Scholar claims Genesis word was mistranslated

[Tangerine]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

 

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".

[mommaduck]

And there will be scholars that disagree with her. There are always scholars tossing in their 2 cents to disprove other scholars. Even if He did "separate"...where does that mean that He could not have also created before then? Just because it isn't in there? He always was, always is, and always will be. Therefore, He came before anything and anything after Him was created by Him.

 

....another topic to pass the Mike's on.

Edited October 9, 2009 by mommaduck

[lionfamily1999]

In the beginning God spatially separated the heavens and the earth...

 

hmmmm

 

Interesting :)

[Gretchen in NJ]

In the beginning God spatially separated the heavens and the earth...

 

hmmmm

 

Interesting :)

It doesn't make sense or does it?:confused:

[mommaduck]

It doesn't make sense or does it?:confused:

Nope.

[justamouse]

:lurk5:

[Cricket]

Given that Genesis was written roughly 3500 years ago, you'd think someone would have figured that out before now, if that's true.

[lionfamily1999]

It doesn't make sense or does it?:confused:

I don't have any knowledge of ancient languages (other than a little Latin), but it seems like, if this was so it would have been caught earlier. I mean, he separated the waters from the land and the air too... so it's not as thought creation didn't have separation going on.

 

Does that make any sense? I'm having a rough day. IOW, there was already separation spoken of, so how did they miss the initial separation if it was there all along?

[Stacie]

I don't have any knowledge of ancient languages (other than a little Latin), but it seems like, if this was so it would have been caught earlier. I mean, he separated the waters from the land and the air too... so it's not as thought creation didn't have separation going on.

 

Does that make any sense? I'm having a rough day. IOW, there was already separation spoken of, so how did they miss the initial separation if it was there all along?

 

:iagree:I don't know the original Hebrew words used, but is the word for separated the water and land different than the word she thinks means separated? I'll have to read more about it later tonight.

[Daisy]

Her claims are not new, though she might like them to be. I imagine this will be nice validation for those who already embrace an old world creationist or theistic evolutionist viewpoint.

 

However, we would all of us be a laughing stock (from evolutionist to young earth creationist) if we dropped our worldviews and embraced another on the basis of one dissenter's arguments.

 

I would suspect that most of us (on this forum) form our belief in origins through a thoughtful process. I prefer to think that the bright people on this board would never ascribe to a particular theory of origins by default and so I choose not think less of them for reaching a conclusion that differs from my own.

[Spy Car]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

 

I made the same point in a thread last week. While not using the term "spacially separated".

 

But Hebrew scholars have long pointed out (and even people reading in English translation should be able to see) that there is a presumption of the existence of matter at the beginning of Genesis. The earth and the heavens were without form, but it's not like there was "nothingness."

 

But it's obvious, no?

 

Bill

Edited October 9, 2009 by Spy Car

[Michelle in MO]

It'll be interesting to see how many other scholars line up with her thesis; to me, I would expect to see a number of noted Hebrew and Old Testament scholars agreeing with her conclusion.

 

I expect that this thread may turn into a heated discussion on creation/ID/evolution, and I intend to avoid that.

 

However, as to this scholar's thoughts on the matter, I have a few things to counter with:

 

Strong's Concordance gives his expanded definition of the word:

 

bara' (baw-raw'); a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): -choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

 

And Vine's gives a fuller definition:

 

bara, "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1; cf. Gen 2:3; Isa 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.

 

Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as asah, "to make" Isa 41:20; 43:7; 45:7,12; Amos 4:13, yatsar, "to form" Isa 43:1,7; 45:7; Amos 4:13, and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa 45:18: "For thus saith the Lord that created [bara] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara] it not in vain, he formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." The technical meaning of bara (to "create out of nothing") may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym.

 

Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen 1:1; Isa 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17); man (Gen 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut 4:32; Ps 89:47; Isa 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa 43:1; Mal 2:10); a new thing (Jer 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa 4:5); north and south (Ps 89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa 45:8); speech (Isa 57:19); darkness (Isa 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps 51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material.

