1:1 the Almighty = אלהים. (This note is a general note for all occurrences of "Almighty", archived in the commentary at Genesis 1:1. If you clicked on one of the hidden links, you were redirected here.)
"Almighty" is the nearest English meaning to Elohim. The root Eloah means mighty or powerful, and the plural ending makes it superlative, i.e. "most" or "all". The plural gives the sense of "the mightiest of the mighty ones", and is compactly expressed by "Almighty". The term is used in both as a title, "the Almighty" and as an adjective "Almighty", and refers exclusively to Yahweh. When referring to false gods or judges, the plural has the normal English sense, "mighty ones". It was thought best not to translate this term as God, because the frequent adjectival and descriptive use of the term is obscured in the translation God.
Further, it was thought best not to translate Elohim, because though the typical reader will be able to say it, the typical reader will not be thinking about its real meaning when using it, unless he or she can actually think in Hebrew.
The novice learner of Hebrew should not be distressed by the fact that the Hebrew definite article is lacking before most usages of the Almighty, i.e. Elohim in the Hebrew text. In Hebrew a word is often definite without the use of the article, and this fact can be easily observed by anyone who compares Hebrew texts with English translations. However, in English before a title of any sort, the article is almost always required. Removing the article also tends to turn the title into a proper name in English. In order to avoid this misdirection, the definite article has to be inserted before many uses of "Almighty" to make it sound correct. After learning enough Hebrew, speakers begin to recognize definiteness where the article is lacking without any trouble.
1:1 The first verse of Genesis is a summary statement for the whole of creation. It is an overall general statement that covers the whole of creation in the terms "heavens" and "earth". It is important to realize that the rest of the narrative does not come 'after' vs. 1. Rather, the rest of the narrative is a detailed explanation of vs. 1, and how the truth of vs. 1 came to be, only in much greater detail.
The "beginning" period covers everything up to the end of the sixth day, when everything was finished. The purpose of the first verse is to declare that the Almighty made it all, and to give a succinct summarized digest in one sentence of the close up details to come.
The term "heavens" שמים, sham-mayim, is derived from "waters are there" from Hebrew שם = "there", sham, and מים = "waters", mayim, giving the original substance out of which all was created. But it also means the starry host that was created on the 4th day. That is, it is a summary statement. It does not suggest the stars were created before the rest of the narrative.
The verse is also a summary statement because a solid earth did not exist in vs. 1-5, but later in the narrative. In fact, the term "earth" is defined later in the narrative when the land is made. The anachronistic use of "earth" is called formless in vs. 2, which is to say, it was still a mass of waters, and. "Formless and void" teaches that a solid earth did not exist.
The waters above were made into the starry host and the third heaven. The waters below into what we know as the solid earth, the seas and sub continental fountains of the great deep. For these reasons, vs. 1 is a summary statement. The formed earth comes into being later in the narrative. The starry heavens also later in the narrative. It is extremely important to see this, because many have attempted to take vs. 1 out of context and suggest that the stars, i.e. "heavens" were created aeons before the fourth day. But this is incorrect. As a summary statement, vs. 1 includes the fourth day, and indeed all six days of creation in the summary.
1:2 When; Vs. 1 is the summary statement. Verse 2 rewinds us all they way back to the point in vs. 1 when the only created thing that existed was the mass of waters from which everything else was made. The word when translates a normal waw conjunctive. BDB says, "k. in circumstantial clauses וְ introduces a statement of the concomitant conditions under which the action denoted by the principal verb takes place: in such cases, the relation expressed by וְ must often in Engl. be stated explicitly by a conj., as when, since, seeing, though, etc., as occasion may require." The reason we must depart from a simple "and", is that modern language has differentiated much more than the ancient. The Hebrew waw contains a much greater range of meaning than the English "and". It is therefore simplistic to try to get English "and" to do all the work. BDB says, "וְ is used very freely and widely in Heb., but also with much delicacy, to express relations and shades of meaning which Western languages would usu. indicate by distinct particles. But in Heb. particles such as לכן, למען, בעבור, אולם, אכן, אך, אז, או etc., were reserved for cases in which special emph. or distinctness was desired: their frequent use was felt instinctively to be inconsistent with the lightness and grace of movement which the Hebrew ear loved; and thus in AV, RV, words like or, then, but, notwithstanding, howbeit, so, thus, therefore, that, constantly appear, where the Heb. has simply וְ." A problem with standard English language is that it is much more precise and scientific at many levels than ancient Hebrew. What was left to the interpreter in ancient Hebrew must be made explicit in the choice of English words. What this means is that we cannot translate the Hebrew into English without giving the interpretation in the translation. Worse yet is the translator who gets the interpretation wrong and then translates it into precise, but wrong English. This situation makes fertile ground for deceivers to introduce their own mistakes, or to capitalize on the innocent mistakes of past translators to promote heresies like evolution and day age theories. At the simplest level, incorrectly translating the conjunction and other words results in internal inconsistencies and minor (slight) contradictions, or confusions, that can then be exploited by inputting these errors into formal logic to generate heretical conclusions. As they say garbage in, garbage out. The error is not the reasoning process, but the errant assumptions put into it. One will only receive error on the other end.
