New analysis of Hebrew bible suggests god did not create the earth

Owen

From Fark.com

New textual analysis of the Hebrew in Genesis suggests God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself.


http://www.dailyglobal.com/2009/10/god-is-not-the-creator-claims-academic/

Turtwig

If He Created the universe, He created the Earth be it indirect or direct.

GLaDOS

New analysis of Hebrew bible suggests god did not create the earth

WHAT????

Zillah

Atheists won't care, religious will care but rationalise or dismiss as always.

Dades

* MOVED FROM A&A *

PaintDoctor, it's an interesting article - but primarily concerns Christian beliefs, so I've put it here to get responses.

Over to you guys.

Flamed Diving

God is not the Creator, claims academic

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis “in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth” is not a true translation of the Hebrew.

She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world — and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.

Prof Van Wolde, 54, who will present a thesis on the subject at Radboud University in The Netherlands where she studies, said she had re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole, and in the context of other creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia.

She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb “bara”, which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean “to create” but to “spatially separate”.

The first sentence should now read “in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth”

According to Judeo-Christian tradition, God created the Earth out of nothing.

Prof Van Wolde, who once worked with the Italian academic and novelist Umberto Eco, said her new analysis showed that the beginning of the Bible was not the beginning of time, but the beginning of a narration.

She said: “It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself.”

She writes in her thesis that the new translation fits in with ancient texts.

According to them there used to be an enormous body of water in which monsters were living, covered in darkness, she said.

She said technically “bara” does mean “create” but added: “Something was wrong with the verb.

“God was the subject (God created), followed by two or more objects. Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?”

She concluded that God did not create, he separated: the Earth from the Heaven, the land from the sea, the sea monsters from the birds and the swarming at the ground.

“There was already water,” she said.

“There were sea monsters. God did create some things, but not the Heaven and Earth. The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding.”

God came later and made the earth livable, separating the water from the land and brought light into the darkness.

She said she hoped that her conclusions would spark “a robust debate”, since her finds are not only new, but would also touch the hearts of many religious people.

She said: “Maybe I am even hurting myself. I consider myself to be religious and the Creator used to be very special, as a notion of trust. I want to keep that trust.”

A spokesman for the Radboud University said: “The new interpretation is a complete shake up of the story of the Creation as we know it.”

Prof Van Wolde added: “The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now.”

Interesting. Good to see a religious text being subject to review.

PDN

So one Old Testament scholar suggests that Genesis 1:1 could be translated as 'spatially separated' rather than 'created'.

That's hardly new, I remember hearing similar ideas floated 20 years ago.

From a Christian standpoint, of course, it makes no difference since there are numerous other biblical verses that state that God created the heavens and the earth. Therefore the fact that one verse can be translated another way cannot, by any sensible principle of interpretation, be used to ignore the clear meaning of many other verses.

A standard principle of exegesis (of any text, not just the Bible) is that you use the clear and unambiguous parts of the text to interpret anything that might be slightly ambiguous. In other words, the clear illustrates the not-so-clear - never vice versa.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

From a Christian standpoint, of course, it makes no difference since there are numerous other biblical verses that state that God created the heavens and the earth. Therefore the fact that one verse can be translated another way cannot, by any sensible principle of interpretation, be used to ignore the clear meaning of many other verses.

But doesn't this go a way towards showing inconsistencies in the Bible ?

I'm pretty sure I agree with what your saying though, that the clear should point out the unclear.
But, could you point out what verses say god created the earth ?

I'm also interested in why its important whether he created it or simply added to it/manipulated it once it was here.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

But doesn't this go a way towards showing inconsistencies in the Bible ?

No. What it says is that, because of the limitations of language, some words may be translated one way rather than another.

For example, I might hear someone (let's call him 'Jim') say that last night he saw one of the pastors of my church "in a mini". That statement is ambiguous in that it could mean one of two things:
a) He saw him, either as a driver or a passenger, in an extremely small car.
b) He saw him wearing an extremely short skirt.

