Back to bara
o God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds . . . Genesis 1:21 ESV
Created – There are demarcations in the Hebrew text that provide important insights about our relationship to God and to the rest of His cosmos. Unfortunately, some of these significant markers are lost in translation. The verb bara’, used in this text, is one of the victims of translation concealment. Why? Because this is the first time this particular verb is used after the opening verse of Scripture. In other words, up to the events of the fifth day, God does not create in the way that Genesis 1:1 reports. Until this day, God “forms” (‘asah) what He has already created. But on this day, something new is added.*
Genesis 1:1 opens the Hebraic view of cosmogony with a statement that everything is created (bara’) by God. But this doesn’t mean that on the first day God instantaneously made each and every piece and part of the cosmos. In fact, what this verse implies (as we see from the subsequent report) is that God made the “stuff” out of which all the rest of creation up to day five is “formed.” In other words, on Day 1 God makes all the necessary material. On days 2 through 4 He shapes this raw material into the various objects that populate the cosmos, e.g. light; the sun, moon and stars; the waters and the earth, vegetation. These He “forms” from the original “stuff.”
Why is this differentiation important? Because the Genesis account is not a textbook in a physics or astronomy lab. It is, among other things, a polemic against the competing mythologies of the cultures surrounding Israel in the 16th Century BC. And common to those mythologies was the idea of other celestial entities who played a role in the creation saga. Tanin, the dragon embodiment of chaos, fought a war with Marduk in Babylonian mythology. Yam and Baal were Canaanite gods who battled over creation. The sun, moon and stars were not objects fashioned by a Supreme God but were gods themselves, vying for power and holding mere mortals captive. The briefest glance at a history of tribal cultures will convince you that the world is populated by all kinds of gods in all kinds of forms. When the Hebrew view came on the scene, it set aside all of this pagan explanation, relegating everything to the forming design of the one true God. That’s why Genesis 1:2-19 uses the verb ‘asah, not bara’. Everything except God Himself is constructed from His original material. None of it has any life or power on its own.
But something happens in verse 20. Swarms of animate creatures are created, not fashioned. These are described as having nephesh hayyah. In other words, there is a significant, essential difference between the inanimate creation (which includes all plant life) and the animate creation. Animate beings are not of the same order nor are they ontologically connected to inanimate beings. In the biblical narrative, life does not evolve from non-life. Life must be added to the equation by the action of God. The “stuff” might be the same, but the result is entirely different because now God engages in the renewal of the original creative process. Genesis 1:1 creates. Genesis 1:2-19 forms. Genesis 1:20-21 creates.
And now the stage is set for another linguistic demarcation in Genesis 2:7, for when Man comes on the scene, he is created (bara’), but there is yet another distinction.
Why should we care about these nuances? Isn’t it all still God’s handiwork? We care because in a world where men are reduced to higher rungs of the same molecular composition as carbon and mold, we must assert and demonstrate the uniqueness of our design. Not only are we not related to primordial slime, we are designed in such a way that the awesome power of God’s image is expressed in our purpose. To reduce that power to nothing more than random collections of DNA is to strip all men of their dignity, responsibility and destiny. The Hebrew text will have nothing to do with such base paganism. In this view it stands alone. Apart. Unique. Just like its author.
Topical Index: create, fashion, bara’, ‘asah, animate, Genesis 1:21
For a reminder of the unusual characteristics of Genesis 2:7, see May 15 and 16, 2011.
*NASB attempts to capture this difference by using “create” and “made,” but without the Hebrew original, I am afraid the point of differentiation might be lost to the English reader.
Fascinating, Skip, and such a refreshing change from the superficial “Genesis as science textbook” viewpoint.
Thank you.
One of my old chemistry professors put it very well, he said, “Death is when organic chemistry ceases and physical chemistry begins.” Something like that. I spent a significant number of years and classes after that appreciating how true that generality was.
On another note, the further we fall into sin — the more like the animal world we become. Or another way, the more we act like animals — the closer our relation appears. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But wait!
