Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-29T01:04:27Z

Zlul355: /* 24 hours rather than days? */

Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
:That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::I agree, but it would be best to ensure that the two chronologies are the same. As it is, it looks like a different story starts from genesis 2:4 - and this is the usual Liberal complaint.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Not required, actually. Genesis 1 gives the overview, and Genesis 2 gives the details. Verse 4 makes this clear, as you can see from my translation: "This is the story..." Notice also that Verse 5 undergoes a badly needed repair, because as it was, it didn't make a bit of sense.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
::::But verse 4 says: ''This is the story of the skies and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the skies.'' This still looks like the start of a different story doesn't it? And for example, Gen 2 - 19 has the animals created after Adam, while Gen 1 - 23 has the animals on the filth day - before Adam. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:48, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Genesis 1:2 ==
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight. You guys are changing the words of the most revered English-language Bible, and then, when asked to account for a word-change, call the question "absurd". Gotcha. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:44, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

For the benefit of all observers: "Oceans" can mean the full quantity of all the waters.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
:I humbly defer to your expertise, and "oceans" can be seen as an expansive term, but "ocean" is most commonly seen as a ''body'' of water, and the reference here is clearly to water uncontained and undifferentiated. I still plump for "waters" as the better rendering. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:46, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== 24 hours rather than days? ==

Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
: As you can see, I left an explanation in the Analysis column that "day" means "solar day" and thus 24 hours.

::The notion of changing to a 24 hour day would be historically and theologically inaccurate. The current usage of the terms hour, day, week, etc. are based on the commonly-accepted standard, the Gregorian Calendar. On the basis that this standard was adopted following a papal bull from Gregory XIII in 1582, clearly after Genesis was written, by a mortal being, and not by God, it is unacceptable to alter the original syntax.

::More significantly, our conception of time is dependent upon human perception. In other words, what a day is to a human (approx. 24 hrs) is not likely to be the same as what it is to God. How do we know that it didn't take six thousand years to create the Heavens and the Earth, with one day of Gods work being the equivalent of six thousand years within our own perception of time?

::Of course, "one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day." However, the Hebrew calendar, which was in use at the time of the writing of the Bible, does not specify a definite length of one day, only that there is a sunrise and a sunset. Of course, this would mean that days in the extreme north and south could last for months, since the Sun does not set during the Summer. Hence, even this consideration is subject to debate.

::Based on this, there should be little doubt that the language in this section of the text is stated definitively, and should not be altered. As a result, I have removed the portion of the analysis section defining the meaning of 'yowm'. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 08:10, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)
:::I reverted it back. The reason is simple: it is ''only that verse'' in which a secular scientist, theologian, or atheist has a problem with concerning a 24-hour period. It has to do with creation vs. evolution, and these people expect ''that'' verse - and only that verse - to mean an unlimited amount of time, citing the oft-quoted "a day to God is as a thousand years." With that logic in mind, how much time did Moses spend in the Wilderness? Moses wrote both Genesis and Exodus, so if he meant one thing when God was involved with the Creation, then he meant the same thing while traveling in the Wilderness. So was it forty years, or 14,600,000 years? After Moses died, his protegie Joshua took up the leadership, and circled Jericho for a week...or did they circle the town for 7,000 years? Did Jonah spend three days or three thousand years inside that whale? Did Jesus spend 40,000 years being tempted by Satan? A "day" in the Bible means exactly 24 hours; nothing more, nothing less. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:39, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Before I begin, I apologize for the length of my response. Hopefully it isn't difficult to read. If it would be helpful for me to edit some of the post for clarity, I'd be happy to do so...

::Karajou - Are you implying that I must be a secular scientist, theologian or atheist if I attempt to provide evidence for a claim? Respectfully, if this is the case you are sorely mistaken. In addition, I hasten to add that in my opinion my argument does not involve creation vs. evolution, only the evidence that my claim can be valid, while still maintaining His word. More on that later.

::On the whole, you bring up an excellent point which I did not consider at the time of my initial justification. For this, I apologize. However, I don't believe your argument is definitive, and I still believe that both viewpoints should be considered for further debate. As such, I will not change anything until a final decision has been agreed upon.

::In my opinion, there are two essential areas where your response is lacking. Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, higher latitudes experience longer or shorted solar days based on the season. From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the Hebrew calendar took this into account and adjusted the observation of days accordingly in these parts of the world. Naturally, this system would have been in affect at the time Genesis was written. However, it certainly wouldn't have been in effect at the dawn of creation. Those who eventually created the calendar would have had to adopt these rules to account for the fact that one day (sunset to sunset) in the far north during the summer or winter would equal 60-70 days in Jerusalem during the same period. Again, this was a construct of mortals, not God. In my opinion, the notion of God '''designing''' and '''creating''' a World in which time would eventually be experienced by His people differently based on where they were located on it does not seem plausible. I know this doesn't sound like a good reponse but stay with me because it leads into my second point.

::As we know from Exodus 7:7, Moses was 80 when he led the Jews out of Egypt in the year 1446 BC and lived for 120 years, meaning he was born in 1526 BC and died in 1406 BC. We also know that Adam was created in the first year of the Jewish calendar, and we are currently in the 5770th year, meaning that the time between the creation of man and Moses's birth is around 2234 years (I know they aren't equivalent or congruent systems but for the purposes of this discussion, I believe they should suffice). During these 2200+ years, the Lord lowered the average lifespan from infinity (Enoch has not died) to 120 (Genesis 6:3), with many figures prior to this event living well into their ninth century, including Adam who died at the age of 930.

::This being said, I'm fairly certain that by the time of Moses, civilizations had moved far enough north that a midnight sun would have been observed for weeks or months on end. Assuming that these civilizations had followed the Hebrew Calendar, this would have meant that one "solar day", as observed by these peoples, would have been the equivalent of 60-70 days as observed by Moses in the same period, while he was writting Genesis. According to your claim, Moses states one day of creation was the equivalent of one of our solar 24-hr day. If this is true, Moses - and therefore God - seems to have overlooked the fact that His concept of time doesn't apply to all of His subjects.

::Now, this may not seem like a significant issue. It is true, there may be one or more aspects that I overlooked, which I welcome you or someone else to mention. In the absence of these considerations, however, my argument on this point is simple:

:::-- If God intended His word to apply to everyone made in His image, why wouldn't he create a World where everyone followed the same word, i.e. observing the Sabbath at the same time as people in other parts of the world?

:::--Why would He rather create a universe where adjustments or decrees needed to be made by mortal human beings, after the fact? Though I don't wish to be guilty of blasphemy, to be frank, my understanding of the all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent God of Abraham would not allow for such an oversight to be possible.

::Given this, I feel that it is implausible that Moses intended a day in Creation to be the equivalent of a solar day. Instead, I prefer to believe what is stated in the Book of Jubilees (4:29-31):

:::''"...that he [Adam] lacked 70 years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die."''

::Without going into any further detail (my fingers are starting to hurt from all the typing :-)), this would mean that Adam died in the same day of his creation, paving the road for everything that followed and NOT affecting Creationism theory, as you mentioned in your response. As for why we observe time as we do, I feel it is similar to what God did when he lowered the average age on two occasions (the first already mentioned above and the second from 120 years to 70-80 years as per Psalms 90:10), speeding up time in the process. In other words, if we take the average lifespan in the time of Methuselah (969 years in his case or slightly less than one day of Creation) and compare it to the average lifespan of today (70-80 years), you can make a plausible inference as to why the 1000 year theory is valid.

::Of course, no one including myself can know for sure if this is the definitive truth. Nevertheless, given the considerations I have just presented, I hope that you and everyone else affected by this issue can agree that a discussion is worth pursuing, instead of merely appealing to blind faith.

::Note: I apologize for any grammatical or spelling mistakes. I'm quite new at this and am still trying to get acquainted. Also, there are probably some sources that should have been mentioned. It was not a deliberate act, I was simply trying to save time. If you would like, I will be happy to post links. I look forward to your response, as well as anyone else willing to offer their views on this important matter. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 19:45, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)

==baramin==
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know that enough people are going to know what 'baramin' means for this to be helpful. According to Albert Barnes, the phrase 'after its kind' " intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied."{{unsigned|BruceR}}

Not to worry. I left a link to [[Baraminology]] and a full explanation of where that name comes from. "Kind" is correct; it is the word that [[God]] actually used, or at least how it translated. But everyone will know what we mean by that, especially after we write the commentary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

I just read a lot of the discussion concerning "baraminology" on Conservapedia. What it comes down to is just how much of a scientific work is the Bible? And is the use of the term "baraminology" justified? While in its defense, its said that baraminology is a new system of classification, it does seem kind of confused. The "holobaramin" of dogs is said to include all canids, which were descended from the "two individuals taken aboard the Ark". Since canids include foxes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dholes, cape hunting dogs, etc., then it would appear that baraminology accepts the idea of speciation - which another article in Conservapedia confirms. So the holobaramin of canids includes all species of canids which speciated or evolved from the Noachian two. Or did some of them speciate from species that speciated from the original two? From the holobaramin, we go "up", to the apobaramin, which are groups of holobaramins. The article on baraminology states that the holobaramins of wolves and humans are grouped in one apobaramin. Since the holobaramin involves species which speciated from the original two or from those which speciated from the original two, is such a biological relationship implied for the groups in a apobaramin? What exactly determines membership in a holobaramin, or a apobaramin? And why bother coming up with "baraminology", when the classification system of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc., works perfectly well? If the answer is that this implies evolutionary relationships, then so does baraminology when you get down to it.

Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin. But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin. The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18). This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds. Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV) The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind". The discrepancy is obvious: Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different. Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen. The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk. But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored. What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower. The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated. From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals. Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship. An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct. And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system. - Danielitld

:Despite having meandered through your wandering post and never having reached a point, I managed to scry something of what you were attempting to communicate. The Bible is unscientific? The Bible is extraordinarily scientific, and possesses scientific knowledge nobody could have possibly possessed when it was written, other than God. Don't believe me? [http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml See for yourself.]
:Regardless of whether a bat is a bird, God may have simply wanted people not to eat them because of something they had in common with birds - perhaps flight or a diet of insects exposes them to some disease that non-flying birds don't have, I don't know.
:We should not ever be attempting to tear down the Bible with knowledge that we've gained through genetics or other modern science (like ostriches having more in common with birds than bats), but instead use the Bible to understand our world better, and using modern knowledge as a supplement to that. I pray you learn to stop trying to tear down the Bible. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 13:51, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:: Look no further than our own article, [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]. However, I must concur with Jacob: Daniel, your writing is so roundabout that I can barely read it. Conciseness is key. To the point, baraminology is a fledgling but burgeoning field of research, with extraordinary predictive power. I suggest you research it more before presenting paltry criticism. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:14, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Since when is trying to understand the Bible considered tearing it down? Someone wants to claim that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. If I look at that claim, and find it questionable if not plain wrong, is the Bible "damaged", or only the claim? JacobB's link in support of that claim, says that Behemoth and Leviathan, from Job, were dinosaurs. Were they? The footnote in the Good News Bible states that "some identify this [Behemoth] with the hippopotamus", while Leviathan "some take . . to be the crocodile". Believe what you want, since there's no way to be sure. Of course, both the hippo and the crocodile are dangerous creatures, and were surely known to the writer of Job. There doesn't seem to be any need to interpret them as being dinosaurs.

Take the word tannin, which JacobB's link mentions as referring to dinosaurs. I've already covered that with a discussion below. So I'll just repeat that, in Lamentations 4:3, a tannin is described as suckling its young - a mammalian trait, not a dinosaurian one. If you want to believe that the term tannin at least is broad enough to include dinosaurs, then you are free to do so. But a term so broad which can mean any type of animal is hardly scientific. And that is the point I was making referring to Leviticus 11:16, even without delving into the "bat is a bird" notion. The terms used are descriptive, not scientific. Shown the Hebrew term "nets" by itself, you wouldn't know if the "brightly-colored" object being referred to was a hawk or a flower. The Hebrew term yaen and its feminine form yaanah refer to what? The male ostrich and one might assume the female ostrich. Yet yaanah is translated in the KJV as "owl", which is also how the term tachmas is rendered, when its not translated as hawk. Researching all of this hardly "tears down" the Bible. It just points out that "the Bible is not a scientific book", as JacobB's link first states. And understanding how the ancient Hebrews looked at things means you don't have to go chasing down dinosaurs to understand the Bible. - Danielitld

== 3:14 ==

"You will crawl on your belly and eat dry-powder food throughout the days of your life."
Again, I defer to the expert(s), but I don't see the basis for "dry-powder food". Throughout the Old Testament, עפר (`aphar) is used in two senses: dust/dry earth (as in Gen. 2:7), and a vast number (as in Gen. 13:16). I don't see any basis for "food". Also, serpents (snakes) are almost exclusively carnivorous. Meat doesn't register as a "dry-powder food". [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:59, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== The expanse ==

The JPS Torah commentary states that "the verbal form [of expanse or rakia in Hebrew] is often used for hammering out metal or flattening out earth". What the expanse or the sky was actually supposed to be is unclear. The commentary points out that, in Ezekiel 1:22, the expanse is equated to ice. Whether metal or ice, the water beyond it was taken to be the source for rain. What I find interesting is that, in the translation, while it is stated how the ancient Hebrews understood things, it apparently seems necessary to point out how creation scientists understand the expanse. But is it even appropriate to take that ancient understanding - to even ''understand'' that that was the way the ancient Hebrews understood things - and somehow try to give it scientific legitimacy with ideas of water-vapor barriers or notions of Einsteinian physics? The Jehovah's Witnesses have "theorized" that a belt or a sphere of water orbited the Earth, even though this goes against what is said in Genesis. If the ancient Hebrews understood the expanse as a metallic or an ice barrier from which rain came, then obviously that was wrong, as we now know. But if we try to interpret the ancient text in a modern way, then aren't we actually misinterpreting it? Shouldn't we look at it with Hebrew eyes, and try to see the Hebrew understanding - even if it is scientifically inaccurate?

The same goes for the notion of dinosaurs being mentioned at Genesis 1:21. Just as the Hebrews didn't understand how rain came about, how much of a notion did they even have about dinosaurs? The Hebrew word used for "great sea monsters" is tannin. But from its use in the Bible, we can see that it is not an exact scientific term. In Ezekiel 29:3, the pharaoh is described as "the great tannin that crouches in the midst of his streams". The KJV translates this as dragon. But the Jerusalem (Hebrew) Bible translates it as crocodile, which would seem appropriate. However, in Lamentations 4:3, we read how the tannins "draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones". The KJV translates this as "sea monsters", while the Jerusalem Bible renders it as jackals. Whatever these tannins are supposed to be, they are definitely mammals, since only mammals suckle their young. If someone would want to interpret tannin as including dinosaurs along with all other kinds of animals, then I suppose he or she would be free to do so. However, such an interpretation would definitely have to be a very loose one. - Danielitld````

== Genesis 3:1 ==

Is the serpent really Satan? Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was a "wild beast" "that the Lord God had made". This reflects the words of Genesis 1:24-5, with the stipulation that "God saw that this was good". The Hebrew word for serpent used here is nachash, and it appears in many places in the Bible, where it is not equated with Satan. In Genesis 49:17, we are told that Dan, "one of the tribes of Israel", "shall be a serpent by the road, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider is thrown backward". (JPS translation) Its difficult to imagine one of the tribes of Israel "who shall judge his people" (KJV) being equated with Satan. In Numbers 21:9, we are told that Moses "made a serpent of brass", that would cure any man if he had been bitten by a serpent. Again, its difficult to imagine this as being somehow satanic, when the allusion to the nachash is as a "beast of the field". While the serpent in Genesis 3 may be "subtil" or cunning - the Hebrew word is arum - equating this "beast of the field" with Satan is not supported by the text. Danielitld
:It would seem to be entirely plausible that ''all'' animals could talk before the fall. After all, we know that, for instance T Rex was vegetarian and used its teeth for opening coconuts. So it requires no great stretch of the imagination to suggest that apart from being entirely herbivorous the animals were also capable of speech. This would explain the fact that Eve is in no way recorded as being surprised by being accosted by a talking snake. It would also make the punishment which the snakes received as a group a lot more fair - as if it was only an unwilling tool of Satan then the permenant cursing would seem rather harsh - but if the snake was acting of its own violation then the punishment is more reasonable.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:57, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I have never heard about T. rex using its teeth to open coconuts, so I searched for any information on that on line. The only reference I found to this is on the website fishfeet2007.blogspot.com. Whoever wrote this reference said that, when he or she asked a guide at the Creation Museum what T. rex used its recurved teeth for, the guide responded that they were used for opening coconuts. However, a blogger named Hans Mast at HansMast.com states that this "fact" was made up by someone trying to "belittle" the Creation Museum in Kentucky, even before it opened. HansMast.com also points out that there are no guides at that museum, since it is a self-guided museum. When I tried to find a reference to this on the Creation Museum site, I found none. So it appears that Hans Mast is right - this is a hoax which has spread over the internet. - Danielitld
:That is most interesting. Nevertheless T Rex must have used its teeth for something before the Fall.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:45, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I found the comment to Genesis 1:6, about the expanse, most interesting: "The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of water". I commented before that, understanding that that is what the ancient Hebrews believed, why then do creation scientists seek an explanation for this expanse that we now know doesn't exist? Put another way, since we can no longer believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how can we interpret the Bible literally? When you state that the T. rex must have used its teeth for something, the answer is in its teeth: The T. rex used its teeth for eating meat. This may contradict a supposed literal interpretation of Genesis. But as the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6 shows, a literal interpretation is just not possible. We might even ask ourselves how the ancient Hebrews themselves read the Torah. W. Gunther Plaut, in the introduction to his Torah commentary writes: "Even the ancient Jewish Sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally. They took it seriously, but they always looked behind the flat literal meaning. They realized that the Bible - in addition to everything else it was to them - abounded in subtle metaphors and allusions, that it used word plays and other literary devices, that it sometimes spoke satirically, and that its poetry could not be subject to a simple approach. They agreed without embarrassment that one could disagree on what the Torah meant, and on this sound principle we ourselves should base our approach to the text." An example of word play can be found in Genesis 3, where the serpent is "cunning" - the Hebrew word is arum - and then Adam and Eve found themselves ashamed because they were naked - aram in Hebrew. It is difficult to imagine this play on words being taken in a "flat literal" sense. Which takes us back to the expanse of verse 1:6. Did the ancient Hebrews actually believe, then, that the sky was a solid object? Or does this verse also have a meaning behind its "flat literal meaning"? If they really did believe the sky was a solid object, at a time which was centuries before Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, then do Jews still believe that? I really don't believe that they do. - Danielitld

== Noah and Utnapishtim ==

In the comment to verse 6:14, we are told that, with the word pitch or kaphar in Hebrew "the ransom Jesus Christ paid for mankind" is prefigured. But since the ark or tebah only appears again in Exodus in connection with Moses, it would seem that Moses is prefigured here. The Hebrew word for pitch, kaphar, means to cover, according to Strong's Concordance, and , figuratively, to expiate, condone, placate, and cancel. But the word for pitch in Exodus is zepheth or asphalt, not kaphar. Where kaphar does appear is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, according to the JPS Torah Commentary, where the Akkadian word kupru is used: "six 'sar' (measures) of bitumen I poured into the furnace", Utnapishtim relates in the Epic. Instead of "prefiguring" a future event, kaphar represents a rewriting of the Epic. Utnapishtim is told by the gods to "Give up possessions, seek thou life. Forswear (worldly) goods and keep the soul alive!" If with kaphar/kupru we are meant to understand an atonement because "the earth became corrupt" (v. 6:11), then the expiation of that corruption was attained through the flood in both Genesis and the Epic. - Danielitld

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, we read that the god of the underworld "Erragal tears out the posts" of "the world dam", while the god of war Ninurta "causes the dikes to follow", thus unleashing the deluge. Is it possible to read this account of the flood and give it any kind of scientific credibility? After reading Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory", it would appear that that is what was done. Brown refers to pillars that held the crust of the earth up over his theorized subcrustal ocean, whose "tearing out" caused the waters of that subterranean ocean to spew out. But basing the hypothesized pillars on the "science" of Gilgamesh is highly dubious, to say the least. Aside from the science, is Brown's hypothesized "subcrustal ocean" even Biblically correct?