Obviously it is important to me to know which of these ambiguous meanings is the correct one. I would be happier that one of my pastors has appalling taste in motor cars, rather than that he might be a transvestite.

However, if Jim then goes on to say, "The mini ran out of petrol so he got his wife to collect him in her BMW instead" then everything becomes clearer. An ambiguous phrase has been clarified by a phrase with no ambiguity.

Now, only an absolute buffoon would advance the argument that 'BMW' must be the name of a kind of skirt, based on the fact that Jim already said he saw the pastor "in a mini". And only a raving lunatic would argue that Jim's statement proves that mini skirts run on petrol!

In the above example we can clearly see which interpretation is most consistent with Jim's statements. We intuitively make that judgement call without asking why. But once we analyse it we realise that we made that judgement by using the clear statement to interpret the less-clear statement - not vice versa.

So, it is not a matter of there being inconsistencies in Jim's statements. It is a matter of one unambiguous statement helping us come to the correct interpretation of a sentence that could otherwise carry more than one meaning.

I'm pretty sure I agree with what your saying though, that the clear should point out the unclear.
But, could you point out what verses say god created the earth ?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:19-20

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossian 1:16-17

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Hebrews 1:1-3

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:5-7

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

I'm also interested in why its important whether he created it or simply added to it/manipulated it once it was here.

It's important because that is what the Bible says.

Christians do not interpret the Bible in order to produce the beliefs that are important to them. They come to those beliefs as a result of interpreting the Bible. If a Christian belief cannot be supported by exegesis of the Scripture then that belief should be dropped (as, for example, Luther and others jettisoned many of their beliefs during the Reformation).

Flamed Diving wrote:

Interesting. Good to see a religious text being subject to review.

While I can't speak for other religions, Christians continually review the Bible. This is why we have academic disciplines such as textual criticism.

If you pick up a modern translation of the Bible (eg the NIV) you will see the results of such review on almost every page in the form of footnotes that suggest alternative possible translations.

Sometimes these reviews are quite substantial. For example, the first 11 verses of John Chapter 8 (the story of the woman caught in adultery) have a note attached saying "The earliest manuscripts and many other witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11". The same applies to Mark 16:9-20.

Similarly, in 1 John 5:8, most modern translations totally remove a clause that reads "testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one". Although this was included in the King James Version, it was a later scribal gloss and review of the text has demonstrated that it was not part of the original.

So continual review of the text is something that most Christians actively encourage. The problem with the case in the OP is not that the text is being reviewed, but rather that it is being done badly and the claims being made (such as belief in God as Creator being untenable) are really rather silly and not supported by the evidence.

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:19-20

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossian 1:16-17

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Hebrews 1:1-3

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:5-7

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Hmmmm... Most of these quotes appear to be from the New Testament.

Might the thesis be valid from a historical perspective, if not a Christian perspective? The beliefs of the authors of Genesis might not reflect the beliefs of Christians in this regard.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

Hmmmm... Most of these quotes appear to be from the New Testament.

They are all from the New Testament. This is the Christianity forum and Christians base their beliefs on the Scriptures of the New Testament as well as the Old.

Might the thesis be valid from a historical perspective, if not a Christian perspective? The beliefs of the authors of Genesis might not reflect the beliefs of Christianity in this regard.

Where is the Jewish forum when you need it?

DigiGal

Well Duh........
Quarks ftw!

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No. What it says is that, because of the limitations of language, some words may be translated one way rather than another.

For example, I might hear someone (let's call him 'Jim') say that last night he saw one of the pastors of my church "in a mini". That statement is ambiguous in that it could mean one of two things:
a) He saw him, either as a driver or a passenger, in an extremely small car.
b) He saw him wearing an extremely short skirt.

Understood and thanks.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

But thats NT isn't it ?

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:19-20

NT no ?

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossian 1:16-17

NT again.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Hebrews 1:1-3

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

I don't see the 'created' part here.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:5-7

Well thats NT isn't it ? And it doesn't say God created Earth at all. To me it seems to suggest there was a world before God. 'Whereby the world that then was .... '

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Again, NT.

