Genesis 1:2

David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Genesis 1:2

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. Genesis 1:2

The earth was formless and waste, only water, but God’s spirit, or active force was moving about. What is the spirit? In this verse the Hebrew word weruach is used. Ruach can be translated spirit, wind (Genesis 8:1), breeze (Genesis 3:8); in a basic sense the word means “breath,” though there are other applications such as the ones mentioned above. Any invisible active force, in other words something you can’t see but that produces results. Spirit can also be mental inclination. A mean spirited person, for example. The Greek word corresponding to the Hebrew ruach is pneuma from which the English words pneumatic and pneumonia are derived.


 

An American Translation of 1939 translates Genesis 1:2 as “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was a desolate waste, with darkness covering the abyss and a tempestuous wind [Hebrew ruach] raging over the surface of the waters.”


 

Earlier, in verse 1 it was established that the sun and moon had already been created. But Genesis 1:2 says it was dark upon the watery deep. Where the KJV uses deep the Hebrew thehohm / Greek abysou / Latin abysi is used. Abyss. Apparently there was a band of water vapor, gasses and dust that prevented the light from the sun from shinning upon the earth. This becomes evident in later verses.


 

The earth was formless and waste, only water, but God’s spirit, or active force was moving about. What is the spirit? In this verse the Hebrew word weruach is used. Ruach can be translated spirit, wind (Genesis 8:1), breeze (Genesis 3:8); in a basic sense the word means “breath,” though there are other applications such as the ones mentioned above. Any invisible active force, in other words something you can’t see but that produces results. Spirit can also be mental inclination. A mean spirited person, for example. The Greek word corresponding to the Hebrew ruach is pneuma from which the English words pneumatic and pneumonia are derived.


 

An American Translation of 1939 translates Genesis 1:2 as “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was a desolate waste, with darkness covering the abyss and a tempestuous wind [Hebrew ruach] raging over the surface of the waters.”


 

Earlier, in verse 1 it was established that the sun and moon had already been created. But Genesis 1:2 says it was dark upon the watery deep. Where the KJV uses deep the Hebrew thehohm / Greek abysou / Latin abysi is used. Abyss. Apparently there was a band of water vapor, gasses and dust that prevented the light from the sun from shinning upon the earth. This becomes evident in later verses.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:And the

David Henson wrote:

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. Genesis 1:2

The earth was formless and waste, only water, but God’s spirit, or active force was moving about. What is the spirit? In this verse the Hebrew word weruach is used. Ruach can be translated spirit, wind (Genesis 8:1), breeze (Genesis 3:8); in a basic sense the word means “breath,” though there are other applications such as the ones mentioned above. Any invisible active force, in other words something you can’t see but that produces results. Spirit can also be mental inclination. A mean spirited person, for example. The Greek word corresponding to the Hebrew ruach is pneuma from which the English words pneumatic and pneumonia are derived.


An American Translation of 1939 translates Genesis 1:2 as “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was a desolate waste, with darkness covering the abyss and a tempestuous wind [Hebrew ruach] raging over the surface of the waters.”

Earlier, in verse 1 it was established that the sun and moon had already been created. But Genesis 1:2 says it was dark upon the watery deep. Where the KJV uses deep the Hebrew thehohm / Greek abysou / Latin abysi is used. Abyss. Apparently there was a band of water vapor, gasses and dust that prevented the light from the sun from shinning upon the earth. This becomes evident in later verses.

 

I don't know how that repeated in the earlier post. I have a hell of a time with this odd textarea editor. Always have.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Do you have other evidence

Do you have other evidence for this "apparent" layer of water vapor, dust (not sure how this happened without land or rock around) and impenetrable gases or is this expressly your opinion based on what you believe the Hebrew says?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Do you have

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you have other evidence for this "apparent" layer of water vapor, dust (not sure how this happened without land or rock around) and impenetrable gases or is this expressly your opinion based on what you believe the Hebrew says?

 

This is my opinion based on what the Hebrew says. The science of it is up to you and of very little interest to me.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So it's not a "scientific

So it's not a "scientific investigation as you claimed earlier? It's really all about you pontificating on what you think the Hebrew means? Will your definitions adjust if they are disputed?

Nice little time waster, that.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So it's not a

jcgadfly wrote:

So it's not a "scientific investigation as you claimed earlier? It's really all about you pontificating on what you think the Hebrew means? Will your definitions adjust if they are disputed?

Nice little time waster, that.

That's where I lost interest too.  I didn't realize these were just Biblical linguistic study threads.  I won't care unless he tries to say that there was *actually* a water canopy around the planet and that enabled people to live for hundreds of years.

But I don't think he will, because he's not an idiot.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So it's not a

jcgadfly wrote:

So it's not a "scientific investigation as you claimed earlier? It's really all about you pontificating on what you think the Hebrew means? Will your definitions adjust if they are disputed?

Nice little time waster, that.

Since there appears to be no semblance of what we could call disputation I am going to just have a little fun with your fragile science mind in its stead. Having said that, unasked, I give you my darkest plans regarding the future and science.

I plan on bringing to light to the global community the evils of science! And seeing it destroyed in name of the religious!

The quixotic undertones of the social sidewalk scientists we shall war with in the coming dark storm. Their Utopian quasi spiritualism having been born from the gleam in Sagan's eyes - even retarded in intellectual growth from their false prophet's (like, er, Bill or Bob) eternal grasp at the mundane MUST be crushed before it is the propaganda being force-fed our poor stupid children of the Electric Circus to our destruction!!

 TO WAR!!!!

Only joking. Only a fool would think there is anything to prove. Science is just the imperfect speculation of mankind in his infancy. Either the Bible is just that or it is something more. I think it is something more. All you need to do is get the science chip off your shoulder - here in the Bible Errancy forum, and demonstrate your objection sensibly. 

