|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 0/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
My first recommendation would be to find a good library where you can read Word Biblical Commentary or get it through interlibrary loan.
My second recommendation would be a series of lectures that Bruce Waltke gave at Western Seminary back in the 1970's. This was published both as a book, "Creation and Chaos", and as a series of five articles in Bibliotheca Sacra. Waltke disagrees with ICANT and me on verse 1; he takes verse 1 as a heading for the whole account, rather than as the first event in a series. But he does a good job of explaining the grammatical issues nonetheless. I found three of Waltke's five articles on Professor Ted Hildebrandt's page at Gordon Conwell: https://faculty.gordon.edu/...A_GenesisGordonArticlesBib.htm. Unfortunately, parts 2 and 3 of the series are missing (maybe you can find them somewhere else with a web search). Note that though Waltke was strongly anti-evolution when he wrote these articles, he is now open to the idea of theistic evolution. Hildebrandt has a number of other good articles on this page. I highly recommend Hummel and Hyers for the literary structure of the Creation account, Munday and Phillips for death of animals before the Fall, and Seely on the firmament. Faith might also be interested in E.J. Young's articles about the Days. ABE: Waltke's Part 2 is available here: Welcome michaelsheiser.com - BlueHost.com(I'm still looking for part 3). Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Arach writes:
Arach, you and I discussed this in detail a few years ago. I agree with you and Rashi that the first word ( בְּרֵאשִׁית ) could be in construct. The shortened vowel under the preposition suggests this, in fact. in fact, it does not tell us this. genesis 1:1 reads,
quote:בְּרֵאשִׁית has a construct ending, had it meant "in the beginning," comma, the word here would be בתאשונה. the ית- here ties to the next word in a construct chain. see for instance, genesis 10:10, But as ICANT said, if the first word is in construct, the next word ( בָּרָא ) must be a noun. But it's not a noun; it is a finite verb (Qal perfect, 3rd person masculine singular). For you and Rashi to be correct requires a change in the vowel points on ( בָּרָא ). This word is not voweled as an infinitive, as it must be for you and Rashi to be correct. How do you explain this? Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Arach writes:
I think we can agree that the voweling of at least one of the first two words is either non-standard or wrong. But which one? You would re-vowel the second word ( בָּרָא ). I would re-vowel the first word ( בְּרֵאשִׁית ), or at least take it as non-standard grammar.
the simplest explanation is that vowels are incorrect. the consonants were written around 2,500 years ago, and the vowels only added some 1,000 years ago. there's a 1,500+ year gap between when the author of genesis 1:1 wrote, and when someone added points this consonants. and here, the points are incoherent and inconsistent. if you read the text without vowels, you'd read it as a infinitive, and the text existed that way for a long time before the masoretes got ahold of it.
Why do you think it is the second, not the first word, which should be re-voweled?
Arach writes:
But there is no mystery as to the re-voweling of YHWH. This a "ketiv-qere" issue. The consonants are YHWH, but to avoid pronouncing the name of God, the word is read as "Elohim". Thus the vowels for YHWH were changed to be the vowels for "Elohim" [ABE: I should have written "Adonai", not "Elohim", as Arach noted] which is what is actually read. we already know that the masoretes added incorrect points elsewhere intentionally, based on how they though the texts should be read, rather than what they thought the authors actually meant. for instance, they fairly consistently mis-point the name of god. it's entirely possible that they mis-pointed the text here as well to represent their doctrine. Getting back to the main topic, here is a quote from Word Biblical Commentary on the translation of Gen 1:1:
quote: Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
I'm replying to myself; I wanted to add the Word Biblical Commentary discussion of the second option above. This is Rashi's view, which Arach holds. Word gives a nice summary of the pros and cons of this view. (FYI, this volume of the Word Biblical Commentary was by Gordon Wenham.)
Getting back to the main topic, here is a quote from Word Biblical Commentary on the translation of Gen 1:1:
quote: quote: Edited by kbertsche, : Shortened quote"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Arach writes:
But take a look at Is 46:10 (referenced in my quote of Word Biblical Commentary in message #200):
it's a non-standard suffix. as i believe i covered above (as did rashi), the absolute form is ראשונה.this one is slightly unusual in that it also adds a yud. however, the tav if the important part -- it's the construct suffix. quote: The form in Is 46:10 is identical to the first word of Gen 1:1 (except that the preposition is a mem instead of a bet: "from" instead of "in"). The word in Is 46:10 DOES have the tav, but it is NOT in construct, is it? How do you explain this? Isn't it possible that the first word of Gen 1:1 is also NOT in construct?"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
CRR writes:
This is an abuse of ancient near eastern genealogies. Their function was to establish lineage. They were commonly "telescoped" and were NOT intended to be comprehensive to establish history. Where are the dates? The genealogies and histories given in the Bible enable reasonably precise dating up to where they can be matched to historical events. See How does the Bible teach 6000-years - creation.com
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
Yes, there IS a "then", at the beginning of verse 3, after the circumstantial clause which is verse 2. The Hebrew construction is called a "waw-consecutive" or "preterite", and is normally translated "and then".
It says he created the heavens and the earth. There's no "then". There's certainly nothing to suggest billions of years. Here is the NASB 1995 translation:
quote:The first verse says that God created everything in the beginning ("heavens and earth" is a Hebrew figure of speech for "everything".) The second verse functions as an "aside", describing the conditions on the earth at an unstated later time. The focus of the story shifts to the earth here. The third verse describes God's next action in the story. It starts with the waw-consecutive; "and then God called the light into being"."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Correct; there is no "then" between verses 1 and 2. Nor should there be. Verse 2 is not describing an event; it is a circumstantial clause describing the condition of the early earth after its creation in verse 1. Verse 2 is sometimes translated as "Now the earth was ..."
