You can't prove one part of the bible by referring to another part.
Very true, and I never claimed to prove, only to explain my interpretation of Genesis 1:3 in light of other parts of the Bible.
Speaking of proof, if p->q, q doesn't prove p. That's to say, none of us have proven anything in this thread (as far as I can tell). We have all given logically consistent statements that are, to this point, without proof, myself included.
John 1 is much more recent than the book of Genesis, and could have been deliberately written to parallel Genesis
Rephrased: if someone (even an ordinary human) deliberately parallels Genesis while writing John, then they would write John after Genesis. That's logical. So is "if God wanted to reveal, in John, more details of what He had previously written in Genesis , He would write John after Genesis." But we've proven neither premise true/false.
the introduction to John which is a misunderstanding of the text by a later author
Rephrased: if a later author was simply misunderstanding Genesis, they may write something similar later in time. That's logical. So is "if God was correctly clarifying Genesis, He may write something similar later in time."
The stories were invented by polytheistic religions thousands of years before Yahweh himself was invented
Rephrased: if Moses (or someone) invented God after getting the idea from polytheistic religions, then he would have written Genesis after those religions existed. Logical. So is "If God created the world as described in Genesis, many people may have told semi-true stories about it and even based religions after what they understood of it before God told Moses a true account and Moses wrote it down."
Ok, enough of that, you all get the point (and perhaps you always did, but I just wanted to be extra clear that none of us were actually proving anything thus far, just sharing a different potential premise).
Let's look at what it says literally from the original Hebrew. Genesis 1:1 When the gods (Elohim, plural) began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form, and darkness was (previously) upon the face of the deep, and wind moved (previously) over the face of the waters. Then.... (the creation began).
I'll admit I'm no expert in Hebrew, but I've heard that Hebrew is a subtle language with far fewer words than English. Therefore, one word can mean two fairly different things, depending on context, etc. (such as the word for wind also meaning spirit, as in other places like Ezekiel 37). Also, the same verb can have a different tense (past vs past perfect vs pluperfect- but language really isn't my strongest area) depending on context. But, even still, I will accept your translation and (try to) argue that it is not inconsistent with either what I asserted or the following verses. I have no problem with a plural word for God (as i already agreed that 1:26 is plural and could suggest a triune God). The rest just says that, before God created light (or all the other items to follow), there was darkness (which seems obvious) and that there was water and that there was wind. The text doesn't say God DIDN'T create the water or the wind, just that it was there before God created light etc. If there is water (with a surface), there could be water vapor (a gas). If there is gas, and any differences in pressure, there could be wind. Genesis doesn't specifically tell about God creating Satan and the angels, but I believe He did.
I really do learn from everyone when I discuss these topics with you. I hope some of you have at least gained something valuable from what I've had to say.
