In the previous few verses, on day one, God had thinned out the fumes and fog and vapors that had enveloped the earth during Satan's rebellion. This thinning out was to the point of making the day-night cycle somewhat perceptible from a location on this earth.
The whole earth was still flooded and a heavy layer of clouds still enveloped the whole earth in the upper atmosphere. But the lower atmosphere, between the flood waters below and the clouds above, was cleaned up and it was made conducive to supporting life, vital preparation for what was to follow. This word "firmament" effectively hides that this is the day on which God gave this earth clean air, something other planets simply don't have. There is not a major problem with this verse except that it contains an unfortunate translation.
Though it doesn't change the meaning here, this unfortunate translation helps to obscure a clearer understanding of some subsequent verses in this chapter. The English translation of this verse contains the word "yielding" twice. However, in the Hebrew text these are actually two completely different words. In " the herb yielding seed " the verb translated "yielding" is " zara ", which means "to sow, to scatter seed".
The word "herb" here means "green plants", rather than our modern meaning of the word "herb". So this part means: "and God said let God created the plants, and the plants in turn would produce the seeds that they would scatter. To be clear, the word "zara" translated as "yielding" does NOT mean "create". The English translation of this part of the verse here is not a problem. Now let's look at the next word translated as "yielding".
In " the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind " the verb translated "yielding" is " asah ", and it means "TO MAKE". This translation here is also strictly speaking not a problem, except that it helps to obscure the correct meaning of this verb "asah".
A more appropriate translation of this phrase would be "and God said let Here is why this should be the correct translation. Many people tend to view the verb "to make" as a synonym for the verb "to create". In this Genesis account both these verbs are used. But God very clearly did not intend these words to be synonyms. God made a distinction between these two verbs.
The Hebrew word for " create " implies bringing something new into existence by using only the Holy Spirit the power of God to do the creating.
The Feast of the Firstfruits. Therefore it is absolute unbelief to come to God and start asking him to do something for us which he hasn't already done. This book shows redeemed Israel that the way to God is by sacrifice and the walk with God by separation. These appear to be the days referred to in Isa One of the most important habits to develop in the Christian life is that of daily Bible reading. If not, be very cautious about writing it in your Bible. Every picture pointed forward to the work of Jesus Christ.
The Hebrew word for " make " implies bringing something new into existence by working with, or making use of some things that were created previously. In other words, "making" generally presupposes that something used in the making process is already in existence before the new thing is "made". By stating that God designed the fruit trees to MAKE fruit after their kind, it would show that "making" is not the same as "creating". Fruit trees do not "create" fruit; they make fruit in biologically predictable steps. To be clear: the translation "the fruit tree yielding fruit It would have been clearer if the translators, after translating "zara" as "yielding", would have here translated "asah" as "make", to indicate that two different Hebrew verbs are used in this context.
Specifically, Genesis would be less of a problem verse. See the discussion on Genesis below for more comments on "asah". God created all the plants and they then in turn produce seeds and fruits. The action of producing seeds and fruits is not on the same level as the original creation of those plants by God. This difference between "creating" and "producing fruits in biologically predictable steps" illustrates the difference between the verbs "create" and "make".
Translating "asah" as "make" in this verse also makes it easier to understand the correct meaning of the word "made" in Genesis The word "seasons" here creates the impression that this word is a reference to the annual seasonal cycle. This is a completely wrong focus.
The Hebrew word here translated as "seasons" is "mow'edim", and it has no reference to the annual seasons at all! This word really means "appointed gatherings", and in the O.
We have already seen that the word "firmament" is a mistranslation. These two lights do determine the length of a month, a season, and a year, but this is only part of the focus of God's statement in this verse. The statement that these two lights are for "signs" means that they, either individually or in combination, determine the start and the length of each month, and of each of the four annual seasons, and of each year. These two lights are to be used for four things: for signs, for determining Holy Days, for days, and for years.
