Why is the first verse of the Bible in contradition?

[Anonymous No.19869048]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God Created the Heavens... or is it Heaven?

The KJV is the only translation that says God created the Heaven. All other translations say God created the Heavens (plural)

Which is it?

[Anonymous No.19869054]

Doesn't matter and if you let something like this keep you from eternal salvation you have pride paralleled only by Satan himself

[Anonymous No.19869060]

>>19869048
dumbass never heard of purgatory baka

[Anonymous No.19869074]

>>19869054
Im a believer and a Christian. Im studying the Bible because I want to know more about it and I want to know Christ better than I do. It is a fair question to ask why the very first verse would have different translations of the word Heaven. Simple question, no need to get all defensive.

[Anonymous No.19869082]

>>19869048
How have you never heard of the term "heavens"? It's what people call the sky.

[Anonymous No.19869085]

>>19869082
I have heard of the term heavens. BUT WHICH TRANSLATION IS CORRECT.

[Anonymous No.19869091]

>>19869085
Anon, it's called a "synonym".

[Anonymous No.19869099]

>>19869085
It doesn't matter. God doesn't care whether you believe he made the heaven or the heavens. Doubt in faith is okay, in fact it's necessary, doubt over such silly things though is folly

[Anonymous No.19869108]

>>19869085
The words have the same meaning.

[Anonymous No.19869112]

>>19869099
OP here. Thats the whole thing, I don't doubt anything because of this. I don't doubt my faith. It was just a simple question I always wanted to ask. Now Im getting attacked lol

[Anonymous No.19869120]

>>19869112
Well its talking about the creation of the universe anon. So when we say "the heavens" what does that mean? You're being attacked cause it's a foolish question

[Anonymous No.19869121]

>>19869108
>>19869099
Right perhaps I should have worded the post better. Instead of contradiction I should have asked why the some translations have Heaven as plural, and not singular

[Anonymous No.19869132]

>>19869121
I think it's the same reason people say "skies" even though there's only one sky.

[Anonymous No.19869143]

>>19869132
Understood. Thanks anon. Thats what I was curious about. Didn't mean any offense in the question

[Anonymous No.19869146]

>>19869121
Are you autistic? You must be underage at least.

[Anonymous No.19869159]

>>19869143
It's okay. I wasn't offended. I'm sorry I was being a bit aggressive in my post.

[Anonymous No.19869163]

>>19869048
The first verse is not a contradiction, you're simply noticing that only the Authorized King James is the legitimate Holy Bible and the rest are counterfeit imposters. "the heaven" is correct, as it is referring to God having created physicality in and of itself (the earth), and empty space (the heaven) to allow for separation between physicalities, dimension. This is also why it is without form and void. It is simply physicality without having been shaped into anything at that particular moment, and it is liquid in nature, likened unto "waters", which it soon actually becomes.

[Anonymous No.19869166]

>>19869146
Not underage, but I am OCD so maybe just autistic

[Anonymous No.19869169]

>>19869048
The Hebrew one, this apply to the whole old testament, no need to thank me

[Anonymous No.19869189]

>>19869163
Thanks anon. I didn't think it was because im possessed or something. Maybe its just that I'm noticing falsehoods

[Anonymous No.19869202]

The KJV is regularly inaccurate. Like, it translates both sheol and gehennah into hell, which is wildly misleading

[Anonymous No.19869205]

>>19869048
its plural. in hebrew its "Hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" with Shamayim being the plural for heavens.
the KJV bible has a lot of translation inaccuracies and should never be read as an authoritative translation although it is still read for its pretty language and also because a weird american religious movement said it was a god-given translation at some point.

see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1%3A1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_in_Judaism

[Anonymous No.19869218]

>>19869112
You're not getting attacked, simply people are trying to explain why you're reading like an autist.

>>19869121
Because there's meaning and there's style. "Heaven", "heavens" and even "sky" all have basically the same meaning (the material object that they name), BUT their connotations are different, they have different stylistic qualities. The plural "heavens" probably comes from the ancient theories of sky having multiple levels, but since that (to my knowledge) isn't given much attention in Christian thought, it is safe to assume that the meaning is the same as singular "heaven". However, the plural form retains the mystical and elevated sense, it suggests vastness. So, it creates a stronger poetic effect, appropriate for the story of how the world was created.

[Anonymous No.19869236]

>>19869218
>you’re not getting attacked
>proceeds to attack me
I’m getting tired of your passive aggressiveness, anon.

[Anonymous No.19869241]

>>19869048
Literally not that hard to figure out. Not worth a thread. הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם is the word used, which has the masculine plural ending יִם but since heaven and heavens are interchangable in English, translations sometimes go between. For ancient people there are different notions of heaven. There was the sky, but if you went higher, it was believed this higher heaven was were deities lived. It's a potential reason why Ecclesiastes uses "under the sun" to mean worldly things, since above the sun would be where God is.

