Understanding the Genesis Creation Story in dept.

[Calminian]

No way! Eve, evening and the word dusk all express the notion of darkness.

I'm not sure I can compete with the force of the argument, "no way," but I'll make a feeble attempt. This likely wont convince you, but it helps me to at least look critically at my own theories. Let's revisit the phrase in question.

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day

The first thing I notice is that in naming the light and the darkness, he mentions day first. If nighttime really was to be considered first, and the day last, why not say, "God called the darkness "night" and the light he called "day." ?? Would seem the most logical way to do it.

Second, while the term "evening" both in english and in hebrew express the notion of darkness, they are not synonymous with darkness. They have a distinct meaning in both languages, and that meaning is the close of the day—that period of time in which the sun is setting on the horizon.

Thirdly, sunset follows the day, and morning follows night. This would make the sentences parallel—day and evening first, night and morning last.

Whether or not you buy my interpretation, that's about as succinctly as I can put it. I may not have convinced you, but I think I've convinced myself.

 

[dana b]

Light is Day.

 

[Calminian]

God said let there be light and there was light. So God created light.

Where does it say that God created darkness? If he didn't create it then was it always there? If it was already there then it obviously came first.

So when it says it was the evening/darkness, and then the morning/lightness it has it in the correct order of its coming into existence.

Even Gen.1;2 says at first it was just "darkness."

That is how I get my point that darkness comes first. That is why the expressions "evening and then morning" are true and make good sense. Why else would the Bible say evening which is "ending" comes before morning which is beginning of a day?

I agree with you that darkness came first prior to the creation of the day/night cycle. I just disagree that night came first in the day/night cycle. The Genesis account speaks of daytime being first in the day/night cycle.

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

"Night" is a specific name for a particular darkness that occurs cyclically. Yes, before the day/night cycle, there was darkness, but there was no "night" yet. Darkness and night are not synonymous terms. While nighttime is always dark (at least darker than the day depending on where you live), things and places that are dark are not always called nighttime. This is the problem with referring to the events of Gen. 1:2 as "night." They should no more called night than the inside of a refrigerator after the door is closed (assuming that little light really goes off ).

In Genesis we have a series of descriptions of particular things, and then proper names for those things. We have a particular expanse called "the heavens." We have particular dry ground called "earth." We have particular waters called "the seas."

Not all expanses are the heavens, not all waters are seas, and not even all dry ground is earth (though perhaps on this planet it is). By the same line of reasoning, not all darkness is night, and not all light is day (the light from an open refrigerator also should obviously not be referred to as day).

My contention is not that "light" was prior to "darkness," but rather that "day" was prior to "night."

 

[dana b]

I agree with you

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”



"light = daytime, and darkness= night."

 

[Calminian]

No one will ever disagree with this statement so that is why I think the Bible expects us to understand it so.

"light = daytime, and darkness= night."

Please forgive the sarcasm below. It's just a method of trying to get a point across, for lack of a better one. It's not meant to be insulting.

Well then perhaps we've reached the root of our disagreement. You believe (if I'm understanding your post above) all light is day—be it light from fires, from refrigerator light bulbs, from lamps, etc., should be called "day." Perhaps even the light from the moon should be considered "day." I don't see why not, since your starting premise is "light = day".

And you believe that all darkness is night—be it a dark room, dark cave, or darkness in a closed refrigerator, even areas of darkness in outer space. If it is dark it is night! This is per your axiom "darkness = night". For You really do believe they are synonymous terms.

Perhaps you even refer to a glass of water as "the seas." It would seem to follow the same line of logic.

But I am quite convinced they are not synonymous terms. Therefore I can avoid jumping to some of the conclusions I've cite above.

I will respectfully have to disagree with your statement above.

 

[dana b]

The ideas presented to us in the Bible using the terms "light, walk in the day, night, darkness and stumbling in it, are there for us to see and understand. Here on this chart below are some ideas that the words light, day and darkness signify and incorperate into their meanings.