In his Mechanical Translation of Genesis, Jeff Benner suggests that bara is better translated as filled or fattened. This then yields the following potential translation:
In beginnings. Elohim filled the skies and the land.
If Benner’s approach is accurate, then doesn’t this suggest that the writing perspective of Genesis 1 is from the ground looking up.
Look at this link from NASA of the surface of Venus as shot during Project Magellan. Notice the utter blackness of the sky. Isn’t this the kind of darkness Moses is describing?
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/magellan/image9.html
So on Day 1 when God says, “Let there be light,” aren’t we seeing a process beginning that isn’t fulfilled until Day 4 when photosynthesis has fully kicked in and the clouds part allowing the Ground Viewer to see the sun, moon, stars and, from that visual perspective, write what God created on the 4th day, because from the Ground Viewer’s perspective – this is truth?
This perspective is also suggested by Jewish writer Leon Kass in The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis/em>.
I’ve gone through a good portion of Skip’s audio class on Genesis, but this wasn’t mentioned. Hence, the question.
Peter, you keep asking.
The day before God created light, it was not dark, for God is light.
“God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.” 1 John 1: 5
but it doesn’t say that God “created” light. It says that God said let there “be” light.
yod-hey-yod (something like becoming- allowing or become-allow)
I don’t know what you mean when you write I keep asking. This is the first time I believe I’ve posted a question.
My first question regards Jeff Benner’s translation approach to bara and what is Skip’s view.
‘Second, acknowledged, God is Light. No proof texts required. But when God says, “Let there be light,” to whom is He speaking? Not Himself. He’s already light. He’s speaking to earth and verbalizing the end result of what’s to be accomplished. The Hebrew “be” according to the New Wilson’s Old Testament Dictionary describes a process, not a direct command as we use “be” when we say to a child, “be quiet.”
Jesus did the same thing with some that He healed – He spoke the end result to be accomplished.
1. Talitha kumi – rise up little lamb.
2. stretch out your hand.
3. to the fig tree – be cursed.
4. Lazarus! Come forth!
5. Peter and John at Beautiful Gate to the beggar: Rise up!
Isn’t this what God is doing here, speaking to the end result of what he wants accomplished that is finally accomplished on Day 4?
But to repeat and not drag off course, my primary question involves Benner’s translation premise behind bara and Skip’s view of that.
Thank you!
You’ve mixed metaphors with science. The text doesn’t work that way.
SKIP, I JUST WANTED TO LET EVERYONE KNOW I STARTED BACK TO WORK YESTERDAY WITH MANPOWER AT A VERY LARGE FOOD COMPANY HERE IN OKC/US FOODS. IT IS 15 MIN FROM MY HOME SO I CAN COME HOME ON MY LUNCH HOUR & LET THE DOGS OUT – HAVE AN HOUR FOR LUNCH & NO HEAVY TRAFFIC TO WORK – STRAIGHT DOWN A BACK ROAD.
BEING PAID MORE THAN I HAVE SINCE 1980 IN THE OIL BOOM. MY DEPARTMENT IS CONTRACTS & IT IS VERY INTERESTING WITH LOTS TO LEARN – SO EVERYONE PRAY I CATCH ON FAST.
I AM/WAS TWO PAYMENTS BEHIND ON MY MORTGAGE & HABITAT EXTENDED ME FORBEARANCE & PUT THE TWO MISSED PAYMENTS ON THE BACK OF MY LOAN & WAIVED THE TWO LATE FEES. I GET TO MAKE A FRESH NEW START FOR THE MONTH OF JULY.
I WILL AGAIN THANK EVERYONE HERE FOR ALL YOUR PRAYERS IN REGARD TO MY SITUATION THE LAST TWO YEARS – GOD HAS BEEN VERY VERY GOOD & MOST CERTAINLY MY PROVISION UNTIL SOMETHING OPENED UP THAT I WILL BE VERY GOOD AT & APPRECIATED – AND I THINK I WILL FIT IN VERY NICELY WHERE I AM.
