Genesis 1:1 - Should this verse be read as a title?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 тра 2024
- If Genesis 1:1 is a complete sentence, what is its function? Does it narrate God's very first act of creation or does it summarize the narrative that follows, thus functioning as a title/summary statement?
In this video, I interact with the main arguments for reading Genesis 1:1 as a title/summary statement:
1) If God's initial act of creation is being described, this would make the succeeding narrative inconsistent.
2) If God's initial act of creation is being described, this would imply that God created a chaotic world.
3) Gen 1:1 is parallel with Gen 2:4.
4) Starting the Genesis narrative at 1:2 would accord with other cosmogonic accounts of the Ancient Near East.
Slight clarification: I said (37:00) that there are only two books in the Bible that start with a vav that's not part of a vav-consecutive: 1 Kings and Ezra. I was talking here about books that are narratival (as opposed to oracular, didactic, poetic, etc.). It's true that Exodus and 1 Chronicles - both of which can be classified as "narratival" - also start with vavs. But those books both open with non-narrative segments. Exodus begins a listing of names and 1 Chronicles with an extended genealogy. The actual narrative section in Exodus begins in 1:6, which reads: וַיָּמָת יוֹסֵף. I'm not sure where the narrative begins in 1 Chron, but I think that book is difficult to classify as a narrative since it's so packed with genealogies.
My translation of Gen. 1:1 reads "In a beginning Elohim created the heaven and earth." This is because of John 1:1 "In THE beginning was the Word.
No, the firmament was simply existing just not explaining the waters above and waters below. And the separate ice and waters. However, the surety was not wholly told about who separated the waters to the point it crushed up mountains and allowed atmosphere into the space part. BTW, we can ask if God was in the beginning..now that bargains who or what was the beginning
Ok, but isn't to acknowledge that textual exegesis is debatable at all to also present evidence that isn't the word of god in the first place?
Surely an all powerful all knowing all wise and all loving being wouldn´t leave a book of utmost importance open to interpretation.
What do you mean by "all loving"?
@@MichaelVFlowers Don´t christians describe their god as all loving ?
It should be interpreted for what it is: baselessly asserted nonsense.
not to mention grocely immoral.
😂😂 you can use the Bible anyway you want😂😂😂