Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

I think this is it. It may not be the best reference but so far you have provided no references that the rabbis agree with your interpretation. But the prefix in the text isn't u'va, it's be. the translation is "in the day", meaning "when". You didn't present evidence that it should be "on the day". You changed the prefix be to u'va. You keep switching back and forth between Hebrew and English. In English, it most certainly does make a difference whether you use "in" or "on". "On the day" refers to a specific 24-hour day. "In the day" refers to a period of time of unspecified duration. You wouldn't hear anybody saying in English, "In the day of my wedding."You can't have it both ways. You can't insist that it doesn't matter in Hebrew and at the same time insist that the KJV is an accurate translation of the Hebrew. In the KJV, "in" is used, so it doesn't mean one day. Sure. The question remains: Why are you the only person on earth who understands it? Why didn't the KJV translators understand it? Yes, the KJV uses the phrase "in the day" which means "when" in English, so it doesn't support your position.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

But you think they were written by the same individual and that one refers to the other, that they're both parts of one bigger story.I'm saying they are totally different, from different generations, with one having nothing to do with the other.You even say so yourself: so which is it? Yes, I know you think this, but you're wrong. Gen 2 does not refer to Gen 1.You've given no compelling reason to think it does other than one line using the same words that are found in the other. Whoopty-do. Actually, you seem to be saying it is even less than that: Besides that, you've already been shown to be wrong about that by Ringo. But I already know that evidence won't change your mind and you'll avoid having to admit any error in the Bible at any cost. Actually, that is sad that your entire faith is a house of cards.But you're wrong here too that if these two stories don't make sense then the Bible is a lie and nothing in it is true. There's no reason to think that at all.'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you' is a timeless truth regardless of what errancies it is placed next to. It, itself, is not a lie even if it is presented next to a falsehood.From my same source:

quote:

---

Notwithstanding the differences and discrepancies noticeable in the two accounts of the origin of, mankind, the narratives are nevertheless in substantial agreement, and in the esteem of the majority of scholars they are easiest explained and reconciled if considered as representing two varying traditions among the Hebrews traditions which in different form and setting embodied the selfsame central historic facts, together with a presentation more or less symbolical of certain moral and religious truths.

---

But you only think that because the alternative would cause your entire faith to come crashing down and you're going to avoid that no matter what. I see you left out versus 25 and 26...Is that because it is just too big of a coincidence for the people in the light period to have had the same names for their sons in the same order as given in the very next chapter in the generations of Adam, like I refuted your whole affirmations with before?What do you do with those passages then? But you just made that up to avoid any errancy, so why should I think there's any truth to it?

