZ]

[/font]

No, I do not forget. I'm forcing you to create a cogent argument.

[/font]

Well, since you "do not forget" , what I mentioned, still stands.

Then how come the JEWS who translated the Old Testament consistently translated the Hebrew dual form with the Greek singular form?

In the beginning, the heaven over the earth was not yet created. It was about to be made in an existing heaven, in Genesis 1. In the mean while, the heaven of the stars, and the heaven of God's throne were already existing. If not? God did not create the heavens.

Listen buddy, there are four or five points above that you still haven't answered because you went off on the heavens thing; the heavens are not at all crucial to your argument above, so I'd suggest you get back to it.

Yet, that's where you want me to stick to by what you are writing in your post.

We both know that the ancient cosmology was of multiple heavens: by the time of the New Testament, you have seven heavens (read II Enoch, esp.). But what I am trying to get you to see is the "literalness" of this;

Literalness, can get us in trouble at times. You should be well aware of this by now.

God calls the firmament the [dual]heaven in Genesis 1; he says there are waters below and above. The waters below are the seas; what are the waters above? Tell me, what waters are above the stars and sun and moon? Our rain has to come from somewhere.

It is not speaking of a layer of air in between to begin with.

It speaks of how high the water was at that time (flooded earth). God had to create waters above (for rain, etc) and below (lakes, oceans, etc).

6~~Then Elohiym/Godhead said, "Atmosphere . . . be in the middle of the waters. And, become a cause of the dividing between the waters and the waters (between heavenly waters and surface waters)."

That passage was taken from notes of one of the church members from a lesson being taught by my pastor who exegeted the Hebrew.

I have not been victimized by anyone. I'm fighting you to force you to write something that makes sense.

Sense to you, that is. Which I am not sure of what you demanding of your slave.

I talk every day to people who are correct in what they believe, but they have absolutely no semblence of order when they try to explain it. If you're going to sit there and tell me how it is, you must be willing to make a cogent argument that takes into account more than simply your own reading of the scriptures.

It is not simply "my reading." Its the results of studying and being taught. Problem is, I do not have notes that you would require to be satisfied.

Scriptures must be objectively read. This is why when you write,
And talk about Isaiah 40, I can't just acquiesce and say it is fine. The word "heavens" does not even occur. The Hebrew phrase is שאו-מרום עיניכם וראו מי-ברא אלה translated literally, "Seek your eyes on high and see who created these" (you can compare the translations of most more literal bibles if you prefer). The NIV's is prettier, and makes things more clear, but the word "heavens" is not there.

You are correct. A more literal rendering would be ....

26 Lift up your eyes on high,​

and behold Who has created these things,
Who brings out their army/host by number.

He calls them all by names
by the greatness of His might,
for that He is strong in power;
not one fails."

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[justified]

In the beginning, the heaven over the earth was not yet created. It was about to be made in an existing heaven, in Genesis 1. In the mean while, the heaven of the stars, and the heaven of God's throne were already existing. If not? God did not create the heavens.

Not only is this yet another syllogism -- who says God didn't make himself a heaven for his throne later on? -- I'm afraid I do not understand the first sentence.

Yet, that's where you want me to stick to by what you are writing in your post.

I will argue with anything, but I'm just thinking that this thread is about primarily the gap theory; a correct theory of the heavens isn't needed. But I don't mind continuing. I was trying to do you a favor

It is not speaking of a layer of air in between to begin with. It speaks of how high the water was at that time (flooded earth). God had to create waters above (for rain, etc) and below (lakes, oceans, etc).

First of all, you haven't proven that it's a flooded earth so leave that out. Just deal with what we've agreed upon: primeval waters. The firmament is put between: this we agree upon. But you are calling the "firmament" atmosphere on the basis of the "exegesis" of someone at your church: this is a bad move. The word here, רקיע, occurs 17 times in the First Testament, in 15 different verses. There's a reason it is called "firmament" by some versions -- it is inherently something solid. The verses speak of the firmament as something objective, not a random gas (atmosphere). Quite frankly, if he had done his exegesis more carefully, he would have noticed the parallel accounts in the eastern-semitic traditions which attest that the "firmament" was much like a dome: solid, and firm.

Sense to you, that is. Which I am not sure of what you demanding of your slave.

?

It is not simply "my reading." Its the results of studying and being taught. Problem is, I do not have notes that you would require to be satisfied.