In verse 7:11, we read that the "fountains of the great deep [were] broken up". In Genesis 1:2, we first encountered the "great deep" or tehom - the "cosmic abyssal water" that existed when the earth was "unformed and void". (from the JPS Torah Commentary) On the second day of creation, God made the expanse - rakia - to "separate water from water", "and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse". On the third day, God bade "the water below the sky [the expanse] be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear". We are then told that "God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas". What I get from this is the world as we now know it, with its continents and oceans - but not a "subcrustal ocean".

Tehom also appears in other Biblical verses. In Isaiah 51:10, the "arm of the Lord" is asked "Art thou not it which dried the sea, the waters of the great deep [tehom]; that made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?" (Jerusalem Bible) - referring to the Exodus crossing of the Sea of Reeds. In Habakkuk 3:10, we read how the mountains tremble upon seeing God, and "the deep [tehom] uttered its voice, and lifted up its hands on high". (Jerusalem Bible) In Genesis 49:25, we read that God "blesses you with the blessings of heaven above, [and the] blessings of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) Similarly in Deuteronomy 33:13, we read of Joseph "blessed of the Lord be his land with the bounty of the dew of heaven, and of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) From these verses, the idea of a "subcrustal ocean" is just not there. Reading the verses from Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, if we were to equate the "deep" or tehom with a "subcrustal ocean", we would even get the impression that Brown's "subcrustal ocean" is still there after the flood.

Reading Genesis 7:11 with Genesis 1:6-10 in mind, what we are to understand is that "creation is being undone", according to the JPS commentary. The waters which were separated by the expanse are coming together again, making the earth again "unformed and void". But "God remembered Noah", and basically created the earth again, in chapter 8. The water above the expanse was "held back", and the waters below the expanse returned to the seas. There is no room here for a "subcrustal ocean", and any hypothesizing to that effect is inane, not only scientifically, but Biblically as well. - Danielitld

Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-29T00:45:54Z

Zlul355: /* 24 hours rather than days? */

Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
:That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::I agree, but it would be best to ensure that the two chronologies are the same. As it is, it looks like a different story starts from genesis 2:4 - and this is the usual Liberal complaint.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Not required, actually. Genesis 1 gives the overview, and Genesis 2 gives the details. Verse 4 makes this clear, as you can see from my translation: "This is the story..." Notice also that Verse 5 undergoes a badly needed repair, because as it was, it didn't make a bit of sense.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
::::But verse 4 says: ''This is the story of the skies and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the skies.'' This still looks like the start of a different story doesn't it? And for example, Gen 2 - 19 has the animals created after Adam, while Gen 1 - 23 has the animals on the filth day - before Adam. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:48, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Genesis 1:2 ==
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight. You guys are changing the words of the most revered English-language Bible, and then, when asked to account for a word-change, call the question "absurd". Gotcha. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:44, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

For the benefit of all observers: "Oceans" can mean the full quantity of all the waters.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
:I humbly defer to your expertise, and "oceans" can be seen as an expansive term, but "ocean" is most commonly seen as a ''body'' of water, and the reference here is clearly to water uncontained and undifferentiated. I still plump for "waters" as the better rendering. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:46, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== 24 hours rather than days? ==

Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
: As you can see, I left an explanation in the Analysis column that "day" means "solar day" and thus 24 hours.

::The notion of changing to a 24 hour day would be historically and theologically inaccurate. The current usage of the terms hour, day, week, etc. are based on the commonly-accepted standard, the Gregorian Calendar. On the basis that this standard was adopted following a papal bull from Gregory XIII in 1582, clearly after Genesis was written, by a mortal being, and not by God, it is unacceptable to alter the original syntax.

::More significantly, our conception of time is dependent upon human perception. In other words, what a day is to a human (approx. 24 hrs) is not likely to be the same as what it is to God. How do we know that it didn't take six thousand years to create the Heavens and the Earth, with one day of Gods work being the equivalent of six thousand years within our own perception of time?

::Of course, "one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day." However, the Hebrew calendar, which was in use at the time of the writing of the Bible, does not specify a definite length of one day, only that there is a sunrise and a sunset. Of course, this would mean that days in the extreme north and south could last for months, since the Sun does not set during the Summer. Hence, even this consideration is subject to debate.

::Based on this, there should be little doubt that the language in this section of the text is stated definitively, and should not be altered. As a result, I have removed the portion of the analysis section defining the meaning of 'yowm'. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 08:10, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)
:::I reverted it back. The reason is simple: it is ''only that verse'' in which a secular scientist, theologian, or atheist has a problem with concerning a 24-hour period. It has to do with creation vs. evolution, and these people expect ''that'' verse - and only that verse - to mean an unlimited amount of time, citing the oft-quoted "a day to God is as a thousand years." With that logic in mind, how much time did Moses spend in the Wilderness? Moses wrote both Genesis and Exodus, so if he meant one thing when God was involved with the Creation, then he meant the same thing while traveling in the Wilderness. So was it forty years, or 14,600,000 years? After Moses died, his protegie Joshua took up the leadership, and circled Jericho for a week...or did they circle the town for 7,000 years? Did Jonah spend three days or three thousand years inside that whale? Did Jesus spend 40,000 years being tempted by Satan? A "day" in the Bible means exactly 24 hours; nothing more, nothing less. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:39, 28 November 2009 (EST)

::Before I begin, I apologize for the length of my response. Hopefully it isn't difficult to read. If it would be helpful for me to edit some of the post for clarity, I'd be happy to do so...

::Karajou - Are you implying that I must be a secular scientist, theologian or atheist if I attempt to provide evidence for a claim? Respectfully, if this is the case you are sorely mistaken. In addition, I hasten to add that in my opinion my argument does not involve creation vs. evolution, only the evidence that my claim can be valid, while still maintaining His word. More on that later.

::On the whole, you bring up an excellent point which I did not consider at the time of my initial justification. For this, I apologize. However, I don't believe your argument is definitive, and I still believe that both viewpoints should be considered for further debate. As such, I will not change anything until a final decision has been agreed upon.

::In my opinion, there are two essential areas where your response is lacking. Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, higher latitudes experience longer or shorted solar days based on the season. From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the Hebrew calendar took this into account and adjusted the observation of days accordingly in these parts of the world. Naturally, this system would have been in affect at the time Genesis was written. However, it certainly wouldn't have been in effect at the dawn of creation. Those who eventually created the calendar would have had to adopt these rules to account for the fact that one day (sunset to sunset) in the far north during the summer or winter would equal 60-70 days in Jerusalem during the same period. Again, this was a construct of mortals, not God. In my opinion, the notion of God '''designing''' and '''creating''' a World in which time would eventually be experienced by His people differently based on where they were located on it does not seem plausible. I know this doesn't sound like a good reponse but stay with me because it leads into my second point.

::As we know from Exodus 7:7, Moses was 80 when he led the Jews out of Egypt in the year 1446 BC and lived for 120 years, meaning he was born in 1526 BC and died in 1406 BC. We also know that Adam was created in the first year of the Jewish calendar, and we are currently in the 5770th year, meaning that the time between the creation of man and Moses's birth is around 2234 years (I know they aren't equivalent or congruent systems but for the purposes of this discussion, I believe they should suffice). During these 2200+ years, the Lord lowered the average lifespan from infinity (Enoch has not died) to 120 (Genesis 6:3), with many figures prior to this event living well into their ninth century, including Adam who died at the age of 930.

::This being said, I'm fairly certain that by the time of Moses, civilizations had moved far enough north that a midnight sun would have been observed for weeks or months on end. Assuming that these civilizations had followed the Hebrew Calendar, this would have meant that one "solar day", as observed by these peoples, would have been the equivalent of 60-70 days as observed by Moses in the same period, while he was writting Genesis. According to your claim, Moses states one day of creation was the equivalent of one of our solar 24-hr day. If this is true, Moses - and therefore God - seems to have overlooked the fact that His concept of time doesn't apply to all of His subjects.

::Now, this may not seem like a significant issue. It is true, there may be one or more aspects that I overlooked, which I welcome you or someone else to mention. In the absence of these considerations, however, my argument on this point is simple:

::-- If God intended His word to apply to everyone made in His image, why wouldn't he create a World where everyone followed the same word, i.e. observing the Sabbath at the same time as people in other parts of the world? Why would he rather create a universe where adjustments or decrees needed to be made by mortals, after the fact? Though I don't wish to be guilty of blasphemy, to be frank, my understanding of the all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipotent God of Abraham would not allow for such an oversight to be possible.

::Given this, I feel that it is implausible that Moses intended a day in Creation to be the equivalent of a solar day. Instead, I prefer to believe what is stated in the Book of Jubilees (4:29-31):

''::"that he [Adam] lacked 70 years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die."''

::Without going into any further detail (my fingers are starting to hurt from all the typing :-)), this would mean that Adam died in the same day of his creation, paving the road for everything that followed and NOT affecting Creationism theory, as you mentioned in your response. As for why we observe time as we do, I feel it is similar to what God did when he lowered the average age on two occasions (the first already mentioned above and the second from 120 years to 70-80 years as per Psalms 90:10), speeding up time in the process. In other words, if we take the average lifespan in the time of Methuselah (969 years in his case or slightly less than one day of Creation) and compare it to the average lifespan of today (70-80 years), you can make a plausible inference as to why the 1000 year theory is valid.

::Of course, no one including myself can know for sure if this is the definitive truth. Nevertheless, given the considerations I have just presented, I hope that you and everyone else affected by this issue can agree that a discussion is worth pursuing, instead of merely appealing to blind faith.

::Note: I apologize for any grammatical or spelling mistakes. I'm quite new at this and am still trying to get acquainted. Also, there are probably some sources that should have been mentioned. It was not a deliberate act, I was simply trying to save time. If you would like, I will be happy to post links. I look forward to your response, as well as anyone else willing to offer their views on this important matter. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 19:45, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)

==baramin==
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know that enough people are going to know what 'baramin' means for this to be helpful. According to Albert Barnes, the phrase 'after its kind' " intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied."{{unsigned|BruceR}}

Not to worry. I left a link to [[Baraminology]] and a full explanation of where that name comes from. "Kind" is correct; it is the word that [[God]] actually used, or at least how it translated. But everyone will know what we mean by that, especially after we write the commentary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

I just read a lot of the discussion concerning "baraminology" on Conservapedia. What it comes down to is just how much of a scientific work is the Bible? And is the use of the term "baraminology" justified? While in its defense, its said that baraminology is a new system of classification, it does seem kind of confused. The "holobaramin" of dogs is said to include all canids, which were descended from the "two individuals taken aboard the Ark". Since canids include foxes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dholes, cape hunting dogs, etc., then it would appear that baraminology accepts the idea of speciation - which another article in Conservapedia confirms. So the holobaramin of canids includes all species of canids which speciated or evolved from the Noachian two. Or did some of them speciate from species that speciated from the original two? From the holobaramin, we go "up", to the apobaramin, which are groups of holobaramins. The article on baraminology states that the holobaramins of wolves and humans are grouped in one apobaramin. Since the holobaramin involves species which speciated from the original two or from those which speciated from the original two, is such a biological relationship implied for the groups in a apobaramin? What exactly determines membership in a holobaramin, or a apobaramin? And why bother coming up with "baraminology", when the classification system of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc., works perfectly well? If the answer is that this implies evolutionary relationships, then so does baraminology when you get down to it.

Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin. But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin. The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18). This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds. Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV) The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind". The discrepancy is obvious: Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different. Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen. The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk. But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored. What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower. The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated. From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals. Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship. An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct. And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system. - Danielitld

:Despite having meandered through your wandering post and never having reached a point, I managed to scry something of what you were attempting to communicate. The Bible is unscientific? The Bible is extraordinarily scientific, and possesses scientific knowledge nobody could have possibly possessed when it was written, other than God. Don't believe me? [http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml See for yourself.]
:Regardless of whether a bat is a bird, God may have simply wanted people not to eat them because of something they had in common with birds - perhaps flight or a diet of insects exposes them to some disease that non-flying birds don't have, I don't know.
:We should not ever be attempting to tear down the Bible with knowledge that we've gained through genetics or other modern science (like ostriches having more in common with birds than bats), but instead use the Bible to understand our world better, and using modern knowledge as a supplement to that. I pray you learn to stop trying to tear down the Bible. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 13:51, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:: Look no further than our own article, [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]. However, I must concur with Jacob: Daniel, your writing is so roundabout that I can barely read it. Conciseness is key. To the point, baraminology is a fledgling but burgeoning field of research, with extraordinary predictive power. I suggest you research it more before presenting paltry criticism. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:14, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Since when is trying to understand the Bible considered tearing it down? Someone wants to claim that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. If I look at that claim, and find it questionable if not plain wrong, is the Bible "damaged", or only the claim? JacobB's link in support of that claim, says that Behemoth and Leviathan, from Job, were dinosaurs. Were they? The footnote in the Good News Bible states that "some identify this [Behemoth] with the hippopotamus", while Leviathan "some take . . to be the crocodile". Believe what you want, since there's no way to be sure. Of course, both the hippo and the crocodile are dangerous creatures, and were surely known to the writer of Job. There doesn't seem to be any need to interpret them as being dinosaurs.

Take the word tannin, which JacobB's link mentions as referring to dinosaurs. I've already covered that with a discussion below. So I'll just repeat that, in Lamentations 4:3, a tannin is described as suckling its young - a mammalian trait, not a dinosaurian one. If you want to believe that the term tannin at least is broad enough to include dinosaurs, then you are free to do so. But a term so broad which can mean any type of animal is hardly scientific. And that is the point I was making referring to Leviticus 11:16, even without delving into the "bat is a bird" notion. The terms used are descriptive, not scientific. Shown the Hebrew term "nets" by itself, you wouldn't know if the "brightly-colored" object being referred to was a hawk or a flower. The Hebrew term yaen and its feminine form yaanah refer to what? The male ostrich and one might assume the female ostrich. Yet yaanah is translated in the KJV as "owl", which is also how the term tachmas is rendered, when its not translated as hawk. Researching all of this hardly "tears down" the Bible. It just points out that "the Bible is not a scientific book", as JacobB's link first states. And understanding how the ancient Hebrews looked at things means you don't have to go chasing down dinosaurs to understand the Bible. - Danielitld

== 3:14 ==

"You will crawl on your belly and eat dry-powder food throughout the days of your life."
Again, I defer to the expert(s), but I don't see the basis for "dry-powder food". Throughout the Old Testament, עפר (`aphar) is used in two senses: dust/dry earth (as in Gen. 2:7), and a vast number (as in Gen. 13:16). I don't see any basis for "food". Also, serpents (snakes) are almost exclusively carnivorous. Meat doesn't register as a "dry-powder food". [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:59, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== The expanse ==

The JPS Torah commentary states that "the verbal form [of expanse or rakia in Hebrew] is often used for hammering out metal or flattening out earth". What the expanse or the sky was actually supposed to be is unclear. The commentary points out that, in Ezekiel 1:22, the expanse is equated to ice. Whether metal or ice, the water beyond it was taken to be the source for rain. What I find interesting is that, in the translation, while it is stated how the ancient Hebrews understood things, it apparently seems necessary to point out how creation scientists understand the expanse. But is it even appropriate to take that ancient understanding - to even ''understand'' that that was the way the ancient Hebrews understood things - and somehow try to give it scientific legitimacy with ideas of water-vapor barriers or notions of Einsteinian physics? The Jehovah's Witnesses have "theorized" that a belt or a sphere of water orbited the Earth, even though this goes against what is said in Genesis. If the ancient Hebrews understood the expanse as a metallic or an ice barrier from which rain came, then obviously that was wrong, as we now know. But if we try to interpret the ancient text in a modern way, then aren't we actually misinterpreting it? Shouldn't we look at it with Hebrew eyes, and try to see the Hebrew understanding - even if it is scientifically inaccurate?