You are of course, free to disagree with just about anything, however, the division between Genesis 2:4a and 2:4b is accepted just as I posted it. Because they were written by two different peoples with two different ideas about what God was and two different creation myths to reach two different audiences with two different messages, and creation itself is just a plot device in both stories.The myth found in Genesis 2&3 begins at "When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-" and the younger myth plus redacted inserts ends at " 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. " After that period a new story starts.And don't forget, both myths are factually wrong.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi ringo, That book was published in 1986.The one given for a reference which the material you presented was support for that material was printed in 1977 So they can not be the same book.If you google this taken from Message 527 : You will get ThisThe book used to support the claims of your source does not exist. Where do you get the information that the prefix means be, or with?You sure did not get it from Here.This intermediate text book says:
ב meaning In, on, with, by
They give an example of the soft sound being on the day. You have made a big to do about "In Grandpa's day".So explain the difference in:In Grandpa's day he killed old betsy his cow.On Grandpa's day he killed old betsy his cow.In the day Grandpa killed old betsy his cow.On the day Grandpa killed old betsy his cow.Which one of those specify a specific day? Why not?The Hebrew language has a definite article.Explain the difference in the following.In the day I got married I wrecked my truck.On the day I got married I wrecked my truck. I asked for idioms and you give me a list of 78 phrases of which many are not in the Bible.Could you point out the phrases you you consider to be idioms rather than a statement of fact. Why do we not have a spacecraft we can go to the new planet just discovered and see if it has water on it?Would it be because no one has figured out or understand how to do that yet? I am going to get in the car.I am going to when the car.Explain how those two sentences say the same thing.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I'll let the audience to decide the value of the reference for themselves. I'll also remind them that you haven't provided any references that support your position. None of those are English usage. We would say, "In grandpa's day, people did their own butchering," which refers to grandpa's lifetime and more. If we were referring to a specific day, we'd say, "On Saturday, grandpa killed old Betsy," or, "On his birthday, grandpa killed old Betsy.""On" specifies a day, "in" does not. We say "in winter" when we don't mean a specific day. The difference is that "in the day I got married" isn't English usage. It makes no more sense than "above the day I got married" or "outside the day I got married". Surely you're not trying to argue that all prepositions are interchangeable. The references are right there. You can use an idiom to state a fact. It just isn't stated literally. Of course, you run the risk of some idiot taking you literally and working for 49 years to invent a cats-and-dogs-proof umbrella. That isn't an equivalent situation. You're claiming that you're the only person on earth who understands the first two chapters of Genesis. That's equivalent to claiming that you're the only person on earth who knows how to build a spacecraft to go to that planet. As I've been trying to explain to you, they don't say the same thing because prepositions are not interchangeable. That's why "in the day" has a different meaning from "on the day". Getting "in the car" is also different from getting "on the car" but both are literal statements, not idioms.Sometimes, different prepositions can be used to convey the same meaning. For instance:"When grandpa killed Betsy, there were no video cameras, so there's no video record of the event.""In grandpa's day, there were no video cameras, so there's no video record of him killing Betsy."Neither specifies a single day. Both describe ongoing situations of uncertain duration.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Hi CS, Yes I hold the traditional view. Source SourceSo I am not alone.The Documentary Hypothesis which you seem to hold. SourceI think I will stick with the old belief that Moses wrote the Torah rather than the story put forth by a bunch of liberals who don't believe in God to begin with. Yes I believe they are two different stories about two different events. They are linked in that one follows the other.There is one creation event in which the Heaven and the Earth is created. Genesis 1:1.Genesis 2:4 tells us the following things is the history of the day the LORD God created the Heaven and the earth.The younger story begins with Genesis 1:2 and ends with Genesis 2:3.The Generations of that story begins in Genesis 5:1. Genesis 2:4 if this verse does not refer to Genesis1:1, what does it refer too when it says, "These are the generations (history) of the Heaven and the Earth when they were created? No such thing has been produced. Only hand waving. If Genesis 1:1 is not correct the house of cards has already falled.The entire Bible depends upon that sentence being a fact.Eternity depends upon that fact. No I think that because the text recorded in the KJV, LXX, and Torah support that position. The original text did not have verses and chapters.So my division is as good as anyone else's.But that is not the reason I say they don't belong to the story of chapter 2.In the story in chapter 2 we have a man and a woman placed in a garden to keep it. How long they were in this garden before the woman was deceived is not revealed.They were then kicked out of the garden and there is no date given for the birth of their first son Cain.Neither is there any date given for the birth of Abel or how old he was when Cain killed him.Sisters had to be born for Cain to have a wife and no date is given for their birth.We do know that Cain did have a wife that bore him a son named Enoch.Cain built a city and named it after Enoch.Enoch had a son named Irad, who had a son named Methusael who had a son named Lamech who had two sons Jabal and Jubal.Seven generations of people using the length of 20 years as proposed for biblical times would mean by verse 25 of chapter 4 the man would be 140 years old.This man comes from the older story in chapter 2 and was formed from the dust of the ground.Therefore he can not be the man from the younger story who was created in the image/likeness of God.But according to Genesis 5:3 the man that was created in the image/likeness of God had a son he named Seth.This man comes from the younger story in chapter 1.You did not refute anything before.How can you have a man in an old story be the same man in a much younger story? How could the man and his descendants who lived in an extended light period of the day God created the heaven and the Earth exist at Genesis 1:2?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ringo, So you are saying I am incorrect when I say:In the day I built the dog house I also built a vanity cabinet.How long did it take me to build the dog house and vanity cabinet?I say during winter or during summer, or during the lifetime of someone.But why do you still disagree with the writers of the text book used to teach Hebrew as to the definition of ב
which is, in, on, by, and with. Then they give the example that when soft it translates as "on the day". It ain't Greek.So why isn't it English.According to the rules of English when you use 'in', the fact of an enclosed space is implicit.So if it were to be used concerning a day it would mean in that specific day as it does in my example of building the dog house and cabinet. I searched the Bible and I could not find "raining cats and dogs in it". SourceWhich one of these are you really talking about? Nope. I make no such claim.There are a lot of men that understand what Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 say.Just like there a lot of people who understands our universe and travel in it. The problem is we don't have a spacecraft that can withstand the pressure and heat it would receive at the speeds necessary to reach those far away places and we do not have a propulsion system to propel the spaceship at the speed necessary.The problem with those men who understand what Genesis chapter 1 and2 says is their understanding is flawed by what they have been told all their life that it says.The YEC"S are the only one's that disagree with an old earth. Day age proponents agree, OEC proponents agree. They even agree that the Earth had inhabitants some saying a pre-adamic man and or angels.So there are a lot of folks who agree with me they just don't agree that the man formed from the dust of the Earth was the father of that race that lived before the man created in the image/likeness of God.So maybe some day someone will come along and understand our problem with material and propulsion and solve the problem. Betsy only died one time.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Because they didn't say that the example prepositions meant the same thing. In English (not "on English"), we use different prepositions for subtly different purposes - e.g. "at 10 AM, on Tuesday" or "in summer, on my birthday". The KJV translators understood those differences. Why don't you? Because English-speaking people don't use it. They also don't use "beside 2 o'clock" or "after the roof" or "while night". Not at all. Since they all say the same thing, all of them. The expression "in the day" can't be understood by simplistically adding the meanings of the separate words together. You claim to be the only one whose understanding isn't flawed.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Hi ringo, The definition of ב is, in, on, with, and by.How do you determine which of these to use in Genesis 2:4 when placed in front of יןם ? Does "in the day" in this verse refer to an age, or long period of time?If so please explain.The Hebrew word ביןם is the word translated "in the day".What part of the day does ביןם in Genesis 22:4 cover? The first word in the Hebrew text is ביןם.
We have the preposition ב in, on, with, by.