Also, it is all too often that when one corrects the errant input, and uses formal logic to show that the correction is valid, then uses logic to generate the correct conclusion, then the opposition simply ignores the deduction and changes the subject. This is called intellectual dishonesty.
To prevent this, a formal statement of the procedure of interpretation is needed. How do we pick the correct sense out of a range of meaning? The literal principle is sometimes stated thusly: when the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense. What then is plain sense? This principle has to be restated scientifically for us to really understand it, and to really grasp and practice it. When we look at a word with more than one meaning, a statistical analysis of its usage will show varying percentages of usage for each meaning. About all we can expect a decent lexicon to do is to arrange the meanings with the highest percentage usage first, and usually this in the case, though with some important words, the lexicographers have led us astray because they have arranged the senses according to their theological dogma rather than pure statistical occurrence in the language. If we want to get really pedantic about it, then a word study of a broad sampling of usages with the number of times for each sense tallied next to it is a good exercise, and is necessary in a broad cross section of the language, both biblical and extra biblical, and in cognate languages also. They key is to find enough usages of the word in question to be confident of the order in which its meanings should be considered in a context where the reader is not yet sure of the interpretation and wants a scientific control on his efforts to extract the intended meaning.
After determining the priority of definitions, then the procedure is as follows. First try the primary sense of the word. If it makes sense and the prior situation of the narrative (context) does not contradict it, then that is the right sense. The context should be checked for consistency with the definition in ever greater chunks of context, first with the phrase it is in, then the sentence, and then the paragraph. Only is logical contradiction or meaninglessness results should the primary definition be rejected, and a secondary definition be given precedence. And likewise, a secondary definition should be checked and processed before a tertiary one is brought in. This discipline, I call normal interpretation.
Normal interpretation takes a lot of work. It its a linguistically formalized method for a process that is performed intuitively by a native speaker, who does not realize that his mind is determining the sense of what he hears hierarchically, continuously sorting out sense by the priority of definition. We must formalize this with the normal interpretation method. Only this way can we avoid self-deception due to our prejudices, and the deceptions of others. Only this way can we expose intellectual dishonesty in errant interpretations of texts. Only this way do we have a control experiment for understanding the text.
If normal interpretation is rigorously followed, then the results will not be disappointing. Much confusion and alleged contradictions will disappear. We expect an Almighty who wants to love and redeem the fallen creation and fallen man to attempt to use reason and common sense to reach it.
Normal interpretation is not an authority based method. Its validity does not depend on consensus or majorities. Its validity depends simply on the raw scientific truth of linguistic decipherment of meaning used internally by everyone who speaks a language. Failure to practice this common sense leads to fuzziness in one's thinking, and in artificial paradigms of ones own creation blinding one to the intricacies of meaning that can be extracted from the text. Failure to follow it allows one's emotional commitments to various errors or dogma's to lead one away from what the text clearly says. Failure to test the words of others by this principle opens one to their deceptions. And most often, an emotional commitment to another person or group can keep one in fear of what they say and prevent one from being intellectually honest and using the reason that the Almighty has given to all men without prejudice. For all men are created equal on this score, and no one has the right to declare normal interpretation invalid on the basis of their authority.
