Genesis 1 help

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rattytatty987
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rattytatty987

Guest
[1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

quesiotn 1: what are the waters in verse 2 and what is the deep in verse 2?

question 2: what is this light, is it the angels as the sun isn’t built for a nother few days?
 
I will give my ideas.

How I got there would confuse the ideas.

The Word of God is the Light.

The deep is His judgment.

The lights are the angels. The lights are also later the People of God, Israel and the Church.

We, all the Children of God, are removed or separated from the Darkness.

We will be said to be fish, living in fresh water; we will be caught by the Word Incarnate.

Salt water is evil and will kill us.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I will give my ideas.

How I got there would confuse the ideas.

The Word of God is the Light.

The deep is His judgment.

The lights are the angels. The lights are also later the People of God, Israel and the Church.

We, all the Children of God, are removed or separated from the Darkness.

We will be said to be fish, living in fresh water; we will be caught by the Word Incarnate.

Salt water is evil and will kill us.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

Jesus being the Word, doesn’t that mean God created Jesus?
 
Jim_Baur said:
I will give my ideas.

How I got there would confuse the ideas.

The Word of God is the Light.
Click to expand...
I like your analysis and insight.

I’m having a little difficulty with the part about the Light in Genesis 1:3.

While there is no denying, the analogy between the Word of God and light, its difficult to bring it into the context of Genesis 1:3, because, in any context, the Word of God is the Son (both before and after the incarnation).

We see this in John1:1-2: “In the beginning” in Genesis is speaking of the beginning of the cosmos, where “In the beginning” in John Chapter 1 is speaking of before all time.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2*He was in the beginning with God.

“In the beginning” in Genesis is speaking of the beginning of the cosmos, where “In the beginning” in John Chapter 1 is speaking of before all time.

Therefore, In Genesis 1:3, God’s command and execution, “Let there be light, and there was light” would not be the creation of the Word of God, for the Son, was not made, but rather co-existed with God since the beginning of time (not just the beginning of the cosmos).

I suppose we could say that Genesis 1:3 is speaking, not of making the Word of God, but the bringing it to the earth, but even this poses problems with the context of creation.

In Genesis 1, all of what God created, was created from nothing, and evidenced with a command, followed by execution (“God said, 'Let there be”…and then there was…")

So, it would seem , in Genesis 1, rather than the introduction of the already eternally existing Word of God to the cosmos, what was being spoken of was the creation of (literal) light.

Peace and all good!
 
Here are answers from the footnotes from the upcoming Patristic Study Bible that will be published in the near future.

quesiotn 1: what are the waters in verse 2 and what is the deep in verse 2?

“The earth was invisible.” Why? Because the “deep” was spread over its surface. What is “the deep”? A mass of water of extreme depth. (St. Basil the Great, Hexameron 4)

**question 2: what is this light, is it the angels as the sun isn’t built for a nother few days? **

The light was the sun’s light, formless as yet, being already the solar substance, and possessing illuminative power in a general way, to which was afterwards (fourth day) added the special and determinative power required to produce determinate effects. (St. Thomas Aquinas 1.67.4.r2)
 
Neofight

[3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

I will try; it is really difficult for me, sorry!

In verse one all is created!

God’s placed dabar/logos (Word/Loving-reason) in His creation. That is the light that we know and love (spirit).

The Word as the Second Person of the Trinity always is!
 
“Let there be light, and there was light” For a long time I’ve thought this was the pre-existing Logos manifesting himself as a precondition for Creation.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Neofight

[3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

I will try; it is really difficult for me, sorry!

In verse one all is created!

God’s placed dabar/logos (Word/Loving-reason) in His creation. That is the light that we know and love (spirit).

The Word as the Second Person of the Trinity always is!
Click to expand...
And, Jim, another problem that might be encountered is if we claim “the light” is “The Word”, and if the Son is also “The Word”, it presents the issue that the Son created himself, since it is the Son (God, the second person of the Trinity) who created the cosmos (John 1:3 (RSVSCE) all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made., and ; 1 Col 1:16 - for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
 
Rattytatty987 said:
[1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

quesiotn 1: what are the waters in verse 2 and what is the deep in verse 2?

question 2: what is this light, is it the angels as the sun isn’t built for a nother few days?
Click to expand...
This obviously refers to a period of time where God provided actual light during the process of creation. The Spirit of God moving over the waters is also part of the creation process yet to be completed.

Ed
 
The Light is difficult to explain.

The source of the Light is the Word of God.

Using theological wording: The Word is Uncreated Grace. The Light is created Grace.
 
The Light is difficult to explain.

The source of the Light is the Word of God.

Using theological wording: The Word is Uncreated Grace. The Light is created Grace.

Grace filled the universe, physical and spiritual.

Grace is His light.

When we turn to it, we are moved from the darkness to the light; we and the angels are separated from the darkness. Our existence moves from evening to morning.
 
I would recommend holding off on publishing anything if that is the extent of the exegesis.