A month is to start with a new moon the moon provides the deciding "sign" here ; a season is to start with an equinox or a solstice the sun provides the deciding "sign" here ; and a year is to start with the first new moon in the spring. The first consideration for the start of the year is the position of the sun it must at least have reached the equinox , and the second consideration for the start of a year is the position of the moon it must be a new moon. So for the start of every year the sun and the moon provide "signs" in combination. This statement reveals the main focus of this verse.
This verse is not a statement that God made to Adam and Eve. This verse is a statement that God made to Moses, who wrote it down! God was referring to all of the annual days listed in Leviticus It has nothing to do with whether or not Adam had ever heard of "mow'edim", because Moses here recorded something God had said before Adam's creation.
An Exhaustively Cross Referenced Bible, Book 7 Leviticus 23 to Numbers 11 - Kindle edition by Jerome Goodwin. Download it once and read it on your Kindle. Book 7 – Leviticus 23 – Numbers 11 - Exhaustively Cross-Referenced Bible The EXHAUSTIVELY CROSS-REFERENCED BIBLE is a comprehensive and.
The mistranslation "for seasons", instead of the correct "for Holy Days", hides the fact that God told MOSES that the timing of all the annual observances was to be determined by the movements of the sun AND the moon. This is significant because in Leviticus 23 the focus is totally on the movements of the moon. But Genesis already makes clear that the sun takes priority over the moon, and that the year can NEVER start before the equinox!
The moon is never involved in determining the start of a day. This statement makes clear that a day cannot possibly start or end "with the onset of total darkness" or at midnight for that matter , as some people have claimed. If "the onset of darkness" was used to determine the start of a day, then "the sun" would no longer be the dividing line between a day and a night. In effect, "the greater light would no longer be ruling the day" verse Now there are four days in the annual cycle, and four days only, that can be predicted in advance.
These four days are the two equinoxes and the two solstices. Any other day in the annual cycle can only be predicted by referencing its relationship to an equinox or to a solstice. Unless the start of a year is conditional on one of these four predictable days having been met, the sun cannot be said to be "for years", i. This is important to keep in mind in establishing a correct calendar. God's statement in this verse that the sun the greater of the two lights God is specifically speaking about is "for the determination of years" absolutely DEMANDS that the year may not start before the spring equinox!
To start a year before the spring equinox violates God's statement here in Genesis Some people including many commentators read this translation to mean that the sun and the moon were only created on the fourth day, even though there had already been evenings and mornings on the previous three days. We often tend to treat the verb "made" as if it were a synonym for the verb "create". That is not right, as far as the two Hebrew verbs are concerned. And this verse does NOT use the verb "to create".
First of all, the Hebrew verb translated "made" is different from the Hebrew verb translated "created", and these words have different meanings. We can express the differences between these two verbs as follows:. The Hebrew word for " make " generally implies bringing something new into existence by working with, or making use of some things that were created previously. Secondly, the Hebrew verb for "made" is used with the imperfect mood in this verse, and it is here better rendered as "had made".
In this context this statement should be understood as a follow-on to the statements in verses 14 and Thus the intended meaning is "had made" or "had designated", keeping in mind that the Hebrew word used here does not mean "to create". As a minor consideration, the Hebrew word that is here translated as the verb "to rule" is in fact a noun. Young's Literal Translation has presented this aspect correctly.
Lastly, the words "he made" in the last part of this verse are not found in the Hebrew text, and are therefore printed in italics in the KJV. These words should either be omitted, or at least the appropriate tense should be supplied. This verse expresses some of God's intended functions for the sun and the moon. The next verse then shows God restoring the correct orbit for the moon to achieve perfect day months, and the correct orbit for the earth to achieve perfect day years. But verse 16 is certainly not speaking about the creation of the sun and moon and stars.
For most people the expression "after our likeness" has the same meaning as the expression "in our image". They believe these expressions to be synonymous. And that is simply not true. This is not strictly a mistranslation.
Rather, the problem revolves around the incorrect meaning we tend to attach to the word "likeness" in this specific context.