A literal outlook of the creation narrative(s) in Genesis

[wavy]

On other message forums I've attended, this has been a heated matter of contention. I thought I'd bring the discussion here to read differing viewpoints on the subject matter.

I maintain a more liberal, figurative interpretation of Genesis on the grounds of many a factor (historical, critical, linguistic etc.) From a viewpoint of objectivity, I believe the creation narrative (Genesis 1-2:3) to be poetical in its essence, written to make a point about God, mankind, and the reason for the sabbath.

Notedly, there are inconsistencies between two creation accounts (between 1-2:3 and 2:4-25). This need not cast doubt on the integrity of the inspired text. Each account sought to make a point, without regard for specific details. However, a literal, fundamentalist interpretation is replete with flaws, especially in this age of modern science, rationalism, and enlightenment. It ignores ancient, traditional, Hebrew cosmology and reinterprets the narratives to conform to contemporary knowledge of the universe.

So let's begin by illustrating a few of these points:

Poetry:

The poetry in the first narrative is marked by parallelism and repetition. Each day in creation follows a pattern:

• God says "X"
  "X" then comes to pass
  "X" is named and designated for its purpose
  God sees that "X" is "good"
  The day is numbered.

This is an imprint of a poetical work. In the narrative, man is pictured as the apex of God's creation. After man is created, God sees everything is exceedingly/very good (Genesis 1:31 -- The Hebrew is in the plural, reading literally, "good, good"). God then desists from his creative work. This intermission is what we know as the sabbath. The point is that the God of Israel created the universe, that the culmination of his activity is mankind in his similitude, and that man honors God for this on a specified day (sabbath, at least for Jews, as the sabbath tradition was very important to them--a sign of distinction from other pagan nations).

Discrepancies with modern science:

A prime example is day 4 of creation understood from the scope of day 2. In day 2 God creates the firmament. We have the super-waters and the sub-waters, interpolated by this firmament/dome. In day 4 God places the luminaries he created (sun/moon/stars) in this firmament, the consequent implication being that there are waters above the sun/moon/stars. That's absurdity to the extreme from a scientific position.

Inconsistencies between the narratives:

The succession of events changes from the first account to the second account.

So let the queries begin!

 

[wavy]

No thoughts at all?

 

[SputnikBoy]

My first thoughts are ...where've you been all this time??

Right now I haven't quite given your OP the attention it deserves but a long-time Christian friend of mine has been querying much the same thing as your post seems to imply. He is an SDA and his research indicates that at least the first 12 chapters of Genesis are probably no more than fables. This bothers him somewhat as the Creation week somehow seems not to 'compute' and this would have a bearing on the 7th-day Sabbath. While he left town 2 weeks ago to begin a medical internship at another location I'll try to get his views on your post if I can. I hope that in my only having skimmed over your post I haven't missed the point.

Anyway, welcome back, wavy!

 

[Vic C.]

Anyway, welcome back, wavy!

Wavy's back!?

 

[wavy]

My first thoughts are ...where've you been all this time??

Don't know. I had forgotten all about these forums. 8-)

This bothers him somewhat as the Creation week somehow seems not to 'compute' and this would have a bearing on the 7th-day Sabbath.

Indeed.

Anyway, welcome back, wavy!

Thanx.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[wavy]

Wavy's back!?

:-D Sup? How's being Administrator going?

 

[Vic C.]

:-D Sup? How's being Administrator going?

When I find one, I'll ask them and let you know. :-D

 

[wavy]

Any thoughts/objections to the OP?

 

[stranger]

Re: A literal outlook of the creation narrative(s) in Genesi

I maintain a more liberal, figurative interpretation of Genesis on the grounds of many a factor (historical, critical, linguistic etc.) From a viewpoint of objectivity, I believe the creation narrative (Genesis 1-2:3) to be poetical in its essence, written to make a point about God, mankind, and the reason for the sabbath.

Hi wavy,

It is good that you set forth you presuppositions. . .

You are no doubt familiar with the approach that there is one creation account - Gen1:1 through to Gen2:3 which essentially gives 7 days of creation the last of which is the day of rest- much later to be called the Sabbath.