Now of course, there is the practical matter to be addressed of being deceived already. If you are in a fog and don't know who to listen to, but you believe the Almighty gave the Scripture to teach us, then you need to start practicing normal interpretation, and need to use it to start rejecting errant ideas, and errant authorities. If you are not sure that the Scriptures are valid at all, then you need to study history and historical prophecy fulfillment. This must also be combined with the sincere prayer for the Almighty to change one's heart, because our errant emotional commitments often have irrevocable power over us, and may prevent us from proceeding. Therefore, one must ask the Almighty for help.
As an example of normal interpretation, we return to vs. 2. How was the word when sorted out from the valid senses of the waw? A simple "and", or "then" results in the contradiction that vs. 1 would say the earth is created, and then vs. 2 would say it is without form. The resolution is that when allows us to view vs. 1 as a summary statement, which removes the contradiction. When rewinds us temporally to a time at the start of the general statement in vs. 1.
It is stated that the earth "was formless", i.e. unmade. Do not be confused by the word "void"; it means "emptiness", but does not suggest that anything other than the waters were there to be "empty". It is not explicitly stated in the narrative that these primordial waters were created. There is a hint of their creation in the etymology of "heavens", i.e. "waters are there", in vs. 1, but vs. 1 is a summary statement. Further, it is not stated how long before the first day that the waters existed in the primordial darkness. That information is supplied in Exodus 20:11, where it is stated that "all" was created for "six days". If "all" was created in "six days" then that includes the primordial waters (Primordial is Latin for first in order). Thus Exodus 20:11, seeing the calendar day in terms of night and then day, includes the creation of the waters by including the primordial darkness as part of the first day. I only bring this in to show that all was created in six days. From the Genesis passage one may only conclude that all was created in six days except the primordial waters. The Exodus passage defines the night before the day as part of one period, and shows that all was created in six days. This puts a time limit on the pre-existence of the primordial waters to basically 12 hours before light was created.
We will see shortly that the Genesis defines the day from daybreak to daybreak, a different perspective from the Exodus passage.
1:4 was making the light to be dividing from the darkness. The light has been created already, and at this point, the Almighty is initiating the cycle that will cause a temporal division between the light and darkness.
Notice the dawn bar (light grey) at point B. The light was first created mixed with the darkness. The Almighty then divides it completely from the darkness to begin the full day. The text notes that he is calling it "day" before he divides it, so the day is not completely divided until "B" is complete.
1:5 And the Almighty is calling the light "day"; this is the first definition of "day" in the scripture, and not only its first definition, but its first use. This definition of "day" excludes the night. It can only mean the light of dawn to dusk. The definition is all the more stark because it is contrasted with the corresponding darkness being called "night".
Notice, the OR junction connected to "one day". The first definition of day is the "light", indicated by the right hand arrow off of the OR junction, points A-C. A broader definition, indicated by the arrow off the left hand side of the OR junction, of "day" is "period of time", points A-D, as in "day of Yahweh", or "in the day that Yahweh made earth and heaven" (Gen. 2:4), or "for in the day you eat from it dying you shall die" (Gen. 2:17). This should be applied here to make sense of the two definitions in Genesis 1:5, "And the Almighty is calling the light a period". This establishes the literal daylight day period, and "one period" at the end of the verse establishes the 24 hour calendar period. A period is a cycle. To use an analogy, take a sine wave. Half of a sine wave corresponds to to the positive period, "light", and half to the negative period, "dark", but the whole sine wave makes up a whole period, which is a cycle of time returning to its repetition point. Genesis 1-2 introduce us to definitions of "day" in sequence of lengthening periods, 1. daylight (1:5a), 2. 24 hour calendar day (1:5b), 3. nearly a week, (2:4) 4. a thousand years (2:17). Here, normal interpretation applies. The primary definition of "day" is light, i.e. dawn to dusk, and this sense works in the majority of occurrences. This fact is what makes it the primary definition. This in vs. 5a, "day" means daylight, and without contradiction. On the other hand this definition seems to be contradicted in 1:5b, where a 24 hour "period" works best. For the day is then followed by setting and daybreak, demarcating the following night. So "one period", i.e. "one day" is a day and a night. See chart below. I say seems to be contradicted, because this is not an absolute contradiction. Both the primary definition and the secondary definition work. Here is the priority list for "day", יום.
1. day, dawn to dusk, daylight, light
2. day, calendar day period, from daybreak to daybreak
3. day, calendar day period, from setting to setting, as in "Sabbath day".
4. day, period of time, as in "day of Yahweh".
5. day, a period lasting a thousand years.
6. day, a period of time lasting 6 days
7. day, a period of time lasting 7 or 49 days.
1:5 the darkness He calleth night. The darkness here refers to all darkness, the darkness before the first day, and the darkness intervening between the days. This is shown in the Hebrew by switching the tense to the perfect tense, and the fact that the darkness is divided from light by a cycle of time, and returns periodically. In the narrative, it is day at the point of the statement, as he used the imperfect, "And the Almighty is calling the light 'day'", In the narrative sequence, the primordial darkness has already passed due to the creation of light. It is currently "day" in the narrative. He "calleth" the darkness night, therefore, looks back to the primordial darkness, which is now named. So temporally, it refers to the primordial darkness before the first day, Non-temporally it refers to every period of darkness coming between the days, that are called 'night'.
1:5 Then; BDB, "so, then, and" (pg. 251). Here, in the narrative, the consecutive waw is sequential. the "setting" of the light occurs at the end of the first day. Night follows, and then the daybreak marks the beginning of the second day.
1:5 Then there was setting; then there was daybreak, one day. See note on the word Then. The narrative is consecutive, and as is usual with narrative, events are parsimoniously reported in the order in which they occurred, unless proven otherwise. The setting here follows the day which was already created. The going down of the light ends the day, and begins a renewed period of darkness, called "night".
The Hebrew word ערב is not narrowly limited to mean "sunset" in our technical sense of when the sun crosses the horizon. It means light-setting, and from the pure linguistics may refer to setting of the light from zenith (noon) all the way to its dipping below the horizon. The linguistic idea is simply "setting", either of a point, or period of time. Its usual usage is when the light crosses the horizon: light-set/sun-set, and secondly, as a period of time: afternoon/setting period, and thirdly as a point in time: noon itself in the phrase, "between the settings" (בין הערבים), when the light begins to set. In Standard English, "evening" refers to the time from shortly prior to sunset up to bedtime, but never refers to time past midnight. It must be pointed out, therefore, that the usual usage of ערב in Hebrew for "afternoon" is almost always a complete mismatch of time period from the English term "evening". Though, there are some dialects of English were "evening" is used for afternoon. In this passage, the primary meaning is meant—when the light crosses the horizon, or after the 4th day, the time known as precise "sunset". In this context, it means when the light crosses the horizon at the end of the light part of the day.
Those who argue that this passage teaches a sunset to sunset calendar day wrongly define the word "evening" as equal to "darkness". But ערב does not mean darkness. It means setting, and as shown above, even the afternoon, when there is no darkness. When the correct definition of erev is used, it becomes clear that it cannot refer to the primordial darkness. For the primordial darkness had no beginning with a "setting". There was simply no light to set.
1:5 The word בקר more strictly means "day break" in the first sense. It is derived from "split, penetrate, as the dawn the darkness" (BDB, pg. 133), which correctly states in relation to Genesis 1, "of point of time, time at which, never during which, Eng. morning=forenoon". HALOT also confirms this, "originally the breaking through (of the day-light)", pg. 145, and defines, "light of the daybreak", "as the dawn became light". Later usages could mean the same as the English forenoon, however, as a point in time delineating the boundary of day, always, sunrise, and more loosely dawning to sunrise. In the narrative, the first day was created, then the light set. It is not mentioned, but certain that night followed, and then daybreak occurs, which brings the narrative up to the beginning of the second day, though only one day has elapsed at this point.
1:5 one day; The day number is tallied at the end of the night following the day. According to the definition of "day" given in this verse, "one day" enumerates only the period of light before the night that is demarcated by "then there was setting; then there was daybreak"; but, if we are to suppose that some type of 24 hour calendar day is hinted (a remez) at by the placement of "one day" at the end of the night in the narrative, then we may suppose a calendar day beginning and ending at daybreak, i.e. daybreak to daybreak, as is naturally considered when a person rises at the beginning of the day, and goes to bed late at night only to rise at daybreak again. This is the default reckoning of a day in most cultures of the world. Daybreak to daybreak is also the default reckoning of a calendar day in the Scripture. For evidence on this topic see Lev. 7:15.
The tradition that a Genesis day is setting to setting is a myth, perpetuated by Orthodox Judaism (who moved the boundary stone) and Constantinian Christianity after the destruction of the Second Temple. Orthodox Judaism "conveniently" forgot when the sabbatical year was, because it calculates Yeshua's first coming according to Daniel 9. Orthodox Judaism abandoned the counting of seven Sabbaths after Passover (Lev. 23:15), because the "first of the Sabbaths" was the day of Yeshua's resurrection. Orthodox Judaism also forgot about the reckoning of the "third day" because Yeshua rose from the dead on the "third day" (Hosea 6:1-2), and this third day is reckoned according to the remez of Genesis 1 for a calendar day: daybreak to daybreak. The Church blindly follows the new Jewish opinion because it likewise is willing to let itself be confused so as not to know the real history of Yeshua's death and resurrection.
None of this is to presume that the Sabbath is reckoned this way. The formula is omitted for the seventh day. Further, the Almighty "saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good"; then it says "then were was setting; then there was daybreak, the sixth day"; So "setting" followed immediately upon the statement "all that He had made" (Genesis 1:31). Taking the narrative this way, it follows for certain that all the creation was done by the end of the sixth day, as day is defined in Genesis 1:5, and that nothing was created during the night that followed the sixth day.
Only later in Exodus 20:8-11 is the timing of the Sabbath explained from the point of view of sacred days, and that requires a little thinking to figure out. "For six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day;" (Exodus 20:11). "All that is in them" includes the primordial waters in Genesis 1:2. Therefore, the calendar "day" as implicitly defined in Exodus 20:11 is counted with the darkness before the day.
Authoritative support for a daybreak day in Genesis 1:
That the night demarcated by setting and daybreak follows the day is supported by some famous Hebrew scholars, Keil and Delitzsch (Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1, p. 51):
The first evening was not the gloom, which possibly preceded the full burst of light as it came forth from the primary darkness, and intervened between the darkness and full, broad daylight. It was not till after the light had been created, and the separation of the light from the darkness had taken place, that evening came, and after the evening the morning . . . .
Franz Delitzsch is the same translator of the New Testament into Hebrew (The New Testament in Hebrew And English). Also, C.H. Leupold (Exposition of Genesis, Vol. 1, pp. 57-58):
The verse [Gen. 1:5], however, presents not an addition of items but the conclusion of a progression. On this day there had been the creation of heaven and earth in the rough, then the creation of light, the approval of light, the separation of day and night. Now with evening the divine activities ceased: they are works of light not works of darkness. The evening (‘erebh), of course, merges into night, and the night terminates with morning. But by the time morning is reached, the first day is concluded, as the account says succinctly, ‘the first day,’ and everything is in readiness for the second day’s task. For ‘evening’ marks the conclusion of the day, and ‘morning’ marks the conclusion of the night. It is these conclusions, which terminate the preceding, that are to be made prominent."
Now please, note that I never saw any of these commentaries before coming to the same conclusion on the basis of the Hebrew text. I will add one more scholar, Edward J. Young (Studies in Genesis One, pg. 89):
When the light was removed by the appearance of darkness, it was evening, and the coming of light brought morning, the completion of a day. The days therefore, are to be reckoned from morning to morning. . . .
Rabbi Samuel b. Meir (ca. 1080- ca. 1160, known as Rashbam) also corrects the popular myth that Genesis 1 teaches a sunset to sunset day:
"It does not say that it was night time and it was day time which made one day; but it says 'it was evening,' which means that the period of the day time came to an end and the light disappeared. And when it says 'it was morning,' it means that the period of the night time came to an end and the morning dawned. Then one whole day was completed."
Jacob Z. Lauterbach writes (Hebrew Union College Press, 1951, pg. 446-451, "When does the Sabbath Begin?", Rabbinical Essays by Jacob Z. Lauterbach):
There can be no doubt that in pre-exilic times the Israelites reckoned the day from morning to morning. The day began with the dawn and closed with the end of thenight following it, i.e, with the last moment before the dawn of the next morning. The very description of the extent of the day in the biblical account of creation as given in Gen 1.5 presupposes such a system of reckoning the day, for it says: "And it was evening and it was morning, one day." This passage was misunderstood by the Talmud, though significantly enough when the Tosefta cites in proof Esth. 4.I6 where the order occurs, but does not cite the passage in Genesis or was reinterpreted to suit the later practice of a different system.
Of course we cannot agree with Jacob concerning the application of the Genesis day to the Sabbath in the title of his paper. As I previously noted, The Genesis narrative leaves the formula out when it comes to the Sabbath, and declares that everything was in a state of completion. Before the sixth day setting, the Almighty says he saw "all that he had made", hence we can conclude that nothing was created in the night leading the seventh day.
Abraham Ibn Ezra (ca. 1089-ca. 1167) tried to disprove our arguments in his response to R. Samuel. He said about a daybreak to daybreak day that "night turned into day" [since the whole period was a day]. As I said above, the text only suggests a calendar day by placing the day before the night. The key to refuting Ibn Ezra is that the suggested day is a "calendar day", and not literal daytime day. His argument is then turned on its head if he says the calendar day is from sunset to sunset, because here too, "night turned into day". No matter how you define a calendar day of 24 hours, it always includes 12 hours of night, and therefore "night" is turned into day. So strictly speaking Gen. 1:5 defines the day as the "light" from dawn to dusk, and the daybreak to daybreak calendar day is only suggested by the order of events over and above a sunset to sunset day. If, however, one wants to find a 24 hour "calendar day" in the passage, then its implied limits are daybreak to daybreak.
1:16 the stars; Many translations try to hide the fact that the stars were made on the 4th day. The KJV and NAS read, "He made the stars also (Gen 1:16 NAS)"; Young's Literal Translation clears it up by changing the word order, "And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night; (Gen 1:16 YLT)"; What interpreters are trying to do with the words "He made the stars also" is turn it into a past tense statement, not local to the 4th day. However, this rendering is not correct from the start. The Hebrew grammar introduces the three objects of "made:" all in the same way using the Hebrew direct object marker את. Only one verb "made" controls all its objects. "The Almighty made this (את): ...the greater light.... and this (את): the lesser light ... and this (את): the stars." The sun, moon, and stars are all "made" together. Or to put it another way, if the translation "he made ... also" were legit, then it should be equally applied to the sun and moon, and it will be clear that the stars are not being treated differently.
Notice the word "Then" at the beginning of vs. 16? This word "Then" translates the waw consecutive. It means that the whole verse is placed in sequence after the events that precede, and before the events that follow. This is the normative sense of it, and another reason why the creation of the stars should not be displaced from day 4.
2:2 The idea is that He left his work in a state of being finished; וַיְכֻלּוּ; And they are being made to be finished; the D stem is passive causative, "made to be", and the makes the whole passive again, "they are being"; the imperfect sense is continuous on the time period of the seventh day. This sense of the Pual, explained by Walke and O'Connor: "lit., was made to be" (pg. 419) was discovered and refined by 20th century linguistic research. It demonstrates that the translation offered by other versions, "by the seventh day God completed" (e.g. NASB), or the LXX version, "finished ... on the sixth day" are incorrect.
I noted earlier that all of the Almighty's work was finished before the setting and morning that followed on the sixth day, i.e. before night commenced. His last act is to see all that He has made, "and behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). Only after He sees "all" does the text say, "Then there was setting; then there was daybreak;" so a state of cessation ensued with the night before the seventh day.
Other than the logic of ceasing from work when the sun goes down at the end of the sixth day, and the fact that the Almighty created nothing that night, there is nothing in the text to explicitly define the seventh day here as setting to setting. The Creator rested, so likewise, a proper imitation of that rest would commence the rest with sundown on the sixth day.
There are many who want to take the daybreak to daybreak terminals implied for a 24 hour calendar day in the preceding chapter and apply it to the Sabbath. This is illegitimate. First, Exodus 20:8-11 offers a different perspective than Genesis 1 on the calendar day. Over in that passage, the calendar day is defined such that everything is created in "six days"; obviously the primordial waters were created in the primordial darkness before the the day. Thus, a calendar day is implied in the Exodus passage where night precedes the day.
Additionally, Genesis 1-2 is fast and furious with introducing new definitions of day. In 1:5, "day" is just the light. Then in 2:4 "day" is a time period lasting six days. Then in 2:17 we are introduced to a "day" that can last a thousand years. In chapter one, a calendar day from daybreak to daybreak is suggested for the natural cycle, but the text and context is careful not to prejudice the observance of the Sabbath. In fact, strict logic and following the Creator's example requires us to sanctify the night before the day with the seventh day. Finally, we should not be put off by the additional implied calendar day behind the statements in Exodus 20:8-11, seeing that Scripture apparently allows for multiple definitions of "day" side by side.
And just to round out our discussion of the definitions of day, Leviticus 23:15 gives us "in the day after", clearly a period of time lasting 43 to 49 days that are required to count seven Sabbaths, and then Leviticus 23:16 gives us "in the day after", i.e. "time after the seventh Sabbath", which may require 1 to 7 days to reach the 50th day.
2:5 Yahweh; יַהְוֶה, with vowels corrected, is to be pronounced /Yah wæh/ or /Ya hu æh/. In the Masoretic Text the divine name is spelled with the vowels of Adonai, so if anyone actually were to read it as printed, the result would be /Yehowah/ or /Yehovah/, but the Jews knowing this say Adonai instead of Yahweh. This was done deliberately to suppress the tendency to read the name properly, because the majority of religious Jews believed it was too holy to be pronounced, and that pronouncing the divine name would be to take it "in vain". This tradition however is contrary to Yahweh's desire in Exodus 3:15. Further, it is foolish superstition to think that the Almighty would disapprove of saying His name. The real meaning of taking His name in vain is to call yourself a follower or child of Yahweh without being committed to him. In other words, those who deny Messiah Yeshua, and do not commit to him, yet claim they serve the Almighty One of Israel , these are the one's taking His name in vain.
And lest, the prejudiced reader should think this judgment falls only on the Jews who deny Yahweh in the flesh, then it also falls on those Christians who say they are following God, yet they are still idolaters praying before images, and worshipping physical objects that they believe contain God or that become God, whom Yahweh will count as worshippers of baal when the judgment day comes. If they think that calling him LORD will save them, they should know that baal is a Hebrew word that means "lord".
This judgment of taking His Name in vain also falls on many of those who do not understand the good news. They make pronouncing the divine name correctly the instrument of Salvation, such as the Jews made their birthright the instrument of salvation, or Catholics make baptism the instrument of salvation, or Calvinists make "faith" the instrument of salvation, or like some Gentiles in the first century made "circumcision" the instrument of salvation. These people are correctly called "Sacred Namers" because they have blown the importance of saying the divine name out of all proportion to the truth. While I deplore Christianity and Judaism's ignorance of the Name and ignoring of the divine desire to use it, I also deplore using it and not being a true follower of His, or using it and condemning someone who has received the good news and forgiveness in Yeshua, yet because of miss-teaching is ignorant of the Scripture.
The meaning of the divine name is summed up as "The Everlasting One", and is expanded in Revelation to "he who was, he who is, he who is to come" (Revelation 1:4; 1:8; 4:8). This explanation is no accident. Yahweh says that he is "I AM" in Exodus 3:14. He uses the word אֶהְיֶה, which is very close to יַהְוֶה. The Revelation passages, expressed in Hebrew are also, יִהְיֶה, הוֹוֶה, הָיָה = "he was", "he is being", "he will be".
The pronunciation of the first syllable of the divine name is not in doubt. It is "Yah", and is often used separately as a short form. It is spelled יָהּ. The novice should not be befuddled by the qamets in the short form verse the patach in the long form (*יַה). The short vowel is simply used because the last syllable of Yahweh's name is the accented syllable, and when two syllables are shown, the vowel is reduced to "short" to show that it is not the accented syllable. In the short form, the dagesh in the הּ is there just to show that the letter at the end of the word is not regarded as a vowel, but as a consonant. יָהּ. A comparison of the divine name with the final syllables of יִהְיֶה ,אֶהְיֶה ,הוֹוֶה show that the final syllable of the divine name is similarly spelled יַהְוֶה. The waw in הוֹוֶה seems to have contributed to the waw in the divine name.
