Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1:1-3
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 1 of 114 (258083)
11-09-2005 9:45 AM


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)
  • In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.
  • Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face of the water.
  • And G-d said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.


  • However, according to the highly proclaimed and authoritative Stone Edition Tanach renders the 1st verse as ...
  • In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth


  • ... and treats verse to as a parenthetical.


    Similarly, Etz Hayim offers ...
  • When God began to create heaven and earth
  • -- the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water --
  • God said: "Let there be light"; and there was light.


  • ... 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".


    2. unformed and void The Hebrew for this phrase (tohu va-vohu) means "desert waste." The point of the narrative is the idea of order that results from divine intent. There is no suggestion here that God made the world out of nothing, which is a much later conception.
    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.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 11-09-2005 9:52 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied
     Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 11-09-2005 6:31 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied
     Message 11 by Brian, posted 11-10-2005 1:19 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied
     Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-17-2005 2:17 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied
     Message 74 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-06-2005 6:55 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

      
    AdminPhat
    Inactive Member


    Message 2 of 114 (258086)
    11-09-2005 9:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by ConsequentAtheist
    11-09-2005 9:45 AM


    A home for da topic
    Hey, C.A....where do you want this to go? Bible Study? Faith and Belief?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-09-2005 9:45 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-09-2005 10:03 AM AdminPhat has not replied

      
    ConsequentAtheist
    Member (Idle past 6238 days)
    Posts: 392
    Joined: 05-28-2003


    Message 3 of 114 (258093)
    11-09-2005 10:03 AM
    Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
    11-09-2005 9:52 AM


    Re: A home for da topic
    Torah ... er, oops ... Bible Study.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 11-09-2005 9:52 AM AdminPhat has not replied

      
    AdminPhat
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 114 (258096)
    11-09-2005 10:04 AM


    Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1344 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 5 of 114 (258230)
    11-09-2005 6:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by ConsequentAtheist
    11-09-2005 9:45 AM


    i'll probably end up jumping in here a little later when there's a dispute of some kind.
    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?

    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-09-2005 9:45 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by Brad, posted 11-09-2005 6:44 PM arachnophilia has replied
     Message 9 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-10-2005 11:38 AM arachnophilia has replied

      
    Brad
    Member (Idle past 4788 days)
    Posts: 143
    From: Portland OR, USA
    Joined: 01-26-2004


    Message 6 of 114 (258236)
    11-09-2005 6:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
    11-09-2005 6:31 PM


    If you want to go with the gnostic view then the true God created the nature of the universe. The God in genesis is the cruel god who holds this world captive.
    Ah "Gnosis: The nature and history of Gnosticism" will you ever cease to pass the work day?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 11-09-2005 6:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 11-09-2005 8:15 PM Brad has replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1344 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 7 of 114 (258285)
    11-09-2005 8:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Brad
    11-09-2005 6:44 PM


    If you want to go with the gnostic view then the true God created the nature of the universe. The God in genesis is the cruel god who holds this world captive.
    i suppose we could actually justify that perspective biblically, but what i meant was if the op thought there were any hints at prior creation of the null state, or whether its eternal existance was just assumed.

    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Brad, posted 11-09-2005 6:44 PM Brad has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by Brad, posted 11-10-2005 10:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

      
    Brad
    Member (Idle past 4788 days)
    Posts: 143
    From: Portland OR, USA
    Joined: 01-26-2004


    Message 8 of 114 (258429)
    11-10-2005 10:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
    11-09-2005 8:15 PM


    Good question arach, and I don't think we can know without looking at the culture of the day. I don't know too much about this time period. What was the consensus amongst the culture of the day? What were the beliefs of the religions in the time of the writing of Genesis? If we could answer these things, and see where Genesis was borrowed from we could get a much better idea.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 11-09-2005 8:15 PM arachnophilia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2005 11:33 PM Brad has not replied

      
    ConsequentAtheist
    Member (Idle past 6238 days)
    Posts: 392
    Joined: 05-28-2003


    Message 9 of 114 (258449)
    11-10-2005 11:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
    11-09-2005 6:31 PM


    arachnophilia writes:
    i'll probably end up jumping in here a little later when there's a dispute of some kind.
    Interesting comment ...
    arachnophilia writes:
    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?
    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).
    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!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 11-09-2005 6:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by jar, posted 11-10-2005 11:52 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied
     Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2005 11:44 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 10 of 114 (258456)
    11-10-2005 11:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by ConsequentAtheist
    11-10-2005 11:38 AM


    remember, the creation myth in Gen 2 is likely the older of the two and probably refects and even earlier tradition.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-10-2005 11:38 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-10-2005 1:44 PM jar has replied

      
    Brian
    Member (Idle past 4959 days)
    Posts: 4659
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 10-22-2002


    Message 11 of 114 (258501)
    11-10-2005 1:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by ConsequentAtheist
    11-09-2005 9:45 AM


    Old texts?
    Hi CA,
    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 notice you mention 'more modern translations', are you suggesting that older texts may imply creation ex nihilo?
    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.
    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.
    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?
    Brian.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-09-2005 9:45 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-10-2005 2:17 PM Brian has not replied

      
    ConsequentAtheist
    Member (Idle past 6238 days)
    Posts: 392
    Joined: 05-28-2003


    Message 12 of 114 (258510)
    11-10-2005 1:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by jar
    11-10-2005 11:52 AM


    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by jar, posted 11-10-2005 11:52 AM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by jar, posted 11-10-2005 1:53 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 13 of 114 (258518)
    11-10-2005 1:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by ConsequentAtheist
    11-10-2005 1:44 PM


    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.
    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?

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-10-2005 1:44 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-10-2005 2:56 PM jar has replied

      
    ConsequentAtheist
    Member (Idle past 6238 days)
    Posts: 392
    Joined: 05-28-2003


    Message 14 of 114 (258527)
    11-10-2005 2:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by Brian
    11-10-2005 1:19 PM


    Re: Old texts?
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by Brian, posted 11-10-2005 1:19 PM Brian has not replied

      
    ConsequentAtheist
    Member (Idle past 6238 days)
    Posts: 392
    Joined: 05-28-2003


    Message 15 of 114 (258556)
    11-10-2005 2:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by jar
    11-10-2005 1:53 PM


    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by jar, posted 11-10-2005 1:53 PM jar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by jar, posted 11-10-2005 3:12 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024