JAN
Congrats Jan!!
After 11 years of post-high school education – I strongly believe that many of Gods greatest lessons come from simple, hands-on labor. At one point, I thought God was going to send me back to McDonalds teach me practical ways again. But I digress.
God bless you in your new job!!
That’s great news Jan!
I’m very happy for you!
Sister Jan, I rejoice with you and am so grateful to our Heavenly Father, the Source of every good and perfect gift including the gift of “work”. I have been “unemployed” long enough to know “work” itself is the gift of God. Work, any type of work, is both a gift and a privilege. Every day I travel to and from my place of employment, I thank God to have employment. The greatest ability is ability and I (praise His Name) am an able-bodied man. I am a functioning carbon unit, my Sovereign and good God has blessed tremendously. I am oh-so conscious and oh-so grateful for the privilege of providing for my family. My wife and mother of my children is a full-time “domestic engineer” by choice. She is an old-fashioned, stay-at-home mom, (by choice) and is quite busy providing for the needs of our “humble abode” while dad is away.
We are both “laborers together” working for the common good of each other and for the good of our children. God’s plan is for the family. His mission is reconciliation, restoration, and revival of all people- everywhere- starting with an issuing forth from the family unit. As the family goes, so goes the nation. I must be the father my children need. Children today are growing up without fathers to live as an example, to lead by example, to show them, to demonstrate to them what love (aheb) looks like.
~ You shall love (aheb) the LORD your God with all your heart…~ We are commanded. instructed and requested (don’t forget!- God asked Abraham- did not “command,” remember “na?” )
“Aheb” translates “love, serve, work and worship.” You shall (please) love, serve, work for and worship the LORD your God. We love (serve/aheb) God by loving (serving) others. Jesus (who is the) Christ is always first. First place in everything and at all times. He is every much LORD of our Mondays as He is of our Sundays or in case of the Sabbath-Saturday worshippers, LORD of our Saturdays too, for He is LORD of everyday, and LORD of “both” the sacred and the profane (the commonplace.) He is LORD of “both” the macro AND the micro. He made the planets and the peanuts- and it is He who has made us and not we ourselves. I am not, (repeat) NOT, neither is any man – a “self-made” man, – there is no such creature. How do I know this? The same as every breathing human carbon unit on the planet, “it is written.” Once again, (only this time with feeling)- ~ it is He who has made us and NOT we ourselves.~
Listen, listen again, to His words from His Book. Listen again, for the first time, to His words and: ~ Know that the LORD is God. It is He who made us, and we are His; we are His people, the sheep of His pasture. ~ (Psalm 100.3). I know this and in this “knowing”- I also know “every good gift and every perfect gift is from Above”- He is the Source (and Sustainer!) of “ALL” good things, and in this- I remember and I rejoice- every single day of the week, every time my Good Shepherd allows me to rise from my repose and face the new day “knowing” He has promised- “I AM with you (my friend) always, even unto the end of the age.” What joy this brings to this man’s heart. He will never, ever leave me-nor forsake me. His eternal, unchanging word tells me, instructs me, comforts me – ~ I have never seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread ~ – This gives unto me, a God- consciousness and a God- confidence. My hope and my help are in the LORD and I, myself, am “in Christ,” abiding in the Vine of life, allowing Him to have His own way, surrendering moment by moment to this new life, found in abiding/resting in the life-imparting Vine, our LORD and Savior, Jesus (who is the) Christ.
God is not random in anything He says or does. God is Sovereign and God is purposeful and God is good, taking great delight in the prosperity of His servants, delighting (as we fathers do) to give good gifts unto their children.
Back to “abad”- to serve. I am His servant. His to command. His to listen and to learn and then to do. Active listening and obeying. I am learning, as every disciple or learner before me has learned to lean upon Him. To rely upon Him for my daily bread (and breath!). I learning, to the point of pain if necessary, to give “focused attention” to His words which are found in His book.
