|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1:1-3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
The opening lines of the Torah lend themselves to more than one interpretation and may have nothing to do with creation ex nihilo. So, for example, ...
The common translation reflects that of the Jewish Publication Society (JPS)
However, according to the highly proclaimed and authoritative Stone Edition Tanach renders the 1st verse as ...
... and treats verse to as a parenthetical. Similarly, Etz Hayim offers ...
... and notes in its commentary: 1. When God began to create The conventional English translation reads: "In the begining God created the heaven and the earth." The translation presented here looks to verse 3 for the completion of the sentence and takes verse 2 to be parenthetical, describing the state of things at the time when God first spoke. Support for understanding the text in this way comes from the second half of 2:4 and of 5:1, both of which refer to Creation and begin with the word "when". What we have in the more modern translations of the Torah is not creation ex nihilo but the creation of order out of chaos, i.e., "First Cause" is simply not addressed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Torah ... er, oops ... Bible Study.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
arachnophilia writes:
Interesting comment ...
i'll probably end up jumping in here a little later when there's a dispute of some kind. arachnophilia writes:
I'm nothing close to conversant on "Hebrew tradition". What does appear to be true is that Genesis 1:1-3 does not speak of creation ex nihilo. Against what is found in the early JPS and most if not all Christian "Old Testaments", the rendition presented here can be found in the Stone Tanach, the new JPS Tanakh, Etz Hayim, Alter, and Friedman (the latter two being personal favorites). but for now, a question. do you think that genesis (or anything else in the hebrew tradition) presents the idea that god also created the primordial, chaotic state of things prior to genesis 1's creation? It is interesting that the Etz Hayim commentary notes:
The first letter of the first word in the Torah, "b'reishit" is the Hebrew letter 'bet'. This prompted the Midrash to suggest that, just as the letter 'bet' in enclosed on three sides but open to the front, we ae not to speculate on the origins of God or what may have existed before Creation [Gen. R. 1:10]. The purpose of such a comment is not to limit scientific enquiry into the origins of the universe but to discourage efforts to prove the unprovable. ... The Torah begins with 'bet', second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, to summon us to begin even if we cannot begin at the very beginning.
Further support is found in Rashi:
But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: “At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darkness . and God said, ”Let there be light.’” But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, ...
Finally, we have Isaiah 43:10 ...
Ye are My witnesses, saith HaShem, and My servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; before Me there was no G-d formed, neither shall any be after Me. [JPS 1917]
Here we have existence both before and after God!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
remember, the creation myth in Gen 2 is likely the older of the two and probably refects and even earlier tradition.
OK, I'll make you a deal: I'll remember if you'll read this "older" account (beginning in the middle of Genesis 2:4) and tell me its relevance to the topic at hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
I notice you mention 'more modern translations', are you suggesting that older texts may imply creation ex nihilo?
No. I am saying that the JPS (1917) translation is "In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth", and that this matches all Christian Bibles of which I am aware - including the Septuagint.
I was under the impression that the OT simply doesn't imply C ex N, and it is obvious that the world existed in some form before God and His heavenly buddies arrived here.
In my view, "in the beginning God created" differs from "when God began to create" precisely in that the former suggest a beginning and, therefore, creation ex nihilo, while the latter does not.
Philip Davies (yes him) was giving a talk at our Bible Study class last week, and he suggested that perhaps the existence of evil could be explained by it sprouting from this 'chaos' rather that it being created by a 'good' being.
OK, although (a) I'm not how that suggestion is relevant to this topic, and (b) that's not what the Tanach suggests in Isaiah 45:7.
Does source criticism suggest that v.2 is a later insertion? For example, I see that 'God' is mentioned in all three verses, is it the same word used three times?
Like most people,I have read Friedman in lieue of reading Wellhausen. My sense is that he overstates his case. You might find Schniedewind, likewise The Pentateuch. While it seems clear that the Torah is conflated lore, poetry, propaganda, etc., I can't escape the feeling that JEDP is simplistic and predicated upon a maximalist view of Biblical history. I could certainly be wrong. More to the point, however, is that the so-call second creation myth seems very local in scope and, as I suggested above, seems to have little or no bearing on the whole question of creation ex nihilo. This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-10-2005 02:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
IMHO the relevance is that we are trying to determine the thoughts and cuture of the writers of Gen 1. To some extent we can gain understanding by looking at what even earlier cultures thought.
Perhaps, but only to the extent that Culture{Gen1} is dependent upon and reflects Culture{Gen2}. My concern is that we are unnecessarily stacking presuppositions.
