How could there be light on day one when the sun is not created until day four?

En Hakkore

Well-known member
When the texts point out that the earth became "void and formless", they are referring to the destruction of the earth.
The Hebrew reads that the earth was "void and formless" (or however one wishes to translate this pair of words), not that it became so.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
No. In context, Genesis 1:2 is depicting the earth before continents emerged.
In the greater context of scripture, it literally means "became" as in Gen.2:7; 4:3;9:15;19:26;Ex.32:1; Deut. 27:9 etc.
From my notes:

Why were the Hebrew words tohu and bohu translated as "formless and void"? :unsure:
Yes, the earth became formless and void. Again, scripture as a whole should be consulted, e.g. 2 Peter 3:5,6
That depends on when photons could propagate during its formation. A lot had occurred before the foundations of our solar system began.
No doubt about it, and to assume there was no light before our solar system began doesn't seem likely.
 

inertia

Super Member
In the greater context of scripture, it literally means "became" as in Gen.2:7; 4:3;9:15;19:26;Ex.32:1; Deut. 27:9 etc.

Yet, in Genesis 2:7 the Hebrew word translated in English as "became" is the Hebrew transliterated word "hay" ( חַי ). In contrast, the word in Genesis 1:2 is the English word that is translated as "was", and this is the Hebrew word ( הָיָ֑תָה ) transliterated as "haya".

Yes, the earth became formless and void. Again, scripture as a whole should be consulted, e.g. 2 Peter 3:5,6

The context of 2 Peter 3:5,6 concerns the flood that Noah experienced, not the water-covered world of Genesis 1:2. 2 Peter 3:5,6 doesn't fit the scenario.

No doubt about it, and to assume there was no light before our solar system began doesn't seem likely.

...and it's the sun's radiation that eventually penetrated the clouds during the formation of the earth as described in Job 38:9.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Yet, in Genesis 2:7 the Hebrew word translated in English as "became" is the Hebrew transliterated word "hay" ( חַי ). In contrast, the word in Genesis 1:2 is the English word that is translated as "was", and this is the Hebrew word ( הָיָ֑תָה ) transliterated as "haya".
Yep. There is no essential difference. Moreover, “tehown” has been translated as “the deep“, but is in fact the same word (Greek abussos – abyss) used to refer to the home of demons and evil spirits, the place from which the anti-Christ emerges.
The context of 2 Peter 3:5,6 concerns the flood that Noah experienced, not the water-covered world of Genesis 1:2. 2 Peter 3:5,6 doesn't fit the scenario.
I disagree because Peter explicitly states; "from the beginning of the creation. ", and the flood Noah experienced didn't destroy the heavens, whereas 2 Peter states: "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now,... etc."
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Yet, in Genesis 2:7 the Hebrew word translated in English as "became" is the Hebrew transliterated word "hay" ( חַי ). In contrast, the word in Genesis 1:2 is the English word that is translated as "was", and this is the Hebrew word ( הָיָ֑תָה ) transliterated as "haya".
Haya is a transliteration for the verbal root (היה), not the specific form that appears in Gen 1:2 and which you reproduce above (that would be haytha). Your interlocutor knows no more (and perhaps much less) Hebrew than you do given his/her affirmation of something more serious you claim above that is incorrect. The word חי is a homophone and occurs twice in Gen 2:7, first as the noun 'life' (חיים) and second as the adjective 'living' (חיה) --- in neither case is it the word translated 'became' in the verse. The word underlying this is היה in the form ויהי (vayhi), the same verb found in 1:2. Where your interlocutor errs is in assuming that because it is properly translated 'became' in 2:7 that it can be so translated in 1:2 --- there is an important grammatical feature present in the pertinent clause of 2:7 that is absent from 1:2 and makes the difference. Can you spot it? It is also present in several of the other passages your interlocutor cited (all but Gen 19:26; its presence in 4:3 is irrelevant since 'became' is not a suitable translation there anyway, rather 'came to pass' or 'happened'). This is probably far beyond your present studies in Hebrew, but underscores the importance of moving beyond the basics where any number of exegetical problems occur because subtle matters of grammar and syntax are still elusive. If you're unsure what the grammatical feature I'm referring to is, I'll show you in a follow up post and we can also look at why 'became' is acceptable in Gen 19:26 but not 1:2 based on syntactical concerns...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

inertia

Super Member
Haya is a transliteration for the verbal root (היה), not the specific form that appears in Gen 1:2 and which you reproduce above (that would be haytha).

