Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)

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.--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. 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.--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.--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. --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? AngusF 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. 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. AngusF 18:44, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

For the benefit of all observers: "Oceans" can mean the full quantity of all the waters.--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. 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. 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.

baramin

Would it be better to use the modern conservative word baramin rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--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."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BruceR (talk)

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.--TerryH^Talk 18:30, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

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". 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.--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