From Gen2:4ff the text, I believe, focuses in on man, the garden. . .etc and then the 'fall' by chapter 3.

So first an overview, then zooming in on man in relation to God and the world.

I am not able to comment on Hebrew poetry - and provided the poetic sense is not entirely lost in the translation - expressing something in poetic form do not necessarily negate it from being 'historical'.

An example might be 'the serpent'. Is it literal or symbolic? Literal or symbolic but still historical.

blessings: stranger

 

[wavy]

Re: A literal outlook of the creation narrative(s) in Genesi

Hi wavy,

Sup.

So first an overview, then zooming in on man in relation to God and the world.

As far as I have seen, the problem, from a literary standpoint, is that when read in Hebrew the textual differences are overwhelming and far outweigh any proposed similarities. Not only that, there are obvious repugnancies.

The second account places man (Adam, the single male figure) before animals. Woman is created after animals, as opposed to animals being created first, then Adam (mankind) being created as a composite male/female entity.

Simply reading the text, it is evident that the author of the second account considered animals to be created for man (Genesis 2:19, after man was already formed) only to be shown that they weren't a proper "helper". No pluperfect is connoted (only wishfully read into the text).

expressing something in poetic form do not necessarily negate it from being 'historical'.

Appeal to ignorance. On the other hand, there is a multitude of evidence that the creation of Genesis 1 is not historical.

An example might be 'the serpent'. Is it literal or symbolic? Literal or symbolic but still historical.

A questionable analogy.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[stranger]

Hi wavy,

Let us take one issue at a time.

Genre. . .

I wrote: Expressing something in poetic form do not necessarily negate it from being 'historical'.

You replied: appeal to ignorance

Question: Do you believe I could express a portion of our dialogue in poetic form and still retain the essential historical element?

I am about to watch a movie with my son and will get back to you.

blessings: stranger

 

[unred typo]

A prime example is day 4 of creation understood from the scope of day 2. In day 2 God creates the expanse/sky/firmament. We have the super-waters and the sub-waters, interpolated by this expanse. In day 4 God places the luminaries he created (sun/moon/stars) in this expanse, the consequent implication being that there are waters above the sun/moon/stars. That's absurdity to the extreme from a scientific position.

Hi wavy. I’m a believer in a literal Genesis. The style of writing is quite similar to many books of history today. It is chronological but not strictly so. As Stranger has alluded to, it is a general overview, followed by more details, and of continued events. It’s rather hard to believe that anyone could write something as stupidly as you imagine this account to be. A lack of details makes it sound like there are discrepancies, which there are not.

I think you must allow that it is written from an earthly perspective. The sun/moon/stars appear in the expanse as the light from these luminaries is stretched from their position and set here to appear in our heavens. If their light was not physically set here at some point in the first week, how long would we have to wait to see their light appear given their distant location?

I don’t have the ‘waters above’ nailed down but it probably refers to a time when the waters in the atmosphere were so pure that they were less fog-like and more transparent and glassy. I envision ice crystals or a single water bubble suspended around the earth. I know it’s not a popular concept and not very provable but it’s certainly as plausible as the big bang and poof theories I’ve heard. Would you like to make an appeal to ignorance as to how God could suspend water in a bubble around the earth? :-D

 

[wavy]

Question: Do you believe I could express a portion of our dialogue in poetic form and still retain the essential historical element?

Yes. This, however, is a red herring. Don't divert from the issue of Genesis.

 

[wavy]

The style of writing is quite similar to many books of history today.

And what rock did you pull this notion from under?

As Stranger has alluded to, it is a general overview, followed by more details, and of continued events.

Good luck from a linguistic eye. I assume that you cannot read Hebrew, nor have ever heard any arguments from one well versed in Hebrew or any authority on the language.

It’s rather hard to believe that anyone could write something as stupidly as you imagine this account to be.

Disregarding this ad hominem attack, this interpretation is firmly grounded in the facts and is backed by an increasing number of scholars, not blinded by a religious agenda.