There are more “commands” found in His book than just the “ten words” known as the Torah. Every word proceeding from the mouth of God is Torah. “Rejoice in the LORD always” is a command and so is “pray without ceasing.” If I am to be a disciple of Christ, then I am to “bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” This is not going to happen by itself. I must participate in the program and become actively involved in co-operating with my Father, working together- doing my part to make this happen.
~ I beseech you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service ~ (Romans 12.1)
This “beseeching” is an amazing word. It is parakaleó, (a) I send for, summon, invite, (b) I beseech, entreat, beg, (c) I exhort, admonish, (d) I comfort, encourage, console. To go out into the highways and the hedges and “beg them” to come in. Parakaleó is a strong cousin to Paráklētos-our Heavenly Helper-our Advocate-our personal Trainer and Teacher- the Ruach HaKodesh.
~ But the Counselor-the Paráklētos-the Ruach HaKodesh, whom the Father will send in My Name, will teach you everything; that is, He will remind you of everything I have said to you ~ (John 14.26)
3875 Paráklētos (from 3844 /pará, “from close-beside” and 2564 /kaléō, “make a call”) – properly, a legal advocate who makes the right judgment-call because close enough to the situation. 3875 /paráklētos (“advocate, advisor-helper”) is the regular term in NT times of an attorney (lawyer) – i.e. someone giving evidence that stands up in court.
Evidence? What evidence? How do I know this is an apple tree? “by their fruits you shall know them..” An apple tree will produce apples. What does a pig do? – whatever a pig does. Why? Because he (or she) is a pig. (and male and female made He them).
But we are not pigs, (nor goats) – we are wandering sheep… having no Shepherd, or do we? Do we now have an ever-present Shepherd who cares? The Good Shepherd/King who gave His life for the sheep? Yes. We do. And He has said, (but are we listening?)
His “forever” invitation:
~ come unto Me- “all” you are burdened and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35WOSrfT7Cw&feature=related
I’m asking specifically about bara and Benner’s translation approach. Do you agree with his premise? Thanks!
Hebrew doesn’t have a word that translates directly as “create” in english. Bara means fattening and is similar to fill but not the same. The word fill (mara/male) is מָלֵא
but bara is בָּרָא. It is used 11 times in genesis and 48 times throughout the Tanakh (Old Testament Bible). There is a good article in Bibliotheca Sacra, BSAC 148:592 (Oct 1991), titled Dimensions of the Hebrew Word for “Create” (בָּרָא) by Thomas J. Finley that explains it in english. In 1 Samuel 2.29 bara is used to describe sins of Eli’s sons who fattened themselves on the choice parts of the sacrifices. This usage still retains Adonai as the subject “creating out of nothing” since here fattening is considered a divine action of (stolen) blessing. Hebraic thought did not have access to modern science and was predicated on covenant culture, action and function – natural events are interpreted as divine covenant actions and judgements. In Genesis 1:1 a literal translation would render bara fattening the Heavens and the earth (cosmos), a type-form disagreement that is rendered according to linguistic style (i.e. Archaic Biblical Hebrew, Standard Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, Israelian Hebrew, Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew, and Mishnaic Hebrew). Most scholars agree the english translation is “create” because hashamayim translates to cosmos (kosmoß) in the greek. Jeff Brenner (at the Ancient Hebrew Research Center) is imposing scientific bias into the hebrew text that doesn’t exist. His argument he presents is that since bara literally means fattening it doesn’t imply Adonai as its subject or creating ex nihilo. This assumes modern scientific knowledge and does violence to the original context of Genesis. I believe it is important to understand and recognize the presuppositions involved in the writing of haTorah – that is, that it is a juridical covenant document of statehood intended to be used contextually to establish case law. The responsibility for maintaining and using haTorah was given to the levitical priesthood and overseen by the office of prophet. The difference between a secular state document such as the US Constitution and the Torah is that the US Constitution establishes citizens while the Torah establishes family. The purpose of the first creation account seen in this context is to establish Adonai’s faithfulness and sovereignty in creation (hence the use of toledot in Gen 2:4) and to act as polemic in a secondary fashion. Covenant culture, covenant action, covenant function – the “big three” that define all ancient hebraic thought. Ironically Benner says this himself and then seems to discard its meaning.