The same goes for the notion of dinosaurs being mentioned at Genesis 1:21. Just as the Hebrews didn't understand how rain came about, how much of a notion did they even have about dinosaurs? The Hebrew word used for "great sea monsters" is tannin. But from its use in the Bible, we can see that it is not an exact scientific term. In Ezekiel 29:3, the pharaoh is described as "the great tannin that crouches in the midst of his streams". The KJV translates this as dragon. But the Jerusalem (Hebrew) Bible translates it as crocodile, which would seem appropriate. However, in Lamentations 4:3, we read how the tannins "draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones". The KJV translates this as "sea monsters", while the Jerusalem Bible renders it as jackals. Whatever these tannins are supposed to be, they are definitely mammals, since only mammals suckle their young. If someone would want to interpret tannin as including dinosaurs along with all other kinds of animals, then I suppose he or she would be free to do so. However, such an interpretation would definitely have to be a very loose one. - Danielitld````

== Genesis 3:1 ==

Is the serpent really Satan? Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was a "wild beast" "that the Lord God had made". This reflects the words of Genesis 1:24-5, with the stipulation that "God saw that this was good". The Hebrew word for serpent used here is nachash, and it appears in many places in the Bible, where it is not equated with Satan. In Genesis 49:17, we are told that Dan, "one of the tribes of Israel", "shall be a serpent by the road, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider is thrown backward". (JPS translation) Its difficult to imagine one of the tribes of Israel "who shall judge his people" (KJV) being equated with Satan. In Numbers 21:9, we are told that Moses "made a serpent of brass", that would cure any man if he had been bitten by a serpent. Again, its difficult to imagine this as being somehow satanic, when the allusion to the nachash is as a "beast of the field". While the serpent in Genesis 3 may be "subtil" or cunning - the Hebrew word is arum - equating this "beast of the field" with Satan is not supported by the text. Danielitld
:It would seem to be entirely plausible that ''all'' animals could talk before the fall. After all, we know that, for instance T Rex was vegetarian and used its teeth for opening coconuts. So it requires no great stretch of the imagination to suggest that apart from being entirely herbivorous the animals were also capable of speech. This would explain the fact that Eve is in no way recorded as being surprised by being accosted by a talking snake. It would also make the punishment which the snakes received as a group a lot more fair - as if it was only an unwilling tool of Satan then the permenant cursing would seem rather harsh - but if the snake was acting of its own violation then the punishment is more reasonable.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:57, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I have never heard about T. rex using its teeth to open coconuts, so I searched for any information on that on line. The only reference I found to this is on the website fishfeet2007.blogspot.com. Whoever wrote this reference said that, when he or she asked a guide at the Creation Museum what T. rex used its recurved teeth for, the guide responded that they were used for opening coconuts. However, a blogger named Hans Mast at HansMast.com states that this "fact" was made up by someone trying to "belittle" the Creation Museum in Kentucky, even before it opened. HansMast.com also points out that there are no guides at that museum, since it is a self-guided museum. When I tried to find a reference to this on the Creation Museum site, I found none. So it appears that Hans Mast is right - this is a hoax which has spread over the internet. - Danielitld
:That is most interesting. Nevertheless T Rex must have used its teeth for something before the Fall.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:45, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I found the comment to Genesis 1:6, about the expanse, most interesting: "The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of water". I commented before that, understanding that that is what the ancient Hebrews believed, why then do creation scientists seek an explanation for this expanse that we now know doesn't exist? Put another way, since we can no longer believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how can we interpret the Bible literally? When you state that the T. rex must have used its teeth for something, the answer is in its teeth: The T. rex used its teeth for eating meat. This may contradict a supposed literal interpretation of Genesis. But as the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6 shows, a literal interpretation is just not possible. We might even ask ourselves how the ancient Hebrews themselves read the Torah. W. Gunther Plaut, in the introduction to his Torah commentary writes: "Even the ancient Jewish Sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally. They took it seriously, but they always looked behind the flat literal meaning. They realized that the Bible - in addition to everything else it was to them - abounded in subtle metaphors and allusions, that it used word plays and other literary devices, that it sometimes spoke satirically, and that its poetry could not be subject to a simple approach. They agreed without embarrassment that one could disagree on what the Torah meant, and on this sound principle we ourselves should base our approach to the text." An example of word play can be found in Genesis 3, where the serpent is "cunning" - the Hebrew word is arum - and then Adam and Eve found themselves ashamed because they were naked - aram in Hebrew. It is difficult to imagine this play on words being taken in a "flat literal" sense. Which takes us back to the expanse of verse 1:6. Did the ancient Hebrews actually believe, then, that the sky was a solid object? Or does this verse also have a meaning behind its "flat literal meaning"? If they really did believe the sky was a solid object, at a time which was centuries before Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, then do Jews still believe that? I really don't believe that they do. - Danielitld

== Noah and Utnapishtim ==

In the comment to verse 6:14, we are told that, with the word pitch or kaphar in Hebrew "the ransom Jesus Christ paid for mankind" is prefigured. But since the ark or tebah only appears again in Exodus in connection with Moses, it would seem that Moses is prefigured here. The Hebrew word for pitch, kaphar, means to cover, according to Strong's Concordance, and , figuratively, to expiate, condone, placate, and cancel. But the word for pitch in Exodus is zepheth or asphalt, not kaphar. Where kaphar does appear is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, according to the JPS Torah Commentary, where the Akkadian word kupru is used: "six 'sar' (measures) of bitumen I poured into the furnace", Utnapishtim relates in the Epic. Instead of "prefiguring" a future event, kaphar represents a rewriting of the Epic. Utnapishtim is told by the gods to "Give up possessions, seek thou life. Forswear (worldly) goods and keep the soul alive!" If with kaphar/kupru we are meant to understand an atonement because "the earth became corrupt" (v. 6:11), then the expiation of that corruption was attained through the flood in both Genesis and the Epic. - Danielitld

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, we read that the god of the underworld "Erragal tears out the posts" of "the world dam", while the god of war Ninurta "causes the dikes to follow", thus unleashing the deluge. Is it possible to read this account of the flood and give it any kind of scientific credibility? After reading Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory", it would appear that that is what was done. Brown refers to pillars that held the crust of the earth up over his theorized subcrustal ocean, whose "tearing out" caused the waters of that subterranean ocean to spew out. But basing the hypothesized pillars on the "science" of Gilgamesh is highly dubious, to say the least. Aside from the science, is Brown's hypothesized "subcrustal ocean" even Biblically correct?

In verse 7:11, we read that the "fountains of the great deep [were] broken up". In Genesis 1:2, we first encountered the "great deep" or tehom - the "cosmic abyssal water" that existed when the earth was "unformed and void". (from the JPS Torah Commentary) On the second day of creation, God made the expanse - rakia - to "separate water from water", "and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse". On the third day, God bade "the water below the sky [the expanse] be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear". We are then told that "God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas". What I get from this is the world as we now know it, with its continents and oceans - but not a "subcrustal ocean".

Tehom also appears in other Biblical verses. In Isaiah 51:10, the "arm of the Lord" is asked "Art thou not it which dried the sea, the waters of the great deep [tehom]; that made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?" (Jerusalem Bible) - referring to the Exodus crossing of the Sea of Reeds. In Habakkuk 3:10, we read how the mountains tremble upon seeing God, and "the deep [tehom] uttered its voice, and lifted up its hands on high". (Jerusalem Bible) In Genesis 49:25, we read that God "blesses you with the blessings of heaven above, [and the] blessings of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) Similarly in Deuteronomy 33:13, we read of Joseph "blessed of the Lord be his land with the bounty of the dew of heaven, and of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) From these verses, the idea of a "subcrustal ocean" is just not there. Reading the verses from Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, if we were to equate the "deep" or tehom with a "subcrustal ocean", we would even get the impression that Brown's "subcrustal ocean" is still there after the flood.

Reading Genesis 7:11 with Genesis 1:6-10 in mind, what we are to understand is that "creation is being undone", according to the JPS commentary. The waters which were separated by the expanse are coming together again, making the earth again "unformed and void". But "God remembered Noah", and basically created the earth again, in chapter 8. The water above the expanse was "held back", and the waters below the expanse returned to the seas. There is no room here for a "subcrustal ocean", and any hypothesizing to that effect is inane, not only scientifically, but Biblically as well. - Danielitld

Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-28T13:22:46Z

Zlul355: /* 24 hours rather than days? */

Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
:That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::I agree, but it would be best to ensure that the two chronologies are the same. As it is, it looks like a different story starts from genesis 2:4 - and this is the usual Liberal complaint.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Not required, actually. Genesis 1 gives the overview, and Genesis 2 gives the details. Verse 4 makes this clear, as you can see from my translation: "This is the story..." Notice also that Verse 5 undergoes a badly needed repair, because as it was, it didn't make a bit of sense.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
::::But verse 4 says: ''This is the story of the skies and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the skies.'' This still looks like the start of a different story doesn't it? And for example, Gen 2 - 19 has the animals created after Adam, while Gen 1 - 23 has the animals on the filth day - before Adam. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:48, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Genesis 1:2 ==
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight. You guys are changing the words of the most revered English-language Bible, and then, when asked to account for a word-change, call the question "absurd". Gotcha. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:44, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

For the benefit of all observers: "Oceans" can mean the full quantity of all the waters.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
:I humbly defer to your expertise, and "oceans" can be seen as an expansive term, but "ocean" is most commonly seen as a ''body'' of water, and the reference here is clearly to water uncontained and undifferentiated. I still plump for "waters" as the better rendering. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:46, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== 24 hours rather than days? ==

Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
: As you can see, I left an explanation in the Analysis column that "day" means "solar day" and thus 24 hours.

::The notion of changing to a 24 hour day would be historically and theologically inaccurate. The current usage of the terms hour, day, week, etc. are based on the commonly-accepted standard, the Gregorian Calendar. On the basis that this standard was adopted following a papal bull from Gregory XIII in 1582, clearly after Genesis was written, by a mortal being, and not by God, it is unacceptable to alter the original syntax.

::More significantly, our conception of time is dependent upon human perception. In other words, what a day is to a human (approx. 24 hrs) is not likely to be the same as what it is to God. How do we know that it didn't take six thousand years to create the Heavens and the Earth, with one day of Gods work being the equivalent of six thousand years within our own perception of time?

::Of course, "one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day." However, the Hebrew calendar, which was in use at the time of the writing of the Bible, does not specify a definite length of one day, only that there is a sunrise and a sunset. Of course, this would mean that days in the extreme north and south could last for months, since the Sun does not set during the Summer. Hence, even this consideration is subject to debate.

::Based on this, there should be little doubt that the language in this section of the text is stated definitively, and should not be altered. As a result, I have removed the portion of the analysis section defining the meaning of 'yowm'. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 08:10, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)

==baramin==
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know that enough people are going to know what 'baramin' means for this to be helpful. According to Albert Barnes, the phrase 'after its kind' " intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied."{{unsigned|BruceR}}

Not to worry. I left a link to [[Baraminology]] and a full explanation of where that name comes from. "Kind" is correct; it is the word that [[God]] actually used, or at least how it translated. But everyone will know what we mean by that, especially after we write the commentary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

I just read a lot of the discussion concerning "baraminology" on Conservapedia. What it comes down to is just how much of a scientific work is the Bible? And is the use of the term "baraminology" justified? While in its defense, its said that baraminology is a new system of classification, it does seem kind of confused. The "holobaramin" of dogs is said to include all canids, which were descended from the "two individuals taken aboard the Ark". Since canids include foxes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dholes, cape hunting dogs, etc., then it would appear that baraminology accepts the idea of speciation - which another article in Conservapedia confirms. So the holobaramin of canids includes all species of canids which speciated or evolved from the Noachian two. Or did some of them speciate from species that speciated from the original two? From the holobaramin, we go "up", to the apobaramin, which are groups of holobaramins. The article on baraminology states that the holobaramins of wolves and humans are grouped in one apobaramin. Since the holobaramin involves species which speciated from the original two or from those which speciated from the original two, is such a biological relationship implied for the groups in a apobaramin? What exactly determines membership in a holobaramin, or a apobaramin? And why bother coming up with "baraminology", when the classification system of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc., works perfectly well? If the answer is that this implies evolutionary relationships, then so does baraminology when you get down to it.

Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin. But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin. The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18). This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds. Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV) The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind". The discrepancy is obvious: Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different. Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen. The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk. But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored. What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower. The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated. From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals. Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship. An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct. And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system. - Danielitld

:Despite having meandered through your wandering post and never having reached a point, I managed to scry something of what you were attempting to communicate. The Bible is unscientific? The Bible is extraordinarily scientific, and possesses scientific knowledge nobody could have possibly possessed when it was written, other than God. Don't believe me? [http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml See for yourself.]
:Regardless of whether a bat is a bird, God may have simply wanted people not to eat them because of something they had in common with birds - perhaps flight or a diet of insects exposes them to some disease that non-flying birds don't have, I don't know.
:We should not ever be attempting to tear down the Bible with knowledge that we've gained through genetics or other modern science (like ostriches having more in common with birds than bats), but instead use the Bible to understand our world better, and using modern knowledge as a supplement to that. I pray you learn to stop trying to tear down the Bible. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 13:51, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:: Look no further than our own article, [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]. However, I must concur with Jacob: Daniel, your writing is so roundabout that I can barely read it. Conciseness is key. To the point, baraminology is a fledgling but burgeoning field of research, with extraordinary predictive power. I suggest you research it more before presenting paltry criticism. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:14, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Since when is trying to understand the Bible considered tearing it down? Someone wants to claim that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. If I look at that claim, and find it questionable if not plain wrong, is the Bible "damaged", or only the claim? JacobB's link in support of that claim, says that Behemoth and Leviathan, from Job, were dinosaurs. Were they? The footnote in the Good News Bible states that "some identify this [Behemoth] with the hippopotamus", while Leviathan "some take . . to be the crocodile". Believe what you want, since there's no way to be sure. Of course, both the hippo and the crocodile are dangerous creatures, and were surely known to the writer of Job. There doesn't seem to be any need to interpret them as being dinosaurs.

Take the word tannin, which JacobB's link mentions as referring to dinosaurs. I've already covered that with a discussion below. So I'll just repeat that, in Lamentations 4:3, a tannin is described as suckling its young - a mammalian trait, not a dinosaurian one. If you want to believe that the term tannin at least is broad enough to include dinosaurs, then you are free to do so. But a term so broad which can mean any type of animal is hardly scientific. And that is the point I was making referring to Leviticus 11:16, even without delving into the "bat is a bird" notion. The terms used are descriptive, not scientific. Shown the Hebrew term "nets" by itself, you wouldn't know if the "brightly-colored" object being referred to was a hawk or a flower. The Hebrew term yaen and its feminine form yaanah refer to what? The male ostrich and one might assume the female ostrich. Yet yaanah is translated in the KJV as "owl", which is also how the term tachmas is rendered, when its not translated as hawk. Researching all of this hardly "tears down" the Bible. It just points out that "the Bible is not a scientific book", as JacobB's link first states. And understanding how the ancient Hebrews looked at things means you don't have to go chasing down dinosaurs to understand the Bible. - Danielitld

== 3:14 ==

"You will crawl on your belly and eat dry-powder food throughout the days of your life."
Again, I defer to the expert(s), but I don't see the basis for "dry-powder food". Throughout the Old Testament, עפר (`aphar) is used in two senses: dust/dry earth (as in Gen. 2:7), and a vast number (as in Gen. 13:16). I don't see any basis for "food". Also, serpents (snakes) are almost exclusively carnivorous. Meat doesn't register as a "dry-powder food". [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:59, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== The expanse ==

The JPS Torah commentary states that "the verbal form [of expanse or rakia in Hebrew] is often used for hammering out metal or flattening out earth". What the expanse or the sky was actually supposed to be is unclear. The commentary points out that, in Ezekiel 1:22, the expanse is equated to ice. Whether metal or ice, the water beyond it was taken to be the source for rain. What I find interesting is that, in the translation, while it is stated how the ancient Hebrews understood things, it apparently seems necessary to point out how creation scientists understand the expanse. But is it even appropriate to take that ancient understanding - to even ''understand'' that that was the way the ancient Hebrews understood things - and somehow try to give it scientific legitimacy with ideas of water-vapor barriers or notions of Einsteinian physics? The Jehovah's Witnesses have "theorized" that a belt or a sphere of water orbited the Earth, even though this goes against what is said in Genesis. If the ancient Hebrews understood the expanse as a metallic or an ice barrier from which rain came, then obviously that was wrong, as we now know. But if we try to interpret the ancient text in a modern way, then aren't we actually misinterpreting it? Shouldn't we look at it with Hebrew eyes, and try to see the Hebrew understanding - even if it is scientifically inaccurate?