PDN, are you trying to use a 'clear' message from the NT which AFAIK was written in a completely different language hundreds (thousands?) of years after the OT to prove the very first sentence in Genesis ?

Now, I agreed with your earlier assertions that context is necessary etc but come on now. You can't be suggesting that translations from the NT are relevant to the OT when they are so clearly separated by time, language and context.

It's important because that is what the Bible says.

It also says god created the universe in 6 days 6,000 years ago, it also says there was an Ark with a lad called Noah and there was a big flood etc.

You have been the great defender of context and understanding. What that article is doing is claiming that the literal interpretation of a line of genesis maybe incorrect. For example I'm sure you and JC have a thousand differences of opinion but that hardly makes you an infidel and him (because of his ... eh literalism) the only true Christian in the world now does it ?

So what if god didn't create but just molded the universe ? By which I mean what if this is what the bible actually says, does it really make a difference ?

edit > PDN, personal and slightly offtopic request. On this page http://www.dailyglobal.com/2009/10/god-is-not-the-creator-claims-academic/

The response by 'Alan Cecil', could you give your opinion on what he says ? (Talking about the difference between Hebrew and Christian beliefs regarding the translations in genesis)

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Again, NT.

Maybe you should read the sign on the way into the forum? Trying to limit discussion to the OT isn't going to cut much ice round here.

PDN, are you trying to use a 'clear' message from the NT which AFAIK was written in a completely different language hundreds (thousands?) of years after the OT to prove the very first sentence in Genesis ?

No, I'm not 'proving' anything. I'm giving the rationale by which someone who believes the Bible to be revealed Word of God will interpret Genesis 1:1 to mean creation.

Of course if you want to argue on a basis that rejects the Bible as God's Word, then it doesn't really matter what Genesis 1:1 means because it's all a load of cobblers anyway, isn't it?

Now, I agreed with your earlier assertions that context is necessary etc but come on now. You can't be suggesting that translations from the NT are relevant to the OT when they are so clearly separated by time, language and context.

I'm not talking 'translations'. I'm talking New Testament verses that clearly teach that God created the earth. They are certainly relevant to a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's Word. If you want to discuss it on some other basis then I suggest the History forum.

It also says god created the universe in 6 days 6,000 years ago, it also says there was an Ark with a lad called Noah and there was a big flood etc.

It also says that the trees of the fields will clap their hands, that Jesus is a door, and that he is bread. We have discussed before in other threads about parables, figures of speech etc. When people called Margaret Thatcher 'the Iron Lady' do you think they really thought she was made out of iron?

You have been the great defender of context and understanding. What that article is doing is claiming that the literal interpretation of a line of genesis maybe incorrect. For example I'm sure you and JC have a thousand differences of opinion but that hardly makes you or him right or wrong.

If two people have mutually contradictory opinions then at least one of them will be wrong.

Btw, that article is not addressing the issue of whether a literal interpretation of a line is correct or not. It is discussing how the line should be translated. As it is one Dutch professor is making an assertion that contradicts the vast majority of Hebrew scholars. She is also doing it on dodgy methodology - but that is another matter and could get overly technical for anyone who hasn't studied Hebrew.

So what if god created didn't create but just molded the universe ? By which I mean what if this is what the bible actually says, does it really make a difference ?

It would beg the question as to where the universe came from. But if that is what the Bible actually said then that wouldn't cause me any problems. The problem is that the Bible doesn't say any such thing.

edit > PDN, personal and slightly offtopic request. On this page http://www.dailyglobal.com/2009/10/g...aims-academic/

The response by 'Alan Cecil', could you give your opinion on what he says ? (Talking about the difference between Hebrew and Christian beliefs)

I think he's wrong on a number of different issues. If he wants to come on here and start posting I'll gladly discuss it with him, but I don't see the point of discussing on this discussion board what some guy posted on another board.

doctoremma

An interjection. It might be useful.