For example, St. Basil depends upon the Septuagint rendering that the “earth was invisible,” which we know is an incorrect translation of the original text, as well as the common translation the “earth was without form.” The correct rendering is, “and the earth was waste and void.” This is the same earth mentioned in verse 1, and is now described as “tohu wabohu,” or ובהו תהו. These two words together ascribed to the earth, signify a state of deprivation, requiring of the divine agency to furnish the conditions necessary for life. Thus, Moses shows you the earth as first being waste and void so that you would not attribute the earth’s gifts to it but to the one who brought it into existence from nothing. (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, I, 12) (note: I can also support this interpretation by external evidence, which I won’t mention here.)

What is “the deep”? A mass of water of extreme depth." (This is correct, but it doesn’t encompass the full meaning of the text.)

“question 2: what is this light, is it the angels”

It is not in reference to angels, as per St. Augustine.

“or the sun”

It is in fact in reference to the light of the sun and stars. However, it’s important to distinguish some important details. For example, the light is not ascribed to any particular source or object, but instead is distinguished according to its specific properties. This light is intended to be the measure of the day, which can be applied in two ways, that of time, or of distance, as per the light year. Whereas on the fourth day, the sun, moon and stars receive this specific function (that is, as the measure of time), in relation to their movements. Furthermore, as St. Basil correctly notes, the sun and stars are said to be “made” on the fourth day so that man would not attribute the sun as the origin of life on earth. However, he incorrectly asserts that they were created on the fourth day. In fact I can state with certainty that the prophet Moses intended it be in reference to the light of the sun and stars.

---------------------------/

… The light was the sun’s light, formless as yet, being already the solar substance,

Light can’t be formless; it isn’t a substance.

“to produce determinate effects.”

St. Aquinas typically uses broad terminology, so I really won’t comment on its meaning. However, I will say that light in relation to the sun, is merely an effect of the sun’s immense thermal energy.
 
“The Word is Uncreated Grace.” No, the Word is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

“The Light is created Grace.” No, that’s false.

“Grace filled the universe, physical and spiritual.” That’s also false.

“Grace is His light.” That makes no sense.

“When we turn to it, we are moved from the darkness to the light;” That has nothing to do with the actual text.

“we and the angels are separated from the darkness.” Considering that humans were yet to be created, that can’t be possible. Angels didn’t need this light. There were created in the initial act of creation, alongside Heaven.

“Our existence moves from evening to morning.” Stop being silly.
 
“Let there be light, and there was light” For a long time I’ve thought this was the pre-existing Logos manifesting himself as a precondition for Creation."

I hope you changed your opinion, because that has nothing to do with the text.
 
“The Word of God is the Light.” You should probably think more carefully before you say silly things.

“The deep is His judgment.” Not true.

“The lights are the angels.” Definitely not true.

“The lights are also later the People of God, Israel and the Church.” How do you derive that from the text? You should probably stick to context.

“We, all the Children of God, are removed or separated from the Darkness.” How would you go about supporting your position, in relation to the passage?
 
RomCatholic314 said:
“Let there be light, and there was light” For a long time I’ve thought this was the pre-existing Logos manifesting himself as a precondition for Creation."

I hope you changed your opinion, because that has nothing to do with the text.
Click to expand...
Wow! So, scriptural interpretation done in charity that does not match your interpretation is wrong and that opinion needs to be changed? Even trained, academic theologians don’t make such demands of their colleagues, but rather open objective dialogue.

It almost sounds like you are claiming infallibility.🤷
 
Neofight said:
Wow! So, scriptural interpretation done in charity that does not match your interpretation is wrong and that opinion needs to be changed?
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, the question was asked in a way that we might understand the OP to mean “what does the Catholic Church teach?” Jim gave his personal opinion; although it’s his opinion – and we can consider its merits as such – it’s not what we would represent as the doctrinal, magisterial teaching of the Church. There are other ways of saying that, of course, and some are more charitable than others, but perhaps it’s sufficient to say that Jim’s interpretation is spiritualized and challenges us to think and discern… but it’s not, strictly speaking, the teaching of the Church. 🤷
 
"Wow! So, scriptural interpretation done in charity that does not match your interpretation is wrong and that opinion needs to be changed? Even trained, academic theologians don’t make such demands of their colleagues, but rather open objective dialogue.

It almost sounds like you are claiming infallibility."

I don’t know which theologians you’re referring to, or what you’re even talking about. I’m simply stating the interpretation is wrong. Stating something is wrong doesn’t equate to infallibility. That doesn’t even make sense.
 
“Jim gave his personal opinion; although it’s his opinion – and we can consider its merits as such – it’s not what we would represent as the doctrinal, magisterial teaching of the Church. There are other ways of saying that, of course, and some are more charitable than others, but perhaps it’s sufficient to say that Jim’s interpretation is spiritualized and challenges us to think and discern… but it’s not, strictly speaking, the teaching of the Church.”

His reply isn’t in relation to the individual you mentioned. The individual you mentioned offers an interpretation which is both unsound doctrinally, and can’t be supported by any external evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top