 

The point of this selection from Vine's is to show that the word "bara" supposedly translated as "to separate" in Genesis 1:1 was the same word used to indicate "to create" or "to make" in most other passages in the OT. So, generally speaking, there needs to be some consistency in translation.

 

How that creation takes place is another matter entirely--some see the involvement of no god whatsoever; some believe in intelligent design, some believe in theistic evolution, and some believe in a literal 6-day creation. All of this has undergone considerable scrutiny on these boards.

 

But, no, I guess I would want to see that word "bara" clearly having the meaning of "to spatially separate" in most of those other passages before I would consider it a valid translation of the word in that one verse. One thing to note with both Strong's and Vine's is that both are very reputable sources for thorough definitions of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words, and in none of them was the meaning "to separate" indicated.

 

Also, I believe the understanding of the Church has always been that the universe was created ex nihilo, out of nothing. John 1:1 reiterates much of what is said in Genesis 1:1---

 

John 1:1-3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

 

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Michelle in MO

[Spy Car]

Edited after re-reading the articles and seeing some of her "extensions" re: creation are novel compared with tradition interpretations.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Spy Car

[Michelle in MO]

It's not new. It is the standard Jewish perspective, a perspective of people who understand Hebrew.

 

Bill

 

There are others who also understand Hebrew who would disagree.

[Jenny in Atl]

There are others who also understand Hebrew who would disagree.

 

Of course!

[Spy Car]

There are others who also understand Hebrew who would disagree.

 

The creation of animals, people, etc. I'll grant the point.

 

But as to the idea that there was nothing existent at the start of Genesis I don't believe there's much dispute that that is a wrong-headed reading. It's clear even in English translations that such a reading of the story is not correct.

 

Bill

[justamouse]

And here I thought Friday night at the Hive would be boring.

[Michelle in MO]

The creation of animals, people, etc. I'll grant the point.

 

But as to the idea that there was nothing existent at the start of Genesis I don't believe there's much dispute that that is a wrong-headed reading. It's clear even in English translations that such a reading of the story is not correct.

 

Bill

 

 

This seems pretty clear:

 

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

 

Perhaps you can elaborate a bit further on "I don't believe there's much dispute that it is a wrong-headed reading." What other Hebrew scholars would agree with your definition? What sources are you referring to?

 

 

Now, as to what form that creation entails, that's another matter entirely, for I clearly stated previously that some see the involvement of no god whatsoever, and others see varying degrees of involvement of a deity.

 

But, back to Gen. 1:1, I honestly don't see any other way to parse that passage but "God created the heavens and the earth."

[mommaduck]

Her claims are not new, though she might like them to be. I imagine this will be nice validation for those who already embrace an old world creationist or theistic evolutionist viewpoint.

 

However, we would all of us be a laughing stock (from evolutionist to young earth creationist) if we dropped our worldviews and embraced another on the basis of one dissenter's arguments.

 

I would suspect that most of us (on this forum) form our belief in origins through a thoughtful process. I prefer to think that the bright people on this board would never ascribe to a particular theory of origins by default and so I choose not think less of them for reaching a conclusion that differs from my own.

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

This seems pretty clear:

 

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

 

Perhaps you can elaborate a bit further on "I don't believe there's much dispute that it is a wrong-headed reading." What other Hebrew scholars would agree with your definition? What sources are you referring to?

 

 

Now, as to what form that creation entails, that's another matter entirely, for I clearly stated previously that some see the involvement of no god whatsoever, and others see varying degrees of involvement of a deity.

 

But, back to Gen. 1:1, I honestly don't see any other way to parse that passage but "God created the heavens and the earth."

 

Hebrew translations read something like "at the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth" and go on to say in various word in different editions that the earth was unformed (but NOT that the earth or the universe was matter-less) and that there was water/oceans in existence. Isn't that more or less what your translation of choice says?