It seems like hay'ta --- though I see the "he", "yod", "taw", and the "het" with the multiple Qamets tough. That makes sense. הָיָ֑תָה

Your interlocutor knows no more (and perhaps much less) Hebrew than you do given his/her affirmation of something more serious you claim above that is incorrect. The word חי is a homophone and occurs twice in Gen 2:7, first as the noun 'life' (חיים) and second as the adjective 'living' (חיה) --- in neither case is it the word translated 'became' in the verse. The word underlying this is היה in the form ויהי (vayhi), the same verb found in 1:2. Where your interlocutor errs is in assuming that because it is properly translated 'became' in 2:7 that it can be so translated in 1:2 --- there is an important grammatical feature present in the pertinent clause of 2:7 that is absent from 1:2 and makes the difference. Can you spot it?

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

The pertinent clause of 2:7 is "the breath of life ( נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים ) -- became ( וַיְהִי ). A "waw" with a "pathach" verb is included. - genderless
I believe the word translated as "became" is imperfect.

With 1:2 we have "And the earth" ( וְהָאָרֶץ ) was* ( הָיְתָה ). Here the "waw" and "pathach" verb is not used. Feminine gender, singular

Clauses that begin as a "waw + noun -- perfect verb" provide background information at the beginning of a narrative. This indicates that the event was complete.


It is also present in several of the other passages your interlocutor cited (all but Gen 19:26; its presence in 4:3 is irrelevant since 'became' is not a suitable translation there anyway, rather 'came to pass' or 'happened').

Whitefield also went into a lengthy discussion concerning the KJV translator's varied translations. "it came to pass" works a lot if I recall correctly

This is probably far beyond your present studies in Hebrew, but underscores the importance of moving beyond the basics where any number of exegetical problems occur because subtle matters of grammar and syntax are still elusive. If you're unsure what the grammatical feature I'm referring to is, I'll show you in a follow up post and we can also look at why 'became' is acceptable in Gen 19:26 but not 1:2 based on syntactical concerns...

You've got my attention.
 

inertia

Super Member
Yep. There is no essential difference. Moreover, “tehown” has been translated as “the deep“, but is in fact the same word (Greek abussos – abyss) used to refer to the home of demons and evil spirits, the place from which the anti-Christ emerges.

Well, there is a meaningful difference. One can see this too in Genesis 3:1.

"Now the serpent was more shrewd than any of the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Is it really true that God said, 'You must not eat from any tree of the orchard'?" ( underline mine ) This translation of הָיָה is used in every version I have access to except the YLT.

The YLT translates the underlined word "hath been". It is identical to using "had existed", but here using the English word "had" expresses the completed attribute of the action. The use of "had existed" or "was" has the same meaning. The serpent wasn't becoming more shrewd.

In Genesis 2:7 we have the word וַיְהִי instead. It means "come to pass" even though the same root word is employed.

I disagree because Peter explicitly states; "from the beginning of the creation. ", and the flood Noah experienced didn't destroy the heavens, whereas 2 Peter states: "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now,... etc."

Let's take a look.

(2 Peter 3:3-6 ) "Above all, understand this: In the last days blatant scoffers will come, being propelled by their own evil urges and saying, "Where is his promised return? For ever since our ancestors died, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation." For they deliberately suppress this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water. Through these things the world existing at that time was destroyed when it was deluged with water."

Yes, the heavens were not destroyed, but their ancestor's world* was.

The phrase " the world existing at that time" is in reference to "our ancestors" in the previous verse. Further, God promised after the flood that Noah experienced that this would never occur again.

"I confirm my covenant with you: Never again will all living things be wiped out by the waters of a flood; never again will a flood destroy the earth." ( Genesis 9:11 )

Therefore, the deluge must reference the flood that Noah experienced. It is not a comment about a pre-adamic planet that was messed up by a prehistoric and catastrophic event. Those imagined people couldn't be their ancestors after all.