The same goes for the notion of dinosaurs being mentioned at Genesis 1:21. Just as the Hebrews didn't understand how rain came about, how much of a notion did they even have about dinosaurs? The Hebrew word used for "great sea monsters" is tannin. But from its use in the Bible, we can see that it is not an exact scientific term. In Ezekiel 29:3, the pharaoh is described as "the great tannin that crouches in the midst of his streams". The KJV translates this as dragon. But the Jerusalem (Hebrew) Bible translates it as crocodile, which would seem appropriate. However, in Lamentations 4:3, we read how the tannins "draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones". The KJV translates this as "sea monsters", while the Jerusalem Bible renders it as jackals. Whatever these tannins are supposed to be, they are definitely mammals, since only mammals suckle their young. If someone would want to interpret tannin as including dinosaurs along with all other kinds of animals, then I suppose he or she would be free to do so. However, such an interpretation would definitely have to be a very loose one. - Danielitld````

== Genesis 3:1 ==

Is the serpent really Satan? Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was a "wild beast" "that the Lord God had made". This reflects the words of Genesis 1:24-5, with the stipulation that "God saw that this was good". The Hebrew word for serpent used here is nachash, and it appears in many places in the Bible, where it is not equated with Satan. In Genesis 49:17, we are told that Dan, "one of the tribes of Israel", "shall be a serpent by the road, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider is thrown backward". (JPS translation) Its difficult to imagine one of the tribes of Israel "who shall judge his people" (KJV) being equated with Satan. In Numbers 21:9, we are told that Moses "made a serpent of brass", that would cure any man if he had been bitten by a serpent. Again, its difficult to imagine this as being somehow satanic, when the allusion to the nachash is as a "beast of the field". While the serpent in Genesis 3 may be "subtil" or cunning - the Hebrew word is arum - equating this "beast of the field" with Satan is not supported by the text. Danielitld
:It would seem to be entirely plausible that ''all'' animals could talk before the fall. After all, we know that, for instance T Rex was vegetarian and used its teeth for opening coconuts. So it requires no great stretch of the imagination to suggest that apart from being entirely herbivorous the animals were also capable of speech. This would explain the fact that Eve is in no way recorded as being surprised by being accosted by a talking snake. It would also make the punishment which the snakes received as a group a lot more fair - as if it was only an unwilling tool of Satan then the permenant cursing would seem rather harsh - but if the snake was acting of its own violation then the punishment is more reasonable.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:57, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I have never heard about T. rex using its teeth to open coconuts, so I searched for any information on that on line. The only reference I found to this is on the website fishfeet2007.blogspot.com. Whoever wrote this reference said that, when he or she asked a guide at the Creation Museum what T. rex used its recurved teeth for, the guide responded that they were used for opening coconuts. However, a blogger named Hans Mast at HansMast.com states that this "fact" was made up by someone trying to "belittle" the Creation Museum in Kentucky, even before it opened. HansMast.com also points out that there are no guides at that museum, since it is a self-guided museum. When I tried to find a reference to this on the Creation Museum site, I found none. So it appears that Hans Mast is right - this is a hoax which has spread over the internet. - Danielitld
:That is most interesting. Nevertheless T Rex must have used its teeth for something before the Fall.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:45, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I found the comment to Genesis 1:6, about the expanse, most interesting: "The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of water". I commented before that, understanding that that is what the ancient Hebrews believed, why then do creation scientists seek an explanation for this expanse that we now know doesn't exist? Put another way, since we can no longer believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how can we interpret the Bible literally? When you state that the T. rex must have used its teeth for something, the answer is in its teeth: The T. rex used its teeth for eating meat. This may contradict a supposed literal interpretation of Genesis. But as the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6 shows, a literal interpretation is just not possible. We might even ask ourselves how the ancient Hebrews themselves read the Torah. W. Gunther Plaut, in the introduction to his Torah commentary writes: "Even the ancient Jewish Sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally. They took it seriously, but they always looked behind the flat literal meaning. They realized that the Bible - in addition to everything else it was to them - abounded in subtle metaphors and allusions, that it used word plays and other literary devices, that it sometimes spoke satirically, and that its poetry could not be subject to a simple approach. They agreed without embarrassment that one could disagree on what the Torah meant, and on this sound principle we ourselves should base our approach to the text." An example of word play can be found in Genesis 3, where the serpent is "cunning" - the Hebrew word is arum - and then Adam and Eve found themselves ashamed because they were naked - aram in Hebrew. It is difficult to imagine this play on words being taken in a "flat literal" sense. Which takes us back to the expanse of verse 1:6. Did the ancient Hebrews actually believe, then, that the sky was a solid object? Or does this verse also have a meaning behind its "flat literal meaning"? If they really did believe the sky was a solid object, at a time which was centuries before Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, then do Jews still believe that? I really don't believe that they do. - Danielitld

== Noah and Utnapishtim ==

In the comment to verse 6:14, we are told that, with the word pitch or kaphar in Hebrew "the ransom Jesus Christ paid for mankind" is prefigured. But since the ark or tebah only appears again in Exodus in connection with Moses, it would seem that Moses is prefigured here. The Hebrew word for pitch, kaphar, means to cover, according to Strong's Concordance, and , figuratively, to expiate, condone, placate, and cancel. But the word for pitch in Exodus is zepheth or asphalt, not kaphar. Where kaphar does appear is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, according to the JPS Torah Commentary, where the Akkadian word kupru is used: "six 'sar' (measures) of bitumen I poured into the furnace", Utnapishtim relates in the Epic. Instead of "prefiguring" a future event, kaphar represents a rewriting of the Epic. Utnapishtim is told by the gods to "Give up possessions, seek thou life. Forswear (worldly) goods and keep the soul alive!" If with kaphar/kupru we are meant to understand an atonement because "the earth became corrupt" (v. 6:11), then the expiation of that corruption was attained through the flood in both Genesis and the Epic. - Danielitld

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, we read that the god of the underworld "Erragal tears out the posts" of "the world dam", while the god of war Ninurta "causes the dikes to follow", thus unleashing the deluge. Is it possible to read this account of the flood and give it any kind of scientific credibility? After reading Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory", it would appear that that is what was done. Brown refers to pillars that held the crust of the earth up over his theorized subcrustal ocean, whose "tearing out" caused the waters of that subterranean ocean to spew out. But basing the hypothesized pillars on the "science" of Gilgamesh is highly dubious, to say the least. Aside from the science, is Brown's hypothesized "subcrustal ocean" even Biblically correct?

In verse 7:11, we read that the "fountains of the great deep [were] broken up". In Genesis 1:2, we first encountered the "great deep" or tehom - the "cosmic abyssal water" that existed when the earth was "unformed and void". (from the JPS Torah Commentary) On the second day of creation, God made the expanse - rakia - to "separate water from water", "and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse". On the third day, God bade "the water below the sky [the expanse] be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear". We are then told that "God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas". What I get from this is the world as we now know it, with its continents and oceans - but not a "subcrustal ocean".

Tehom also appears in other Biblical verses. In Isaiah 51:10, the "arm of the Lord" is asked "Art thou not it which dried the sea, the waters of the great deep [tehom]; that made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?" (Jerusalem Bible) - referring to the Exodus crossing of the Sea of Reeds. In Habakkuk 3:10, we read how the mountains tremble upon seeing God, and "the deep [tehom] uttered its voice, and lifted up its hands on high". (Jerusalem Bible) In Genesis 49:25, we read that God "blesses you with the blessings of heaven above, [and the] blessings of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) Similarly in Deuteronomy 33:13, we read of Joseph "blessed of the Lord be his land with the bounty of the dew of heaven, and of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) From these verses, the idea of a "subcrustal ocean" is just not there. Reading the verses from Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, if we were to equate the "deep" or tehom with a "subcrustal ocean", we would even get the impression that Brown's "subcrustal ocean" is still there after the flood.

Reading Genesis 7:11 with Genesis 1:6-10 in mind, what we are to understand is that "creation is being undone", according to the JPS commentary. The waters which were separated by the expanse are coming together again, making the earth again "unformed and void". But "God remembered Noah", and basically created the earth again, in chapter 8. The water above the expanse was "held back", and the waters below the expanse returned to the seas. There is no room here for a "subcrustal ocean", and any hypothesizing to that effect is inane, not only scientifically, but Biblically as well. - Danielitld

Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-28T13:15:57Z

Zlul355: /* Chapter 1 */

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
|In the beginning, God created the [[heaven]]s and the [[earth]].
|The Hebrew word '''שמים''' (''shamayim'') means "skies" and is in the dual number.
|-
|2
|And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
|The earth was utterly formless and empty. Darkness obscured the deep. The Breath of God moved upon the oceans.
|The earth is like a blank canvas, awaiting the stroke of the Master Artist. The original [[Hebrew]] repeats the concept of formlessness for emphasis.
|-
|3
|And God said, let there be light: and there was light.
|[[God]] commanded, "Light shall exist!" And light came to exist.
|The rare use of the [[Hebrew]] verb '''היה''' (''hayah''), meaning "he existed," emphasizes that the light did not merely exist but ''came'' to exist at God's command.
|-
|4
|And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
|God approved of the light, because it was good. God distinguished between the light and the darkness.
|
|-
|5
|And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
|God named the light Day, and the darkness Night. And evening and morning came: the first day.
|The Hebrew '''יום''' (''yowm'') means "day." By [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom and tradition, the day begins at sundown, not midnight.
|-
|6
|And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
|Then God declared, "A great sheet-like expanse shall come between the waters, and it shall divide waters from waters!"
|
|-
|7
|And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
|God made this expanse, and separated the waters underneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And so it came to be.
|
|-
|8
|And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
|God called this expanse the sky. And evening and morning came: the second day.
|The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of waters. Some [[creation science|creation scientists]] took this to mean a water-vapor canopy that protected the earth before the [[Great Flood]]. The [[cosmology|cosmologist]] [[John Hartnett]] holds that the expanse is not matter, but is in fact the very fabric of [[space]], stretched out on Day Four (see below) to the limits of the known [[universe]].
|-
|9
|And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
|Then God commanded: "The waters under the sky will come together in one place, and dry ground will appear!" And so it came to be.
|
|-
|10
|And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
|God named this dry ground [[Earth]], and the collected mass of waters He named Seas. This was good.
|
|-
|11
|And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
|Then God declared, "The earth shall make grass sprout, the plant that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit of its [[baraminology|created kind]], carrying its own seed, to cover the earth!" And so it came to be.
|[[Baraminology]] ([[Hebrew]] '''ברא''' (''bara'') he created and '''מין''' (''min'') a kind, and [[Greek]] '''λογος''' (''logos'') a word) is the attempt to find all the created kinds from which all present [[species]] derive.
|-
|12
|And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
|And the earth produced [[grass]], and herbs yielding the seeds of their kinds, and trees yielding fruits (that held their own seeds) of their kinds. God approved it because it was good.
|Broadly speaking, this includes [[grain]]s, [[vegetable]]s, and [[fruit]]s.
|-
|13
|And the evening and the morning were the third day.
|Evening and morning came: the third day.
|
|-
|14
|And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
|Then God commanded: "Lights will come to be in the expanse of the skies, to distinguish between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs, for (planting) seasons, for days, and for years.
|The [[Hebrew]] '''מועד''' (''mow'ed''), translated "season," actually means an appointed time for doing something. The [[Hebrews]] were originally agrarian, as the original names of their months ([[Abib]], [[Sivan]], etc.) indicate.
|-
|15
|And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
|They will also serve for lights in the expanse of the sky to produce light over the earth!" And so it came to be.
|
|-
|16
|And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
|God made two particularly intense lights: the more intense to rule the day, and the less-intense to rule the night. He also made the [[star]]s.
|The two intense lights are, of course, the [[sun]] and the [[moon]]. In addition, God made every other object in the sky, including the [[planet]]s, of which the ancients could see five: [[Mercury]], [[Venus]], [[Mars]], [[Jupiter]], and [[Saturn]].
|-
|17
|And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
|God set these in the expanse of the sky to produce light on the earth,
|
|-
|18
|And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
|and to have dominion over the day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness. God approved this because it was good.
|
|-
|19
|And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
|Evening and morning came: the fourth day.
|
|-
|20
|And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
|God commanded, "The waters will positively swarm with creatures that move and have life, and birds that fly above the earth in the open sky!"
|The traditional expression "bring forth abundantly" does not do justice to the original Hebrew. Once again Hebrew employs repetition for emphasis.
|-
|21
|And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
|So God created gigantic sea creatures, and made the waters teem with every moving creature after its [[Baraminology|kind]], and every winged bird after its [[Baraminology|kind]]. God approved it because it was good.
|The largest of sea creatures included more than the great [[whales]]. They also included several species of marine [[dinosaur]]s, at least two of which (the [[Loch Ness Monster | Loch Ness creature]] and "Predator X", identified in the Bible as "[[Leviathan]]") survived the [[Great Flood]].
|-
|22
|And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
|God blessed them, and commanded them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas! Birds will multiply in the earth!"
|
|-
|23
|And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
|Evening and morning came: the fifth day.
|
|-
|24
|And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
|Now God commanded, "The earth shall produce living creatures of all [[Baraminology|kinds]]: livestock, creeping things, and wild animals of the earth, of all kinds!" And so it came to be.
|
|-
|25
|And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
|God made all manner of wild animal kinds, and livestock kinds, and every kind of thing that creeps on land. God approved it because it was good.
|
|-
|26
|And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
|Then God declared, "We shall make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and they will subjugate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth!"
|
|-
|27
|So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
|So God created mankind in His image. In the image of God He created mankind; He created them both male and female.
|
|-
|28
|And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
|Then God blessed them, and God told them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth abundantly, and subdue it. You shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and every living thing that moves on the earth!"
|
|-
|29
|And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
|Then God said, "Look! I have provided for you every plant that produces seed on the face of the earth, and every tree that bears fruit that yields seed. These shall be your food.
|Pre-[[Great Flood|Flood]] man was supposed to be [[vegetarian]] and live entirely on [[fruit]]s and [[vegetable]]s. Genesis 9:1-3 supersedes this. But some dietitians, like the inventor of the [[Hallelujah Diet]], insist that vegetarianism reflects God's original and even present intent. Moreover, Rastas and other pro-marijuana advocates have used this verse to argue correctly that marijuana, as a seed-producing plant, should not be legally prohibited.
|-
|30
|And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
|And for every land animal, and every bird of the air, and everything that creeps on the earth, and has life, I have provided every green vegetable for food!" And so it came to be.
|
|-
|31
|And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
|God approved of everything He had made. In fact it was absolutely excellent. Evening and morning came: the sixth day.
|The Hebrew '''מאד''' (''meh'od''), when used after an adjective, takes the meaning of that adjective to the highest degree. "Very good" does't quite do it justice.
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
|In this way the [[heaven]]s and the [[earth]] were now complete, and everything in them was also complete.
|The [[Hebrew]] phrase '''כל-צבאם''' (''kalah-tsabam''), literally "complete armies," is a idiomatic expression.
|-
|2
|And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
|On the seventh day God finished the Work of Art That He had made, and He took a rest on the seventh day from all His effort that He had made.
|That word for "rest" is '''שבת''' or literally ''shabbat'', from which we get [[Sabbath]].
|-
|3
|And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
|God blessed the seventh day and set it apart from other days. In it He had rested from all His work of creating and making things.
|
|-
|4
|These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
|This is the story of the skies and the earth when they were created, in the day that the [[YHWH|LORD]] [[God]] made the earth and the skies.
|The word rendered LORD, here and elsewhere, is '''יהוה''' (''Yahweh'', sometimes rendered ''Yehovah'' in the [[Masoretic Text]]) or [[YHWH]], the Tetragrammaton. The literal meaning is "He exists," sometimes rendered "He is" without a predicate nominative or adjective. Compare this with '''אהוה''' (''Ehweh''), which means ''I'' exist, in Exodus 3:14, the one occasion in which [[God]] gives His direct calling name to anyone.
|-
|5
|And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
|None of the land plants were in the ground yet, nor had any land herb sprouted. The LORD God had not made it rain on the land, and no man was available to work the ground.
|
|-
|6
|But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
|Then a mist went up from the earth, and watered all parts of the ground.
|In [[Hebrew]], the word '''פנים''' (''paniym''), meaning "face," has the same idiomatic usage as the word "face" in English. Note also that the ''pan-'' root is similar to the [[Greek]] ''pan-'' root meaning "all" or "every".
|-
|7
|And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
|Then the LORD God formed a [[human]] being out of the dry powdered soil on the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And so man became a living person.
|The [[Hebrew]] gives this man's name: [[Adam]].
|- In the Hebrew, the man - adam - is formed from the soil - adamah.
|8
|And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
|Then the LORD God planted the [[Garden of Eden]] toward the east. There He put the man that He had formed.
|
|-
|9
|And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
|From the ground the LORD God caused every tree to grow that is pleasant to look at and good to eat. In the middle of the garden He also planted the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
|The Tree of Life is probably an [[almond]] tree. The Tree of Knowledge may or may not be an [[apple]] tree.
|-
|10
|And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
|A river flowed out of Eden to irrigate the garden. From there it split into four headwaters.
|
|-
|11
|The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
|The first of these is called the Pison. This river surrounds the whole land of Havilah, a land rich in natural resources.
|
|-
|12
|And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
|The resources of that land are valuable; they include gum resin and onyx.
|The stone could also be chrysoprasus, beryl, or malachite.
|-
|13
|And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
|The second river is called the Gihon. This river surrounds the whole land of [[Ethiopia]].
|
|-
|14
|And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
|The third river is called the Hiddekel; this is the river that flows toward the east of [[Assyria]]. The fourth river is the [[Euphrates River]].
|
|-
|15
|And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
|The LORD God took Adam, and put him into the Garden of Eden, to work it and have charge of it.
|
|-
|16
|And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
|The LORD God gave Adam these orders: "From every tree of the garden you may eat to your heart's content,
|The [[Hebrew]] actually repeats the verb "to eat" for emphasis.
|-
|17
|But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
|except that you must not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the day that you eat from that tree you shall surely die."
|The Hebrew here repeats the word "die" for emphasis and intensification, not only of the certainty of death but also of its severity. The "death" meant here is separation from God, a thing that Adam probably did not then appreciate.
|-
|18
|And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
|Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for Adam to be alone. I will make him a suitable helper."
|
|-
|19
|And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
|From the ground the LORD God then formed every land animal and every bird of the sky, and brought them to Adam to see how he would name them. Whatever name Adam gave to any living creature, that would be its name.
|It's not clear how this fits into the Genesis one narrative.
|-
|20
|And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
|Adam gave names to all cattle, and all the birds in the sky, and every living creature of the field. But in all that company no suitable helper for Adam could be found.
|
|-
|21
|And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
|Then the LORD God caused Adam to fall into a trance, and he slept. He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.
|
|-
|22
|And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
|Out of this rib, that the LORD God had taken from Adam, He made a woman, and brought her to Adam.
|
|-
|23
|And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
|Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be named Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
|
|-
|24
|Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
|For that reason, a man will leave his father and mother, and cling to his wife, and they will be one flesh.
|This is the basis of [[marriage]].
|-
|25
|And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
|The two of them, Adam and his wife, were naked, and were not ashamed.
|Shame would not come into their lives until they made one fatal mistake.
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
|Now the serpent was craftier than any other land animal that the [[YHWH|LORD]] [[God]] had made. He asked the woman, "Wait a minute. Did God really say, 'You may not eat from any tree in the garden?'"
|The serpent, that is, [[Satan]], twists God's command into a prohibiton against eating from ''any'' tree, not just one Tree in particular.
|-
|2
|And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
|The woman told the serpent, "We may eat the fruits of the trees of the garden,
|
|-
|3
|But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
|but concerning the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You must not eat this, or even touch it, or else you will die.'"
|Now [[Eve]] distorts God's word by exaggerating, an ever-present danger.
|-
|4
|And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
|The serpent told the woman, "You won't 'surely die.'
|
|-
|5
|For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
|Because God knows that in the day that you eat that fruit, your [[eye]]s will be opened, and you will be like gods yourselves, with knowledge of good and evil."
|It takes a lot more than knowledge of good and evil to be God-like. But Eve did not know that, and so believed a lie.
|-
|6
|And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
|So the woman considered that the tree was good to eat, pleasant to look at, and desirable for the understanding it might convey. So she took some of its fruit, and ate, and also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
|The action of the [[Fall of Man]]...
|-
|7
|And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
|Then both their eyes were opened. Then they knew they were naked, and sewed fig leaves together to make loin-coverings for themselves.
|...and the result.
|-
|8
|And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
|Then they heard the Voice of the LORD God as He walked in the garden in the daily breeze. Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
|
|-
|9
|And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
|Then the LORD God called to Adam, "Where are you?"
|
|-
|10
|And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
|And Adam said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked. So I hid myself."
|Adam offers a lame excuse. So God begins to probe.
|-
|11
|And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
|So He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I ordered you not to eat from?"
|
|-
|12
|And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
|And Adam said, "The woman whom You provided to be with me, gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate."
|An even lamer excuse: blaming someone else.
|-
|13
|And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
|Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What have you done?" And the woman said, "The serpent [[Deceit|deceived]] me, and I ate."
|The woman also blames someone else.
|-
|14
|And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
|Then the LORD God told the serpent, "Because you have done this, you will lie under a curse, more than all livestock or any other land animal. You will crawl on your belly and eat dry-powder food throughout the days of your life.
|
|-
|15
|And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
|I will incite hatred between you and the woman, and between your children and hers. They will wound you in the head, and you will wound them in the heel.
|This is both a description of how [[snake]]s live today and a prophecy of the Crucifixion, in that [[Jesus Christ]] would have His heels pierced and will hang on a cross driven into a hill in the shape of a skull, i.e. a head.
|-
|16
|Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
|To the woman He said, "I will increase your labor pains to an extreme degree. You will deliver your children, your desires will be directed toward your husband, and he will rule over you."
|Again, Hebrew uses repetition for emphasis and intensification.
|-
|17
|And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
|To Adam He said, "Because you listened to the voice your wife, and ate from the tree that I ordered you not to eat from, the ground will be under a curse on your account. You will have to labor to eat from it all the days of your life.
|
|-
|18
|Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
|It will also produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat land herbs.
|
|-
|19
|In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
|Your face will sweat as you eat bread, until you return to the ground. You were taken out of the ground, you were made from powder, and you will turn back into powder."
|
|-
|20
|And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
|Adam gave his wife a name, [[Eve]], because she was the mother of all living persons.
|
|-
|21
|Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
|Then the LORD God made coats of animal skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
|Without the shedding of blood there can be no salvation. This act is a direct illustration of this principle.
|-
|22
|And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
|Then the LORD God, "Look! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. We cannot now let him stretch out his hand, and also take fruit from the Tree of Life, and eat and live forever!"
|
|-
|23
|Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
|For that reason the LORD God sent him out of the Garden of Eden, to work the ground from which he had been formed.
|
|-
|24
|So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
|So He drove out the man, and to the east of the Garden of Eden he stationed cherubs, and a flaming sword that turned every which way, to guard the path to the Tree of Life.
|A cherub is a class of [[angel]]. Its exact rank and function are hinted at elsewhere. More to the point: God cannot allow mankind to live forever in a sinful condition.
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
|[[Adam]] had relations with his wife, [[Eve]]. She conceived, and bore [[Cain]], saying, "I have acquired a man-child from the [[YHWH|LORD]]."
|The name ''Cain'' ([[Hebrew]] '''קין''' (''Qayin'') means "possession." The verb translated "acquired" comes from the same Hebrew root.
|-
|2
|And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
|Later she bore another son, his brother [[Abel]]. Abel was a shepherd, and Cain was a farmer.
|Literally, "one working the ground."
|-
|3
|And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
|At the end of many days it happened that Cain brought an offering to the LORD from his harvest.
|
|-
|4
|And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
|Abel, similarly, brought one of the very first lambs from his flock and its fat. The LORD appreciated Abel and his offering,
|Abel brought the best that his work had produced to God,
|-
|5
|But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
|but did not appreciate Cain or his offering. Cain was extremely resentful and crestfallen.
|but Cain probably brought the leftovers. This was not because only animal sacrifice would serve.
|-
|6
|And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
|The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you resentful? Why are you crestfallen?
|
|-
|7
|If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
|If you would put forth a proper effort, don't you think you would be accepted? But if you won't make the effort, then sin lies at your door. Sin desires you, but you must master it."
|
|-
|8
|And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
|Then Cain spoke with his brother Abel, and it happened, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against his brother Abel and murdered him.
|
|-
|9
|And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
|Then the LORD asked Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" And he said, "I don't know. Am I supposed to be responsible for my brother?"
|
|-
|10
|And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
|And He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground.
|
|-
|11
|And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
|Now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to take your brother's blood from your hand.
|
|-
|12
|When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
|Whenever you try to work the ground, it will never again yield its strength to you. You will be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth."
|
|-
|13
|And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
|Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can take!
|
|-
|14
|Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
|Look! You have driven me this day from the face of the land, and I will be hidden from Your face! I will be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth, and anyone who finds me will murder me!"
|
|-
|15
|And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
|Then the LORD told him, "For that, if anyone murders Cain, he will pay a seven-fold penalty." Then the LORD placed a special mark on Cain, to make sure that anyone finding him would know not to kill him.
|
|-
|16
|And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
|Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and lived in the land of Nod, to the east of Eden.
|The root meaning of the name "Nod" means "wandering." This name never appears again; it is a [[hapax legomenon]].
|-
|17
|And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
|There Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore him a son named [[Enoch (Cainite)|Enoch]]. Cain built a city, and named that city after his son Enoch.
|The name ''Enoch'' means "dedicated."
|-
|18
|And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
|Enoch's son was Irad, and Irad's son was Mehujael, and Mehujael's son was Methusael, and Methusael's son was [[Lamech the Murderer|Lamech]].
|The names of these further descendants of Cain meant "fleet", "smitten by God," "who is of God," and "powerful."
|-
|19
|And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
|Lamech married two wives, named [[Adah]] and [[Zillah]].
|The names of Lamech's wives mean "ornament" and "shade."
|-
|20
|And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
|Adah bore [[Jabal]], the progenitor of those who live in tents, and those who keep livestock.
|''Jabal'' means "stream of water."
|-
|21
|And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
|His brother's name was [[Jubal]], the progenitor of all who handle the [[harp]] and the [[organ]].
|''Jubal'' means "stream." Jubal invented [[music]]al instruments.
|-
|22
|And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
|Zillah bore [[Tubal-cain]], an instructor of every worker of [[bronze]] and [[iron]]. His sister was Naamah.
|''Tubal-cain'' means "You will be brought from Cain." ''Naamah'' means "loveliness."
|-
|23
|And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
|Lamech said to his wives, Adah, and Zillah, "Listen to me, you wives of Lamech, listen to what I'm telling you. I have killed a man who wounded me, and a young man who hurt me.
|
|-
|24
|If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
|If Cain enjoys seven-fold protection, then Lamech deserves seventy-seven-fold protection!"
|
|-
|25
|And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
|Adam had relations again with his wife, and she bore a son, and named him [[Seth]]. She said, "Because [[God]] has appointed me another son in the place of Abel, whom Cain murdered."
|The name ''Seth'' means "appointed." The play on words is obvious in the original Hebrew.
|-
|26
|And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
|Seth also had a son, named [[Enos]]. At that time men began to call on the Name of the LORD.
|''Enosh'' is another word for "man."
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
|This is the book of the genealogy of [[Adam]]. In the day that [[God]] created man, He made him in God's likeness.
|
|-
|2
|Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
|He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called them "mankind," in the day that they were created.
|''Adam'' means "man."
|-
|3
|And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
|When Adam had lived for 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, after his own image, and named him [[Seth]].
|That is, "appointed."
|-
|4
|And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
|And after Adam had become the father of Seth he lived 800 more years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|5
|And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
|Altogether Adam lived for 930 years, and he died.
|
|-
|6
|And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
|When Seth had lived 105 years, he had a son named [[Enos]].
|That is, "man" again.
|-
|7
|And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Seth had Enos, he lived 807 more years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|8
|And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
|Altogether Seth lived for 912 years, and he died.
|
|-
|9
|And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
|When Enos was 90 years old, he had a son named [[Cainan]].
|That is, "possession."
|-
|10
|And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Enos had Cainan, he lived for 815 years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|11
|And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
|Altogether Enos lived for 905 years, and he died.
|
|-
|12
|And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
|When Cainan had lived for 70 years, he had a son named [[Mahalaleel]].
|That is, "Praise of God."
|-
|13
|And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Cainan had Mahaleel, he lived for 840 years, and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|14
|And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
|Altogether Cainan lived for 910 years, and he died.
|
|-
|15
|And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
|Mahaleel lived for 65 years, and had a son named [[Jared]].
|That is, "descent," which could mean "coming down."
|-
|16
|And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Mahaleel had Jared, he lived for 830 years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|17
|And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
|Altogether Mahaleel lived for 895 years, and he died.
|
|-
|18
|And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
|When Jared had lived 162 years, he had a son named [[Enoch]].
|That is, "dedicated."
|-
|19
|And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Jared had Enoch, he lived for 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|20
|And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
|Altogether Jared lived for 962 years, and he died.
|
|-
|21
|And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
|When Enoch had lived for 65 years, he had a son named [[Methuselah]].
|That is, "man of the dart."
|-
|22
|And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Enoch had Methuselah, he lived for 300 more years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|23
|And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
|Altogether Enoch lived for 365 years.
|
|-
|24
|And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
|Enoch walked with God. Then suddenly he didn't exist anymore, because God took him away.
|Reason: God directly translated him, as He would do for [[Elijah]] several thousand years later.
|-
|25
|And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
|When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he had a son named [[Lamech]].
|That is, "powerful."
|-
|26
|And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Methuselah had Lamech, he lived another 782 years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|27
|And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
|Altogether Methuselah lived for 969 years, and he died.
|Methuselah lived longer than any other man who ever lived, and died in the year of the [[Great Flood]].
|-
|28
|And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
|When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son named [[Noah]]
|That is, "comfort" or "rest."
|-
|29
|And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
|Lamech named his son Noah, and said, "My son will comfort us on account of our labor and work of our hands, on account of the ground that the LORD has cursed."
|
|-
|30
|And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
|After Lamech had Noah, he lived for another 595 years and had other sons and daughters.
|
|-
|31
|And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
|Altogether, Lamech lived for 777 years, and he died.
|Lamech died five years before the [[Great Flood]].
|-
|32
|And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
|When Noah was 500 years old, he had three sons named [[Shem]], [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]].
|That is, "name", "hot", and "opened." These sons are not named in the actual birth order: Japheth was likely born first, then Shem, and finally Ham.
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
|Eventually, when men began to populate the land, and many young women were born,
|The [[Hebrew]] starts with the imperfect of "to exist," which is idiomatic for "eventually" here.
|-
|2
|That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
|the sons of God regarded these young women as beautiful, and took as many of them as they chose as brides.
|Some commentators ([[Harold Camping]] among them) say that these "sons of God" were simply members of [[Seth]]'s line who married outside the true faith. But [[Jude]] (in the [[New Testament]]) says almost directly that these "sons of God" were fallen [[angels]] who thus produced a race of angel-human hybrids.
|-
|3
|And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
|The LORD said, "My spirit shall not continue this quarrel with man forever, because indeed he is sinful flesh. I give him one hundred twenty years more."
|[[God]] issues this warning 120 years before the [[Great Flood]]; see also [[Noah's Ark]].
|-
|4
|There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
|The Fallen Ones were abroad in the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God had relations with young human women, and these women bore children to them. These hybrids became strong men in ancient times, men of renown.
|[[Moses]] might be talking about the Anakim, giant-sized inhabitants of [[Canaan (land)|Canaan]] whom his twelve spies reported seeing. Whether [[Hercules]] was one of them is impossible to determine.
|-
|5
|And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
|[[God]] realized that the evil that man did in the earth was great, and that everything that he thought and imagined in his heart, every single day, was utterly evil.
|
|-
|6
|And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
|And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and He was heartsick.
|
|-
|7
|And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
|The LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, off the face of the land—mankind and land animals and insect life and birds of the air—because I regret that I have made them."
|Notice that God does not say here that he will destroy all marine life, and also that the word He actually uses means not merely to kill but to rub out, as if it never existed. Which is what the [[Great Flood]] did, to the extent that modern-day scoffers insist that it never occurred and cite a "lack of evidence," not realizing how complete a change the Great Flood made to the land.
|-
|8
|But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
|But [[Noah]] found favor in the sight of the LORD.
|
|-
|9
|These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
|This is Noah's story: Noah was a just man, and the most wholesom man of his time, and Noah walked with God.
|The two words translated "generations" in the [[KJV]] are radically different in meaning.
|-
|10
|And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
|Noah was the father of three sons: [[Shem]], [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]].
|That is, "name", "hot," and "opened." Yet the proper birth order is Japheth first, then Shem, then Ham.
|-
|11
|The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
|The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was an utterly violent world.
|
|-
|12
|And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
|Wherever God looked on the earth, He saw corruption, because all men had become thoroughly evil and corrupt.
|All men, that is, except for Noah and his family.
|-
|13
|And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
|So God told Noah, "The end of all mankind has come before Me, because the earth is full of violence on their account. So look: I am going to destroy them along with the earth.
|
|-
|14
|Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
|Build for yourself an [[Noah's Ark|ark]] of gopher wood. Build nests in the ark, and coat it with pitch inside and out.
|The [[Hebrew]] '''תבה''' (''tebah'') appears only here and in the story of [[Moses]] in the bulrushes. It probably means simply "lifeboat." The term '''עצי-גפר''' (''etsi-gopher'') never appears again in the [[Bible]] or any other literature (thus making it a [[hapax legomenon]]), and could mean a lost species of tree, an [[Antediluvian Civilizatoin|antediluvian]] composite, or a lost art of producing wood for shipbuilding. "Pitch" usually means "ransom" and its use here prefigures the ransom that [[Jesus Christ]] paid for mankind.<ref name=Lovett>Lovett T, ''Noah's Ark: Thinking Outside the Box'', Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008.</ref>
|-
|15
|And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
|Build it this way:
*Length: 515 feet.
*Beam: 86 feet.
*Height: 52 feet.
|This is probably the long [[cubit]], at least 20 US Customary [[inch]]es long. These dimensions probably translate to slightly more than 150 by 25 by 15 [[SI]] [[meter]]s.<ref name=Lovett/>
|-
|16
|A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
|Set a skylight hatch in its top deck, with its hatch combing rising one cubit above deck level. Set the door of the ark in its side. Build it with lower, second, and third deck levels.
|The Hebrew text does not specify a word for "deck levels," but merely says, "lower, second, and third." This usage suggests that the door was at the second deck level, perhaps midway up from the bottom.<ref name=Lovett/>
|-
|17
|And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
|Look: I Myself will bring a [[Great Flood|Flood]] of waters on the earth, to destroy all men and animals having the breath of life in them from under the sky. Everything in the earth will die.
|
|-
|18
|But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
|But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark, you, and your sons, and your wife, and your sons' wives with you.
|
|-
|19
|And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
|And out of every living thing among all animals, you are to bring two of every sort into the ark, a male and a female, to keep them alive with you.
|
|-
|20
|Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
|Two of every [[Baraminology|created kind]] of bird, and every kind of livestock, and of every ground creeper, will come to you so that you can keep them alive.
|
|-
|21
|And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
|You will take with you samples of every kind of foodstuff, and gather it for yourself. This will be your food, and theirs."
|
|-
|22
|Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
|So Noah did all these things, exactly as God ordered him.
|
|}

==Chapter 7==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
|Then the [[YHWH|LORD]] said to [[Noah]], "Come, you and all your household, into the [[Noah's Ark|ark]]. You're the only just person I've seen in this generation of men.
|
|-
|2
|Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
|Take seven specimens of every clean animal, male and female, and take two specimens of unclean animals, male and female.
|
|-
|3
|Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
|Also take seven specimens of every [[bird]], male and female, in order to raise live offspring to repopulate the earth afterward.
|
|-
|4
|For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
|Seven days from now, I will make it rain on the [[earth]] for 40 days and nights. and I will wipe out every living thing I have made from the face of the earth."
|
|-
|5
|And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.
|Noah followed all the LORD's orders.
|
|-
|6
|And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
|Noah was 600 years old when the [[Great Flood]] came on the earth.
|
|-
|7
|And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
|Noah boarded the ark, with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives with him, to escape the Flood waters.
|
|-
|8
|Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
|Of clean animals, and unclean animals, and birds, and of every living thing that creeps on the ground,
|including [[insect]]s and [[worm]]s
|-
|9
|There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
|two and two went to [[Noah]] aboard the ark, male and female, as God had ordered Noah.
|
|-
|10
|And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
|After the seven days had passed, the waters of the Flood came upon the earth.
|
|-
|11
|In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
|In the 600th year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that very day the deep subcrustal springs were broken open, and the windows of the sky were thrown open.
|The date is 17 [[Bul]] 1656 [[Anno Mundi|AM]], corresponding to October 23, 2348 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar.

That last idiomatic phrase reflects the ancient Hebrew view of the sky as a solid object; see Genesis 1:6-8. It refers actually to the torrential rain, which came not only from rainclouds but also fell back to earth after gushing out of the subcrustal springs. See also [[Hydroplate Theory]] and entries for the [[Galilean moons]] of [[Jupiter]], three of which are supposed to have subcrustal oceans.
|-
|12
|And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
|Τhe rain fell on the earth for 40 days and nights.
|
|-
|13
|In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
|On that very day [[Noah]], and [[Shem]], and [[Ham]], and [[Japheth]], Noah's sons, and Noah's wife, and the tree wives of his sons with them, boarded the ark.
|
|-
|14
|They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
|With them went specimens of every [[Baraminology|created kind]] of land animal, including livestock, ground creepers, and birds,
|
|-
|15
|And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
|two specimens of each kind of air-breathing animal,
|
|-
|16
|And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
|male and female, as God had ordered Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
|This last phrase could indicate a miraculous action, but we have no reason to suppose that Noah did not build a properly watertight door.<ref name=Lovett/>
|-
|17
|And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
|The [[Great Flood|Flood]] lasted for forty days, during which time the waters rose steadily, and floated the ark and lifted it up above the earth.
|
|-
|18
|And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
|The waters could not be stopped, and rose to great depths on the earth, and the ark rode the surface of the waters.
|
|-
|19
|And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
|The waters were exceedingly powerful and deep, and all the high hills under the entire sky were covered.
|
|-
|20
|Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
|The waters kept rising for another fifteen cubits, and the mountains were covered.
|How high those mountains were before the Flood is impossible to say. Many of the modern mountain ranges formed in the process of the Flood, as the subterranean waters, escaping through the Mid-Oceanic Ridge system, shoved the continents into one another or off to one side, causing them to buckle and form mountains by faulting.
|-
|21
|And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
|Everything that moved on the earth died, including birds, livestock, wild animals, ground creepers, and every man.
|
|-
|22
|All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
|Every [[animal]] that went about on dry land and breathed air, died.
|The great [[whales]] are air breathers, but they are also marine animals and were thus able to survive.
|-
|23
|And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
|Every living creature was wiped off the face of the ground, including mankind, livestock, ground creepers, and birds in the sky. They were wiped out from the earth, and only Noah and those with him in the ark remained alive.
|
|-
|24
|And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
|The waters covered over the earth for 150 days.
|
|}

==Chapter 8==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
|Now [[God]] still remembered [[Noah]], and every living creature, and all the livestock that was with him in the [[Noah's Ark|ark]]. So God sent a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters receded.
|
|-
|2
|The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
|The subcrustal springs and the windows of the sky were stopped, and the rain from the sky was restrained.
|
|-
|3
|And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
|The waters continued to recede from the earth. At the end of 150 days the waters had drained away.
|
|-
|4
|And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
|The ark ran aground on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, in the mountains of Ararat.
|The date is 17 [[Abib]] 1656 [[Anno Mundi|AM]], or April 18, 2347 BC (proleptic Gregorian).

