Really? I translate as ‘on’ and you say I’m misusing it when ‘on’ is included in the range of meaning.
This is the same character ב that you now say means “in” which was not included above.
In any case, you have these same problems when you claim that the firmament is a solid dome in the sky. Birds cant fly in something solid and the sun, moon and stars cant move in a solid dome. It is not the luminaries themselves but the light/lights that shine upon the firmament.
Hardly as God goes on to say they are greater and lesser.
If its only talking about the light, the intensities of the light and not the luminaries themselves, much less naming them we are also insulting the Egyptian gods. So my interpretation still keeps yours intact. And not naming the luminaries supports that we are not talking about them or acknowledging them. They are false gods.
(853. אֵת eth) - Not typically translated; used as a direct object marker
Topical Lexicon
Overview
אֵת (eth) appears more than eleven thousand times across the Hebrew Scriptures, functioning primarily as the untranslatable marker that flags a definite direct object. Though silently rendered in most English versions, its presence guides readers to recognize what, precisely, is being acted upon, thereby sharpening narrative clarity, reinforcing covenantal specificity, and underscoring theological emphasis.
It look to me that what is being acted upon is that this lesser light (can also translate to younger) is made to ‘rule over’ the stars. I’d think that also would be a nice insult to the Egyptian ancient star gods… I assume those are also gods? The stars (made as part of the heavens in the beginning) are not made here but are just being ruled over.
The initial light was “free” in that it was being scattered by cloud cover. The source of the lights, the luminaries themselves can now be seen in the heavens, but it is just the light from them that is now made to be ‘on’, ‘in’, or shining directly upon the firmament/earth.
This core meaning works for me as this light is being transferred… is in transit from the source of the light to the surface of the earth.
And I’m laughing with you because this really is God’s sense of humor. I am awestruck by how the meaning of the names and their timeline lines up so well with scientific estimates. In fact, it flips ‘God of the gaps’ on its head as the common decent time line of Arphaxad (monotremes) is 153 mya, Shelah (therians) is 130 mya, and Peleg (placentals) is 106 mya. All science can say is that our common decent with all of these is somewhere between 160-80 mya. So the Bible is filling in the gaps of science.
I was not quote mining. Qoute mining is taking part of what someone says and twisting it to make it sound like they said something else. I was looking up how many words were in the first century Hebrew language, and that 9,000 number was what was given. I looked at multiple sources and they all had about the same number. You are not saying that I need to read the full article to glean a number from it are you? I also quoted the article and provided the link for you.
By ‘creationist’, I hope you are not lumping me in with YEC. I am EC like many here. I believe that evolution explains the process of how God created us and that Genesis 1-11 is allegorical. In addition, I believe the genealogical allegory just happens to accurately point to the common decent of all life.
What I quoted and bolded is that that 9,000 was extended to 14,000. Still a very small vocabulary for a language. Before the Dead Sea scrolls, the Hebrew Bible was the entire known language.
That says nothing other than that the KJV translators did for the most part, try to use that same English words for each Hebrew word to translate, a concordant approach.