Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fact it seems to be only the KJV, among all Christian Bibles. Every other translation I can find says 'fill'. However ... this English rendering of the Masoretic Text of the Jewish scriptures says ... replenish!
Anyone read Hebrew? Can you say for sure what the Hebrew sentence at Genesis 1:28 says?
Actually, there are other Bibles which also use the word 'replenish. Many --if not all-- are likely based on the first one to be translated as 'replenish'. The verse of Genesis 1:28 is displayed in 29 Bibles, here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/genes...8-compare.html
However, Genesis 1:28 . . . in the Hebrew *Interlinear* Bible . . . shows that the actual words used originally in that verse meant:
I tried to copy-paste the verse, but the Hebrew font didn't come out correctly. So, you'll have to use the above link to see it.
The English word-for-word translation for the relevant words in that verse are:
and·increase-you;
and·fill-you.
Then again . . .
Sometimes what appears to be a flaw now, was no flaw at all when first used!
Notice the early definition of the word 'replenish':
"mid-14c., from Old French repleniss-, extended present participle stem of replenir "to fill up,"
from re-, here probably an intensive prefix, + -plenir, from Latin plenus "full" (see plenary). Related: Replanished; replenishing."
(Online Etymology Dictionary)
This shows that we should pay attention to how a particular word that seems to be wrong was defined when it was first used.
We should also keep in mind that outdated words are just that . . . outdated words, and indications that translations into more modern words are in order.
Also, we need to remember that the flaws of inaccurate translations, should not be charged to the account of the original Scriptures, or its Divine Author.
For,
"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."---2 Timothy 3:16-17
IIRC the issue is with the old english and not the Hebrew. Prior to the publishing of the KJV, replenish was synonymous with fill. Sometime after the KJV, replenish came more to mean to refill, so people reading the KJV now, read it as to fill again.
Yes, there are many archaic English words and phrases in the KJV. There is a verse for instance that decries a certain kind of people as "doers of that which is not convenient". In my days at Bible Instituted we students used to joke that the Bible says it's a sin to be inconvenienced. But of course we weren't at all off the hook, as Elizabethan English used "convenient" the same way we use the word "appropriate". Our present sense of "convenient" evolved away from that. So that verse is really accusing people of being inappropriate / crass / vulgar.
This is why looking up the original Greek or Hebrew in a good concordance is useful, even for those who don't have the ability to read in those languages. Assuming the original authors weren't being sloppy or unclear in their usage, you presumably get a better sense of what was meant. To us, who regarded scripture as inerrant, of course the original text was golden, so that is why teasing out nuances of meaning was so important to us.
You encounter the same thing reading English translations of books written in any other language; a good translation has to convey the original flow and sense of idioms as well as exact meaning, and I have read English translations that turned me off to a book, then another that opened the very same book up to me.
Personally back in the day I favored the New American Standard Version over the KJV any day.
What's anyone's take (whether from a religious or non-religious POV) of God's command according to the Bible that the first animals, and Adam and Eve, "replenish" the earth?
This has obviously been changed in more recent versions of the Bible to "fill" - perhaps because of that same question I'm expressing, I don't know.
My question is...if there had been nothing before the first animals, the first fish, birds, Adam and Eve, etc., then why "replenish"? Doesn't that imply that there was something before, that went missing?
I have no problem with it being translated replenish as to me it makes perfect sense.
Genesis 1 is not about the heaven and earth of today, but rather is a prophesy of that which is to come, after the present heaven and earth are destroyed.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Male and female created he THEM.
There is niether male nor female in Christ.
Gen.1:26-27 is a prophesy of Christ and us in Christ.
This is off topic so I apologize, but it is another question about something I highlighted that I didn't get.
from the flood story:
And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
then a few paragraphs later:
And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark he had made ...
Why does it first day hundred and fifty days, then later forty days?
Since I have the book out I will post another question I had about some wording. I hope you don't mind me doing this.