The [[Hebrew]] '''אררט''' (''ararat'') is the name of a mountain range in eastern [[Armenia]], not necessarily including the "[[Mount Ararat]]" in [[Turkey (country)|Turkey]].
|-
|5
|And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
|The waters continued to decrease until the tenth month, so that on the first day of the tenth month, the mountaintops became visible.
|1 Tammuz 1656 AM, or 30 June 2347 BC (proleptic Gregorian).
|-
|6
|And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
|Eventually, forty days later, [[Noah]] opened the skylight hatch of the ark that he had built.
|
|-
|7
|And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
|He sent out a [[raven]], and the raven flew every which way until the waters were dried up from the earth.
|
|-
|8
|Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
|Then he sent out a [[dove]], to see whether the waters had receded from the ground.
|
|-
|9
|But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
|The dove found no place to alight, so it few back to him into the ark, because the waters still covered all the ground. Noah held out his hand, took the dove, and pulled it in to him into the ark.
|
|-
|10
|And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
|He waited for seven more days, and sent the dove out again from the ark.
|
|-
|11
|And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
|The dove came back to him that evening, but, to Noah's delighted surprise, it had an [[olive]] leaf plucked off in its beak. So Noah knew that the waters had gone down significantly.
|
|-
|12
|And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.
|He waited seven days more, and sent the dove out, and this time the dove never came back.
|
|-
|13
|And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
|Eventually, in the 601st year of Noah's life, in the first day of the first month, the waters were dried up from the earth. Then Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked out, and saw that the ground was now dry.
|
|-
|14
|And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
|On the twenty-seventh day of the second month, the earth was completely dry.
|27 Bul 1657 AM, or 21 November 2347 BC (proleptic Gregorian). In this verse, the Hebrew uses a different word for "dry," one conveying a higher degree of dryness.
|-
|15
|And God spake unto Noah, saying,
|Now God spoke to Noah, and said,
|
|-
|16
|Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.
|"Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons' wives with you.
|
|-
|17
|Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.
|Bring out with you every living thing that is with you, of all kinds of animals, birds, livestock, and ground creepers, so that they may breed profusely in the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth."
|
|-
|18
|And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him:
|And Noah went out, with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives.
|
|-
|19
|Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
|Every land animal, every ground creeper, and every bird, after its created kind, left the ark.
|
|-
|20
|And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
|Then Noah built an altar to the LORD. He took specimens of every clean land animal, and every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
|The [[Hebrew]] '''עלה''' (''olah'') describes this specific kind of offering. The word also connotes a climbing of stairs and reflects the need to "step up" to the altar. This is also why Noah took seven clean-animal specimens of each kind, rather than the usual two.
|-
|21
|And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
|The LORD smelled a soothing odor, and the LORD said in His heart, "Never again will I curse the ground on account of mankind, because the imagination of man's heart is evil starting in his childhood. Nor will I ever again kill every living thing, as I have done.
|
|-
|22
|While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
|While the earth remains, planting time and harvest time, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will not stop."
|
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}

* [[Genesis 9-16 (Translated)]]

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-28T13:14:48Z

Zlul355: /* 24 hours rather than days? */

Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
:That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::I agree, but it would be best to ensure that the two chronologies are the same. As it is, it looks like a different story starts from genesis 2:4 - and this is the usual Liberal complaint.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Not required, actually. Genesis 1 gives the overview, and Genesis 2 gives the details. Verse 4 makes this clear, as you can see from my translation: "This is the story..." Notice also that Verse 5 undergoes a badly needed repair, because as it was, it didn't make a bit of sense.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
::::But verse 4 says: ''This is the story of the skies and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the skies.'' This still looks like the start of a different story doesn't it? And for example, Gen 2 - 19 has the animals created after Adam, while Gen 1 - 23 has the animals on the filth day - before Adam. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:48, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Genesis 1:2 ==
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight. You guys are changing the words of the most revered English-language Bible, and then, when asked to account for a word-change, call the question "absurd". Gotcha. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:44, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

For the benefit of all observers: "Oceans" can mean the full quantity of all the waters.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
:I humbly defer to your expertise, and "oceans" can be seen as an expansive term, but "ocean" is most commonly seen as a ''body'' of water, and the reference here is clearly to water uncontained and undifferentiated. I still plump for "waters" as the better rendering. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:46, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== 24 hours rather than days? ==

Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
: As you can see, I left an explanation in the Analysis column that "day" means "solar day" and thus 24 hours.

::The notion of changing to a 24 hour day would be historically and theologically inaccurate. The current usage of the terms hour, day, week, etc. are based on the commonly-accepted standard, the Gregorian Calendar. On the basis that this standard was adopted following a papal bull from Gregory XIII in 1582, clearly after Genesis was written, by a mortal being, and not by God, it is unacceptable to alter the original syntax.

::More significantly, our conception of time is dependent upon human perception. In other words, what a day is to a human (approx. 24 hrs) is not likely to be the same as what it is to God. How do we know that it didn't take six billion years to create the Heavens and the Earth, with one day of Gods work being the equivalent of six billion years within our own perception of time?

::Of course, "one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day." However, the Hebrew calendar, which was in use at the time of the writing of the Bible, does not specify a definite length of one day, only that there is a sunrise and a sunset. Of course, this would mean that days in the extreme north and south could last for months, since the Sun does not set during the Summer. Hence, even this consideration is subject to debate.

::Based on this, there should be little doubt that the language in this section of the text is stated definitively, and should not be altered. As a result, I have removed the portion of the analysis section defining the meaning of 'yowm'. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 08:10, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)

==baramin==
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know that enough people are going to know what 'baramin' means for this to be helpful. According to Albert Barnes, the phrase 'after its kind' " intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied."{{unsigned|BruceR}}

Not to worry. I left a link to [[Baraminology]] and a full explanation of where that name comes from. "Kind" is correct; it is the word that [[God]] actually used, or at least how it translated. But everyone will know what we mean by that, especially after we write the commentary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

I just read a lot of the discussion concerning "baraminology" on Conservapedia. What it comes down to is just how much of a scientific work is the Bible? And is the use of the term "baraminology" justified? While in its defense, its said that baraminology is a new system of classification, it does seem kind of confused. The "holobaramin" of dogs is said to include all canids, which were descended from the "two individuals taken aboard the Ark". Since canids include foxes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dholes, cape hunting dogs, etc., then it would appear that baraminology accepts the idea of speciation - which another article in Conservapedia confirms. So the holobaramin of canids includes all species of canids which speciated or evolved from the Noachian two. Or did some of them speciate from species that speciated from the original two? From the holobaramin, we go "up", to the apobaramin, which are groups of holobaramins. The article on baraminology states that the holobaramins of wolves and humans are grouped in one apobaramin. Since the holobaramin involves species which speciated from the original two or from those which speciated from the original two, is such a biological relationship implied for the groups in a apobaramin? What exactly determines membership in a holobaramin, or a apobaramin? And why bother coming up with "baraminology", when the classification system of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc., works perfectly well? If the answer is that this implies evolutionary relationships, then so does baraminology when you get down to it.

Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin. But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin. The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18). This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds. Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV) The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind". The discrepancy is obvious: Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different. Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen. The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk. But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored. What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower. The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated. From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals. Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship. An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct. And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system. - Danielitld

:Despite having meandered through your wandering post and never having reached a point, I managed to scry something of what you were attempting to communicate. The Bible is unscientific? The Bible is extraordinarily scientific, and possesses scientific knowledge nobody could have possibly possessed when it was written, other than God. Don't believe me? [http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml See for yourself.]
:Regardless of whether a bat is a bird, God may have simply wanted people not to eat them because of something they had in common with birds - perhaps flight or a diet of insects exposes them to some disease that non-flying birds don't have, I don't know.
:We should not ever be attempting to tear down the Bible with knowledge that we've gained through genetics or other modern science (like ostriches having more in common with birds than bats), but instead use the Bible to understand our world better, and using modern knowledge as a supplement to that. I pray you learn to stop trying to tear down the Bible. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 13:51, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:: Look no further than our own article, [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]. However, I must concur with Jacob: Daniel, your writing is so roundabout that I can barely read it. Conciseness is key. To the point, baraminology is a fledgling but burgeoning field of research, with extraordinary predictive power. I suggest you research it more before presenting paltry criticism. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:14, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Since when is trying to understand the Bible considered tearing it down? Someone wants to claim that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. If I look at that claim, and find it questionable if not plain wrong, is the Bible "damaged", or only the claim? JacobB's link in support of that claim, says that Behemoth and Leviathan, from Job, were dinosaurs. Were they? The footnote in the Good News Bible states that "some identify this [Behemoth] with the hippopotamus", while Leviathan "some take . . to be the crocodile". Believe what you want, since there's no way to be sure. Of course, both the hippo and the crocodile are dangerous creatures, and were surely known to the writer of Job. There doesn't seem to be any need to interpret them as being dinosaurs.

Take the word tannin, which JacobB's link mentions as referring to dinosaurs. I've already covered that with a discussion below. So I'll just repeat that, in Lamentations 4:3, a tannin is described as suckling its young - a mammalian trait, not a dinosaurian one. If you want to believe that the term tannin at least is broad enough to include dinosaurs, then you are free to do so. But a term so broad which can mean any type of animal is hardly scientific. And that is the point I was making referring to Leviticus 11:16, even without delving into the "bat is a bird" notion. The terms used are descriptive, not scientific. Shown the Hebrew term "nets" by itself, you wouldn't know if the "brightly-colored" object being referred to was a hawk or a flower. The Hebrew term yaen and its feminine form yaanah refer to what? The male ostrich and one might assume the female ostrich. Yet yaanah is translated in the KJV as "owl", which is also how the term tachmas is rendered, when its not translated as hawk. Researching all of this hardly "tears down" the Bible. It just points out that "the Bible is not a scientific book", as JacobB's link first states. And understanding how the ancient Hebrews looked at things means you don't have to go chasing down dinosaurs to understand the Bible. - Danielitld

== 3:14 ==

"You will crawl on your belly and eat dry-powder food throughout the days of your life."
Again, I defer to the expert(s), but I don't see the basis for "dry-powder food". Throughout the Old Testament, עפר (`aphar) is used in two senses: dust/dry earth (as in Gen. 2:7), and a vast number (as in Gen. 13:16). I don't see any basis for "food". Also, serpents (snakes) are almost exclusively carnivorous. Meat doesn't register as a "dry-powder food". [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:59, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== The expanse ==

The JPS Torah commentary states that "the verbal form [of expanse or rakia in Hebrew] is often used for hammering out metal or flattening out earth". What the expanse or the sky was actually supposed to be is unclear. The commentary points out that, in Ezekiel 1:22, the expanse is equated to ice. Whether metal or ice, the water beyond it was taken to be the source for rain. What I find interesting is that, in the translation, while it is stated how the ancient Hebrews understood things, it apparently seems necessary to point out how creation scientists understand the expanse. But is it even appropriate to take that ancient understanding - to even ''understand'' that that was the way the ancient Hebrews understood things - and somehow try to give it scientific legitimacy with ideas of water-vapor barriers or notions of Einsteinian physics? The Jehovah's Witnesses have "theorized" that a belt or a sphere of water orbited the Earth, even though this goes against what is said in Genesis. If the ancient Hebrews understood the expanse as a metallic or an ice barrier from which rain came, then obviously that was wrong, as we now know. But if we try to interpret the ancient text in a modern way, then aren't we actually misinterpreting it? Shouldn't we look at it with Hebrew eyes, and try to see the Hebrew understanding - even if it is scientifically inaccurate?

The same goes for the notion of dinosaurs being mentioned at Genesis 1:21. Just as the Hebrews didn't understand how rain came about, how much of a notion did they even have about dinosaurs? The Hebrew word used for "great sea monsters" is tannin. But from its use in the Bible, we can see that it is not an exact scientific term. In Ezekiel 29:3, the pharaoh is described as "the great tannin that crouches in the midst of his streams". The KJV translates this as dragon. But the Jerusalem (Hebrew) Bible translates it as crocodile, which would seem appropriate. However, in Lamentations 4:3, we read how the tannins "draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones". The KJV translates this as "sea monsters", while the Jerusalem Bible renders it as jackals. Whatever these tannins are supposed to be, they are definitely mammals, since only mammals suckle their young. If someone would want to interpret tannin as including dinosaurs along with all other kinds of animals, then I suppose he or she would be free to do so. However, such an interpretation would definitely have to be a very loose one. - Danielitld````

== Genesis 3:1 ==

Is the serpent really Satan? Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was a "wild beast" "that the Lord God had made". This reflects the words of Genesis 1:24-5, with the stipulation that "God saw that this was good". The Hebrew word for serpent used here is nachash, and it appears in many places in the Bible, where it is not equated with Satan. In Genesis 49:17, we are told that Dan, "one of the tribes of Israel", "shall be a serpent by the road, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider is thrown backward". (JPS translation) Its difficult to imagine one of the tribes of Israel "who shall judge his people" (KJV) being equated with Satan. In Numbers 21:9, we are told that Moses "made a serpent of brass", that would cure any man if he had been bitten by a serpent. Again, its difficult to imagine this as being somehow satanic, when the allusion to the nachash is as a "beast of the field". While the serpent in Genesis 3 may be "subtil" or cunning - the Hebrew word is arum - equating this "beast of the field" with Satan is not supported by the text. Danielitld
:It would seem to be entirely plausible that ''all'' animals could talk before the fall. After all, we know that, for instance T Rex was vegetarian and used its teeth for opening coconuts. So it requires no great stretch of the imagination to suggest that apart from being entirely herbivorous the animals were also capable of speech. This would explain the fact that Eve is in no way recorded as being surprised by being accosted by a talking snake. It would also make the punishment which the snakes received as a group a lot more fair - as if it was only an unwilling tool of Satan then the permenant cursing would seem rather harsh - but if the snake was acting of its own violation then the punishment is more reasonable.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:57, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I have never heard about T. rex using its teeth to open coconuts, so I searched for any information on that on line. The only reference I found to this is on the website fishfeet2007.blogspot.com. Whoever wrote this reference said that, when he or she asked a guide at the Creation Museum what T. rex used its recurved teeth for, the guide responded that they were used for opening coconuts. However, a blogger named Hans Mast at HansMast.com states that this "fact" was made up by someone trying to "belittle" the Creation Museum in Kentucky, even before it opened. HansMast.com also points out that there are no guides at that museum, since it is a self-guided museum. When I tried to find a reference to this on the Creation Museum site, I found none. So it appears that Hans Mast is right - this is a hoax which has spread over the internet. - Danielitld
:That is most interesting. Nevertheless T Rex must have used its teeth for something before the Fall.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:45, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I found the comment to Genesis 1:6, about the expanse, most interesting: "The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of water". I commented before that, understanding that that is what the ancient Hebrews believed, why then do creation scientists seek an explanation for this expanse that we now know doesn't exist? Put another way, since we can no longer believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how can we interpret the Bible literally? When you state that the T. rex must have used its teeth for something, the answer is in its teeth: The T. rex used its teeth for eating meat. This may contradict a supposed literal interpretation of Genesis. But as the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6 shows, a literal interpretation is just not possible. We might even ask ourselves how the ancient Hebrews themselves read the Torah. W. Gunther Plaut, in the introduction to his Torah commentary writes: "Even the ancient Jewish Sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally. They took it seriously, but they always looked behind the flat literal meaning. They realized that the Bible - in addition to everything else it was to them - abounded in subtle metaphors and allusions, that it used word plays and other literary devices, that it sometimes spoke satirically, and that its poetry could not be subject to a simple approach. They agreed without embarrassment that one could disagree on what the Torah meant, and on this sound principle we ourselves should base our approach to the text." An example of word play can be found in Genesis 3, where the serpent is "cunning" - the Hebrew word is arum - and then Adam and Eve found themselves ashamed because they were naked - aram in Hebrew. It is difficult to imagine this play on words being taken in a "flat literal" sense. Which takes us back to the expanse of verse 1:6. Did the ancient Hebrews actually believe, then, that the sky was a solid object? Or does this verse also have a meaning behind its "flat literal meaning"? If they really did believe the sky was a solid object, at a time which was centuries before Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, then do Jews still believe that? I really don't believe that they do. - Danielitld

== Noah and Utnapishtim ==

In the comment to verse 6:14, we are told that, with the word pitch or kaphar in Hebrew "the ransom Jesus Christ paid for mankind" is prefigured. But since the ark or tebah only appears again in Exodus in connection with Moses, it would seem that Moses is prefigured here. The Hebrew word for pitch, kaphar, means to cover, according to Strong's Concordance, and , figuratively, to expiate, condone, placate, and cancel. But the word for pitch in Exodus is zepheth or asphalt, not kaphar. Where kaphar does appear is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, according to the JPS Torah Commentary, where the Akkadian word kupru is used: "six 'sar' (measures) of bitumen I poured into the furnace", Utnapishtim relates in the Epic. Instead of "prefiguring" a future event, kaphar represents a rewriting of the Epic. Utnapishtim is told by the gods to "Give up possessions, seek thou life. Forswear (worldly) goods and keep the soul alive!" If with kaphar/kupru we are meant to understand an atonement because "the earth became corrupt" (v. 6:11), then the expiation of that corruption was attained through the flood in both Genesis and the Epic. - Danielitld

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, we read that the god of the underworld "Erragal tears out the posts" of "the world dam", while the god of war Ninurta "causes the dikes to follow", thus unleashing the deluge. Is it possible to read this account of the flood and give it any kind of scientific credibility? After reading Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory", it would appear that that is what was done. Brown refers to pillars that held the crust of the earth up over his theorized subcrustal ocean, whose "tearing out" caused the waters of that subterranean ocean to spew out. But basing the hypothesized pillars on the "science" of Gilgamesh is highly dubious, to say the least. Aside from the science, is Brown's hypothesized "subcrustal ocean" even Biblically correct?