 

Bill

[justamouse]

Again, flogging this book..

 

THE LANGUAGE OF GOD, by Francis Collins. He was the head of the human genome project and is an Evangelical Christian who does not read Genesis as God Created and *poof*. He proves through science that the Big Bang, evolution and faith are not mutually exclusive.

 

Fascinating read.

[Pamela H in Texas]

So Bill, you're saying that Gen 1:1 isn't necessarily a sentence in and of itself but part of the sentence at the beginning of Gen 1:2?

 

As I was reading this thread, I was thinking "what about Gen 1:2?"

 

But a couple other thougthts....

 

*I don't see how "God created..." cuts out old earth creationists.

*I also don't see how "at the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth..." leaves out God creating the formless earth he then works with. Why COULDN"T it be "nothingness," then God created, then God worked with it? especially if you're coming from an old earth standpoint?

*I also don't agree with the practice of taking ONE scripture to back up a belief when there are several scriptures regarding said topic. This is a good example. Even if there is a question about this particular word/sentence, the scriptures, as a whole, are clear on the subject.

Edited October 10, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[Spy Car]

So Bill, you're saying that Gen 1:1 isn't necessarily a sentence in and of itself but part of the sentence at the beginning of Gen 1:2?

 

As I was reading this thread, I was thinking "what about Gen 1:2?"

 

But a couple other thougthts....

 

*I don't see how "God created..." cuts out old earth creationists.

*I also don't see how "at the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth..." leaves out God creating the formless earth he then works with. Why COULDN"T it be "nothingness," then God created, then God worked with it? especially if you're coming from an old earth standpoint?

*I also don't agree with the practice of taking ONE scripture to back up a belief when there are several scriptures regarding said topic. This is a good example. Even if there is a question about this particular word/sentence, the scriptures, as a whole, are clear on the subject.

 

Absolutely, Gen 1:1 Is the first clause in a sentence that includes Gen 1:2.

 

It doesn't leave out "shaping" the formless earth, that's what the story describes. God may have also "created" the matter he shaped, but the story does not speak to this. It would fall into "conjecture."

 

Nowhere does the Bible suggest God created the matter of the universe.

 

Bill

[Pamela H in Texas]

Bill, just to clarify, you're saying the scriptures do not say that God created the matter that God used to create various things?

[Spy Car]

Ohmygosh! I have a thought! Imagine!

 

Okay... so IF this ONE word has been mistranslated, how does that reconcile with the SECOND creation account that is in Genesis 2:4 where it says, again, "made"?

 

This second version of Genesis story still talks about God shaping and forming. A prime example is making man out of earth. Out of matter. Not poof! Out of nothingness. KWIM?

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Bill, just to clarify, you're saying the scriptures do not say that God created the matter that God used to create various things?

 

Do they?

[Michelle in MO]

Hebrew translations read something like "at the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth" and go on to say in various word in different editions that the earth was unformed (but NOT that the earth or the universe was matter-less) and that there was water/oceans in existence. Isn't that more or less what your translation of choice says?

 

Bill

 

 

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but all versions say that the earth was formless and void (and I would agree with you that it doesn't state at that point that the earth or universe was without matter). However, prior to that it does state, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", or, as your version (which one exactly, I'm not sure) states, "at the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth"---the point I'm trying to make is that at some point prior to the formation of the earth, God created.

 

I have here a couple other versions which might help:

 

Gen 1:1-3

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. (from The Complete Jewish Bible)

 

 

From Young's Literal Translation:

 

Gen 1:1-3

 

In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth —

 

2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

 

3 and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.

 

The simple point here is: at one point there was no matter, and then at another point there was matter. Both the language of the Hebrew, the translations quoted here (and all other translations I've read) state that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The language also clearly supports that God was the creator of that matter.