Thanks for this insight. WHen I speak about Genesis as tribal language, I am saying the same thing. The account does not attempt to offer a scientific explanation. It provides answers to the questions, “Who are we and where did we come from?” These answers to these questions are the basis of family ties, just as they would be today if we were speaking about the Masai tribe. You make a great point for reading in the context and culture, something that usually isn’t done when the Church gets ahold of a text like this.
Sorry it took so long to get back to this question. First, I am not familiar with Benner’s translation (although I do know about his work). However, it would not surprise me that the perspective is from man’s point of view. After all, the story is written about human beginnings. That’s the point of the account – where did WE come from? In addition, the vocabulary of the Genesis creation account is not intended to be scientific. It is a polemic against other competing myths. Why we get so disturbed when we try to fit this into a scientific paradigm about “big bang” or wave/particle theory is beyond me. We don’t read Genesis as it was understood by the first audience, and that’s a mistake. There is no necessity for any audible sound in “God said.” The expression is about sovereignty, not about sound bites. So the order to creation and the scientific impossibility of light without a physical source only means that the story isn’t a physics book. It’s about the relative importance of those objects worshipped as gods in the 16th century BC.
I don’t think that we always recognize the significance of words- and I want to thank you, Skip for being in the life-giving business of teaching existence and creation- for that is what words are.
According to rabbi Benny Freedman, if you are really learning, something always bothers you. If you are learning a text and nothing bothers you, you are only listening, not learning.
Also: existence is created through Words. The act of God saying the word “light” is the creation of light. Any word not found in Torah is not part of creation, but an illusion- for example the word for “doubt” (safik) is not found in torah. God did not create doubt- it is man made.
@Christopher. Thank you. However, you went over my head with, “a type-form disagreement that is rendered according to linguistic style.” What does that mean?
Also, when you wrote, “that it is a juridical covenant document of statehood intended to be used contextually to establish case law,” this is about the position I took in my book, Lessons In Governing: The Inseparable Relationship Between God, Man and Government. I say “about” because you’re light years ahead of me in this area, so I’m sure what I wrote is more goyim then some may like.
Thank you again for these insights.
Because of hebrew’s morphosyntactic alignment it is not always possible to translate literally into english because it creates verb disagreement. In the case of bara a literal english translation introduces a translation error where fattening the heavens and the earth implies feeding inanimate objects. For example: we fashion metal and temper it not fatten or bruise it. In the latter usage the type and form of the verb is mismatched. Therefore in translating bara we use create to establish verb agreement. – I’ll have to order your book and read it. Sounds interesting!
I should also mention that ditransitive verbs in hebrew depend on the linguistic style: the accusative has a subject and two objects – a recipient and a theme. accusative is the direct object and dative is the indirect object. Some styles use of yod as a suffice to express the genetive case. The article et in front of the word denotes the accusative form…
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_grammar
I found another good description on yahoo Answers:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100721221520AABQFZS
Adonai creates the heavens and the earth – create is a ditransitive verb that attributes the source (Adonai) to the result (heavens and earth).
Here’s a good link to verb forms:
http://public.wsu.edu/~gordonl/ESL/answer3.htm
Wikipedia has articles on the various verb types:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Verb_types
I don’t like my explaination above because hebrew uses prepositional particles instead of morphological alignment for expressing dative, ablative, and accusative. The problem is that as you change the linguistic style these articles drop out of use.
On a basic level, pictographic ally speaking, you have bar which is son and an aleph (ox/sacrifice). Then we have a verse that states that The Son holds all things together. Just by the construction of the word “create” you have a picture of the Lord.