Jesus told us himself that his speach was for two groups of people. Those who see but don't understand, and then also for those who do begin to understand after they see. Light and darkness are used throughout the Bible beginning and in Genesis to make these descriptions.

 

[Calminian]

The ideas presented to us in the Bible using the terms "light, walk in the day, night, darkness and stumbling in it, are there for us to see and understand. Here on this chart below are some ideas that the words light, day and darkness signify and incorperate into their meanings.

Jesus told us himself that his speach was for two groups of people. Those who see but don't understand, and then also for those who do begin to understand after they see. Light and darkness are used throughout the Bible beginning and in Genesis to make these descriptions.

This is all absolutely correct. But it does not help your premise, nor does it address my response.

One of us is in darkness in this particular nuance of interpretation in this particular passage. I don't think it's me (though it wouldn't be the first time, if it is).

 

[dana b]

Here is why it is so important to me that "night time" preceeds daytime" and that each of the six periods of creation begins with darkness and ends with light. The first part of this chart below talks about light and day.

 

[Assyrian]

How do you say "center or middle" in Hebrew or it's sister language Arabic? You may be surprised by this!

Looking up the Blue Letter Bible here are all the word translated middle or midst in the AV, modern translation with use center for these as well.
Blue Letter Bible - Language Tools
H2872 tabbuwr tab·bür' middle, midst
H8484 tiykown tē·kōn' middle, middlemost, midst
H8432 tavek tä'·vek midst, among, within, middle, in, between, therein, through, into, misc
H2677 chetsiy khā·tsē' half, midst, part, midnight, middle

Blue Letter Bible - Language Tools
H1459 gav (Aramaic) gav midst, within the same, wherein, therein
H8432 tavek tä'·vek midst, among, within, middle, in, between, therein, through, into, misc
H2677 chetsiy khā·tsē' half, midst, part, midnight, middle
H7130 qereb keh'·rev among, midst, within, inwards, in, misc
H2872 tabbuwr tab·bür' middle, midst
H3820 leb lāv heart, mind, midst, understanding, hearted, wisdom, comfortably, well, considered, friendly, kindly, stouthearted, care, misc
H2436 cheyq khāk bosom, bottom, lap, midst, within, variant
H8484 tiykown tē·kōn' middle, middlemost, midst
H2673 chatsah khä·tsä' divide, part, live out half, midst
H2686 chatsats khä·tsats' bands, archers, cut off in the midst

Looking at modern Hebrew
Free Online Hebrew Dictionary. Type in Hebrew/English. Translate Hebrew or Phonetic Hebrew.
doitinHebrew.com Phonetic Translation
center noun ------ mer'kaz; em'tza, tavekh'
center verb ------ mir'kez

doitinHebrew.com Phonetic Translation
middle noun ------ em'tza, mer'kaz
middle adjective -- em'tzaiy, mer'kaziy, tiykhoniy

doitinHebrew.com Phonetic Translation
midst preposition - b'kerev, beynot
midst noun ------- kerev, tokh', em'tza

and Arabic
Arabic dictionary. English to Arabic dictionary. Arabic to English dictionary.
markaz : center [rakaza] Aze merkez, Hin markaz, Per markaz, Taj markaz, Tur merkez
muntassaf : middle , center [nassafa]

Arabic dictionary. English to Arabic dictionary. Arabic to English dictionary.
kabad : middle , center [kabd] Per kabad
muntassaf : middle , center [nassafa]
mutawasitt : middle , average [wasatt]

You should be aware that is just as easy to jump on spurious connection with etymology as it is with numbers. Just because you words that sound vaguely similar, it doesn't mean they have the same root. Even if they have the same root you need to look at who borrowed from whom, and when words were adopted. Just because you want a clever connection to be true it doesn't mean that it is.

 

[dana b]

*-taken from www.christianidentityrevealed2012.com

Have you heard what the center or "middle" of an Arabic city is called. It's called the "Medina." Because it's the "middle" of the settlement. The english word "mid-night" also is recognized as originating from med, medina, or even the Greek word "messa." Remeber that Greek was spoken throughout the middle east and in Northern Egypt in the old days.