 

The other simple point I'm trying to make is that I do not believe that any version of the Bible that I've ever read supports this scholar's contention that the Hebrew word bara means that God separated what had already been in existence (which leads to questions of "how" again). From my first post, the word bara in almost every instance in the Old Testament has the meaning "to create, to form", and is used that way contextually in other passages. For example, can this scholar point to other places in the Old Testament where bara contextually should mean "to separate"?

 

It is clear from a further reading in the original passage in Genesis that later on it clearly states that God "divided" the waters from the waters, and the Hebrew word badal was used (which in some other translations is phrased as "separated"). Again, here's a simple definition of that Hebrew word: a primitive root; to divide (in variation senses literally or figuratively, separate, distinguish, differ, select, etc.) But, these are two different Hebrew words, and from what I can tell, they are both primitive root words and unrelated to one another.

 

At any rate, since there are thousands of years of scholarship that have gone into understanding both the Old Testament and New Testament, and since contextually the word bara is not supported by any other passage in the OT to mean "to divide" or "to separate", unless I see other scholarship supporting this woman's thesis, I don't believe it's a supportable theory.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Michelle in MO

[Pamela H in Texas]

There are a few scriptures that say:

 

Jesus was created first and then through him *all* other things were created.

AND

God created *all* things; because of His Will, they existed and were created.

 

*ALL* seems encompassing to me. So regardless of how Gen 1:1 reads and is tied to Gen 1:2, I think it is reasonable to believe that the matter was also created at some time in the past.

 

However, I'm not positive that this matters all that much either. God created everything in the heavens and earth. Whether he did so as I create a green smoothie (with matter already there) or from "nothingness" (actually creating the matter with which to create everything) seems.....well, it seems like one of those discussions that the scriptures warn about--digging into things in order to miss the point given as well as more important matters.

[Kate CA]

The Hebrew Lexicon would disagree with this "scholar."

 

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01254

[mcconnellboys]

Well, I can agree that this sentence might make sense:

 

"The first sentence should now read 'in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth' "

 

I can agree that separation or coalescing of the solid earth from what would become the atmosphere was a necessary component of the early earth in order to prepare the way for life on earth.

 

But I don't think that statement negates this other statement:

 

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

 

Even science still looks to the big bang as a creation of something from nothing. I certainly don't believe that God "came later" and merely organized things already in existence. I find that simply preposterous, sorry. I still believe God to be the author of the big bang and everything that's come since: creating, ordering, re-arranging, reconfiguring over time, etc. All God, all the time.

[Spy Car]

 

From Young's Literal Translation:

 

Gen 1:1-3

 

In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth —

 

2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

 

This one helps because is explicitly shows that when God (according to this Creation story) began to from the earth, it already exited. It was not "formed" or shaped, but it was not non-existent. Correct?

 

Water like-wise existed.

 

So this God is shaping, acting as a potter (if you will) but not "creating from nothing."

[Spy Car]

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

 

Even science still looks to the big bang as a creation of something from nothing. I certainly don't believe that God "came later" and merely organized things already in existence. I find that simply preposterous, sorry. I still believe God to be the author of the big bang and everything that's come since: creating, ordering, re-arranging, reconfiguring over time, etc. All God, all the time.

 

I'm no expert in the Big Bang, but I'm sure it doesn't say all was created out of "nothing". Nor does the Genesis story.

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

 

Nowhere does the Bible suggest God created the matter of the universe.

 

 

nowhere does the BIBLE? or just the Genesis account?

 

someone already pointed out that pesky John 1 bit about "w/o Him nothing was made" --so , no, the Bible absolutely does clarify the creation of EVERYTHING via God.

 

of course, we could probably spin or dismiss the following verses too:

 

Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. Nehemiah 9:6

 

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: Isaiah 42:5

 

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isaiah 44:24

 

I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. Jeremiah 27:5

 

The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. Zechariah 12:1

 

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3

 

And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: Acts 14:15

 

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; Acts 17:24,25

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

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: Colossians 1:16,17

 

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

 

Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. Revelation 14:7

 

-----------

 

Kate --thanks for the Hebrew Lexicon link.