In verse 7:11, we read that the "fountains of the great deep [were] broken up". In Genesis 1:2, we first encountered the "great deep" or tehom - the "cosmic abyssal water" that existed when the earth was "unformed and void". (from the JPS Torah Commentary) On the second day of creation, God made the expanse - rakia - to "separate water from water", "and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse". On the third day, God bade "the water below the sky [the expanse] be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear". We are then told that "God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas". What I get from this is the world as we now know it, with its continents and oceans - but not a "subcrustal ocean".

Tehom also appears in other Biblical verses. In Isaiah 51:10, the "arm of the Lord" is asked "Art thou not it which dried the sea, the waters of the great deep [tehom]; that made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?" (Jerusalem Bible) - referring to the Exodus crossing of the Sea of Reeds. In Habakkuk 3:10, we read how the mountains tremble upon seeing God, and "the deep [tehom] uttered its voice, and lifted up its hands on high". (Jerusalem Bible) In Genesis 49:25, we read that God "blesses you with the blessings of heaven above, [and the] blessings of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) Similarly in Deuteronomy 33:13, we read of Joseph "blessed of the Lord be his land with the bounty of the dew of heaven, and of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) From these verses, the idea of a "subcrustal ocean" is just not there. Reading the verses from Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, if we were to equate the "deep" or tehom with a "subcrustal ocean", we would even get the impression that Brown's "subcrustal ocean" is still there after the flood.

Reading Genesis 7:11 with Genesis 1:6-10 in mind, what we are to understand is that "creation is being undone", according to the JPS commentary. The waters which were separated by the expanse are coming together again, making the earth again "unformed and void". But "God remembered Noah", and basically created the earth again, in chapter 8. The water above the expanse was "held back", and the waters below the expanse returned to the seas. There is no room here for a "subcrustal ocean", and any hypothesizing to that effect is inane, not only scientifically, but Biblically as well. - Danielitld

Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-28T13:10:39Z

Zlul355: /* 24 hours rather than days? */

Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
:That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::I agree, but it would be best to ensure that the two chronologies are the same. As it is, it looks like a different story starts from genesis 2:4 - and this is the usual Liberal complaint.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Not required, actually. Genesis 1 gives the overview, and Genesis 2 gives the details. Verse 4 makes this clear, as you can see from my translation: "This is the story..." Notice also that Verse 5 undergoes a badly needed repair, because as it was, it didn't make a bit of sense.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
::::But verse 4 says: ''This is the story of the skies and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the skies.'' This still looks like the start of a different story doesn't it? And for example, Gen 2 - 19 has the animals created after Adam, while Gen 1 - 23 has the animals on the filth day - before Adam. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:48, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Genesis 1:2 ==
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight. You guys are changing the words of the most revered English-language Bible, and then, when asked to account for a word-change, call the question "absurd". Gotcha. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:44, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

For the benefit of all observers: "Oceans" can mean the full quantity of all the waters.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
:I humbly defer to your expertise, and "oceans" can be seen as an expansive term, but "ocean" is most commonly seen as a ''body'' of water, and the reference here is clearly to water uncontained and undifferentiated. I still plump for "waters" as the better rendering. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:46, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== 24 hours rather than days? ==

Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
: As you can see, I left an explanation in the Analysis column that "day" means "solar day" and thus 24 hours.

::The notion of changing to a 24 hour day would be historically and theologically inaccurate. The current usage of the terms hour, day, week, etc. are based on the commonly-accepted standard, the Gregorian Calendar. On the basis that this standard was adopted following a papal bull from Gregory XIII in 1582, clearly after Genesis was written, by a mortal being, and not by God, it is unacceptable to alter the original syntax.

::More significantly, our conception of time is dependent upon human perception. In other words, what a day is to a human (approx. 24 hrs) is not likely to be the same as what it is to God. How do we know that it didn't take six billion years to create the Heavens and the Earth, with one day of Gods work being the equivalent of six billion years within our own perception of time?

::Of course, "one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day." However, the Hebrew calendar, which was in use at the time of the writing of the Bible, does not specify a definite length of one day, only that there is a sunrise and a sunset. Of course, this would mean that days in the extreme north and south could last for months, since the Sun does not set during the Summer. Hence, even this consideration is subject to debate.

::Based on this, there should be little doubt that the language in this section of the text is stated definitively, and should not be altered. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 08:10, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)

==baramin==
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know that enough people are going to know what 'baramin' means for this to be helpful. According to Albert Barnes, the phrase 'after its kind' " intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied."{{unsigned|BruceR}}

Not to worry. I left a link to [[Baraminology]] and a full explanation of where that name comes from. "Kind" is correct; it is the word that [[God]] actually used, or at least how it translated. But everyone will know what we mean by that, especially after we write the commentary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

I just read a lot of the discussion concerning "baraminology" on Conservapedia. What it comes down to is just how much of a scientific work is the Bible? And is the use of the term "baraminology" justified? While in its defense, its said that baraminology is a new system of classification, it does seem kind of confused. The "holobaramin" of dogs is said to include all canids, which were descended from the "two individuals taken aboard the Ark". Since canids include foxes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dholes, cape hunting dogs, etc., then it would appear that baraminology accepts the idea of speciation - which another article in Conservapedia confirms. So the holobaramin of canids includes all species of canids which speciated or evolved from the Noachian two. Or did some of them speciate from species that speciated from the original two? From the holobaramin, we go "up", to the apobaramin, which are groups of holobaramins. The article on baraminology states that the holobaramins of wolves and humans are grouped in one apobaramin. Since the holobaramin involves species which speciated from the original two or from those which speciated from the original two, is such a biological relationship implied for the groups in a apobaramin? What exactly determines membership in a holobaramin, or a apobaramin? And why bother coming up with "baraminology", when the classification system of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc., works perfectly well? If the answer is that this implies evolutionary relationships, then so does baraminology when you get down to it.

Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin. But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin. The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18). This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds. Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV) The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind". The discrepancy is obvious: Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different. Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen. The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk. But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored. What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower. The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated. From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals. Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship. An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct. And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system. - Danielitld

:Despite having meandered through your wandering post and never having reached a point, I managed to scry something of what you were attempting to communicate. The Bible is unscientific? The Bible is extraordinarily scientific, and possesses scientific knowledge nobody could have possibly possessed when it was written, other than God. Don't believe me? [http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml See for yourself.]
:Regardless of whether a bat is a bird, God may have simply wanted people not to eat them because of something they had in common with birds - perhaps flight or a diet of insects exposes them to some disease that non-flying birds don't have, I don't know.
:We should not ever be attempting to tear down the Bible with knowledge that we've gained through genetics or other modern science (like ostriches having more in common with birds than bats), but instead use the Bible to understand our world better, and using modern knowledge as a supplement to that. I pray you learn to stop trying to tear down the Bible. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 13:51, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:: Look no further than our own article, [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]. However, I must concur with Jacob: Daniel, your writing is so roundabout that I can barely read it. Conciseness is key. To the point, baraminology is a fledgling but burgeoning field of research, with extraordinary predictive power. I suggest you research it more before presenting paltry criticism. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:14, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Since when is trying to understand the Bible considered tearing it down? Someone wants to claim that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. If I look at that claim, and find it questionable if not plain wrong, is the Bible "damaged", or only the claim? JacobB's link in support of that claim, says that Behemoth and Leviathan, from Job, were dinosaurs. Were they? The footnote in the Good News Bible states that "some identify this [Behemoth] with the hippopotamus", while Leviathan "some take . . to be the crocodile". Believe what you want, since there's no way to be sure. Of course, both the hippo and the crocodile are dangerous creatures, and were surely known to the writer of Job. There doesn't seem to be any need to interpret them as being dinosaurs.

Take the word tannin, which JacobB's link mentions as referring to dinosaurs. I've already covered that with a discussion below. So I'll just repeat that, in Lamentations 4:3, a tannin is described as suckling its young - a mammalian trait, not a dinosaurian one. If you want to believe that the term tannin at least is broad enough to include dinosaurs, then you are free to do so. But a term so broad which can mean any type of animal is hardly scientific. And that is the point I was making referring to Leviticus 11:16, even without delving into the "bat is a bird" notion. The terms used are descriptive, not scientific. Shown the Hebrew term "nets" by itself, you wouldn't know if the "brightly-colored" object being referred to was a hawk or a flower. The Hebrew term yaen and its feminine form yaanah refer to what? The male ostrich and one might assume the female ostrich. Yet yaanah is translated in the KJV as "owl", which is also how the term tachmas is rendered, when its not translated as hawk. Researching all of this hardly "tears down" the Bible. It just points out that "the Bible is not a scientific book", as JacobB's link first states. And understanding how the ancient Hebrews looked at things means you don't have to go chasing down dinosaurs to understand the Bible. - Danielitld

== 3:14 ==

"You will crawl on your belly and eat dry-powder food throughout the days of your life."
Again, I defer to the expert(s), but I don't see the basis for "dry-powder food". Throughout the Old Testament, עפר (`aphar) is used in two senses: dust/dry earth (as in Gen. 2:7), and a vast number (as in Gen. 13:16). I don't see any basis for "food". Also, serpents (snakes) are almost exclusively carnivorous. Meat doesn't register as a "dry-powder food". [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:59, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== The expanse ==

The JPS Torah commentary states that "the verbal form [of expanse or rakia in Hebrew] is often used for hammering out metal or flattening out earth". What the expanse or the sky was actually supposed to be is unclear. The commentary points out that, in Ezekiel 1:22, the expanse is equated to ice. Whether metal or ice, the water beyond it was taken to be the source for rain. What I find interesting is that, in the translation, while it is stated how the ancient Hebrews understood things, it apparently seems necessary to point out how creation scientists understand the expanse. But is it even appropriate to take that ancient understanding - to even ''understand'' that that was the way the ancient Hebrews understood things - and somehow try to give it scientific legitimacy with ideas of water-vapor barriers or notions of Einsteinian physics? The Jehovah's Witnesses have "theorized" that a belt or a sphere of water orbited the Earth, even though this goes against what is said in Genesis. If the ancient Hebrews understood the expanse as a metallic or an ice barrier from which rain came, then obviously that was wrong, as we now know. But if we try to interpret the ancient text in a modern way, then aren't we actually misinterpreting it? Shouldn't we look at it with Hebrew eyes, and try to see the Hebrew understanding - even if it is scientifically inaccurate?

The same goes for the notion of dinosaurs being mentioned at Genesis 1:21. Just as the Hebrews didn't understand how rain came about, how much of a notion did they even have about dinosaurs? The Hebrew word used for "great sea monsters" is tannin. But from its use in the Bible, we can see that it is not an exact scientific term. In Ezekiel 29:3, the pharaoh is described as "the great tannin that crouches in the midst of his streams". The KJV translates this as dragon. But the Jerusalem (Hebrew) Bible translates it as crocodile, which would seem appropriate. However, in Lamentations 4:3, we read how the tannins "draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones". The KJV translates this as "sea monsters", while the Jerusalem Bible renders it as jackals. Whatever these tannins are supposed to be, they are definitely mammals, since only mammals suckle their young. If someone would want to interpret tannin as including dinosaurs along with all other kinds of animals, then I suppose he or she would be free to do so. However, such an interpretation would definitely have to be a very loose one. - Danielitld````

== Genesis 3:1 ==

Is the serpent really Satan? Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was a "wild beast" "that the Lord God had made". This reflects the words of Genesis 1:24-5, with the stipulation that "God saw that this was good". The Hebrew word for serpent used here is nachash, and it appears in many places in the Bible, where it is not equated with Satan. In Genesis 49:17, we are told that Dan, "one of the tribes of Israel", "shall be a serpent by the road, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider is thrown backward". (JPS translation) Its difficult to imagine one of the tribes of Israel "who shall judge his people" (KJV) being equated with Satan. In Numbers 21:9, we are told that Moses "made a serpent of brass", that would cure any man if he had been bitten by a serpent. Again, its difficult to imagine this as being somehow satanic, when the allusion to the nachash is as a "beast of the field". While the serpent in Genesis 3 may be "subtil" or cunning - the Hebrew word is arum - equating this "beast of the field" with Satan is not supported by the text. Danielitld
:It would seem to be entirely plausible that ''all'' animals could talk before the fall. After all, we know that, for instance T Rex was vegetarian and used its teeth for opening coconuts. So it requires no great stretch of the imagination to suggest that apart from being entirely herbivorous the animals were also capable of speech. This would explain the fact that Eve is in no way recorded as being surprised by being accosted by a talking snake. It would also make the punishment which the snakes received as a group a lot more fair - as if it was only an unwilling tool of Satan then the permenant cursing would seem rather harsh - but if the snake was acting of its own violation then the punishment is more reasonable.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:57, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I have never heard about T. rex using its teeth to open coconuts, so I searched for any information on that on line. The only reference I found to this is on the website fishfeet2007.blogspot.com. Whoever wrote this reference said that, when he or she asked a guide at the Creation Museum what T. rex used its recurved teeth for, the guide responded that they were used for opening coconuts. However, a blogger named Hans Mast at HansMast.com states that this "fact" was made up by someone trying to "belittle" the Creation Museum in Kentucky, even before it opened. HansMast.com also points out that there are no guides at that museum, since it is a self-guided museum. When I tried to find a reference to this on the Creation Museum site, I found none. So it appears that Hans Mast is right - this is a hoax which has spread over the internet. - Danielitld
:That is most interesting. Nevertheless T Rex must have used its teeth for something before the Fall.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:45, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I found the comment to Genesis 1:6, about the expanse, most interesting: "The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of water". I commented before that, understanding that that is what the ancient Hebrews believed, why then do creation scientists seek an explanation for this expanse that we now know doesn't exist? Put another way, since we can no longer believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how can we interpret the Bible literally? When you state that the T. rex must have used its teeth for something, the answer is in its teeth: The T. rex used its teeth for eating meat. This may contradict a supposed literal interpretation of Genesis. But as the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6 shows, a literal interpretation is just not possible. We might even ask ourselves how the ancient Hebrews themselves read the Torah. W. Gunther Plaut, in the introduction to his Torah commentary writes: "Even the ancient Jewish Sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally. They took it seriously, but they always looked behind the flat literal meaning. They realized that the Bible - in addition to everything else it was to them - abounded in subtle metaphors and allusions, that it used word plays and other literary devices, that it sometimes spoke satirically, and that its poetry could not be subject to a simple approach. They agreed without embarrassment that one could disagree on what the Torah meant, and on this sound principle we ourselves should base our approach to the text." An example of word play can be found in Genesis 3, where the serpent is "cunning" - the Hebrew word is arum - and then Adam and Eve found themselves ashamed because they were naked - aram in Hebrew. It is difficult to imagine this play on words being taken in a "flat literal" sense. Which takes us back to the expanse of verse 1:6. Did the ancient Hebrews actually believe, then, that the sky was a solid object? Or does this verse also have a meaning behind its "flat literal meaning"? If they really did believe the sky was a solid object, at a time which was centuries before Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, then do Jews still believe that? I really don't believe that they do. - Danielitld

== Noah and Utnapishtim ==

In the comment to verse 6:14, we are told that, with the word pitch or kaphar in Hebrew "the ransom Jesus Christ paid for mankind" is prefigured. But since the ark or tebah only appears again in Exodus in connection with Moses, it would seem that Moses is prefigured here. The Hebrew word for pitch, kaphar, means to cover, according to Strong's Concordance, and , figuratively, to expiate, condone, placate, and cancel. But the word for pitch in Exodus is zepheth or asphalt, not kaphar. Where kaphar does appear is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, according to the JPS Torah Commentary, where the Akkadian word kupru is used: "six 'sar' (measures) of bitumen I poured into the furnace", Utnapishtim relates in the Epic. Instead of "prefiguring" a future event, kaphar represents a rewriting of the Epic. Utnapishtim is told by the gods to "Give up possessions, seek thou life. Forswear (worldly) goods and keep the soul alive!" If with kaphar/kupru we are meant to understand an atonement because "the earth became corrupt" (v. 6:11), then the expiation of that corruption was attained through the flood in both Genesis and the Epic. - Danielitld

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, we read that the god of the underworld "Erragal tears out the posts" of "the world dam", while the god of war Ninurta "causes the dikes to follow", thus unleashing the deluge. Is it possible to read this account of the flood and give it any kind of scientific credibility? After reading Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory", it would appear that that is what was done. Brown refers to pillars that held the crust of the earth up over his theorized subcrustal ocean, whose "tearing out" caused the waters of that subterranean ocean to spew out. But basing the hypothesized pillars on the "science" of Gilgamesh is highly dubious, to say the least. Aside from the science, is Brown's hypothesized "subcrustal ocean" even Biblically correct?

In verse 7:11, we read that the "fountains of the great deep [were] broken up". In Genesis 1:2, we first encountered the "great deep" or tehom - the "cosmic abyssal water" that existed when the earth was "unformed and void". (from the JPS Torah Commentary) On the second day of creation, God made the expanse - rakia - to "separate water from water", "and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse". On the third day, God bade "the water below the sky [the expanse] be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear". We are then told that "God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas". What I get from this is the world as we now know it, with its continents and oceans - but not a "subcrustal ocean".

Tehom also appears in other Biblical verses. In Isaiah 51:10, the "arm of the Lord" is asked "Art thou not it which dried the sea, the waters of the great deep [tehom]; that made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?" (Jerusalem Bible) - referring to the Exodus crossing of the Sea of Reeds. In Habakkuk 3:10, we read how the mountains tremble upon seeing God, and "the deep [tehom] uttered its voice, and lifted up its hands on high". (Jerusalem Bible) In Genesis 49:25, we read that God "blesses you with the blessings of heaven above, [and the] blessings of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) Similarly in Deuteronomy 33:13, we read of Joseph "blessed of the Lord be his land with the bounty of the dew of heaven, and of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) From these verses, the idea of a "subcrustal ocean" is just not there. Reading the verses from Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, if we were to equate the "deep" or tehom with a "subcrustal ocean", we would even get the impression that Brown's "subcrustal ocean" is still there after the flood.

