Why a literal Genesis?

[Archie the Preacher]

Do you?
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

I do. Do you claim you do and are superior in understanding to all those who disagree with you?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Should Genesis be taken literally?

One of the reasons is...Paul took Genesis as literal.

Think about this...Paul in a letter to Timothy said this to the women there...

1st Tim 2:11 A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.

The question is, just what did Paul base that instruction to women on? The answer follows....

13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

Would Paul instruct women how to act in church and base his reasoning on a non literal event that never happened?

It was asked "why pick the literal approach for Genesis as opposed to the allegorical approach?" The answer is simple...Paul chose the literal approach.

In my view, Adam and Eve were created by God in a special and different way to the rest of creation. They were made in Gods Image. Until that point evolution was in motion and continues to be. This verse by Paul are literal and do not conflict with an allegorical creation pre Adam.

 

[mark kennedy]

For many it didn't even require learning more about the universe to recognize that there is plenty in Genesis that isn't meant to be taken literally.

For many of the ancient fathers, such as Origen and St. Augustine, that the creation stories aren't supposed to be read literally was taken as a given.

"Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky?

There is a sky but the earth is covered in thick darkness and the surface covered in water. The Hebrew Scriptures simply do not teach that there was no sun, moon or stars, it's says the heavens and the earth were created, 'in the beginning'. On the fourth day the sun, moon and stars were not 'created' but 'set', indicated in the Hebrew by two very different words. God's creative work during creation week included work on the 'firmament' which was and is the atmosphere above the surface of the earth and everything in the Genesis account is from the perspective of the surface of the earth.

And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

" - Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis, Book IV, ch. 16

-CryptoLutheran

Among the Early Church Fathers that would be a minority opinion. While he showed strong intellectual and educational prowess his teachings are not purely Christian. The man dabbled in heresy:

Unlike many church fathers, he was never canonised as a saint because some of his teachings directly contradicted the teachings attributed to the apostles, notably the Apostles Paul and John. His teachings on the pre-existence of souls, the final reconciliation of all creatures, including perhaps even the devil (the apokatastasis), and the subordination of God the Son to God the Father, were rejected by Christian orthodoxy. (Origen of Alexandria)
​

The temptation of Christ was not literal in his estimation, but figurative, something no Gospel writer ever suggests or would have intended. This is a classic example of how a literal or figurative interpretation of Genesis is a hermeneutical principle that transcends Scripture, even the New Testament.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

But Adam and Eve were created in God's image, and they were a brand new creation right (even if other humans were around)? Can it not emphasise how big a deal it was to be given the image of God and the responsibility that came with it?

Apparently it was a very big deal to be repeated three times in connection with the strongest word for God's creative work in the Hebrew. Bear in mind the 'image of God' was created in Adam and Eve but perfected only in Christ. What it would include is the divine attributes of God that are communicable, as opposed to incommunicable which would be omnipotence, omniscience...etc. There is a running debate between Catholic and Calvinist theology whether the image of God was utterly destroyed or simply damaged and repairable, Calvinists believe it was ruined, only a miraculous recreation can restore it, thus new birth. We can speculate with regards to what was damaged or destroyed as a result of the fall but there can be no question of how it is perfected, it can be restored and perfected only in Christ.

Here are a couple of lists of the divine attributes I think belong to the 'image of God'. I mean this to be informative and edifying rather then dogmatic and mutually exclusive with other character qualities implied:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Gal. 5:22,23)

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.(Col. 3:12-14)
​

Like I said, it's not exclusive with other character qualities, while there are obviously others I think the ability of man to reason is a vitally important one:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)
​

Indeed, there is great responsibility that came with it and yes, it is a very big deal.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In my view, Adam and Eve were created by God in a special and different way to the rest of creation. They were made in Gods Image. Until that point evolution was in motion and continues to be. This verse by Paul are literal and do not conflict with an allegorical creation pre Adam.

When God breathed the breath of life into Adam, Adam became a living being. (Genesis 2:7) So prior to that point, Adam was a clay statue, according to the literal wording of the text.

I have no understanding if Adam could move prior to that moment. (I direct the reader's attention to the Hebrew concept of 'golem', without prejudice toward acceptance or rejection.) However, in our understanding, when God 'breathed' into Adam, Adam became alive as we understand it and was able to think as humans do. This ability to think is - in human terms - the major difference between humans and animals. In accord with this, God never mentions particular animals having 'evil' intent in the sense of rebelling against Him.