 

-----------

the Big Bang theory [last i was reading] didn't necessarily assert an "out of nothing" format, but a recurring shrinking and expanding of what always has been.

 

creation doesn't necessarily assert an "out of nothing" point either: it's all FROM GOD.

 

and of course, if matter "always has been" it's easy enough to state that God "always has been." :)

[Marylou]

formless/void=nothingness

[Spy Car]

Disagreeing with you.

The hebrew word here for "made" is "'asah" which means "to do, fashion, accomplish, make". So whatever this scholar claims about Genesis 1:1 and about God not making the heavens and the earth, it doesn't jive with the other creation account in which God did, indeed, create the earth and the heavens.

 

And thank you, Kate CA, for the cool link!

 

'Asah" is fashion or form or create. Not created (past tense).

 

And the story (even in English) would not make sense if in Genesis 1 the earth had been created, but it was formless, chaotic, wild and waste. That's illogical.

 

Had the earth been "created" the earth would not still be in the process of being created. How's that not clear?

 

Clearly the creation-story in Genesis describes things in the act of being formed. But not the creation of something out of nothing.

 

Why cut Adam open to get a rib, if you could create woman out of nothing? What create Adam (and perhaps Eve in one version) out of earth if you could create out of nothing?

 

Nothing in Genesis suggests anything was created out of nothing, with the possible exception of "light" and "life" (no small things, but not the same as creating matter out of nothing).

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

nowhere does the BIBLE? or just the Genesis account?

 

I should have clarified, Hebrew Bible. My bad.

 

I am speaking with you? Trial run.

 

 

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: Isaiah 42:5

 

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isaiah 44:24

 

Perfect examples. Here God shapes and forms. Like a potter makes and creates things from clay. He stretches things and spreads things, but it doesn't say he made the clay.

 

Bill

Edited October 10, 2009 by Spy Car

[TXMomof4]

 

However, I'm not positive that this matters all that much either. God created everything in the heavens and earth. Whether he did so as I create a green smoothie (with matter already there) or from "nothingness" (actually creating the matter with which to create everything) seems.....well, it seems like one of those discussions that the scriptures warn about--digging into things in order to miss the point given as well as more important matters.

 

Amen!

[Kathleen in VA]

Well, I don't think her idea that bara, among other things, can mean "separated" is anything new. I found that out at Blue Letter Bible. (scroll down to Gesenius's Lexicon and read the entry - a lexicon, btw, that was published in the mid-19th century) Her understanding is that the verb is followed by more than one direct object which led her to the idea that God did not make two things (heaven and earth) but rather, by her choosing to use the "separated" meaning instead of the "created" meaning, she believes it is saying that God separated two things from each other. That's what she is asserting is new. But that understanding could easily be disputed. We often use more than one direct object after a verb. (Mike ate a banana and an apple.)

 

Also, she says she placed this new understanding of the word bara in the context of ancient texts. Well, the only infallible ancient text is the Bible so I'm afraid I just can't see the point of placing a biblical reference in the context of other Mesopotamian man-produced writings. I realize that's moot if you don't believe the Bible is the inspired, God-breathed Word, but for those of us who do, this particular point is silly.

 

She also said she placed this new understanding of the word bara in the context of the rest of the Bible. Well, if she did that, then I'm not sure how she reached her conclusion because, as Peek has pointed out, the Bible makes it very clear that God created everything seen out of things unseen - or stuff out of nothing.

 

One must not take one lone scripture and try to build a doctrine upon it. All of scripture must be considered and weighed. The Bible is its own best commentary and must be interpreted as a whole - not by picking out isolated verses.

[Spy Car]

Also, she says she placed this new understanding of the word bara in the context of ancient texts. Well, the only infallible ancient text is the Bible so I'm afraid I just can't see the point of placing a biblical reference in the context of other Mesopotamian man-produced writings. I realize that's moot if you don't believe the Bible is the inspired, God-breathed Word, but for those of us who do, this particular point is silly.

