Tag Info

I disagree with Young's there. Hebrew syntax is very different than English, but I have difficulty seeing how Young got there. Tense in Biblical Hebrew is non-existent (Essentials of Biblical Hebrew, Kyle Yates). It is context that determines the time of the word. Hebrew uses "aspect" (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Waltke/O'Connor) which is ...

I have often wondered the same thing. Here's what we can get from the text itself: The word in 1:1 is בָּרָא , which means "created". This is different from עָשָׂה , "made", in 2:2. The difference as I have been taught is that "create" (בָּרָא ) means "out of nothing", while "make" is the more usual "making of stuff from stuff". Interestingly, 2:3 ...

Something interesting I noticed in the Hebrew of Gen 1 is that almost every verse begins with a waw-consecutive. That is a grammatical construct that indicates a direct, chronological sequence. That is, "A [wc] B [wc] C" means "A and then B and then C." It's very common in prose narratives, and is usually translated simply as "and." (My translations of ...

The NET Bible notes are helpful here: tn The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the ...

Enuma Elish and Genesis have the strongest connection in their first lines--"In the beginning" vs. "When on high." Some say that Genesis is written as a polemic against Enuma Elish. They are very different. 1a. Enuma Elish starts with the elemental representatives of chaos, Apsu and Tiamat. They are the father and mother of the gods respectively. It ...

Hermeneutic Circle Part of the problem that this question has suffered is known as the hermeneutic circle. The idea is that we use the text of the Bible to determine our doctrine. However, in order to interpret the text of the Bible, we have to come from a doctrinal predisposition. When we approach hermeneutics seeking to understand a particular ...

Rashi understands b'tzelem ("in Our image") as "with Our mold/form/die" and kidmuteinu ("as Our likeness") as referring to understanding and wisdom: 26: in our image: in our form. (Saperstein translation says "mold") after our likeness: to understand and to discern. 27: And God created man in His image: [...] Man was made with a die, like a ...

Rashi's comment here is: male and female He created them: Yet further (2:21) Scripture states: “And He took one of his ribs, etc.” The Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 8:1, Ber. 61a, Eruvin 18a) explains that He originally created him with two faces, and afterwards, He divided him. The simple meaning of the verse is that here Scripture informs you that they ...

A basic hermenuetical rule for any text is that the surface meaning is the correct reading of a text unless other evidence shows otherwise. If I say I'll finish something by the end of the day, you expect me to be done within the current 24-hour period. I would be either a nut or a liar if I explained that my "day" is actually 1,000 years metaphorically. ...

Umberto Cassuto, in his commentary to Genesis deals with this question: 'In our image, after our likeness' The Jewish exegets have endeavored to soften the corporeality implicit in the statement by means of forced interpretations....On the other hand, many modern commentators take the view that in fact we have here an unquestionably corporeal ...

The confusion comes in part from imperfect translation. The commandment, in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, reads as follows: לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה לְךָ פֶסֶל, וְכָל-תְּמוּנָה, אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל, וַאֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת--וַאֲשֶׁר בַּמַּיִם, מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶץ. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any ...

Genesis 1 as a whole describes the creation of the physical world, so it would be inconsistent to view the light as figurative rather than physical unless you read the whole chapter that way. On that basis, then, the light is physical, but what is its nature? As summarized here, the talmud records a debate about the light in Chagigah 12a. One opinion is ...

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Since Jesus is the express image of God, and he is male, when that which is female was removed from Adam, it did not ...

Complete order of events: I built my house I had a truck load of plants delivered I built the driveway I planted plants along the driveway and around the house Account of contractor #1: House was built Plants were truckloaded in Driveway was built Account of contractor #2: House was built Driveway was built Plants were planted around the house ...

From a Christian perspective, this passage is typically not seen as God and humanity sharing biological traits. One example, taken more or less at random, is this statement from Answers in Genesis: Man in the image of God; what does this mean in practical terms? It cannot refer to bodily, biological form since God is a Spirit and man is earthly. So ...

This is Rashi's sillyness. The first words in the Hebrew bible are: בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ. Rashi said that you should relable the vowels on "Barah" and make it "Bro", so that it reads (sort of) like "In the beginning of God's creating the sky and the Earth..." This interpretation is incredibly stretched, you just ...

IMO, this is the simplest explanation: 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. (Gen. 1:2) At this point everything is dark. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. (3) Now everything is light. And God saw the light, that it ...

It's helpful to note that in Genesis 1, God not only separates light from darkness on the first day, but also waters from waters on the second day, and day from night on the fourth day. And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the expanse and separated the waters ...

This is a difficult question because of the temptation towards Eisegesis as our desire to be of value can intersect with this text. It is useful to include verse 28 when looking at the verses you quote: 26Then 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 birds of the ...

From the first chapter in Maimonides's Guide for the Perplexed: ...The term ẓelem, on the other hand, signifies the specific form, viz., that which constitutes the essence of a thing, whereby the thing is what it is; the reality of a thing in so far as it is that particular being. In man the "form" is that constituent which gives him human ...

The word for image is צלם which only appears outside of Genesis in the Tanakh in Daniel. There it's Aramaic, but it's always translated as "image." I don't see a problem with saying our physical appearance is representative of God. Many theological approaches to God say He has no physical qualities whatsoever but the verse seems to plainly say otherwise. ...

The rabbis of the talmud, recording received oral tradition, appear to understand God to have arranged the stars into their constellations. The following passage from Tractate B'rachot 58b (in the Babylonian talmud) comments on the passages brought in this question (among others): Samuel contrasted two texts. It is written, Who maketh the Bear, Orion, ...

I think the wording of the text draws our minds to ponder the beauty and arrangement of the stars and the power of God who put them in their place.  Back in the days before electricity, the heavens would have been the most fascinating movie theatre to watch and it is no surprise that ancient philosophers identified the idea of God/gods with them and paid ...

Genesis, like all of the Torah, (and I would argue, all of the Bible) is a "woven text." It has warp and weft. The pattern we see in the seven days is actually replicated in miniature in each of the days. But then, that pattern is also replicated in Genesis 2 in numerous ways. The sevenfold pattern ...

The answer to the question There is no problem with this interpretation--- it is the way it reads most naturally in Hebrew. On chapter division The chapter division between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is placed at an awkward spot--- it falls 3 verses short of a real textual boundary, which represents the break between an Elohist narrative and Yahwist ...

Sensus Plenior is one hermeneutic approach that argues for a literal day. Every scripture has four meanings relating to the voices of prophet, priest, king and judge. A literal reading is the voice of the king. The narratives are examples were the visible layer is in that voice. In these, the spiritual layer contains the other voices. Revelation on the ...

Please allow me to start my response with a preface about the nature of literal interpretation. Traditionally, through the Church's history, literal interpretation has not meant "reading the text to mean just what it seems to me to mean." At least as far back as St. Augustine we see that this is so. Rather, the literal sense of scripture was contrasted with ...