We have the word [size=4]יןם[/size]
                 day

Translation of written text would be "In day""Then on the third" is the first English phrase which is the second word in the Hebrew sentence.
The second word in the Hebrew text is השלישי

We have the prefix [size=4] ה[/size]
   definite article the

We have the Hebrew word [size=4] שלישי[/size]
                            third

I have never heard those phrases used either.But I have heard statements like, "I'll come across on the way home." Translation
I'll come to your house on my way home. This Source disagrees with you as it says in is a place that is enclosed or within boundaries.Can you tell me the difference between being "in the street" and "on the street"?Can you tell me the difference between "in day" and "on day" because with further study I can find no reason for the definite article to be applied to the prefix ב. It was just added by the translators to make the sentence read smoother. I make no such claim.I do claim my version is correct. That does not make it correct.
In 45 years no Scholar has convinced me my version is wrong.Convince me that יןם is not a light period. The writer of Genesis wrote God called light יןם Our translators uses day to describe that period of light. "the" is added by the translaters.Literal reading would be "In beginning created God the heaven and the earth." This verse claims to be the record, history, generations of the day the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth.I can't help it if I am crazy enough to believe the light period (day) in which God created the Heaven and the Earth did not end until God declared day one ended with the morning of the second day.The translators translated אחד the number one as the first רלישין in 1:5So when God declared day one in Genesis 1:5 ended with morning that leaves no room for prior days. It was just a light period until it ended in Genesis 1:5 with the morning of the second day.The cardinal number was used for day one in Genesis 1:5 all other numbers for day in Genesis chapter 1 is ordinal numbers.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

"In the day", in English, refers to an indeterminate period of time, not necessarily a long period but definitely longer than a 24-hour day. The day in Genesis 22 is not related to the day in Genesis 5. There are subtle differences. "In the street" usually means "off the sidewalk" but not always. "Into the street" means more specifically "off the sidewalk". You can be "on the sidewalk" but not "in the sidewalk".In French, they even have different kinds of "in". They have different words for "in" France and "in" the house. Also, they say "in" France but "at" the United States.But "in the day" is a specific idiom which is fundamentally different from "on the day".Prepositions are not for the simple-minded.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Hi ringo, That is not an answer to the question but an aversion.The question was what day does "in the day" in Genesis 5:1 refer too?It has to point to a specific day.ORIt has to point to a period of time, age or whatever else you want to call it. Is it the same word?Is it in the same book?When did the meaning or application change? Then you just missed a chance at teaching as you ignored most of my post.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Nope. Not in the same book.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I presume you mean "evasion". For God's sake, at least read your own posts. The question was:

quote:

---

Does "in the day" in this verse refer to an age, or long period of time?

---

That's the question I answered.You asked later what the day in Genesis 22:4 referred to. The meaning or application of any word changes with the context. One step at a time, Grasshopper. When you understand simple English, we can move ahead.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Hi ringo, Nope I meant what I said. It was the same question just worded differently you was not going to say it was talking about the light portion of day six. Your answer from Is an assertion not an answer to the question. It is talking about one specific light period of day six.The answer is found here. Man referenced in Genesis 5:1 was created in the light portion of the sixth day.So you can assert all you want that "in the day" can not mean a specific light period of a day all you want too. You won't convince me as this is evidence that it can and does. That is unless it is "in the day"I asked other questions you did not answer also. I assume everything else in Message 549 is correct as you didn't address it.God Bess,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Actually, it doesn't say anything about light at all. He might just as well have been created in the dark. Don't assume anything. As I said, there's no point in covering a lot of other points until you understand that "in the day" does not refer to a specific day. All of your other points depend on that one, so your whole argument is already dead in the water.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi