THE Heaven and THE Earth

The Heaven and The Earth

1. How the story is shaped.
2. Review – we showed that both the creation from nothing (ex nihilo) and formation from pre-existent matter are compatible with the first two verses in Genesis; furthermore, both concepts are presented at the same time.
3. But there was not yet a firmament and waters were not yet separated; water was everywhere, so, there was no definite physical heaven and earth – what does it mean that God created the Heaven and the Earth.
4. However, this contradiction is resolved in V2, where the Spirit is acting within, not above the world. It is resolved in favor of God acting within the world and not from outside it.
5. Why the contrast between Heaven and Earth? Why not mountains and valleys, or dry land and the seas? It is to contrast the Heaven, where God is and the Earth where he is present and, you may say, resides.

        II                    A tangent on accusative and use of the (et) in Hebrew.

1. E”t” is both ”the” and an indication of direct action. In general, “Ha” is the definite article. “Et” carries out the function of the accusative form in the European languages. Had it been only the definite article, “Et’ would not be needed, and it would be always found with “Ha” and not only sometimes.
2. You also find “Et” in reflexive and passive forms of the verbs, without the “Ha”.
3. See Genesis 17:11, 24, 25 with Rashi whose explanation is based on this grammatical fact that “Et” signfies a direct subject.

`        III A tangent on surprising linguistic parallels between Germanic and Semitic languages, and the purported curent explanation for them in attributing theoretical Phoenician traders somehow ending up in Germanic lands.

1.Edenics.org, E-Word: tracing English and world words to the Semitic Mother Tongue attested in Biblical Hebrew, 2021 Edition (2261 pages) By Isaac Mozeson

            IV What this construction “Et” tells us is that God created Heaven and Earth DIRECTLY. so to speak. He rolled up his sleeves and got to work amid the primeval matter and shaped, fashioned, and formed it, and us, and He remains within this world, close to us.

1. See Siporno to v. 1
2. Nahum Sarna and Cassuto take the Heaven and the Earth as meaning, “Everything” because they claim the Hebrew just did not have the word “Everything”. However, that is not correct, see Isaiah 43:7.
3. Models of where is God?
4. Within the World – lead to idolatrys. If divinity is within the world, then divine manifestations are multiple, felt differently at different times and distinct one from another. You end up with many gods andhierarchies of divine/elevated beings. What is above the world is Fate to which even the gods are subject ( acknowledging that Zeus may be an exception in Greek mythology – this is argued). Psalms 115:16 expresses this view.
5. Creation out of Nothing is an argument against Idolatry, see Jeremiah 10:11. This tends to be the Rabbinic view. (He is in Heaven but his knowledge and supervision extends to this world), but not Kabbalistic, mystical and Chassidic views. Angels and prophets are the mediators between this World and Him above in Heaven, and prophets are called angels ) (Genesis Rabbah(68,12), see Kings I 13:18, the book of Malachi (this prophet’s name means “angelic”).
6. Above the World – fatal to paganism but opens the door to Deism; Go wound up the world like a clock, setting in place laws of Nature and then left it.
7. Ultimate Biblical representation is that He is both above the World and within the World.

VI

The model of God spanning Heaven and Earth Isaiah 66:1, 40:22, 6;1 (the Temple being the representation of God’s Presence, Efodi, Introduction to the Guide, Shaarei Orah of R. Yosef, Gikatilla).

1. What it tells:  God sits on His Throne in Heaven and rests his feet on the Earth. This is the representation in the first verses of Genesis, God is shown as being the Creator and above the World but also present within it, both transcendent and immanent, Great and accessible. It uses the split-screen technique to craft a position out of the two conflicting concepts that is more complex but above all more personal than either one alone.