Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | CDBJ | 17565 | ||
I have long been confused over what the Bible says and what man has found for his evidence as to the length of time that the Earth has been around. I use to spend many days listening to professors expatiate on their theories regarding the age of certain periods of time. Later on, after becoming a Christian, I was subjected to a different concept as to the age of the Earth and it's living matter. I always had a struggle in my mind because there is so much evidence around that shows the Earth to be much older then our theologians are teaching us: Or are they both right? I read a booklet one day that cleared the whole matter up for me with one word in the Hebrew that can be translated several ways. It was stated by this individual, who happens to have a master's degree in the Hebrew language, that the word (was) in Genesis 1:2 could and should be translated (became). He spent the rest of the book explaining creation in it's proper prospective and it all made sense with what my geology professors taught. What man has found actually backs up what the Bible teaches. If you would like you can contact me by e-mail, and I will tell you where you can get a copy of the booklet. I am not going to try and explain a whole booklet on a forum though. CDBJ | ||||||
2 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 17670 | ||
Greetings CDBJ! As I have already pointed out, my Hebrew is very rusting. So, I am not qualified to address this very difficult issue with any authority. From what I have read though, 'hayah' can mean either 'was' or 'became'. However, there appear to be two reasons why it cannot mean 'became' in Gen. 1:2. My source is the commentary on Genesis written by Victor P. Hamilton. Dr. Hamilton is professor of religion at Asbury College and a contributor to the Theological Wordbook on the Old Testament (a standard reference work for Hebrew word meanings). He gives the following two reasons for rejecting the translation of 'hayah' as 'became' in Gen. 1:2. ********************************************* "Now, at time the verb 'to be' in the perfect tense can have an obvious active force. Certainly 3:22 says, 'Behold, the man has become (haya) like one of us.' But for two reasons it cannot have this force in 1:2. First, if the writer had intended v.2 to be read as a sequence to v. 1, he would never have used the construction he did: waw consecutive plus subject plus verb (in the perfect). Instead, it would be: waw conversive attached to the verb (in the imperfect) plus subject. Thus, one would expect wattehi ha'ares rather than what we do have: weha'ares hayeta. Second, in other circumstanital clauses the verb haya in the perfect tense normally carries its stative sense (3:1, 'the serpent was wiser'; 29:16, 'and Rachel was pretty'; 34:5, 'his sons had been (or were) in the field'; Exod. 1:5, 'and Joseph was in Egypt'; Jon. 3:3, 'now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city'). The burden of proof, then, is upon those who insist that here we have an instance of haya in a circumstantial clause with the meaning 'became.'" *********************************************** Like I said, I am not qualified to judge the merits of his arguments. I simply offer it so that you can compare it with your booklet. Your Brother in Christ, (who needs to start brushing up on his Hebrew) :-), Tim Moran |
||||||