A lack of details makes it sound like there are discrepancies, which there are not.

Which you certainly have not adequately demonstrated here...

I think you must allow that it is written from an earthly perspective.

Which = the ignorance of the author and his culture. They had little knowledge of the universe. He couldn't have written from anything but an "earthly" perspective.

The sun/moon/stars appear in the expanse as the light from these luminaries is stretched from their position and set here to appear in our heavens. If their light was not physically set here at some point in the first week, how long would we have to wait to see their light appear given their distant location?

Now we're reaching. You're reading an underlying scientific backround into the narrative, then assuming the author chose not to be coherent with that science, or rather chose to obscure it. It's a circular argument.

Your circularity is overtly expressed in this statement: If their light was not physically set here at some point in the first week, how long would we have to wait to see their light appear given their distant location?

Firstly, the account doesn't say "the light from these luminaries stretched from their position". The author says "God placed them (sun/moon/stars) in the [firmament] of the heavens to give light on the earth". Above the firmament/dome is water, placing water above the celestial bodies. The author has no knowledge of their "distant location" nor the speed of light -- that is your assumption (these things were discovered through modern science) and you have used it to justify your premiss. The account is not scientific, indeed being written from a geocentric eye for none other than the reason that the individual who penned it had no other perspective. He wrote what he believed.

I know it’s not a popular concept and not very provable but it’s certainly as plausible than the big bang and poof theories I’ve heard.

Not provable at all. In fact, the big gang can be amply theorized. All you have is a contrivance, that, as I said in the original post, "ignores ancient, traditional, Hebrew cosmology and reinterprets the narratives to conform to contemporary knowledge of the universe." Had science not come along and disproved primitive beliefs like the earth being flat, etc, then doubtless your interpretation (eisegesis) would be grossly different.

And regardless, the text says God placed the luminaries in this bubble of yours. We should all be cooking right now. Sounds like God was creating breakfast!

Would you like to make an appeal to ignorance as to how God could suspend water in a bubble around the earth?

No. Rather, I'll just say I have no propensity to believe it because A) there's no evidence for it, and B) it's built upon fallacious criteria.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[unred typo]

Long Post Alert. Readers with short attention spans should consider skipping to another thread.

And what rock did you pull this notion from under?

From elementary reading. Try it. Read something historical in Wikipedia, for instance the crossing of the Delaware. First it gives an account of the incident by saying that, “On December 25, 1776, General George Washington and a small army of 2,400 men crossed the Delaware River at McKonkey's Ferry, Pennsylvania†and then it says a little further down, “Almost a week later on 27 August 1776, the American Army was again defeated by the British at the Battle of Long Island. After these defeats Washington kept his troops close to New York City, but a final defeat on 16 November 1776 at Fort Washington on Manhattan Island signalled the loss of New York City.†and then it is repeated that “On Christmas Day 1776 the troops assembled at the ferry landing and were given the password for the day, "Victory or Death". All of the men were gathered at the point of embarkment by 3:00 p.m. and the loading of the boats began at nightfall. Washington and a party of Virginia troops crossed over first to secure a landing site.†and added that, “it was not until 3:00 a.m. on December 26 that the army completed the crossing.â€Â

How misleading can these writers be? Did he cross with the entire 2,400 men on or with a few or is the 2.400 the entire army? Why wasn’t the first landing party recorded in the first account? Do they think we wouldn’t see a discrepancy? Or maybe they were writing with the idea that the reader could manage a little common sense. I could cite millions of examples of this literary style, where a general outline is followed by the addition of more details left out of the opening description.

Good luck from a linguistic eye. I assume that you cannot read Hebrew, nor have ever heard any arguments from one well versed in Hebrew or any authority on the language.

No, I don’t read Hebrew but Jesus could read it and he knew the story well enough to quote from it on occasion. Since he considered it to be literal, I’ll go with that.

Disregarding this ad hominem attack, this interpretation is firmly grounded in the facts and is backed by an increasing number of scholars, not blinded by a religious agenda.

This was not an “ad hominem attack†on you but a characterization of your obvious opinion of the Biblical writers who would be so stupid as to write such a messed up history with so many errors in it, according to your view. I did not call you or your view ‘stupid,’ nor imply such a thing. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Which = ignorance of the author and his culture. They had little knowledge of the universe. He couldn't have written from anything but an "earthly" perspective.

Writing from an earthly perspective is not ignorance of the universe but just as you might say that you got up at sunrise, knowing full well that the sun hasn’t moved except in your perception of it.

Now we're reaching. You're reading an underlying scientific backround into the narrative, then assuming the author chose not to be coherent with that science, or rather chose to obscure it. It's a circular argument.
Your circularity is overtly expressed in this statement: If their light was not physically set here at some point in the first week, how long would we have to wait to see their light appear given their distant location?
Firstly, the account doesn't say "the light from these luminaries stretched from their position". The author says "God placed them (sun/moon/stars) in the [firmament] of the heavens to give light on the earth". Above the firmament/dome is water, placing water above the celestial bodies. The author has no knowledge of their "distant location" nor the speed of light. That is your assumption (these things were discovered through modern science) and you have used it to justify your premiss. The account is not scientific, indeed being written in geocentric terms for none other than the reason that the individual who penned it had no other perspective. He wrote what he believed.

The author, inspired by God, did not write anything that would detract from the actual truth of the matter. Rather brilliant way of making the account transcend through changing scientific views without being forced to conform to any of their errors. The author had amazing foresight, if you ask me. Almost a divine perspective into what would be thought of by the small minds of earth creatures, wouldn‘t you say?

Not provable at all. In fact, the big gang can be amply theorized. All you have is a contrivance, that, as I said in the original post, "ignores ancient, traditional, Hebrew cosmology and reinterprets the narratives to conform to contemporary knowledge of the universe." Had science not come along and disproved primitive beliefs like the earth being flat, etc, then doubtless your interpretation (eisegesis) would be grossly different.
And regardless, the text says God placed the luminaries in this bubble of yours. We should all be cooking right now. Sounds like God was creating breakfast!

The “big gang†indeed. Very apt typo to describe the modern scientific world that opposes the God of the Bible. As I said, God allowed it to be written in such terminology as to not be confined to local, ancient, traditional cosmology but in a way that could evolve as man’s understanding increased.

Luminaries are only light holders, not the source of the light. God had separated light from darkness on the first day. Then he focused it into bodies set in the heavens, at a safe distance from earth with light rays into our skies that gave distinct patterns by which man could tell seasons and mark time, a colossal clock of sorts. There is nothing specific about the text that insists that the bodies themselves be set in the expanse under the waters.

Actually, you don’t know what they are made of, or how far they are away. For all we know, they could have been the size of the moon and set in the expanse of heaven we know as our solar system, and the water above them a ball of water encircling the entire universe and when the ‘windows of heaven’ were broken up, a few million giant splats crashed into our planet, or a stream like a comet‘s tail slapped into us, or they could have been created as small circling balls of gasses that shot out from earth, expanding as they were shot away from us, leaving their light trails behind. Science hasn’t begun to exhaust the possibilities.

No. Rather, I'll just say I have no propensity to believe it because A) there's no evidence for it, and B) it's built upon fallacious criteria.

The flood waters had to come from more than just normal rain besides the breaking up of the fountains of the deep. There is no reason not to believe it as the Bible ha been reliable in so many other aspects. One just can’t be very dogmatic about such speculations, even if they have the entire “big gang†of science behind them,
:wink:

 

[stranger]

Yes. This, however, is a red herring. Don't divert from the issue of Genesis.

Hi wavy,

I am right on topic but moving one point at a time. You offered a poetic outline by way of structure for the first narrative. I am simply pointing out the poetry can convey historical events. . .

Now your use of the term 'first narrative'. If we consider what we call the book of genesis - and remove the chapter and verse numbers - it is one book with a beginning and an end.

Is not what you refer to as the 'first narrative' the 'first part' of the narrative of the book of genesis?

The road is travelled one step at a time - so far we are in step or are we?


blessings: stranger

 

[wavy]

From elementary reading. Try it.