So when did man become man? The Genesis account can be read as all this (the Creation episode) happening all in a short period. However, the first three chapters of Genesis can be understood as a late Stone Age story designed to explain the 'why' of God and God's Creation and not a detailed mechanical depiction of the 'how' it all happened.

Later in Genesis, Adam and Eve have offspring. I believe that happened literally - much as it does now, except with no doctors or bills. However, one notes the Genesis account skips the biological or human emotional details of mating and the internal process of Eve to form a human child.

Using the logic of the YEC community regarding the Creation of the Universe, this would indicate none of that is needed to reproduce.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

When God breathed the breath of life into Adam, Adam became a living being. (Genesis 2:7) So prior to that point, Adam was a clay statue, according to the literal wording of the text.

I have no understanding if Adam could move prior to that moment. (I direct the reader's attention to the Hebrew concept of 'golem', without prejudice toward acceptance or rejection.) However, in our understanding, when God 'breathed' into Adam, Adam became alive as we understand it and was able to think as humans do. This ability to think is - in human terms - the major difference between humans and animals. In accord with this, God never mentions particular animals having 'evil' intent in the sense of rebelling against Him.

So when did man become man? The Genesis account can be read as all this (the Creation episode) happening all in a short period. However, the first three chapters of Genesis can be understood as a late Stone Age story designed to explain the 'why' of God and God's Creation and not a detailed mechanical depiction of the 'how' it all happened.

Later in Genesis, Adam and Eve have offspring. I believe that happened literally - much as it does now, except with no doctors or bills. However, one notes the Genesis account skips the biological or human emotional details of mating and the internal process of Eve to form a human child.

Using the logic of the YEC community regarding the Creation of the Universe, this would indicate none of that is needed to reproduce.

Yes I haven't decided on a firm stance with regard to Adam, whether God formed Him in the one day, or whether He "breathed His life" into Adam - the "neanderthal". ANd this "Life" would include "His image", "human understanding" etc.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Yes I haven't decided on a firm stance with regard to Adam, whether God formed Him in the one day, or whether He "breathed His life" into Adam - the "neanderthal". ANd this "Life" would include "His image", "human understanding" etc.

I am not a YEC adherent at all - except the part about God being in charge and guiding light (so to speak).

I have tinkered with the idea of Adam being a separate creation of God. But I think it far more likely Adam was a metaphor for the Divine change from animal to human. Which infuriates all the "My Granddaddy wasn't no monkey!" narcissists.

I am in complete agreement with your observation about 'breathing life into' includes 'His image', human thought and so on.

On the other hand, I have no doubt God will make it all plain to me at the right time. Most likely, when I get to Heaven.

Also, let me muddy the waters further by suggesting 'breathing life' may be a metaphor for a totally non-physical (but supernatural and real in that sense) action which made Adam a human.

 

[mmksparbud]

On the fourth day the sun, moon and stars were not 'created' but 'set', indicated in the Hebrew by two very different words.

Genesis 1:14
and Elohiym said, the luminaries will exist in the sheet of the skies to make a separation between the day and the night and they exist for signs and for appointed time and for days and years,
Genesis 1:16
and Elohiym made two of the great luminaries, the great luminary for the regulation of the day, and the small luminary for the regulation of the night, and the stars,

The words in the original Hebrew is not set the sun, moon and stars, but made.
Literal it is wai'ya'as
and~he~will~DO (VerbTo bring to pass; to bring about; to act or make; Make, use. [Strong's #: 6213]
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mt/translation1.html

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Also, let me muddy the waters further by suggesting 'breathing life' may be a metaphor for a totally non-physical (but supernatural and real in that sense) action which made Adam a human.

No that doesn't muddy the waters, this is how I think of it also, at least, as a possibility. But do you think then that it is possible that ONLY Adam and Eve (the two chosen from the tribe of many pre-humans) were inducted into a "Garden of Eden" spiritual place (not a physical Eden, a spiritual state of being) where from that place they were given purpose from God to take dominion over the earth?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

No that doesn't muddy the waters, this is how I think of it also, at least, as a possibility.

I'm not completely married to the idea, but it is a possibility.

But do you think then that it is possible that ONLY Adam and Eve (the two chosen from the tribe of many pre-humans) were inducted into a "Garden of Eden" spiritual place (not a physical Eden, a spiritual state of being) where from that place they were given purpose from God to take dominion over the earth?

Possible? Sure. Likely? I don't know.

Biologists seem to think a 'breeding pool' has to be 'so' big in order to be successful. However, the raw data and 'rules' do not allow for a specific success by an outside manipulation of the breeding pool; i.e., God directing it to happen. So from one standpoint I think it possible Adam and Eve were two only specimens of humanity who prospered according to God's will. From another standpoint, I think it possible Adam and Eve were a metaphor for an entire generation of humans (as of 'that' moment). Neither dismisses God from the picture. Nor does my salvation depend on it.

Also, I think Eden was a physical place as much as spiritual. I think the 'rules of nature' changed after the Fall, which changed the Earth. I do not think we need to invent or evoke space portals, wormholes (Einstein-Rosen Bridge) or anything else to get from 'there' to 'here'.

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis 1:14
and Elohiym said, the luminaries will exist in the sheet of the skies to make a separation between the day and the night and they exist for signs and for appointed time and for days and years,
Genesis 1:16
and Elohiym made two of the great luminaries, the great luminary for the regulation of the day, and the small luminary for the regulation of the night, and the stars,

The words in the original Hebrew is not set the sun, moon and stars, but made.
Literal it is wai'ya'as
and~he~will~DO (VerbTo bring to pass; to bring about; to act or make; Make, use. [Strong's #: 6213]
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mt/translation1.html

So God makes the earth and for three days it sits there in the middle of nothing while God works on the oceans and the atmosphere but there is no sun, no moon, no stars, and I assume, no planets other then earth. Then on day four God finally gets around to creating them. Or maybe, when God made the earth he made the earth, sun, moon planets and stars but darkness and water covered the surface of the earth. During creation week God starts clearing the clouds, adjusting the atmosphere, exposes the surface of the earth and gradually makes the heavens more visible from the surface of the earth.

God made H6213 עָשָׂה (`asah) it so the heavenly lights could give H5414 נָתַן (nathan) their light to the earth bound world he was preparing for living creatures. There is no literary reason for God to have created the sun, moon and stars on day four, in fact, precise language is used to show a progression from the divine fiat of Gen. 1:1 to things being made and set in the sky, so as to be regularly seen from the surface of the earth.

Yes, God 'made' the sun, moon and stars. God also made (#6213) the firmament in the sense of separating the waters above and below (Gen. 1:7). God made fruit in the sense that they yielded (#6213) fruit after their own kind. So the word translated 'made' H6213 עָשָׂה (`asah), is used to describe the work of God on the existing firmament waters and procreation.

Specifically I was referencing this verse:

And God set (H5414) them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. (Gen. 1:17)

Set H5414 נָתַן (nathan), To set, to put, to place (Gen. 1:17; 9:13; 15:10; 1 Kings 7:39; Eze. 3:20; e.g. to place snares, Ps. 119:110; defenses. Eze 26:8; to make a covenant Gen. 9:12; 17:2. (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon)​

The KJV translates it in a large number of ways and there are a wide variety of meanings:

nâthan, naw-than'; a primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (put, make, etc.):—add, apply, appoint, ascribe, assign, × avenge, × be (healed), bestow, bring (forth, hither), cast, cause, charge, come, commit, consider, count, cry, deliver (up), direct, distribute, do, × doubtless, × without fail, fasten, frame, × get, give (forth, over, up), grant, hang (up), × have, × indeed, lay (unto charge, up), (give) leave, lend, let (out), lie, lift up, make, O that, occupy, offer, ordain, pay, perform, place, pour, print, × pull, put (forth), recompense, render, requite, restore, send (out), set (forth), shew, shoot forth (up), sing, slander, strike, (sub-) mit, suffer, × surely, × take, thrust, trade, turn, utter, weep, willingly, withdraw, would (to) God, yield. (Strong’s Concordance)
​

However God created, H1254 בָּרָא (bara'), the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1, bara used 1x), life in general (Gen. 1:21, bara used 1x) and man in particular (Gen. 1:27 bara used 3x). Bara, translated, 'created', has profound theological significance, only God can create in the sense of 'bara', the terms translated 'made' and 'set' have a much broader range of meaning.

A text without a context is a pretext, this elegant and carefully crafted passage contains literary features and a logical progression. A more detailed exposition and some exegetical digging yields some valuable insights into the narrative a superficial treatment isn't going to give you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

​

 

[mmksparbud]

Genesis 1:1
in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land,

בָּרָא

ba'ra
he~did~FATTEN (Verb)
FATTEN (V)

The following is an excerpt from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center Website.

The Hebrew root ברא (BaRA) is a child root formed out of the parent by adding the letter ברא. As a verb this word is used 46 times in the Hebrew Bible. Below are just a couple of these occurrences in the KJV translation (the underlined word is the translation of the word ברא).

