Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   In the beginning
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 1 of 51 (60035)
10-08-2003 1:17 AM


How do we explain the opening two verses of Genesis?
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
How can there be an Earth without form and void and at the same time a darkness upon the face of the "waters"?
The waters translation is clearly speaking about water.It cannot be a metaphor for emptiness since without form and void are already used.
Let us hear the P.O.V.s.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-08-2003 8:42 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 21 by Philip, posted 11-04-2003 1:18 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 32 by JIM, posted 11-13-2003 11:43 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 41 by Quiz, posted 11-19-2003 12:07 AM sidelined has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 2 of 51 (60065)
10-08-2003 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
10-08-2003 1:17 AM


How can there be an Earth without form and void and at the same time a darkness upon the face of the "waters"?
The answer is actually very simple.
Without form: Water is a liquid and has no inherent form of its own.
Void: The earth had nothing within it therefore it was void or empty. Of course you could say that the earth had water in it, but that would be like saying that a cup is not empty because it still has the cup in it. The waters are the earth; therefore, to say that the earth was void is to say that the waters were empty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 10-08-2003 1:17 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by sidelined, posted 10-08-2003 9:10 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 3 of 51 (60070)
10-08-2003 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by w_fortenberry
10-08-2003 8:42 AM


But God did not call it into being .The text clearly states it was there and then the spirit of God MOVED UPON THE WATERS,(Enter stage right so to speak but the stage already was there.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-08-2003 8:42 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John, posted 10-08-2003 9:30 AM sidelined has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 51 (60073)
10-08-2003 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by sidelined
10-08-2003 9:10 AM


"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
You forgot verse #1. You quoted it in your original post, which makes it a bit confusing that you don't acknowledge it now. I suppose one could argue that 'bara' kinda suggests creating out of something already existing-- as would a potter, for example. I'm not sure that is defensable though.
As for 'formless and void,' The Hebrew is 'tohu' and 'bohu.' Both words mean very much the same thing-- something like shapeless and desolate. The words should convey the sense of a chaotic wasteland. 'Formless' is a decent translation but 'void' doesn't really cut it.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 10-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by sidelined, posted 10-08-2003 9:10 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 10-08-2003 9:48 AM John has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 5 of 51 (60075)
10-08-2003 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by John
10-08-2003 9:30 AM


It is obvious that Genesis 1:1 is not not when God created the heaven and the earth since 1:6 has him creating heaven at that point.I might add that there was work involved in seperating things THAT WERE ON THE EARTH in order to form heaven.Does that strike no one as odd?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John, posted 10-08-2003 9:30 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 10-08-2003 10:39 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 7 by John, posted 10-08-2003 11:03 AM sidelined has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 6 of 51 (60085)
10-08-2003 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by sidelined
10-08-2003 9:48 AM


Weren't "the waters" the same ones that made up "the deep" in the Noah story? The ocean upon which the disk of the Earth floated, or was held up by pillars, or something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 10-08-2003 9:48 AM sidelined has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 51 (60091)
10-08-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by sidelined
10-08-2003 9:48 AM


quote:
It is obvious that Genesis 1:1 is not not when God created the heaven and the earth...
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth..."
What isn't obvious? Line #1: God created heaven and earth. The phrase "heaven and earth" appears to be a Hebrew colloquialism for 'everything' or 'the universe.'
EARTH - JewishEncyclopedia.com
The verb in that verse, by the way, is in perfect tense-- it is a completed action.
quote:
...since 1:6 has him creating heaven at that point.
Yes, forming the specific thing instead of the vague 'everything.'
quote:
I might add that there was work involved in seperating things THAT WERE ON THE EARTH in order to form heaven.
Rethink this with the colloqial sense of Gen. 1 in mind.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 10-08-2003 9:48 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 10-08-2003 11:36 AM John has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 8 of 51 (60099)
10-08-2003 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by John
10-08-2003 11:03 AM


Okay so now the verse is "In the beginning God created everything."
You then state it is a completed action.
I pointed out that heaven was not created until Genesis 1:6
You state "Yes, forming the specific thing instead of the vague 'everything."
How do you form a specific thing that is already completed?
And what is vague about everything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John, posted 10-08-2003 11:03 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dilyias, posted 10-08-2003 4:15 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 10 by John, posted 10-08-2003 7:52 PM sidelined has replied

  
Dilyias
Member (Idle past 1367 days)
Posts: 21
From: Minnesota
Joined: 10-02-2003


Message 9 of 51 (60142)
10-08-2003 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by sidelined
10-08-2003 11:36 AM


quote:
Okay so now the verse is "In the beginning God created everything...How do you form a specific thing that is already completed?"
Umm, the sentence with the phrase "heavens and earth" (referring to "all that exists") is a summary/header sentence. Much of the records in the Bible were written like this; a summary statement and then the detail. (Much like a newspaper article - you see the clever header and then read the detail). This is basic stuff here.
Genesis 1:6 is part of the detail where God creates the "hard" firmiment/sky that seperates the waters above from those below. Of course he also hangs the sun and moon and stars inside this sky that poses a problem with what we now know about the universe but that's getting off topic.
Eric