I do not need notes; I need cogency and accuracy. Besides, I've been studying these issues for years and I'm trained in Hebrew and Greek and ancient history. I'm on this forum not to learn -- though I do at times -- but rather to teach and to help because Christianity needs it. So when I sit here and say it doesn't make sense, I'm not trying to shut you down. I'm trying to help.

I strongly suggest we stop the rather incidental study of the heavens and get back to one of the more relavent issues above concerning the gap theory.

 

[shernren]

Oh, nephilimiyr, now i get it. What you should have said that reflects your position accurately is:

I believe that nothing is purely symbolic unless proven not literal.

Right?

Squeezing the ancient cosmological paradigm of Genesis 1 into modern science requires that the "heavens" of Genesis 1 be the universe, and that the waters above the firmament is a layer of what is now ice at the edge of the observable universe. This is an actual suggestion of white hole cosmology.

 

[GenemZ]

I do not need notes; I need cogency and accuracy. Besides, I've been studying these issues for years and I'm trained in Hebrew and Greek and ancient history. I'm on this forum not to learn -- though I do at times -- but rather to teach and to help because Christianity needs it. So when I sit here and say it doesn't make sense, I'm not trying to shut you down. I'm trying to help.

I strongly suggest we stop the rather incidental study of the heavens and get back to one of the more relavent issues above concerning the gap theory.

Ok, But, first this. I checked with my pastor's wording. Question?

How would you make the Hebrew word for heaven appear in the plural?

(I do not have Hebrew fonts).......


"Hashamayim."


You are the expert in Hebrew, here. Right? As for me? Ani lo y'deyah ev'rit.

According to what you have been telling us. It must be singular. Right? For that is how it appears in Genesis 1:1.

So? I would like for you with all your expertise, to reveal how it is to be written (phonetically) in the plural. Can you?

Thank you very much.

For those who do not know Hebrew.... "Hashamayim." .... already appears in the plural in Genesis 1:1.

..............."Heavens."

For some reason unexplained, the much later translation of the LXX decided to render it singular in the Greek. But, the original wording in the Hebrew is plural. The original text was plural.

Now, I would like to see the expert show us how it should have appeared if it were to be plural.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[nephilimiyr]

Oh, nephilimiyr, now i get it. What you should have said that reflects your position accurately is:

I believe that nothing is purely symbolic unless proven not literal.

Right?

Right!

Sorry I was confusing you about that.

 

[justified]

You are glossing over the complexities.

I have not said that the Hebrew word for "heaven" in Genesis is singular; I have said that it is "dual." I have said that the Greek translation is singular, because that's how it's done in the LXX.

The Hebrew can have a "plural" form and it can have a "dual" form - these are nothing the same things at all. Since you don't read Hebrew, I'll give you a rough transliteration of the consonants of Gen. 1.1:
b-reshiyt bara' 'elohiym; et ha-shamayim va-'t ha-'erez.

When you have a plural form, the masculine ending is "iym" that is, like 'elohiym, our word for God. It's a plural form. The word for heaven, however, has a "yim" ending, which is the "dual" ending. For example, the word "hand" (yad) and the word for "two hands" (yadyim). The King of Egypt is the king of the dual-lands, mitzrayim. (If you don't take my word for it, see the boss: Weingreen, secs. 19,20; pp.35-40).

 

[GenemZ]

When you have a plural form, the masculine ending is "iym" that is, like 'elohiym, our word for God. It's a plural form. The word for heaven, however, has a "yim" ending, which is the "dual" ending. For example, the word "hand" (yad) and the word for "two hands" (yadyim). The King of Egypt is the king of the dual-lands, mitzrayim. (If you don't take my word for it, see the boss: Weingreen, secs. 19,20; pp.35-40).

Let me see, now....

Two hands is not plural, but dual? In other words its a plurality of two, not many. So? It still does not make "heavens" singular as you claim.

What's your point in all this? You still claimed that Genesis 1:1, speaks of only a singular heaven. It should be speaking of two heavens according to what you just told us. One of this earth, and the heaven above the heaven of this earth.

Technically, its still plural. But limited by syntax, as to not meaning, 'many.'

Yet, you say "Hashamayim," only speaks of one heaven over the surface of the earth. And, you just explained how the Hebrew means "dual?"

It appears to me that you are using your knowledge as a smoke screen to push what you wish for others to believe. Dual is still a plurality. Its only limited to being two things, not many.


So what's your point in all this? Want to debate what the two heavens are? It still says heavens, like you have two hands. But, you have only one hand?

Not buying it.... You have to do better than that.


Grace and peace, GeneZ