A quote from the Islam section on this forum:

Amibahabri:
It states clearly in Arabic( am a native arabic reader) how they were "one peice" , and this is the exact arabic translation, " seperated" etc.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should read the sign on the way into the forum? Trying to limit discussion to the OT isn't going to cut much ice round here.

As you yourself have stated, we are discussing the OT in terms of translation. Not on terms on Christian beliefs.

No, I'm not 'proving' anything. I'm giving the rationale by which someone who believes the Bible to be revealed Word of God will interpret Genesis 1:1 to mean creation.

No, you inferred that the translation in Genesis was supported by translations in the NT. Or at least thats the way I took it up by the way you said it.

If your going to make a translation in genesis 'clear' by another similar translation you surely cannot use the NT. You cannot prove how one word is translated in one language to another in one document thousands of years old by referencing another document hundreds of years younger in a completely different language.

I accept and understand your argument about context but surely you can see that this would be taking it too far.

Of course if you want to argue on a basis that rejects the Bible as God's Word, then it doesn't really matter what Genesis 1:1 means because it's all a load of cobblers anyway, isn't it?

I'm not arguing any such thing and I thought you weren't either. I thought we were arguing about academic linguistic translation.

I'm not talking 'translations'. I'm talking New Testament verses that clearly teach that God created the earth. They are certainly relevant to a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's Word. If you want to discuss it on some other basis then I suggest the History forum.

But that doesn't prove thats what Genesis says.

It also says that the trees of the fields will clap their hands, that Jesus is a door, and that he is bread. We have discussed before in other threads about parables, figures of speech etc. When people called Margaret Thatcher 'the Iron Lady' do you think they really thought she was made out of iron?

You know I agree with you on this, why bring it up ?

If two people have mutually contradictory opinions then at least one of them will be wrong.

JC

Btw, that article is not addressing the issue of whether a literal interpretation of a line is correct or not. It is discussing how the line should be translated. As it is one Dutch professor is making an assertion that contradicts the vast majority of Hebrew scholars. She is also doing it on dodgy methodology - but that is another matter and could get overly technical for anyone who hasn't studied Hebrew.

But you've only pointed out how its 'dodgy' by talking about a completely different document written by completely different people in a completely different language.

It would beg the question as to where the universe came from. But if that is what the Bible actually said then that wouldn't cause me any problems. The problem is that the Bible doesn't say any such thing.

I still don't understand why its such a big issue to admit there may be mistranslations. I know you don't like this opinion but its my opinion mistranslations are inevitable and undeniable.

I think he's wrong on a number of different issues. If he wants to come on here and start posting I'll gladly discuss it with him, but I don't see the point of discussing on this discussion board what some guy posted on another board.

Is he right in what he says about Jewish beliefs ?

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

They are all from the New Testament. This is the Christianity forum and Christians base their beliefs on the Scriptures of the New Testament as well as the Old.

This reply makes no sense. I know it is the Christianity forum. It is obvious. If I had said something like "This is not the Christianity forum." or "The New Testament is not an appropriate topic for discussion in this forum." or "Christians do not base their beliefs on the Scriptures of the New Testament." then I could understand your reply. Perhaps you were just confused when you fisked my post.

Either that or you were trying to get cute with me, which would be very silly.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

An interjection. It might be useful.

A quote from the Islam section on this forum:

Amibahabri:
It states clearly in Arabic( am a native arabic reader) how they were "one peice" , and this is the exact arabic translation, " seperated" etc.

The Qur'an is a different text from the Bible surely?

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

The Qur'an is a different text from the Bible surely?

I just found it intriguing that there would be need for clarity over the same subject. I wondered if maybe there had been a crossover of ideas at some point. Or that something could be learned through collaboration.

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

As you yourself have stated, we are discussing the OT in terms of translation. Not on terms on Christian beliefs.
...
If your going to make a translation in genesis 'clear' by another similar translation you surely cannot use the NT. You cannot prove how one word is translated in one language to another in one document thousands of years old by referencing another document hundreds of years younger in a completely different language.