Barasheet bara – this is the picture of The Son being consumed or destroyed by his arms on the cross (in the beginning) bar – the son + sacrifice (he created) Elohim (God)
In the beginning God created…then you have the Aleph (ox/sacrifice) Tav (the cross) which doesn’t get translated but is in the middle of the menorah that is the first seven words of the Word.
Yes, Jill- even the jots and the tittles of the Hebrew language are “pictographic” or pictorial. “Picture this.” Can you see the “big picture?” Israel itself, (or Himself) is a picture, a representation and so are the parables of our Christ. Perhaps a word is worth a thousand pictures? Ever been a movie as good as a book? lol!
Aleph is not the “whole ox”, but represents the head of an ox, or the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, the “Head” of all things, even Christ Who is before all things and by Whom all things consist. – And of course, this is only the beginning! We are only beginning to discover the “more” of Christ. Just how much more is there? (helpful household hint…) – there is no bottom or top or sides.
This, from some guy named Skip Moen:
“The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the defense of my life; whom shall I dread? (Psalm 27.1)
Salvation – The empty desert. The endless plains. The expanse of the sea. What do those images have to do with “salvation”? Read on.
Hebrew is a language of tangible images. You won’t find many ideas that aren’t directly linked to something concrete. So you find God described as a rock, a fortress, a nursing mother or a pillar of fire. You don’t find words like omniscient or omnipotent. God is a lot more real than that.
When it comes to important ideas like sin and salvation, Hebrew still has very concrete images. This Hebrew word (yasha) means, “to make a wide space” or “to have all that’s needed”. If you lived in the desert, you could cast your eyes over the landscape and see how far it went in every direction. Wide! If you sailed the sea, you could look toward the horizon. Wide! Lots of space for movement. No restrictions. Endless freedom. That’s concrete salvation. Room to move. Not being fenced in.
Today we think of salvation in abstract theological language. Salvation is the “forgiveness of sins”. That’s true, all right. But what image does it create for you? Does it make you see that your life has become a wide-open space where you have freedom to roam? Does it make you think about the endless possibilities that God has opened for you? Are you casting your vision toward the new horizon and discovering that there are no fences?
Or are you just checking off the list of bad behaviors you aren’t supposed to do?
Salvation is WIDE OPEN. And David says, “God is my wide open place.” Salvation is the doorway to endless possibilities. How wide open is your salvation?
(and from cr)- Just how “free” is free?
~ If The Son therefore will set you free, you will truly be the children of liberty ~ (John 8.36)
Alive! Alive!, Alive Hallelujah!- All praise and glory to the Lamb!
Hi I had to change my e-mail address because of attempted fraud on our details.
Could you please change our e-mail addrress onyour records so I can still receive the daily word we are sygned up to thanks.
New addrress rbdow@btinternet.com
I could not find another way of getting throught to you.
We do appreciate reading the word for today.
Many Thanks
DONE
That was a great submit! Individuals underestimate how a lot you want rest! Everybody sleeps. Few are fortunate to rest and rejuvenate overnight. Every little thing you do in life you do better with a greater nights rest, I consider!
You’re wrong. You will not find where God created anything other than the great whales and Adam during the six days He made the heavens and earth. Adam is both made and created. The heaven (cosmos), earth, time space, water, darkness (judgement), everything that is listed in Gen.1:1-2 was already in existence before God said a word. He restores the heaven and earth starting in Gen.1:3. It’s all there and the wording is very careful to distinguish between what is crated and what is made. Days 1-3 God divides. Day 4 He restores the cosmos and put it back in order. Day 5 He creates the great whales and made the fish, etc. patterned after a kind that already existed. Day 6 He made the beast of the field. cattle and creeping things patterned after a kind that already existed. He made Adam’s body from the earth’s material and creates a spirit after God’s likeness. This is why the wording in Gen. 2:4 is used that the heaven (singular) and earth were created and then the earth and heavens (plural) were made. There was only one heaven before Lucifer and this creation was judged with a flood. 2 Peter 3:5-7
I’m not convinced of your extended explanation concerning heaven, earth, time, space, water, etc. but I will acknowledge that bara’ is used three times in Genesis 1 and does describe “sea creatures” and the summary of Man. As for the rest of your rebuttal, that would require a lot more investigation and unpacking assumptions.