Well, excuse me, lol!

Read something historical in Wikipedia, for instance the crossing of the Delaware. First it gives an account of the incident by saying that, “On December 25, 1776, General George Washington and a small army of 2,400 men crossed the Delaware River at McKonkey's Ferry, Pennsylvania†and then it says a little further down, “Almost a week later ...â€Â

I fail to see how this is similar to Genesis, which was written in Hebrew with Hebraic thought, grammar, and syntax. Your argument amounts to chronology and numbers. This in no way resembles the creation account, and is not good proof of your point.

No, I don’t read Hebrew but Jesus could read it and he knew the story well enough to quote from it on occasion. Since he considered it to be literal, I’ll go with that.

So you assume. Ignoring even the minute counter-evidence I have provided will get you nowhere.

This was not an “ad hominem attack†on you but a characterization of your obvious opinion of the Biblical writers who would be so stupid as to write such a messed up history with so many errors in it,

I did not say they were "stupid". I said they were ignorant (meaning, they just didn't know because they didn't possess the knowledge we do).

I did not call you or your view ‘stupid,’ nor imply such a thing.

I beg to differ: "It’s rather hard to believe that anyone could write something as stupidly as you imagine this account to be."

Any "elementary reading" would show that you defintely implied my view was "stupid" (adjective, not "stupidly", which is an adverb you improperly used). But you apologized. I can accept it and move on.

Writing from an earthly perspective is not ignorance of the universe but just as you might say that you got up at sunrise, knowing full well that the sun hasn’t moved except in your perception of it.

I repeat: "Now we're reaching. You're reading an underlying scientific backround into the narrative, then assuming the author chose not to be coherent with that science, or rather chose to obscure it. It's a circular argument."

The author's "perception" was that the sun moved because he didn't know that it is the earth's rotation that causes it to seem that way.

The author, inspired by God, did not write anything that would detract from the actual truth of the matter.

According to the evidence I have presented (which you have not truly acknowledged) he was certainly mistaken. Your only defense is your circular argument. You read things into it -- without evidence -- then proceed to use what you have read into it as your evidence.

Rather brilliant way of making the account transcend through changing scientific views without being forced to conform to any of their errors.

Again, in no way have you illustrated this point. And what "changing scientific views" are you referring to? That there is indeed no water above the sun, moon, and stars? That the earth is much older than originally presumed?

The author had amazing foresight, if you ask me. Almost a divine perspective into what would be thought of by the small minds of earth creatures, wouldn‘t you say?

No. I wouldn't say, because these are not arguments. These are nothing but assumptions based on nothing.

As I said, God allowed it to be written in such terminology as to not be confined to local, ancient, traditional cosmology but in a way that could evolve as man’s understanding increased.

For which you have no support from the text.

Luminaries are only light holders, not the source of the light. God had separated light from darkness on the first day. Then he focused it into bodies set in the heavens, at a safe distance from earth with light rays into our skies that gave distinct patterns by which man could tell seasons and mark time, a colossal clock of sorts. There is nothing specific about the text that insists that the bodies themselves be set in the expanse under the waters.

The Hebrew ma'owr means "light". Where are you drawing your conclusions from? Certainly not the Hebrew. What are these "light holders"? Where did they come from? You are beginning to sound desperate. Anything that could be read into the text to keep your traditional, fundamentalist view alive you are utilizing.

As far as nothing "specific in the text", let's reread what it says:

14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

He placed the stars in the firmament/dome under the waters also. Not the light from the stars, not "light holders", not anything else you have fancied the passage to say. It is so clear from the Hebrew that the two great lights are the sun/moon and that the stars were placed in the firmament under the waters along with the sun/moon.

That is ancient Hebrew cosmology. They imagined the earth as flat and round. The earth was held up by mountain pillars (e.g. 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3) and sheol, the realm of the dead, lay underneath (e.g. Isaiah 14:9, Isaiah 14:15), the great deep (sub-waters) was below all of this (e.g. Psalm 24:1-2, Psalm 148:4). The "circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) was the great arch dome/firmament that divided the waters, described by Isaiah as "spread out like a tent" (over the land where people lived like little "grasshoppers"). The water peirced through this dome/firmament when it rained through what the Hebrews believed were window openings (e.g. 2 Kings 7:2, Malachi 3:10). During the Flood the sub-waters shot up from beneath and the super-waters crashed down through these windows and joined together to flood the world (Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2).