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)


Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? (1Sa 2:29)

Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps 51:10 or 12 in the Hebrew Bible)

Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; (Ecc 12:1)


The first thing to remember when researching the original meaning of a word is that you need to find the "concrete" meaning of the word. Since "create" is an abstract it would be a foreign concept to the ancient Hebrews. We find the concrete meaning in 1 Samuel 2:29 which are "fat". The actual word in this passage is lehavriyackem (LHBRYAKM). The L means "to", the H makes the verb causative (make), BRA is the root, Y (placed between the R and A is also part of the causative form and the KM is "you" (plural) or yourselves". Literally this word means "to make yourselves fat".

Now let's see how this meaning applies to the other verses listed. In Genesis 1:1 it does not say that God "created" the heavens and the earth, instead he "fattened" them or "filled" them. Notice that the remaining chapter is about this "filling" of the heavens with sun, moon, birds and and the "filling" of the earth with animals, plants and man.

The "Create in me a clean heart" of Psalms 51:10 would better be translated as "fill me with a clean heart".


The passage in Ecc 12:1 translates this verb (which is in the participle form meaning "one that fattens/fills") as "Creator" but the truth is that this word is in the plural form and they should have at least translated it as "Creators". This is often a problem when relying on a translation as the translator will often "fix" the text so that it makes more sense. But as this word means to fatten or fill, this should be understood as "fatteners" or "fillers". I believe this verse is speaking about the "teachers" (ones who fill you with knowledge) of your youth.



The following is an excerpt from the book His Name is One.

A "creator" is theologically understood as, "one who makes something out of nothing". The Hebrew for "creator", is בורא (borey), the participle form of the verb, literally meaning "one who fattens". Without an understanding of the cultural background of this word, the idea of God "fattening" the heavens and earth is as foreign to our Western mind as the idea of creating something from nothing is to the ancient Hebrews. As we have previously discovered, the Hebrews always view their world with a concrete mind rather than an abstract mind. A "creator" or "one who creates" is an abstract thought which the ancient Hebrews would have had no way of comprehending.

Through our modern Western perspective, we have read the story of creation as an account of God's miraculous creation of the universe by his command, the reason for which being unclear. This is not the concept that the author of Genesis chapter one implies in the language of the ancient Hebrews. This misconception begins with the Hebrew word ברא (bara) as found in the first verse of the chapter. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

The word ברא (bara), translated as "created" above, comes from the parent root בר (bar) which we have previously discussed, meaning "grain". The grains were very important staples to the Hebrews. They were used in making breads and feeding the livestock. This parent root also has the meaning of "fat" as livestock fed on grain become fat. The child root ברא (bara), also means, "fat" as seen in the following verse. "And the ugly cows that looked thin ate the seven beautiful cows that looked fat" (Genesis 41:4).

A "fat" cow is one that is "full"; therefore, ברא (bara) Hebraicly can mean, "to fill". When we read the first two verses of Genesis from a Hebraic perspective we can see this imagery clearly. "In the beginning God filled the sky and the land because the land was empty and unfilled" (Genesis 1:1, 2).

This "filling" up of the sky and land is also described in the days of creation, which are written in true Hebrew poetry. The first three days of creation describe the separating of the skies and the land, this is paralleled with the last three days that describe the "filling up" of the skies and the land.

The first day is the separation of light and darkness and parallels the fourth day where the light and darkness is filled with the sun and moon. The second day is the separation of the water and the sky, it parallels the fifth day where the water and sky are filled with fish and birds. The third day is the separation of water and land and it is paralleled with the six day where the land is filled with the animals and man.

The word בורא (borey) is derived from the child root ברא (bara) and literally means "one who fills". As we see in the Creation story, God is the one who fills the waters, skies and the land.

 

[-57]

In my view, Adam and Eve were created by God in a special and different way to the rest of creation. They were made in Gods Image. Until that point evolution was in motion and continues to be. This verse by Paul are literal and do not conflict with an allegorical creation pre Adam.

Is this your belief?

 

[-57]

Why wouldn't a christian not take Genesis as literal? YOu know, believe what is written?

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis 1:1
in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land,

בָּרָא

ba'ra
he~did~FATTEN (Verb)
FATTEN (V)

The following is an excerpt from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center Website.

The Hebrew root ברא (BaRA) is a child root formed out of the parent by adding the letter ברא. As a verb this word is used 46 times in the Hebrew Bible. Below are just a couple of these occurrences in the KJV translation (the underlined word is the translation of the word ברא).