 

Since the Genesis authors liberally borrowed from other (earlier) Mesopotamian creation myths it doesn't seem illogical to look for context from the sources the Bible stories were based upon.

 

She also said she placed this new understanding of the word bara in the context of the rest of the Bible. Well, if she did that, then I'm not sure how she reached her conclusion because, as Peek has pointed out, the Bible makes it very clear that God created everything seen out of things unseen - or stuff out of nothing.

 

Your link shows bara' as:

 

To cut, to carve out, to pare down, to plane and polish

 

All acts of forming and shaping. Not matter-creation out of nothingness. Big difference.

 

Bill

[Kathleen in VA]

Since the Genesis authors liberally borrowed from other (earlier) Mesopotamian creation myths it doesn't seem illogical to look for context from the sources the Bible stories were based upon.

 

 

 

Your link shows bara' as:

 

To cut, to carve out, to pare down, to plane and polish

 

All acts of forming and shaping. Not matter-creation out of nothingness. Big difference.

 

Bill

 

I think the borrowing was the other way around. And you didn't scroll down far enough. Look for the Gesenius's Lexicon section and read that.:)

[sunshine]

The creation of animals, people, etc. I'll grant the point.

 

But as to the idea that there was nothing existent at the start of Genesis I don't believe there's much dispute that that is a wrong-headed reading. It's clear even in English translations that such a reading of the story is not correct.

 

Bill

 

 

I have never heard of any dispute among the theologians that I have studied and been taught by. This is the first I have ever heard of anyone disputing the first words of the Bible (except of course by non-believers who do not believe any of the Bible) stating creation from nothing.

It is very clear when you read it as I just did to see if I could see your point, that it says that God created the Heavens and the Earth in the beginning.

 

Who among the Christians or Hebrews dispute this?

[Spy Car]

I think the borrowing was the other way around. And you didn't scroll down far enough. Look for the Gesenius's Lexicon section and read that.:)

 

Well Gilgamesh Epic, to name one, far pre-dates the writing of Genesis.

 

And I did scroll down to Gesenius's Lexicon. All the definitions have to do with "fashioning" or making something out of something. And NOT making something out of nothing.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I have never heard of any dispute among the theologians that I have studied and been taught by. This is the first I have ever heard of anyone disputing the first words of the Bible (except of course by non-believers who do not believe any of the Bible) stating creation from nothing.

 

Then you have had a very narrow education. The idea that Genesis represents the beginning of a narrative, but that this narrative does not start at the "beginning" of the existence of the universe is well-established among biblical-scholars.

 

And it is the clear text reading of the story that God creates things out of things, creates order from chaos, even creates men from earth, but never creates something of substance from non-substance. There is no evidence for (poof) matter out of nothing.

 

It is very clear when you read it as I just did to see if I could see your point, that it says that God created the Heavens and the Earth in the beginning.

 

Who among the Christians or Hebrews dispute this?

 

Lots of the Hebrews.

 

If one said:

 

At the beginning of Gods forming of the heavens and the earth the earth was a formless mass

 

That would make logical sense.

 

But if you said:

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [full stop]. The earth was formless.

 

Well wait. Does this make sense? How could the earth have been "created" AND formless? It's saying the earth was fashioned but it wasn't fashioned. It's a contradiction. Can't be correct.

 

See what I mean?

 

Bill

[EthiopianFood]

Bill, I get what you're saying, and I have no problem with you being right, if you indeed are. That said, I've always interpreted verses one and two to say that God created the heavens and the earth (1), and in its first condition, it was without form (2). Verse two describes the condition of what was created in verse one. I'm not saying a formless earth makes a lot of sense to me, but neither does it make sense that there is water for God to float over if there is nothing on which the water can lie. It seems to make the most sense to say that the earth wasn't distinct in the way it is now, whatever that happened to look like.