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 10-08-2003 11:36 AM sidelined has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 51 (60179)
10-08-2003 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by sidelined
10-08-2003 11:36 AM


quote:
You then state it is a completed action.
It is. The creation of the universe itself, and the raw gunk that is to make the specific thingies.
quote:
How do you form a specific thing that is already completed?
The phrase 'heaven and earth' is colloquial. It does not mean literally 'a thing called heaven and a thing called earth.' It just means 'the universe.' God can still add to the universe or alter the material in the universe. It is this latter that you see him doing in verse 6. Everything can be present, while specific things are not. For example, you may have all the chemicals needed to make a roman candle, but there are no roman candles until you put those chemicals together just right.
This is language, not logic. Forcing the text into a logical structure just isn't playing fair. Language does not have to make sense in a strictly logical way. Ideally, the meaning conveyed makes sense logically, but the vehicle isn't so constrained. Language, all languages as far as I can tell, are squirrelly if you read them strictly logically. Hell, this is the reason so many logicians spent so much time trying to create a mathematical logic. The idea was to rid discussion of the ambiguities of language.
quote:
And what is vague about everything?
Point to it.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 10-08-2003 11:36 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by sidelined, posted 10-09-2003 3:01 PM John has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 11 of 51 (60294)
10-09-2003 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by John
10-08-2003 7:52 PM


Ok Now we come back to an issue I have brought up before. If we are to allow a god that can manipulate the universe after he has made it we open up the question of how he manipulates physical qualities within that universe and not leave a trace. Also since one of the known laws of physics states that energy is conserved the universe would have to alter visibly as we look deeper into space.
I agree that language is squirrely yet we do not add to the clarity by assuming things which are in the minds of the reader.In a different topic one person gave me a website that gives some of the new testament in original text with the literal translation below.
Now that is how it should be given over to anybody who wishes to read the bible that they may see how it is actually put together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John, posted 10-08-2003 7:52 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by John, posted 10-09-2003 7:02 PM sidelined has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 51 (60335)
10-09-2003 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sidelined
10-09-2003 3:01 PM


quote:
Ok Now we come back to an issue I have brought up before.
Not my problem, not here. I haven't claimed to solve any philosophical problems with the text.
quote:
I agree that language is squirrely yet we do not add to the clarity by assuming things which are in the minds of the reader.
You do not add to the clarity by ignoring the colloquial and euphemistic aspects of the language. Take the sentence, "We found a black box." Literally, this means that 'we' found a box that is black. But that isn't what the sentence means. What it means, at least in some cases, is that 'we' found an airplane's armored flight recorders.
quote:
In a different topic one person gave me a website that gives some of the new testament in original text with the literal translation below.
Please tell me you aren't talking about the Peshitta? Judge has not been able to demonstrate that the NT was originally in aramaic, and from what I can tell, neither has anybody else. Of course, a sizable group of people believe it anyway.
This is not the best way to translate anyway. Word for word translation doesn't work because definitions of similar items don't match from language to language. Essentially, a translator picks one of a word's definitions and puts it down as 'the' meaning. This gives the illusion that one is looking at a less manipulated text than one actually is. Not to mention the grammar. What happens is that you end up with things like engrish.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sidelined, posted 10-09-2003 3:01 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 10-10-2003 3:53 AM John has not replied
 Message 14 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2003 9:37 AM John has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 13 of 51 (60392)
10-10-2003 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by John
10-09-2003 7:02 PM


This is a prime example of how just one word misprinted can change the meaning a sentence was to convey.
"I agree that language is squirrely yet we do not add to the clarity by assuming things which are in the minds of the reader."
I meant to print "in the minds of the writer".I wonder how many times that occurs for the bible over the course of its long history?
I do know it makes no difference to your rebuttal but I needed to clear it up.
Sorry for the error.I shall proceed henceforth to the dungeons for a proper flogging.My wife so enjoys the exercise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by John, posted 10-09-2003 7:02 PM John has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 14 of 51 (64128)
11-03-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by John
10-09-2003 7:02 PM


Hi John,
I checked out engrish. What a hoot!
I am sorry to say that it reminds me of things I've seen here; not things written by foreigners but by people for whom English is a first language!
Imagine how our translation of ancient Hebrew texts would play back to the old geezers who wrote them in the first place!
db
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by John, posted 10-09-2003 7:02 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RebWlmJames, posted 11-03-2003 5:59 PM doctrbill has replied

  
RebWlmJames
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 51 (64213)
11-03-2003 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by doctrbill
11-03-2003 9:37 AM


Genesis 1.1
The Hebrew, "b'reishit bara" is grammatically inconsistent. "b" means "in" and "reishit" means "beginning of". The grammatical form of "reishit" (called the construct state) requires that it be followed by a noun, in this case, a verbal noun. "Bara" is not a verbal noun, it is the past tense. Some scholars hold that the word "bara" "(he) created" should be "baro" -- creating.
This would render the first line: "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth, when the earth was (still) unformed and shapeless . . ."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2003 9:37 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2003 8:17 PM RebWlmJames has not replied
 Message 51 by AlmostBlue, posted 12-27-2003 8:19 PM RebWlmJames has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024