Where is your evidence? You would postulate that the creation narrative allows for "changing scientific views", but it actually contradicts solid, firm science that proves certain things merely by observation (ever seen water above the stars?)

Actually, you don’t know what they are made of, or how far they are away. For all we know, they could have been the size of the moon and set in the expanse of heaven we know as our solar system, and the water above them a ball of water encircling the entire universe and when the ‘windows of heaven’ were broken up, a few million giant splats crashed into our planet, or a stream like a comet‘s tail slapped into us, or they could have been created as small circling balls of gasses that shot out from earth, expanding as they were shot away from us, leaving their light trails behind. Science hasn’t begun to exhaust the possibilities.

Where is your evidence?

The flood waters had to come from more than just normal rain besides the breaking up of the fountains of the deep. There is no reason not to believe it as the Bible has been reliable in so many other aspects. One just can’t bevery dogmatic about such speculations, even if they have the entire “big gang†of science behind them,
:wink:

See above.

 

[unred typo]

I did not call you or your view ‘stupid,’ nor imply such a thing.

I beg to differ: "It’s rather hard to believe that anyone could write something as stupidly as you imagine this account to be."

Any "elementary reading" would show that you defintely implied my view was "stupid" (adjective, not "stupidly", which is an adverb you improperly used). But you apologized. I can accept it and move on.

I still don’t see how you figure that I called you or your view ‘stupid’. Until you understand this, I don’t see how we can logically ‘move on’. I will sympathize with you because you cannot apparently see the difference between calling you (or your view) ‘stupid’ and saying the view you expressed makes the Genesis writers appear unimaginatively ‘stupid.’ I am probably wrong, but I don’t think your view is stupid and really just lacks consideration of the fact that the writers of Genesis were men intelligent enough to not make such an incredibly critical blunder in recording simple facts. Let me assure you I meant the adverb ‘stupidly’ to qualify the verb, ‘write’, but if that is incorrect in your book, I guess I am way too stupid to engage in your introduction to Logic 101, remedial grammar, and elementary reading lessons. Can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Please disregard my stupidity in these areas of your expertise and try to decipher correctly what I meant to say. Otherwise, we will never be able to communicate enough to discuss the real issues of your post.

I fail to see how this is similar to Genesis, which was written in Hebrew with Hebraic thought, grammar, and syntax. Your argument amounts to chronology and numbers. This in no way resembles the creation account, and is not good proof of your point.

You asked for an example of how a modern history account would be written in a similar style. The style is what I meant for you to see, not the perceived mistakes. First, a summary overview of the event, followed by details that are not strictly in chronological order. In the Washington story, first it begins with his crossing and a date. Later, it tells seemingly conflicting details. No one attacks the encyclopedia version but the same type of writing is torn apart by those who want to discredit the Bible’s accuracy. My example is the first one I came to. You could find better examples, no doubt.

I repeat: "Now we're reaching. You're reading an underlying scientific backround into the narrative, then assuming the author chose not to be coherent with that science, or rather chose to obscure it. It's a circular argument."

The author's "perception" was that the sun moved because he didn't know that it is the earth's rotation that causes it to seem that way.

I wasn’t referring to the human author. I was making an observation of how God guided the writing to exclude the present day fallacies at the time of the writing of Genesis. If the account of creation itself included the setting up of pillars on which to rest the pancake platter of earth we live on, I might agree with you that it is a poetic version and not actually historical in nature.

Perhaps later schools of thought influenced the minds and writings of scribes and prophets, and though visions were often symbolic, they may have been taken literally. For instance, the visions of Enoch enabled him to figure a calendar but it was shown to him in a series of doors which the sun entered and exited. It would be hard for him to distinguish between reality and vision in such a case as his, before knowledge was increased. This is why it is not in the Bible I believe. In other areas, (I.e. pillars holding up the earth) these things are considered poetic expressions of an unknown phenomena. As I suggested, we still use the term ‘sunrise’ even though we understand that the sun is not rising in the earth’s sky.