[Anonymous No.19869274]

>>19869241
See pic related. If you notice on the right, 1 Kings 8:27 translates "heaven and the highest heaven" but literally the phrase is הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם וּשְׁמֵ֤י הַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙, or "heavens and the heaven of heavens," with the second heaven being שְׁמֵ֤י, which is singular. Thus, as it appears in Genesis 1:1 it is plural. How it appears in 1 Kings 8:27 it is plural and singular, also indicating the different heaven ideas I mentioned regarding Ecclesiastes. It gets even more complicated once Hellenism hits in the New Testament.

[Anonymous No.19869278]

>>19869274
> If you notice on the right
*on the left

[Anonymous No.19869749]

>>19869085
The question doesn't make sense. Hebrew is not a code for English.

[Anonymous No.19870552]

>>19869048
Heavens is correct. The Hebrew word here, shamayim, is in its plural form.

>>19869163
Shut the fuck up KJV schizo

[Anonymous No.19870559]

>>19870552
I mean, on a grammatical level, the question is whether it's accurate semantically. To take a more trivial example, in English "my pants" are plural, but in many other languages they'd be a singular noun, e.g. "mia pantalono" in Esperanto.

[Anonymous No.19870562]

>>19870552
Non Christian here...
Does "heavens" mean sky? Or the magic place your soul goes when you die? I think this is the crux of the confusion

[Anonymous No.19870577]

>>19870562
The spiritual realm where God and other spiritual beings, "Elohim", reside.

[Anonymous No.19870703]

>>19869054
>t. satan

[Anonymous No.19870721]

jesus never spoke of a hell

[Anonymous No.19870751]

>>19869048
The difference between many and one disappears once you understand that the movement of many towards one (reduction) presupposes both unity and plurality. The heavens are of one heaven and vice versa. Remember God has redeemed the world. All conflict, duality, opposition and even the separation between death and life has been fully reconciled in the omnibenevolent being. The purpose of belief is to at-one the world, to reduce everything into something which is absolutely perfect. Heaven is a pro-ject-ion. At least that's how I would explain it.

[Anonymous No.19870762]

>>19869121
>why do different translations translate something differently

[Anonymous No.19870963]

>>19870552
It's only plural in modern editions of the MT Hebrew because they don't actually understand what was originally being expressed and think it must surely mean "skies". The Septuagint, and even Douay-Rheims agree.

[Anonymous No.19870980]

The Lord's prayer is similarly inconsistent. I have no idea why.

>pater noster qui es in caelis
>sicut in caelo et in terra

[Anonymous No.19871026]

>>19869048
virtually all modern Bible versions are corrupted with varying degrees. KJV Bible is the preserved word of God in the English language, yes NKJV and douay rheims have corruptions as well, not to mention all the horrible versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.

get saved and read the KJV without any commentaries or footnotes. if you're truly saved and have the Holy Spirit indwelling you, the scriptures will read very differently.

watch this gospel video if you aren't 100% sure that you're saved and on your way to heaven. it's very easy to be saved from hell because salvation is the free gift of God with no strings attached.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpOv_kvk4M8&t=1s&ab_channel=BaptistBiblePreaching

watch this if you are having doubts about your salvation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5RmgazPTaY&t=921s&ab_channel=zacthebaptist

documentary explaining why Christ rejecters that say they're jews are not God's chosen people. the Bible teaches replacement theology, Christians are God's chosen people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxWdKAUsPVI&t=3s&ab_channel=TruthMirror

[Anonymous No.19871032]

>>19869205
The extant Hebrew post-dates the Greek Septuagint.
>ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.
>οὐρανὸν
Accusative singular of οὐρᾰνός (ouranós)
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=ou)rano/s

[Anonymous No.19871244]

>>19869074
שָׁמַיִם
Can mean both, I think the reason that KJV goes with "the Heaven" is because it tries to equate it with Paradise. It really means the highest of skies, which I suppose "heavens" captures better. That is, the universe around the earth. The word is associated with astrology. Sorry that people are being faggots. Translating it as "the Heaven" is weird anyhow, since Paradise is probably outside of time, but who knows.

[Anonymous No.19871285]

>>19869054
>meaning of bible doesn’t matter.
Ok heretic.

[Anonymous No.19871317]

>>19869048
if you are really interested anon watch this

https://youtu.be/ayDedTQ2Zkk

[Anonymous No.19872025]

>>19869048
Buddy, Matthew, and Luke openly contradict each other. Not only that, the census which supposedly caused Jesus' family to return to Bethlehem never took place. In fact, there never was any census of that nature (where one had to return to their ancestor's homeland). NOT ONLY THAT, Joseph's family would have to be traced back tens of generations to know their ancestral birthplace is Bethlehem.
Additionally, the Messiah is supposed to be born of the line of David. Joseph is apparently from that line, however: Jesus is not Joseph's son. He's Mary's son conceived divinely, so he actually bears no relation to the line of David whatsoever. The entire thing reeks.

[Anonymous No.19872062]

>>19869048
Don't get stumped on that.
Genesis 1:3-5 says he created light and the days go by but 1:14-19 he created the sun, which is how we determine a day. 3 days go by without the reference point of what makes a day?
Get outta here

[Anonymous No.19872097]

If you don't understand a simple sentence like that, perhaps a more dumbed down philosophy is more suitable for you. I recommend atheism. You'll eventually end in hell, but heaven is crowded enough with the intelligent already.