Whats a "midan" in the center of Old Calcutta a moderately Muslim city? The Midan is the center strip of grass with roads running paralell for people to be ride and be seen in the center, middle of the city. It's like the modern American phrase of "midtown."

 

[Keachian]

μέσος is different to Μεσσίας, it isn't even the root of Μεσσίας.

ἄνθρωπος the Greek for man would have made more sense to the original audience of the new testament.

אָדָם for the Hebrew, I also notice that you didn't want to point out that כאל breaks your pattern.

In regards to your Bible order one, you're obviously using the Protestant Bible order,
Using the Jewish Canon we have Yekhezqel, Trei Asar ית
Using the Roman Canon we have Amos
Using the Eastern Orthodox Canon we have Daniel, Hosea
Using the original King Jimmy we have 2 Esdras

Your middle claims just make no sense

 

[dana b]

Definitly. The Protestant Bible Canon is the sum result of the 2000 year old Christian Bible. The Christian Bible events happened 2000 years ago.

The Hebrew, Orthodox and the Catholic Bible Canons were but steps on the way up to the "Supernatural 66 book Protestant Bible Canon. Read and examine it for yourself in Chapter 23 of www.christianidentityrevealed2012.com

i look for and appreciate miraculouse writting which show more talent in their ingenuitay than a human being can deliver. In the Bible Canons in chapter 23 you can see how the center/middle hing of both the Orthodox and the Catholic bibles is the book of Jonah. This is interesting because Jesus said that the only miracle for the unbeliveres is "Jonah."

 

[Assyrian]

*-taken from www.christianidentityrevealed2012.com

Have you heard what the center or "middle" of an Arabic city is called. It's called the "Medina." Because it's the "middle" of the settlement. The english word "mid-night" also is recognized as originating from med, medina, or even the Greek word "messa." Remeber that Greek was spoken throughout the middle east and in Northern Egypt in the old days.

Whats a "midan" in the center of Old Calcutta a moderately Muslim city? The Midan is the center strip of grass with roads running paralell for people to be ride and be seen in the center, middle of the city. It's like the modern American phrase of "midtown."

Medina is Arabic for city and is usually the old walled city at the heart of a modern city. The Maidan in Calcutta mean 'open field', which is what the British provided by clearing the villages to give the guns in Fort William a clear line of fire after the Black hole of Calcutta incident. The English mid middle and median do share a common root with Greek and German but not with Hebrew or Arabic. But so what? God spoke his word to people in Hebrew Aramaic and Greek. He did not ask them to learn Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Afroasiatic to understand it.

 

[Papias]

dana b wrote:

Deffinitly. The Protestant Bible Canon is the sum result of the 2000 year old Christian Bible. The Christian Bible events happened 2000 years ago.

The Hebrew, Orthodox and the Catholic Bible Canons were but steps on the way up to the "Supernatural 66 book Protestant Bible Canon."

So then the most recent Bible is the single correct one? If that's the case then the Mormon Bible is the most recently changed one, with a whole new set of books added (the book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc.), so to be proper Christians, are you saying we should be Mormon?

Papias

 

[dana b]

dana b wrote:



So then the most recent Bible is the single correct one? If that's the case then the Mormon Bible is the most recently changed one, with a whole new set of books added (the book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc.), so to be proper Christians, are you saying we should be Mormon?

Papias

To be proper Christians we must fulfull the prophesy of Jeremiah 31;31 and know all the laws from within ourselves. Jeremiah says that "no more will brother teach brother" or one person tell another what is expected of them, "for they shall each know themselves." The Apostel Paul also tells us in Heb.8;10 that for the ones who follow Jesus as the Messiah the "law will be know form their very minds and heats themselves." The world "conscience" is not found in the Old Testament Bible. It is the innovation of Jesus's Christianity.