Actually it's used 54 times in 46 verses, only once is it translated 'make fat':

H1254 בָּרָא (bara'), which occurs 54 times in 46 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV. The KJV translates Strongs H1254 in the following manner: create (42x), creator (3x), choose (2x), make (2x), cut down (2x), dispatch (1x), done (1x), make fat (1x). (Blue Letter Bible Lexicon, H1254)​

42 times it's translated 'created'

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)​

Only once is it translated 'make yourselves fat':

Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? (1Sa 2:29)​

The first thing to remember when researching the original meaning of a word is that you need to find the "concrete" meaning of the word. Since "create" is an abstract it would be a foreign concept to the ancient Hebrews. We find the concrete meaning in 1 Samuel 2:29 which are "fat". The actual word in this passage is lehavriyackem (LHBRYAKM). The L means "to", the H makes the verb causative (make), BRA is the root, Y (placed between the R and A is also part of the causative form and the KM is "you" (plural) or yourselves". Literally this word means "to make yourselves fat".

Which is the only time it does, it's a unique construction. It's still בָּרָא bârâʼ, baw-raw'.

Now let's see how this meaning applies to the other verses listed. In Genesis 1:1 it does not say that God "created" the heavens and the earth, instead he "fattened" them or "filled" them. Notice that the remaining chapter is about this "filling" of the heavens with sun, moon, birds and and the "filling" of the earth with animals, plants and man.

The "Create in me a clean heart" of Psalms 51:10 would better be translated as "fill me with a clean heart".

It's translated created for a reason, the etymology of the primitive root is all very interesting but it doesn't change the meaning.

The passage in Ecc 12:1 translates this verb (which is in the participle form meaning "one that fattens/fills") as "Creator" but the truth is that this word is in the plural form and they should have at least translated it as "Creators". This is often a problem when relying on a translation as the translator will often "fix" the text so that it makes more sense. But as this word means to fatten or fill, this should be understood as "fatteners" or "fillers". I believe this verse is speaking about the "teachers" (ones who fill you with knowledge) of your youth.

The problems the exegetical workers are dealing with are the various constructions of the word. If you want to do this kind of exegetical work you are going to need a Lexicon.

The following is an excerpt from the book His Name is One.

A "creator" is theologically understood as, "one who makes something out of nothing". The Hebrew for "creator", is בורא (borey), the participle form of the verb, literally meaning "one who fattens". Without an understanding of the cultural background of this word, the idea of God "fattening" the heavens and earth is as foreign to our Western mind as the idea of creating something from nothing is to the ancient Hebrews. As we have previously discovered, the Hebrews always view their world with a concrete mind rather than an abstract mind. A "creator" or "one who creates" is an abstract thought which the ancient Hebrews would have had no way of comprehending.

The ancient Hebrews understood just fine and had moved on from the literal meaning of the primitive root to develop the meaning of the Qal form to specifically and clearly mean divine creation:

Through our modern Western perspective, we have read the story of creation as an account of God's miraculous creation of the universe by his command, the reason for which being unclear. This is not the concept that the author of Genesis chapter one implies in the language of the ancient Hebrews. This misconception begins with the Hebrew word ברא (bara) as found in the first verse of the chapter. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

Your literal meaning from the primitive root does not stand up to close scrutiny:

Qal Perfect Genesis 1:1 19t.; Imperfect יִבְרָא Genesis 1:21,27; Numbers 16:30; Infinitive בְּראֹ Genesis 5:1; Imperative בְּרָא Psalm 51:12; Participle בּוֺרֵא Isaiah 42:5 10t.; suffix בֹּרַאֲךָ Isaiah 43:1; בּוֺרְאֶיךָ Ecclesiastes 12:1; — shape, fashion, create, always of divine activity,

1. Object heaven and earth Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:3 Isaiah 45:18 (twice in verse); mankind Genesis 1:27 (3 t. in verse); Genesis 5:1,2 Genesis 6:7 Deuteronomy 4:32; Psalm 89:48; Isaiah 45:12; the host of heaven Isaiah 40:26; heavens Isaiah 42:5; ends of the earth Isaiah 40:28; north and south Psalm 89:13; wind Amos 4:13; the תנינים Genesis 1:21 (P).
2. The individual man Malachi 2:10 ( father) Ecclesiastes 12:1; the smith and the waster Isaiah 54:16 (twice in verse); Israel as a nation Isaiah 43:15; Jacob Isaiah 43:1; the seed of Israel Isaiah 43:7.
3. New conditions and circumstances: righteousness and salvation Isaiah 45:8; darkness and evil Isaiah 45:7; fruit of the lips Isaiah 57:19; a new thing חֲדָשָׁה (a woman encompassing a man) Jeremiah 31:22; בְּרִיאָה (swallowing up the Korahites) Numbers 16:30 (J); cloud and flame over Zion Isaiah 4:5.
4. Of transformations: a clean heart Psalm 51:12 ("" חִדֵּשׁ); new heaven and earth Isaiah 65:17 (in place of old); transformation of nature Isaiah 41:20; with double accusative בורא ירושׁלם גילה transform Jerusalem into rejoicing Isaiah 65:18. (Brown-Driver-Briggs)