-----------

*
the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
It seems like hay'ta --- though I see the "he", "yod", "taw", and the "het" with the multiple Qamets tough. That makes sense. הָיָ֑תָה
Your vowel pointing here contains a mistake... you reproduce it correctly later on in your post with shewa as the second vowel, at which point the first syllable becomes closed, though I have no objections to you marking the presence of the shewa with ' or even giving it some rushed pronunciation as I've heard it recited this way.

Okay, I'll give it a shot.
Kudos for the attempt.

The pertinent clause of 2:7 is "the breath of life ( נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים ) -- became ( וַיְהִי ). A "waw" with a "pathach" verb is included. - genderless
I believe the word translated as "became" is imperfect.

With 1:2 we have "And the earth" ( וְהָאָרֶץ ) was* ( הָיְתָה ). Here the "waw" and "pathach" verb is not used. Feminine gender, singular

Clauses that begin as a "waw + noun -- perfect verb" provide background information at the beginning of a narrative.
Funny you should say what I bold and underline above... a matter to which we will no doubt return as the thread progresses. As for the grammatical feature present in 2:7 but absent in 1:2 that legitimizes the translation "became" in the first case but not the second, you have yet to touch on it. The pertinent verb in 2:7 is masculine (matching its subject) and is a special form of the imperfect... neither of these grammatical facts are germane; word order is also not relevant here to the translation "became". The clause to focus on is ויהי האדם לנפש חיה (and the man became a living being) --- what do you notice about the predicate noun that is different from 1:2?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
In Genesis 2:7 we have the word וַיְהִי instead. It means "come to pass" even though the same root word is employed.
No, "come to pass" (or "came to pass") is not an acceptable translation of ויהי in Gen 2:7 --- it is correctly translated "became" with the understanding that the prefixing vav pulls double duty... it joins the clause to that which precedes it (thus the subject is prefaced with the conjunction "and") and it converts the imperfect to perfect (note the special form of the imperfect to which I referred in my previous post).

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

inertia

Super Member
No, "come to pass" (or "came to pass") is not an acceptable translation of ויהי in Gen 2:7 --- it is correctly translated "became" with the understanding that the prefixing vav pulls double duty... it joins the clause to that which precedes it (thus the subject is prefaced with the conjunction "and") and it converts the imperfect to perfect (note the special form of the imperfect to which I referred in my previous post).

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Yes! I studied the imperfect --> perfect not too long ago. ( I knew there was more...) Thanks
 

inertia

Super Member
Funny you should say what I bold and underline above... a matter to which we will no doubt return as the thread progresses. As for the grammatical feature present in 2:7 but absent in 1:2 that legitimizes the translation "became" in the first case but not the second, you have yet to touch on it. The pertinent verb in 2:7 is masculine (matching its subject) and is a special form of the imperfect... neither of these grammatical facts are germane; word order is also not relevant here to the translation "became". The clause to focus on is ויהי האדם לנפש חיה (and the man became a living being) --- what do you notice about the predicate noun that is different from 1:2?

Genesis 1:2, ESV: [and] The earth was...( וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה )
Genesis 2:7, ESV: and the man became a living creature...( וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. ) As you said word order isn't relevant here. hmm...

Even better: " חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. "

Focusing:
the man ( הָאָדָם ) "the adam"--- the earth ( הָאָרֶץ ) "the erets": By themselves the nouns are singular, and in context, mankind simply doesn't work.

The difference between them is that 2:7 provides a linking verb, namely, life ( חַיִּים ) and living ( חַיָּה ).
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Genesis 1:2, ESV: [and] The earth was...( וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה )
Genesis 2:7, ESV: and the man became a living creature...( וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. ) As you said word order isn't relevant here. hmm...

Even better: " חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. "

Focusing:
the man ( הָאָדָם ) "the adam"--- the earth ( הָאָרֶץ ) "the erets": By themselves the nouns are singular, and in context, mankind simply doesn't work.