I accept and understand your argument about context but surely you can see that this would be taking it too far.

If you think that OT or Judaism could possibly support Dr. Wolde "theory" then the answer is no, they could not.

If you need other OT passages that explicitly say of Earth being created by God then Isaiah 45:12 (the verb used there is asah /to make/, not bara) is one among many others.

If you're interested to know how this very question is answered in Judaism then B e r e s h i t Rabbah 1:9 is at your service.

But clearly you don't even need to go beyond Genesis 1 in order to translate bara as created.


"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." -- the verb used here is bara. I'm puzzled here how come the author of the sensational theory missed that bit in Genesis when she suggested that "It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself". What makes her suggest that bara in Gen 1:1 is to separate and in Gen 1:27 it's to create?

While dictionaries may suggest that "to separate" or even "to make fatter" are possible bara translations (all these are questionable as they might be different roots but I'm not a Hebrew scholar or even a linguist) I think it's quite clear that bara in Genesis 1 is "to create". The question remains what's the difference between bara and asah and it can be open to interpretations but both verbs describe the act of creation. To understand the difference between the two we can check how these verbs are used in other parts of OT. For example this one is very interesting:

Isaiah 45:7: I form (yatsar) the light and create (bara) darkness, I bring (asah) prosperity and create (bara) disaster; I, the LORD, do (asah) all these things.

Or this one:

Psalm 51:10: Create (bara) in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

Also:

Isaiah 54:16: See, it is I who created (bara) the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to work havoc.


I think (though it's only my opinion) that the meaning of bara is somewhere between to invent, to make possible the existence of something, to think up, to design while asah means to make, to assemble. It's like a piece of art first created (bara) in artist's mind and then created (asah) on canvas.

monosharp

Slav wrote: »

If you think that OT or Judaism could possibly support Dr. Wolde "theory" then the answer is no, they could not.

If you need other OT passages that explicitly say of Earth being created by God then Isaiah 45:12 (the verb used there is asah /to make/, not bara) is one among many others.

Why does he say 'make' the Earth but 'create' humankind ?

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." -- the verb used here is bara. I'm puzzled here how come the author of the sensational theory missed that bit in Genesis when she suggested that "It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself". What makes her suggest that bara in Gen 1:1 is to separate and in Gen 1:27 it's to create?

Because the same word/verb can mean different things in different circumstances depending on the rest of the sentence or even

While dictionaries may suggest that "to separate" or even "to make fatter" are possible bara translations (all these are questionable as they might be different roots but I'm not a Hebrew scholar or even a linguist) I think it's quite clear that bara in Genesis 1 is "to create".

Why is it 'clear' ?

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

This reply makes no sense. I know it is the Christianity forum. It is obvious. If I had said something like "This is not the Christianity forum." or "The New Testament is not an appropriate topic for discussion in this forum." or "Christians do not base their beliefs on the Scriptures of the New Testament." then I could understand your reply. Perhaps you were just confused when you fisked my post.

This applies to both you and monosharp.

I have been answering your posts in the context of this thread whose title clearly says "suggests that God did not create the earth". Therefore any discussion which touches on whether God created the earth or not hinges on the Scripture verses that address that issue, whether they be in the OT or the NT.

Now, if you simply wish to discuss how a Hebrew word in Gen 1:1 should be translated, and leave the NT stuff out of it, then we can do so. I am happy to discuss why this one scholar is unlikely to be correct and why the vast majority of Hebrew scholars are likely to be right.

However, it should be clearly understood that discussion has no implications for the Christian belief that God created the earth. If anyone wants to discuss that then the New Testament comes into play.

Either that or you were trying to get cute with me, which would be very silly.

Could you expand on that? As it stands it sounds like a schoolyard threat.

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

This applies to both you and monosharp.

I have been answering your posts in the context of this thread whose title clearly says "suggests that God did not create the earth". Therefore any discussion which touches on whether God created the earth or not hinges on the Scripture verses that address that issue, whether they be in the OT or the NT.