The point seems to be that there is no "then" between verse 1 and verse 2. It seems likely to me that verse 1 says what the story is about, while verse 2 describes the original state of everything. Heaven and Earth are created later in the story. The ancient Hebrews had a geocentric cosmology so there is no need to suggest that there is a sudden shift of focus to Earth - there really is nothing else in the author's world-view to shift away from.
Verse 1 can be seen either as a heading or title for the whole account, or as the initial divine action in the account. Grammatically and structurally, the latter seems most likely to me. I see the heaven and the earth having been created in verse 1, NOT later in the story. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
But the earth is not created in vv 9-10 (Day 3a); it already exists, overlain with water. In vv. 9-10 God separates the water from the dry land, and He names the dry land as "earth".
Since the sky and the celestial bodies are all created in the rest of the text (starting in verse 6) and the dry land, called Earth is created in verses 9-10 it seems that there is good reason to think that they are created later. And certainly there is no good reason to assume that verse 1 refers to the creation of the universe as we see it, not when the stars aren't created until verse 15. Likewise, vv. 6-8 (Day 2) is about the separation of the seas from the heavens, not the creation of the heavens. What is created is the "firmament", which is the separator between the seas and the heavens. I agree that the sun, moon, and stars do not appear until Day 4. Verse 2 notes that the earth is formless and empty. In the literary structure of the account, Days 1-3 address forming (through separation and naming), while Days 4-6 address filling."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
But that's NOT what the text says. It says that the dry land is "made visible", not "created" on Day 3a. The thing that God "creates" is the separation between sea and dry land. That doesn't exactly contradict my point. The dry land - the Earth - is created.
Here is Young's Literal Translation:
quote: PaulK writes:
Can you please explain what you perceive to be a contradiction? No, I do not assume that all creation must be ex nihilo.
You seem to be contradicting yourself there. Are you assuming that creation must mean ex nihilism creation ? PaulK writes:
I agree.
I think that forming can be called creation. Why do you disagree ?"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
The text does NOT say that anything was "created" on Day 3a. The land already existed. God declares that He will allow it to "be seen", NOT to "be created". The text is clear on this. I don't see why you are trying to distort the text to say "created" here?
The literal translation hardly helps you. There wasn't any hidden dry land - it should be pretty obvious that the seabed isn't dry just for start ! PaulK writes:
Where did I say this??
You say that there wasn't any creation and then you describe a creation. How can that not be a contradiction ?The text is clear on Day 2 that there WAS a creation, that of a "firmament" (not heavens, not earth, not waters, but "firmament"). This "firmament" was created to separate the waters above from the waters below. PaulK writes:
On the first three Days, God is forming "realms" which He will populate by "rulers" on the next three Days. The way that God forms these "realms" is by separation of the pre-existing material, and by naming the new realms, thus giving them meaning and function. In some cases, this separation of pre-existing material is accomplished by creating something new; in other cases not.
Well, we have some forming which produces Earth, the sky and a distinct region of "waters above the Earth", so I see no reason not to call it a creation of Heavens and Earth. Here's a summary:Day 1: God forms the realms of "day" and "night" by causing a separation between them and naming them. He separates Day from Night by creating "light". Day 2: God forms the realms of "sea" and "sky" by separating the waters below from the waters above. He separates the waters by creating a "firmament". Here he names not the two new realms, but the separator between them, which He names "Heaven" (not to be confused with the "heavens", of which the "firmament" is only a part). Day 3a: God forms the realms of "seas" and "dry land" by causing a separation between water and dry land and naming them. He separates Earth from Seas by gathering the waters together, NOT by creating anything new. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
The land was already here, covered with water. It had already been created.
I guess I am going to have to Do you think that dry land was somehow simply hidden by the water ? How could it be dry if it was under the water ? Since it was covered with water, it was not dry.
PaulK writes:
I am simply trying to be careful and to urge care with the text, and not to force foreign understandings on it.
And saying "let it be seen" does not contradict the idea that it is created. You really seem to think that a narrow literalism is the only possible reading. When an author chooses the word "created" for some things and "be seen" for others, he is making a distinction that should not be ignored. You might WISH that the text said that the earth was "created" on Day 3, but it doesn't. We should not impose our wishes on the text.
PaulK writes:
I did. I see no contradiction in what I wrote. If you think you do, you are misreading me.
Well I am glad you admit that much. But feel free to go back and read your post. PaulK writes:
That's not what I said, and it's not what the text says.
From your list I get the heavens created in day 2 and the Earth in day 3."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
You might consider it "nitpicking", but I would call it "being careful". Too many people read the account carelessly and sloppily, making it say things that it doesn't.
So God created the dryness.Really, this nitpicking about whether anything was "created" is pretty silly. The point is that from v.2 onward, there is no mention of the "'eretz" (earth, land) being created; it already exists, covered by the waters. (There is also no mention of the waters being created; they already exist, too.). Yes, there is mention of the dry ground (yabbāsh) being seen (rāʾ), but not of the underlying earth/land ('eretz) being created (bārāʾ or 'asah). Both the nouns and the verbs are different. If they are included in the account at all, the only place for the earth/land and waters to be created is in verse 1. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024