An Exegesis of Genesis 1 & 2

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/04/27/genesis-one-historical-critical-perspective

[CoAspen]

Most interesting, had not read it before. For me, I like the methods the author used in the short study.

[Samie]

It's good reading, Gregory.  Thanks.

But there is one statement I can't agree with, for the time being:

Quote

There can be no doubt that Genesis 1 intends to say that all the heavenly lights, the stars included, were created on the fourth day.

I think Gen 1:16 says otherwise:

     KJV Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

     NRS Genesis 1:16 God made the two great lights-- the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-- and the stars.

The verse says: God made two great lights.   Just TWO (2): the greater light and the lesser light; hence, the stars are EXCLUDED.  God MADE 2 great lights on day 4: sun - the greater light, and the moon - the lesser light.

But what about the stars which are also mentioned in v16?

The New RSV (NRS) is faithful to the Hebrew text, as the author himself acknowledges (emphasis mine):

Quote

“He made the stars also.” As it stands in the Revised Standard Version translation this phrase seems to have been tacked on at the last minute as a secondary thought. Indeed some scientists and theologians, wishing to harmonize the Genesis 1 account with a young earth, have suggested that the original text did not include the phrase under question and thus the stars – some of which are millions of light years away – can be understood as already created.¹⁴ But no Hebrew manuscripts omit the phrase. And in the original language it is part of a typical grammatical construction and should in no way be considered secondary. Literally it should be translated, "and the stars;" (with no verb nor the word "also.")

Hence, the reading of the Hebrew should be as it is in the NRS: "God made the two great lights-- the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-- and the stars."

Hence, the mention of the stars should NOT be considered as being among the heavenly lights created on day 4, simply because v16 CLARIFIES what were made in day 4 by saying "God made the two great lights".   As the sun is mentioned to rule the day,  the mention of the stars goes with the mention of the lesser light in ruling the night.  I think this is the intent of Scriptures as this verse shows:

     NRS Jeremiah 31:35 Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night.

Therefore, I can't agree with the author when he said:

Quote

An untranslatable grammatical marker preceding "stars" indicates that the phrase is the last of a string of direct objects, including "the greater light" and "the lesser light," of the verb "made" (asah).   In Genesis 1, as we have already seen, the verb asah refers to God's creative activity during creation. There can be no doubt that Genesis 1 intends to say that all the heavenly lights, the stars included, were created on the fourth day. No attempt to explain this away can be squared with the text.

 That's not just possible because the verse EMPHATICALLY says God made TWO great lights, the greater and the lesser.  Why add to the 2 by including the stars?

[Dr. Shane]

20 hours ago, Samie said:

Therefore, I can't agree with the author when he said:

 That's not just possible because the verse EMPHATICALLY says God made TWO great lights, the greater and the lesser.  Why add to the 2 by including the stars?

The SDA Bible Commentary says, "As to the origin of the stars two principle views have been set forth (1) The stars were brought into existence during creation week, along with the sun and moon. (2) The 'stars' though created earlier, are here mentioned, in passing, by Moses, insomuch as he is discussing the luminaries of the heavens.  The first view necessitates the conclusion that prior to creation week the vast universe was an empty void.  this conclusion seems un warranted." (Vol. 1 page 213)