The word ברא (bara), translated as "created" above, comes from the parent root בר (bar) which we have previously discussed, meaning "grain". The grains were very important staples to the Hebrews. They were used in making breads and feeding the livestock. This parent root also has the meaning of "fat" as livestock fed on grain become fat. The child root ברא (bara), also means, "fat" as seen in the following verse. "And the ugly cows that looked thin ate the seven beautiful cows that looked fat" (Genesis 41:4).

That's not the same word used in Genesis 1:1,

H1277 בָּרִיא (bariy'), it’s actually a compound word From בָּרָא (H1254) (in the sense of בָּרָה (H1262)) (Blue Letter Bible Lexicon. Strong's H1277 - bariy’)
​

Your equivocating two words with different meanings.

A "fat" cow is one that is "full"; therefore, ברא (bara) Hebraicly can mean, "to fill". When we read the first two verses of Genesis from a Hebraic perspective we can see this imagery clearly. "In the beginning God filled the sky and the land because the land was empty and unfilled" (Genesis 1:1, 2).

The primitive root is not the issue here, the Qal form has a specific and more developed meaning:

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...all other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning. a careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses, primarily in Genesis, the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. Things created, made and set by God: the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17); man (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Ps. 89:47; Isa. 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal. 2:10); a new thing (Jer. 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa. 4:5); north and south (Ps. 89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8); speech (Isa. 57:19); darkness (Isa. 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps. 51:10).' (Vine's Expository)

בָּרָא bârâʼ, baw-raw'; a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as
formative processes):—choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make fat (Strong’s Dictionary).​

This "filling" up of the sky and land is also described in the days of creation, which are written in true Hebrew poetry. The first three days of creation describe the separating of the skies and the land, this is paralleled with the last three days that describe the "filling up" of the skies and the land.

The first day is the separation of light and darkness and parallels the fourth day where the light and darkness is filled with the sun and moon. The second day is the separation of the water and the sky, it parallels the fifth day where the water and sky are filled with fish and birds. The third day is the separation of water and land and it is paralleled with the six day where the land is filled with the animals and man.

The word בורא (borey) is derived from the child root ברא (bara) and literally means "one who fills". As we see in the Creation story, God is the one who fills the waters, skies and the land.

Notice to 'make fat' is at the bottom of the list, that's because as the word developed in the Hebrew the meaning of the primitive word was not usually the literal meaning. Moses isn't using the primitive root, he is using the Qal form:

to create, shape, form

(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

• of heaven and earth
• of individual man
• of new conditions and circumstances
• of transformations (Outline of Biblical Usage)

The only form to retain the literal meaning of the primitive root is the Hiphil form:

to be fat

• (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat. (Outline of Biblical Usage)

The literal meaning of the primitive root is not the literal meaning of the Qal form, it certainly isn't the same thing as the compound word you based you discussion on. The exegesis your presenting here is deeply flawed. I suggest you start looking at some better tools, I strongly recommend you learn how to reference good Lexicon dictionaries. Blue Letter Bible is an excellent resource for that, 'His Name is One', might have some interesting insights but your not going to get a sound exegesis from what you presented here.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mmksparbud]

Your literal meaning from the primitive root does not stand up to close scrutiny:

This is not "my" meaning---that is a direct quote from a Jewish site, from the Mechanical translation of Genesis. You are free to believe other versions, I will stick with those who know the ancient Hebrew language and culture, esp, when they themselves are Jewish.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is not "my" meaning---that is a direct quote from a Jewish site, from the Mechanical translation of Genesis. You are free to believe other versions, I will stick with those who know the ancient Hebrew language and culture, esp, when they themselves are Jewish.

I've seen the site and I don't think your getting what Benner is trying to do here.

The site has links on the home page to PDF copies of:

Gesenius' Lexicon
Davidson's Lexicon
Brown, Driver & Briggs Lexicon
Gesenius Hebrew Grammar
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary (mechanical-translation.org)​

Blue Letter Bible can directly link you to lexicons, dictionaries and concordances using the Strong's reference number, which btw way Benner uses the Strong's reference number as well. I quoted from: Gesenius', Brown, Driver & Briggs and Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, resources they not only recommend but make available and you don't appear to have even read it. So your content to glean some small insight from the discussion of the etymology without digging any deeper into the construction. So be it but like I said, the literal meaning from the primitive root does not stand up to close scrutiny. No one translates 'bara in Genesis 1:1 'fill' or 'fatten', not even Jewish translators:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary)​

The definition you are using is insightful, the etymology is useful but what your trying to do is to change the meaning from created to filled. No one who knows the original would do that. Don't mistake insight for exegesis.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I am in complete agreement with your observation about 'breathing life into' includes 'His image', human thought and so on.

Also, let me muddy the waters further by suggesting 'breathing life' may be a metaphor for a totally non-physical (but supernatural and real in that sense) action which made Adam a human.

The breath of life in Genesis 2:7 is literally breathed into Adam's nostrils. It can be used as a kind of metaphor for the spirit of man or the Spirit of God but it would be qualified in the immediate context. This passage is being used in the normal sense, God caused Adam to become a living, breathing person. It's normal life breath.

 

[Moral Orel]

First of all, sorry for the late response. It's been a while since I had some peace and quiet in my house for me to take the time to sit and write.

But, you see, I don't believe Paul is speaking merely from "his perspective." He is a divinely-inspired writer of the word of God, not someone just offering his personal views on things religious. So, when Paul makes the explanations he does about Adam and Christ and the origin of sin, he is communicating divine truth to me. Am I free, then, to dismiss Paul's words as simply the ignorant speculations of someone far removed from the events he is speaking to? As Paul would say, "God forbid!"

If Paul says that sin entered through Adam into the world, and he is speaking under the inspiration of God when he does, then I cannot alter, or correct his statements, or dismiss them. If what he is writing originates with the Almighty Creator of Everything, then it is crucially important for me to accept his words.

But here we're back to talking about just how directly God inspired scripture. He didn't inspire scripture word for word, or we wouldn't see distinct differences between the various authors of the Bible. If God said to Paul, "Tell the people of the importance of Christ's redemption of their sin that they all suffer from and that all mankind has suffered from" and Paul decides to explain it with words taken directly from Genesis that he interpreted as literal, that doesn't make Paul's words uninspired.

Since we don't assume every single word of scripture is directly inspired by God, then there's no reason to put special importance to words that don't have their own significance. If it isn't important that sin came through one man, and all the rest of scripture stands up just fine if the story would have been that it came through a group of men, then we shouldn't outright assume: "Paul said these exact words because God said these exact words so it's literal fact".

If what Paul says is true, is it not important for that reason alone? I think so. In speaking of Adam's sin, Paul explains why Christ had to atone for our sins. The Fall of Man in Eden is the reason, the context, for Christ's Redemption of humanity. If death is actually a normal part of Creation, then Christ conquering it, as Paul asserts Christ did through his atonement for us on the cross, makes little sense. Why "conquer" what God intended should be part of His "good" Creation? Why is death held up in the New Testament as the great evil afflicting humanity? Treating the Genesis account of the Fall as allegory only magnifies and multiplies these sorts of questions and makes the account impotent in providing satisfactory answers.

None of this shows the importance of it being one man that sin entered the world. Even if it's true, that is still an unimportant detail. If God created ten pairs of people in the beginning, and the entire group rebelled, then what would be the difference to the rest of the Bible? Nothing that I can see.

Yes, I understand. You made this point in your last post to me. It seems very evident to me that, since Adam and Eve didn't die the instant they ate of the Forbidden Fruit, that we must read God's promise of death as a process of decay leading to death that began when Adam and Eve sinned.

Actually, @mmksparbud won this point for you with an explanation of the Hebrew words we translated to "day".

I simply don't know how, exactly, to perfectly reconcile what Paul says about death coming through Adam with the presence of the Tree of Life in Eden. Why was such a tree in Eden in the first place? Did God need such a tree in order to confer immortality upon his creatures? That seems very unlikely. Were there other such peculiar trees of power in Eden? Why was the Tree of Life not forbidden to Adam and Eve but the Tree of Knowledge was? The Genesis account offers no answers. What it does make clear - as other passages in Scripture do - is that death - physical as well as spiritual - entered Creation through the sin of Adam. I can speculate, I suppose, on what the presence of the Tree of Life might mean, but not at the expense of the clear, explicit declaration of Scripture.

One perfectly good explanation, in my opinion, is that death was natural for animals, and when God raised up humans, He planned to give them eternal physical life to set them apart, just like He gave them a soul to set them apart. Even a mechanical translation doesn't seem to indicate that animals were allowed to eat the fruit from that tree. Humans were given fruit to eat and animals were given the "green things" which sounds like vegetation to me. I suppose the fruit could have been green, but it would be strange then to make specific mention that humans get fruit, and then neglect that mention for animals.

This is why I point out the distinction between death existing for animals, and death existing for humans. I don't see a basis for thinking animals didn't die before the fall. It isn't explicitly stated they didn't nor is it explicitly stated that God ever intended on bestowing all the animals in the Garden with immortality either.

I don't think its a stretch to say God does not think death and pain are good. These are the things He promises to His children will be absent in the afterlife. (Rev. 21:4)
Death is an enemy to be conquered (1Cor. 15: 53- 57; Rev. 20:14) not a good friend to be embraced.

These verses all point to immortality bestowed on humans. He promises to remove these things from His children, but animals aren't His children, so there's no reason to assume God isn't perfectly fine with animals dying. Heck, Cain was being bad by not killing animals for God, so why would you assume death for animals is bad?

Yes, He is. But this is not to suggest that God thinks death is good. Saying, "I am the Boss," is not the same as saying, "Death is good." Clearly, Satan thought death was an evil thing, for it was one of the means whereby he hoped to make Job sin. And God seems to recognize this since He allows Satan to use death as a test of Job's commitment to God.

To look at it that way is to ignore why death is bad and to understand the corollary between physical and spiritual death. God let Satan separate Job from his family, it isn't the death part that is inherently bad without the consequence of separation. Separation is the terrible thing to be avoided, not the ceasing to live part.

Luke 4:5 adds an interesting - and clarifying - phrase to the story:

Luke 4:5
5 And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Sounds like whatever happened, it was supernatural in character, an event not constrained by the physical laws under which you and I labor. I don't think, then, that the story indicates a flat Earth at all.

Well of course there was something supernatural about it, Satan and Jesus didn't hike up that mountain. But there's no significance to taking Jesus to a mountain top except that that is where people can see things that are far away. If the mountain wasn't written in there to explain how Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms, then Satan might as well have stayed put, or even taken Him to a cave.

But, this is why I said I was going to stick to the heliocentric model as something to show the Bible making a mistake of perspective, without being factually in error, because that's something we agree on, and I don't want to waste time bickering over details like this. Feel free to have the last word in retort to this if you like, but I'll go back to talking about the Sun moving so we don't have to quibble.

The general consensus is that most of what Moses wrote down was from oral tradition (except, of course, those events involving him directly) rather than a vision, or some such thing.

Well that's even better. If the Hebrews already had a bunch of stories that they used to explain the existence of things they saw in their lives and God told Moses to write them down, who's to say how those stories were inspired in the first place? Maybe Adam passed it on word for word his account in the Garden of Eden, maybe not. Maybe they were stories written by men to explain the things they saw in the world, and God told Moses to use them, maybe add to them and emphasize parts of them, to teach the important lessons with something that people were already familiar with. That people interpreted those stories as literal for a long, long time says nothing about whether they are literally true or not.

It isn't God doing the nit-picking but liberal "Christians" and atheists. I believe God superintended the writing of both the Old and New Testaments, ensuring that what was recorded was accurate in those things He meant to express. So, I don't believe Moses got anything wrong in what he wrote.

Geez, putting "Christians" in quotes like that if they don't take Genesis literally? Sheesh...

Anyways, you're not using "nit-picking" correctly. If you're uninterested in unimportant details, you can't be nit-picking...

But the important part to our discussion, is just what it was that God meant to express. I think He meant to express, "God created everything, man screwed it up". You seem to think that His intention was for us to understand exactly how He created everything, and I don't think the Bible is the sort of book to explain those kinds of "hows".

None of this addresses my point. If the word of a perfect God is false or in error in any way, then it cannot be the word of God.

God is not so small, so weak, as to be incapable of overcoming the ignorance and failings of those He chose to pen holy Scripture.

The Sun doesn't rise. So it is false and in error to say it does. The Bible says the Sun rises, so... maybe we need a better understanding of the Bible than, "the Bible says so".

 

[Moral Orel]

Why wouldn't a christian not take Genesis as literal? YOu know, believe what is written?

Those are two very different questions.