Genesis 1:1-3

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.

---

אָרַח

Nor do I, much as I have little if any interest in strawmen.Again, the Etz Hayim commentary notes: What does this tell us?

1. Those who created and sustained the Midrash were pretty superstitious.
2. Those who created and sustained the Midrash saw Gen. 1:1-3 as leaving the "First Cause" question unresolved and, in response, evolved the position that such questions were out of scope.

The Midrash is helpful, not because it is methodologically sound, but because it reflects how the text was understood by respected teachers who had spent their lives studying Torah. It is my contention that this Midrash suggests that Genesis 1:1-3 was understood as addressing the creation of order out of pre-existing chaos.

oh, ok. sorry. i guess i misunderstood. yes, seems reasonable to me.

---

אָרַח

It is how I see Genesis 1:1,2,3, related to the topic title and OP. In order for the hypothesis to make sense, I found it necessary to address some of the context.Edited to add: After rereading the OP more carefully, I see that we did get away from the purpose of the thread which seems to be more about the meanings of words and phrases in the various texts. My apologies. Some opinions were expressed during the discussion, however, as to the interpretations of the wording of these verses. My comments did relate to some of that, as well as the comment in the OP about creating out of nothing, et al.I'll reserve comment, unless it relates directly to topic or comments of others about the OP.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-15-2005 12:40 AM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

The above rendering has one goal: avoid polytheism.The original Hebrew says "Elohim" (plural) need I cite the scholars ?The context of the entire Bible establish the identity of the Gods (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). You are mistaken. In the original Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 "created" is "bara" it means out of nothing. The N.T. confirms which I don't think you are interested in (Hebrews 11:3)."yatsar" = Genesis 2:7 "formed"."asah" = Genesis 2:22 "made" from existing materials. Agreed.But we can plainly see these Jewish scholars and their a priori theological bias operating/monotheism.BTW, there does NOT have to be a "first cause"; neither "infinite regression"; God is eternal: always was....always will be.Ray

Herepton:Thank you for you input. It is rare to to see comments which manage to be simultaneously terse, inane, and sophomoric. 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.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:

1. "in the beginning, when {X} ...", and
2. "when {X} began ...".

It matters little whether {X} is singular or plural, God or Pixie. Nevertheless, since you seem so intent on impressing us with shallow and simplistic pedantry, let me add:

1. I have no doubt that the nascent Israelite religion was henotheistic. This has been well supported by the likes of Frank Moore Cross, Mark S. Smith, Emanuel Tov, Ziony Zevit, and others, and is precisely what one might expect given what we know of Israelite ethnogenesis.
2. None of this, however, requires that we view this instance of Elohim as anything more than an instance of the royal or majestic 'we', as is suggested by the fact that the associated verb is singular.

Certainly there is nothing here to support your silly ad hominem. I find "New Testament" fables and apologetics underwhelming. Nonsense ...

quote:

---

The Hebrew stem of the word translated as "create" is used in the Bible only for divine creativity. It signifies that the created object is unique, depends solely on God for its coming into existence, and is beyond the ability of humans to reproduce. The verb never means "to create out of nothing."

​

- see Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary

---

quote:

---

The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb ‘ (bara’) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15, 65:17).