 

This doesn't prove that there wasn't preexisting matter that God used, it's really just a side point. Logically though, does it really make more sense to you that matter existed without God? Eternal matter? I don't know if I even believe in God, but this is the one thing that gets me. Where did the particles in the Big Bang come from in the first place? Eternal matter doesn't make MORE sense than an eternal Being.

[Kathleen in VA]

Well Gilgamesh Epic, to name one, far pre-dates the writing of Genesis.

 

And I did scroll down to Gesenius's Lexicon. All the definitions have to do with "fashioning" or making something out of something. And NOT making something out of nothing.

 

Bill

 

Well, my point about the definition of the word bara was just that the idea of it meaning "to separate" is nothing new. The only new thing is her applying it to this verse, which she came up with because the verb is followed by two direct objects. I wasn't trying to make a case for that verse supporting creation ex nihilo.

 

As for the Epic of Gilgamesh predating the Bible, you must check out Ruth Beechick's book Genesis: Finding Our Roots. Moses may have put pen to paper after Gilgamesh, but there are verses in Genesis that support the conclusion that he may have gotten his accounts from preserved texts written by Adam, Noah and others. I encourage you to explore the notion that other civilizations' traditions and stories regarding origins are just mangled versions of the true history of the earth that cropped up after the Great Deluge and the debacle at the Tower of Babel. Of course, one would have to believe there was a great flood and that languages were confused at Babel, etc. to go down that road. Christians believe that God gave Moses the one true account of all things regarding origins. There has to be one, you know - one true account that is.

[sunshine]

Then you have had a very narrow education. The idea that Genesis represents the beginning of a narrative, but that this narrative does not start at the "beginning" of the existence of the universe is well-established among biblical-scholars.

 

And it is the clear text reading of the story that God creates things out of things, creates order from chaos, even creates men from earth, but never creates something of substance from non-substance. There is no evidence for (poof) matter out of nothing.

 

 

 

Lots of the Hebrews.

 

If one said:

 

At the beginning of Gods forming of the heavens and the earth the earth was a formless mass

 

That would make logical sense.

 

But if you said:

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [full stop]. The earth was formless.

 

Well wait. Does this make sense? How could the earth have been "created" AND formless? It's saying the earth was fashioned but it wasn't fashioned. It's a contradiction. Can't be correct.

 

See what I mean?

 

Bill

 

No, because if I create play dough using other ingredients because I am not God and cannot create ingredients out of nothing, then my play dough will be a formless lump. Then I form it into a ball.

 

Formless means without form, not without substance, it is there, unformed, a lump, like playdough. To create means to make something.

 

And my spiritual education has been quite good thank you. I have 2 Hebrew Scholars who live next door to me. I have great familiarity with the works of great theologians like Francis Schaffer, John MacArthur, John Piper, CJ Mahaney, DL Moody, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Bunyan and my Pastor Bob Dimmitt who welcomes all questions. I email him to death:D

 

I did not say that when God created the Heavens and Earth that it was the first thing to be in existence. God and His hosts were already there. Existing, Existing, Existing (to the tune of Dory).;)

[sunshine]

[quote name=Kathleen in VA;

As for the Epic of Gilgamesh predating the Bible' date=' you must check out Ruth Beechick's book Genesis: Finding Our Roots. Moses may have put pen to paper after Gilgamesh, but there are verses in Genesis that support the conclusion that he may have gotten his accounts from preserved texts written by Adam, Noah and others. I encourage you to explore the notion that other civilizations' traditions and stories regarding origins are just mangled versions of the true history of the earth that cropped up after the Great Deluge and the debacle at the Tower of Babel. Of course, one would have to believe there was a great flood and that languages were confused at Babel, etc. to go down that road. Christians believe that God gave Moses the one true account of all things regarding origins. There has to be one, you know - one true account that is.

 

 

Amen!

[Spy Car]

Well, my point about the definition of the word bara was just that the idea of it meaning "to separate" is nothing new. The only new thing is her applying it to this verse, which she came up with because the verb is followed by two direct objects. I wasn't trying to make a case for that verse supporting creation ex nihilo.