Now, if you simply wish to discuss how a Hebrew word in Gen 1:1 should be translated, and leave the NT stuff out of it, then we can do so. I am happy to discuss why this one scholar is unlikely to be correct and why the vast majority of Hebrew scholars are likely to be right.

However, it should be clearly understood that discussion has no implications for the Christian belief that God created the earth. If anyone wants to discuss that then the New Testament comes into play.

Again, this post makes no sense to me. I clearly said in the same paragraph:"Might the thesis be valid from a historical perspective, if not a Christian perspective? The beliefs of the authors of Genesis might not reflect the beliefs of Christianity in this regard.". In otherwords, I am perfectly aware that this is a Christian forum and that Christians base their beliefs on both the OT and NT. I can't imagine how you would infer otherwise.

Could you expand on that? As it stands it sounds like a schoolyard threat.

You are free to interpret it that way, though that would also be very silly/childish. Getting cute is both disrespectful and childish, and belongs in the schoolyard.

komodosp

If God didn't create the Earth, then who did? I thought the whole point of the creationist belief was the Earth could not possibly exist naturally and required a creator - i.e. God

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

Again, this post makes no sense to me. I clearly said in the same paragraph:"Might the thesis be valid from a historical perspective, if not a Christian perspective? The beliefs of the authors of Genesis might not reflect the beliefs of Christianity in this regard.". In otherwords, I am perfectly aware that this is a Christian forum and that Christians base their beliefs on both the OT and NT. I can't imagine how you would infer otherwise.

I am simply trying to ensure that we all know what we are discussing. The OP has chosen a thread title that conflates two separate issues:
a) How a particular Hebrew word should be translated.
b) Whether the Christian belief in God creating the earth is biblical

That was the context in which we are having a discussion. If you want to discuss (a) then I've already said that's fair enough. If you don't want to discuss it then that's fair enough too. I suggest you stop quibbling at my attempts to draw the distinction and discuss whatever it is that you want to discuss.

Either that or you were trying to get cute with me, which would be very silly.

I have simply tried to keep a discussion on track. You might not agree with how I've done that, but all this talk about being 'cute' is rather tiresome, as are cryptic little comments.

I would suggest that you discuss whatever it is you want to discuss and leave it the moderators to decide what kind of behaviour is silly or not - OK?

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

I am simply trying to ensure that we all know what we are discussing. The OP has chosen a thread title that conflates two separate issues:
a) How a particular Hebrew word should be translated.
b) Whether the Christian belief in God creating the earth is biblical

That was the context in which we are having a discussion. If you want to discuss (a) then I've already said that's fair enough. If you don't want to discuss it then that's fair enough too. I suggest you stop quibbling at my attempts to draw the distinction and discuss whatever it is that you want to discuss.

I have simply tried to keep a discussion on track. You might not agree with how I've done that, but all this talk about being 'cute' is rather tiresome, as are cryptic little comments.

I would suggest that you discuss whatever it is you want to discuss and leave it the moderators to decide what kind of behaviour is silly or not - OK?

Then I would also suggest not quoting me unless it is in response to what I have said. I can't have a conversation if responses to me are not actually responses to me.

---


As for the topic, my question is still open. Might the thesis be valid from a historical perspective, if not a Christian perspective?

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

Why does he say 'make' the Earth but 'create' humankind ?

I think it makes sense. Earth in Isaiah 45:12 is the planet which can be made or assembled out of different components, therefore asah. In Genesis 1:1 the heaven and the earth is the universe. The universe as a whole is something completely new and it cannot be assembled from different components and therefore God needed to bara it.

Humans are again something completely new in this world and therefore God bara them, both in Genesis and in Isaiah.

Because the same word/verb can mean different things in different circumstances depending on the rest of the sentence or even

Exactly. Bet-Resh-Alef can be read a number of different ways. What would you think about writing skills of the Genesis author who in the story of creation of the world uses B-R-A to say that heaven and earth were separated while few verses later the same B-R-A are used to say that humans were created? He's either a bad writer or there was no ambiguity in use of that particular verb.