In other words, put simply, piss or get off the pot.  


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:jcgadfly

mellestad wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So it's not a "scientific investigation as you claimed earlier? It's really all about you pontificating on what you think the Hebrew means? Will your definitions adjust if they are disputed?

Nice little time waster, that.

That's where I lost interest too.  I didn't realize these were just Biblical linguistic study threads.  I won't care unless he tries to say that there was *actually* a water canopy around the planet and that enabled people to live for hundreds of years.

But I don't think he will, because he's not an idiot.

HA! Wrong again, my little atheistic pal! Er, about the water canopy, that is. Not that I'm not an idiot. (Oh, this is going to maybe fun!)

We don't get to the water canopy as you state it until 2 Peter 3:5-6. I doubt if we will collectively make it to chapter 2 of Genesis.  


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Christ preserve

Christ preserve us.

 

Really?

 

I guess now is the time to back away slowly, whilst avoiding eye contact?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Christ

mellestad wrote:

Christ preserve us.

 

Really?

 

I guess now is the time to back away slowly, whilst avoiding eye contact?

 

 

The sun isn't yellow, Mel, its chicken.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
 

Smiling

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So it's not a "scientific investigation as you claimed earlier? It's really all about you pontificating on what you think the Hebrew means? Will your definitions adjust if they are disputed?

Nice little time waster, that.

Since there appears to be no semblance of what we could call disputation I am going to just have a little fun with your fragile science mind in its stead. Having said that, unasked, I give you my darkest plans regarding the future and science.

I plan on bringing to light to the global community the evils of science! And seeing it destroyed in name of the religious!

The quixotic undertones of the social sidewalk scientists we shall war with in the coming dark storm. Their Utopian quasi spiritualism having been born from the gleam in Sagan's eyes - even retarded in intellectual growth from their false prophet's (like, er, Bill or Bob) eternal grasp at the mundane MUST be crushed before it is the propaganda being force-fed our poor stupid children of the Electric Circus to our destruction!!

 TO WAR!!!!

Only joking. Only a fool would think there is anything to prove. Science is just the imperfect speculation of mankind in his infancy. Either the Bible is just that or it is something more. I think it is something more. All you need to do is get the science chip off your shoulder - here in the Bible Errancy forum, and demonstrate your objection sensibly. 

In other words, put simply, piss or get off the pot.  

I don't have an objection to your opinion. I simply take it for the assertion that it is. If you don't feel strongly enough about your view to support it why should I waste time disputing it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh, so you are starting a

Oh, so you are starting a thread about 1:2. Let's see how many Nobel Prizes we can win with this verse.

David Henson wrote:

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. Genesis 1:2

The earth was formless and waste, only water, but God’s spirit, or active force was moving about.

Oh, so "without form" means that it's covered in water? Nice. How'd you make that conclusion?

David Henson wrote:
What is the spirit? In this verse the Hebrew word weruach is used. Ruach can be translated spirit, wind (Genesis 8:1), breeze (Genesis 3:8); in a basic sense the word means “breath,” though there are other applications such as the ones mentioned above. Any invisible active force, in other words something you can’t see but that produces results. Spirit can also be mental inclination. A mean spirited person, for example. The Greek word corresponding to the Hebrew ruach is pneuma from which the English words pneumatic and pneumonia are derived. 

An American Translation of 1939 translates Genesis 1:2 as “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was a desolate waste, with darkness covering the abyss and a tempestuous wind [Hebrew ruach] raging over the surface of the waters.”

Okay, so how do you know if it's God's breath, a slight breeze or a "tempestuous wind?"

David Henson wrote:
Earlier, in verse 1 it was established that the sun and moon had already been created.

No, you don't get to assume that. You haven't established that yet.

David Henson wrote:
But Genesis 1:2 says it was dark upon the watery deep.

It doesn't say watery deep. It just says "the face of the deep." It does say "face of the water" in the next sentence, so maybe that implies that deep=water. 

David Henson wrote:
Where the KJV uses deep the Hebrew thehohm / Greek abysou / Latin abysi is used. Abyss. Apparently there was a band of water vapor, gasses and dust that prevented the light from the sun from shinning upon the earth. This becomes evident in later verses.

Oh, so the Bible is already demonstrating even more intricate knowledge of reality. Yay! And it's only the second verse!

Of course, nowhere in those two verses does it talk about a layer of particles blocking the sun, even by a long stretch. But hey, who cares what the text literally says, right? We have to search for "deeper" interpretations to figure out God's "real" message. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I don't have

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't have an objection to your opinion. I simply take it for the assertion that it is. If you don't feel strongly enough about your view to support it why should I waste time disputing it?

 

What assertion was that, exactly?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:jcgadfly

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't have an objection to your opinion. I simply take it for the assertion that it is. If you don't feel strongly enough about your view to support it why should I waste time disputing it?

 

What assertion was that, exactly?

The ones that aren't based in the text, you know - all of them.

Examples:

formless or formed of water?

breath or tempest?

the "apparent" water/dust/gas cloud that blocks out the light that hasn't been created yet

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:David Henson

jcgadfly wrote:

David Henson wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't have an objection to your opinion. I simply take it for the assertion that it is. If you don't feel strongly enough about your view to support it why should I waste time disputing it?

 

What assertion was that, exactly?

The ones that aren't based in the text, you know - all of them.

Examples:

formless or formed of water?

breath or tempest?

the "apparent" water/dust/gas cloud that blocks out the light that hasn't been created yet

 

Which is exactly why I'm trying to get you all to consider each verse one at a time. As we consider verses 1 through 16 you will have come to a more accurate understanding of the Hebrew bara, asah, ohr and maohr which would clear it all up.