The Hebrew ma'owr means "light". Where are you drawing your conclusions from? Certainly not the Hebrew. What are these "light holders"? Where did they come from? You are beginning to sound desperate. Anything that could be read into the text to keep your traditional, fundamentalist view alive you are utilizing.
As far as nothing "specific in the text", let's reread what it says:

14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

He placed the stars in the firmament/dome under the waters also. Not the light from the stars, not "light holders", not anything else you have fancied the passage to say. It is so clear from the Hebrew that the two great lights are the sun/moon and that the stars were placed in the firmament under the waters along with the sun/moon.

Let’s get this clear from the git go. I have no reason to get desperate. I only have reason to understand the account in a way that makes sense with the present day science, however flawed that science may be. I believe Genesis is a literal account of what happened. There are no living witnesses, except God. All we have is the story passed down, presumably by word of mouth from God to Adam to his sons to their sons. When it was written, we have no clue.

It’s not much to go by, but certainly the account in the Hebrew scriptures seems to be the most reliable of any creation account we have today. I believe in God. I believe he is alive and well and has a hand in the writing of scripture. I even believe he speaks to us today if we are of a mind to listen. I can see there are translation problems with scripture. (Not surprising when it seems you and I have trouble communicating using the same language in the same hemisphere in the same century! lol)

That said, I find no problem with the lights in the expanse of heaven. It makes sense scientifically since the light is set into our sky, whether it’s day or night. As for the waters above, all is going to be speculation. To say that such a thing is impossible is more than a little presumptuous and short sighted, seeing that things like black holes were unknown a few years ago.

It's a circular argument

I admit I have a bias, and I have no proof for the existence of God that would be satisfactory evidence for scientific analysis, but my arguments are no less circular than the bang-poof arguments they espouse. I like the Biblical account and I’m no less happy with it than Leaky would be with a handful of skull fragments. It may take some piecing together, but in the end, it will help fill in some details in my understanding of my creator. I am less interested in finding hard evidence to claim that proves Genesis than I am in reconciling the present ‘evidence’ with the Genesis account. If that bothers you, you are free not to answer my posts.

 

[cyberjosh]

Wavy,

I know someone who can parallel your intellect and competence of Hebrew and answer alot of your questions. At the risk of sounding like I'm buttering you up ;) the man I speak of is one of the best Hebrew Layman scholars that I have met. I worked with him briefly at http://www.ancient-hebrew.org (which he created as his research center) and have helped him edit his lexicon and literal translation of Genesis. He is working on a literal translation of the Bible but is going book by book, and is the first person that I know of to ever attempt to translate each word the same in every instance (regardless of awkwardness), and not only that but also looking at the ancient Hebrew pictograms and other etymological elements such as relations between 2, 3, and 4 root words to determine the closest original concrete meaning of each Hebrew word (because Hebrew has no abstract words - love is literally "bowels, intestines, or heart", anger is literally "nose" (because it turns red and the nostrils flare when angry), and he even translates el & elohim literally as "power(s)" (meaning a strong authority - God)). Look at the thread I created herebased off of insights from his work on the literal meaning of "God/elohim" with actual pictures of original ancient Hebrew letters, if you would like to see some of the amazing things that he does research into. I say all this to recommend him as an able and exceptional scholar, though he is not one by profession.

With that said look at his in-depth look at the poetry, parallelism, and original meanings and syntax of the Hebrew narrative in Genesis 1, and tell me what you think. And that's only one of many links (which I can show you later perhaps) which he has dedicated to the Genesis creation account. I'd be glad to work through it with you.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

If we consider what we call the book of genesis - and remove the chapter and verse numbers - it is one book with a beginning and an end.

I believe the book of Genesis is a compilation of different writings/traditions.

Is not what you refer to as the 'first narrative' the 'first part' of the narrative of the book of genesis?

No.