If you look at the wording, God creates the great whales, (that’s it). The rest of sea creatures and fowls of the air were made patterned after a kind. The same thing for the 6th day except Adam is both made and created.
God didn’t create the light on the 1st day. It already existed but the world was in darkness. The Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water.
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor. 4:6 KJV)
What happens when the Spirit of God moves upon a lost person’s heart and their receive Christ as their Savior?
Paul is making a comparison to a world that was laid waste and desolate. A world that was judged because of Lucifer’s fall. Just as Adam that was judged (and died) for listening to Satan and not obeying God and allowed sin to enter into his (Adam’s) world.
If I could edit… What happens when the Spirit of God moves upon a lost person’s heart and they receive Christ as their Savior?
Derek This is the same message I read throughout the bible, the concussion for me came when theologists and scholars added their views to the intention of the original script as Skip keeps reiterating.
There is a LOT of theological interpretation mixed into your exegesis. For example, Adam listened to Satan. Nowhere in the text is this found. God did not create light. But the text indicates that God commanded light to be. I think it might be helpful to reconsider the PURPOSE of the Genesis text, i.e. to act as a declaration of identity and direction to the children of Israel coming out of Egypt. There are a lot of Egyptian mythological concepts in the Genesis text of chapters 1-3. Lucifer, Satan, Christ and salvation are NOT part of those issues.
I read a Jewish author (I forget) who said Genesis creation is written in the form of a poem of two verses each with three balancing lines (1/4, 2/5, 3/6) giving us a “six day” creation. He says the “day” structure is used as a metaphor that provided the Hebrews with a “Greek” time frame reference point that they already understood (without the Greeks). So, we have the first three days that create form and the last three days that create function for these forms. Skip, you once told me you like the poetry of Genesis creation which I didn’t understand at the time. Is this what you meant?
Can you provide the name of the author or book? I would find it very useful.
I will try.
Could it be Frank Polak? I find him referenced on the google search…
No but thanks for trying
It doesn’t say the words that Adam listen to Satan but he did listen to his wife (who was deceived) and he did eat. Adam made a not to listen to God. Satan and Christ are the core message in Genesis 3:15. The skin covering that God made for Adam and Eve represent the atonement of Jesus Christ that would come. This is the promise from the very beginning after their sin. It is also pictured in the two offerings that Cain and Abel brought to God. One was rejected and the other was received. Abel by faith brought an offering to God that pictured the Messiah to come.
Edit: Adam made a choice to not listen to God..
Once again, your exegesis incorporated a considerable amount of Christian assumptions about the text. You simply read BACK into the text what you believe to be true as a result of 2000 years of Christian thinking. If the text were as clear and straightforward as you suggest, then Jewish interpretation would also see this as Messianic. Of course, it doesn’t. Therefore, the real issue is the interpretive paradigm, not the words of the text, right?
Oh, I;m sorry. I didn’t know I was dealing with someone that rejects the word of God and Christ as the Creator. You can find all kind of reasons to try and justify your position if you look for hard enough for them. It doesn’t mean you’re right. I do except the bible as the complete word of God. I do believe that Jesus is the promise Messiah that the Jews rejected. I have excepted Christ as my Savior and been born again. Jn.3:1-21
Dear Derek,
On this blog, it’s not an issue about who is saved and who isn’t. It’s about WHY and HOW someone believes. The arguments here are about culture, linguistics, history, paradigms and perspective. So, if I point out that your argument about Genesis depends on a Christian viewpoint that was introduced a thousand years after the text was written, I am not challenging your belief that you are saved (born again). I am challenging your exegetical process. The text begins with what it meant to the ORIGINAL audience, not what it means to us, two thousand years later. Start there and see where it takes you.