 

As for the Epic of Gilgamesh predating the Bible, you must check out Ruth Beechick's book Genesis: Finding Our Roots. Moses may have put pen to paper after Gilgamesh, but there are verses in Genesis that support the conclusion that he may have gotten his accounts from preserved texts written by Adam, Noah and others. I encourage you to explore the notion that other civilizations' traditions and stories regarding origins are just mangled versions of the true history of the earth that cropped up after the Great Deluge and the debacle at the Tower of Babel. Of course, one would have to believe there was a great flood and that languages were confused at Babel, etc. to go down that road. Christians believe that God gave Moses the one true account of all things regarding origins. There has to be one, you know - one true account that is.

 

Um...Moses, of course, didn't actually write the 5 books of Moses. Other-wise he couldn't have described his own death and events that occurred subsequent to his death. Correct?

 

It's pure conjecture that stories written after the time historically established epics were written, pre-dated the original creation myths. Ruth Beechick can make up all sorts of claims, but where's the proof?

 

Bill

[sunshine]

Um...Moses, of course, didn't actually write the 5 books of Moses. Other-wise he couldn't have described his own death and events that occurred subsequent to his death. Correct?

 

It's pure conjecture that stories written after the time historically established epics were written, pre-dated the original creation myths. Ruth Beechick can make up all sorts of claims, but where's the proof?

 

Bill

 

Where is the proof that the other epics were written before the book of Moses? Or that the events described in Genesis didn't predate the Mesopotamian Myths or other pagan accounts of creation.

The fact is none of us have definitive proof because we were not there.

And I can't change a mind that doesn't want to change. It is well established that I believe in a literal 6 day creation by a one true God. You do not.

I do like to hear why you don't and I hope that you like to hear why I do.:001_smile:

[Spy Car]

Bill, I get what you're saying, and I have no problem with you being right, if you indeed are.

 

I'm just trying to understand what mythic ideas the human author's of Genesis were trying to get across. Right, wrong, I don't know. It's literature to me.

 

But one version makes sense (to me). And from the scholarship I've read makes sense in Hebrew. And conforms (better) to our limited scientific understanding of the origins of the universe.

 

Where the other does not makes sense on the internal logic of the text. The best I can reason it.

 

 

That said, I've always interpreted verses one and two to say that God created the heavens and the earth (1), and in its first condition, it was without form (2). Verse two describes the condition of what was created in verse one.

 

I'm confused. Are you saying that the original condition of the earth, as God began forming it was formless but not matter-less?

 

If so this is my best understanding of the text.

 

Or are you saying that what God created was a formless earth?

 

If that's it, why would an all-powerful being create something that was void, barren, chaotic, or welter and waste? He wouldn't be a very good creator and thus this interpretation undermines the majesty of the creator-god.

 

I'm not saying a formless earth makes a lot of sense to me, but neither does it make sense that there is water for God to float over if there is nothing on which the water can lie.

 

But that's my point. There is water. It must rest on matter of some form. The earth may not be finished being "formed" (which is clear in text that it is not, since as the story progresses and the earth is worked on) but there is matter present.

 

The potter just hasn't finished molding. cutting, shaping, and separating.

 

It seems to make the most sense to say that the earth wasn't distinct in the way it is now, whatever that happened to look like.

 

Makes sense to me too.

 

This doesn't prove that there wasn't preexisting matter that God used, it's really just a side point.

 

Kind of a big side point.

 

Logically though, does it really make more sense to you that matter existed without God? Eternal matter? I don't know if I even believe in God, but this is the one thing that gets me. Where did the particles in the Big Bang come from in the first place? Eternal matter doesn't make MORE sense than an eternal Being.

 

I don't believe in supernatural beings, so matter existing without a creator-god isn't a stretch for me. As to how all this matter came to be? That is a question far beyond the comprehension of my puny mind.

 

Bill