For example, does the tale in Gen 2, as you say starting after the summation part at the very beginning, present a different view of the actual creation?
Yes - a local one. In my opinion, the more interesting question is when, why, and how did we come by a different rendition of Gen. 1:1-3 in the Torah and do so with so little effect on the Old Testament.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
In Gen 2 we see a very local, parochial view of creation. The Gen 1 account seems to be from a later, more sophisticated culture.
Or Genesis 2 is from a newer culture arising in the hill country and trying to piggyback Midrash atop an older Semitic Cosmology, or the abrupt refocus on the earth and Adam and Eve was akward redaction, or ... Your interpretation may be perfectly right ... or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
buzsaw, randman:
Respectfully, what each of you believe is entirely irrelevant to the topic, that topic being the intended communication of B'reishit (Genesis) 1:1-3. Please pursue your Christian apologetics elsewhare.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
arachnophilia writes:
Midrash tells us how Jewish sages perceived the text; to dismiss it impresses me as sophomoric. So, for example, a Midrash that cautions us "not to speculate on the origins of God or what may have existed before Creation" suggests a recognition that the opening lines of Genesis are conducive to such speculation. This, in turn, serves as evidence supporting the Etz Hayim translation against, for example, that found in the 1917 JPS Tanakh, which is precisely why the Etz Hayim commentary references it.
quote:i don't give much thought to such kinds of hebrew mysticism and tradition. genesis starts with "bet" because that's the character that signifies of, in, or at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
i don't mean to play the wise fool here, but. i'm just saying that i've never seen much point in analyzing things like the shape of letters, which letters, equa-distant letter spacing (the "bible codes"), numerical significances of hebrew letters, etc. i don't think there's much to any of that.
Nor do I, much as I have little if any interest in strawmen. Again, the Etz Hayim commentary notes:
The first letter of the first word in the Torah, "b'reishit" is the Hebrew letter 'bet'. This prompted the Midrash to suggest that, just as the letter 'bet' in enclosed on three sides but open to the front, we ae not to speculate on the origins of God or what may have existed before Creation [Gen. R. 1:10]. The purpose of such a comment is not to limit scientific enquiry into the origins of the universe but to discourage efforts to prove the unprovable. ... The Torah begins with 'bet', second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, to summon us to begin even if we cannot begin at the very beginning.
What does this tell us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Herepton:
Thank you for you input. It is rare to to see comments which manage to be simultaneously terse, inane, and sophomoric.
Herepton writes:
Yes, please. Please site the scholarship that adresses the intent of the Stone Edition Tanach rendering. Or, should you prefer, retract this childish ad hominem before you further embarrass yourself. quote:The above rendering has one goal: avoid polytheism. The original Hebrew says "Elohim" (plural) need I cite the scholars? As to the nature of the word "Elohim", let me first note that the issue raised is wholly irrelevant. The counterposition here is bewteen two distinct conceptualizations:
Herepton writes:
I find "New Testament" fables and apologetics underwhelming.
The context of the entire Bible establish the identity of the Gods (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Herepton writes:
Nonsense ...
quote:You are mistaken. In the original Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 "created" is "bara" it means out of nothing. quote: quote: This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-18-2005 12:56 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
There was no ad hom ... "The intent" of the Tanach rendering is to steer clear of polytheism: a mainstay of orthodox Jewry.
So you claim, but it is the baseless claim of one seeking to fabricate support for his trinity fantasy and altogether worthless. It is not only a baseless claim but, also, a baseless ad hominem from a Christian apologist implying pious fraud on the part of the translaters of the Tanach. One can but wonder on whose authority you pontificate about what constitutes "a mainstay of orthodox Jewry" or why, for that matter, Etz Hayim (much less Alter and Friedman) should be committed to such a mainstay.
CA concerning "bara" and "yatsar" and "asah": does the O.T. not have a word for creation out of nothing?
You made a claim about "bara". Substantiate it.
Let me speculate: attempting to establish in-roads for theistic evolutionists?
Your speculation is as worthless as your apologetics, while your implication of some Jewish conspiracy in interpretation is ludicrous bordering on antisemitic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Herepton writes:
Please refrain from further polluting the thread with unsubstantiated nonsense.
"Israel" literally means "Prince that has power with God".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Herepton writes: source: Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford University. quote: I couldn't find the part suggesting any credentials whatsoever in the field of Biblical Hebrew, nor anything at all suggesting critical scholarship. You two clearly deserve one another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
FYI: Herapton's authority ...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024