Reading Genesis 7:11 with Genesis 1:6-10 in mind, what we are to understand is that "creation is being undone", according to the JPS commentary. The waters which were separated by the expanse are coming together again, making the earth again "unformed and void". But "God remembered Noah", and basically created the earth again, in chapter 8. The water above the expanse was "held back", and the waters below the expanse returned to the seas. There is no room here for a "subcrustal ocean", and any hypothesizing to that effect is inane, not only scientifically, but Biblically as well. - Danielitld

Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

2009-11-28T12:56:28Z

Zlul355: /* 24 hours rather than days? */

Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
:That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
::I agree, but it would be best to ensure that the two chronologies are the same. As it is, it looks like a different story starts from genesis 2:4 - and this is the usual Liberal complaint.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Not required, actually. Genesis 1 gives the overview, and Genesis 2 gives the details. Verse 4 makes this clear, as you can see from my translation: "This is the story..." Notice also that Verse 5 undergoes a badly needed repair, because as it was, it didn't make a bit of sense.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
::::But verse 4 says: ''This is the story of the skies and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the skies.'' This still looks like the start of a different story doesn't it? And for example, Gen 2 - 19 has the animals created after Adam, while Gen 1 - 23 has the animals on the filth day - before Adam. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:48, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== Genesis 1:2 ==
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight. You guys are changing the words of the most revered English-language Bible, and then, when asked to account for a word-change, call the question "absurd". Gotcha. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 18:44, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

For the benefit of all observers: "Oceans" can mean the full quantity of all the waters.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
:I humbly defer to your expertise, and "oceans" can be seen as an expansive term, but "ocean" is most commonly seen as a ''body'' of water, and the reference here is clearly to water uncontained and undifferentiated. I still plump for "waters" as the better rendering. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:46, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== 24 hours rather than days? ==

Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
: As you can see, I left an explanation in the Analysis column that "day" means "solar day" and thus 24 hours.

::The notion of changing to a 24 hour day would be historically and theologically inaccurate. The current usage of the terms hour, day, week, etc. are based on the commonly-accepted standard, the Gregorian Calendar. On the basis that this standard was adopted following a papal bull from Gregory XIII in 1582, clearly after Genesis was written, by a mortal being, and not by God, it is unacceptable to alter the original syntax.

::More significantly, our conception of time is dependent upon human perception. In other words, what a day is to a human (approx. 24 hrs) is not likely to be the same as what it is to God. How do we know that it didn't take six billion years to create the Heavens and the Earth, with one day of Gods work being the equivalent of six billion years within our own perception of time?

::Based on this, there should be little doubt that the language in this section of the text is stated definitively, and should not be altered. [[User:zlul355|zlul355]] 07:56, 28 Nov 2009 (EDT)

==baramin==
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't know that enough people are going to know what 'baramin' means for this to be helpful. According to Albert Barnes, the phrase 'after its kind' " intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied."{{unsigned|BruceR}}

Not to worry. I left a link to [[Baraminology]] and a full explanation of where that name comes from. "Kind" is correct; it is the word that [[God]] actually used, or at least how it translated. But everyone will know what we mean by that, especially after we write the commentary.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

I just read a lot of the discussion concerning "baraminology" on Conservapedia. What it comes down to is just how much of a scientific work is the Bible? And is the use of the term "baraminology" justified? While in its defense, its said that baraminology is a new system of classification, it does seem kind of confused. The "holobaramin" of dogs is said to include all canids, which were descended from the "two individuals taken aboard the Ark". Since canids include foxes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dholes, cape hunting dogs, etc., then it would appear that baraminology accepts the idea of speciation - which another article in Conservapedia confirms. So the holobaramin of canids includes all species of canids which speciated or evolved from the Noachian two. Or did some of them speciate from species that speciated from the original two? From the holobaramin, we go "up", to the apobaramin, which are groups of holobaramins. The article on baraminology states that the holobaramins of wolves and humans are grouped in one apobaramin. Since the holobaramin involves species which speciated from the original two or from those which speciated from the original two, is such a biological relationship implied for the groups in a apobaramin? What exactly determines membership in a holobaramin, or a apobaramin? And why bother coming up with "baraminology", when the classification system of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc., works perfectly well? If the answer is that this implies evolutionary relationships, then so does baraminology when you get down to it.

Getting back to the first question, how scientific is the Bible, I examined that with my discussions of the expanse and of the tannin. But researching baraminology led me to "classification system" on Conservapedia, where it stated that the Biblical reference to bats as birds was based on the Bible "using a different classification system", the "flying creatures" level of baramin. The verse where bats are "classified" with birds is Leviticus 11:19 (and Deuteronomy 14:18). This verse is in the section of Leviticus forbidding the eating of unclean birds. Another verse in this section, 16, lists "the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk" (KJV) The JPS translates verse 16 as "the ostrich, the night hawk, the sea gull and hawks of every kind". The discrepancy is obvious: Owls and ostriches may both be birds - of course, according to the statement in Conservapedia, the ostrich wouldn't be a bird, since it is not a "flying creature" - but they are very different. Looking at the Hebrew, we see that ostrich is yaen, while owl is yaanah, which is the feminine form of yaen. The Hebrew for hawk is tachmas, which comes from chamas, to be violent, and, Strong's Concordance says, can mean either owl or hawk. But the Hebrew for hawk can also be nets, from natsats, to glare or be brightly colored. What's interesting, is that nets can also mean flower; and in Job 15:33, the term nitsah - the feminine of nets - is used for flower. The Hebrew for cuckoo or gull is shachaph, to peel or be emaciated. From this we can see that the words for these animals is based not on scientific rigor, but is rather more descriptive of these animals. Both owls and hawks are violent in their attack, and both merit the word tachmas, which has nothing to do with their biological relationship. An owl is also termed a yaanah, the feminine of yaen - again, perhaps descriptive - an owl is a feminine ostrich - but of course it is not biologically correct. And then we get to the word nets used for both hawk and flower, which may be highly descriptive of both as colorful, but hardly signifies a close relationship in any classification system. - Danielitld

:Despite having meandered through your wandering post and never having reached a point, I managed to scry something of what you were attempting to communicate. The Bible is unscientific? The Bible is extraordinarily scientific, and possesses scientific knowledge nobody could have possibly possessed when it was written, other than God. Don't believe me? [http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml See for yourself.]
:Regardless of whether a bat is a bird, God may have simply wanted people not to eat them because of something they had in common with birds - perhaps flight or a diet of insects exposes them to some disease that non-flying birds don't have, I don't know.
:We should not ever be attempting to tear down the Bible with knowledge that we've gained through genetics or other modern science (like ostriches having more in common with birds than bats), but instead use the Bible to understand our world better, and using modern knowledge as a supplement to that. I pray you learn to stop trying to tear down the Bible. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 13:51, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:: Look no further than our own article, [[Bible scientific foreknowledge]]. However, I must concur with Jacob: Daniel, your writing is so roundabout that I can barely read it. Conciseness is key. To the point, baraminology is a fledgling but burgeoning field of research, with extraordinary predictive power. I suggest you research it more before presenting paltry criticism. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:14, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Since when is trying to understand the Bible considered tearing it down? Someone wants to claim that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. If I look at that claim, and find it questionable if not plain wrong, is the Bible "damaged", or only the claim? JacobB's link in support of that claim, says that Behemoth and Leviathan, from Job, were dinosaurs. Were they? The footnote in the Good News Bible states that "some identify this [Behemoth] with the hippopotamus", while Leviathan "some take . . to be the crocodile". Believe what you want, since there's no way to be sure. Of course, both the hippo and the crocodile are dangerous creatures, and were surely known to the writer of Job. There doesn't seem to be any need to interpret them as being dinosaurs.

Take the word tannin, which JacobB's link mentions as referring to dinosaurs. I've already covered that with a discussion below. So I'll just repeat that, in Lamentations 4:3, a tannin is described as suckling its young - a mammalian trait, not a dinosaurian one. If you want to believe that the term tannin at least is broad enough to include dinosaurs, then you are free to do so. But a term so broad which can mean any type of animal is hardly scientific. And that is the point I was making referring to Leviticus 11:16, even without delving into the "bat is a bird" notion. The terms used are descriptive, not scientific. Shown the Hebrew term "nets" by itself, you wouldn't know if the "brightly-colored" object being referred to was a hawk or a flower. The Hebrew term yaen and its feminine form yaanah refer to what? The male ostrich and one might assume the female ostrich. Yet yaanah is translated in the KJV as "owl", which is also how the term tachmas is rendered, when its not translated as hawk. Researching all of this hardly "tears down" the Bible. It just points out that "the Bible is not a scientific book", as JacobB's link first states. And understanding how the ancient Hebrews looked at things means you don't have to go chasing down dinosaurs to understand the Bible. - Danielitld

== 3:14 ==

"You will crawl on your belly and eat dry-powder food throughout the days of your life."
Again, I defer to the expert(s), but I don't see the basis for "dry-powder food". Throughout the Old Testament, עפר (`aphar) is used in two senses: dust/dry earth (as in Gen. 2:7), and a vast number (as in Gen. 13:16). I don't see any basis for "food". Also, serpents (snakes) are almost exclusively carnivorous. Meat doesn't register as a "dry-powder food". [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 22:59, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

== The expanse ==

The JPS Torah commentary states that "the verbal form [of expanse or rakia in Hebrew] is often used for hammering out metal or flattening out earth". What the expanse or the sky was actually supposed to be is unclear. The commentary points out that, in Ezekiel 1:22, the expanse is equated to ice. Whether metal or ice, the water beyond it was taken to be the source for rain. What I find interesting is that, in the translation, while it is stated how the ancient Hebrews understood things, it apparently seems necessary to point out how creation scientists understand the expanse. But is it even appropriate to take that ancient understanding - to even ''understand'' that that was the way the ancient Hebrews understood things - and somehow try to give it scientific legitimacy with ideas of water-vapor barriers or notions of Einsteinian physics? The Jehovah's Witnesses have "theorized" that a belt or a sphere of water orbited the Earth, even though this goes against what is said in Genesis. If the ancient Hebrews understood the expanse as a metallic or an ice barrier from which rain came, then obviously that was wrong, as we now know. But if we try to interpret the ancient text in a modern way, then aren't we actually misinterpreting it? Shouldn't we look at it with Hebrew eyes, and try to see the Hebrew understanding - even if it is scientifically inaccurate?

The same goes for the notion of dinosaurs being mentioned at Genesis 1:21. Just as the Hebrews didn't understand how rain came about, how much of a notion did they even have about dinosaurs? The Hebrew word used for "great sea monsters" is tannin. But from its use in the Bible, we can see that it is not an exact scientific term. In Ezekiel 29:3, the pharaoh is described as "the great tannin that crouches in the midst of his streams". The KJV translates this as dragon. But the Jerusalem (Hebrew) Bible translates it as crocodile, which would seem appropriate. However, in Lamentations 4:3, we read how the tannins "draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones". The KJV translates this as "sea monsters", while the Jerusalem Bible renders it as jackals. Whatever these tannins are supposed to be, they are definitely mammals, since only mammals suckle their young. If someone would want to interpret tannin as including dinosaurs along with all other kinds of animals, then I suppose he or she would be free to do so. However, such an interpretation would definitely have to be a very loose one. - Danielitld````

== Genesis 3:1 ==

Is the serpent really Satan? Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was a "wild beast" "that the Lord God had made". This reflects the words of Genesis 1:24-5, with the stipulation that "God saw that this was good". The Hebrew word for serpent used here is nachash, and it appears in many places in the Bible, where it is not equated with Satan. In Genesis 49:17, we are told that Dan, "one of the tribes of Israel", "shall be a serpent by the road, a viper by the path, that bites the horse's heels so that his rider is thrown backward". (JPS translation) Its difficult to imagine one of the tribes of Israel "who shall judge his people" (KJV) being equated with Satan. In Numbers 21:9, we are told that Moses "made a serpent of brass", that would cure any man if he had been bitten by a serpent. Again, its difficult to imagine this as being somehow satanic, when the allusion to the nachash is as a "beast of the field". While the serpent in Genesis 3 may be "subtil" or cunning - the Hebrew word is arum - equating this "beast of the field" with Satan is not supported by the text. Danielitld
:It would seem to be entirely plausible that ''all'' animals could talk before the fall. After all, we know that, for instance T Rex was vegetarian and used its teeth for opening coconuts. So it requires no great stretch of the imagination to suggest that apart from being entirely herbivorous the animals were also capable of speech. This would explain the fact that Eve is in no way recorded as being surprised by being accosted by a talking snake. It would also make the punishment which the snakes received as a group a lot more fair - as if it was only an unwilling tool of Satan then the permenant cursing would seem rather harsh - but if the snake was acting of its own violation then the punishment is more reasonable.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:57, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I have never heard about T. rex using its teeth to open coconuts, so I searched for any information on that on line. The only reference I found to this is on the website fishfeet2007.blogspot.com. Whoever wrote this reference said that, when he or she asked a guide at the Creation Museum what T. rex used its recurved teeth for, the guide responded that they were used for opening coconuts. However, a blogger named Hans Mast at HansMast.com states that this "fact" was made up by someone trying to "belittle" the Creation Museum in Kentucky, even before it opened. HansMast.com also points out that there are no guides at that museum, since it is a self-guided museum. When I tried to find a reference to this on the Creation Museum site, I found none. So it appears that Hans Mast is right - this is a hoax which has spread over the internet. - Danielitld
:That is most interesting. Nevertheless T Rex must have used its teeth for something before the Fall.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:45, 9 November 2009 (EST)

I found the comment to Genesis 1:6, about the expanse, most interesting: "The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of water". I commented before that, understanding that that is what the ancient Hebrews believed, why then do creation scientists seek an explanation for this expanse that we now know doesn't exist? Put another way, since we can no longer believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how can we interpret the Bible literally? When you state that the T. rex must have used its teeth for something, the answer is in its teeth: The T. rex used its teeth for eating meat. This may contradict a supposed literal interpretation of Genesis. But as the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6 shows, a literal interpretation is just not possible. We might even ask ourselves how the ancient Hebrews themselves read the Torah. W. Gunther Plaut, in the introduction to his Torah commentary writes: "Even the ancient Jewish Sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally. They took it seriously, but they always looked behind the flat literal meaning. They realized that the Bible - in addition to everything else it was to them - abounded in subtle metaphors and allusions, that it used word plays and other literary devices, that it sometimes spoke satirically, and that its poetry could not be subject to a simple approach. They agreed without embarrassment that one could disagree on what the Torah meant, and on this sound principle we ourselves should base our approach to the text." An example of word play can be found in Genesis 3, where the serpent is "cunning" - the Hebrew word is arum - and then Adam and Eve found themselves ashamed because they were naked - aram in Hebrew. It is difficult to imagine this play on words being taken in a "flat literal" sense. Which takes us back to the expanse of verse 1:6. Did the ancient Hebrews actually believe, then, that the sky was a solid object? Or does this verse also have a meaning behind its "flat literal meaning"? If they really did believe the sky was a solid object, at a time which was centuries before Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, then do Jews still believe that? I really don't believe that they do. - Danielitld

== Noah and Utnapishtim ==

In the comment to verse 6:14, we are told that, with the word pitch or kaphar in Hebrew "the ransom Jesus Christ paid for mankind" is prefigured. But since the ark or tebah only appears again in Exodus in connection with Moses, it would seem that Moses is prefigured here. The Hebrew word for pitch, kaphar, means to cover, according to Strong's Concordance, and , figuratively, to expiate, condone, placate, and cancel. But the word for pitch in Exodus is zepheth or asphalt, not kaphar. Where kaphar does appear is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, according to the JPS Torah Commentary, where the Akkadian word kupru is used: "six 'sar' (measures) of bitumen I poured into the furnace", Utnapishtim relates in the Epic. Instead of "prefiguring" a future event, kaphar represents a rewriting of the Epic. Utnapishtim is told by the gods to "Give up possessions, seek thou life. Forswear (worldly) goods and keep the soul alive!" If with kaphar/kupru we are meant to understand an atonement because "the earth became corrupt" (v. 6:11), then the expiation of that corruption was attained through the flood in both Genesis and the Epic. - Danielitld

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, we read that the god of the underworld "Erragal tears out the posts" of "the world dam", while the god of war Ninurta "causes the dikes to follow", thus unleashing the deluge. Is it possible to read this account of the flood and give it any kind of scientific credibility? After reading Walt Brown's "hydroplate theory", it would appear that that is what was done. Brown refers to pillars that held the crust of the earth up over his theorized subcrustal ocean, whose "tearing out" caused the waters of that subterranean ocean to spew out. But basing the hypothesized pillars on the "science" of Gilgamesh is highly dubious, to say the least. Aside from the science, is Brown's hypothesized "subcrustal ocean" even Biblically correct?

In verse 7:11, we read that the "fountains of the great deep [were] broken up". In Genesis 1:2, we first encountered the "great deep" or tehom - the "cosmic abyssal water" that existed when the earth was "unformed and void". (from the JPS Torah Commentary) On the second day of creation, God made the expanse - rakia - to "separate water from water", "and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse". On the third day, God bade "the water below the sky [the expanse] be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear". We are then told that "God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas". What I get from this is the world as we now know it, with its continents and oceans - but not a "subcrustal ocean".

Tehom also appears in other Biblical verses. In Isaiah 51:10, the "arm of the Lord" is asked "Art thou not it which dried the sea, the waters of the great deep [tehom]; that made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?" (Jerusalem Bible) - referring to the Exodus crossing of the Sea of Reeds. In Habakkuk 3:10, we read how the mountains tremble upon seeing God, and "the deep [tehom] uttered its voice, and lifted up its hands on high". (Jerusalem Bible) In Genesis 49:25, we read that God "blesses you with the blessings of heaven above, [and the] blessings of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) Similarly in Deuteronomy 33:13, we read of Joseph "blessed of the Lord be his land with the bounty of the dew of heaven, and of the deep that crouches below". (JPS) From these verses, the idea of a "subcrustal ocean" is just not there. Reading the verses from Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, if we were to equate the "deep" or tehom with a "subcrustal ocean", we would even get the impression that Brown's "subcrustal ocean" is still there after the flood.

Reading Genesis 7:11 with Genesis 1:6-10 in mind, what we are to understand is that "creation is being undone", according to the JPS commentary. The waters which were separated by the expanse are coming together again, making the earth again "unformed and void". But "God remembered Noah", and basically created the earth again, in chapter 8. The water above the expanse was "held back", and the waters below the expanse returned to the seas. There is no room here for a "subcrustal ocean", and any hypothesizing to that effect is inane, not only scientifically, but Biblically as well. - Danielitld