The difference between them is that 2:7 provides a linking verb, namely, life ( חַיִּים ) and living ( חַיָּה ).
Hmm, it seems we need to go back to the basics of subject and predicate. Let's compare the pertinent clauses of Gen 1:2 and 2:7, putting the subjects in blue and the predicates in green:

Gen 1:2 --- והארץ היתה תהו ובהו
Gen 2:7 --- ויהי האדם לנפש חיה

The subjects are 'the earth' and 'the man' respectively; the predicates are 'was a formless void' and 'became a living being' respectively. As noted in my earlier post, the pertinent differential concerns the predicate noun... in the clause of 2:7, that is the word 'being' (נפש), There is something different about it in comparison to the predicate nouns in 1:2. It is not the fact there is one predicate noun versus two forming a hendiadys, nor is it the fact that one is being modified by an adjective. What else is there in 2:7 but not in 1:2?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

e v e

Super Member
this earth did not exist until noah time.

Genesis is not talking about this earth or the type of light of this current sun,
which will go dark soon.
 

e v e

Super Member
the term earth does refer to an earth, just not this one that came to be after the fall and was a result of the fall.
the same for sky...this per hieroglyphs is "second sky", and that is factually true.

both this sky and earth will be destroyed.
 

inertia

Super Member
this earth did not exist until noah time.

Well, I trust Jesus about this.

"Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,..." (Matthew 19:4)

Reference: Genesis 1:27 during the formation of the earth.

Genesis is not talking about this earth or the type of light of this current sun,
which will go dark soon.

I disagree, of course.
 

inertia

Super Member
the term earth does refer to an earth, just not this one that came to be after the fall and was a result of the fall.
the same for sky...this per hieroglyphs is "second sky", and that is factually true.

both this sky and earth will be destroyed.

Eden and the fall are not subjects that can be grasped by astronomy or astrophysics.
 

inertia

Super Member
Hmm, it seems we need to go back to the basics of subject and predicate. Let's compare the pertinent clauses of Gen 1:2 and 2:7, putting the subjects in blue and the predicates in green:

Gen 1:2 --- והארץ היתה תהו ובהו
Gen 2:7 --- ויהי האדם לנפש חיה

The subjects are 'the earth' and 'the man' respectively; the predicates are 'was a formless void' and 'became a living being' respectively. As noted in my earlier post, the pertinent differential concerns the predicate noun... in the clause of 2:7, that is the word 'being' (נפש), There is something different about it in comparison to the predicate nouns in 1:2. It is not the fact there is one predicate noun versus two forming a hendiadys, nor is it the fact that one is being modified by an adjective. What else is there in 2:7 but not in 1:2?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Working on it...

Quick unrelated question: Why is "and the earth (land)" considered feminine? ( וְהָאָרֶץ )

Endless feminine nouns usually end with הָ / חַ / חֶ for example.
____

Nevermind - The suffix ה of "was" is feminine gender indicating the subject אָרֶץ is the same gender.

.

waw + noun -- perfect verb construction

complete before Genesis 1:3

.
 
Last edited:

inertia

Super Member
Hmm, it seems we need to go back to the basics of subject and predicate. Let's compare the pertinent clauses of Gen 1:2 and 2:7, putting the subjects in blue and the predicates in green:

Gen 1:2 --- והארץ היתה תהו ובהו
Gen 2:7 --- ויהי האדם לנפש חיה

The subjects are 'the earth' and 'the man' respectively; the predicates are 'was a formless void' and 'became a living being' respectively. As noted in my earlier post, the pertinent differential concerns the predicate noun... in the clause of 2:7, that is the word 'being' (נפש), There is something different about it in comparison to the predicate nouns in 1:2. It is not the fact there is one predicate noun versus two forming a hendiadys, nor is it the fact that one is being modified by an adjective. What else is there in 2:7 but not in 1:2?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

The word לְנֶפֶשׁ is the word נֶפֶשׁ prefixed by "lamed" לְ with a non-vocal shewa and has the meaning "to" indicating an achievement described
- by נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. [ seghol vowel pattern noted - indicating singular ]

"nephesh the living"

The KJV translates this as "a living soul".

On the other hand, the phrase "formless and void"
תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ in 1:2 isn't prefixed with the "lamed" לְ with a non-vocal shewa.
.
 

inertia

Super Member
Thread notice:

I will be vacationing next week*, but I am planning to be back the following week.

.........
* June 20th - 25th
 
Top