The pronunciation of the waw is "oo" or "w" and not "v". This is shown from the use of part of the divine name in other personal names, such as אֵלִיָּהוּ, where the vowel is "oo". In the participle form, הוֹוֶה, /howæh/ the waw is consonantal. These considerations suggest three variants of the divine name: /Yah/, /Yahuæh/ and /Yahwæh/.
The likely pronunciation of the last syllable is according to the Sephardic /æ/, i.e. /a/ in late, or /a/ in taste. If one listens to Abraham Shmuelof read Genesis 2:5 or Exodus 3:14, one will clearly see that all the יֶהand ״ֶה forms are pronounced /yæh/ and /æh/. The readings can be accessed at: Academy of Ancient Languages. The English spelling of His name as Yahweh is completely correct. The final /e/ represents the segol, which is pronounced /æ/. One should note that the Sephardic pronunciation of the ״ֶה combination in Genesis 2:5 occurs in the words, הַשָּדֶה, יִהיֶה,is pronounced /æ/.
HALOT (Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament) gives the pronunciation of the divine name: "יהוה: name of Israels God: Yahweh (better: Yahwæh):"; It also has a long list of reasons why it is correct along the lines given above.
Now, sad to say, I must speak about some people who use what little Hebrew they know to exploit the Messianic Community, and make all things Orthodox Jewish and Constantinian Christian look evil without regard to the facts or the truth, and who spin etymological theories based on pure speculation and random similarities of words that are mere coincidences. There is more than enough that is truly false in Judaism and Christianity than to have pin guilt on them based on speculative theories based on whim. Now, I have done a little reading of Lew White, author of Fossilized Customs. He is currently promoting the pronunciation /Yahuah/ for the divine name, and is arguing for it on the basis of similarity to /Yehudah/. I wonder why it did not occur to Lew that the divine name has more connection to אֶהְיֶה, than יְהוּדָה, even though the Almighty himself makes the connection in Exodus 3:14. Also, why should we look to the word Yehudah as the pattern for the last syllable of the divine name, when any other number of random words will do? I say random because the verbal root of יְהוּדָה is completely different than the divine name: יהד. It means "praised", whereas the divine name is based on the imperfect conjugations of the root היה : i.e. אֶהְיֶה,יִהְיֶה and the participle הוֹוֶה.
Lew also promotes /Yahusha/ for Yeshua. He is apparently basing this on also יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, which is Joshua in English texts. But he deletes the qibbuts ֻunder the שֻׁ presumably because he does not trust the "Masoretic" Jews, who included the qibbuts. The problem with this is that, Yehoshua is spelled with a full shuruq in Deut. 3:21: יְהוֹשׁוּעַ. Then Lew turns around and criticizes the word Ιησους in post Constantinian Greek texts of the New Testament (which is pronounced /ee æ soos/) by claiming it is Hebrew for /ha soos/: הַסּוּס , "the horse". This sort of random etymological association pervaded his first edition of Fossilized Customs. It is clever, but that is all it is. A cheap trick.
While we know that the Messiah's name is Yehoshua/ Yeshua, with two forms, like my name Daniel/ Dan, where the shorter form is normally used, and not Jesus, the later has been used by true believers for a long time, and though they be ignorant, it is sanctified by use. Lew does not seem to see this, because I think he misunderstands the forgiving nature good news, and so goes overboard to try to make Jesus look either idolatrous or insulting according to derivation. For Lew's followers, other Christians become entirely children of the devil, and little allowance is made for simple ignorance that Yeshua will forgive. The problem with his derivations is that they are LIES. That's right "L", "I", "E", and "S". And we all know who the father of lies is.
Jesus can be explained by simple glottochronological change from the original form Yeshua, i.e. by the fact that the languages between Hebrew and English pronounced the same letters differently. Satan will try to make the Messianic Community look stupid by spreading lies from without, and from within. This is clearly a case of within.
While I have used Mr. White's arguments as a example of a cheap deception, it is by no means unique. Reasoning's of the same sort are all over the place. See also: Is the name 'Jesus' derived from the Greek god 'Zeus'?