In chapter 23 of www.christianidentityrevealed2012.com it shows the mysterious progression from the 39 book Hebrew Bible of the ancient tribes of Israel untill today, the last fulfullment of God's truth in a miracoulose arrangement than no men could have arranged. Look at the books as they are arranged in the Protestant 66 book Bible and a miracle is before your eyes. (maybe don't look if you are a commited unbeliever because there are no miracles for you but that of the Prophet Jonah.)

 

[Keachian]

The world "conscience" is not found in the Old Testament Bible. It is the innovation of Jesus's Christianity.

It came about afterward that David’s conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul’s robe.

New American Standard Bible (1 Sa 24:5)

seriously, do you understand anything about linguistics?

 

[dana b]

It came about afterward that David’s conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul’s robe.

New American Standard Bible (1 Sa 24:5)

seriously, do you understand anything about linguistics?

Like i said above, the word "conscience" has no entries in the Mosaic Old Testament. In Strong's Concordance you can see this. But Conscience is what Christianity is all about. No longer must mankind follow the awkward outward laws which some have made a habit of their business, but by following Jesus Christ we begin to know the law from within ourselves.

This was the predicted great things for mankind who followed the covenants of the Holy Bible.

Jer.31;31 Heb.8;10

 

[Keachian]

Like i said above, the word "conscience" has no entries in the Mosaic Old Testament. In Strong's Concordance you can see this.

Strongs is coded to the KJV so I really don't see how this changes anything, you have made a claim and I've shown you at least one place where you are wrong, but lets go more into it.

But Conscience is what Christianity is all about. No longer must mankind follow the awkward outward laws which some have made a habit of their business, but by following Jesus Christ we begin to know the law from within ourselves.

The word translated in 1Sa 24:5 conscience in the NASB is Strong's H3820, if you look at the use of the word throughout the OT it is about our inward being, most of the time it is translated "in the heart" it's an English idiom for conscience.

 

[dana b]

Strongs is coded to the KJV so I really don't see how this changes anything, you have made a claim and I've shown you at least one place where you are wrong, but lets go more into it.


The word translated in 1Sa 24:5 conscience in the NASB is Strong's H3820, if you look at the use of the word throughout the OT it is about our inward being, most of the time it is translated "in the heart" it's an English idiom for conscience.

There are but two Protestant 66 book Bibles as there are but to regenerated Protestant tribes of Israel. These two tribes are Joseph/England and Benjamin/Lutheran Germania. Their Bibles are both more than 400 years old and are still read in their originals. The Catholics have their Jerome translation from 400BC. But the funny protestants, the ones who act as the lamb with two horns but are not have funny Bibles. Rev.13;10

The first Covenant of Moses had people following an outward law in order to benifit physically and materialy here on earth. But the second more advanced Christian covenant has people following their concience for the satisfaction of their psycological soul. It is the final end of the Covenants between Mankind and God. It is possible for all men to profit from it.

The tribes of Israel who accepted Jesus as the Messiah of Israel became the European Christian Nations.

 

[Keachian]

There are but two Protestant 66 book Bibles as there are but to regenerated Protestant tribes of Israel. These two tribes are Joseph/England and Benjamin/Lutheran Germania. Their Bibles are both more than 400 years old and are still read in their originals. The Catholics have their Jerome translation from 400BC. But the funny protestants, the ones who act as the lamb with two horns but are not have funny Bibles. Rev.13;10

This is wrong on so many levels;

• Christian Identity is wrong
• KJV Onlyism is wrong
• The current Vulgate is not the same as Jerome's
• Protestants who disagree with you are not of the devil

The first Covenant of Moses had people following an outward law in order to benifit physically and materialy here on earth. But the second more advanced Christian covenant has people following their concience for the satisfaction of their psycological soul. It is the final end of the Covenants between Mankind and God. It is possible for all men to profit from it.

That doesn't change the fact that these people still had an understanding of what you would call "conscience" never mind that you're hiding behind some pseudo-piety to back up your position.

The tribes of Israel who accepted Jesus as the Messiah of Israel became the European Christian Nations.

No, there is no historical, biblical or logical reason to believe this.