Why is it 'clear' ?

Because that seems to be the only translation of bara that makes sense in the context of the Bible in general and in the context of Genesis 1 in particular.

The same way I can come up with a theory that bara is not to create and even not to separate but to make fatter (another possible translation). So in the beginning God made the universe fatter. He started the metric expansion of space or created the Hubble's Law if you like. And yes, Albert Einstein obviously used Torah as a primary source for the general relativity theory, if someone still not convinced they can google "einstein kabbalah". Any subscribers to my theory?

PDN

Here is an article making similar points to Slav - that to translate b'ra as 'spatially separated' would make absolute nonsenses in other texts where the word occurs. http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=1535

My biggest problem with the theory in the OP is that it is using faulty methodology and circular reasoning to determine the meaning of a word.

She starts off by assuming that the Creation account of Genesis 1 is similar to other creation myths in the Ancient Near East. All these other myths use words that are not etymologically related to b'ra to describe how their gods created the world out of existing materials. For example, in Babylonian legend the god Marduk slaughters a serpent and divides its body to create the earth and the sky. Then Dr van Wolde makes the massive assumption that since these other creation myths use words that mean 'spatially separated' then it must follow that Genesis must use its totally different word (b'ra) to convey the same concept.

The inconvenient truth, however, is that the Genesis account is radically different from any of the ANE creation myths. While those myths portray gods as fighting each other, or fighting monsters, or spilling their semen on earth - Genesis portrays one God acting alone and speaking things as basic as light itself into existence.

Therefore Dr van Molde uses a false assumption (that Genesis 1 is fundamentallly the same as ANE creation myths) to propose a new meaning for b'ra. Then, using that new meaning, she argues that God did not create the universe, and therefore Genesis 1 is talking about the same kind of thing as is found in ANE creation myths. See the circle?

hivizman

I'd like to support PDN here - the proposed interpretation seems to be reversing the order of verses 1 and 2 of Genesis Chapter 1. Verse 1 is the classic "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and Verse 2 goes on to describe the earth as a formless void (NRSV translation) or "formless and empty" (NIV translation), and goes on to refer to "the face of the waters" (NRSV). So the waters were not there before the earth was created.

The Genesis 1 creation account seems open to two slightly different readings of verse 1: either (a) God created the heavens and the earth as the initial act of creation ex nihilo, or (b) God created an undifferentiated universe ex nihilo, and then separated the universe into the heavens and the earth. I'm not sure whether there is any theological implication for Christians whether you accept interpretation (a) or (b).

Out of interest, I believe that, for Muslims, interpretation (b) would probably be the preferred version, as the Qur'an notes in several verses that God has created the heavens and the earth (for example, Surat Ibrahim 14:32), but also suggests that "the heavens and the earth were one single entity, which We parted asunder" (Surat Al-Anbiyaa 21:30 - Muhammad Asad translation).

monosharp

Slav wrote: »

I think it makes sense. Earth in Isaiah 45:12 is the planet which can be made or assembled out of different components, therefore asah. In Genesis 1:1 the heaven and the earth is the universe. The universe as a whole is something completely new and it cannot be assembled from different components and therefore God needed to bara it.

Humans are again something completely new in this world and therefore God bara them, both in Genesis and in Isaiah.

Except that in Genesis God created man out of dirt (in one verse).

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Except that in Genesis God created man out of dirt (in one verse).

I think, if you read up on this, you'll find that the bit of man that both Jews and Christians see as newly created by God is the part where He breathed their spirit into them.

Fanny Cradock

Slightly off topic here, but those confused as to why the Genesis creation narratives are understood by many to be non-literal stories might find [http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/FAR294%20Lucas.mp3]this talk[/URL] from Ernest Lucas to be edifying. (You can download the mp3 by going directly to the Faraday multimedia main page and looking for talks by speaker - he has two on the same topic, I believe.)