Genesis 1-3 And God called the light Day,and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
I think and the morning and evening were the first day would have sounded better? Isn't it strange to put it the way it is in the Bible?
Another thing noticed is when God is creating everything in the beginning, only the word God is used. It never mentions he did this or he said that. It will say and God saw that it was good, instead of and he saw that it was good. What is God?
Then it gets interesting.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Here we have some more inconsistencies. After his kind, after their kind, and instead of and he saw it was good, it is saying and God saw it was good. If this was a one time occurrence then one might attribute it to a faulty interpretation of a word, but this happens in several places.
The reason you see inconsistencies is because you are reading two different stories concerning the flood. The compiler of the OT put the two stories together and created the inconsistancies, however when you seperate the two different stories from each other there are NO inconsistancies to be found within each story.
The reason you see inconsistencies is because you are reading two different stories concerning the flood. The compiler of the OT put the two stories together and created the inconsistancies, however when you seperate the two different stories from each other there are NO inconsistancies to be found within each story.
Where did the two different stories come from?
I read somewhere that the flood was actually 371 days or something like that.
I read somewhere that the flood was actually 371 days or something like that.
From the J source and the E or P source, not sure which, I will look it up when I get home ( I am at work, lunch)and show you the two different stories and you can see the difference yourself.
If the flood represented baptism, like Peter said, then the entire earth represents the human mind. So it is impossible to take these events literally. These details probably have absolutely no importance whatsoever. The flood was repentance and humility. You feel small and humbled after a spiritual death, but you are starting fresh on a long spiritual journey.
How come no preachers ever talk about the nakedness of Noah? Or of Adam and Eve? It's as if it means nothing to Christians. But it is really the crucial point of both stories. Noah was supposedly "righteous" but when he got drunk his true nature was revealed. The same as with anyone who has truly repented. He is not automatically perfect.
This is not that difficult to understand. Why do Christians debate this kind of topic?
Actually it means both and it is the SAME word used when God told Noah to replenish the earth.
I think regarding Noah it was fill from the point of zero population except for eight people...Starting from scratch...If you follow me?...This is the problem in attempting to understand an Eastern thought with a Western mind...Just as the Hebrew language is Eastern and different from a western language...Western language is abstract while Eastern language is functional...The letters of the Hebrew alephbet each had their own meaning, the Aleph was an ox , the Beyt was a tent , put Aleph and Beyt together and you get AB or ox-tent, an ox was the strongest animal known to the ancient Hebrews at the time, while the tent was where the family resided, so the strength of the home to the ancient Hebrew mind was the father or AB...Again take Beyt and put it together with Nun , a seed and you get , Beyt-Nun or seed-home (family) or BN (ben), which meant son, because the son was considered to be the continuation of the family line... Lam, a staff put together with and you get , strong-guidance or EL, G-d...To the western mind Noah was starting over or repopulating, to the eastern mind if one redoes something it is going to be the same as before, but with the western mind it means to start new...Take a jar filled with marbles, it tips over and the marbles fall out, you pick it up and fill it with pebbles, from a western mind you have re-filled it...The pebbles are irrelevant...You had a jar that was filled, then it became empty, you made it full again...You refilled it...With what did not matter, the fullness of the jar mattered...Even if you filled the jar each month with something different, it is still a full jar...To the Eastern mind that scenario would mean something new was created each month...The western mind would say, "I refilled it with pebbles", while the Eastern mind would say, "I filled it with pebbles", what was in the jar before is irrelevant...What is in the jar now is new as if the jar never had anything in it before...It is not the same as before, just as the earth was gone and now the eastern mind looks at it as new, new possibilities, newness of life, so to them it wasn't re-filling the earth, it was just simply filling the earth...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, the Beyt was a tent 
, put Aleph and Beyt together and you get AB 
, a seed and you get 
Lam, a staff put together with 