​

- see bible.org; Gen 1 note 3

---

This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-18-2005 12:56 PM

Unprovoked ad hom attack. Nice way to start.Hi CA, this is Ray Martinez/WILLOWTREE in case you didn't know. There was no ad hom - just a cite to one of six renderings that all mainstream scholarship subscribe to."The intent" of the Tanach rendering is to steer clear of polytheism: a mainstay of orthodox Jewry. I am not faulting the Tanach nor criticizing - simply identifying their bias - you know the thing everyone has ? What I just wrote was what I wrote previously; what you have labelled an ad hom attack - totally unjustified. Elohim is plural it means "Gods" - the original is not singular as you and I already know. Your conceptualizations are not relevant since the text in question does not say "when" anywhere. Why is my rendering "shallow and simplistic" and not yours ? Are you silently asserting that only Jews can decide the meaning ? Why does the MT arbitrarily chop off even 100 year blocks of time from the genealogic life-spans of antidiluvian patriarchs ? While the LXX and SP do not ? We have a strong anti-Messianic bias operating - no problem: the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah as everyone knows. Insisting "Elohim" does not mean what it says begs the question: why did the writer of Genesis record in the plural if he didn't mean it ?Imagine that...it doesn't matter what the Holy word of God actually says since we have a theological bias to ajudicate. I admit I have a bias, and admit it is one of six that all scholarship hold to. You are going through great lengths to insist you do not have what everyone has.Genesis 1:1 says "Elohim" plural; should be translated "Gods" but like your Jewish scholars - the KJV translators ultimately answered to King James. Both sets of scholars predetermined that the text could not possibly be advocating polytheism/heresy. But it says "Elohim" = Gods. The context of the entire Book unveils the meaning and identity of the Gods.Other "Gods" (in the singular):angELs.MichaEL.GabriEL.RafaELContext determines which "God" and kind. Genesis 1:1 is big picture facts. The remainder of the Biblical texts fill in the details of what 1:1 means. Text without context is error.Paul in 2Corinthians refers to Satan as the "theos of this world." There is one God. This means in unity. There is a Top Dog, though. Your monotheism plight is intact. This is as far as I go - not interested in Trinitarian doctrines of which Niebuhr called "logical nonsense". For any untrained lurkers out there:CA subscribes to (as do I) one of six renderings concerning the word "Elohim" in Genesis 1:1.Here are the 6:1. Survival of early polytheism (more than one God).
2. Plural majesty.
3. Plural of deliberation.
4. A plural of the fullness of the attributes of God; His power.
5. God addressing the angelic beings.
6. The one-in-three of the Godhead.A persons previously decided theological bias predetermines which one they endorse.The Church I attend endorses the 6th based on the content of the entire Bible.CA endorses # 2; meaning the Deity speaks as is custom of Kings or Majesty to refer to themselves as "we" or "us".CA concerning "bara" and "yatsar" and "asah": does the O.T. not have a word for creation out of nothing ?Imagine that...an alleged Deity who claims to be the universal Deity admitting He cannot create out of nothing nor does He claim so anywhere in the O.T. ?Let me speculate: attempting to establish in-roads for theistic evolutionists ?Ray

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. You made a claim about "bara". Substantiate it. Your speculation is as worthless as your apologetics, while your implication of some Jewish conspiracy in interpretation is ludicrous bordering on antisemitic.

Show me and I will promptly retract.Also by implication; I am glad to see that by the same standard employed in your blue box above; JEPD is a Jewish conspiracy theory invented by the philosophic forerunners of the Third Reich ?Ray

IsraELWhen God renamed Jacob He was sharing His glory. "Israel" literally means "Prince that has power with God".God will share His glory as testified to above.What He won't share is the dispensing of it.Genesis 1:1 = "Gods" = many types through-out Scripture.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 11-18-2005 02:05 PM

not to be a pain, but just about every translation i've ever seen except the kjv renders שָׂרִיתָ עִם-אֱלהִים (sarit im-elohym) as "fights with god." this would make sense with the constant mosaic goadings about "stiff-necked people."indeed, "power with god and people and have prevailed" doesn't really make sense.[edit] moved to new postThis message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-19-2005 12:14 AM

---

אָרַח

daniEL, ezekiEL, samuEL. want me to translate every one of them? they're all statements ABOUT god, like israEL. you forgot one:
7. it's actually a singular word.see, grammar matters. genesis 1:1 says בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים (bara elohym). "elohym" LOOKS like a plural word, but it's not, otherwise it'd say ברים אלהים (barym elohym). see? the ending of the verb has to match the ending of the noun. elohym is a singular word, that just ENDS -ym. much like we have singular words in english that end in -s: "pants" and "scissors" etc. is it a surviving word from an earlier polytheistic tradition? maybe. but as used in the bible, it's singular.if you want to look for polytheism in the bible, look for בן-אלהים (ben-elohym). much like "sons of israel" can be read as describing members of the family "israel," and thus israelites, "sons of god" can be read as members of the family "god" and thus "gods."This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-19-2005 12:22 AM

---

אָרַח

Please refrain from further polluting the thread with unsubstantiated nonsense.

source: Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford University.I suspect you will further entrench groundless Judeo-Christian ad hom and/or race cards into the debate = inability to refute tactic. I have no interest in participating where I am not wanted. You have succeeded in driving me away.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 11-21-2005 12:49 PM

Arach:Elohim is not singular - not a matter of opinion.I want you to know I read this post and the others. Glad to see your competence in Biblical studies.Ray